Sola vs. Solo Scriptura

[WanderedHome]

Protestants/Evangelicals/etc.- please keep in mind you are on the Eastern Orthodox Forum. Feel free to respectfully ask questions or make friendly comments, but please refrain from arguing or preaching non-Eastern Orthodox doctrines.

This is a website I frequented as a Protestant (I still drop in from time to time to see what's up) because it teaches from the tradition I came from. I find that a lot of Orthodox confuse 'solo scriptura' (not an actual doctrine) for 'Sola Scriptura,' the true doctrine of Luther and the Reformers. I feel like I have a good grasp of the Orthodox understanding, but I am just interested to get some reaction to this from other Orthodox Christians.

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I actually cite or reference some of the online writings of Keith Mathison (the person who invented or least popularized the Solo vs. Sola distinction) especially the one linked below. Some of them are actually nice to quote, because they very succinctly describe what is wrong with the position of so many anti-tradition Protestants.

The distinction of Solo vs. Sola is worth noting as far as not strawmaning a person's position etc. but I think it is worth pointing out that based on early Reformation definitions/claims of Sola Scriptura that it is an artificial distinction, folks like Luther while they like the Creeds etc. really did mean that scripture alone was sufficient. If you study the history of Arianism, Trinitarianism etc. this is shown to be problematic position. In addition to this, if you simply see tradition as something that is supplementary as many Protestants do then it is very easy to dismiss it in favor of one's own "biblically based" interpretation etc.


A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura


The article itself has lots of areas in the bottom half that are very quotable for various kinds of discussions with Protestants like the example below.

Example
SCRIPTURAL PROBLEMS

Scripture itself indicates that the Scriptures are the possession of the Church and that the interpretation of the Scripture belongs to the Church as a whole, as a community. In particular it has been entrusted to specially gifted men. This has already been examined in some detail in the previous discussion of the Bereans and the Jerusalem Council. The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches. The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). Even in the first years of the Church, there were those who were specially appointed to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2-4). In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul indicates that a special teaching ministry was to continue after his death (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 8:5-9). The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.

Adherents of the Evangelical position also ignore the positive scriptural references to tradition. The Gospel was preached for at least 15-20 years prior to the writing of the first book of the New Testament, and that preached gospel was authoritative and binding. This apostolic tradition was the faith of the churches who received the first books of the New Testament, and it was the context within which these books and the books of the Old Testament were to be interpreted. This is the tradition to which the churches were commanded to adhere (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:6). We have already discussed the manner in which this apostolic kerygma was taught to every catechumen and recited from memory at baptism. It is important for our purposes here simply to note that this hermeneutical context of Scripture was not abrogated once Scripture was completed. The Scriptures were written to already existing churches, and this means that these churches had the Gospel before they had the completed Scriptures.

 

[Nova2216]

I visited the site and read the article . I found the article to be very good.

Thank You for posting this information.

 

[AMM]

One Lutheran pastor I respect, Will Weedon, always says: Scripture teaches us the value of tradition, and tradition teaches us the value of Scripture

that's much more in line with sola as opposed to solo

 

[Nova2216]

Protestants/Evangelicals/etc.- please keep in mind you are on the Eastern Orthodox Forum. Feel free to respectfully ask questions or make friendly comments, but please refrain from arguing or preaching non-Eastern Orthodox doctrines.

This is a website I frequented as a Protestant (I still drop in from time to time to see what's up) because it teaches from the tradition I came from. I find that a lot of Orthodox confuse 'solo scriptura' (not an actual doctrine) for 'Sola Scriptura,' the true doctrine of Luther and the Reformers. I feel like I have a good grasp of the Orthodox understanding, but I am just interested to get some reaction to this from other Orthodox Christians.

‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned

When was the Eastern Orthodox Church established and who established it?

Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be found in the New Testament?


Thanks

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Interesting article and I think I can get on board with it.

This is not so much a question of "God ordained" vs. "Man Willed" but rather where we place the power in terms of succession. I would argue that it is ultimately God who decides who's perspective has merit rather than man. There are plenty of examples where it is God who chooses, not based on the criteria of bloodline or man's desire or man's will, but of God's (John 1:14). Evan as far back as Cain and Abel, one was accepted into God's family and one was not and the distinction between how God determines this is not exactly clear in that passage (though it's not like I have read endless commentaries on the subject). Where I would point to is in, I believe, the longest sentence in the Bible, Ephesians 1:3-14 which more or less states God does what he does based on His "good pleasure" and for His glory.

P.S. I really hope I am not breaking any rules sharing my opinion here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

When was the Eastern Orthodox Church established and who established it?

Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be found in the New Testament?


Thanks

founded on Pentecost by Christ. Orthodoxy is the Church of the New Testament.

 

[Tigger45]

<snip>

Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be found in the New Testament?


Thanks

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch

I frequently visit a local Antiochian parish and I believe they were established in Antioch when this verse was written and they are still there now.

 

[WanderedHome]

The distinction of Solo vs. Sola is worth noting as far as not strawmaning a person's position etc.

I agree. Strawmaning is easy, but lazy. I think the tendency of many of us Orthodox is to just make blanket statements about all Protestants, based on our personal experience, and accuse individuals before we even find out what they truly believe... of course, this is a sinful human problem, not exclusively Orthodox... Ultimately, it is damaging to the inquirer's soul. Regardless of our disagreement with Sola Scritpura, we need to at least be fair and accurate towards it. It goes a long way in making friends with Protestants and keeping the doors of communication open for future discussions.

[QUOTE="Pavel Mosko, post: 75423115, member: 391518"
but I think it is worth pointing out that based on early Reformation definitions/claims of Sola Scriptura that it is an artificial distinction,
folks like Luther while they like the Creeds etc. really did mean that scripture alone was sufficient... if you simply see tradition as something that is supplementary as many Protestants do then it is very easy to dismiss it in favor of one's own "biblically based" interpretation etc.
[/QUOTE]

It is really hard to read the Scriptures without some kind of bias, since we were born into some kind of religious experience/tradition and not born in a vacuum. I think honest Protestants would say they are trying to accept the Scriptures for what they say, even if it is calling them out personally and uncomfortable for them to accept... not that they are just explaining it away according to their own preferred interpretation. I think this is why some of them will accept hard doctrines (often with much fear and grief) for example, like the Calvinist predestination of unbelievers to Hell. It is not that they want to accept it, but no one has offered them a better explanation to those verses...
...That is the basis of Sola Scriptura- to not believe anything from anyone unless they can convince them through Scripture... but I think that is also why there are so many splintered denominations and resurrection of ancient heresies- because anyone with a handful of verses, some basic credentials, and a charismatic personality, can gather an audience for themself and form a new "church."
As Orthodox, I think we should accept the teachings of the canonical Fathers who have been in communion with the Church and proven themselves by faith, but of course, not blindly as if we don't need to seek the truth for ourselves... otherwise, then how do we ever progress in our spiritual life? But we can use the Fathers as a gauge to know whether we are on the right track.... like the Bereans did with Paul.

 

[WanderedHome]

Interesting article and I think I can get on board with it.

This is not so much a question of "God ordained" vs. "Man Willed" but rather where we place the power in terms of succession. I would argue that it is ultimately God who decides who's perspective has merit rather than man. There are plenty of examples where it is God who chooses, not based on the criteria of bloodline or man's desire or man's will, but of God's (John 1:14). Evan as far back as Cain and Abel, one was accepted into God's family and one was not and the distinction between how God determines this is not exactly clear in that passage (though it's not like I have read endless commentaries on the subject). Where I would point to is in, I believe, the longest sentence in the Bible, Ephesians 1:3-14 which more or less states God does what he does based on His "good pleasure" and for His glory.

P.S. I really hope I am not breaking any rules sharing my opinion here.

Don't worry brother, you're fine. I sometimes just preface my posts with that to try to keep the hyper-zealous out... but sometimes it doesn't work, lol! . Most of us here are pretty open and welcoming. If you show sincerity in wanting to learn about our faith, and not just argue against it, you're good...
...to be clear, I am not promoting Sola Scriptura- as this is not taught by the Orthodox Church- but just trying to recognize the difference that may exist between 'Solo' and 'Sola,' if anything, at least in people's level of thoughtfulness in approaching Scripture.

I would argue that it is ultimately God who decides who's perspective has merit rather than man. There are plenty of examples where it is God who chooses, not based on the criteria of bloodline or man's desire or man's will, but of God's (John 1:14)

This is true. God chooses not by bloodline or national birth, but by the heart of the man... And 'bloodline' is not how the Orthodox Church operates. We do have priests in our Churches, but the priesthood is open to all nations, races, and ancestry who are called by God to the ministry. We acknowledge the "priesthood of believers," but there are certain ones specifically chosen by God to lead the Church, and the Church is aware of who they are.
For us to say "the Orthodox Church is the true Church," is not to make any judgment about any other individual believer who tries to live for Christ, but only to say what we know of ourselves- that it is true in the sense of, "most reliable, sure way." One of our Fathers (his name slips my mind) said, 'God will judge each of us according to the amount of truth that has been revealed to us.' So, a Protestant may enter into Heaven, if God so wills it, based on His wisdom and grace.

 

[Lukaris]

I think when we understand the Biblical framework of our faith, then a person can read their Bibles as one should. The Lord basically tells us that the meaning of hundreds of pages of scripture are summarized in His commandments. Matthew 7:12 (the golden rule) is the law & prophets whereas to love God & neighbor in which the law & prophets depend ( Matthew 22:36-40).

Note the ancient pattern in the Didache:
CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache

When we read some of the details in between the Lord’s summaries, it can challenging to say the least. Still, the Lord testifies after His resurrection ( adding the psalms) in Luke 24:44-49. The Lord also directs on what we probably consider the harder aspects of the Old Testament ( Luke 9:51-56).

We have the framework provided by the Church in the creed, liturgy, & (basic) 7 basic sacraments: The Seven Sacraments - Questions & Answers and then the drama of our human condition to live our faith by.

It seems many other Christians have tried to reinvent theology from the Bible instead of reading it in conformity to proper theology. This is not to be too critical, the communication of our faith is incomplete to say the least and we must remember the work of the Spirit ( John 16:5-15).

 

[Nova2216]

founded on Pentecost by Christ. Orthodoxy is the Church of the New Testament.

Must I be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be saved? (go to heaven)

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Must be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be saved? (go to heaven)

For us to say "the Orthodox Church is the true Church," is not to make any judgment about any other individual believer who tries to live for Christ, but only to say what we know of ourselves- that it is true in the sense of, "most reliable, sure way."

 

[Nova2216]

Why is not the Eastern Orthodox Church called the church of Christ? (Rom. 16:16)
(Acts 4:12)

 

[Nova2216]

So there are saved people outside the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is that what you are telling me?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

So there are saved people outside the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is that what you are telling me?

I cannot answer questions on what EO believe because I am not EO. I can only point you towards what EO has said.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Why is not the Eastern Orthodox Church called the church of Christ? (Rom. 16:16)
(Acts 4:12)

Because the printing press wasn’t invented yet.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

So there are saved people outside the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Is that what you are telling me?

We were saved. We are saved. We will be saved. IE; we teach that salvation is a continuous, arduous race to the finish line. Whether we will be crowned with victory or not depends on how we ran our race.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Must I be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be saved? (go to heaven)

yes and no. the final roll call of the Church is Judgment Day, so it's entirely possible that at death, someone who wasn't Orthodox in this life will see the true Christ as the object of his heart's desire, and bow down and worship Him as He is.

so we don't know, aside to say that there is always hope.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Thought this video would be an interesting share.

Calvin: Recognizes the apostolic foundation of the scriptures.

Also, Calvin: rejects apostolic succession.

Big think