Posted on 12/16/2006 5:18:34 AM PST by NYer
If I am following you correctly, then I agree generally. Sola Scriptura has nothing against learning from and teaching to ... others. The point is just that both are done faithfully and in accordance with scripture.
I would have to ask you to refresh my memory on my discussion of "personal spirits". What I have said elsewhere is that the Holy Spirit does lead all believers, but not necessarily at the same rate. Sanctification is a life-long process, and I am not inclined to think that any one of us gets "all of it" while we are here. I think some people are intended to get more than others, hence one result is that we have our human spiritual leaders, in every Christian faith.
By no means is every believer's current understanding valid on a particular thing. Even while saved, I have changed my views on some things. I think that just makes me like everyone else.
If someone wanted to seriously argue with me that scripture teaches that Christ had children, then I would use Sola Scriptura to pummel him into the ground. It would be simple. If that person still didn't agree, then he could not follow Sola Scriptura. In THIS CASE, the result would be simple and clear. I do not claim it is so in every case. I do disagree on some points with others who faithfully follow Sola Scriptura. That is the Spirit working on us in different ways. I am sure I am wrong on some of those points.
I've seen several definitions of it, some I like better than others. I don't think there is any one that is "official". The elements I always look for are that the scriptures are the one and final authority in Christianity, that if something is not in scripture doesn't make it false, it just makes it non-authoritative in an ultimate sense, and finally, that truths consistent with Sola Scriptura may be logically deduced from scripture when they are not explicitly stated. One definition I kind of like (with scriptural references) is in 1.6 of the Westminster Confession:
6) The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation faith, and life, is either expressly set down in the scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scripture: to which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. 2Ti 3:15-17 Ga 1:8,9 2Th 2:2. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; Joh 6:45 1Co 2:9-12, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. 1Co 11:13,14 14:26,40.
"Again, it depends on who "the Church" is."
FK, we have a definition of The Church from the 1st century, from the disciple of +John and successor of Peter as bishop of Antioch:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
FK: "But even if it was the RCC, then that puts your hierarchs ahead of scripture itself, because they would not allow scripture to interpret itself, as we contend. However, no RC has ever admitted to me to holding this view. I do not understand how a hierarchy of men can say they have 100% power over the meaning of every verse in a book, and then say that their authority is no higher than the book. That seems very contradictory to me."
If the fullness of The Church universal is found in a single diocese made up of a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, his clergy and the People of God centered on the Eucharist (which would clearly leave out Protestant ecclesial assemblies) as +Ignatius would have us believe, then it is clear that the "power" to interpret scripture properly and declare its true meaning infallibly belongs to The Church and not to any individual priest, hierarch or lay person or for that matter anything less than all of these groups together. In this sense, at least so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, the Latin Church gradually got it wrong as its ecclesiology became increasingly monarchial and less synergistic. It is interesting, both historically and theologically, to note that the Church of Rome was the great fount of Orthodoxy for the first 1000 years of The Church. It was only when this monarchial mentality reached the point where Rome presumed, in the person of the pope, to change the Creed with the addition of the filioque, something which it had refused for centuries to do, and then attempted to impose that innovation on The Church, that the rest of The Church said NO! That lead to the Great Schism where the pope's man purported to "excommunicate" the Pat. of Constantinople. Very soon thereafter, unfettered by the influence of the other Patriarchates, the Dictatus Papae appeared which speaks volumes about the mindset which had developed in the Roman Church. It was pretty much downhill from there with the Protestant Reformation being the result. The early reformers, as you know, held on to many of the Holy Traditions of The Church, as the Nativity thread demonstarted, but gradually, in an effort to be "not Roman Catholic", protestantism devolved into a confused babble of contending, very personal, very individual interpretations of what God really intended for us when He created us and how we get there. In the meantime, the Roman Church became increasingly legalistic and, dare I say the word, oppressive, though it certainly is and always has been part of The Church because it is impossible for it to ever have been otherwise. The fact that its popes or local councils may have promulgated error doesn't change that any more than from a Roman point of view, Orthodoxy's refusal to accept as dogmatic Rome's post schism (or for that matter the pre schism local council or sua sponte papal)pronouncements means the Orthodox Churches are not part of The Church.
The point of this whole screed is that, as you said, the proper definition of The Church is the sine qua non of any understanding of how we come to, as best we can, know and understand The Truth. It comes from The Church, FK, and I must say that as the various protestant ecclesial assemblies do not meet the definition of The Church (in fact, most of them very nicely fit the definition of heretical assemblies found in +Ignatius' letters), the whole idea that by a faithful adherence to sola scriptura any individual can properly and definitively interpret scripture is merely a cover for not being in The Church.
As BAC pointed out, I believe on another thread, this is not to say that the faithful average well meaning Protestant is even conscious of this. But the fact of the matter is that sola scriptura, the result of which is an ever changing idea of what God's purpose for us (all of us? some of us?) is and how that happens and when it happens, keeps Protestants from living the fullness of The Faith which is found ONLY in The Church.
Christ gave the aposltes authority to bind and loose its the only time anything like authority is mentioned by Christ. If hed meant that only those who correctly interpret scripture could come into the church hed have told the apostles that hed given them scripture which had the sbility to bind and loose not that they themselves possed that authority
The answer is always in Scripture.
Col. 2:8 "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world and not according to Christ."
Any sect that believes in Sola Scriptura believes in the equality of the believers.
"Any sect that believes in Sola Scriptura believes in the equality of the believers."
So far as I know, all Christians believe in the basic equality of all believers. That doesn't mean that my interpretation of scripture is as good as the next guy's. In fact, my interpretation is worthless except as a part of The Church and in fulfillment of my role as a layperson in The Church. The equality of all believers is manifested in the availability to all of a definitive exposition of what we are to believe as members of The Church.
You have illustrated my point. I think it is less so in the EOC than the RCC, but the power of interpretation is only one example of how the patrone hierarchy of the prevailing culture affected both of your sects.
"You have illustrated my point. I think it is less so in the EOC than the RCC, but the power of interpretation is only one example of how the patrone hierarchy of the prevailing culture affected both of your sects."
WF, why do you believe the canon of the NT is in fact the correct and complete canon? The NT doesn't tell you that.
the orthodox are all for personal interpretation: by people who went to school to learn how to read the classical languages, who've proven themselves as priests, who have college level work in interpreting the meaning of the languages scripture is written. I could guess what stock is good too or I could poll the experts combine that with my own interpretations and avoid peril of playing fast and loose
*That is demonstrably untrue. Several of the protestant Heresiarchs who promoted the 16th Century Heresy of sola scriptura warred against one Doctrinally and accused one another of trying to Lord it over others.
Luther even commanded his followers to ignore Scripture when it taught what he rejected - good works.
Luther CONSTANTLY denounced those who disagreed with his personal opinions about sola scriptura
You were kidding around when you wrote that, right?
Yes, that is what I thought your view was. That is one of the differences I was talking about. And of course, Reformers would say that God's Church, the one spoken of in the Bible, is composed of all believers. 3 different views.
The early reformers, as you know, held on to many of the Holy Traditions of The Church, as the Nativity thread demonstrated, but gradually, in an effort to be "not Roman Catholic", protestantism devolved into a confused babble of contending, very personal, very individual interpretations of what God really intended for us when He created us and how we get there.
I would agree with your first statement from the Nativity thread to a limited extent, however, as to the second statement, I must not have caught up to those posts yet. :) With freedom and liberty come consequences. Any nut can open up a church. This is no stain on my beliefs. I do not defend them, nor do I associate myself with them. In some cases, I do not even acknowledge many non-Apostolics as even being Christian, even though they claim to be.
In other cases, there are churches who are at the core of the same mind with my faith and there are some minor differences. I would still be more than comfortable worshiping in those churches. Sadly, the original reformed views are only held by a relatively small percentage of those churches calling themselves Protestant today.
[The Truth] comes from The Church, FK, and I must say that as the various protestant ecclesial assemblies do not meet the definition of The Church (in fact, most of them very nicely fit the definition of heretical assemblies found in +Ignatius' letters), the whole idea that by a faithful adherence to sola scriptura any individual can properly and definitively interpret scripture is merely a cover for not being in The Church.
Well, for the benefit of lurkers out there, every particular heretical assembly represented on this ping list wishes you peace and long life in Christ. :) Now, as to Sola Scriptura, it appears again that the problem is the premise. Again, since even for discussion purposes it seems your side(s) won't accept the idea that the Holy Spirit could possibly lead others than the hierarchs in scriptural interpretation, that you instantly translate what we say into OUR believing that we just make everything up. Of course that isn't the case, so there is no "cover" here. You all will certainly disagree, but we really, really DO believe that the Holy Spirit loves us enough to lead us, and all Christians.
But the fact of the matter is that sola scriptura, the result of which is an ever changing idea of what God's purpose for us (all of us? some of us?) is and how that happens and when it happens, keeps Protestants from living the fullness of The Faith which is found ONLY in The Church.
With one central authority composed of fallible men, which simply declares condemned those who do not follow, of course among the "survivors" there will be relative unity. As you suggested, Protestants rebelled against this oppression. Some Protestants did well with their freedom and some did not. It seems again to me that we are being asked to defend all non-Apostolic faiths. Reformers are happy to defend Reformed beliefs, but it is not correct to ask us to do more, such as defend current Episcopalian beliefs, as a made-up example. They have broken from Sola Scriptura. Roman Catholics don't take responsibility for us leaving them, why should we take responsibility for people who leave, or corrupt Sola Scriptura?
I won't speak for Catholics, but the orthodox have no problem with folks interpreting scripture. They just want folks to get educated, and evidence their Christianity a bit first (same as St paul wanted only folks who had their home life in order, and had only been married once being considere for the office of Bishop).
Here's what our church feels is a good basis for being able to witness to folks:
Please find below a list of first, second, third, fourth, and fifth year Seminary classes and an explanation of the correspondence course leading to a Certificate in Theological Studies. A link to a site dedicated to the Certificate Program in Liturgical Music can be found here.
First Year
RUSSIAN I 101 (102) 6 (6) credits Intensive study of Russian morphology and phonetics. Elementary composition and literary readings are followed by analysis of texts.
CHURCH SLAVONIC I 105 (106) 2 (2) credits Introduction to Church Slavonic alphabet and numerical system. Vocabulary. Practice in reading with occasional reference to English and Russian translations to develop comprehension.
ENGLISH 107 (108) 2 (2) credits Intensive review of English grammar. Composition and elements of style. Syntactic analysis of texts; comprehension and vocabulary building.
ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE 107E (108E) This course is for Russian speakers who do not speak English. The course is therefore designed for beginners.
CHURCH MUSIC I 111 (112) 1 (1) credit Elementary musicianship. Memorization of the eight tones. Basic principles of voice production. (Download music files here .)
RUSSIAN HISTORY I 121 (122) 2 (2) credits Russian history from its beginning to Peter I. Emphasis on the Tartar yoke, Time of Troubles, development of the Moscow state.
PRINCIPLES OF ORTHODOXY 149 (150) 2 (2) credits Introduction to the divine services. Survey of sacred history and basic catechism. Study of daily prayers and the basic elements of spiritual life.
Second Year
RUSSIAN II 201 (202) 3 (3) credits Continuation of Russian I. Advanced composition. Readings of selected passages in classical Russian literature followed by analysis of texts. Syntax and advanced composition.
CHURCH SLAVONIC II 205 (206) 3 (3) credits Study of morphology and syntax. Readings of selected passages from the Prologue, Holy Scripture, as well as the Holy Fathers. Emphasis is placed on translation.
CHURCH MUSIC II 211 (212) 1 (1) credit Musicianship. Church choir conducting. Square notation. Memorization of special melodies (podobny). Survey of the history of sacred music with emphasis on style and practice of the Russian Church. (Download music files here .)
WORLD HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION 213 (214) 3 (3) credits A survey of ancient and medieval history, with emphasis on the importance of Orthodox civilization and culture. Discussions of philosophy, Church art and literature.
RUSSIAN HISTORY II 221 (222) 2 (2) credits Russian history from Peter I to the 1917 Revolution. The Civil War. Impact of the Revolution on the Russian people and culture.
OLD TESTAMENT I / BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 231 (232) 3 (3) credits Introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and Tradition. Pentateuch and historical books. Discussion and study of the archaeological background of the Old Testament.
Third Year
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK 309 (310) 3 (3) credits Essentials of New Testament Greek: grammar, vocabulary, and translation of texts. Attention also given to Liturgical use of Greek.
RUSSIAN LITERATURE I 315 (316) 3 (3) credits Survey of medieval Russian literature from the baptism of Russia to Peter I. 18th century writers. Literary works of both secular and Church writers are studied.
To access course materials, please click here. (password required)
CHURCH HISTORY I 323 (324) 2 (2) credits Development of New Testament Church based on the Book of Acts. Christian Church under Roman persecutions. The seven Ecumenical Councils and the Schism. The Constantinopolitan Patriarchate.
RUSSIAN CHURCH HISTORY I 325 (326) 2 (2) credits Survey of sources of Russian Church history. Baptism of Russia. Kievan State. Tartar yoke. Division of the Russian Church. Moscow Patriarchate. Istablishment of the patriarch. in Moscow.
OLD TESTAMENT II 331 (332) 3 (3) credits Study of the Old Testament's instructional and prophetic books. Liturgical use. Messianism. Patristic exegesis and interpretation.
NEW TESTAMENT I 333 (334) 3 (3) credits Introduction to the Gospels. Interpretation and individual peculiarities. Detailed chronological study of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as related by the four evangelists.
LITURGICS I 341 (342) 2 (2) credits Introduction to the divine services; cycles of the Church year, church structure, clerical vestments, order of services. Major liturgical writers. The development and present-day form of matins, vespers, vigil service and hours.
Fourth Year
RUSSIAN LITERATURE II 415 (416) 3 (3) credits 19th century writers. Major literary trends of the period. Emphasis on Gogol, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Lermontov, Tolstoy, etc. Westerners and Slavophiles.
CHURCH HISTORY II 419 (420) 2 (2) credits The Church from the fall of Constantinople to the present time. Orthodoxy and Papal expansion. Church-state relations. Reformation. Eastern Churches after the fall of Constantinople.
RUSSIAN CHURCH HISTORY II 423 (424) 2 (2) credits Holy Synod and Imperial period. Russian Church and the Revolution of 1917. Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
NEW TESTAMENT II 433 (434) 3 (3) credits Study of the Book of Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. Authors, purpose, and time of writing. Historical background.PATROLOGY I 435 (436) 2 (2) credits Study of Apostolic Fathers. Apologists. Major Fathers of the fourth century: their works, biography, teachings, and influence.
LITURGICS II 441 (442) 2 (2) credits The Divine Liturgy. Its formation and present structure. Lenten and Paschal Services. Sacraments. The Book of Needs.
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY I 451 (452) 2 (2) credits Introduction to Dogmatic Theology. The dogma of faith, sources of dogma. Outline of Orthodox Christian theology.
PASTORAL THEOLOGY I 453 (454) 2 (2) credits Traditional pastoral teaching. The ideal pastor: his duties and problems. Relationship between pastor and parish.
Fifth Year
CANON LAW 525 (526) 2 (2) credits Fundamentals of Orthodox Canon Law. Introduction to: Orthodox ecclesiology, the Sacrament of marriage, and the Church court.
PATROLOGY II 535 (536) 2 (2) credits Study of ascetical writers. Rise of monasticism. Fathers of the Byzantine period. Late Byzantine and Russian fathers up to the present day.
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY II 551 (552) 2 (2) credits The Church of Christ on earth. The Sacraments. Prayer. New movements in Russian theology in the light of the Orthodox Christian Faith.
PASTORAL THEOLOGY II / HOMILETICS 553 (554) 3 (3) credits Preparation of students for pastoral service in a parish. Study of different forms of sermons, as well as hallmarks of Orthodox patristic oratory
MORAL THEOLOGY 555 (556) 2 (2) credits Dogmatic principles of moral theology: moral law, virtue, sin, the Church. Christian obligations to self, family, neighbor, and the state.
COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY / APOLOGETICS 557 (558) 3 (3) credits Introduction to comparative theology. Study and evaluation of major denominations and sects. Defense of fundamental truths of the Orthodox Faith. Substance of religion, existence of God, immortality of the soul, revelation, the essence of Christianity.
Courses are subject to change without notice.
http://www.hts.edu/seminary/academics.html
What? Not only does Christ speak of the Father's authority all the time, but He also speaks of His own authority all the time, and He also quotes scripture as authority all the time. Do you deny this? I wouldn't even know where to start quoting.
I honestly don't understand the rest of your post.
The authority to bind and loose is given to the apostles to the church. Do you deny scripture?
When the Roman Church bolted from the other 4 major Church provinces in the East, she ceased to have any argument to speak for the whole Church.
Yes, "the Church" authoritatively interprets scripture, but now that Rome and Constantinople destroyed her unity, followed much later by serious Christians' attempts at reform (whom Rome separated herself from as well) who exactly is the Church?
Please don't trot out the tired Peter's Church in Rome argument...as the Church spans all denominations, and is made up of those people who have Christ as Lord.
But, given your reverence for the scriptures, you know that since the scriptures, and the Church's interpretation of those scriptures are very different animals, that this idea went out the window with the invention of the printing press, if not earlier. We all know that the reach of the Bible has far outstripped the Church's ability to explain it to the people who have it. This situation continues to grow exponentially. Therefore, there is no equality at all in terms of all believers and the Church. There hasn't been in a long time, and probably never will be. This doesn't even count those who have only heard the word, without ever seeing a Bible. How is this explained?
I think you even told me once, in effect, that in Orthodoxy, the focus is not on evangelism. What are new believers to do if only armed with a Bible given by some Protestant missionary? :)
I am not sure to what you are referring. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to all believers and that He would "teach us all things". I presume that includes scripture interpretation.
It makes perfect sense to have an heriarchy.
Having a "leadership" is not necessarily problematic. We have a leadership in my church. The problem comes in when they assert extra-scriptural powers and put themselves on a par with scripture itself.
Think of the perversion of the truth that would take place if any Joe Sixpack could jump in some water, declare himself saved and start his own congregation; JUST THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES IN PROTESTANTISM'S SHORT HISTORY.
So your conclusion then is that Protestantism is bad because there are nut cases out there who pervert the truth. Alright. In that case it must be the fault of Catholicism that this happened. You allowed us to break away from you in the first place so you are fully responsible. In addition, and using your logic, all the unworthy priests who have ever lived are a direct reflection on your faith. Why didn't you stop them?
Don't worry, I know it's hard. I still pray to God for forgiveness because Reformers allowed the Mormons, JW's, and a host of other breakaway faiths to form. We were responsible. But our God is a loving God, and He will forgive. I know you are probably still asking for forgiveness also for what your people have caused and allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.