Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

When I was received into the church, I did not feel comfortable asking the saints to pray for me. I didn't, however, teach against it. I was received into the church anyways. However, I essentially agreed that I will follow the church's lead, that it is acceptable, but I personally was not comfortable with it. I did not need to actively follow the practice myself.

So, in that case, the church was not confronted by a would-be member who nevertheless let it be known that she rejected the idea of praying to saints.

 

[All4Christ]

So, in that case, the church was not confronted by a would-be member who nevertheless let it be known that she rejected the idea of praying to saints.

Apologies, but I'm not sure that I am following. My priest was aware that I was not comfortable with it and I was not required to do so myself. However, I did affirm in my reception service that I agreed that it is an acceptable practice for Orthodox Christians.

 

[FenderTL5]

I think I did...when I wrote this:
(...church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?)

I understood, "but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle" as an appeal to NT scripture (in this case, specifically NOT found in the NT). I apologize if I misunderstood.
Prayer, fasting, alms giving etc. are part of the faith handed down by the Apostles.

In any case, the question is basic to this discussion. How can any doctrine be justified simply through having the church call it something the Apostles taught...even though there is absolutely no evidence that they did? This is the kind of thing that led the Reformers to support Sola Scriptura. The Church of the West had invented a whole raft of doctrines out of thin air, and each was justified just as you're explaining here, by saying "true, that's not in Scripture, but the Apostles taught it orally, so it's OK."

I make no claims to being an expert on anything, much less RCC doctrinal practice. That said, it is my understanding that the RCC teaches it does not have to make an appeal to the oral tradition of the Apostles/historical record, they have the Pope/Magisterium and can create new doctrine as they see fit. However, I could be wrong.
If that is correct, then yes we would agree, that is what led to the Reformation, particularly the RCC teaching on indulgences.

To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the Orthodox Church, save for the possibility of Ecumenical Council. As of the moment, we recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils, the last of which was the Second Council of Nicea, (787). This places every doctrine/dogma well within the context of historical IMHO.

 

[All4Christ]

I understood, "but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle" to mean found in NT scripture.
Prayer, fasting, alms giving etc. are part of the faith handed down by the Apostles.


I make no claims to being an expert on anything, much less RCC doctrinal practice. That said, it is my understanding that the RCC teaches it does not have to make an appeal to the oral tradition of the Apostles/historical record, they have the Pope/Magisterium and can create new doctrine as they see fit. However, I could be wrong.
If that is correct, then yes we would agree, that is what led to the Reformation, particularly the RCC teaching on indulgences.

To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in the Orthodox Church, save for the possibility of Ecumenical Council. As of the moment, we recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils, the last of which was the Second Council of Nicea, (787). This places every doctrine/dogma well within the context of historical IMHO.

Agreed.

We also believe everything is from the deposit of apostolic faith (both written in word and verbal instructions of the apostles. We can clarify, but cannot create new doctrines. You can find historical writings for our doctrines within the first couple centuries.

That's how I found the Orthodox Church. I looked for the beliefs taught up until the New Testament was officially canonized...and searched for the church that most closely matched those beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Apologies, but I'm not sure that I am following. My priest was aware that I was not comfortable with it and I was not required to do so myself. However, I did affirm in my reception service that I agreed that it is an acceptable practice for Orthodox Christians.

OK, this may help.

It doesn't matter, for purposes of our discussion about Sola Scriptura, if you choose not to pray to the saints or even if you expressed some consternation about the practice when you joined. We're talking about the church setting doctrine. The invocation of the saints is a doctrinal matter that the church has okayed and, more than that, promotes and officially engages in, citing Tradition as the justification for it.

 

[All4Christ]

OK, this may help.

It doesn't matter, for purposes of our discussion about Sola Scriptura, if you choose not to pray to the saints or even if you expressed some consternation about the practice when you joined. We're talking about the church setting doctrine. The invocation of the saints is a doctrinal matter that the church has okayed and, more than that, promotes and officially engages in, citing Tradition as the justification for it.

Yes, though we also consider the Scriptures instructing us to request prayers from one another to include those already in heaven. Scripture does not specifically instruct that continue to ask for prayers - just as it does not instruct us to stop. It does describe the communion of the saints, the saints praying for those on earth, and the awareness of saints between their repose and the final judgment. Holy Tradition and history just connect the dots, so to speak.

As you said though, it is not specifically related to Sola Scriptura, with the exception of the seed being in Scripture, and Holy Tradition connecting it together.

 

[Albion]

I make no claims to being an expert on anything, much less RCC doctrinal practice. That said, it is my understanding that the RCC teaches it does not have to make an appeal to the oral tradition of the Apostles/historical record, they have the Pope/Magisterium and can create new doctrine as they see fit. However, I could be wrong.

They will cite all of those, it's true, but Tradition AKA Holy Tradition is the overarching concept that justifies anything that is not clearly Scriptural. Orthodoxy relies upon the same guideline, but your church is much more reserved than the RCC when it comes to proclaiming doctrines to be true by Tradition. That's why I wrote, a few posts ago, that if I were to list examples from RC practice, I'd have a long list. In the EO case, I only listed a handful and they are very ancient unlike some of the RC dogmas.

If that is correct, then yes we would agree, that is what led to the Reformation, particularly the RCC teaching on indulgences.

 

[Albion]

Yes, though we also consider the Scriptures instructing us to request prayers from one another to include those already in heaven.

That's true, you do, but Scripture doesn't make mention of them in that verse.

It does describe the communion of the saints, the saints praying for those on earth, and the awareness of saints between their repose and the final judgment.

That's all true. What it does not recommend is praying to those presumed to be in heaven, asking for their intercession.

Holy Tradition and history just connect the dots, so to speak.

Uh, no. They don't, although this is a good example of how one principle may be in Scripture and then churches come along and say, "then we can assume X also."

 

[All4Christ]

That's true, you do, but Scripture doesn't make mention of them in that verse.


That's all true. What it does not recommend is praying to those presumed to be in heaven, asking for their intercession.

On both points, it does not specify one way or the other (to stop or continue).

Uh, no. They don't, although this is a good example of how one principle may be in Scripture and then churches come along and say, "then we can assume X also."

It's a scenario where we take Scripture and combine it with history and the teachings of the very early church to get what we consider to be a more holistic view.

Of course, we can agree to disagree on the matter. I'm just explaining the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint.

 

[FenderTL5]

They will cite all of those, it's true, but Tradition AKA Holy Tradition is the overarching concept that justifies anything that is not clearly Scriptural. Orthodoxy relies upon the same guideline, but your church is much more reserved than the RCC when it comes to proclaiming doctrines to be true by Tradition. That's why I wrote, a few posts ago, that if I were to list examples from RC practice, I'd have a long list. In the EO case, I only listed a handful and they are very ancient unlike some of the RC dogmas.

I would only make one further point - based on my understanding. That is we see Holy Tradition as the deposit of faith and Ecumenical Council as only a way to clarify what is already doctrine/dogma. It is not a mechanism to create NEW doctrine.

 

[Albion]

On both points, it does not specify one way or the other (to stop or continue).

I may not be following you there. That verse says to ask your neighbor for prayer. We do that. It does not say to ask for the intervention of deceased people we guess are in heaven and also guess are able to hear us.

Therefore, we have no basis on which to "coattail" the second group onto the first group...or at least that's what believers in Sola Scriptura would say.

It's a scenario where we take Scripture and combine it with history and the early teachings of the very early church to get what we consider to be a more holistic view.

The church improvises and expands on what Scripture teaches IOW. And what IS that history you're referring to?

Of course, we can agree to disagree on the matter. I'm just explaining our viewpoint.

MY viewpoint?

 

[All4Christ]

I may not be following you there. That verse says to ask your neighbor for prayer. We do that. It does not say to ask for the intervention of deceased people we guess are in heaven and also guess are able to hear us.

Therefore, we have no basis on which to "coattail" the second group onto the first group...or at least that's what believers in Sola Scriptura would say.


The church improvises and expands on what Scripture teaches IOW. And what IS that history you're referring to?


MY viewpoint?

Our, meaning Eastern Orthodox perspective (I updated my previous post to reflect this). And certainly I disagree with the improvise portion.

I don't mean to skip out on answering the last few questions, but I need to start work now...I will respond to them more later.

 

[Albion]

I would only make one further point - based on my understanding. That is we see Holy Tradition as the deposit of faith and Ecumenical Council as only a way to clarify what is already doctrine/dogma. It is not a mechanism to create NEW doctrine.

As I was saying, the RCC is much more likely to introduce new doctrine and call it true by Tradition. But on the other hand, thinking that whatever a council decrees must be true is not Scriptural either. Sola Scriptura does, of course, feel that the word of God is supreme.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Still following. A4C has expressed many of my own experiences and feelings and understanding. If I miss directly replying, pls feel free to lmk.

Is the question whether or not the EOC has doctrines or practices that are not fully and explicitly articulated in Scripture? If that's the issue, there is nothing to argue. We never claimed to. But Scripture never claims to be an all-inclusive how-to book.

That's why I asked about requirements for salvation, but tbh I think we don't articulate those as much as most others do.

If it's about reservations, I had reservations too and my priest was aware. I was always told no one had to ask intercessions of the Saints. Of course if I had attacked the teaching of the Church and insisted they were wrong and I taught something else, I should not have been received, but that seems reasonably true of any fellowship to assert.

I guess I'm not clear of the question. Since the thread topic is SS, I can say that no, the EOC has never asserted SS as a teaching. But we have as high regard for Scripture and it's authority as any group, more so than some.

But our relationship WITH Scripture is different from denoms that appeared many centuries after Scripture. The early Church predates NT Scripture, and serves as both the necessary audience as well as the litmus test for authenticity of Scripture.

Again, nothing here meant to argue. Hope I'm understandable.

 

[hedrick]

The role of Scripture is more complex for the mainline / liberal tradition. Unlike Calvin, we don’t think Scripture comes directly from God. Rather, for us, God revealed himself in his supervision of Israel, and through Jesus. That’s the primary revelation. Scripture is a human witness to it. The Word is Christ, not Scripture. The usual formulation is that Scripture is a witness to the Word.

Scripture is our primary authority because it’s the primary source for God’s work in history and for Jesus. In principle I could imagine something being transmitted separately from Scripture. But I don’t know of any credible examples (and a number of non-credible ones).

Of course Christian experience and reason are also important resources. We use historical research to help understand what the Scriptural authors meant, and also to understand their own viewpoints and biases. But in the end, we can only know God as he reveals himself to us, and Scripture is the only significant witness to his primary public revelation (making the same distinction as other traditions between public revelation and private revelation). Hence however important Christian experience and scholarship may be, if we think Jesus showed us God, what we believe and do has to be consistent with his teaching and actions, and to the extent that what we believe is about things that we can only know by revelation, it has to be based on the revelation to which Scripture is from a practical point of view the only witness.

That explains the fact that we prioritize the Gospels, and things in Paul that represent information about Jesus’ life and teaching, and the prophets. To me the epistles are useful, because Jesus’ early followers had access to his disciples, but most of the content is still one author’s advice to people in particular situations based on the author’s understanding of Jesus. Similarly, the OT historical books are pretty clearly reflections on Israel’s history by people whose viewpoints we don’t entirely share. After all, for a more straightforward record of events the OT books refer to (unfortunately lost) official chronicles. Still, while we may not entirely share their viewpoints, God’s activity with Israel is the context in which Christ worked, and at times it deals with situations that Jesus’ teaching didn’t.

 

[Albion]

Still following. A4C has expressed many of my own experiences and feelings and understanding. If I miss directly replying, pls feel free to lmk.

Yipes. I blew right past this post, Anastasia, and the A4C reference with it.

Is the question whether or not the EOC has doctrines or practices that are not fully and explicitly articulated in Scripture? If that's the issue, there is nothing to argue. We never claimed to. But Scripture never claims to be an all-inclusive how-to book.

Yes, that is about it. And that's at least partially why the conversation has been comfortable even though we're on opposite sides of the issue. Of course, I don't think the Bible is an all-inclusive how-to book, although there probably are a few people who think that way. In any case, it doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura (which is where this discussion started). It is the revealed word of God, which all except the most theologically liberal members of CF would agree to, so it seems reasonable for the church to value it above everything else when defining necessary doctrine.

Now...is it right for any church to impose additional doctrines upon the membership? We'd say "no," but you and other EO people have gotten back to me with a variety of answers that are more or less in the "yes" category. OK, I'm happy enough that we understand each other, and I say this because it seems to me that this is one of the touchiest issues discussed (over and over again!) on these forums.

I guess I'm not clear of the question. Since the thread topic is SS, I can say that no, the EOC has never asserted SS as a teaching. But we have as high regard for Scripture and it's authority as any group, more so than some.

I do think that the EO have a high regard for Scripture. No doubt about that. And no one who understands Sola Scriptura correctly ought to think otherwise. Still, if (as has been admitted to in this thread) something else is put on the same level of authority as the revealed word of God and considered to also be from God, doesn't that necessarily compromise, at least to some extent, the regard in which Scripture is held?

Again, nothing here meant to argue. Hope I'm understandable.

Thanks, Anastasia.

 

[All4Christ]

Yipes. I blew right past this post, Anastasia, and the A4C reference with it.



Yes, that is about it. And that's at least partially why the conversation has been comfortable even though we're on opposite sides of the issue. Of course, I don't think the Bible is an all-inclusive how-to book, although there probably are a few people who think that way. In any case, it doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura (which is where this discussion started). It is the revealed word of God, which all except the most theologically liberal members of CF would agree to, so it seems reasonable for the church to value it above everything else when defining necessary doctrine.

Now...is it right for any church to impose additional doctrines upon the membership? We'd say "no," but you and other EO people have gotten back to me with a variety of answers that are more or less in the "yes" category. OK, I'm happy enough that we understand each other, and I say this because it seems to me that this is one of the touchiest issues discussed (over and over again!) on these forums.


I do think that the EO have a high regard for Scripture. No doubt about that. And no one who understands Sola Scriptura correctly ought to think otherwise. Still, if (as has been admitted to in this thread) something else is put on the same level of authority as the revealed word of God and considered to also be from God, doesn't that necessarily compromise, at least to some extent, the regard in which Scripture is held?


Thanks, Anastasia.

FTR, I really appreciate being able to discuss this without antagonism Many times, it is practically impossible to have a reasonable discussion on similar topics where both sides can express their opinion to help with mutual understanding.

(I guess that is one of the reasons I like Traditional Theology. We aren't free from antagonism, but most regulars seek to understand and discuss, rather than bait eachother.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yipes. I blew right past this post, Anastasia, and the A4C reference with it.

No problem. (A4C=All4Christ)

Yes, that is about it. And that's at least partially why the conversation has been comfortable even though we're on opposite sides of the issue. Of course, I don't think the Bible is an all-inclusive how-to book, although there probably are a few people who think that way. In any case, it doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura (which is where this discussion started). It is the revealed word of God, which all except the most theologically liberal members of CF would agree to, so it seems reasonable for the church to value it above everything else when defining necessary doctrine.

Now...is it right for any church to impose additional doctrines upon the membership? We'd say "no," but you and other EO people have gotten back to me with a variety of answers that are more or less in the "yes" category. OK, I'm happy enough that we understand each other, and I say this because it seems to me that this is one of the touchiest issues discussed (over and over again!) on these forums.

I think maybe it comes down to what you mean by "impose".

Maybe that's why "sufficient for salvation" is also a common phrase in many SS discussions. If the EOC said that we MUST secure the intercession of the reposed Saints, or else we will not be "saved" ... then I can understand the problem. Except maybe I'd have a problem with that for a different reason, tbh.

But otoh, we have many things not FULLY articulated in Scripture, some of which did develop along the way. We fast, weekly and during several periods of the year. We celebrate feast days, and have a liturgical calendar. We ask the intercession of the Saints. We have tools such as hesychia and the Jesus prayer. We have amassed a huge collection of spiritual counsels. We have monasticism.

There are hints at these things in Scripture, to varying degrees, but none are explicitly spelled out. I'm not sure if I would say the Church "imposes" them on us or not - depends on your definition. We are expected to participate in many of them to varying degrees, not because the Church is trying to control us, but because they are offered for our spiritual benefit. They are part of our salvation, which might make sense if one understands that we believe salvation involves cooperation with God towards God's intent of transforming us into the real likeness of Christ. (I'm not saying we must be perfected, or that we "earn" anything - we don't ... but we do consider purification to be part of the normal process of theosis/salvation.

I do think that the EO have a high regard for Scripture. No doubt about that. And no one who understands Sola Scriptura correctly ought to think otherwise. Still, if (as has been admitted to in this thread) something else is put on the same level of authority as the revealed word of God and considered to also be from God, doesn't that necessarily compromise, at least to some extent, the regard in which Scripture is held?

I'm honestly trying to think through this. What I tend to arrive at is this. We ALL have Scripture. But notice how wildly differently some groups interpret different things? I could quickly list 20 major theological points where one can find diametrically opposite opinions, and usually other variations as well. So while we want to say that Scripture is authoritative above all, what does that mean in terms of what people believe?

So of course, we believe what Scripture says, in light of the way the Church has always interpreted it. Yes, baptism regenerates. Yes, the ekklesia needs shepherds and overseers. And so on. I am also reminded that we (Christians) had the Church before we had the Scriptures. In terms of the lives of the people at that time, a long time before. Yet they had a vibrant faith, doctrines, practices, and so on.

So yes, then the Church was "from God" in the sense that the Holy Spirit led the Apostles, and they established and taught the Church. So all of that was presumably from God. And it was the only source of authority for some years. I still can't help but be reminded that the process of recognizing what we regard as Scripture was that the ekklesia, who already knew Truth as received from the Apostles, recognized those legitimate writings, shared them, read them in the meetings, and THOSE became Scripture, again, based on the recognition by the Body of believers.

The truth passed down is just intimately connected with Scripture. The way we read Scripture (which we assign in our own minds full authority as "God says ... ") comes FROM our interpretation, right or wrong. And that interpretation usually comes from a church of some sort.

Does that undermine the authority of Scripture? Well, if we think God requires a recited prayer, then we can do whatever we want for the rest of our lives, even reject God, and God has already saved us, so we have no choice -- or some other really problematic doctrine - then it SHOULD undermine the authority we assign to (misinterpreted) Scripture, because we are wrong.

I don't know. I'm sure this isn't so different from things you've heard others say. But when I put myself in the place of those first century Christians, going to Church for years and practicing a faith without a word of the NT having been written, and then then when I put myself in the place of the modern OSAS-pure-evangelical - those are the answers I get.

Somehow I'm guessing most of this doesn't further the discussion. I honestly think the real point is that the EOC interacts differently with Scripture than those who came along many centuries later and tried to use Scripture to reform the Catholic Church, and those who later reformed those resultant denominations, and so on.

Thanks, Anastasia.

Thank you too, Albion.

 

[Albion]

Maybe that's why "sufficient for salvation" is also a common phrase in many SS discussions. If the EOC said that we MUST secure the intercession of the reposed Saints, or else we will not be "saved" ... then I can understand the problem.

That, however, is not the issue with the invocation of the saints and Sola Scriptura.

I'm being told that this is optional, that you are under no obligation to pray to saints. But the real issue concerns whether or not you are expected to believe that it's a proper, valid, effective practice. Does the church take such a stand? Do you believe that the saints CAN intercede for us? If it's the case that the Orthodox church doesn't teach that it's a good, worth, and effective practice, then you're right.

But otoh, we have many things not FULLY articulated in Scripture, some of which did develop along the way. We fast, weekly and during several periods of the year. We celebrate feast days, and have a liturgical calendar. We ask the intercession of the Saints. We have tools such as hesychia and the Jesus prayer. We have amassed a huge collection of spiritual counsels. We have monasticism.

Most of that is practiced by Sola Scriptura people, too, most notably Lutherans who, as you know, were the first to assert Sola Scriptura.

So of course, we believe what Scripture says, in light of the way the Church has always interpreted it. Yes, baptism regenerates. Yes, the ekklesia needs shepherds and overseers. And so on. I am also reminded that we (Christians) had the Church before we had the Scriptures. In terms of the lives of the people at that time, a long time before. Yet they had a vibrant faith, doctrines, practices, and so on.

Did they believe something important at that early time which is missing from your Bible? If so, what is it and how do we know?

Does that undermine the authority of Scripture? Well, if we think God requires a recited prayer, then we can do whatever we want for the rest of our lives, even reject God, and God has already saved us, so we have no choice -- or some other really problematic doctrine - then it SHOULD undermine the authority we assign to (misinterpreted) Scripture, because we are wrong.

I don't know. I'm sure this isn't so different from things you've heard others say. But when I put myself in the place of those first century Christians, going to Church for years and practicing a faith without a word of the NT having been written, and then then when I put myself in the place of the modern OSAS-pure-evangelical - those are the answers I get.

You know that the people you are thinking of are only a minority of reformed Christians.

Somehow I'm guessing most of this doesn't further the discussion. I honestly think the real point is that the EOC interacts differently with Scripture than those who came along many centuries later and tried to use Scripture to reform the Catholic Church, and those who later reformed those resultant denominations, and so on.

Of course it's different. On that, I think we all can easily agree.

 

[ripple the car]

Well, Sir, the Orthodox and Catholic experience of salvation doesn't only include one's self and faith in Christ. It's more of an evolving and deepening relationship based on love, renunciation, penance, and holiness, by God's grace, in Christ. As such, we don't go at it alone. We have the Saints to help us to follow Christ, and love one another, through love of Him. It's a Church that lives in Heaven and also on earth. We have each other; those in Heaven still pray for and help those of us still struggling in the flesh.

That is how one might say the Apostolic Churches of the East and West understand the "Communion of Saints" described in the Apostle's Creed. Least one aspect of it.