Sola Scriptura from and Orthodox perspective

[Tertiumquid]

Tertiumquid has the right idea:

Luther was the foundational figure of the Protestant movement and of Sola Scriptura in the Protestant world. Thus, his definition is the most foundational. Otherwise, what definition would we use? One answer is that we can use the term as major churches define it. This brings up a few issues:

I appreciate you found value in my synopsis of your underlying presuppositions. In the spirit of attempting to wade through the excessive amount of text you post to get to the main arteries of importance, here's another synopsis of one of your underlying presuppositions: arriving at the conclusion that Luther's "definition" of Sola Scriptura is "is the most foundational" is a blatant example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Google that to learn what it means).

 

[Tertiumquid]

I have no reason to believe Luther held "a regular layman had equal authority as Councils."

This is one of the major problems with the methodology of Rakovsky. The theme of "church councils" runs throughout Luther's written corpus and arriving at what precisely was Luther's view on councils and their authority requires care and study. Luther appealed to a church council early on and then later wrote an entire treatise on church councils!

The method of using this or that Luther quote to prove this or that thesis is typically replete with ambiguity if that quote isn't placed in its written and historical context.

 

[BJ Bear]

"indifference/Adiaphora". Probably Orthodoxy does not use this label, as if Orthodox people literally "do not care" where saints are buried.

You personally may not use the word adiaphora but the "Orthodox" churches practice it, even to a certain extent with regard to Scripture. For example, the length of the canon in use by a church is adiaphora, that is, it is neither commanded or prohibited by God.

Within "Orthodoxy" a church which uses the short canon, the sixty-six books, doesn't look down or condemn those who use a longer canon and the same goes in the other direction. By definition that practice is adiaphora and a reason why they choose to argue against Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings on earth.

By avoiding the issue of Scripture as lord and master over all other writings on earth they maintain peace within their churches or denominations and don't have to define a common canon for use within the "Orthodox" churches or denominations. In other words, what matters to them more than proclaiming the word of God in it's simple truth and purity is that their adherents acknowledge a tradition of men.

 

[Tertiumquid]

In other words, what matters to them more than proclaiming the word of God in it's simple truth and purity is that their adherents acknowledge a tradition of men.

Ouch.

Luther pounded on the same point!

 

[BJ Bear]

Ouch.

Luther pounded on the same point!

Yes, but so long as they continue to use the longer the canons it may be the lesser of two evils to reject Scripture alone as lord and master over all other writings.

Imagine what it would be like if someone read the Apocryphal works and believed them? Oh wait, that's how the Roman churches, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, got their confused doctrines of what is the justification of God before Him unto eternal life.

The irony is an actual Apostolic letter with an explicit statement on the matter of justification before God unto eternal life was sent to them. “21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,22. even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and upon all those that believe. For there is no distinction; 23. for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins having previously committed, in the forbearance of God, 26. for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of he who has faith in Jesus.27. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:21-28, EMTV)

 

[ziapueblo]

Oh wait, that's how the Roman churches, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, got their confused doctrines of what is the justification of God before Him unto eternal life.

The Christian Church has used the "apocrypha" from the beginning. These text are found in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Septuagint is the text that is quoted 90% of the time, or more, by the New Testament authors.

28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:21-28, EMTV)

Key phrase here, "works of the law," nomos, meaning the the Mosaic law or the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch. Notice St Paul did not use the word ergon, which means an action or a deed or work. St Paul, in Romans, is writing about the Law of Moses. To really understand Pauls letters we need to look at the context which he is writing, which is, the Judaizer heresy. This is the whole reason for the council in Acts 15, for Pauls letter to the Galatians, and what St Paul is saying in Romans. That is, we do not need to follow the Law of Moses, in particular, circumcision and kosher law. The Jedaizers were teaching that in order to become a Christian, one had to be first, circumcised, and second, follow kosher law.

Interestingly enough, St James, in his Epistle writes, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works (ergon), is dead."

We are called to live a life in Christ. This is a life which is initiated by Grace, which faith is our response and our deeds are our good fruit. This cycle continues throughout our lives, otherwise, why would Christ instruct us to carry our cross Daily?

 

[BJ Bear]

Hi!

I note and appreciate that your citations are from Scripture. That being said, I will also interact with Apocryphal and Pseudigraphical references if you choose to use them.

The Christian Church has used the "apocrypha" from the beginning. These text are found in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The canon of the one church of the one Lord God didn't change just because some people in Egypt translated some writings into Greek that included some of the Samaritan translation of the scriptures, apocryphal works, and novel wording or interpretations.

The Septuagint is the text that is quoted 90% of the time, or more, by the New Testament authors.

Using citations because of the convenience that they already existed in the target language of a culture unfamiliar with the faith is not the same as using those citations because they are more authoritative or as authoritative as the source being translated.

Key phrase here, "works of the law," nomos, meaning the the Mosaic law or the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch.

The insertion of the English definite article, "the," is a translator's choice. In other words, there is no definite article in the Greek.

Notice St Paul did not use the word ergon, which means an action or a deed or work.

But St Paul did use ergon, ergon nomou, works of a law. That is the context in which the Apostle has been writing throughout the chapter. For example, "There is no one righteous, no not one..." Romans 3:10ff. The same context will continue in chapter four when He writes of Abraham, David, etc.

St Paul, in Romans, is writing about the Law of Moses. To really understand Pauls letters we need to look at the context which he is writing, which is, the Judaizer heresy.

To understand the intended meaning of any writing one must pay attention to the immediate context. Privileging one out of context passage or idea over the immediate context only obscures and masks the author's intended meaning.

This is the whole reason for the council in Acts 15,

Agreed, however, we know that because of the immediate context of Acts 15 and their conclusion was not to burden the Gentiles with those works or new works.

for Pauls letter to the Galatians,

Agreed, however his answer again also excluded other works from justification before God unto eternal life. He again excluded works of a law, ergon nomou. See Gal 3:16.

and what St Paul is saying in Romans. That is, we do not need to follow the Law of Moses, in particular, circumcision and kosher law. The Jedaizers were teaching that in order to become a Christian, one had to be first, circumcised, and second, follow kosher law.

That explanation isn't an accurate reflection of what the Apostle wrote, that is, he wrote works of a law, ergon nomou.

Interestingly enough, St James, in his Epistle writes, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works (ergon), is dead."

It is dead only in the sense of not bearing fruit before men. “17. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18. Exercising His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” (Jam 1:17-18, EMTV)

We are called to live a life in Christ.

Agreed.

This is a life which is initiated by Grace,

Agreed.

which faith is our response

In the sense that we affirm the gift of faith given us in Christ Jesus.

and our deeds are our good fruit.

In the sense that God has prepared them in advance for us to do.

This cycle continues throughout our lives,

Agreed. The disagreement is upon the role of works. Scripture says and we affirm that those born of God are created in Christ Jesus to do good works. Our works aren't the reason or a reason why we are born of God.

otherwise, why would Christ instruct us to carry our cross Daily?

The context in which you write that is backwards. The Christ indeed carried the cross but the man Jesus carrying the cross did not make him the Christ. In the same way, a Christian is to bear his cross but a man bearing a cross doesn't make that man a Christian.

Just to place Paul's words into the historical context in which they were written using the Apocrypha of the LXX as a reference: It was through the law that the Jewish people beat back the Hellenizing or paganizing of the faith. Unfortunately, in that way it assumed a role to some of them which it didn't previously have. When Paul wrote of, "not by works of a law," he was aiming at the error of both those erring Jews and the Gentiles with regard to justification before God unto eternal life.

 

[rakovsky]

I recall a Lutheran theologian writing an article in a Lutheran publication arguing intelligently that the concept of Sola Scriptura preceded Luther in the late medieval/early modern Catholic Church, with Erasmus and others holding to this school of thought in Catholic Germany. So this idea itself wouldn't have been a problem enough for the Catholic Church to dogmatically reject it at the time.

That said, Orthodoxy doesn't have this idea, and there's a consensus that it conflicts with Orthodoxy, with its reliance on Tradition. The most official formulations of Sola Scriptura seem to be that the Bible alone establishes all dogmas/articles of faith (source: Luther's Smalcald Articles) and is the sole judge of every teaching (source: Formula of Concord). Luther used the explanation that everyone checked their teachings by the Bible, and that therefore the Bible ultimately was the judge of all teachings.

One tricky part of understanding and applying the Sola Scriptura concept is that it involves polemical writings that can have exaggerations and leaps of logic. So first: what is an "article of faith"? The most natural meaning would seem to be that it's a credal theological statement, like the Nicene Creed. But Luther in his polemics (eg. in the Smalcald Articles) complained that the Catholic Church at large and Henry VIII's Catholic Church in England in particular were turning issues like relics and ritual vessels into "articles of faith", by which he seemed to mean mandatory teachings. According to Luther, the Bible did not specify types of ritual vessels and some other ceremonial specifics, and so the Catholic Church should not mandate them. However, on critical reflection, Luther's line of reasoning raises a line of issues.
- First, the Catholic Church might not agree that it considered its mandatory rules, like what vessels to use, to be "articles of faith." Luther was using an argument that by mandating the ceremonial vessels, the Church was turning them into faith articles, but the Catholic Church might not agree that just because something is mandatory that it counts as an article of faith.
- Second, the Lutheran Church for practical reasons ended up making rules on some of the same kinds of things. So a Lutheran diocese can have a policy that congregations are supposed to use cups for giving communion. Luther's polemical argument might claim that such Lutheran policies are not "mandatory", but nonetheless in real life practice, the Lutheran church is going to treat them as requirements. Otherwise it's easier to end up with Clown masses. The Lutheran Church might respond that they are enforcing the Luhteran policies for practical reasons, not because they are Lutheran faith articles. But in that case we end up with the substance of Luther's argument in the first place - Luther complained that the Catholic Church, by making rules on communion was de facto treating the rules as articles of faith. And in this instance, the same kind of argument would follow from Luther's logic.
- Third, another issue is how much and what topics the Bible actually covers. Does the Bible speak (A) just on salvation issues, or (B) on necessary faith articles, or (C) does it literally cover every single doctrinal topic that might arise? For the Bible to be the literal sole judge of every doctrine as the Formula of Concord asserts, it would seem that (C) the Bible would have to actually speak on every issue. However, according to Luther there were actually topics that Christians debated that the Bible did not cover, like the issue of ceremonial vessels.
- Fourth if one says that the Bible covers an issue (A, B or C above), them must it do so directly and specifically, or may it just do so in a very indirect way? The Bible never specifies a stance on infant baptism in particular, so Protestants typically try to cobble a position together indirectly from circumstantially relevant Biblical statements, like a case when a whole family of unknown age was baptised. And if we can say that the Bible gives a position indirectly on infant baptism, and we can take "Biblical" positions to include implicit, circumstantial ones, then it seems that we could assert that the Bible gives a position indirectly on communion vessels too, as Jesus "took the cup," etc. But in denying that the Bible takes a position on communion vessels, Luther seems to exclude relying on indirect statements by the Bible.

Luther was raising an issue of procedure- how does one go about establishing and judging a doctrine.
- Orthodox typically, and technically even many Protestants including Luther, do not strictly follow a rule that literally the Bible alone judges every teaching. These theologians don't literally quote the Bible alone. Of course, Luther himself added that one could use other writings, and then he would assert that it was actually the Bible making the teaching, not those other writings, as the Bible was the judge of all writings.
- Offhand I can't think of a dogmatic credal statement in Orthodoxy that can't be asserted to be at least indirectly implied by some part of the Bible. And perhaps that's true for Catholicism as well. In other words, as a matter of proecedure, I can't think of a case where one could not use the Bible to at least indirectly establish what EOs or Catholics openly would agree to be an "article of faith." Take for instance the Nicene Creed. The Creed is an article of faith and Orthodox and Protestants would agree that its theological substance can be established using the Bible.
- On the other hand, I think that theoretically Jesus and the apostles could have given a theological teaching that they didn't specifically mention in the Bible. And in that case, the procedural side of Orthodoxy would allow for those "nonBiblical" apostolic teachings. IMO there are actually a couple cases like that, like Infant Baptism, where the apostles and Tradition took a position but the Bible didn't mention it.
- Then there's the issue that Orthodox theologians would say that the Bible itself does not actually teach Sola Scriptura- the Bible nowhere specifies that the Bible alone makes every faith teaching and judges every teaching. At best, an apologist for Sola Scriptura would have to look to statements in the Bible emphasizing the importance of Scripture and then conclude that this indirectly implies that the Bible is the only establisher and judge of these things.

 

[BJ Bear]

I recall a Lutheran theologian writing an article in a Lutheran publication arguing intelligently that the concept of Sola Scriptura preceded Luther in the late medieval/early modern Catholic Church, with Erasmus and others holding to this school of thought in Catholic Germany. So this idea itself wouldn't have been a problem enough for the Catholic Church to dogmatically reject it at the time.

That said, Orthodoxy doesn't have this idea, and there's a consensus that it conflicts with Orthodoxy, with its reliance on Tradition. The most official formulations of Sola Scriptura seem to be that the Bible alone establishes all dogmas/articles of faith (source: Luther's Smalcald Articles) and is the sole judge of every teaching (source: Formula of Concord). Luther used the explanation that everyone checked their teachings by the Bible, and that therefore the Bible ultimately was the judge of all teachings.

One tricky part of understanding and applying the Sola Scriptura concept is that it involves polemical writings that can have exaggerations and leaps of logic. So first: what is an "article of faith"? The most natural meaning would seem to be that it's a credal theological statement, like the Nicene Creed. But Luther in his polemics (eg. in the Smalcald Articles) complained that the Catholic Church at large and Henry VIII's Catholic Church in England in particular were turning issues like relics and ritual vessels into "articles of faith", by which he seemed to mean mandatory teachings. According to Luther, the Bible did not specify types of ritual vessels and some other ceremonial specifics, and so the Catholic Church should not mandate them. However, on critical reflection, Luther's line of reasoning raises a line of issues.
- First, the Catholic Church might not agree that it considered its mandatory rules, like what vessels to use, to be "articles of faith." Luther was using an argument that by mandating the ceremonial vessels, the Church was turning them into faith articles, but the Catholic Church might not agree that just because something is mandatory that it counts as an article of faith.
- Second, the Lutheran Church for practical reasons ended up making rules on some of the same kinds of things. So a Lutheran diocese can have a policy that congregations are supposed to use cups for giving communion. Luther's polemical argument might claim that such Lutheran policies are not "mandatory", but nonetheless in real life practice, the Lutheran church is going to treat them as requirements. Otherwise it's easier to end up with Clown masses. The Lutheran Church might respond that they are enforcing the Luhteran policies for practical reasons, not because they are Lutheran faith articles. But in that case we end up with the substance of Luther's argument in the first place - Luther complained that the Catholic Church, by making rules on communion was de facto treating the rules as articles of faith. And in this instance, the same kind of argument would follow from Luther's logic.
- Third, another issue is how much and what topics the Bible actually covers. Does the Bible speak (A) just on salvation issues, or (B) on necessary faith articles, or (C) does it literally cover every single doctrinal topic that might arise? For the Bible to be the literal sole judge of every doctrine as the Formula of Concord asserts, it would seem that (C) the Bible would have to actually speak on every issue. However, according to Luther there were actually topics that Christians debated that the Bible did not cover, like the issue of ceremonial vessels.
- Fourth if one says that the Bible covers an issue (A, B or C above), them must it do so directly and specifically, or may it just do so in a very indirect way? The Bible never specifies a stance on infant baptism in particular, so Protestants typically try to cobble a position together indirectly from circumstantially relevant Biblical statements, like a case when a whole family of unknown age was baptised. And if we can say that the Bible gives a position indirectly on infant baptism, and we can take "Biblical" positions to include implicit, circumstantial ones, then it seems that we could assert that the Bible gives a position indirectly on communion vessels too, as Jesus "took the cup," etc. But in denying that the Bible takes a position on communion vessels, Luther seems to exclude relying on indirect statements by the Bible.

Luther was raising an issue of procedure- how does one go about establishing and judging a doctrine.
- Orthodox typically, and technically even many Protestants including Luther, do not strictly follow a rule that literally the Bible alone judges every teaching. These theologians don't literally quote the Bible alone. Of course, Luther himself added that one could use other writings, and then he would assert that it was actually the Bible making the teaching, not those other writings, as the Bible was the judge of all writings.
- Offhand I can't think of a dogmatic credal statement in Orthodoxy that can't be asserted to be at least indirectly implied by some part of the Bible. And perhaps that's true for Catholicism as well. In other words, as a matter of proecedure, I can't think of a case where one could not use the Bible to at least indirectly establish what EOs or Catholics openly would agree to be an "article of faith." Take for instance the Nicene Creed. The Creed is an article of faith and Orthodox and Protestants would agree that its theological substance can be established using the Bible.
- On the other hand, I think that theoretically Jesus and the apostles could have given a theological teaching that they didn't specifically mention in the Bible. And in that case, the procedural side of Orthodoxy would allow for those "nonBiblical" apostolic teachings. IMO there are actually a couple cases like that, like Infant Baptism, where the apostles and Tradition took a position but the Bible didn't mention it.
- Then there's the issue that Orthodox theologians would say that the Bible itself does not actually teach Sola Scriptura- the Bible nowhere specifies that the Bible alone makes every faith teaching and judges every teaching. At best, an apologist for Sola Scriptura would have to look to statements in the Bible emphasizing the importance of Scripture and then conclude that this indirectly implies that the Bible is the only establisher and judge of these things.

Here is the missing context which led to much of the errant speculation above. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

You will find the essence of the symbol of faith, what is commonly called the Apostles Creed, derived from Scripture in Irenäus.

God in His providence provided the printing press. People from that time going forward would begin to have the Scriptures in their own language. The time for the Roman Churches, that includes the Orthodox, to correct their doctrine and traditions according to the word of God is long past.