click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Early Church Fathers on Sola Sciptura
by C Michael PattonNovember 26th, 2012
251 Comments
Sometimes people get the idea that sola Scriptura (the belief that the Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Christian), was a 16th-century invention. While it was definitely articulated a great deal through the controversies during the Reformation, its basic principles can be found deep in church history. Take a look at some of these early church fathers who seemed to believe in the primacy of Scripture:
Hippolytus (170-235)
“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died….But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner….the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth…The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated….The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning….For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it….if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word….Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one….What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
Irenaeus (175)
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures…We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith….It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity….proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
Ambrose (330-397)
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father…So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” – Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
Augustine (354–430)
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind….In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
Cyprian (248)
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2)
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
Dionysius of Alexandria (265)
“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)
“we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
Basil the Great (379)
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
Jerome (347-420)
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)
“When Paula comes to be a little older and to increase like her Spouse in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man, let her go with her parents to the temple of her true Father but let her not come out of the temple with them. Let them seek her upon the world’s highway amid the crowds and the throng of their kinsfolk, and let them find her nowhere but in the shrine of the scriptures” (Letter, 107:7)
Justin Martyr (100-165)
“And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: ‘Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.’” (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)
Theodoret (393-457)
“I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
Here is a good quote from J. N. D. Kelly:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, pp. 42, 46).
Similar Posts:
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
- What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean
- In Defense of Sola Scripture, Part 9: A Biblical Defense
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Four – What Did John Believe?
251 Comments
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Hippolytus: The most you can say is he was sola scripture for knowledge of God, and of piety. Since there is a very famous document “The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome” dated to 215, and containing a lot of stuff claimed to be apostolic tradition, but clearly extra-scriptural, it seems premature to call Hippolytus a sola scriptura guy.
Irenaeus: I don’t see anything here about sola scriptura. I do however see apostolic succession. And I see a lot of appeals to tradition in Irenaeus’ writings.
“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.” Irenaeus Adversus Haereses, 3.
Ambrose: Ambiguous at best.
“But if they will not believe the doctrines of the priests, let them believe Christ’s oracles, let them believe the admonitions of angels who say, “For with God nothing is impossible”. Let them believe the Apostles Creed which the Roman Church as always kept undefiled.” Ambrose, Letter to Sircius (c. A.D. 387).
Clement: A bit ambiguous this quote.
He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving….secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing… – Strom. I.1.13.2-3
For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition….many things, I well know, have escaped us, through length of time, that have dropped away unwritten… – Strom. I.1.12,1 and I.1.14.2
…he was compelled by his companions to commit to writing traditions that he had heard from the elders of olden time, for the benefit of those that should come after… (Eusebius commenting on…
Like or Dislike:
3
Augustine: I see no sola scriptura here.
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Cyprian: He says Commands AND Epistles of the apostles. That sounds like scripture and tradition to me.
BTW Firmilian replied to Cyprian “…no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently…” [Epistle of St. Firmilian to St. Cyprian, ANF Vol 5, p. 391].
In other words, the question of whether to receive certain schismatics and heretics was not an issue during the Apostolic period, and thus there was no specific and direct Apostolic tradition on the question of how they should be received, whether scriptural or otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
3
Cyril of Jerusalem: But are we talking about material sufficiency (Catholic) or formal sufficiency (Protestant) ? Is he just saying the scriptures should be utilised, or that they they are formally sufficient?
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” – Cyril
Dionysius: I see no sola scriptura here.
Gregory of Nyssa: If the standard is the ability to “harmonise” your teachings with scripture, I guess all sides agree.
“on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably” (On “Not Three Gods” in NPNF, vol. 5, pg. 331).
Hilary of Poitiers: Not everything is found in scripture OR tradition, in which case being definitive about something outside scripture is dangerous. This is not very convincing.
Like or Dislike:
2
Jerome: Absolutely nothing here about sola scriptura.
“Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).
Justin Martyr: I see no sola scriptura here. Interestingly, Justin attributes to Jesus some things that our canonical gospels do not contain.
Like or Dislike:
2
John, all you statements are ambiguous at best. Even your statement about the ambiguity is ambiguous!
I think you are making the common (and understandable mistake of mixing up sola Scriptura (the scripture is the final souce) with solo Scriptura (the scripture is the only source).
We all believe in tradition and its authority. In fact, Scripture IS tradition, just written down!
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, please read the rules my brother. No spamming the blog. One comment at a time. That is why there are character limits. (From the blog authority)
Like or Dislike:
3
C Michael Patton From my experience with modern Protestants/Evangelicals, sola Scriptura has evolved into solo Scriptura. Any mention of anything extra-biblical is considered anathema. Church history ends at Acts and picks up again with grandpa. However, this may just be a phenomenon in Appalachia.
Your thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0
You could have Jesus say it, himself (which in fact, he did)…and people would still gravitate to the religious project.
“They asked him, what is it to do the works of the Father?” And he answered, “this is what it is to do the works of the Father, believe in the one whom the Father has sent.”
Nope. That’s just not good enough for the religionists and ladder-climbers.
Like or Dislike:
2
CMP
I had to re-read your initial paragraph several times to make sure I understood what you were claiming. I’m glad I did, because what you said is technically entirely true:
“Take a look at some of these early church fathers who seemed to believe in the primacy of Scripture:”
Except that they didn’t “seem” to believe in the primacy of Scripture; they most certainly did! Just as the Eastern Orthodox have ALWAYS believed in the primacy of Holy Scripture.
The difference between these early church fathers – who believe exactly as the Eastern Orthodox church of today believes – vs. your Protestant sola scriptura is that our interpretations of the Scriptures are part of Holy Tradition, as handed down from the Apostles.
Our Faith, our Tradition, our Worship doesn’t change with each generation, or novel idea, or political wind.
You, on the other hand, have given yourself the freedom to interpret any part of Holy Scripture as you see fit…”guided by the Holy Spirit”, of course. Nevermind that this “Holy Spirit” is giving different interpretations of Scripture to each of the hundreds of Protestant denominations out there. Never mind that this “Holy Spirit” has guided other churches to endorse homosexual relations and other heresies such as the non-deity of the Holy Spirit (UCC).
CMP, all of your quotes above were from great saints of the Church. The HISTORICAL FACTS are that these men of faith NEVER approached the Holy Scriptures with your version of sola scriptura; and they NEVER left the Church via schism.
Excuse my CAPS, but really, you are dancing on the line of “truthiness” here.
Glory to God for all things
Like or Dislike:
1
Thanks Pete,
Can you please explain what you believe my version of sola Scriptura is? For I don’t believe it gives me any right to interpret any way I please. That is more of an anabaptist (radical reformation understanding that is/was not shared by magisterial Protestantism.
Like or Dislike:
0
One major deficiency with Protestantism is its lack of theological authority. Everyone gets to come up with novel ideas, break away from the church, organize his/her own workshop as he/she sees fit. Influence from Millerism on the right and liberal theology on the left are, not surprisingly, most keenly felt in the Protestant churches.
Why do I remain a Protestant? For me Protestantism is a throwback for people of faith to examine what is truly essential in this faith. Ultimately I believe (and I may very well be wrong in this) the Historical Churches are so weighed down by tradition, that one easily loses sight of what is important and what is secondary. Amidst a less educated populace aberrant practices indeed emerge despite the appearances of superficial unity.
Like or Dislike:
1
Tradition is fine. Unless it contradicts the clear Word of Scripture and compromises the pure gospel.
That’s why I’m a Lutheran. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the pure gospel remains central. Always.
(well…it does for some of us Lutherans, any)
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, thanks for letting me clarify.
I believe that you have given yourself the authority to pick and choose your sola scriptura interpretations, albeit you have limited yourself to the doctrines / interpretations offered up by the first-tier Protestant reformers.
So, it’s a “one-off” freedom of choice on your part, vs. the Mennonite free-for-all.
Thanks again for your blog, you certainly raise worthwhile issues.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Pete: It is YOU mate that are “dancing”, and with and for the EO!
For the historical and open minded here, I would recommend reading the great Reformed historical theolog, Richard Muller’s works! The Sola’s are themselves a certain biblical and theological construct of the Reformation, surely, as was the doctrine of the Trinity itself, in the life of the Church. And as Michael says, Scripture is itself a certain “tradition”, but the written Revelation of God therein, by the Holy Spirit through the “prophetic” of/by men pressed by God! (2 Peter 1:21)
And btw, I sure wish even the Reformed minded would read Richard Muller’s fine book: The Unaccommodated Calvin, Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Such a great work, perhaps my favorite Calvin study to date!
Like or Dislike:
0
@theoldadam, if you could, please provide as many examples as possible of Eastern Orthodox tradition that contradicts the Holy Scriptures (the same version used by the 1st century Church, or course).
Or, I’ll save us both some time…you will come up with some examples, then I’ll show how the historical Church sees these examples as fully supported by Scripture.
So it will come down to interpretation. Being Lutheran, your views will depend upon which of the several Luthern denominations you belong to. Of course, what Lutherans believe in 2012 is different than what was taught 400 years ago. It’s a moving target.
Like or Dislike:
0
What I haven’t figured out yet is how we hold scripture in the light of “just words written down” vs. God Himself. After all it is God we are following, not a book.
The scriptures are a witness of God Himself, not God Himself, right? But then, we can’t ask God a question and get a direct answer, so rather than scripture being “the final authority”, shouldn’t it be “next best authority”. Next best to God Himself??
Since we do have access to God, there will be times where we hold that direct link as higher authority than scripture, as it pertains to a decision we must make not covered in the Bible?? But when it comes to a general consensus with others, then we must rely on agreement with the Bible as final….if we can agree.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Pete: As I hope you know, I greatly respect much of the EO historically. And follow generally their positions on the Godhead.. the Trinity of God (the Father is the “monarchy” of the Godhead, etc.), and too generally their Christology. But the most obvious lack is in the doctrines of the Imputation and Adoption, ‘In Christ’. These are simply “Pauline” and Reformational!
Like or Dislike:
0
@theo: Christ is both the Logos & the Rhema (the Divine Life.. Expression itself, eternally), and the Rhema: utternace and narration, the commands of God in time! Again both Law & Gospel!
And “we” only have acess to God In Christ! (John 14: 6)
Like or Dislike:
0
“Expression” between the Father & Son, eternally! (John 1:1-5) Which we see now in time, Incarnationally & Biblically… John 1: 14 ; 18, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Francis: The pure “Catholic” position is the real myth, sorry! The Apostolic Church has always been a “reforming” reality… as Jesus said, “in spirit and truth”!
Like or Dislike:
0
And btw, most all of the so-called top-tier Reformers held the Church Fathers below the standard of the authority of Holy Scripture itself. And though both Luther and Calvin were surely affected by Augustine, they both stood against him at times, especially Calvin! As we too must, also, stand against the so-called Church Fathers at times! They are not our ultimate authority, only the Word of God!
Like or Dislike:
0
@access
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, every serious Evangelical Protestant, especially pastor-teacher, should have a copy of Richard Muller’s classic book: Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Scholastic Theology, (Baker, 1985). See Muller’s sola Scriptura definition, therein. (As all the other Sola’s). I won’t quote here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Theo #16:
“The scriptures are a witness of God Himself, not God Himself, right? But then, we can’t ask God a question and get a direct answer, so rather than scripture being “the final authority”, shouldn’t it be “next best authority”
As NT Wright says: “when we use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’, we must surely acknowledge that this is a shorthand way of saying that, though authority belongs to God, God has somehow invested this authority in scripture.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw Pete, you cannot hang any “Lutheran” sign here, as much as Luther himself! Note I very rarely quote “Lutherans”, or even Lutheran creeds, though of course some are very good, and even profound! (And note I love certain Lutherans very much! I have gotten to preach in their churches several times). The issue is always the Word of God itself, and if we must quote a so-called Luther text, I will quote myself, The Schmalkald Articles, 1536. This was simply Luther’s “Theological Testament”!
O dear Lord Jesus Christ. . . .help us who are poor and miserable, who sigh to you and earnestly seek you, according to the grace you have given us through your Holy Spirit, who with you and the Father lives and reigns, forever praised. Amen. – Martin Luther, Preface, The Schmalkald Aritcles
It is my point, and will be till the end of my days, that Luther and the other top-tier Reformers, especially Calvin too, are simply theologically much more biblical than the majority of the Church Fathers. I say this really based more on the so-called “humanistic” (of that day – noting Erasmus here too), and the biblical and theological hermeneutical approach of the Reformers and the Reformation. And btw, the Church is still a Creedal & Confessional Body!
And btw, when one sits down to read Luther, he better know and have his Bible close to hand!
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, Pete, we believe pretty much as Luther believed. We haven’t moved very far from that, although many Lutherans have.
The Scriptures, especially St. Paul, speaks of Christ alone. No cooperative, spiritual ascendency project or becoming a “better Christian” project.
If the Orthodox are on board with that, they we would affirm them. If not, they we disagree.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sadly so many Lutherans are really just Semi-Pelagian today, and this at best! One looks hard to see and find classic and historical Lutherianism these days. I preached as a guest at a Lutheran Church somewhile back, and after I was told that I was too conservative theologically! I had told them I was one friendly with the FV or Federal Vision, and of couse this is somewhat Calvinist. But I asked where is “Luther’s” teaching in Lutheranism today? I won’t be asked back there thats for sure!
But, I love to fire that “arrow” of the Gospel in the pulpit! GOD In Christ alone knows where it will land!
Like or Dislike:
0
@theoldadam
From an Orthodox point of view, with the novel doctrines of sola fide & sola scriptura, Luther created his own new Christian religion. So yes, there are several very different beliefs & doctrines between our groups.
In spite of these fine quotes on Holy Scripture by CMP, the thought that any of these Saints created their own doctrines & dogma, based upon their own personal interpretations of Scripture, and outside of the Church, is a fantasy.
If you have time, here are some brief responses by Orthodox bloggers to Protestant semi-pelagian claims:
http://orthodoxbridge.com/response-to-theodore-semi-pelagianism-sola-fide-and-theosis/
http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2012/08/13/the-curious-case-of-st-john-cassian/
As I stated earlier, the primacy of Scripture in Orthodoxy is unquestioned. However, “primacy” means different things for different groups, in this case and others. For example, Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the pope (Holy Scripture is very clear on the authority that Christ gave to Peter and the Apostles to lead His Church). But what primacy means, of course, greatly differs for both groups.
I am empathetic to the Protestant situation back then; I get why the Reformation occurred. If that’s the way you want to worship, God Bless you. But I would recommend that you take a closer look to the historical realities surrounding the formation of your Protestant beliefs, and the history of the Church in general. I don’t know your background, but Credo House sells a solid “Church History” series, and that’s a great place to start.
Like or Dislike:
2
I only wish more Protestants had a correct view of the primacy of Scripture. Bit most neglect the communion of Saints failing to see that it is through the church, both living and dead, that the Holy Spirit works.
Like or Dislike:
2
@Francis — “the Historical Churches are so weighed down by tradition, that one easily loses sight of what is important and what is secondary”
Interesting suggestion. I’d be curious what you consider important.
@Michael: ALL my statements are ambiguous? Really? Even Augustine Against the Donatists? It’s hard to take you seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0
John. It was tongue in cheek. You were saying that so many clear passages were ambiguous that I had to say it. Just illustrating how easily that word can be use as dismissive.
Like or Dislike:
2
OK Michael. So if I made clear passages ambiguous, why do these fathers make clear statements against sola scripture? Are they stupid? Collectively ignorant of their inconsistency? What is your theory? I’m curious.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t think they do. Solo Scriptura maybe. But that is an unsupportable anabaptist doctrine.
Like or Dislike:
2
So… you think Augustine was a clear sola scripturaist? Despite my quote against the Donatists? I don’t know how you could say such a thing.
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
Like or Dislike:
0
Pete,
“…with the novel doctrines of sola fide & sola scriptura, Luther created his own new Christian religion.”
That could not be more wrongheaded.
Luther was just parroting Paul. Paul got it form Christ.
Christ alone. He doesn’t need our help.
“He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion.”
Not because of us…but in spite of us.
Off to the salt mine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert,
Keep up the good work!
Like or Dislike:
0
John, Augustine’s statements only militate against solo Scriptura. I suggest you read The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Matthison. It will help you understand that tradition, especially the regula fide, is authoritative, while the Scripture is the final authority.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Early Church Fathers on Sola Sciptura C. Michael Patton, Parchment & Pen Sometimes people get the idea that sola Scriptura (the belief that the Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Christian), was a 16th-century invention. [...]
Like or Dislike:
3
Hi Michael,
Don’t you see how sola Scriptura still reduces down to a person being his own final authority? 2 church groups, or 2 highly educated people, can both pray for the guidance of the Spirit, read a passage of Scripture, and come to different conclusions. They both claim Scripture as final authority. They both claim to be informed by tradition. A person still must decide if this or that church father or pastor or professor seems to be correct or not. There is no getting around a personal judgement call! Even the claim that Scripture is self-interpreting is itself a particular interpretation of Scripture.
Bryan Cross lays it out more skillfully in his 2009 article “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Imperative Authority” which he wrote in response to Mathison’s “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”. Here’s a good summary quote:
There is no principled difference between sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura with respect to the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority”: sola Scriptura, no less than solo Scriptura, entails that the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
One can see how important the essence and argument of the Reformation’s doctrine of “sola Scriptura” is, as we see both the Orthodox and Catholics running hard against it! The view (fully) really came out of the debate in the late medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition. Simply and finally, the Holy Scripture itself is the final authority for Protestant and Evangelical Christianity. And here the church itself has really always stood beneath! (1 Tim. 3: 15-16 / 2 Tim. 2:15 ; 3: 15-17)
And we ourselves as Christians all, share in the “kingdom and priesthood” of all believers, (Rev. 1:6). And so we all must make our choices of faith & conscience, and we do so with the presence and authority/power of the Holy Spirit Himself, as Jesus said, “in spirit and truth”! Here the Church is itself a spiritual “pillar”, but always a “support” of the truth. (1 Tim. 3: 15) Again, the model of the Reformation and Reformed Christianity is more toward the “Catholic” Faith! Of course here I stand, with Luther!
PS…The bottom line is the essence of both the Holy Scripture and the Church! And the Church for the Reformers always, always stands below, not beside nor the arbitrator (judge) of Holy Scripture!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Here’s an example. Luther and Calvin were both very pro- infant baptism. Today, many Calvin-following Reformed churches deny the power and necessity of infant baptism. Those are not opinions. Those are just the facts. Here’s an imaginary conversation.
—On what basis do these churches reject infant baptism?
—Why, on the testimony of the Holy Scripture, of course!
—But wait a minute—Luther and Calvin were both Sola Scriptura. Both are hailed as courageous and gifted intellectuals. Didn’t they get their views on infant baptism from the Scriptures?
—Well, yes, they thought they did, but now we understand the Scriptures better than they did then.
—Oh, ok. So you really believe that Luther and Calvin understood Scripture better than the Catholic Church (which had preserved the Scriptures for 1500 years)? And then you understand Scripture better than Luther and Calvin,…..so-o-o…… that would mean that your church on Oak St. has a better understanding of Scripture than the Catholic Church AND the reformers?
—Well, yeah. I’ve read several Bible commentaries on the subject. And the guys who wrote those have been to seminary.
—I thought Scripture was pretty easy to understand. It took almost 2000 years before some guys could go to seminary and figure out what it REALLY means???
—Uhh, yeah. You know, the church is changing, I mean improving, I mean reforming, all the time!
—Hmmm. How do you know which changes are the right ones, instead of heresies?
—Easy!! They have to agree with Scripture!
—Oh. Like Luther’s and Calvin’s reforms did.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: THIS is simply ad hoc lov! I mean no real or “theological minded” Reformed and Reformational Christian thinks Luther or Calvin are infallible! I don’t, but I do believe the principle of the Ecclesia semper reformada, to be a biblical premise! As I have said here so many times before, the real historical Church Catholic, is simply but profoundly a Pilgrim Church and Body, and yes here we find the Mystical Body of Christ, also! But there is never any “infallibility”! This is sadly the real myth!
I have noted here, that no one wants to take on Richard Muller!
Like or Dislike:
0
For my self when first starting out in the teologiey course I went from solo scriptura to Sola scriptura. Scripture is always upfront on the stage of trueth. Tradition has always been blurred. That’s way it is check against scripture. God works through man’s emotion, experience, reasoning and general revelation. As long as man is in the fall position, man will always use his free will to change the stadge. Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
1
Continuing on with the example of infant baptism–
Of course I don’t think you believe the reformers to be infallible. My point is that, if Luther and Calvin couldn’t get infant baptism right, with their education, their respect for tradition, their integrity, their supposed holiness, their theological momentum, and assuming God’s blessing, then how in the world can we rationalize anything by saying, “So says Scripture!” We can’t. “So says Scripture!” could have been their battle cry. Yet they were wrong about infant baptism. These sola Scriptura adherents couldn’t even agree with eachother, and their modern day followers don’t even agree with them. “So says Scripture!” is the real myth. In reality, it’s “the Scripture according to Luther” and “the Scripture according to Calvin” and “the Scripture according to Aquinas” and “the Scripture according to CMP” or according to Fr Robert, or according to Irene, or Pete again, or whomever. Everyone ultimately decides *whose interpretation* to follow, even if it is their own.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: I am not quite sure the point your making with both Luther and Calvin? who both held to the baptism of infants and children! Yes, Luther held to some aspect of baptismal rengeneration, and Calvin held it to be only a sign and seal. But both saw Baptism as a sacrament!
Btw, your really getting quite ad hoc with the whole sola Scriptura thing! This will always be a point of debate between the true Reformational-Reformed, and Roman Catholics (really any High Church group, as the EO also). What is so hard to get or understand about the Reformers? I note you have said nothing about Vatican II? Or even the Roman Counter-Reformation, which was itself a form of reform, i.e. Trent!
Finally, the idea that Roman Catholic theologians all toe some Catholic party-line, is again itself some kind of myth! There has been so many different Catholic theologians in the long history of Rome! As has been noted here especially with Erasmus, who was himself always a Roman Catholic, as too a priest therein.
Like or Dislike:
0
*regeneration
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I used ad hoc, in the sense of being without general application. Your pressing, but we all bring our views before Holy Scripture (as Luther and Calvin sought), and even the history of the Church, its just that R. Catholics, as the EO have a place beside or right next with Tradition, etc. We Protestant Reformed use tradition also, but it simply MUST stand the test of Holy Scripture, first! And of course there is no infallible voice, save Holy Scripture itself. But even there we only know “in part” in this life, as St. Paul said! (1 Cor. 13: 9, etc.)… to the end of the chapter.
Like or Dislike:
1
But Michael… do YOU follow, as Augustine listed, the things which were “observed by the whole church” because they have “fairly been held to have been enjoined by the apostles?” (e.g. Christmation?)
Do YOU follow the decisions of the ecumenical councils, the decisions of which “are quite vital to the church”?
If not, what are we arguing about? Augustine had these authorities, and you don’t.
I had a glance at Keith Matthison, I’ll try and read it more fully later, but I noticed this in it:
“Solo scriptura reduces the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to opinion by denying any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the church” (P249)
That’s great, but the ecumenical creeds are such, because they were agreed by the whole church in the ecumenical councils. So… do you accept the decisions of the 7th council? No you don’t. So what are arguing about?
I can’t read the whole book, I can only browse bits, but from what I understand, he is saying that he advocates what he calls “Tradition I” which is councils, creeds, Fathers of the church up to AD 400. How arbitrary is that?!?!
1) I can understand the concept that earlier councils are more likely (humanly speaking) to preserve apostolic tradition. BUT to make them actually authoritative for the Christian would still require supernatural intervention, so that they are not merely “more likely” to preserve it, but actually for sure preserve. Protestants all the time say “oh yes, but the fathers/councils weren’t infallible, so at THIS point I need to depart from them.
2) IF Protestants took Tradition I seriously, then their hermeneutic would be EXACTLY the same as Eastern Orthodox, just differing about a cut off year. Do you seriously claim that though?
3) IF Protestants took Tradition I seriously, they would be at least 95% the same as Eastern Orthodoxy. None are even close to that. No Protestatants accept half of what the early church taught. Christmation,…
Like or Dislike:
1
Yeah, I should have said, “They were wrong about infant baptism according to most of their modern day followers.”
——–
I’m not trying to debate infant baptism at all. I was just using the example of infant baptism to illustrate that Sola Scriptura ultimately means, “Whatever I decide the Scriptures say.” *Somebody* has to decide whether or not something passes that test of Holy Scripture you talked about. And those test results can vary depending on who is administering the test! In the case of infant baptism, Luther, Calvin, and their modern day followers all got different results. Sola Scriptura is not adequate for uncovering truth. But, I can see I’m not being effective at all here, so I’ll just refer you to the article I mentioned in comment #38. Bryan Cross explains this idea much better than I could ever hope to.
———
You asked,
“What is so hard to get or understand about the Reformers?”
Well, hey, can you blame me for thinking Sola Scriptura doesn’t make sense?…. Luther did reject scholasticism, after all. (;
Like or Dislike:
1
Fr Robert: “its just that R. Catholics, as the EO have a place beside or right next with Tradition, etc. We Protestant Reformed use tradition also, but it simply MUST stand the test of Holy Scripture, first!”
Here’s the massive problem Fr Robert: If you think EO tradition is contrary the bible, and therefore someone at some point in history made it up, then:
1) Whoever made it up thought it was in conformance with scripture.
2) they convinced the entire church it was in conformance with scripture.
So… of what possible meaning can your pious sounding solution “Yes, but it must stand the test of scripture”, be? It’s completely worthless, that’s what. It goes without saying that EO think our traditions are in conformance with scripture. AND we have Tradition on our side too. AND we have the consensus of the whole church, dating back, in many cases, to the earliest written records, or at least an awful long way.
What have you got? You’ve got a contrary interpretation of scripture.
How does this solution work? How are you not merely solo-scriptura? Oh sure, you could look at some church fathers too. Even then, it’s just personal interpretation of the fathers. I mean, we’ve seen Mormons try to argue for Mormon style deification from the fathers. It’s just another level of personal interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
1
@John: I can appreciate your zeal and love for YOUR Church and Communion, I have been close to the EO in some form myself for many years as an Anglican, more on certain theological places, like the Trinity of God, Christology, etc. But, the whole idea of WE ARE THE CHURCH, and WE HAVE IT ALL RIGHT, simply is illogical and certainly not historical! When one looks closely at the history of the Orthodox, the ethnic and autocephalous nature of many Orthodox Churches, especially in the East, one just cannot press this idea of traditional purity, at least not to my mind!
Again, the Sola’s of the Reformation and the Reformed are certainly historical, but again come from their own understanding and certainly their historical debate with medieval Rome and Catholicism. And we do see a particular Protestant encounter with scholasticism, which still exists within the Reformed Communion (Post-Reformation if you will) and churches to this day. We can certainly see this for example in my own Anglican Communion and history, with the Irish Articles 1615, etc. And even in more modern so-called times, I can think of Karl Barth’s book: Anselm: Fides Ouarens Intellectum, Anselm’s Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of His Theological Scheme. As John Updike could write of Barth: “There is no way from us to God – not even a ‘via negativa – not even a ‘via dialectica nor ‘paradoxa’. The god who stood at the end of some human way . . . would not be God.’ Indeed Protestant Scholaticism is still useful in the look at St. Paul’s Jewish Hellenistic and Greco-Roman thinking, in his Judeo-Christian revelation and theology! Again, people really need to read the Reformed historical theologian, Richard Muller!
The point is, we simply must learn to accept the depth of the Church, both or all.. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox! We all are in this Mystical Body Life together, if we love Christ and the great Trinity of God!
Like or Dislike:
1
And Irene, indeed many or at least some “Lutherans” DO get Luther right! But one must read, search and look! The grave problem here is we are all trying to historically PROVE each others Communion or Church is wrong, and that may be somewhat true in places. But the greater question is, and always will be.. for us Evangelicals, ‘What think ye of Christ?’ The great doctrine of Christ’s Person, and yes work, too!
And again, Luther most certainly rejected Roman Catholic Scholasticism of his day! WE can today find some aspects of Thomist and certainly Aquinas thinking, but we are all together, standing on the shoulders of so many that have gone before us! So this whole quest really should humble us, rather than full our heads alone with dogma, even if its proper, and as Paul said: “Knowledge alone puffs up, but love edifies.” (1 Cor. 8:1)
Like or Dislike:
2
@Fr Robert:
The whole premise of sola scriptura, in opposition to solo scriptura, at least as I understand it from Keith A. Mathison, which Michael here is promoting, is that SOMEBODY is “the church”, or at least was prior to 400 AD apparently. Sola scriptura needs to be able to identify “the church”, in opposition to who is not “the church”, in order to identify true tradition vs heresy.
As Tertullian put it: “For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on equal footing, whereas the natural order of procedure requires one question to be asked first, which is the only one now that should be discussed: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong? From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule by which men become Christians?”
I believe Orthodox have the best claim to that, of which Tertullian spoke. Or indeed to being “the church” which it is necessary to have, in order to make this rather tenuous claim to a distinction between Solo and Sola scriptura.
If you want to say it should include Anglicans, I say, tell me more. On what basis? If Anglicans followed all the teachings of the 7 councils. If they followed everything the universal church followed prior to 400 AD. If they behaved like the church of Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome, then I’d say, you’ve got the seed of an argument. But… surely they don’t. Wouldn’t you agree? And I don’t think they ever did. Perhaps it was more plausible 400 years ago, but even then I don’t think they did. And if they don’t, and they didn’t, then there is no such thing as “the church”. There are only degrees of such things. And if there is no “the church”, then there is no such thing as sola scriptura, only solo .
I’m curious what you mean when you refer to “ethnic and autocephelous nature” of Orthodox churches meaning you can’t “press the idea of traditional purity”. I don’t have the slightest idea what…
Like or Dislike:
1
I love this quote by Luther. I do think it is germane to this discussion:
“All upright sacred books agree on one thing, that they all collectively preach and promote Christ. Likewise, the true criterion for criticizing all books is to see whether they promote Christ or not, since all scripture manifests Christ. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter and Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever preaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod should do it!” (LW 35:396)
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: First of course “autocephelous” is the self-governing and independent nature of certain churches within the communion of the Orthodox Eastern Church, and mostly of different ethnic groups, etc. Check your Orthodox history here. They tend to be very old school Orthodox, and really sectarian.
Second, since I am Reformed in both soteriology & ecclesiology, my doctrine of the Church is not foremost just visible as yours, but both visible & invisible, as “Christ Jesus” is the Mediator “alone” between God and men, (1 Tim. 2:5-6 / 1 John 2:1-2). Christ is prophet, priest & king! And here are the “Offices” of Christ above, in Mediation for the People of God. Indeed the earliest Christian confession of faith (itself a revelation), as expressed in Peter’s “The Christ of God,” knew that who Jesus is finds its answer in what Jesus does. The title declaring what He does becomes part of the name confessing who He is – Jesus Christ! So now Christian theology must ever insist that Jesus person and work interpret each other in indissoluble unity. It was Melanchthon who said: “To know Christ is to know His benefits.” Hopefully contemporary theology is returning to this Reformational and Evangelical conviction! And Emil Brunner begins his treatment of the doctrine of Christ with the work rather than with the person of the redeemer. See his work and book, The Mediator. Also, P.T. Forsyth wrote: “Theologically faith in Christ means that the person of Christ must be interpreted by what that saving action of God in him requires, that Christ’s work is the master key to his person, that his benefits interpret his nature.” (The Person and Place of Jesus Christ).
Finally, let me quote Calvin, and from a sermon: “Whoever does not know the office of Jesus Christ, can never trust in God, nor make prayers and supplications: he will be always in anxiety and doubt and dissimulation. Unless faith comes and shows us the way, it is certain (I say) that we shall never…
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert:
I know what autocephalous churches are, I just have no idea what your point is. Sectarianism (whatever you mean by that) might be annoying, but has nothing to do with the issue at hand which is unity in the faith and formal intercommunion, both of which exist between all the Orthodox churches, no matter what their shortcomings might be.
Re the rest of your comments, they mean nothing at all as far as this thread is concerned, unless they point us to where THE church is. Remember, the difference between solo and sola scriptura is alleged to be adherence to the authority of the church.
According to Mathison, who is Michael’s recommended source…
“[scripture] was and is given to the Church within the doctrinal context of the apostolic gospel. Scripture alone is the only final standard, but it is a final standard that must be utilized, interpreted, and preached by the Church within its Christian context. If Scripture is not interpreted correctly within its proper context, it ceases to function properly as a standard.” P259
“It is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Church that the gospel is found. … Although individuals can and must read and study Scripture in order that their conscience may ultimately be bound by the Word of God, final ecclesiastical authority does not and cannot rest in the judgment of each individual member of the Church. … Individual private judgment, however, does not replace the corporate judgment of the covenant community. The creeds of the Church are the authoritative confessions of the communion of saints as the covenantal body of Christ. Excommunication is an authoritative judgment of the communion of saints as the covenantal body of Christ.” P270-271
That’s great and all, but where OBJECTIVELY is the church? If the church is just whatever body of people I cleave to who agrees with my interpretation, then we have circularity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, The “Offices” of Christ, are for us Reformed seen as the “Sessions” of Christ, at the Right-Hand-Of-God, in the glory, on the Throne of God! And indeed, “Christ Jesus” is always at every moment prophet, priest, and king!
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: It seems you have simply NO sense of the “visible and invisble” reality of the Church of Christ? For where Christ IS, there is the Church! And with Christ being in the “Glory” Above, FOR HIS CHURCH, there “we” are actually and spiritually! This is the doctrine of St. Paul, certainly…Eph. 1 & 2 / Col. 3:1-4.
The early church had no buildings and places, and certainly no “Altars”! See, Heb. 13: 10-14.
Btw, this post is about the so-called Church Fathers! And here I would myself place something of both Luther and Calvin! I would even put Barth in a modern place of a so-called Church Father. And perhaps something of Emil Brunner, too. Note, I would rather see Brunner’s position of Natural Theology, as closer to Calvin perhaps.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert:
Either (a) you cede this argument and admit there is no sola scriptura, only solo scriptura… or
(b) you throw Michael, and his accomplice Mathison to the wolves, and say they don’t know what they are talking about. (in which case, we need to hear the alternate theory of sola scriptura).. or..
(c) you tell us where the visible church is, so that we can obey Mathison’s admonition to cede interpretive authority to the church.
Which do you choose?
And if you choose (c), tell us why you are not circular in your decision to follow a church whose interpretation you agree with, and then surprise surprise, you will cede personal interpretation to that church, which you already chose because you agreed with it.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/11/early-church-fathers-on-sola-sciptura/ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I am an Anglican priest/presbyter (now semi-retired), though I have been a theological Anglo-Catholic priest, though many years ago now, note I am 63. But, I am now, and have been generally Reformed for many years now. And with the latter, I don’t have to “cede” to any of the above! YOU just don’t understand “Biblical” Evangelicalism, and certainly not the Reformational, nor the Reformed! Note too, I don’t bring this up too often on the blogs, but I am an old “theolog” myself, holding both the D. Phil., (which I did on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross), and the Th.D. (on Romans studies, and especially Rom. 7). I taught and lived in Israel in the late 90′s. But I was in Gulf War 1, as an RMC (Royal Marine Commando, officer. I retired later as a Captain from the Reserves). I state the latter, for Gulf War 1 had a huge affect on me, both perosnally and later theologically. And yes, I am pro-Israel, and even something of a “Biblical” Zionist! And this includes being a PD, Progressive Dispensationalist. Yeah, I am very eclectic theologically, and somewhat in my thinking!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I have read Mathison, but just not this particular book. I read his book: Given For You, Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, (2002, P&R). And a few other things.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert:
Erk. As a former Reformed, former Anglican, who studied with Moore College, a stronghold of Calvinism, it’s exhausting to be told that I simply don’t understand. Be that as it may, I’m not going to let you off so easy. Let me simplify the question:
(a) Sola scriptura is rubbish.
(b) It’s good, but Michael/Mathison don’t get it.
(c) Michael/Mathison do get it.
And if it’s (c), please instruct me on where this church is which Michael/Mathison tell me to submit to. Don’t give me some airy fairy stuff about where Christ is proclaimed. Because I went to all those places, they all disagreed with each other, and thus I became Orthodox.
I hope now I’ve made the problem simple enough you can answer it!
Like or Dislike:
0
Theology for me is no Arm-Chair or High or Ivory Tower affair! But, the essence of the spiritual life itself! Thinking biblically first, is always a spiritual war itself! And theology, at least done well, must follow a kind of “Biblicism”!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I too have been to Sydney, and my wife and I took a long month vacation there several years ago, past. I have a friend who was close to Marcus Loane at one time. I like Australia, and too New Zealand very much, but I can’t take their liberal ideology! Ugh!
Like or Dislike:
0
Having not read this particular Mathison book, I am not going to jump and take the bait, mate!
But It is quite obvious where my theology lies!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, and your NOT gonna get too far with me, when you call sola Scriptura “rubbish”! Note, I have not gone negative on the EO’s lack of Pauline Imputation, nor Adoption! So please keep it at the level of dialogue, with me at least!
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert:
Youv’e got quotes in this thread from Mathison. It’s very simple, you agree or disagree. You don’t have to read the whole book.
And Puhlease. I never called sola scriptura rubbish. I just gave you ALL the logical options, so you can’t accuse me of not offering them.
Like all these discussions, there is no Protestant answer. I knew that, which is why I am Orthodox. But it’s interesting to see the total non-response and vacuous position play out once again.
Like or Dislike:
2
John,
Do you really think that you’re going to change Fr Robert’s mind with a few comments on someone else’s blog? He’s a well read man with a lot if experience under his belt. You shouldn’t expect that throwing out some quotes from a book you haven’t even read, then getting insulting and angry because he won’t tell you you’re right, will impress him into agreeing with you. Sheesh.
The best we can all do on these discussions is enjoy the friendly banter, maybe learn how others look at different issues, and maybe discover things we want to research on our own. Shifts in deeply held opinions don’t happen through comment boxes anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0
St. Gregory of Nyssa:
Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)
Like or Dislike:
0
St. John Chrysostom:
They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)
St. John Chrysostom:
There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])
Like or Dislike:
0
St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)
St. Basil the Great:
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)
St. Basil the Great:
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)
Like or Dislike:
0
@John:
Well I don’t blog to win debates, but I do like to debate what I believe on biblical issues, that’s about all a pastor-teacher can do. And both Irene and Michael have spoken well for me, we can do some friendly “banter” here hopefully!
Btw, Michael has brought forth some good quotes from some classic Orthodox! And again, I would challenge you to check out Richard Muller’s corpus! In closing, when we move radically in our theological positions, we always must be careful of that too much pendulum swing! I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, so I must sometimes check my own ride here! 
And too, you surely did not “appear” to know, or care about anything “Reformed”! Though I just might seek to check out that, said, Mathison book, but watch-out.. It just might be hell to pay then!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, for John, etc. on a related subject, let me recommend Michael Kruger’s book: Canon Revisited, Establishing The Origins And Authority of the New Testament Books, (Crossway, 2012). Kruger does appear to take a sort of “presuppositional” position to the NT Books and Authority. A must read, here!
Like or Dislike:
1
John and I have tried to point out this logical inconsistency in Sola Scriptura: that an individual believer must still decide whether any particular tradition, or novelty, passes the test of Scripture.
There is another logical inconsistency in Sola Scriptura which, unless I missed it, I don’t believe anyone has mentioned yet: that Scripture itself was canonized by passing the “Tradition” test! The Church determined which writings were divinely inspired by whether those writings were in agreement with the tradition they already had. Or known (by tradition!) to have been written by the apostles, which had a special status (according to the new Christian tradition!). …..[a good example of this is the book of Mark. Should it be Scripture? Why? Who wrote it and how do you know?]…. So, Scripture may function as a check of tradition in some ways, but Scripture also has its own origin in Sacred Tradition. (cough-cough-Magisterium)
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, note both Mike Horton and John Frame plug Kruger’s book! Just so ya know!
And it is no secret that I like both of these Reformed guys! Though they have had ‘in house’ (Reformed) arguments with each other!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Thanks so much for sharing these wonderful quotes from our 4th century saints! They raised my spirits this morning.
My personal moment of truth came when my wife was pregnant with our first child (which was a miracle, but that’s another story) and I realized that it was up to me to teach the little one to be a Christian. Also, just as important, I wanted to teach her the TRUTH.
Having been raised as a Protestant PK, I realized the bleak future of letting her loose on the 21st century Protestant landscape; even I couldn’t figure out which teaching was the pure Truth (and, the option of saying, “they’re all true, honey” was not an option!). That is when I “discovered” the original 2000 year-old Christian Church.
Your quotes gave me a warm reminder of the first time that I read about these men & women, and the Chuch that they belonged to…and that my family, centuries later, by the Grace of God, also belong.
Glory to God for all things
PS: our Nativity Fast started yesterday, please join us!
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene: Kruger’s book would be a real challenge for you! Again let me put forth the Text of 2 Peter 1: 21, which comes btw, from somewhat out of of the Fathers’ voice (17-18), but verse 19 really is important also: “We have the even more sure prophetic word, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your heart.”
Like or Dislike:
0
YES, I have Kruger’s book! And I just ordered Mathison’s on the history of the sola Scriptura! So watch out John!
I do try to keep-up theologically (though as I remember, “this” Mathison book has been around for several years!) One cannot read everything, though I have tried over my many years! (I have more books in my UK home). Sometimes I wonder who will get them, when I am gone? Or will my sons even care to read any? They are Christians, but certainly affected by today’s postmodernity! I would not want to be a young man or person today! Rock on Baby-Boomers! 
Oh young people watch out for the spirit of narcissism! THIS is the spirit of this age, certainly!
Like or Dislike:
0
Rats. Forgot to add my little St. Cyril quote to my last comment above. It’s from his fourth “catechetical lecture”, which is on doctrine, under the section on the Divine Scriptures.
Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, Cyril was a “catholic” minded Christian! But, we have some others too, as the Ante-Nicene Christian Chiliasts: Irenaeus to Papias, Justin, Tertullian, Commodianus, Novatian, Victorinus, Methodius (somewhat), and Lactantius. Also from third-century Egypt, we have a few chiliasts, Coracion and Nepos. Btw, some would place Pseudo-Barnabas here with the chiliasts.
Btw, we should here note too, Eusebius and his work: The History of the Church, though he is theologically suspect (himself) in many places. “Could I do better than start from the beginning of the dispensation of our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God?”
Like or Dislike:
1
@Michael: Re your further quotes: You seem to be under some impression that our side of the fence argues that individuals cannot interpret scripture and that scripture is incapable of ever resolving disputes. At least, that’s all I can imagine you must think by listing those quotes.
If there was one man in history that spoke most plainly and most clearly against sola scriptura, it would have to be Basil the Great. But here you are, apparently saying he is sola scriptura. Really? If Basil is sola scriptura, then the Pope is a Protestant. If you can convince yourself that Basil and Augustine are sola scriptura, then you can easily convince yourself that Rome and EO are sola scriptura too, and end all the debate, because we say absolutely nothing more than they do concerning the authority of tradition.
Since you promoted Mathison, I really think you should answer the question that Mathison’s book raises, which is, where can I find this church that has enough authority that I should submit to its interpretation? Because according to Mathison, it’s out there somewhere.
@Irene, whether anyone is convinced of anything is putting the cart before the horse. I only want SOMEONE here to explain this sola scriptura thingy. If Fr Robert can’t explain it, I’m not sure what he is doing in this particular thread.
@Fr Robert: I haven’t read Mathison, so whether you do is neither here nor there. I just want to know if you support his description of sola scriptura, namely that it entails giving the church interpretive authority. If you don’t know if sola scriptura does thus, that’s fine, albeit rather odd that you don’t know. As a WCF toting guy, I thought maybe you might know what sola scripture is all about.
Like or Dislike:
1
I downloaded Kruger’s book. It’s about canon, rather than sola scriptura. But it does again make the epic fail that we’ve also seen in this thread.
Kruger says the canon is self authenticating. And that we look to the church to see this self-authentication.
To which I again ask: Where is this church? Unless you have an ecclesiology that allows you to put some rough boundaries around the church, then such talk is vacuous. I presume Kruger, as a Protestant would have to exclude Rome and EO from the church, otherwise his “predominant agreement” criteria for the canon, would have to include the deuteros. But that begs the question doesn’t it.
In my opinion he misrepresents the “Catholic” view by saying that that this view is that the church “determines” the canon. As opposed to his view, that the reception by the church is merely evidence of the canon’s authority. Whatever. The major point he misses is that the question of whether the church determines the canon, or whether the church merely receives the canon for what it is, is a question of pure navel gazing. It doesn’t make one whit of difference to the man in the pew, who in either scenario has to look to the church to find out what the canon is. The theological navel gazing of how the church knows what it is, is just a Protestant sophistry to hide the lack of foundation to their authority. In either theory, the question still boils down to “Where is the church?” with the follow up question of “What does it say about canon?”. Authority theories, reception theories, and “recognition” theories all boil down to the exact same result.
The only one that doesn’t boil down to that is the Mormonesque “everyone make up your own mind”.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I can see that your new to Orthodoxy, at least that would be my guess? For seeking to argue someone into your position, can only go so far! Bulgakov wrote: “Orthodoxy does not persuade or try to compel; it charms and it attracts.” And as another EO wrote: “Truth is foreign to all overstatements as well as to all understatements. It gives to everything a fitting measure and fitting place.” We could only come into the latter, and just touch it!
Damn man, of course I believe in sola Scriptura, I am Reformed, and the Reformational Church surely believes in the visible and invisible Church Catholic (See, Calvin’s Institutes 2 Vol., Book Four: The External Means Or Aids By Which God Invites Us Into The Society Of Christ And Holds Us Therein…The True Church With Which As Mother Of All The Godly We Must Keep Unity)… Btw, I thought you knew Reformed Theology? But the Word is always its best argument, itself! I am a Presupper, i.e. Van Til. I can only seek to do this.. “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Ps. 119: 11)
Again, I am going to read that Mathison book, but too, I would also press you to see Richard Muller on this subject! And of course I cannot support Mathison’s description until I can read it! But, I perhaps will support it, since it is Reformed. If you have been Reformed, I am sure you have heard of Muller. And btw, you perhaps know the history of the Anglican Reformed has been somewhat more open minded on certain issues Reformed.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: What a terribly odd posting. I haven’t tried to convince you of anything. I just want you to explain this sola scriptura thingy to me. After all, you are in the scholastic WCF toting, Calvinist, sola scriptura camp. Seems reasonable you would have a scholastic answer to a scholastic problem like sola scriptura. Of course, if you want to abandon your scholastic peers and appeal to mystery, and then bin your WCF, we can discuss that too!
And again: the bit of Mathison I want you to explain, defend, reject, or whatever it is you want to do with it, is posted in this thread. I’m not asking you comment on Mathison wholesale, only the bit we have here.
Can you be more specific I am supposed to read of Richard Muller? I mean he has written quite a lot of stuff. And don’t you think you can be a well informed Reformed without having read some guy from the late 20th century? That’s interesting. I wonder what an Orthodox person who had read all the Fathers from the first millennium would say if I criticised his knowledge because he didn’t read some 20th century guy.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: This is just my opinion, but it does appear that you really don’t want to dialogue into the whole debate of Protestant Evangelical, verses Roman Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. For the position of Kruger’s book really is a presuppositional position of the Word of God! Note as I said, that John Frame, that great presuppositional believer in the authority and place of Holy Scripture, supports Kruger’s book. And that whole place of Cornelius Van Til’s Presuppositional, and reasoning by presupposition must be looked at!
Btw, just seeking to call the position that the “Church” just seeks to receive the position of the Auhority of Holy Scripture, some idea of mere “navel gazing”, is quite ad hoc at its worst! So unitl you can take on Van Til, and his whole theology of the Word of God, and here too is his student John Frame. YOU are just “barking” mate! Amen, the Church always stands beneath the Authority of the Word of God! And is as Paul said, something of a vital “pillar”, but too always a “support” of the truth, (1 Tim. 3:15). And btw it seems too, that you want to almost make the Church a mechanical thing, rather than what St. Paul himself calls: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness.” (1 Thess. 3: 16) Again, I press the Church is a Pilgrim Body on earth, and both “visible & invisble”, but surely with “Christ Jesus” above, Who is Mediator, alone.. above for the People of God! (1 Tim. 2: 5-6)
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: When two Christians like you and I discuss presuppositionalism, the question is, what ought we presuppose? The existence of God, certainly. But beyond that we come to disagreement on what is worth presupposing. There have been many Orthodox presuppositionalists. Augustine comes to mind, who one could argue, presupposed the validity of the Church, and from there made the jump to believing scripture, on the say-so of the church.
‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6)
If presuppositionalism is the correct modus operandi, then the pre-new testament church certainly believed in Christianity first, and the church’s message, before later accepting the scriptures. Given the rarity of the scriptures in the first millennium, this would have been pretty standard for a long time.
It seems inarguable then, that the presupposition that there is a catholic church with authority to point us to scriptures is at the very least, one possible valid starting presupposition.
…but… I don’t think I would want to therefore just pick any old body of people as the church as my starting foundational presupposition, without it being based on historical validity. Otherwise I might pick LDS. Nor I take it would you recommend picking any old books claiming to be the true bible, even if they apparently feel ok. Otherwise you might pick Joseph Smith’s “corrected” King James Bible. You can’t just arbitrarily presuppose something in defiance to the evidence surely?
I don’t know what I’m supposed to “take on” in Van Til etc. But for the man in the pew, he shouldn’t have to “take on” anything. He should be able to know whence he can go to resolve common problems that arise in biblical interpretation (or canon, or whatever). Things like “is paedo-baptism correct” or “is paedo-communion correct”. You can’t presupposed everything without chaos.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: One issue that focuses the mind is the issue of Paedo communion. If you have any sympathy for Mathison and his view that the church, especially the early church is our standard of interpretation, then its extremely hard for you to justify Anglicanism’s mostly-opposition to paedo communion, since it was the universal practice of the church, before Rome changed it in the 2nd millennium. This is why it seems obvious to me that sola and solo scriptura are the exact same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I think we are spinning our wheels mate! I am always an Anglican Christian, and this surely means also lots of mystery! I am always an eclectic, even somewhat eccentric as a Christian theolog. As I have said so many times before, I am also a “Biblicist”! And here I would rather stand closer to Luther’s “theologia crucis” in my Reformed and Reformational thinking!
As concerns Richard Muller, check out his definition of sola Scriptura in his book: Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholstic Theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: Indeed I have not thought that much about “Padeo communion”, myself. I know it is an issue with some Reformed Presbyterians however. And btw, I am somewhat FV or Federal Vision friendly, but I can be somewhat critical there also. Note, I am NOT Post-Millennial, but in fact Historic Pre-Mill! As was Gordon Clark, btw.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I have read deeply in the Mercersburg Theology however. And I like both Nevin and Schaff! I have several of their books and writings, etc. I even have D.G. Hart’s book: John Williamson Nevin, High Church Calvinist (Bio).
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: Well I guess the Anglican communion tolerates pretty much anything, so I suppose it suits your “eclecticism” to be Anglican. Does it work 2 ways? Are you equally tolerant of all the things going on in the Anglican communion? Even with all the strange stuff going on in Anglicanism, there’s always someone who’ll make an argument from the bible to support it. And… they often make sense from the presuppositions these people are starting off from. Of course these presuppositions are not the ones of historical christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: Of course when I speak here of Presuppositionalism, I am talking about the grand theology of Van Til! See John Frames book: Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of His Thought.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I can see your not up on the Reformed Presuppositionalism of Van Til! Big stuff really with many Reformed, certainly! Don’t try to fake it here mate!
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: Hmm, so we’re back again to the stance Michael started here: “You just don’t understand… but if you just read this book, you would be defeated”.
The idea that you could defeat one Christian worldview with another Christian worldview on the basis of presupposing sounds ridiculous to me.
Like or Dislike:
1
Hello Micheal, hope you’re still paying attention down here! I’ve got a new question.
I still had this Sola Scriptura idea in my mind while I was listening on the radio to the plight of the EVANGELICAL owners of Hobby Lobby, faced with betraying their principles or going out of business. (Does everyone realize their $1.3 MILLION per DAY penalty goes into effect on JAN 1?!)
So here’s the connection to this thread:
How does Sola Scriptura relate to morality? Abortion is quite easy to categorize as evil using Scripture alone. But what about contraception? There is no clear instruction in Scripture. However, there _is_ clear, consistent precedent in tradition opposing contraception and labeling it evil. So, under Sola Scriptura, if we are bound to respect the authority of the consensus of Christianity throughout history, except when it’s trumped by Scripture,……..then why is contraception just breezed over as personal choice and no big deal in Evangelicalism? Why is the voice of historic Christianity ignored in this matter of morality?
I’m really hoping for a response here. (:
Like or Dislike:
0
Or a response from any Sola Scriptura adherent!
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene: What is sola Scriptura, but simply the Authority of the Holy Scripture, itself.. and the doctrine (teaching) of God, always!
Like or Dislike:
0
John: The presupposition of the authority of God’s Word is everything! Indeed the Word of God IS my worldview!
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: In this thread, the problematic presupposition is that it is the _sole_ authority.
The other problem is that nobody knows what sola scriptura is, and can defend it.
Which is a problem when Michael makes some ECF quotes, sans commentary, and wants us to believe it helps the sola scriptura case. Why? Who knows.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: Am I forgetting something? Where in the Bible does it explicitly teach that it’s ok to separate sex from the possibility of procreation? I think there’s a pun in there somewhere
Like or Dislike:
1
The Didache forbids contraception. Calvin and Luther, both, also specifically and harshly condemn it.
So where is the respect for Christian tradition here? It is not in conflict with Scripture at all, but rather coincides with Scripture’s portrayal of married love as sacred and full of meaning.
It seems to me that in this case, Protestantism gives more weight to modern values than to Christian history. If Sola Scriptura means Scripture as FINAL authority, as opposed to being the ONLY authority, then Sola Scriptura in this case is an illusion, not a reality. Am I wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: “sola Scripture”: ‘Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine… Scripture was identified as the “principium cognoscendi,” the principle of knowing or cognitive foundation of theology, and described doctrinally in terms of its authority, clarity, and sufficiency in all matters of faith and morals. Finally, it ought to be noted that “sola Scriptura” was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition as a subordinate norm in theology.’ (Richard Muller) In the end Holy Scripture, is as Paul said: “All Scripture is God-Breathed and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. That the man of God may be proficient for every good work, fully equipped.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: the article by Bryan Cross that Irene mentioned is an excellent critique of sola scriptura, but I have my own objection. You say tradition is a “subordinate norm”. But the reality is, that is a fool’s paradise. Either it is a norm, or it isn’t. It’s no use saying that it is a norm up until it conflicts with scripture, because there are people out there who think EVERYTHING is against scripture. By everything, I mean everything your church and mine teaches. Needless to say, everything my church and your church teaches is claimed to be in accordance with scripture, even when they are opposed and incompatible!
So… what could solve such an impasse? Well, treating tradition as a norm is a pretty good solution. BUT… No protestants observe it! It’s pure lip service! There is no substance to this claim. None at all!
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: You know this answer, again the Holy Scripture!
Like or Dislike:
1
That’s the answer? So why isn’t Protestanism united? Why aren’t we?
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: You really don’t get or understand the Evangelical Faith do you? WE are the Church, i.e. The Body of Christ, Mystical! Back to that visible/invisible Church!
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert Can all the mystical members of the body of Christ in MY family partake of his body and blood at your church? Because if not, you have broken communion with my family, and can hardly claim to be in the same mystical church as me.
(I’m setting you up to fail here, when you say yes, and then admit you don’t practice paedo communion).
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t practice paedo communion! And btw, I am closer to Luther on the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Like or Dislike:
0
And btw, if your not “regenerate”, then your not in the Mystical Body of Christ!
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr. Robert,
You’re a better man than I.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Fr Robert: That answer is a fail on multiple levels:
(a) By not practicing paedo communion, you show you don’t consider tradition a norm, contrary your claim.
(b) By continually hiding behind the invisible church, you show an unwillingness or inability to identify the visible church. If you can’t identify the visible church, you can’t identify its tradition. If you can’t identify its tradition, you can’t make it a norm. If you can’t make it a norm, sola scripture is a farce.
(c) Apparently you feign ignorance of who is in the body of Christ when it suits you, but when an infant fronts up for communion, now suddenly you know they’re not.
(d) Actual communion is supposed to be the visible expression of the unity of the body of Christ. If I front up to your church, you can only express this unity with me, by making me break communion with my children. But you have no theological basis for doing so, except the Anglican church’s opinion. Therefore, your hermenutic by necessity cannot lead to visible unity.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Patton collected a number of quotes from early church fathers on the doctrine of sola scriptura (by Scripture [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Let me clarify by saying that I’m not aiming to start a debate about whether birth control is permissible or not. My question is:
Is the Protestant teaching on birth control in or out of accordance with the concept of Sola Scriptura?
I was very confident I understood the difference between solO and solA Scriptura. But this issue doesn’t fit that solA mold. Is any Protestant willing to say that the Protestant church isn’t following its own doctrine here, or is there some “nuance” that I don’t understand?
John, or Pete, can I ask you about the Orthodox position on birth control? As I was reading up on councils and fathers on this issue, I came across some quotes by Orthodox bishops suggesting the Orthodox Church was wavering in its teaching here. But I don’t know enough about the Orthodox Church to know if the quotes were from a reliable source, in context, authoritative, etc. So could you fill me in, please? It would be a shame if the Orthodox Church abandoned principle here.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: This whole issue is simply based upon YOUR own presuppositions, your caught in YOUR own “tradition”! Not much else to say!
@Irene: And on birth control (really more of a modern issue), the Orthodox are all over the place, sadly! So on birth control, I will simply apply 2 Tim. 2:15 and 3:16-17.
Like or Dislike:
0
@theoldadam:
Not really, just seeking to try to be pastoral. But, I fail often here. But as you know, never Christ nor His Word!
Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0
And btw, I think this will be my last word on the subject of sola Scriptura, which I find to be “self-attesting” and “self-authenticing”. Indeed the Word of God is its own authority and truth! “All Scripture in God-Breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16).
Like or Dislike:
0
*IS
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, let me share this last link with you “John”! Lusk is a FV guy, and surely “Calvinist”.
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/calvin-on-baptism-penance-absolution
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: Let me share this link with you! It is one I have on my own wee blog. Again, not perfect of course, but non-the-less, very good!
http://carm.org/lost-books
Like or Dislike:
3
Well, Fr. Robert is usually familiar with this or that theologian or this or that doctrine…..so if he calls birth control a modern issue, then that’s a sign modern schools and churches really have brushed it “under the rug”! There are numerous unambiguous teachings against it from the Didache to Clement to Nicaea to John Chrystotom to Augustine to Luther to Calvin! With many in between! The first teaching I am aware of that allowed it at all was from the Anglican Church around 1930.
Even if they are unaware of what they are doing, I believe Protestants reject, out of convenience and personal preference, what the reformers taught on specific issues. But they cling strongly to Scripture Alone, because it can be used to justify anything. It’s like looking at the clouds and seeing animals. People who want to can see justification for pretty much anything in Scripture (homosexuality, gay marriage, women priests, abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia, universalism, and the list keeps growing), while rejecting conventional wisdom and still claiming “Scripture Alone!”
Calvin: “The voluntary spilling…is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw…is doubly monstrous…”
Augustine: “When this [the true meaning of marriage, meaning here the will to have children] is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.”
Luther: “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin…”
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: Of course the older church and fathers knew much of this issue, but it did not become such a forward issue until both modern and now the postmodern culture, this was my point. And I am personally most certainly conservative minded here! But, were never going to stop or solve the “sin” issue, until Christ comes in full Glory! (Heb. 9: 28)
Btw, WE are all still “sinners” ourselves! I am with the late Augustine here – as Calvin, Luther and most of the top-tier Reformers! (Rom. 13-25 / Gal. 5: 17, etc.)… good old Paul, we knew this!
Like or Dislike:
0
*Rom. 7: 13-25
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I grew-up Roman Catholic, and back then…lets get to it.. masturbation was a “mortal” sin! But, if were going to hell because we masturbate (both men & women btw), then indeed few of us are going to make heaven! I hear more about sexual sin as a priest & pastor than any other! And most especially THIS generation! Btw, only Christ can set the sinner free! But as Luther knew (from Paul btw), the Christian is Simul Iustus et Peccator – Simultaneously Sinner & Saint! Indeed this the biblical teaching itself!
Like or Dislike:
0
Certainly all true! The problem remains, though,…..Where are the Protestant Churches of today on this? Silent. Or making weak excuses. They (I’m speaking very generally) like to claim they have an appropriate respect for historical Christianity, beacause it makes them seem more solid and respectable, and they think it makes defending Scripture Alone easier. However, when it gets down to it, such as with the contraception issue, one can see solA scriptura is really a facade.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, if the Orthodox are sliding on this contraception issue, who is left to stand with the Catholics? Maybe Fundamentalists? I’m not sure how that group of Christians stand. Orthodox Jews? Mormons? (I’m not being rhetorical, I’m really asking.) There are a few areas of morality overlap with the Muslims, but I can’t exactly imagine this being one. Possibly some very conservative Lutherans like Wisconsin Synod? I just don’t know. It’s a weird feeling to increasingly be the “last man/church standing.” People look at Catholics and think WE are weird…..when really they are the ones with the unconventional positions on this.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr R #22, I subscribe to the doctrine of Adamic Federalism, but we relive that incident in the Garden everyday. Here is a tree don’t touch it. If you ever want a child to do something just tell them you are never ever allow to do that. (Philippians 4:8) Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: Well that’s your “opinion” too of course! But lets get back to the Law, which Rome loves to wip people with! But when we look at Holy Scripture again, the law knew nothing of a purged conscience. The sacrifices of the Levitical economy were designed to ease the conscience but they could never purify it. Every sin required a new offering, for there was not intrinsic value in the blood of beasts to actually settle the sin-question. Outwardly there was purification, fitting one to enter the earthly sanctuary. Inwardly there was no cleansing such as is ours now in virtue of the precious blood of Christ shed for us upon the Cross. Dead works are performed by dead sinners – from these, as from evil works, the conscience needs to be purged. The blood of Christ alone can avail for this. That blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat (the Death & expiation of Christ). The veil is rent, and the man/person (we) may now draw near to God in full assurance of faith! (Noting Heb. 9: 13-14 / 1 John 1: 7-10 ; chapter 2 also, 2: 1-2, etc., indeed from here WE Christians have a full place of the assurance of forgiveness! And btw in Catholicism, one just does not have such! (Heb. 10:10)… It is “Once”! The Person & Work of the “intrinsic” Jesus Christ!
This is the Gospel of the Reformation, the Reformers… and the Biblical, Evangelical Protestantism!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Tel, Amen! http://carm.org/adam-our-federal-head
Like or Dislike:
0
So is that the “nuance” I am missing in solA Scriptura? That Christians need to give Christian Tradition it’s due respect, except in matters of law/morality?
I’ve got great respect for the zeal and tenacity of Protestants as they defend and try to keep pure what they sincerely think is the Truth. But I just can’t say they are consistent in their reasoning or values.
Blessed Advent! everyone. (:
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: Again, such a position you are trying to advocate for Rome, on faith & morals, is again what Luther would call a “theologia gloriae”, rather than a “theologia crucis”! We simply cannot KEEP the Law of God! i.e. in its perfection! Yes, we stand against “sin” and “sins”, but we ourselves also still Sin! I hope you are getting my point “theologically & biblically”?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, I understand the theology you are speaking of, but I’m advocating at least knowing what perfection we are “aiming” for, even though I know we will never hit the mark. Being sinful is no excuse for “anything goes, we’re all sinners anyway”. I’m talking about acknowledging truth rather than deceiving ourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0
Of course Irene I am always seeking to speak biblically & theologically! And I greatly fear “your” position (just given) is hardly Rome’s! And the most grave deception is not seeing the great liberty of the Gospel of Christ! (Rom. 10)…Here we can see and note Israel, the very “elect” people of God missed their Messiah, thru “their” Zeal & Law (Rom. 10: 2-3). And without the Gospel, we too will miss the biblical-theological Christ! (2 Cor. 11: 2-4 ; 13-14, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene,
Here’s a link you might find of interest?
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/a-visionary-ecclesiology
I of course would be critical in some places, I am certainly not Postmillenial!
Like or Dislike:
0
Sure, I’ll read it over. Thanks.
Here’s one for you. I think you might like how it is so Biblically based (at least by Roman standards? (:
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/audio/the_splendor_of_the_church1
I’m pretty sure it’ll work without registering.
Like or Dislike:
0
Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
“On the Holy Trinity,” NPNF, p. 327
Like or Dislike:
0
Athanasius (c. 296–373)
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”
Against the Heathen, 1:3
Like or Dislike:
0
Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
Like or Dislike:
0
St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
Like or Dislike:
0
Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225–1274)
“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: The Orthodox church is not generally in the business of defining to the nth degree what things are sin and what are not. The law comes down to love your neighbour and love God. The fathers said a number of things about marriage and love and on the odd occasion, birth control. Couples should take this into account in conjunction with their spiritual advisor. Personally I’m curious why Rome would flat out say “NFP is fine” when it is in contradiction to the statements of the fathers, but I think the bigger problem is the one size fits all attitude of Rome. As Paul said, everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: Have you ever read what Basil says about tradition? If you had, it would be hard not to drift into feeling you are being dishonest about all this. If you haven’t, I’m not sure why you are posting on the topic. Either way, I feel like saying “please explain”.
“From the dogmas and the truth which the Church safeguards, some we have received from written teaching and some, which have secretly reached us, we received through the tradition of the apostles. Both have the same importance for the faith. And no one with even a meager knowledge of ecclesiastical teachings will raise objection… Since if we asserted that we should abandon as many “practices” that are unwritten, because supposedly they’re not of great importance, we would damage – without realizing it – the essence of the Gospel, or rather we would transform the Gospel into “a name empty of meaning.”
“For example (so as to recall the first and most common of all), who taught in writing that whoever hopes in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ shows this faith by making the sign of the cross? To turn towards the East during prayer, which written text teaches this? The words of the Church during the blessing of the bread and the holy cup at the Holy Eucharist, which of the saints left them behind in writing? We certainly do not confine ourselves to the things the Apostles or the Gospel acknowledge, but before the eucharist and after it, we also say other things, since we were taught by unwritten teaching that they have great power in the celebration of the mystery.”
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr Robert: “your caught in YOUR own “tradition”!”
Yes, but we’ve been lectured here by Michael and others that the difference between solo and sola scriptura is adherence to tradition and the interpretive authority of the church. What you call “YOUR” tradition, is the UNIVERSAL tradition of the universal church, prior to protestants arriving on the scene.
SO… We are back again to the question: Do you admit there simply is no such thing as sola scriptura (as opposed to solo scriptura), or will you tell us where precisely to find the authoritative tradition – you know – the one that allows Protestants to make this supposed distinction between sola and solo.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I certainly do not deny the importance of tradition either in the early church or today. I neither deny that some statements such as the one you gave (thank you by the way, great quote!), lean in the direction of a seed form of dual-source. It was not my intention to deny such in these quotes. It was simply to help people to acknowledge that seed form of sola Scriptura can also be found. I don’t think that the early church had these things worked out to well as we can see from the discontinuity the Church Fathers had even within their own writing. It normally depended on the circumstance and who they were fighting against. At the very least, I wish people to acknowledge that it is also easy to read into the early fathers the foundational elements for sola Scriptura. If one cannot admit to that, then I suspect that they have not really read the church fathers or are determined only to read it anachronistically. We need to read these things more developmentally.
And believe me John, I am continually in the Church fathers. And I have no bones to make them see sola Scriptura as my belief in such is not ultimately dependant on their confession about such as some other traditions are.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John:
“The law comes down to love your neighbour and love God”
Contraception means not loving your neighbor (your spouse). Most modern Christians think that is hogwash because most modern Christians have lost the true meaning of marriage and sexuality. —and I think that has a lot to do with sola Scriptura.
” Personally I’m curious why Rome would flat out say “NFP is fine” when it is in contradiction to the statements of the fathers,”
It’s not in contradiction. Let me tweak the “NFP is fine” statement. The Church teaches that NFP should only be used in serious circumstances, not as a matter of course.
What’s remarkable about the fathers on this issue is their undeniable consensus. Debating this topic here would be quite off-topic (Michael, contraception would be a hot topic, ha ha, for a new post!). I brought up contraception because it is a perfect example of Protestants picking and choosing which elements of Christian Tradition they accept according to whether or not it supports their personal theology. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture Protestants can use to say “these Fathers were wrong and I must follow Scripture”. They reject the fathers’ view of contraception not because it contradicts the Scriptures, but because it contradicts their own lifestyle. SolA Scriptura claimed but not practiced.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: “The Church teaches that NFP should only be used in serious circumstances, not as a matter of course.”
A-HA! So… going against the Fathers in this matter is totally fine, as long the circumstances are “serious”. That’s great and all. The trouble is, Rome are massive Pharisees in giving themselves an “out” for NFP, but then going and wagging the finger at everyone else for other methods. Either there is a potential “out” for multiple methods, or for none, at least as far what the Fathers say. The only reason to justify an “out” for one and not some others is purely one reason, and one reason only: Rome said so. Of course, nobody knows if they said so infallibly, so its all rather vague, and a few centuries from now will probably redefine it. No doubt Rome would provide some highly subjective and totally unjustifiable reasons for its stance, but they are just that: totally subjective.
“Contraception means not loving your neighbor (your spouse).”
Err…. says who? Do you think maybe your spouse might know that better than Rome? Or is Rome perhaps going to define that the man in the ditch was (unbeknownst to himself) perfectly happy there as the priest walked by, and the Good Samaritan, foolishly thought that the man might be able to know himself, he didn’t want to be there?
In my opinion Irene, this is not a good example of potential differences between solo and sola scriptura, because its far from clear that this is a realm that the Church operates in. Who should receive communion is clearly a matter for the church. The fine details of a couple’s sex life…. well, that’s not so clear. Not every opinion of the Fathers about how to live in the world is dogmatic. Augustine gave some opinions about when it is justifiable to go to war. It’s far as fine as it goes, but it’s not the last word and final authority on going to war. It’s just one man’s application of Christian principles, that is valuable, but not dogmatic.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: Well if Basil’s position is “seed form” only, what I really want to know is what distinguishes Basil’s seed form position, from that of the Orthodox Church today.
As far as I see, you are basically saying that the fathers were as a body, inconsistent and simply threw out there anything that would win the current argument. I’ll admit to you that there are one or two quotes problematic enough that one could occasionally take that stance. But to take as a general rule that all the ECFs simply had no consistent position, is just too ridiculous to me. Most of your quotes are quite simply understood as them saying that the scriptures ARE authoritative and DO resolve disputes, without excluding other sources of authority or other binding methods of resolving disputes.
And I have to also point out, that if the ECFs are in-toto THAT inconsistent, then tradition truly is totally worthless, and you really ought to go straight to solo scriptura.
But again, please tell me what is missing from Basil’s seed position, to bring us to full blown Eastern Orthodox teaching on authority?
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I’m not going off-topic with someone just looking to fight about anything and everything, so I’ll skip to the part of your comment that is relevant.
“In my opinion Irene, this is not a good example of potential differences between solo and sola scriptura, because its far from clear that this is a realm that the Church operates in. Who should receive communion is clearly a matter for the church. The fine details of a couple’s sex life…. well, that’s not so clear.”
This does coincide with the point I made earlier about there being a nuance in Sola Scriptura : that Christian Tradition must not apply in matters of morality and private life. So your approach to this issue is much like the Protestants’ approach —instead of letting Tradition inform your morality, you are using your own self-determined morality to interpret Tradition.
I think there is ample precedent in Scripture for the Church to judge sex life as proper or not. The authors of Scripture obviously didn’t think the bedroom was off limits. Besides writing on the nature of marriage itself, and the condemnation of Onan, Scripture forbids many practices that are offenses to nature, Nature’s God, and the dignity of humanity created in the image of God: homosexuality, incest, fornication, orgies, sodomy, adultery, and I’m probably forgetting a few others. People could have said: “Hey, those are my own private choices, and I’m not hurting anyone. “, but the Biblical authors had no qualms about extending their moral authority to the bedroom. It’s just our modern, arrogant sensibilities today that say, “Hey, Christian History doesn’t apply here. It’s fine to use our own judgements to set our own standards “.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: Using Aquinas as a support of Sola Scriptura?! Do you think we are dingbats? (:
Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225–1274)
“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8
Actually, this quote says nothing about supremacy of Scripture in the way you mean it. It says faith rests on *revelation* given to the apostles, and that those apostles wrote the Scriptures. It doesn’t equate Scripture with the fullness of revelation.
Actually, here is the root of Protestant/Catholic conflict on authority. “Where is authority?” is the visible tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface is the question, “What is revelation?” I think you could say that Protestants believe the books of Scripture are Revelation, right? But Catholicism teaches that Revelation is the Person Jesus. So that the Word of God is not primarily the Bible but the Son of God, Jesus. Then Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the means of transmission of the final Revelation, Jesus. It’s a subtle difference at the beginning that leads to big differences down the road. Don’t you think so?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: I loved the quotes from Athanasius and Augustine especially! Indeed the doctrine & authority of Holy Scripture is everything!
@John: I am reading Mathison’s book on sola Scriptura, and as I said, I am not going to comment directly here until I finish it. YOU brought the book up, pressing the issue (from Michael’s read). Maybe you too should READ it!
@Irene: As I have said, we know from Holy Scripture, itself, that Jesus Christ is both the Logos/Word “enfleshed”… St. John 1! And as I have said: HE is both the Logos and the Rhema!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, we simply MUST see that there is hardly consensus wholly among the Church Fathers on many things theological, and past Bishops, etc., as Augustine shows, with Athanasius. The Authority will always be the God-Breathed Scripture! (2 Tim. 3:16) And YES, that a Biblical Presupposition, Itself!
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I don’t see much difference from the Orthodox view on these things and that of magisterial Protestantism. In face, the joint declarations between the two over the last two decades reveal the same. So I could not argue that the quotes don’t also facilitate the Orthodox position.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene, it is not the word revelation that make the TA quote quotable here. It is its connection to “canonical books.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I think all would say that Jesus is revelation just as we would say that he is authority. The question is how is this revelation and authority mediated and, most importantly, how is it judged.
I have no problem with God speaking through a charismatic prophet, a church council, or a man called Pope. The question is not whether God has or can do that, the question is one of warrant. How or why am I warranted to believe that he has? I require the same demonstration that was demanded in Deut 13, 18, Jer 23, et al. So, I have no theological issue with the Pope, I just have no warrant, biblical, historical, or personal to believe such.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP: Indeed only a Pilgrim Church, but the Authority of a God-Breathed Scripture…OT to the New! Btw, I would with Luther and Calvin, as those “magisterial” Reformers still have a “theological” concern with the Papacy, myself!
Like or Dislike:
0
As too some aspects of certain of the EO, also!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: I read over those OT chapters you referenced, about false prophets which are not truly sent by God. (You’d have to admit the reformers could be seen in this light, too, if one were starting from a different perspective.)
I think about Jesus praying about sending the disciples in John 17.
“I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world…they have kept your word…for I have given them the words which you gave me, and they have received them…As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth…I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word…”
Here we have Jesus praying for his disciples, who have received the deposit of faith. And Jesus prays for those whom they convert through their word, that they all may be one. This is a different transmission of the deposit of faith than Scripture alone. I don’t have to tell you that most of the disciples didn’t write Scripture.
Moreover, the disciples and their successors (if for the sake of argument you will grant apostolic succession) are far, far from the false, uncharged, unsent prophets of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
You take this, and also take Matthew 16 under consideration, and “no Biblical warrant” is a strange thing to say.
Btw, don’t know exactly what you mean by “personal warrant”, but, as a personal witness, if you ever get the chance, you should read any of Benedict 16th’s “Jesus of Nazareth” series. They are excellent and highly acclaimed! –full of deep Christology. Fr.Robert, I know you are reading Mathison’s Shape of Sola Scriptura…..here’s a challenge: read Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth and see who YOU think has a better grip on the Revelation of Jesus Christ!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene, I’ve been have heartedly following this thread because I’ve been getting so many email alerts on it. I was just wondering what is your position on Scripture? If you have a disagreement with another Catholic or Protestant on issues of doctrine/faith what is the ultimate authority you use to mediate who is right or wrong on the issue?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene, I’ve been half heartedly following this thread because I’ve been getting so many email alerts on it. I was just wondering what is your position on Scripture? If you have a disagreement with another Catholic or Protestant on issues of doctrine/faith what is the ultimate authority you use to mediate who is right or wrong on the issue?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: I have been reading Ratzinger since he was the Prefect of Doctrine (90′s). He is rather “Augustinian” in places, but he still cannot shake that place of the “theologia gloriae”! Heck he’s a “Roman” Catholic theolog, and now pope of course. Perhaps the best “Roman” book on Razinger/Benedict’s idea of biblical theology is Scott Hahn’s book: Covenant and Communion. However, like Ratzinger I cannot accept fully ever the part of the Pastoral section of Vatican II! This is a theological nightmare! And would be for any true Augustinian and Calvinist!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi teleologist,
As a Catholic I believe that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, which the Church has no authority to contradict or to change.
If there is a dispute about matters of faith or doctrine with another Christian, I draw my positions from the official positions of the Church. It is very important to note, though — the Church does not have dogmatic positions on every little thing. And the Church does not have “official positions” on most verses of the Bible. There remains a lot of freedom in the Catholic Church, for intellectual debate and for spiritual expression. (And if the dispute is with a Protestant, I would use biblical, historical, and logical arguments.).
Hope that clarifies my position for you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, we should note that Hahn was once a Reformed Protestant theolog himself, and I would suspect is still something Augustinian? Note too, from the book (first edition hardback at least, of Hahn’s book – 2009), Covenant and Communion. That Mike Horton, W.S.C. Calif., read the book and wrote a positive bit for the book, on the dustjacket… “Even when one disagress with some of his conclusions, Benedict’s insights, as well as his engagement with critical scholarship, offer a wealth of reflection. In this remarkable book, Hahn has drawn out the central themes of Benedict’s teaching in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important theologian of our time.” I quoted the whole! This was generous to my mind! And I too read the book.
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr Robert,
What if it’s not that Hahn and Benedict are “Augustinian”?…………What if it’s that Augustine was “Roman”?
I had to tease you a little. (:
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I should have noted too, that Mike Horton is without doubt one of the foremost Reformed theologians today! And only somewhere in his 40′s I believe? See HIS large book: The Christian Faith, A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, (Zondervan, 2011). “Grand”, itself!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: Gotcha!
But, what if Augustine is really the first “Reformed Catholic theolog”? since St. Paul of course! 
Though old Tertullian was close in places, his Antitheses in God, is more Pauline to my mind!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw St. Paul was really the “Roman”!… Greco-Roman, Gal. 4:4-7! The doctrine of Adoption is based of course on Roman ideas and history, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
“As a Catholic I believe that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, which the Church has no authority to contradict or to change.”
Here is the essence of the sola Scriptura, the ‘ “principium cognoscendi,” the principle of knowing or cogntitive foundation of theology.’
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene, thank you for your direct response. I am not as familiar as others here on Catholicism so I just have some follow-up questions.
So your ultimate authority is the Church with the implication the Church is infallible in interpreting Scripture, is that correct? And if you ever find yourself in conflict with official Church positions then you must be in error in your understanding, is that correct? Then it must follow official Church position is always infallible regardless of how anyone else understands Scripture, is that correct? And if the official Church position is infallible then it follows that it should never change, is that correct?
So outside of the official Church positions how can any Catholics be certain of what they read in Scripture is correct? How can a Catholic know that she is not interpreting Scripture “out of convenience and personal preference” and without official Church positions on most verses people can “justify anything. It’s like looking at the clouds and seeing animals. People who want to can see justification for pretty much anything in Scripture (homosexuality, gay marriage, women priests, abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia, universalism, and the list keeps growing)” while claiming Scripture Alone is not the final authority rather that official Church positions of Scripture, alone is the final authority, is this correct?
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist
~My ultimate authority, like other Christians, would be God, with the implication that the church can be infallible when teaching on faith and morals. The distinction must be made between dogma and disciplines, and between theory and doctrine.
And if you ever find yourself in conflict with official Church positions then you must be in error in your understanding, is that correct?
~Correct.
Then it must follow official Church position is always infallible regardless of how anyone else understands Scripture, is that correct?
~If that official position is meant as an infallible teaching, then yes.
And if the official Church position is infallible then it follows that it should never change, is that correct?
~Correct. Infallible teachings do not change.
So outside of the official Church positions how can any Catholics be certain of what they read in Scripture is correct?
~The same way Protestants do: Biblical scholarship, Christian history, reason, and experience. But individuals do not have infallibility, of course.
How can a Catholic know that she is not interpreting Scripture “out of convenience and personal preference” and without official Church positions on most verses people can “justify anything….”?
~The Church doesn’t issue infallible statements just on Bible verses. (To my knowledge there is no example at all of the Church saying infallibly, 1 Corinthians 13:13 -or whatever verse- means such and such. The Bible is too deep for that.) The Church issues infallible teachings concerning the “deposit of faith”, which includes but is not exactly the same thing as Scripture. So for example, the Church preserves the idea that baptism effects forgiveness of original sin. If someone interprets Scripture to mean something else, they would be in error.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene: “So your approach to this issue is much like the Protestants’ approach —instead of letting Tradition inform your morality, you are using your own self-determined morality to interpret Tradition.”
(a) No more or less so that Rome, which says “go ahead and go against the fathers, provided you feel it is “serious”.
(b) There’s a MASSIVE difference between letting the Christian tradition “inform” morality, and trying to to legalise the Christian life.
For example, technically speaking, Rome teaches that if you deliberately miss mass, it is a mortal sin, and if you go under the bus, you will go to hell. That’s called being legalistic.
And… I never said “the bedroom is off limits”. What I said was, it is far from clear that the FINE DETAILS of a couple’s sex life is the realm of the church. Any more than the fine details of your workplace are the church’s realm. Obviously morality applies to the workplace as well as the bedroom, but not to the extent of prescribing fine details. Only that it should be done out of love in consideration of the Christian tradition.
Anyway, when Rome stops being hypocrites by allowing NFP, I’ll stop getting worked up about the irritating Pharisaicalism of RCs.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene,
Sound good but in practice unless you are in constant direct communication with God then we must rely on His revealed revelations in the confines of Scripture.
This is not true. Protestants believes all believers have been given the Holy Spirit to guide us to God’s truth. We are required to search the Scripture for all matters of faith and morals and not abdicate that responsibility to another fallible human being.
I am not sure anyone makes claim on infallibility on each verse of the Bible. But even the Catholic Church declares infallible dogmas based on Scriptural references right? Actually the point of my question was not whether the RCC needs to be infallible on every verse of the Bible. My point was since you’ve abdicated your ability to interpret Scripture and if the RCC does not have a stated position on an issue it would be impossible for you to be sure that your understanding is correct or not. The only thing you can be sure of is what the official stated dogmas of the Church is and your interpretation of those Church dogmas not Scripture. The fact to the matter is Roman Catholics do not need the Bible at all since you can’t be sure if you understand it correctly. All you can really need is to study the official Church dogmas through your catechisms isn’t that right?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: “John, I don’t see much difference from the Orthodox view on these things and that of magisterial Protestantism.”
Well Michael, when I read Mathison’s book, which you recommend, it sure sounds like that is true…
…BUT…
we then come back to the crux of the issue again, which is that I can’t understand AT ALL what “tradition” is supposedly acting as an authority for magisterial Protestants, or indeed any Protestants who want to make tradition the distinction between solo and sola.
I can’t understand it on two levels:
(a) The theoretical level, of what church supplies the required tradition. Orthodoxy has a very clear idea of where the church is from 0AD through to now based on apostolic succession. Without piggybacking off our definition of the church, where does magisterial Protestantism know from which church there is authoritative tradition?
(b) On the practical level. There are so many things that NO Protestants adhere to, but which were the practice and tradition of the universal church. There’s a few in the Basil quotes above (Facing east for prayer, making the sign of the cross, the words of consecration) that the Orthodox church still observes, but which I’ve never seen any protestants observe. So why should I take Protestants seriously on this? It sounds like just talk, but no substance.
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist “We are required to search the Scripture for all matters of faith and morals and not abdicate that responsibility to another fallible human being.”
No, we are not called to search the scriptures in isolation from everyone else. Searching the scriptures is a group activity.
1Cor. 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
“The fact to the matter is Roman Catholics do not need the Bible at all since you can’t be sure if you understand it correctly. All you can really need is to study the official Church dogmas through your catechisms isn’t that right?”
I won’t speak for Roman Catholics, but there is a hermeneutical spiral. You might read the scriptures and understand a lot, but then find that everyone else in the church understood bits differently to you. Then you need to put on the mind of the church and go back and read again with the phronema of the church. Only by continuing to work at this process can you be obedient to Paul’s exhortation of 1Cor 1:10.
The basic problem with Protestantism, is they have no sense whatsoever of the Church’s phronema. Therefore, there is continuous division. By framing the problem like you have in terms of “abdicating responsibility to a fallible human being”, what you’ve actually done is abdicate responsibility to just ONE fallible human being – YOURSELF!
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist: If you are interested in understanding the Catholic position in relation to Sola Scriptura, here’s an important point:
You used these 2 phrases in your comment (#21 on this page):
“His revealed revelations in the confines of Scripture”
and
“not abdicate that responsibility to another fallible human being”
You’ve made the same mistake that most Protestants reflexively make when exposed to Catholic theology. You assume that since Scripture is the Word of God, then the Word of God is “confined” there, and that all other authorities are only “fallible human” authorities. Now, from the Protestant point of view that is true. But is important to realize that Catholics believe the Church is NOT a mere human, fallible authority. Instead, Catholics believe the Church, more specifically the Magisterium. has been given a special stewardship and a special protection/grace FROM CHRIST. So it is inaccurate to say Catholics believe in a fallible human authority next to Scripture. (Even though you as a Prostestant may believe that to actually be the case.) I’ll phrase it another way for clarity. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is active not only within the written Word, but also within the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). So it is wrong to say that Catholics put their trust in mere humans to declare doctrine for them.
Also, in case you missed it, the current Theology Unplugged series is on Catholicism.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John,
You are wrong about this. Scripture just does not require that we must search Scripture in a group. It doesn’t exclude you from doing it in a group but it is not mandatory. Your use of 1Cor is just a gross misapplication of the Text. It is obvious in context Paul was talking about division due to people worship. People were dividing into groups against one another based on their allegiance to a person like Apollos, Paul, Peter, Pope, etc.
OTOH, (John 5:39) You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
(Acts 17:11) Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
(Psalm 1:1–2) Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
The first 2 Text may refer to singular or plural and Psalm is singular.
Like Irene you have also misunderstood the point I was making about the RC. If you abdicate your ability to determine truth and understanding in deference to the Pope contrary to your own, then your ability to take a stance must also be doubted.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Irene,
But you still have a problem. Is your belief in this “special stewardship” based on your study and understanding of Scripture or is it based on your faith in the Church’s teaching of this “special stewardship” in which case it would be circular. But if you’ve come to this understanding prior to the Church’s teaching that means you possess the ability to determine truth outside of the Church’s “special stewardship” and that would mean you should be able to determine truth that might be in conflict with the Church. But then that would nullify your belief in a “special protection”. And there lies your conundrum.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed also when we Protestants or Evangelicals use “Biblical scholarship (hermeneutical), Christian history, reason and experience.” We are often called doing “private ” or special interpretation, by Catholics and even the Orthodox. And this is quite ridiculous!
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist: “You are wrong about this. Scripture just does not require that we must search Scripture in a group.”
There is a subtle point of logic here. The scripture DOES require that you search it as a group. It does NOT require that you ONLY search it as a group. So your response really doesn’t help
Yes, 1Cor 1:10 is about people dividing. What do Protestants do continually if not divide continuously about scriptural interpretation?
1Cor 1:10 exhorts the believers agree and that there be NO DIVISIONS. None at all! Scriptural interpretation is clear, certainly it was clear to Paul, that this would be a source of division. You really have not addressed the text.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rock on @Tel, your #25 was very good! This is not rocket science, but our dependence on the Word of God! Love them Bereans!
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist:
“If you abdicate your ability to determine truth and understanding in deference to the Pope contrary to your own, then your ability to take a stance must also be doubted.”
Since I’m not RC, but Orthodox talking about the Pope doesn’t help.
The point you missed is the hermeneutical spiral. Just like you are influenced by commentaries, and your pastor and your bible study group, and all sorts of things, we all learn stuff about scripture and many times doubt our previous positions on interpretation. We don’t read the bible once, assume we know it all, and go from there.
So in that respect, “doubting” ourselves is something we do on both sides of the fence. The question becomes, what do we do when we doubt? Do we just get caught up in the wind of whoever is our current influence? Do we ignore all external wisdom?
What we as Orthodox say, is that we aim to acquire the phromema of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That means we are always trying to conform our interpretation to that of the Fathers, and the whole body of Christ. We are always trying to fulfil Paul’s exhortation of 1Cor 1:10, to have no divisions and to agree on everything.
Remember, it’s a spiral, not a case of the church over us, or us over the church. Rather we are constantly refining our understanding with the body of Christ. Scholastic comments like yours about deferring to the Pope over yourself or vice versa, don’t apply.
Like or Dislike:
0
One thing that people fail to realize (and the elephant in the room) is that everyone does private interpretation and ultimately realize on their on fallibility. Even Roman Catholic ultimately rely on their own interptretationof the Pope and the councils while are often very hard to interptretationof. Then they have to rely on their own fallible conclusions and beliefs that the Church is infallible. In other words, we all start with our own fallibility and our beliefs, whether in the church, councils, canon, or hermeneutic, are fallible! The search for infallibility in our beliefs is not only unnessecary but a vestage of a failed modernistic epistemology.
But take heart, one does not have to be infallible to have warrant or confidence in our beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0
And concerning the divisions. Yes there are divisions in the church visible. The wheat and tares show how this is and will be a fact of life until Christ comes.
But what every tradition and denomination which thinks it is the one true church and that it remains unified, this is quite naive. Many churches make that claim. However, from the outside looking in, all traditions are merely one of the thousands. The unbeliever does not see a unified church and that is never going to change. The one who adopts any particular tradition will always think that they have found the right church. But is unity is only relative to its own tradition!
Like or Dislike:
0
“is that everyone does private interpretation and ultimately realize on their on fallibility”
That’s why any authority model purely focused on unidirectional pronouncements is doomed to failure. Whether the pronouncements come from Pope or bible, the interpretive arguments go on. That’s why the Orthodox approach is unique focusing on the phenomena of the church, which is a process of continual dialogue and refinement by all concerned. The approach is not just “what does this document mean”, but about wholistically appropriating the faith of the church, and understanding scriptures and tradition in that framework. We assume the church has and always has had the true faith, and our aim is to appropriate it. Scripture is one tool for doing that.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, Amen. (Except for the implication that this is exclusive to Orthodoxy.)
Like or Dislike:
0
” But is unity is only relative to its own tradition”
But… You promoted Matheson as saying the difference between solo and sola is accepting the traditions. If traditions are just arbitrary: you’ve got yours, I’ve got mine, then you’re really solo scriptura.
Like or Dislike:
0
Not really. Tradition is not an institutional norm, but an interpretive norm that can and is found in many institutions/bodies. We are talking about the regula fide and canon veritas which is the regulating authority, not some body, institution, liturgy, pope, or theologian.
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen Michael! As I have stated with the Roman Catholic Council of Vatican II, which no one seems to know (or even really want to know) what it means, especially R. Catholics! Indeed a failed modernistic epistemology!
Btw, I have noted too, that Catholics or Orthodox don’t seem understand the whole “theologia gloriae”, or theology of glory. Which of course tends towards the talk of God in terms of His glorious attributes rather than in terms of God’s self-revelation in the cross & suffering.
Like or Dislike:
0
You’ve lost me Michael. Are you saying that “many institutions/bodies” have their own “interpretive norms” and the fact that they are often diametrically opposed to the ones in other bodies, doesn’t matter? Unless you are being totally post-modern, which I presume you are not, how are we supposed to know which interpretations we are duty bound as a Christian to follow?
Like or Dislike:
0
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty. What has been believed everywhere always and by all sort of limits the scope of agreement necessary. But the things that do correspond to the Vincentian Canon are those which preside authoritatively over the whole church. I know that there are problems and ignorance of this in every tradition, but we cannot judge the virtues of a tradition by only looking at the “worst of.”
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: believed everywhere, always and by all… WHO DOES THAT INCLUDE?
Does it include the Arians? Mormons? JWs? Marcionites? Adoptionists? Gnostics? Unitarians? Modalists? Where does it all end?
I can’t think of even one belief that comes under that category UNLESS we have an external, separate, objective mechanism to restrict the meaning of “ALL” to a reasonably identifiable group.
But perhaps you have the answer: who does the all include? How do we put boundaries around it? Because if you can’t, I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I’m concerned, Vincent was talking about within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, and I think we both know what the prevailing ecclesiology was at the time Vincent wrote, and thus we know what he meant by that. (hint, it wasn’t protestant ecclesiology).
Like or Dislike:
0
The Vincentian Canon is organic and self-regulating due to its grounding in the Great Tradition and the Scripture. Cults don’t fit due to the fact that they don’t believe cardinal truths that fit into the Vincentian Canon. I have written much about how to define the essentials of the regula fide, but it is not that hard to discover as the principles are pretty self-evident. However, as an illustration, it is not surprising that all three traditions (in their magisterial form) hold to the essence of the first seven councils. We could go on for days talking about our central points of agreement. However, don’t under estimate the fact that we all agree on the cardinal beliefs about the person and work of Christ. Christ seemed to suggest that it is very significant and an evidence of the presence of the Spirit when these beliefs are both orthodox and the focus of our time and thought.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael: Let’s step through this, shall we?
How do we know which interpretations and beliefs are authentic and central? The Vincentian Canon. Whose opinions count as far as the Vincentian canon? The people *I* like, aka, not the cults. Who are the cults? Well, those who don’t believe the cardinal truths. Which truths are cardinal? The ones that fit the Vincentian canon.
And thus we complete our circular reasoning. The Vincentian canon depends on knowing who is not a “cult”. Knowing who is a cult depends on knowing the object of the Vincentian canon.
You speak of “three traditions”. I know nothing of “three traditions”. I know of hundreds of traditions. Some bigger, some smaller. Rome is big. Orthodoxy is big. Anglicanism is sort-of biggish, but is so eklectic, I can’t identify what its traditions are. Anglicanism never existed prior to Henry the VIII. It’s former traditions aren’t its current ones (in general). Presbyterianism once was largish, but now is pretty minuscule. Pentacostalism once didn’t exist at all, but now is biggish, albeit without much in common to hold it together. Mormonism is pretty sizable, as is JWs. So which exactly are the “three”? How did you conclude that? How do traditions like Protestantism, and Mormonism get to be in or out of the “big three” when neither existed 500 years ago?
As for the seven councils, tell me about the icon veneration in YOUR church. I’m real curious.
Like or Dislike:
0
John,
Forgive me, but I think you are caught up in a modernistic ideal of having all you “I”s dotted and your “t”s crossed. This is both unnecessary and outside of the biblical mandates. Even Paul expresses this in Romans 14.
This search for indubidibility has always baffled me coming from the Orthodox who’s calling card in epistemology had been rather apophadic, appreciating the mystery of God. Who said the church had to be perfect? There are things of “first importance” as Paul plainly said in 1 Cor 15.
Finding the essentials is not too difficult. If it were hopeless without a living authority or a regulating council, then every term and concept on earth would be beyond definition. The idea of America is a good example. Is America only America when people agree on every detail? Can it be redefined on the whim of national “cults” or can it regulate itself? What does marriage mean? What does it mean to be good parents with regard to education? What does it mean to be a good worker? And a thousand other things that we trust to self regulate. Every area has a regula fide and an implied Vincention Canon. We have the basic foundation and it is up to us to keep things regulated through many epistemically factors of checks and balances.
Like or Dislike:
0
Concerning the way to define essentials and non-essentials, here is a guide: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/06/essentials-and-non-essentials-in-a-nutshell/
Like or Dislike:
0
“How did you conclude that? How do traditions like Protestantism, and Mormonism get to be in or out of the “big three” when neither existed 500 years ago?”
Forgive me, but isn’t this a good illustration of question begging. I will have to assume that it is.
Like or Dislike:
0
“As for the seven councils, tell me about the icon veneration in YOUR church. I’m real curious.”
I think you are following the letter rather than the spirit here. However, I don’t mind conceding this council as being less binding (as I would the 15 following accepted councils of the Roman Catholic Church and the “Robber’s Council”—don’t get me started on the implications of that one! It may have very well been allowed by God to show that we don’t hold on to these ropes of Tradition TOO tightly—but that is for another time!)
Like or Dislike:
0
I think you’ve wandered off the track Michael. This is not purely a matter of non-essentials, it impacts things like the Trinity, things that your own article lists as “essential for Orthodoxy”.
Look, if you want to say “I’m a SOLO scripturaist, I think, based on my bible reading, that A, B, C are essential and also true”, then I’d say fine, well that’s an argument for another day.
.. but NO, you’ve gone down this other path, that says its not just me and my bible under a tree, but we have to look to the Vincentian canon. Now how am *I* begging the question, by asking how come we need to recognize some kind of “Big Three”, and that Protesetantism (not Mormonism, not Jehovah’s witnesses) are part of said three? This is massive question begging on your part. How is it question begging on my part to ask for justification?
I looked at your “Essentials and non-Essentials” article, but it begs the exact same question by referring to “three traditions” and “all traditions”, seemingly completely ignoring things like Mormonism, Unitarianism and a whole host of things that simply don’t fit your model. Nor will you tell us why the older two traditions – Rome and Orthodoxy, ought to consider yourself and Protestantism into the category of “historic christianity”.
Again, your “finding the essentials is not difficult” thing, I find absurd. Things my tradition considers to be absolutely foundational and important, are considered by your tradition to be heretical. Things both our traditions consider foundational are heretical to Mormons and JWs. Again, if you want to retrograde back to SOLO scriptura and say oh well, your interpretation says these guys are OK, these other guys are cults”, then fine. But as long as you keep up the pretence that sola scriptura is different, I want you tell me how.
It’s not about crossing Ts and dotting Is. This is about foundational issues.
Now the 7th council is “less binding”?What percentage binding is…
Like or Dislike:
0
John, I don’t think that this is getting off track. This is a wonderful conversation that needs to happen more often. I also think that people need to hear themselves says some things out loud in public settings. It produces the sting of implications much better than a forum like this can provide. All that to say forgive me if I am not able to engage in this at every point and turn. There are so many assumptions that you bring to the table that need to be unpacked. I don’t even know where to begin to deprogram you!
However, maybe these two questions will help is to cut to the chase in a responsible manner:
1. Do you believe there are issues of the faith that are more important than others?
2. Do you believe that someone can be saved and live a fruitful Christian life outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Like or Dislike:
0
It feels like I’ve been trying to nail you down on this issue for a few years now Michael, and it sounds like today isn’t going to be the day either.
Not sure why you want me to answer those two questions, especially in this thread.
(1) Yes, but probably my list is going to be a lot different to yours.
(2) Depends to what extent you happen to accidentally stumble into the Orthodox faith.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do you read the church fathers regularly? If so, what translation and publisher do you use?
Like or Dislike:
0
I read them from time to time. I read them more when I was a Protestant. A slow awareness crept over me that the mindset and teaching of the church fathers was what I was reading about in the Orthodox church. I think you acquire the same information from just being in the Orthodox church and absorbing as you do from actually reading the fathers. There mostly is only one English translation, is there not?
Like or Dislike:
0
@John,
Your logic is flawed. If you ARE required to study as a group then it cannot NOT require to only study as a group. These 2 statement cannot both be true. A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Furthermore even your statement that Scripture DOES require you to search It as a group is false.
Your used of 1Co 1:10 is a gross misapplication for your required group search of Scripture. Can you point out anywhere in 1Co 1 where it said their division was over points of doctrine? OTOH, as I’ve said earlier, it is crystal clear that their division was over human allegiance and status. Do you not understand about context? You cannot just latch on to verse 10 in isolation and twist it to your own desire. So I have addressed the Text of 1Co 1:10 but you did not address the 3 other Text that I gave you to support individuals study of Scripture.
One more point on this I suspect you are in violation of your own claim that we must search Scripture as a group. My guess is that you probably are not engage in this discussion by searching Scripture as a group right now are you? Do you have a group of Orthodox Christians around you right now searching the Scripture with you to come up with 1Co 1:10 as your argument? I doubt it. So you are searching the Scripture individually in contradiction to your own claim.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John #30, I am not sure what you are disputing here because I don’t necessarily disagree with much of what you said and I don’t think I claim otherwise. The only disagreement I have with you is when you return to your erroneous understanding of 1Co 1:10.
So essentially you agree with the RC on this in that regardless of whatever you think the Scripture might be saying on any given issue, if it is at variance to the Apostolic Church you will moderate you views to conform to Church doctrine in order to avoid division. If this is really what the Apostolic Church believes then why don’t you all change your views and unite with the Roman Catholic Church so that there will not be any division.
More importantly why should anyone conform to the Church for the sake of unity when you sincerely believe the Church is at odds with Scripture. Would it not be more noble to say as Luther did “Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience.”
Like or Dislike:
0
@teleologist: “Your logic is flawed. If you ARE required to study as a group then it cannot NOT require to only study as a group.”
I didn’t say it required to ONLY study as a group. I said it required you to study as a group and agree on everything. You can also study other ways, as long as you also do this.
” Can you point out anywhere in 1Co 1 where it said their division was over points of doctrine?”
When Paul says there should be “no divisions” does he give an exception for doctrine? Yes or no? Is it your contention Paul was content for there to be divisions over doctrine, contrary his statement?
“you did not address the 3 other Text that I gave you to support individuals study of Scripture.”
I don’t need to address them because I have no problem with individual study.
”
So you are searching the Scripture individually in contradiction to your own claim.
”
Never made such a claim, so your argument is moot.
“So essentially you agree with the RC on this in that regardless of whatever you think the Scripture might be saying on any given issue, if it is at variance to the Apostolic Church you will moderate you views to conform to Church doctrine in order to avoid division.”
Basically, because (among other reasons) it is unlikely the one is right against the many.
“If this is really what the Apostolic Church believes then why don’t you all change your views and unite with the Roman Catholic Church so that there will not be any division”
(A) Rome is not in the apostolic church, so it does not apply.
(B) Rome doesn’t follow that rule, so if we did that, we would no longer have a church that followed the rule.
(C) Rome only needs one man to change his mind (the pope), but we need many. The reason for our differences are because of the one man changing his mind. Therefore, the solution is for him to change it back.
Like or Dislike:
0
”
More importantly why should anyone conform to the Church for the sake of unity when you sincerely believe the Church is at odds with Scripture”
I never said any such thing!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
JOHN,
I think you have taken this as far as you can go. You should only exchange information with people who are sincere about getting closer to God and learning about the ancient Faith, vs. with folks who use this as an intellectual excercise simply to be a polemic debater.
As you know, the reason there are very few “Orthodox blogs” is because our time is better spent in prayer and repentence.
Having said that, we are called to evangelize, and you did an excellent job in presenting Orthodox doctrine & theology.
CMP,
Orthodoxy is not a religious philosophy. It is a real, mystical, personal relationship with the true Holy Trinity.
I’m afraid that I don’t think that you are sincere in learning about Orthodoxy. I’m guessing that you haven’t even been to an Orthodox Matins and Divine Liturgy on a Sunday. If so, that’s a little like saying that you really want to know about chocolate but you’ve never had a chololate bar. Orthodoxy must be experienced.
These church fathers that you quoted were all first monks, and then later bishops of the Church. They spent years on the path towards God. The exact spiritual path that they followed is now called “Eastern Orthodoxy”.
Glory to God for all things
Like or Dislike:
0
GKC on SS
“To this
I owe the fact that I find it very difficult to take some of the
Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has
been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the
everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the
Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost
arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The
ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the
supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a
procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their
object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high
head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying
scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and
lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or
cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all
hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation,
breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up
the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might
express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your
croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls
and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable
frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the
scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always
belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was
hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say
that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only
truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why
should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the
statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as
reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of
that particular creed? To say…
Like or Dislike:
0
To say to the priests, “Your statues and
scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say,
“Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to
worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not
sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
Like or Dislike:
0
@Pete: It is simply very unfair to make such subjective statements to Michael! HE has been very long suffering with the Orthodox here! And as I have quoted from Serguis Bulgakov, Orthodoxy is not really a “confessional” appeal for Christian faith, at least the EO don’t use their creedal confessions as such, though they are certainly and strangely “dogmatic”. Perhaps, and this is my opinion, the EO are inconsistent in their use of reason and apologetics? Something to think about! And indeed Christian Mysticism simply must be pressed upon biblical, theological and dogmatic lines, and most certainly with both the Pauline and Johannine lines! Note, even in the Synoptic Gospels, we can see this mystery… Matt. 11: 25-27, etc. So, there is really more theological agreement with all of our best Christian confessions, both East & West!
Like or Dislike:
0
Pete,
You may want to spend a little more time in repentance as the assumptions you have made about me are all wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP: Indeed! One wonders why the Orthodox think “they” alone can be the “visible” infallible church? Tradition alone or by itself is never the truth. Who can honestly think the or any historical church could ever be infallible? As real history bears out! As I have often quoted him, even John Paul II admitted: “The mystery of the Church”, its “invisible dimension”, is “larger than the structure and organization of the Church”, which are “at the service of the mystery.” But, then he was not from “Orthodoxy”, but he was often very honest theologically! But again, I must note the lack of the Vatican II Council being wholly theologically defined! Indeed the Church Catholic is really a Pilgrim Church and Body, and never has been infallible. A tough pill but one we all must swallow! But surely let us love the whole Church Catholic & Universal! It always hard to love the whole Church, warts and all!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Pete
It seems odd if you are accusing me of engaging in polemic debates. Isn’t that what you and John are also doing? Isn’t it obvious? I am not hiding the fact that I am trying to defend what I believe and why I believe it and you and John are doing the same thing. It is also true that I don’t have the depth of knowledge that John and others have on E. Orthodox but from what I know and what has been expressed here I find it lacking. And going into more in depth detail study of the nuances of E. Orthodox can’t change the basic core beliefs of your faith. I might be interested in learning more about EO if the basis and epistemology of your faith wasn’t so flawed. But you are right like other EO that I know a little bit of mysticism covers a multitude of sins. When in doubt just fall back on the mystical nature of your faith.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
You are 100% right!
Luckily I go to confession regularly! (more accurately called the mystery of reconciliation) Maybe more than anyone else in my church. Ooops, that’s bragging.
Now of course, I can’t go to confession without knowing that you and I are personally reconciled. From your smiley face, I’ll assume that there are no hard feelings?
My tradition of confessing to the Church, in the church, is 2,000 years old. On the other hand, I find it…I don’t know, incomplete?…that your confession consists of blogging past sins into the web, only because you do it over and over again…so I fear that there is no closure and healing?
Ancient Christianity provides believers with a method of confession that truly heals their soul. All of the church fathers that you quoted above were regular participants of this mystery.
Like or Dislike:
0
“..that your confession consists of blogging past sins into the web, only because you do it over and over again…so I fear that there is no closure and healing? ”
Ouch!! That hurt in many ways.
Closure came at the cross. Posting about my sin is “being a sinner and sinning boldly.” There is a definite pastoral purpose to my public transparency. Paul, in Romans 7, is my example. I am so glad he wrote about his struggles. I don’t think he did it because he could not absolve his guilt. He did it because his guilt was taken care of.
When Christ said “It is finished” it was finished for you, me, and everyone who trusts in him. Continue in your confession, but consider that it has no bearing on your position in God’s family. He is not so fickle with his chosen sons and daughters.
Like or Dislike:
0
Fr Robert: “Who can honestly think the or any historical church could ever be infallible? ”
All Christians treat the church as functionally infallible. The only point of dispute is in the details.
How often do you hear in church “I think the church made a mistake about the canon, and such and such book should be kicked out, and such and such book should be added” ??? I’ll wager, you never heard it. You might hear the occasional naval gazing Protestant theologian say that the canon is a “fallible list of infallible books”, but out in the real world, nobody takes the “fallible” part – aka, the part the Church informs us of, seriously.
And frankly, this whole thread, amounts to a Protestant claim for an infallible church. We’ve basically been told that the Vincentian canon, that the supposed core things of the faith, like the Nicean creed, cannot be questioned. They are some kind of “authentic” and “core” tradition, that is authentically important in small-o orthodox Christianity. That means such things are functionally infallible, even if Protestants want to to pretend otherwise.
If you want to back off into solo scriptura, and abandon the distinction to solA scriptura, be my guest. If not, face up to the fact you think the church is infallible. Our side of the fence is open about what we are saying. Your side is talking in contradictions.
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, I, along with most good NT exegetes who are evangelicals, disagree with one minor point in the Nicene Creed. So, John, what you have said can’t be true. Same thing with the first line of the Athanasian Creed. But 1) the disagreements are minor (there is a regula fide even within the Great Creeds) and 2) I don’t wear my disagreements on my sleeve as they make no difference to the kerugma of the Creeds.
Like or Dislike:
0
I welcome the right to personal disagreements with the Bible and tradition as it is only in the wrestling match of faith that we come to warranted and real faith. Blind following of a church, institution, creed, or canon does not honor God (unless you are a presuppositionalist who believes that all aspects of our faith are properly basic!).
We don’t need the church, creed, or Bible for our faith to be true. We just need for God to become incarnate and have mercy on us through atonement. How we epistemologically get there is relative to God’s plans. And this is the only place our current struggle lies.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP:
What do you believe was the state of the Scriptural canon at the time of this St Vincent?
Like or Dislike:
1
Well, the Athanasian creed doesn’t have the weight of the Nicean creed. I’m not sure what you take issue with in the Nicean creed, but in the realm of extra-biblical tradition, nothing is quite so universal or so weighty as the Nicean creed. So if you can reject that, one has to ask how you are not solo scriptura? Just because YOUR interpretation of scripture broadly agrees with the Nicean creed and YOUR interpretation of scripture agrees (so you claim) with the important bits of the traditional Christian faith?
But that’s not sola scriptura. That’s solo scriptura with the happy coincidence that you don’t disagree with as many people on as many issues as you possibly might. How are you not solo scriptura?
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, seeing as how the Pauline corpus, all four Gospels, and Acts (almost 90% of the NT canon) was already canon by the end of the first century, by the time of Vincent, it was even more stable. So, the canon along with the Gospel was close to as stable as it is now. Sure, people could refer to deserters, just like I can now, but it was very stable. There is going to be some new discoveries soon which will continue to evidence this.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: YOU really are caught in your OWN polemic here! WE must beware of putting words and ideas of our own into other peoples thinking, in our debate with others, especially on the theological issues from the other side! And it seems you also are stuck in the whole sola Scriptura and so-called solo scripture! Again, you simply MUST read Mathison’s book here! Again sola Scriptura is not just Scripture alone or Scripture only!
And I guess you have never heard of Luther’s idea of or about the Canon? He surely did not like the Book or Letter of James! And we should confess that some Books or Letters of the Bible are certainly more important than others! Even with the full doctrine of biblical inspiration.
Like or Dislike:
0
I should have been more specific. I meant the Old Testament. It seems the Protestant Old Testament Canon is not in following the Vincentian Rule.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr Robert. Well Luther was a bit of an anomaly. I would have thought an embarrassing anomaly as far as the canon. I mean, if you are promoting Luther’s canonical meanderings as acceptable here, it seems you have gone past regular SOLO scriptura, into something even more individualistic still, where you even get to pick what is scripture, let alone debate how to interpret it. So why mention such an ultra-individualistic position simultaneously with speaking in glowing terms of Mathison, who takes a position way on the opposite end where the church gets to decide authentic interpretation?
For that matter, why accuse me of not understanding that sola scriptura is NOT just scripture alone, just after I accused you of being a Protestant who really underneath it all, believes in the infallibility of the church?
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, let me again recommend Kruger’s book: Canon Revisited, Establishing The Origins And Authority of the New Testaments Books. See chapter 3, ‘My Sheep Hear My Voice, Canon as Self-Authenticating’… “God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word….Scripture is indeed self-authenticated. Francis Turretin agrees: “Thus Scripture, which is the first principle in the supernatural order, is known by itself and has no need of arguments derived from without to prove and make itself known to us.” And as Herman Bavnick argues also that Scripture it itself its own “first principle”. “Scripture’s authority with respect to itself depends on Scripture.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I am really prima Scriptura, but that is technicality in terminology that is too little for me to have to explain.
Think of it this way. If my parents, as an authority, tell me to go to Walmart on 33 and buy some 99 cent wonder bread. But I go to the Walmart on tenth and buy .89 cent wonder bread because along the way I see the special that they did not know about.
I have respected their authority and followed the spirit of the command. Solo Scriptura would say “I don’t care that they said to get bread, much less Wonder bread. I will decide without them what we need.” I don’t need to strain out gnats if the makes me forget the weightier things of the law.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: I can see you are kicking against the pricks, I do like Luther, and somewhat agree with him, as I said, that some books are more important than others, even within the Canon. And accusing me of believing in some idea of church infallibility is quite ridiculous! That is your error, certainly! YOUR logic and knowledge of Holy Scripture (exegetically and humeneutically), is surely flawed! Sorry mate, but that’s the way I see it! But of course I have biblical presuppositions, and you do not!
Like or Dislike:
0
*hermeneneutically
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael “But I go to the Walmart on tenth and buy .89 cent wonder bread because along the way I see the special that they did not know about.”
It’s hard to believe you are married Michael. When it comes to your wife’s shopping list, you ought never deviate in the slightest detail.
The trouble I see Michael, is while I am sympathetic to the idea of getting the big picture right, and not getting hung up on details, and I’d have to say that Orthodoxy is not an ultra-dogmatic expression of Christianity (like Rome, or say the WCF), your brand of Christianity Michael, deviates a long long long way from what say the Church fathers considered to be important and central. Perhaps your quibble with the Nicean creed really is a gnat. You didn’t tell me, so I can’t comment. But knowing you are a Protestant, I know that you’ve swallowed some camels, relative to what the universal church believed circa 400AD, and what they considered to be gnats vs camels.
I think we’re back to the situation that you are really solo scriptura. Sure, you speak approvingly of a lot of church tradition. Big deal, I actually like reading the Watch Tower sometimes. But its just happy coincidence when you line up with historical Christian tradition. A coincidence that derives from your interpretation of scripture. It’s not based on you actually giving authoritative weight to tradition. It might occasionally sway you by sheer weight of numbers, or perhaps even the faux respectability of antiquity, but not actual authority.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr Robert, I agree different books in the canon have differing importance. Since Orthodox by tradition stand for the Gospel, but are permitted to sit for the epistle, you don’t have to lecture me on that. But I don’t see the relevance here. Luther seemed to go well beyond merely ranking books in importance. When he said of Revelation “My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”, he seems to be outright rejecting it.
And I fail to see how you could have “biblical presuppositions” prior to the church letting you know what the bible actually is. You didn’t sit under a tree with 10,000 books, and pick for yourself 27 that by amazing providence are the same 27 books as me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Seeing as how I have the only coffee shop in the world that is dedicated to church history, and a love for tradition, I will have to continue to reject your solo Scriptura designation!
But I do concede that there are some really difficult issues for me to overcome in tradition. While we all have big difficulties working through the odd an smilies of the church fathers, sola fide presents the most difficult (certainly not sola Scriptura). But, I don’t think it is too difficult to overcome. Thomas Oden’s A Justification Reader is a good place to start there.
Either way, aside from the implication of insincerity, this has been an amazing conversation and I thank you for your commitment, scholarship, and love for our Saviour.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: Perhaps we both have been seeking a bit of lecturing!
After all I am an old theolog! Btw, I have been reading Mathison’s book: The Shape of Sola Scriptura, and so far its simply very good! So the challenge is back to you on that!
And indeed, you don’t seem to have a clue here to the theological biblical presupposionalism, of course this is more of a Reformed premise. As from the work and theology of Cornelius Van Til. He was simply a great Christian, and also knew the Church Fathers. John Frame’s book: Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of His Thought is a great place to start! Another challenge!
Btw, as much as you are sold on Orthodoxy, I am perhaps the same with certain aspects of the Reformed Theology, and certainly Sola Scriptura! So I guess we are even! I am most certainly a fan of both the Luther and Calvin, as theirs works! Calvin studies are certainly alive these days!
The point I am stating is that the Reformed Theological Ascent, is simply profound, and Apostolic!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, love Oden’s book: A Justfication Reader!
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, I’ve read excerpts of Mathison on amazon.com, and other excerpts from other places. Maybe you will tell me something to entice me to buy the whole book? As far as I see, the premise is flawed for the reasons stated.
I didn’t read Van Til directly, but I read a lot of stuff about presuppositionalism. I remain to be fully sold. If its all founded on a presupposition, then whose presupposition is right? Why not presuppose down to the Nth degree that King James bible is the inspired word of God? Or that Rome is the true church?
I used to be sold on Reformed theology. But never so sold that I was unaware or unappreciative of the opposing arguments. That was always the problem of being a Protestant. I’m too fair minded to not be able to see the opposing arguments, and to be able to see the presuppositions upon which they rest. I was always one good argument away from changing theology and/or changing churches.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John
Because that would be like beating an omelet with a sledgehammer. Presuppositionalism is foundational.
Like or Dislike:
0
teleologist: “Because that would be like beating an omelet with a sledgehammer.”
Err.. that’s not the most rigorously logical argument I ever heard. Especially if this is the very bedrock of your religion.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John
What logical argument are you talking about? I was making an analogy not a logical proposition. Just as you didn’t understand the law of non-contradiction, you don’t understanding presuppositionalism. You think presuppositionalism is the “bedrock of your religion”? Are you kidding me? Presuppositionalism is an apologetic framework from which one can use to explain the epistemological approach of a system of thoughts. Another approach would be Classical Apologetics and within these 2 frameworks there are subcategories as to how they are used. I personally would prefer something more synthetic like evidential rational presuppositionalism.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Tel., Indeed John just doesn’t get Presuppositionalism, that’s quite obvious with his rather poor examples. And we don’t want to play the presup off or against the evidential, they both have their place. But the presuppositional authority of Holy Scripture is its own evidence. I have been reading Van Til for years (as his great student John Frame), and yes we need to move beyond just metodology, to showing how the presuppositions of Holy Scripture reveal everything for what is truly in relation to God. And here of course people like Gerg Bahnsen (RIP), and R.C. Sproul are also very helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr R, I don’t necessarily disagree with you except I think Sproul is more on the evidential side. I see merits in both these approaches and hence I label myself as an evidential rational pressuppositionalist. Some might argue that is analogous to the mythical 3point Calvinist
but currently that’s where I stand.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: One cannot read “excerpts” of anything to get the full picture! So again, the Mathison book on Sola Scripturia is the challenge! It does appear to be the best and most indepth work to date. Note, it is a Canon Press book, Moscow Idaho. The place of Leithart and company!
Btw, it seems you might be a rather new convert to the EO? I was part of an Anglican and Orthodox dialogue group many years back now, sadly this has basically gone to naught with the mess of Anglicanism now. And not too many years back, I came close to going with the EO, but in the end, their lack of both the doctrines of Imputation and Adoption were just too central! However, as I have mentioned many times I do generally follow with them on the Trinity of God, and some Christology. I did get to hear Timothy Ware lecture once, in England years back now. And I have my share of EO books and authors still. Btw, let me suggest two Western books on the EO, Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective, 2007, by Robert Letham. And just a bit earlier is Donald Fairbairn’s book: Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes, 2002.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Tel., That’s fine, I am always a rather “eclectic” Reformed guy myself, but of course I am an Anglican Calvinist
, see the Irish Articles 1615. Note, I am a Historic Pre-Mill, so I am not bound by any Reformed hermeneutic, by and of itself! See here one of my old fav’s in the American Gordon Clark, as too Francis Schaeffer.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr R, one of these days I just might have to head back to CA to pick your brain and share a meal. I am fascinate by the depth and diversity of your knowledge. Cheers old chap.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Tel., Well thanks mate, and I enjoy too yours as well! It comes with living I hope also? I have had my share of life experience too. But indeed we are on the same page as Reformational and Reformed! The Sovereignty of God is more than a definition, when one encounters God In Christ, from both GOD’s Transcendence and Immanence, WE are never the same!
Btw, with my wife’s health condition (chronic COPD), we are now here in S. California (last several years). But Canada (Victoria?) might be our next and more permament home? God’s good will be done!
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: As you can see I am a reader! And I was thinking of a Peter Leithart book you might find of interest? It is his book: Deep Exegesis, The Mystery of Reading Scripture. I don’t always agree with Leithart, but he is always worth the read! And note, the Orthodox Andrew Louth gives a positive note on the back of this book.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr R, Amen on sovereignty and Calvinism. Well my life experience might not be as rich and full as yours but I was in a cult for over 20yrs and whom the Son sets free is free indeed. Which might explain my aversion to cede my relationship with the living God and Savior to some Pontiff or tradition is anathema to me. Been there done that and have my scars to show for it.
Yes, I remember you mentioning about your wife’s condition, may our Lord of grace and love be gracious to you and keep you well with the time we have left in this temporal realm. And Victoria and BC are nice, I especially like the Canadian Rockies, IMO it is more scenic and majestic than our Rockies.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tel., Thanks for your thoughts & prayers! Indeed my wife is “my flesh” In Christ, and I love her more than words can say! And BC, Victoria, and parts around is almost “heaven” on earth! We shall see if God puts us there?
Btw, the most important thing is that our experience is “ours”! And no one can take it from us, or understand it but God alone! Your history with Christ is YOU/Yours! I can see also that your time and experience with and in God’s sovereign hand, are really “our” blessing too! Thanks to share and teach us! (I got a few “scars” meself! And “Catholicism” – the old Irish version – is there certain!) By God’s grace I survived the Irish Nuns!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr Robert: Depends if you count 7 years as being a recent convert.
Yes, I struggled with the issue of imputation as understood by Protestants. Because Protestantism rams that into you so hard as the centre of everything, and… it’s taught in the bible, isn’t it? Well, somewhere I’m *sure* it is, because it was so central to my thinking. But when I went looking for it, I realised it was more about my interpretive grid. That’s the issue that really taught me something deep about the incredible power over the mind that interpretive grids have. Once people fall into the hole of one of these compelling grids, it’s incredibly hard to climb out again.
Like or Dislike:
0
@John: Aye, seven years is a getting to know each other, yet! I have shoes and jackets older than that!
Awe OUR “interpretive grid”, that’s code for the East! Note “eisgesis”…looking into, rather from “out +”, exegesis! It’s quite often a fine and hard line, but one we must seek, as biblical interpreters!
Like or Dislike:
0
And John, ya know I am kidding somewhat! About the former!
Like or Dislike:
0
*eisegesis
Like or Dislike:
0
This link might be helpful?
http://www.spirithome.com/bible_exegesis.html#eisegesis
Like or Dislike:
0
What a hoot. Just read through many of these post, yet each starts off in error right off the bat due to one little truth. The Early Church Fathers that are quoted held several different books as scripture that the others may or may not also have held, some of which are not considered in the canon today. Yet, even then, the Holy writings are not limited to what is in what is called the Bible, as there are many writings that though they are not held to the same esteem as the Gospels, the Psalms, the Epistles, etc., are still valuable. Good luck folks on your journey and may God grant you disillusionment.
More Comments: