I read this but I don't really understand the main thrust. Is it - how do we understand conciliar authority? Or what?
Well…this is a different viewpoint
6,722 Views |
101 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by TheGreatEscape
And just as an aside, Luther did reject the council of Jerusalem, specifically the provision against eating blood.
Martin Q. Blank said:I've lost count how many churches claim this. So the question remains, how do you decide which traditions are correct?Klaus Schwab said:Bishops, saints, councils, church fathers, etc. all nested within an unbroken historical Church.UTExan said:Klaus Schwab said:How do you decide which traditions are correct?TheGreatEscape said:
Lol. We all come from different Christian traditions.
How do you? A succession of wildly immoral and corrupt (and now, apparently infallible) popes is not exactly the spiritual bedrock authority I would consider trustworthy.
I might believe there was actually an inspired unwritten tradition if only they remotely agreed with each other!
Remember this is one argument that kind of culminates into a larger thesis. As mentioned, it might be worth watching this one section since its only about 15 minutes starting at 2:45.Zobel said:
I read this but I don't really understand the main thrust. Is it - how do we understand conciliar authority? Or what?
I think the gist of what the author is getting at for this particular section is the proposition by the Orthodox the ecumenical councils decree with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
The data and supplementary points have to do with the long, messy history of the councils, the hypocrisy of casting the Reformers as heretics when others well before them were going against the councils and their decrees, that disunity in the Church was occurring well before Reformation including specific actions by Orthodox clergy, and the general principle that multiple early Church Fathers warned about us about detaching the decrees of councils from affirmation in Scripture. In proof of that, several heretical doctrines had to be denounced at one point or another.
The issue here is a kind of misunderstanding about authority. Some of this is because the western churches are all in some ways from the same mindset and family. This often causes Protestants to view the East through a Roman lens. That's the case here. You're kind of taking the Roman view of authority, and saying OK let's map the Orthodox view onto this grid. The premise is incorrect…our understanding of authority is different than the western view.
The ecumenical councils don't decree with the authority of the Holy Spirit. Ecumenical councils are one way that the Holy Spirit acts in leadership of the Church. This makes "authenticity" of whether something is ecumenical or not descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's not number of bishops who show up, or whether the pope called it or ratified it, or anything else. It's ecumenical if it is accepted as such by the church. The is no different at all from how canon functions - and you see the exact same misunderstanding west to east on that topic, too.
The idea of an ecumenical council making anything new is flatly not how Orthodoxy understands these things. The faith -is-, it was given once for all to the saints and was never deficient in any way from the Apostles on. Councils are reactive against problems, and their teaching clarifies the faith which already exists. They don't add to it or change it.
As for trying to detach activities from scripture, this also reads back a kind of sola scriptura framework onto tradition. Just as the Gospel takes a preeminent role in the scriptures of the NT, and the NT is preeminent over the OT, scripture is preeminent among tradition as a whole. Saying a father warns about this or that facet of tradition being at odds with or separate from scripture is as incongruent as the same argument separating the gospel from the epistles.
Lastly, the idea of heresy also seems to be misunderstood. Heresy isn't being wrong about some point of theology. It isn't even believing an error. Heresy is taking a stance against the church to the point of schism. The Church, led by the Spirit, is the rule - the pillar and foundation of the truth - and schism reveals those approved by God, as St Paul says. The charge of heresy is one of schism.
Most often these kind of things are rooted in a kind of unintentional ignorance. Orthodoxy is different than western Christianity, sometimes surprisingly so. It was for me as I first encountered it. So a lot of this is trying to engage with it based on a flawed framework, ecclesiological or otherwise.
The ecumenical councils don't decree with the authority of the Holy Spirit. Ecumenical councils are one way that the Holy Spirit acts in leadership of the Church. This makes "authenticity" of whether something is ecumenical or not descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's not number of bishops who show up, or whether the pope called it or ratified it, or anything else. It's ecumenical if it is accepted as such by the church. The is no different at all from how canon functions - and you see the exact same misunderstanding west to east on that topic, too.
The idea of an ecumenical council making anything new is flatly not how Orthodoxy understands these things. The faith -is-, it was given once for all to the saints and was never deficient in any way from the Apostles on. Councils are reactive against problems, and their teaching clarifies the faith which already exists. They don't add to it or change it.
As for trying to detach activities from scripture, this also reads back a kind of sola scriptura framework onto tradition. Just as the Gospel takes a preeminent role in the scriptures of the NT, and the NT is preeminent over the OT, scripture is preeminent among tradition as a whole. Saying a father warns about this or that facet of tradition being at odds with or separate from scripture is as incongruent as the same argument separating the gospel from the epistles.
Lastly, the idea of heresy also seems to be misunderstood. Heresy isn't being wrong about some point of theology. It isn't even believing an error. Heresy is taking a stance against the church to the point of schism. The Church, led by the Spirit, is the rule - the pillar and foundation of the truth - and schism reveals those approved by God, as St Paul says. The charge of heresy is one of schism.
Most often these kind of things are rooted in a kind of unintentional ignorance. Orthodoxy is different than western Christianity, sometimes surprisingly so. It was for me as I first encountered it. So a lot of this is trying to engage with it based on a flawed framework, ecclesiological or otherwise.
The claim around the EO (or frankly anybody non-Rome) rejecting 14 of the 21 councils is is a meh argument because all but one happened post schism.
Honestly, to claim them as ecumenical is kind of silly since they represent only the followers of the Bishop of Rome and nothing more. Rome would likely need to give up many/most of these to find unity with the rest of the Christian Church.
Honestly, to claim them as ecumenical is kind of silly since they represent only the followers of the Bishop of Rome and nothing more. Rome would likely need to give up many/most of these to find unity with the rest of the Christian Church.
AgLiving06 said:
The claim around the EO (or frankly anybody non-Rome) rejecting 14 of the 21 councils is is a meh argument because all but one happened post schism.
Honestly, to claim them as ecumenical is kind of silly since they represent only the followers of the Bishop of Rome and nothing more. Rome would likely need to give up many/most of these to find unity with the rest of the Christian Church.
I know you have less of an issue with the icon thing. But would love for you to watch the documentary.
Oh and Anglicans have the 39 articles.
TheGreatEscape said:AgLiving06 said:
The claim around the EO (or frankly anybody non-Rome) rejecting 14 of the 21 councils is is a meh argument because all but one happened post schism.
Honestly, to claim them as ecumenical is kind of silly since they represent only the followers of the Bishop of Rome and nothing more. Rome would likely need to give up many/most of these to find unity with the rest of the Christian Church.
I know you have less of an issue with the icon thing. But would love for you to watch the documentary.
I watched some of it so far.
For as much as EO will say the West does not understand their faith, the EO Father (I'm assuming) does not understand Protestantism or Luther.
if it's Fr Josiah Trenham, that would be pretty surprising considering he was a Presbyterian minister and ordained Reformed Episcopal, has a masters degree from a Reformed seminary.
It looks like he got an M.Div from a Reformed Seminary in 1992 and immediately converted to EO in 1993.
Since M.Div's are getting men ready to become Pastors, I wouldn't look to that as justification to why he would have some extensive knowledge of the Reformation or Luther in particular.
Since M.Div's are getting men ready to become Pastors, I wouldn't look to that as justification to why he would have some extensive knowledge of the Reformation or Luther in particular.
if you want to hang your hat on the idea that someone who was raised Presbyterian, was a Presbyterian minister, ordained in a reformed tradition, and went to a reformed seminary is probably wholly unfamiliar with protestantism, ok then.
As hom is weak enough but this seems especially odd.
As hom is weak enough but this seems especially odd.
Zobel said:
if you want to hang your hat on the idea that someone who was raised Presbyterian, was a Presbyterian minister, ordained in a reformed tradition, and went to a reformed seminary is probably wholly unfamiliar with protestantism, ok then.
As hom is weak enough but this seems especially odd.
I'm not "hanging my hat." I'm saying he's making very specific claims about Protestantism and Luther that just aren't correct.
He was seemingly only a Pastor prior to seminary, and immediately converted seemingly upon graduation to EO.
Holding him up as some scholar on all of Protestantism based on that resume is probably more odd.
Honestly the EO makes the exact same claims when it comes to Josh Schooping and at least he can make the claim have gone to Sem within the EO.
Josiah can't even make that claim...
Then engage with the claims. Your only comment was he doesn't understand protestantism or Luther.
His first claim in the video is that the problem of the Reformers was the jump from a recognition the errors of the post schism latin councils to a criticism of ecumenical council to a statement that "all general councils have erred, makes themselves Popes.
Lets start with the first flaw in his reasoning. A category error
Rome claimed many of these as Ecumenical, including one pre-schism. So his basic premise from the start is that the Reformers were ok to challenge Ecumenical Councils that the EO disagree with, but if they were Ecumenical Councils that the EO agreed with, He's creating a differentiator that the Reformers had no reason to make because they are part of the Western Christian Church and saw themselves as the true Church.
Second, he makes the claim that all the Reformers saw the general councils as having erred.
It's not wrong to say that the councils erred and contradicted themselves. Even the EO would acknowledge that. Every group uses their own set of criteria to determine the validity of a council, including the EO. What Luther and other Reformers said is that a council is not Ecumenical or correct because a Pope (or even the EO) say so, but because it is supported by Scripture.
Third, they odd argument he makes about Luther objecting to the Apostles is just hypothetical nonsense that show a misunderstanding of the view of the Reformers. The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles.
Interesting, it would be a better claim that the EO would have dismissed it because to be a follower of Jesus was to dismiss the historic tradition. The tradition that claimed ownership of the canon of Scripture.
So yeah, that's just a couple minutes of Josiah and why he's just not a particularly credible source.
Lets start with the first flaw in his reasoning. A category error
Rome claimed many of these as Ecumenical, including one pre-schism. So his basic premise from the start is that the Reformers were ok to challenge Ecumenical Councils that the EO disagree with, but if they were Ecumenical Councils that the EO agreed with, He's creating a differentiator that the Reformers had no reason to make because they are part of the Western Christian Church and saw themselves as the true Church.
Second, he makes the claim that all the Reformers saw the general councils as having erred.
It's not wrong to say that the councils erred and contradicted themselves. Even the EO would acknowledge that. Every group uses their own set of criteria to determine the validity of a council, including the EO. What Luther and other Reformers said is that a council is not Ecumenical or correct because a Pope (or even the EO) say so, but because it is supported by Scripture.
Third, they odd argument he makes about Luther objecting to the Apostles is just hypothetical nonsense that show a misunderstanding of the view of the Reformers. The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles.
Interesting, it would be a better claim that the EO would have dismissed it because to be a follower of Jesus was to dismiss the historic tradition. The tradition that claimed ownership of the canon of Scripture.
So yeah, that's just a couple minutes of Josiah and why he's just not a particularly credible source.
The problem is opening councils previously accepted as ecumenical by the whole church up for inspection. It's exactly the same as reopening the canon.
When the whole church received seven councils, opening the question of which - and ultimately rejecting several - 700+ years later is a problem no matter how you look at it.
When the whole church received seven councils, opening the question of which - and ultimately rejecting several - 700+ years later is a problem no matter how you look at it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/council-Christianity
"Whereas the Eastern Orthodox churches recognize only the first seven councils as ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church adds an eighth before the Schism of 1054, which permanently divided Eastern and Western Christianity. It is the fourth Council of Constantinople (869870), which excommunicated Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church also considers 13 later councils as ecumenical."
"Whereas the Eastern Orthodox churches recognize only the first seven councils as ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church adds an eighth before the Schism of 1054, which permanently divided Eastern and Western Christianity. It is the fourth Council of Constantinople (869870), which excommunicated Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church also considers 13 later councils as ecumenical."
The Reformers central issue was the idea that authority lies within text. This was their fatal flaw since only Christ holds authority. Even Holy Scripture points to the Church for Truth.AgLiving06 said:
The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles
For the reformers, Christ was not the center given the fact that their starting point was Holy Scripture. It's a radical idea stemming from a schismatic church and essentially the same position as the scribes and Pharisees. Those groups couldn't see Christ because they were only looking to the texts. So they dismissed John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles. In the same manner, Protestants dismiss the Church which includes Apostolic Succession and the only historical link to Pentecost because they are ahistorical and bound to a lineage of western scribes.
Zobel said:
The problem is opening councils previously accepted as ecumenical by the whole church up for inspection. It's exactly the same as reopening the canon.
When the whole church received seven councils, opening the question of which - and ultimately rejecting several - 700+ years later is a problem no matter how you look at it.
No. As part of figuring out just how much rot there was within Rome and the Western Church, everything had to be looked at. The claim of the Reformers was "Ad fontes" or "back to the sources."
But your reasoning also has some problems.
It starts with the assumption that the west is in schism and not the east. That's not an assumption the Reformers would have made. If anything, they would have started with the view that the Western Church was the Christian Church. To their credit, I think the Reformers were more receptive of the East during this time than Rome was.
Second, even to use your reasoning leads is subjective and not objective. Why that criteria? Who is to say that even among the Ecumenical Councils of the "whole Church" there wasn't rot that needed to be addressed?
So in the end, consistent with desire to return the Western Church back to its roots, the only standard criteria that was necessary was whether the council could stand on its own with Scripture (and secondarily had historical support for it).
Klaus Schwab said:The Reformers central issue was the idea that authority lies within text. This was their fatal flaw since only Christ holds authority. Even Holy Scripture points to the Church for Truth.AgLiving06 said:
The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles
For the reformers, Christ was not the center given the fact that their starting point was Holy Scripture. It's a radical idea stemming from a schismatic church and essentially the same position as the scribes and Pharisees. Those groups couldn't see Christ because they were only looking to the texts. So they dismissed John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles. In the same manner, Protestants dismiss the Church which includes Apostolic Succession and the only historical link to Pentecost because they are ahistorical and bound to a lineage of western scribes.
The bolded isn't an issue within the Reformation, but the absolute strength. The Scriptures are held up as the inerrant Word of God. It is the place where God speaks to us through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As I said in this thread or the other, the problem with the "unwritten" traditions as the "word of god" is they never seem to agree with each other.
The Scriptures stand alone as the voice of God for all generations to see and hear.
The second paragraph is also simply incorrect. The entire purpose of the Reformation was about Christ. That there is one mediator and one path to Heaven and that is through the Son. The claim of Rome was that only those who bent the knee to the Pope could see heaven. So to argue that the Reformation was about anything other than
Remember that there were 5 "solas" of the Reformation
1. Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
2. Sola Fide - Faith Alone
3. Solus Christus - Christ Alone
4. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
5. Soli Deo Gloria - To the Glory of God Alone
To claim we somehow tried to minimize Christ is to not understand the Reformation at all.
Sure, question everything. Canon, councils - why stop at accepting the first three councils? Shoot, maybe we should go ahead and reopen Nicaea! And if there's parts of Jerusalem we don't like, we can ignore that too.
From Orthodoxwiki: Link
Guess we need to condemn them as well for daring to question things...
Quote:
The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are regarded within the Orthodox Church as universally authoritative, though not in a strictly constructionist sense. Their canons have often been repealed or revised by the decisions of local synods or even of later Ecumenical Councils. Nevertheless, their legislation is central to the Orthodox canonical tradition, and appeals to such canons are more frequently made than to any other source of canonical legislation.
Guess we need to condemn them as well for daring to question things...
That's talking about canons specifically. Canons cover all kinds of things, not just theological matters.
I was just reading my to kids about Philip and the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian had the scripture, but did not understand what was before him and Philip showed him the way to Christ.
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Zobel said:
The issue here is a kind of misunderstanding about authority. Some of this is because the western churches are all in some ways from the same mindset and family. This often causes Protestants to view the East through a Roman lens. That's the case here. You're kind of taking the Roman view of authority, and saying OK let's map the Orthodox view onto this grid. The premise is incorrect…our understanding of authority is different than the western view.
The ecumenical councils don't decree with the authority of the Holy Spirit. Ecumenical councils are one way that the Holy Spirit acts in leadership of the Church. This makes "authenticity" of whether something is ecumenical or not descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's not number of bishops who show up, or whether the pope called it or ratified it, or anything else. It's ecumenical if it is accepted as such by the church. The is no different at all from how canon functions - and you see the exact same misunderstanding west to east on that topic, too.
The idea of an ecumenical council making anything new is flatly not how Orthodoxy understands these things. The faith -is-, it was given once for all to the saints and was never deficient in any way from the Apostles on. Councils are reactive against problems, and their teaching clarifies the faith which already exists. They don't add to it or change it.
As for trying to detach activities from scripture, this also reads back a kind of sola scriptura framework onto tradition. Just as the Gospel takes a preeminent role in the scriptures of the NT, and the NT is preeminent over the OT, scripture is preeminent among tradition as a whole. Saying a father warns about this or that facet of tradition being at odds with or separate from scripture is as incongruent as the same argument separating the gospel from the epistles.
Lastly, the idea of heresy also seems to be misunderstood. Heresy isn't being wrong about some point of theology. It isn't even believing an error. Heresy is taking a stance against the church to the point of schism. The Church, led by the Spirit, is the rule - the pillar and foundation of the truth - and schism reveals those approved by God, as St Paul says. The charge of heresy is one of schism.
Most often these kind of things are rooted in a kind of unintentional ignorance. Orthodoxy is different than western Christianity, sometimes surprisingly so. It was for me as I first encountered it. So a lot of this is trying to engage with it based on a flawed framework, ecclesiological or otherwise.
Totally forgot to respond to you here. Fair points, I appreciate the detailed reply.
For clarity, a lot of what I posted was the author of the videos position. I was mainly summarizing it, although I do agree with some aspects, disagree with others.
My first post on the thread was my main point which was that there has been infighting and dissent within the church since the early 1st and 2nd century and a lot of it has centered on topics of authority and scripture.
Sure, the church is full of fallible humans.
I think the record on the canon is actually amazingly consistent across the world and the centuries.
I think the record on the canon is actually amazingly consistent across the world and the centuries.
I found it interesting that there was a Patriarch who basically agreed with Calvin that was put under discipline and later made a saint. As far as I know, he didn't recant.
It's in the video. I need to rewatch it.
It's in the video. I need to rewatch it.
TSJ said:
I was just reading my to kids about Philip and the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian had the scripture, but did not understand what was before him and Philip showed him the way to Christ.
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Respectfully, a claim of "unity of scripture and tradition" is to vague a claim that doesn't mean much.
Outside of the most modern non-denom types, everybody claims to have tradition. Everybody claims they can look at the ancient fathers as support for their tradition. The debate is never simply about tradition, but inevitably about authority.
For Rome the true authority is the Pope.
For the EO, I'll let Zobel (or you if your EO) say what it is.
For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.
So to say "scripture and tradition" is to ignore that everybody has traditions.
Personal interpretation for Protestants is the same method as the Pope. Sometimes we see Protestants submit to their pastors interpretation based on more modern criteria such as a degree but with todays political climate they will often seek a new church when they utilize their own version of sola scriptura in combination with their political beliefs. At the end of the day, the Protestant pastor and Francis interpret scripture on their own authority which derives from the Spirit of the Western Mind aka today as the modern individual. All the way from personal interpretation of scripture to personal feelings of gender. It's all the same source.AgLiving06 said:Klaus Schwab said:The Reformers central issue was the idea that authority lies within text. This was their fatal flaw since only Christ holds authority. Even Holy Scripture points to the Church for Truth.AgLiving06 said:
The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles
For the reformers, Christ was not the center given the fact that their starting point was Holy Scripture. It's a radical idea stemming from a schismatic church and essentially the same position as the scribes and Pharisees. Those groups couldn't see Christ because they were only looking to the texts. So they dismissed John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles. In the same manner, Protestants dismiss the Church which includes Apostolic Succession and the only historical link to Pentecost because they are ahistorical and bound to a lineage of western scribes.
The bolded isn't an issue within the Reformation, but the absolute strength. The Scriptures are held up as the inerrant Word of God. It is the place where God speaks to us through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As I said in this thread or the other, the problem with the "unwritten" traditions as the "word of god" is they never seem to agree with each other.
The Scriptures stand alone as the voice of God for all generations to see and hear.
The second paragraph is also simply incorrect. The entire purpose of the Reformation was about Christ. That there is one mediator and one path to Heaven and that is through the Son. The claim of Rome was that only those who bent the knee to the Pope could see heaven. So to argue that the Reformation was about anything other than
Remember that there were 5 "solas" of the Reformation
1. Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
2. Sola Fide - Faith Alone
3. Solus Christus - Christ Alone
4. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
5. Soli Deo Gloria - To the Glory of God Alone
To claim we somehow tried to minimize Christ is to not understand the Reformation at all.
Out of the 5 Solas, Sola Scripture is the center since the leaders that spearheaded the Reformation get all of their tradition (which immediately fractured) from their individual interpretations of Holy Scripture. Any knowledge of Christ comes via text and not within historical tradition passed down from the Apostles but that of Rome and whatever they wanted to enforce as new leaders. The power grab was amazing. So yes, Protestantism absolutely minimizes Christ when they dismiss His Church. Remember, The Church is the pillar and ground for truth.
Also, the Lutherans knew of the east and engaged in communication. I suggest looking into Augsburg and Constantinople/ and Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom. Two books that probably have the most detail on their exchange.
Ya well the modern nondenominational belief is huge and swallowing the American landscape so it won't be long until we live in a society that says traditions of men are bad while they derive their entire religious existence from traditions of men.AgLiving06 said:TSJ said:
I was just reading my to kids about Philip and the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian had the scripture, but did not understand what was before him and Philip showed him the way to Christ.
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Respectfully, a claim of "unity of scripture and tradition" is to vague a claim that doesn't mean much.
Outside of the most modern non-denom types, everybody claims to have tradition. Everybody claims they can look at the ancient fathers as support for their tradition. The debate is never simply about tradition, but inevitably about authority.
For Rome the true authority is the Pope.
For the EO, I'll let Zobel (or you if your EO) say what it is.
For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.
So to say "scripture and tradition" is to ignore that everybody has traditions.
So you state that the Reformers saw Scripture as the source of Authority. Do you understand that a human being has to interpret texts within a specific worldview? If you can't understand why this is a horrible concept then you will never understand why the reformation fractured immediately and why modern evangelicals need to meetup for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in the 1970s. It's all the same Sola Scriptura nonsense in different eras.
For the EO: Holy Tradition passed down from the Apostles. As I mentioned in the first comments, the video is nothing more than quote mining which makes it useless. Orthodox can provide forests of texts spanning centuries that show a general consensus on the most important topics and practices. Yes there are disagreements and examples where saints got things wrong but overall we see a consensus throughout time. We can prove this even in Texas. I can take you to every Russian, Greek, Antiochain, and Serbian church and we will see a general consensus on the liturgy and the function of these parishes when it comes to sacraments. It's the complete opposite of Protestantism where church practices and beliefs are scattered and function solely on the pastor or business partners vision. It's getting more rare to see a traditional Lutheran church.
I think you misunderstand Rome and the Pope. True authority comes from Christ thru Scripture and Tradition. The Pope the head of His Church (administrator if you will) on earth...as was Peter. In Protestantism, each person could be there own Pope, leading there community and interpreting scripture. RCC just believes we are the continuation of the one true Church of CHrist.AgLiving06 said:TSJ said:
I was just reading my to kids about Philip and the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian had the scripture, but did not understand what was before him and Philip showed him the way to Christ.
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Respectfully, a claim of "unity of scripture and tradition" is to vague a claim that doesn't mean much.
Outside of the most modern non-denom types, everybody claims to have tradition. Everybody claims they can look at the ancient fathers as support for their tradition. The debate is never simply about tradition, but inevitably about authority.
For Rome the true authority is the Pope.
For the EO, I'll let Zobel (or you if your EO) say what it is.
For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.
So to say "scripture and tradition" is to ignore that everybody has traditions.
Klaus Schwab said:Personal interpretation for Protestants is the same method as the Pope. Sometimes we see Protestants submit to their pastors interpretation based on more modern criteria such as a degree but with todays political climate they will often seek a new church when they utilize their own version of sola scriptura in combination with their political beliefs. At the end of the day, the Protestant pastor and Francis interpret scripture on their own authority which derives from the Spirit of the Western Mind aka today as the modern individual. All the way from personal interpretation of scripture to personal feelings of gender. It's all the same source.AgLiving06 said:Klaus Schwab said:The Reformers central issue was the idea that authority lies within text. This was their fatal flaw since only Christ holds authority. Even Holy Scripture points to the Church for Truth.AgLiving06 said:
The Word of God in the eyes of the Reformers was First and foremost Jesus, Second the Preaching of the Pastors and third the Scriptures. So no, they would not have outright dismissed the Apostles
For the reformers, Christ was not the center given the fact that their starting point was Holy Scripture. It's a radical idea stemming from a schismatic church and essentially the same position as the scribes and Pharisees. Those groups couldn't see Christ because they were only looking to the texts. So they dismissed John the Baptist, Christ, and the Apostles. In the same manner, Protestants dismiss the Church which includes Apostolic Succession and the only historical link to Pentecost because they are ahistorical and bound to a lineage of western scribes.
The bolded isn't an issue within the Reformation, but the absolute strength. The Scriptures are held up as the inerrant Word of God. It is the place where God speaks to us through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As I said in this thread or the other, the problem with the "unwritten" traditions as the "word of god" is they never seem to agree with each other.
The Scriptures stand alone as the voice of God for all generations to see and hear.
The second paragraph is also simply incorrect. The entire purpose of the Reformation was about Christ. That there is one mediator and one path to Heaven and that is through the Son. The claim of Rome was that only those who bent the knee to the Pope could see heaven. So to argue that the Reformation was about anything other than
Remember that there were 5 "solas" of the Reformation
1. Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
2. Sola Fide - Faith Alone
3. Solus Christus - Christ Alone
4. Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
5. Soli Deo Gloria - To the Glory of God Alone
To claim we somehow tried to minimize Christ is to not understand the Reformation at all.
Out of the 5 Solas, Sola Scripture is the center since the leaders that spearheaded the Reformation get all of their tradition (which immediately fractured) from their individual interpretations of Holy Scripture. Any knowledge of Christ comes via text and not within historical tradition passed down from the Apostles but that of Rome and whatever they wanted to enforce as new leaders. The power grab was amazing. So yes, Protestantism absolutely minimizes Christ when they dismiss His Church. Remember, The Church is the pillar and ground for truth.
Also, the Lutherans knew of the east and engaged in communication. I suggest looking into Augsburg and Constantinople/ and Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom. Two books that probably have the most detail on their exchange.
No...what you describe is not Protestantism, especially that of the Reformation or Sola Scriptura. You can say what you want about the Lutherans or Calvinists, but they absolutely held to as much tradition as they could reasonably reconcile
What you describe is probably best seen at solo or nuda scriptura because of the limited use of tradition.
BluHorseShu said:I think you misunderstand Rome and the Pope. True authority comes from Christ thru Scripture and Tradition. The Pope the head of His Church (administrator if you will) on earth...as was Peter. In Protestantism, each person could be there own Pope, leading there community and interpreting scripture. RCC just believes we are the continuation of the one true Church of CHrist.AgLiving06 said:TSJ said:
I was just reading my to kids about Philip and the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian had the scripture, but did not understand what was before him and Philip showed him the way to Christ.
Where do you make the cut where the scriptures take over from the unity of scripture and tradition?
Respectfully, a claim of "unity of scripture and tradition" is to vague a claim that doesn't mean much.
Outside of the most modern non-denom types, everybody claims to have tradition. Everybody claims they can look at the ancient fathers as support for their tradition. The debate is never simply about tradition, but inevitably about authority.
For Rome the true authority is the Pope.
For the EO, I'll let Zobel (or you if your EO) say what it is.
For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.
So to say "scripture and tradition" is to ignore that everybody has traditions.
A bit of irony when you make a claim about me not understanding Rome and then immediately make a caricature of Protestantism.
At the end of the day in Rome, the ultimate authority is not the Scriptures, but the Pope or Magisterium. It's unavoidable.
AgLiving06 said:
For the Reformers, they looked to Scripture as the source of authority.
I am going to infer scripture=bible.
Which Bible does the Bible say you should use?
Which church does your Bible tell you is the true Church?
What does the Bible teach about abortion or the internet?
And if I get the right answers from my Bible why are there so many people following theirs to completely different ends?
Maybe I am completely ignorant, but I need serious guidance in understanding the most important book I will ever come across.
2 Corinthians 10:5 (ESV) would give instructions applied to the internet.
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;"
Applied to abortion and there are others…
Psalm 139:13-16 ~ For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Jeremiah 1:5 ~ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Exodus 20:13 ~ "You shall not murder."
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;"
Applied to abortion and there are others…
Psalm 139:13-16 ~ For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.
Jeremiah 1:5 ~ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Exodus 20:13 ~ "You shall not murder."
Featured Stories
See All
Players to Watch: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Olin Buchanan
85:33
1d ago
6.1k
11:37
3h ago
1.3k
25:08
7h ago
1.2k