The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[~Anastasia~]

Saint Augustine is a saint in the Orthodox Church as much as he is in the Catholic Church. I am not persuaded that there is something in saint Augustine's writings that somehow characterises Catholic teaching but not Orthodox. Mind you, Augustine did write in Latin and perhaps that has made him seem remote from the Greek Orthodox?

I admit that I'm not that far developed in this thinking. I am still looking into it, and wouldn't have brought it up except I needed to make a point.

Incidentally, I am not trying to make a wide gulf between the various traditional Churches. Instead, I find them to be very closely aligned. And that was really my point. There are differences of course ... such as the Orthodox don't number sacraments, the Catholic do, the Lutherans number fewer of them. The ecclesiology seems to be quite different in those three Churches as well. But ... in terms of the major beliefs such as salvation, those seem to me to be very minor differences.

How can I say this? The Orthodox Church views salvation more in terms of "medicine" ... God healing us from the effect of our sins. And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has somewhat of a more contractual or judicial view? I may be using completely wrong words here, and if I am, please do forgive me. I have asked about the beliefs, but I don't know what words to use to describe them in an umbrella sense. But I do hear more about things in measured terms, and I hear more about punishment/forgiveness. I'm not saying they are greatly different - it is more a matter of degree of emphasis?
And it has seemed to me that the Lutheran Church is somewhat similar to the Catholic in this, though they tend more toward Orthodox maybe.

As I said, please forgive me if I'm off with this. It is something I want to understand, have been slowly piecing together, but have not asked directly, so maybe what I have gathered is in error, and maybe I don't use the right words to describe it.

It's not that St. Augustine is not a saint in the Orthodox Church - I know that he is. I just get the impression that his teachings are slightly more emphasized in the Catholic Church than they are in the Orthodox, and it seems to be true of the Lutherans as well.

Again, I hope I don't offend anyone. It really isn't my intent. Obviously, we do have differences, or we would all be the same Church. But in terms of how believers conduct their lives and in general view themselves, God, and salvation ... it seems to me that the Traditional Churches are largely in agreement and that this particular thing is what I have noticed as being the most important difference, imo.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And that's why in the age of the Reformation, if Ellen White was a reformer in that era she'd be branded as a heretic by other reformers. And it's also inconsistent with what you said about SDA's baptism lining up with the Baptist view.

I've not heard of cases of re-baptisms of new members from other traditions in the Baptist system.

Perhaps ChristsSoldier115 or any other Baptist could clear this up for me.

There may well be differences between various Baptist groups, but when I spoke with a pastor about my family joining the Baptist Church, I was told that:

1. Baptism of believers was required (and not allowed unless faith is professed)

2. Previous baptism by immersion in any Christian Church as a believer was accepted

3. Infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling was not acceptable and would have to be re-baptized

4. Rebaptism was common "just in case" and not seen as any problem

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's not lose sight of the theme; the reformers believed in sola scriptura but not in the sort of way that a great many GT posts express it. I, of course, do not believe in sola scriptura. And Ellen White, for all the protesting by BobRyan about being a Protestant, would have been condemned by the main protestant reformers. Her patrimony is more from the Baptists than from the reformers and the Baptists were a post reformation religious movement that arose around 1609 AD. Of course Seventh Day Adventism didn't arise until after 1844 AD and the idea of seventh day observance didn't arise among the people who would later become SDA until after 1849 AD. The SDA church was formally established in 1863 AD. All of which is, of course, somewhat counter-protestant in doctrine and practise. In fact, the SDA church was widely regarded as a non Christian group until the 1950s: "For much of the 19th century, the church struggled as it formed its core beliefs and doctrines especially as a number of the Adventist leaders came from churches that supported the doctrine of Arianism (although Ellen G. White was not one of them). This, along with the movement's other theological views, led to a consensus among conservative evangelical Protestants to regard it as a cult. However, the Adventist Church adopted the Trinity early in the 20th century and began to dialogue with other Protestant groups toward the middle of the century, eventually gaining wide recognition as a Protestant church." (Wikipedia) Of course, nowadays SDAs are recognised as Christians.

Time heals many wounds, right? Except those inflicted on Jesuits and Catholics by conspiracy theorists and by Ellen White's books.

May God cleans us all of the wickedness of prejudice.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Let's not lose sight of the theme; the reformers believed in sola scriptura but not in the sort of way that a great many GT posts express it.

Yes, that is the theme, thank you for stating it succinctly.

It was news to me, and I had wished to discuss it for that reason.

I, of course, do not believe in sola scriptura. And Ellen White, for all the protesting by BobRyan about being a Protestant, would have been condemned by the main protestant reformers. Her patrimony is more from the Baptists than from the reformers and the Baptists were a post reformation religious movement that arose around 1609 AD. Of course Seventh Day Adventism didn't arise until after 1844 AD and the idea of seventh day observance didn't arise among the people who would later become SDA until after 1849 AD. The SDA church was formally established in 1863 AD. All of which is, of course, somewhat counter-protestant in doctrine and practise. In fact, the SDA church was widely regarded as a non Christian group until the 1950s: "For much of the 19th century, the church struggled as it formed its core beliefs and doctrines especially as a number of the Adventist leaders came from churches that supported the doctrine of Arianism (although Ellen G. White was not one of them). This, along with the movement's other theological views, led to a consensus among conservative evangelical Protestants to regard it as a cult. However, the Adventist Church adopted the Trinity early in the 20th century and began to dialogue with other Protestant groups toward the middle of the century, eventually gaining wide recognition as a Protestant church." (Wikipedia) Of course, nowadays SDAs are recognised as Christians.

And that touches on some of the conclusions I am reaching ... that it is the current practice of sola scriptura - honestly, I think it should have a different name if it's going to be practiced so differently - that the new way of drawing doctrine from Scripture appears to be responsible for the wide divergence of beliefs within Christianity.

May God cleans us all of the wickedness of prejudice.

Lord have mercy!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I don't even know how to respond to this. You're not making sense to me.



The EO is not in communion with the Pope ... and I'm not sure what else you're trying to say.

I found this -- which appears to show more splitting that pertains to Catholicism - not to Protestants.

The Eastern Catholic Churches[1] are autonomous, self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Pope. Together with the Latin Church, they make up the entire Catholic Church. They preserve many centuries-old Eastern liturgical, devotional, and theological traditions, which are in most cases shared with the various other Eastern Christian churches with which they were once associated, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church.

and of course

The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church,[2] and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy,[3] is the second largest Christian church in the world,[4] with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,

The point being that they can't simply be blamed on Protestants.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Let's not lose sight of the theme; the reformers believed in sola scriptura but not in the sort of way that a great many GT posts express it.

They used the method as did Christ in Mark 7 to undo the errors made through man-made tradition.

It is that same principle that is at the heart of the sola scriptura debate.

The fact that they did not figure out all the errors that came inherited from their Catholic faith -- one day one does not take away from the fact that they were indeed using that Mark 7 sola scriptura testing model against traditions contrary to the Bible,.

I, of course, do not believe in sola scriptura. And Ellen White, for all the protesting by BobRyan about being a Protestant, would have been condemned by the main protestant reformers.

I have not been adding Ellen White at all to this discussion or to the Mark 7 point -- you have.

I and the fact early reformers did not immediately discover the error of sprinkling infants as replacement for Bible Baptism does not solve the problem for the RCC when it comes to Mark 7 and sola scriptura.

Her patrimony is more from the Baptists than from the reformers and the Baptists were a post reformation religious movement

She was brought up as a Methodist.

But as I keep pointing out - you cannot blame your problems with Mark 7 - on Ellen White.

not sure why you feel the need to keep going there.

The SDA church was formally established in 1863 AD.

Wonderful. But that does not help you with the problem that Mark 7 presents in its affirmation of the sola scriptura principle for undoing doctrinal error brought in by the traditions of magesterium of the One true church started by God at Sinai and still functioning as such in the days of Christ.

The point remains.

All of which is, of course, somewhat counter-protestant in doctrine and practise. In fact, the SDA church was widely regarded as a non Christian group until the 1950s: "For much of the 19th century, the church struggled as it formed its core beliefs and doctrines especially as a number of the Adventist leaders came from churches that supported the doctrine of Arianism (although Ellen G. White was not one of them).

hint - no published statement of Adventist core beliefs ever affirmed the Arian doctrine against the divinity of Christ.

Which is a correction to your attempt to focus on SDA history - but still does nothing to help you in regard to the Mark 7 issue.

Time heals many wounds, right? Except those inflicted on Jesuits

If you are talking about Pope Clement abolishing for all time and "by all the fullness of Apostolic Power" the Jesuit order - then I guess I understand how you might be taken back by that.

But this is just one more thing you can't blame on Ellen White and one more thing that does not help you escape the teaching of Mark 7 in favor of sola scriptura.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Y
And that touches on some of the conclusions I am reaching ... that it is the current practice of sola scriptura - honestly, I think it should have a different name if it's going to be practiced so differently - that the new way of drawing doctrine from Scripture appears to be responsible for the wide divergence of beliefs within Christianity.

You have yet to identify a "different practice of sola scriptura" from Mark 7 or Acrt 17:11 among non-catholic (specifically Protestant) churches including Adventists.

What you latch on to instead is " different interpretation of scripture" but the SAME practice of applying sola scriptura to test doctrine, faith and practice.

The groups you claim to hold up as examples all agree on this point.

where is the problem other than the one from places like Mark for those churches opposed to the sola scriptura doctrine?

When the Protestant (of any of the denominations you care to list) says to the RCC (for example) that "such and such a doctrine/tradition/practice is in error because the Bible condemns it here,... and here and here" the other groups will all agree that this is the practice of sola scriptura testing whether or not they agree that the RCC passes or fails the test. Even the RCC admits they are using sola scriptura to judge the RCC - they just don't like it.

The RCC response is seldom if ever "well that is not a sola scriptura test" rather they argue that if the Protesant group had been told what to think by the RC magesterium when reading those texts they could never have complained.

The same sort of flawed church logic however if used by Jewish magesterium against Christ in Mark 7 would have completely destroyed the teaching of Christ had it been taken seriously by those observing.

The blatantly obvious truth of this frank observation on the subject - leads some posters to focus on any-and-every other topic (such as trying to drag Ellen White in this Mark 7 discussion) to sidestep the point.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Targaryen]

There may well be differences between various Baptist groups, but when I spoke with a pastor about my family joining the Baptist Church, I was told that:

1. Baptism of believers was required (and not allowed unless faith is professed)

2. Previous baptism by immersion in any Christian Church as a believer was accepted

3. Infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling was not acceptable and would have to be re-baptized

4. Rebaptism was common "just in case" and not seen as any problem

Ahh thank you for the correction.

Let's not lose sight of the theme; the reformers believed in sola scriptura but not in the sort of way that a great many GT posts express it.

Yes of course, I apologize

I, of course, do not believe in sola scriptura. And Ellen White, for all the protesting by BobRyan about being a Protestant, would have been condemned by the main protestant reformers. Her patrimony is more from the Baptists than from the reformers and the Baptists were a post reformation religious movement that arose around 1609 AD. Of course Seventh Day Adventism didn't arise until after 1844 AD and the idea of seventh day observance didn't arise among the people who would later become SDA until after 1849 AD. The SDA church was formally established in 1863 AD. All of which is, of course, somewhat counter-protestant in doctrine and practise. In fact, the SDA church was widely regarded as a non Christian group until the 1950s: "For much of the 19th century, the church struggled as it formed its core beliefs and doctrines especially as a number of the Adventist leaders came from churches that supported the doctrine of Arianism (although Ellen G. White was not one of them). This, along with the movement's other theological views, led to a consensus among conservative evangelical Protestants to regard it as a cult. However, the Adventist Church adopted the Trinity early in the 20th century and began to dialogue with other Protestant groups toward the middle of the century, eventually gaining wide recognition as a Protestant church." (Wikipedia) Of course, nowadays SDAs are recognised as Christians.

Perhaps we need a newer definition to explain this.

Perhaps Sola Scriptura, multi veris sententiam cogitvit, quaedam in errore?

 

[Tzaousios]

How can I say this? The Orthodox Church views salvation more in terms of "medicine" ... God healing us from the effect of our sins. And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has somewhat of a more contractual or judicial view?

St. Augustine, in my experience, receives a great deal of bad press from some segments of Eastern Orthodoxy, post-Vatican II Catholics, and Arminian Protestants alike.

Even though his corpus of writings is vast, there is evidence of a change in emphasis in Augustine's theological outlook from around 397 AD on. His experiences in fighting Pelagius and his supporters made him reassess his views on the relationship between the human will and divine grace, predestination, and atonement. Augustine's letter De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum, written to a fellow North African bishop about the text of Romans, demonstrates this change quite well.

Since Orthodoxy did not face a similar type of battle over these same issues, they often go overboard in their assessments because they associate Augustine with later Calvinism and radical Protestantism. Arminians do the same thing. Post-Vatican II Catholics prefer to build up the more Neoplatonic, synergistic Augustine over the later one, which, if they know about it, they write off as a bitter old man who fell into error.

In my opinion, though, you really do not get a fully-developed judicial/forensic theory of justification and atonement until Augustine's ideas were taken further by Anselm, Aquinas, and later the Reformers. Plus, you cannot divorce Augustine's soteriological views from his unflinching support of catholic ecclesiology and the efficacy of the sacraments. Too many Calvinists and Neocalvinists have tried to do this with ridiculous results, not to mention that they ignore the fact that Augustine never articulated a doctrine of double predestination.

It's not that St. Augustine is not a saint in the Orthodox Church - I know that he is. I just get the impression that his teachings are slightly more emphasized in the Catholic Church than they are in the Orthodox, and it seems to be true of the Lutherans as well.

Indeed, St. Augustine is recognized as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy. However, there is a very vocal minority both in academics and in lay Orthodoxy who like to tag him with everything that is wrong with Catholicism and "Western Christianity" in general.

Christos Yannaras, for example, believes that Augustine is the source for the confusion of divine essence and energy, which caused so many problems in the later middle ages at the councils of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence where reunion of the churches was discussed.

Yannaras makes some good points; however, his style tends to be rather vindictive and acerbic, which makes him sound more like a radical Old Calendarist than a representative of Orthodoxy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I found this -- which appears to show more splitting that pertains to Catholicism - not to Protestants.

The Eastern Catholic Churches[1] are autonomous, self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Pope. Together with the Latin Church, they make up the entire Catholic Church.

Ok ... just going by what you wrote here ... they are in full communion with the Pope? I think that means ... they are not split off?

They preserve many centuries-old Eastern liturgical, devotional, and theological traditions, which are in most cases shared with the various other Eastern Christian churches with which they were once associated, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church.

Which was kind of my point otherwise. That we share a great deal.

and of course

The Eastern Orthodox Church,[1] officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church,[2] and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy,[3] is the second largest Christian church in the world,[4] with an estimated 225–300 million adherents,

Oh really?

I have to wonder at your sources. I have never heard the Orthodox Church refer to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church, so I had to look that one up. I hope you are not meaning the one whose website is here: OCCA History - The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America
Or this one? The Orthodox Catholic Church - Apostolic Succession

If so, I can assure you that these are not the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is difficult to tell where they come from.

The point being that they can't simply be blamed on Protestants.

No. Not every division in the Church is simply blamed on protestants. And that is not at all what I said.

And if you mis-state what I said a dozen times, I'm not going to bother correcting you each time.

What I said ... is that the Traditional/Catholic/Apostolic (whatever you wish to call them) Churches hold more doctrines in common ... (even with some of them being sola-scriptura as defined by the Lutherans, and some being not sola-scriptura at all)

in comparison to

Various protestant denominations who use a later self-styled form of sola-scriptura, not in accordance with the way Luther stated it to be. These have a great deal more variation in every aspect of their doctrine than the Traditional Churches do.

That is what I said.

Oh, and yes, as a result, I did blame the many divergences of belief on the "sola-scriptura" that does not inform itself using tradition, in contrast to the way Luther intended it to be done.

That is the rest of what I said.

 

[MoreCoffee]

cogitvit?

 

[Targaryen]

I was trying to be cute with the Latin, since I know next to nil

I was trying to say: Sola Scriptura, many interpretations, some in error

 

[~Anastasia~]

St. Augustine, in my experience, receives a great deal of bad press from some segments of Eastern Orthodoxy, post-Vatican II Catholics, and Arminian Protestants alike.

Even though his corpus of writings is vast, there is evidence of a change in emphasis in Augustine's theological outlook from around 397 AD on. His experiences in fighting Pelagius and his supporters made him reassess his views on the relationship between the human will and divine grace, predestination, and atonement. Augustine's letter De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum, written to a fellow North African bishop about the text of Romans, demonstrates this change quite well.

Since Orthodoxy did not face a similar type of battle over these same issues, they often go overboard in their assessments because they associate Augustine with later Calvinism and radical Protestantism. Arminians do the same thing. Post-Vatican II Catholics prefer to build up the more Neoplatonic, synergistic Augustine over the later one, which, if they know about it, they write off as a bitter old man who fell into error.

In my opinion, though, you really do not get a fully-developed judicial/forensic theory of justification and atonement until Augustine's ideas were taken further by Anselm, Aquinas, and later the Reformers. Plus, you cannot divorce Augustine's soteriological views from his unflinching support of catholic ecclesiology and the efficacy of the sacraments. Too many Calvinists and Neocalvinists have tried to do this with ridiculous results, not to mention that they ignore the fact that Augustine never articulated a doctrine of double predestination.



Indeed, St. Augustine is recognized as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy. However, there is a very vocal minority both in academics and in lay Orthodoxy who like to tag him with everything that is wrong with Catholicism and "Western Christianity" in general.

Christos Yannaras, for example, believes that Augustine is the source for the confusion of divine essence and energy, which caused so many problems in the later middle ages at the councils of Lyons and Ferrara-Florence where reunion of the churches was discussed.

Yannaras makes some good points; however, his style tends to be rather vindictive and acerbic, which makes him sound more like a radical Old Calendarist than a representative of Orthodoxy.

Thank you very much, Tzaousios. This is very helpful.

I was actually thinking of this topic earlier today and trying to decide if I had enough information to begin a thread, asking for information. That's why I really did not want to bring it up, because I've asked what Catholics, Lutherans, and Orthodox believe, and compared it, and I've heard St. Augustine playing into it a few times, but I was barely ready to start asking the question, so I feel kind of on the spot trying to bring it up. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I was trying to make a point here of the stronger commonality between the Traditional Churches compared to the divergent beliefs across today's Protestantism.

I didn't actually know much of what you posted here. I had gathered from all sides that this was something of a touchy subject, but I wasn't sure why.

I do hope I have not offended or mischaracterized anyone. As I said, this is something I wanted to explore, but other than having some tentative opinions about what I've observed of beliefs, I don't know much about it.

Thanks again, and once more, please forgive me if I have offended anyone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I admit that I'm not that far developed in this thinking. I am still looking into it, and wouldn't have brought it up except I needed to make a point.

Incidentally, I am not trying to make a wide gulf between the various traditional Churches. Instead, I find them to be very closely aligned. And that was really my point. There are differences of course ... such as the Orthodox don't number sacraments, the Catholic do, the Lutherans number fewer of them. The ecclesiology seems to be quite different in those three Churches as well. But ... in terms of the major beliefs such as salvation, those seem to me to be very minor differences.

How can I say this? The Orthodox Church views salvation more in terms of "medicine" ... God healing us from the effect of our sins. And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has somewhat of a more contractual or judicial view? I may be using completely wrong words here, and if I am, please do forgive me. I have asked about the beliefs, but I don't know what words to use to describe them in an umbrella sense. But I do hear more about things in measured terms, and I hear more about punishment/forgiveness. I'm not saying they are greatly different - it is more a matter of degree of emphasis?
And it has seemed to me that the Lutheran Church is somewhat similar to the Catholic in this, though they tend more toward Orthodox maybe.

As I said, please forgive me if I'm off with this. It is something I want to understand, have been slowly piecing together, but have not asked directly, so maybe what I have gathered is in error, and maybe I don't use the right words to describe it.

It's not that St. Augustine is not a saint in the Orthodox Church - I know that he is. I just get the impression that his teachings are slightly more emphasized in the Catholic Church than they are in the Orthodox, and it seems to be true of the Lutherans as well.

Again, I hope I don't offend anyone. It really isn't my intent. Obviously, we do have differences, or we would all be the same Church. But in terms of how believers conduct their lives and in general view themselves, God, and salvation ... it seems to me that the Traditional Churches are largely in agreement and that this particular thing is what I have noticed as being the most important difference, imo.

"And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has somewhat of a more contractual or judicial view?"
That seems more like a Protestant view than a Catholic one. The Catholic Church this about sin and justification:

I. Justification

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.​

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature.... For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.​

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.​

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.​

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect... will not pass away.” He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.
1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,” justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.​

Catholics teach that one is made just by God's grace working out salvation in the faithful. Many Protestants regard this teaching as elevating man to the final decision maker and oddly it seems that some Orthodox think that Catholics teach what Protestants proclaim as truth. Alas ... it is one of those things about which ignorance seems to rule almost unchallenged. Of course I know that you are searching out the facts so I am confident that the facts presented above will help.

God be with you always.

 

[~Anastasia~]

"And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has somewhat of a more contractual or judicial view?"
That seems more like a Protestant view than a Catholic one. The Catholic Church this about sin and justification:

I. Justification

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism:

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.​

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature.... For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.​

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.​

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.​

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect... will not pass away.” He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.
1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,” justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.​

Catholics teach that one is made just by God's grace working out salvation in the faithful. Many Protestants regard this teaching as elevating man to the final decision maker and oddly it seems that some Orthodox think that Catholics teach what Protestants proclaim as truth. Alas ... it is one of those things about which ignorance seems to rule almost unchallenged. Of course I know that you are searching out the facts so I am confident that the facts presented above will help.

God be with you always.

Thank you, MoreCoffee. I'm going to log off in a minute so that I can get sleep and be at Church. I have not seen all of these, so I will look at them more carefully tomorrow. I appreciate you sharing them.

Maybe my view has been clouded by the what I have read regarding penance, temporal punishment, and the distinctions between mortal and venial sins? Several of those concepts took me a little while to understand, and putting it all into a whole may have made my view of soteriology incorrect. TBH, what I have read on justification did not seem as judicial as what I was putting together from the other.

As I said, I was just starting to form an idea enough to ask about it. I jumped ahead of myself. Thank you for not being offended.

I'll give this a better look tomorrow, and perhaps some Lutherans will comment as well, in case I have mischaracterized them also.

TBH, I'm actually encouraged that much more if we are indeed even closer in agreement on soteriology than I had guessed. That is good news, not bad, so I am happy to be proven wrong.

God bless, and goodnight.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I can appreciate that GxG, but you pulled a very small quote out of what I was saying and made it seem to say something different than it was intended within the context.

But thank you for the comment.

If I may say, I think you missed the background/intent behind what was said and why.

Context was not missed, Kylissa..as the background was on the subject of tradition in regards to scripture (specifically in regards to the Orthodox regard of Scripture when compared to other camps) - no one was saying that what I said was what YOU intended in the context, so there'd be no need to assume anything was pulled out - or choosing not to ask where it actually tied in.



The OP is on the subject of Reformers and Sola Scriptura - and when it comes to the Orthodox dynamic, what has often been a key factor with the way Sola Scriptura has shaped much of the Reformer and Protestant world is seeing how many actions were taken on the basis of what the Scriptures said ...with the interpretation/translation of the scriptures filtering what others read into it. This is the case for what occurred with the Anglican Church, King King James in his era and many others.

And thus, part of knowing the impact or understanding of Sola Scriptura requires a willingness to actually address how it was never just the Word or the Scriptures alone. Even as it concerns the Orthodox, which don't really emphasize Sola Scriptura, translation of the scripture has been a battle when it comes to interpreting Tradition based on the Scripture (in regards to the Hebrews text vs the Septuagint and later the English translations of the Septuagint).

• An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible

'

• HTC: An Orthodox Critique of Bible Translations

• English Bible Translations for Orthodox Christians. What

Orthodox have noted the issue OF Translation impacted one's view of Tradition and the reverence one can have for the Scriptures, which is why translation is a big deal when it comes to the Bibles made in the use of Orthodoxy. As another wisely noted, "Translations of the Bible are very necessary, but are not sufficient for formulating dogmas and doctrines of the Church, which requires reference to the original languages. The translations depend upon the genius and knowledge of the translator in the selection of the proper words and phrases to render meaning as close as possible to the text of the original language. It is well-known that a new translation is more or less a new interpretation."

It's difficult for one to see where the Orthodox value Tradition (in connectiion with Scripture) when there is not a remembrance of how translation of Scriptues impacts aspects of Tradition - in contrast to the Reformers and the Protestant world who held Scripture above Tradition and yet had their views of Scripture impacted by Translation nonetheless...

You would never have been able to get to the conversation of Sola Scriptura without William Tyndale translating the Bible into English - which led to all others being able to read scripture in their language and then later on miss the meaning of certain words as groups continued to spread. I appreciate what others noted when it came to the extremes in the Protestant world due to language during the age of Sola Scriptura - as another noted when saying "The 16th-century English Reformation, the historic period during which the Scriptures first became widely available in a common tongue, is often hailed by scholars as a moment of liberation for the general public, as it no longer needed to rely solely on the clergy to interpret the verses....But being able to read the sometimes frightening set of moral codes spelled out in the Bible scared many literate Englishmen into following it to the letter, said James Simpson, a professor of English at Harvard University....""Reading became a tightrope of terror across an abyss of predestination ..."It was destructive for [Protestants], because it did not invite freedom but rather fear of misinterpretation and damnation.....Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them....,"...Persecution and paranoia became the norm, as the new Protestants feared damnation if they didn't interpret the book properly and Prologues in Tyndale's Bible warned readers what lay ahead if they did not follow the verses strictly. For Without the clergy guiding them, and with religion still a very important factor in the average person's life, their fate rested in their own hands

More can be found in the read Burning to Read: English Fundamentalism and Its Reformation Opponents

​

​

Other books on the issue which one can consider are by Richard M. Edwards, who pointed out that "a consistent, indigenous English doctrine of scriptural perspicuity correlates with a commitment to the availability of the vernacular scriptures in English and supports the English roots of the Early English Reformation (EER)" - more in the book entitled Scriptural Perspicuity in the Early English Reformation in Historical Theology - Richard M. Edwards - Google Books

For other examples on language battles and how they led to issues, one can examine the Anabaptists - one prominent group that arose in the Protestant Reformation and took the concept of Sola Scriptura to differing levels. As said elsewhere (for brief excerpt):

Luther's insistence on the unique authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) was echoed by other Protestant leaders. Religious belief and practice were to be determined by appeals to the Bible. The role of tradition in shaping current practices remained a matter of dispute; Anglicanism in particular, in statements such as the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity by Richard Hooker (ca. 1554-1600), argued for a greater emphasis on historical precedents in the church than continental reformers generally accepted. Anglicans and continental reformers agreed, however, that over the centuries the ecclesiastical system had acquired a form and substance at variance with biblical principles. A reformation in "head and members" (a phrase used since the late medieval era) had become necessary. Most Anabaptists agreed that the Bible should be regarded as the expression of God's will for the church. Yet not all parts of Scripture were equally authoritative. Anabaptists tended to place special emphasis upon the life and teachings of Christ. Beyond that, many of them insisted that the New Testament, rather than the Old Testament, should be regarded as normative. Thus, when Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and other reformers appealed to the Old Testament to justify their views of church-state relations as well as other beliefs, the Anabaptists appealed to the model of the New Testament church. On other occasions, some Anabaptists warned that the Bible should not be viewed as a self-sufficient agent of spiritual renewal; rather, it could be effective only when illuminated by the Holy Spirit and received by the "pious heart," as Hans Denck said. Another characteristic of many Anabaptists was an insistence on an almost wooden literalism in applying biblical statements. Only that which was enjoined by Scripture was to be accepted and retained. In this matter they stood much closer to Zwingli than to Luther and many other reformers..
​

One can also go to resources n the differing wars that spread as a result of the Protestant Reformation here in Liberty | The Reformation and Wars of Religion. But with the extensive violence that occurred in the English Reformation and Protestants harmed as a result of that, one has to remember where the violence was rooted primarily: language and disconnection with what the early Church taught as well as what they meant in the language they used.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Would a problem come in if the Church began (or always had) required something that was not a part of Scripture?

I don't see where things not in the Scriptures are automatically against Scripture since principles in the Scriptures are things the Church has built upon when the times that people in scripture lived in changed and new realities developed.

• Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition: Is There a Difference? ? On Behalf of All

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is going to be a productive thread.

Subscribing.

I am also subscribing.....


.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is one I didn't finish giving the attention to I had wanted - I think I was out of town around that time, and having a hard time keeping up.

Don't mind at all you subbing, LLoJ, and happy to have this thread brought back to my attention. It was one of several I was going to go looking for, as I knew I hadn't finished sorting out what was presented.

Not sure if others are interesting in participating further, but we shall see.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder if LLoJ is the thread resurrection ...