Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Authority

[TriuneUnity]

TU, please don’t let my snipping imply that I think any less of what you’ve posted-I’ve made the same arguments a number of times. One small correction to the second part above “an inerrant decision doesn’t entail an infallible decision*-maker*”.

hahaha! Yes, that probably would’ve made more sense to say it that way.

This dilemma can only be resolved if one accepts that the acceptance of the OT by the early Christians was the leading of God as was the reading of the Gospels and Epistles. And if one accepts this then the definition of the canon becomes more an act of God-guided consensus (as suggested by F.F. Bruce) than an infallibly exercised proclamation.

Precisely. The history of the formation of the canon is most certainly the result of the providential flow of history. God ordains and crafts the flow of this history. Apart from such supernatural intervention, there is no way to explain the extent of the unanimity that gradually arose concerning the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

All of which does not require that those who recognized the canon possess a charism of infallibility.

 

[Non_Serviam]

hahaha! Yes, that probably would’ve made more sense to say it that way.

Precisely. The history of the formation of the canon is most certainly the result of the providential flow of history. God ordains and crafts the flow of this history. Apart from such supernatural intervention, there is no way to explain the extent of the unanimity that gradually arose concerning the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

All of which does not require that those who recognized the canon possess a charism of infallibility.

Those who like to minimize the use of Scripture in the early church to avoid the dilemma, have to contend with the testimony of Justin Martyr

And on the day called Sunday,all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

There is no uncertainty suggested here nor is there an implication that Justin even sees a need for some sort of formal confirmation of the texts-it is their common use by the faithful that seems to confirm them. This centuries before the council.

 

[TriuneUnity]

There is no uncertainty suggested here nor is there an implication that Justin even sees a need for some sort of formal confirmation of the texts-it is their common use by the faithful that seems to confirm them. This centuries before the council.

Absolutely. In addition, whether the books were widely and read and used in worship was one criterion that was used for determining which texts were canonical. In Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he refers to Paul’s writings to them as “Scripture.” This is only some thirty years after they were written. Tertullian was already quoting from twenty-three of the twenty-seven books of the NT by the late second and early third centuries. The wide use of these books (as well as the Old Testament) by the ancient Christian writers to judge all views and controversies testifies to the fact that they were already functioning as Scripture long before they were officially listed in a canon. In 367, Athanasius drew up the first list of all twenty-seven books, even identifying it as a canon, and maintained that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us.”

This underscores the fact that the church was recognizing, not creating, the canon. These leaders of the ancient church were engaged in historical criticism-determining which books were canonical, not endowing them with canonical authority. Athanasius, for example, rejected the Shepherd of Hermas because, although it was widely used, it did not have adequate evidence of apostolic origin and did not bear the marks of belonging to the circle of the apostles themselves. As Emil Brunner notes, this process was far from an arbitrary exercise of ecclesiastical power: “If we compare the writings of the New Testament with those of the subapostolic period [e.g., Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas], even those which are nearest in point of time, we cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a very great difference between the two groups; which was also the opinion of the fathers of the church.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

The one thing your critiques seem to be missing is the Orthodox view that we don’t make things official unless we have to, if tradition is good enough there is no point in codifying anything any further.

Understood. My question then, is if the tradition is acceptable and doesn’t need a council with the charism of infallibility to determine whether it is acceptable, unless, say, it is challenged, how then can you determine whether the tradition has any validity to begin with?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I want to praise you for reaching out and hoping to have dialogue to understand and learn about the EO.

Thanks, Still. I am hoping that will be the case!

 

[Nine_Two]

Those who like to minimize the use of Scripture in the early church to avoid the dilemma, have to contend with the testimony of Justin Martyr

There is no uncertainty suggested here nor is there an implication that Justin even sees a need for some sort of formal confirmation of the texts-it is their common use by the faithful that seems to confirm them. This centuries before the council.

There is no uncertainty because that was not the point of his writings. He was trying to explain to non-Christians that what went on at Christian meetings, not explain the finer points of scripture.

 

[Nine_Two]

Understood. My question then, is if the tradition is acceptable and doesn’t need a council with the charism of infallibility to determine whether it is acceptable, unless, say, it is challenged, how then can you determine whether the tradition has any validity to begin with?

Because Holy Tradition will always be consistent with itself.

If someone makes a claim which is not consistent with Holy Tradition, then we know it to be wrong.

Even the Gospel of John says that Jesus said and did much more than what was written down, thus a reliance purely on what was written down is foolhardy.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sorry, but you are not accurate in your assessment that “an infallible ecumenical council did not list any canon until Trent”. Trent, faced with the Reformation and the throwing out of the seven books by Luther, et al, restated what the Church had already done and finalized at the Council of Carthage. As for the Orthodox, we were one Church at the time of the Council of Carthage and they have accepted the canon chosen at that council.

Yes, but I did not say that no council listed a canon of Scripture. I stated that no ecumenical council (therefore, one not possessed with the charism of infallibility according to both Roman and Eastern communions) listed a canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent. If it were true that Carthage or Hippo were definitive, then the books contained within would not have been able to be challenged at various points for the next 1100 years without any penalty of excommunication (ex. Cardinal Cajetan’s rejection of the DC books as Scripture as well as some NT books, such as James and 2 Peter).

 

[TriuneUnity]

The Fathers: Another critique is the Orthodox understanding of the fathers and their relationship to Church authority. Bishops Chrysostomos and Auxentios explain that “it is in the writings of the Fathers that we find a true source for the Orthodox position regarding the authority of Scripture and tradition in the Church.” In other words, the Orthodox Church desires to teach the same concept of Scripture and tradition that the early fathers taught. Yet the Orthodox Church assigns a place to the fathers that the fathers themselves would reject. Chrysostomos and Auxentios explain that the “Early Church invoked Tradition as the authentic criterion of scriptural interpretation.” Yet elsewhere they add, “As we have already noted, Orthodox theology draws on the consistent God-inspired witness of the Fathers in order to formulate any theological position. It is the perspective of the Fathers that always prevails, and it is to their authority that the Church always hearkens.” If the fathers are “inspired” then the patristic understanding these Orthodox authors desire to maintain is destroyed. Aside from the fact that the fathers themselves did not claim to be inspired and in fact often admitted being fallible, it remains that if the patristic writings are God-inspired they are no longer a criterion of scriptural interpretation, they are equal to Holy Scripture.

According to the Orthodox, their theology “in its strictest sense, proceeds from the Patristic witness, from the ‘canon of theology’ found in the consensus patrum.” But not only is this not the view of the fathers themselves, it is also quite false. Orthodox Christian theology, in its strictest sense, proceeds from God who has revealed Himself. The final revelation was given in and by Christ. The gospel was committed by Christ to His Apostles who preached this kerygma to the Church. This gospel was written in the Holy Scriptures which the Church itself refers to as the “canon” meaning a standard or “rule.” This revelation is interpreted and proclaimed by the Church, but the Church is not the originator or source of the revelation. She is entrusted with the preservation and proclamation of the revelation given once for all in Christ and recorded in Scripture.

The fathers of the Church were also interpreters of this revelation, fallible and human interpreters, not sources of revelation and certainly not God-inspired. Their words are not theopneustos. Their words may contain God’s words when they accurately interpret God’s revelation, but their words cannot be equated with God’s words. To refer to the writings of the fathers as the “canon” of Orthodox theology contradicts the very fathers whom the Orthodox wish to follow.

Another major problem with the Orthodox understanding of the “mind of the fathers” is its logical incoherence. Bishops Chrysostomos and Auxentios write, “How do we know that the writings of the Fathers themselves…are true and inspired?” Our criterion for judging the truth of the fathers, they write, is “the ‘mind’ of the Fathers [which is the ‘mind’ of the Church].” In other words, the criterion for judging the mind of the fathers is the mind of the fathers. This circularity results in the Orthodox Church ultimately declaring itself the criterion of truth since the ultimate standard of truth - the mind of the fathers - is equated with the mind of the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Final analysis and conclusion - The end result being autonomy: The most significant problem that is caused by the Orthodox concept of the canon, the councils, and the fathers in relation to Scripture and tradition is that, similar to Roman Catholicism, it renders the Church autonomous - a law unto itself. The Orthodox Church strongly criticizes the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and tradition believing it to result in the elevation of the pope to a place of virtual final authority in the Church. As Chrysostomos and Auxentios explain, “The authority of the Church as it is manifested in the infallibility of the pope introduces a perspective on Scripture and Tradition which is uniquely Roman Catholic. The papacy comes to represent the virtual authority of Scripture and Tradition themselves.” Yet the Eastern Orthodox church falls into a similar dilemma. In the Roman Catholic church, the present church represents the virtual authority of Scripture and Tradition, and this authority is personified supremely in the Bishop of Rome. But in the Eastern church, it is the present church which also represents the virtual authority of Scripture and Tradition. As Chrysostomos and Auxentios explain, the mind of the fathers is the final criterion and standard of truth, and the mind of the fathers is the mind of the Church. It is the Church therefore that is the final standard of truth.

In both Catholicism and Orthodoxy this elevation of the present church to a place of final authority is a necessary result of the doctrine of infallibility. Both Rome and the East teach the infallibility of the Church. This doctrine necessarily leads to the supremacy and autonomy of the Church regardless of any other professed authorities. If the Church is infallible, then the present Church is always going to be the final standard.

Chrysostomos and Auxentios criticize Rome saying that, “A concept of authority which could engender, without careful reservations, a slogan such as ‘the Church precedes the Bible,’ or envision a personal magisterium, is simply too analogous to a legalistic arrangement to commend itself to the Eastern Church.” Yet the claims of the Orthodox are equally as incredible. Immediately after criticizing Roman Catholic statements about the Church, the authors say the following about the Orthodox church, “But true authority, the action of the Holy Spirit as evidenced in the unified revelation of Scripture and Tradition, is wholly mystical. Thus advisedly (since his point can be misunderstood) we can quote Professor Hromadka’s contention that: ‘Not even Christ should be understood and looked upon as an authority to which the Church is subordinated.’”

Any concept of ecclesiastical authority that can see Hromadka’s quote as anything other than cosmic treason is self-evidently false. The quote is blatantly unbiblical (cf. Eph. 5:24) Yet what else can the Orthodox church say when it claims that the final source and standard of truth is the mind of the fathers which is equivalent to the mind of the Church? If the mind of the present Church is the final source and criterion of truth, then either the Church is God or the Church is autonomous. One option is blasphemy against God, and the other option is rebellion against God. We realize, of course, that the Orthodox would not claim either option for themselves, but it is the necessary result of the Church as the final authority. Both options are rejected by the Evangelical Lutheran who believes that the Christian Church must be in obedient submission to the word of Christ as given through His chosen means of self-revelation in Holy Scripture.

 

[SteveVH]

Absolutely. In addition, whether the books were widely and read and used in worship was one criterion that was used for determining which texts were canonical. In Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he refers to Paul’s writings to them as “Scripture.” This is only some thirty years after they were written. Tertullian was already quoting from twenty-three of the twenty-seven books of the NT by the late second and early third centuries. The wide use of these books (as well as the Old Testament) by the ancient Christian writers to judge all views and controversies testifies to the fact that they were already functioning as Scripture long before they were officially listed in a canon. In 367, Athanasius drew up the first list of all twenty-seven books, even identifying it as a canon, and maintained that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us.”

For nearly four centuries the Church not only existed, but was thriving, expanding to the four corners of the known world, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully without canonical texts. Christ never asked them to write down a word, but rather to preach. Certainly, the NT texts gew out of the living Tradition within the Church, present since its begining, faithfully passed down from the Apostle’s to their successors. It wasn’t as if the canonical texts were something new. The texts spoke of the very life of the Church, the Tradition, not as some remembrance of the past, but rather as it was being lived. The Church knew authentic teaching just as a person would know if someone was telling the truth about their personal life. It was all about the Church, the Bride, with Christ as its head and spouse. The Church also had the guarantee of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete,
to guide it into all truth.

For several reasons, these texts were not read widely by the laity. First of all reproducing them was a feat in itself; no printing presses. Secondly the illiteracy rate amoung the general population was high. They received the word of God from the Church, from the pulpit, if you will. I agree that these texts were used in that capacity during the Liturgy of the Word at the early Masses. Justin Martyr’s account is sufficient evidence.

This underscores the fact that the church was recognizing, not creating, the canon. These leaders of the ancient church were engaged in historical criticism-determining which books were canonical, not endowing them with canonical authority. Athanasius, for example, rejected the Shepherd of Hermas because, although it was widely used, it did not have adequate evidence of apostolic origin and did not bear the marks of belonging to the circle of the apostles themselves. As Emil Brunner notes, this process was far from an arbitrary exercise of ecclesiastical power: “If we compare the writings of the New Testament with those of the subapostolic period [e.g., Epistle of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas], even those which are nearest in point of time, we cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a very great difference between the two groups; which was also the opinion of the fathers of the church.”

I couldn’t agree more. The Church “determined” which books were canonical; which had been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They did this through comparing the texts to the living truth already within the Church, Sacred Tradition. That is the only way we can be sure that the books of the Bible are, indeed, the word of God.
And there are those who question Church’s authority to interpret without error. If the Church cannot interpret without error, then it could not determine the canon of Sacred Scripture without error. If that’s the case, we’re all in trouble.

 

[TriuneUnity]

For nearly four centuries the Church not only existed, but was thriving, expanding to the four corners of the known world, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ faithfully without canonical texts.

Welcome back to the thread, Steve!

When was the Church ever without the sacred texts? If you revise your statement to say that no council made a public declaration of the canon for four hundred years, I would agree. How could the fathers have referred to the Scriptures (both OT and NT) as Scripture before the councils if they didn’t consider them as such?

Christ never asked them to write down a word, but rather to preach.

That He didn’t is irrelevant. The fact is, they did write down their teachings, with God inspired truthfulness. That alone means they were commanded to do so. What would the Church have preached in the post-apostolic era if the teachings were not documented?

Certainly, the NT texts gew out of the living Tradition within the Church, present since its begining, faithfully passed down from the Apostle’s to their successors. It wasn’t as if the canonical texts were something new. The texts spoke of the very life of the Church, the Tradition, not as some remembrance of the past, but rather as it was being lived.

I am not sure I understand. If it was written as it was being lived, why did the writings stop some sixty years into its existence? What texts were being written in the ante and post Nicene eras? If it wasn’t written for the remembrance of the events of the life of Christ and the gospel and all that that implies, then why does it largely focus on events that were in the past as of their writing?

The Church knew authentic teaching just as a person would know if someone was telling the truth about their personal life.

Then why was it consumed with error for the better part of a few centuries? Arianism (which dominated the Bishops for a short while), Gnosticism, Docetism, Manichaeism (which even Augustine sunk into), etc.? Would it have been able to navigate out of these without Holy Scripture?

I couldn’t agree more. The Church “determined” which books were canonical; which had been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They did this through comparing the texts to the living truth already within the Church, Sacred Tradition.

What do you mean already within the Church? The Church was in existence for at most twenty years before the texts began to be written and distributed. Are you claiming that was a vast period of time in which the only thing present was Tradition?

That is the only way we can be sure that the books of the Bible are, indeed, the word of God.
And there are those who question Church’s authority to interpret without error. If the Church cannot interpret without error, then it could not determine the canon of Sacred Scripture without error. If that’s the case, we’re all in trouble.

That the Church can interpret with error and determine the canon of Scripture with error does not mean that they did. As Non Serviam indicated, an inerrant decision does not require the decision maker to be incapable of erring.

 

[SteveVH]

When was the Church ever without the sacred texts? If you revise your statement to say that no council made a public declaration of the canon for four hundred years, I would agree. How could the fathers have referred to the Scriptures (both OT and NT) as Scripture before the councils if they didn’t consider them as such?

Well, the Church was certainly without the sacred texts before they were written, but that wasn’t a great length of time and was not my point. My point was that the Church knew “instinctively” that the texts were inspired before they were officially declared canonical. In other words, I was agreeing with you. My statement probably could have been better worded.

That He didn’t is irrelevant. The fact is, they did write down their teachings, with God inspired truthfulness. That alone means they were commanded to do so. What would the Church have preached in the post-apostolic era if the teachings were not documented?

Maybe things like the Didache or the Apostle’s Creed. The truth existed within the living Tradition of the Church and was taught as faithfully as if had it been written down. As it was written down the Church faithfully preserved those writings.

I am not sure I understand. If it was written as it was being lived, why did the writings stop some sixty years into its existence? What texts were being written in the ante and post Nicene eras? If it wasn’t written for the remembrance of the events of the life of Christ and the gospel and all that that implies, then why does it largely focus on events that were in the past as of their writing?

The inspired writings stopped because public revelation stopped. The Church continued to write many texts and continues today. Again, maybe I didn’t make myself clear. Of course the writings must refer to events in the past, but events that were lived by the Church. If I begin writing about my experience on this thread it will have been in the past the moment I stop writing. My point is that it is a part of my life, not something that happend to someone else that I must write down before I forget what I was told. The texts came out of that life of the Church which we call Tradition.

Then why was it consumed with error for the better part of a few centuries? Arianism (which dominated the Bishops for a short while), Gnosticism, Docetism, Manichaeism (which even Augustine sunk into), etc.? Would it have been able to navigate out of these without Holy Scripture?

It was not consumed by error, but preserved the truth in the face of heresies, inspite of some individuals in the Church who may have fallen into error. It is no different today. Each of the heresies you list above continue to raise their ugly heads today and the Church defends against them. None of those heresies made its way into the doctrines of the Church. And yes, it would be able to navigate out of these without Holy Scripture because of Holy Tradition; the instrument through which the inspiration of Holy Scripture was determined. It is present in its doctrines, its liturgies and its Sacraments. The Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.

What do you mean already within the Church? The Church was in existence for at most twenty years before the texts began to be written and distributed. Are you claiming that was a vast period of time in which the only thing present was Tradition?

The Church posesses the Word of God whether written down or in the form of Tradition. As I said above, no it was not a vast period of time before the texts began to be written, but they couldn’t put them in a computer and email them to all the faithful the next day either. Just copying the texts was a painstaking process and then the majority of people were illiterate. The Church’s primary way of conveying the word of God was through preaching, regardless of when the texts became widespread.

That the Church can interpret with error and determine the canon of Scripture with error does not mean that they did. As Non Serviam indicated, an inerrant decision does not require the decision maker to be incapable of erring.

Well then let me ask you. How do you know for certain that Sacred Scripture is without error if the one who determined it inspired is not protected from error? You are basically saying that even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then. I wouldn’t want to rely on that for my salvation.

God bless.

Steve

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, the Church was certainly without the sacred texts before they were written, but that wasn’t a great length of time and was not my point. My point was that the Church knew “instinctively” that the texts were inspired before they were officially declared canonical. In other words, I was agreeing with you. My statement probably could have been better worded.

Oh, okay. That was my fault then. I mistook the “without canonical” texts part to mean “without the Scriptures.”

Maybe things like the Didache or the Apostle’s Creed. The truth existed within the living Tradition of the Church and was taught as faithfully as if had it been written down. As it was written down the Church faithfully preserved those writings.

Yes, but you also have to remember that the reason the teachings of the apostles were being taught faithfully is because the apostles were the ones doing the teaching. After the apostles had died out, certainly the Church used what it remembered of their teachings, but as time progresses, there is more and more reliance on the Scriptures because the community began to become disconnected from direct witness to the apostles. No dispute that the Church faithfully preserved the writings (and only the Church).

The inspired writings stopped because public revelation stopped. The Church continued to write many texts and continues today.

Yes, but they are not inspired texts. Even Rome and Orthodoxy agree that since revelation has stopped, no writings can be considered to be revelation (not sure about the Orthodox, given their view of the fathers). Which means that if we base dogma on uninspired writings, it could be false.

Again, maybe I didn’t make myself clear. Of course the writings must refer to events in the past, but events that were lived by the Church. If I begin writing about my experience on this thread it will have been in the past the moment I stop writing. My point is that it is a part of my life, not something that happend to someone else that I must write down before I forget what I was told. The texts came out of that life of the Church which we call Tradition.

I would partly agree. The problem with tradition in this case (with both Rome and the East) is that many of what is called tradition cannot be verified to be apostolic because it is either absent altogether from Scripture, or in the worst case scenario, directly contradicts it. Tradition that cannot be verified to be apostolic is in no way sacred.

It was not consumed by error, but preserved the truth in the face of heresies, inspite of some individuals in the Church who may have fallen into error. It is no different today. Each of the heresies you list above continue to raise their ugly heads today and the Church defends against them. None of those heresies made its way into the doctrines of the Church. And yes, it would be able to navigate out of these without Holy Scripture because of Holy Tradition; the instrument through which the inspiration of Holy Scripture was determined. It is present in its doctrines, its liturgies and its Sacraments. The Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.

On the contrary, it did succumb to error entering the teachings of the Church. Would there have been an Arian controversy otherwise? Faithful men either prevented or rooted error out of the Church. That does not mean that it never entered even its highest echelon’s. Can you please point to a tradition of the Church that is not contained in Scripture at all, such that men like Athanasius and Augustine used, without any reference to Scripture, that would have prevented the Arian or Gnostic heresies? It is impossible for the Bible, if by that you mean the Scriptures, to come from the Church, since Scripture has always existed before the New Testament Church. It comes from God and was entrusted first to the Jews, and then to the Church.

The Church posesses the Word of God whether written down or in the form of Tradition. As I said above, no it was not a vast period of time before the texts began to be written, but they couldn’t put them in a computer and email them to all the faithful the next day either. Just copying the texts was a painstaking process and then the majority of people were illiterate. The Church’s primary way of conveying the word of God was through preaching, regardless of when the texts became widespread.

And without the Churches receiving those Scriptures, they would have had nothing to preach.

Well then let me ask you. How do you know for certain that Sacred Scripture is without error if the one who determined it inspired is not protected from error? You are basically saying that even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then. I wouldn’t want to rely on that for my salvation.

God bless.

Steve

If the blind pig is governed by the God of the universe, and the God of the universe produces the acorn, so orders events that the blind pig finds the acorn…I can be confident that the blind pig will find the acorn. That is to say, my confidence that the Church has correctly recognized the Scriptures is based on God making sure that they did so, not a quality possessed by the Church. A charism of infallibility is not required. God being infallible is enough.

 

[Non_Serviam]

TriuneUnity has been doing a great job replying to these comments, not leaving me much to say, but there are a couple of points I would like to add.

Well, the Church was certainly without the sacred texts before they were written, but that wasn’t a great length of time and was not my point. My point was that the Church knew “instinctively” that the texts were inspired before they were officially declared canonical. In other words, I was agreeing with you. My statement probably could have been better worded.

Steve, you need to revise your timeline-the Scriptures predate the Church. Jesus used them, Peter used them on the Day of Pentecost, Paul used them in various synagogues.

Yes other books were added, but this idea of the church coasting along on “tradition-only” with no inspired books at the heart of its evangelism and worship, simply never existed.

As to your point about the church’s instinct, I fully agree that the church recognized the hand of God in the Gospels and Epistles as they were produced-keep in mind that Peter validated the works of Paul during the Apostolic period itself. While there were some debatable books, the church was in no way in doubt about the vast majority of the canon.

Maybe things like the Didache or the Apostle’s Creed. The truth existed within the living Tradition of the Church and was taught as faithfully as if had it been written down. As it was written down the Church faithfully preserved those writings.

We agree that the teachings and traditions of the Apostles’ formed the basis of Scripture-that’s why positing a large equivalent body of “Tradition” equal in importance and authority to the Scriptures is a foreign concept to the non-Catholic.Remember that Justin refers to the “memoirs” of the Apostles. They were codifying their recollections of Jesus and his ministry, of the early history of the church and of the key teachings needed for salvation and the life of the church. To posit an equally important “black box” of tradition that is as important but wasn’t codified demands some sort of evidence.

Well then let me ask you. How do you know for certain that Sacred Scripture is without error if the one who determined it inspired is not protected from error? You are basically saying that even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then. I wouldn’t want to rely on that for my salvation.

God bless.

Steve

Perhaps not a pig, but how about a donkey? At God’s command, Balaam’s donkey spoke an inerrant Word of God to Balaam-in your system he would have to have received a charism of infallibility to do so. Do you believe in an infallible donkey? If not, then a fallible man delivering an inerrant message is also possible. If one man is possible, then a Council is possible-and there we have an inerrant Canon without infallibility.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Hello my friends in Christ,
I just want to add 2 cents to this very good discussion. Let us not uncharitable.

Now:
To posit an equally important “black box” of tradition that is as important but wasn’t codified demands some sort of evidence.

I can provide that evidence from the Fathers and scripture.

First with the fathers.

Iraneuas:
“For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had NOT left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?”

Athanasius:
“The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say, more SUFFICIENT and ENOUGH BY ITSELF, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church”

I could multiply the examples which show the importance of tradtion from the fathers.

Now, the Good Book says,Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle.2 Thessalonians 2:14

John Chrysostom states when interpreting this verse,"‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thes 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther."

Hopefully I could contribute to the discussion. Now, I am not saying the Church never used scripture, that would be ridiculous. However, the scripture WAS NOT meant to be interpreted away from the church. God Bless.

Now, if one holds

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hello my friends in Christ,
I just want to add 2 cents to this very good discussion. Let us not uncharitable.

Now:
To posit an equally important “black box” of tradition that is as important but wasn’t codified demands some sort of evidence.

I can provide that evidence from the Fathers and scripture.

First with the fathers.

Iraneuas:
“For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had NOT left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?”

Athanasius:
“The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say, more SUFFICIENT and ENOUGH BY ITSELF, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church”

I could multiply the examples which show the importance of tradtion from the fathers.

Hello to you as well,

Note that Irenaeus begins this statement with an “if”. If we didn’t have Scripture, we would have to use tradition. Note that even this early in the history of the church, that Scripture is seen as the prime source for Apostolic teaching. Note also that there is suggested an equivalence between what was said to the church in “tradition” and what is in Scripture.

This is in contrast to the “black box” often put forward by Catholics and labelled as tradition for which there is no equivalent in Scripture. When question-the Catholic replies that it doesn’t need to be in Scripture as it is “Tradition” positing to different sets of content. This doesn’t appear to line up with the view of Irenaeus.

As for Athanasius, he is entitled to his opinion, but if I could choose only between the creed and the Scriptures, the inspired words of the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus would claim my allegiance.

Note that this doesn’t mean I think there is no value in the Creed, just that it is subordinate to the Scriptures.

Now, the Good Book says,Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle.2 Thessalonians 2:14

John Chrysostom states when interpreting this verse,"‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thes 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther."

Hopefully I could contribute to the discussion. Now, I am not saying the Church never used scripture, that would be ridiculous. However, the scripture WAS NOT meant to be interpreted away from the church. God Bless.

Now, if one holds

Once again we have a situation similar to that in Irenaeus where Paul speaks of one group of believers possessing one set of traditions that were delivered in 2 ways: a) by word and b) by epistle. Paul makes it clear that both contain the same content. Thus the explanation which follows, which speaks of two separate bodies of content one oral and one written, is incorrect. The speaker was eisegeting the passage based on the belief system in place 300 years after Paul, rather than Paul’s words.

I agree that it is the church’s role to proclaim and explain Scripture, but that Scripture remains the standard against which the explanations are measured.

It appears the “black box” is still missing, some more searching might be in order.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Iraneuas:
“For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had NOT left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the TRADITION which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?”

Welcome, Unworthy, good to have you participating.

I am a bit distressed by your choice of Irenaeus’ quote here. For it is severely truncated and has no context at all to it. Upon further examination of what Irenaeus is saying, it becomes clear what his main point is. Let me provide you with the full statement around which the above quote is made. When examined fully, you will find that it does not provide the case for tradition as you are using it:

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, **believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. **Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.”

Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of the “ancient tradition of the apostles”. To say it excludes scripture, as many Roman Catholics and Orthodox say it does, and then say the text only discusses oral tradition apart from scriptural revelation, is as unwarranted as it is silly. The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed (in bold) that is identical to the scriptures. Had this oral tradition contained a key doctrine not found in scripture, then you would have a supporting point for how you’re intending to use the quote. What this passage is talking about happens all the time today when we spontaneously and unexpectedly teach a sinner the gospel in a city park when we have no Bible in hand. We rely on “oral tradition” in the absence of written documents. Had Irenaeus’ creed (in bold) included any extra biblical doctrines like, the assumption of Mary, purgatory, papal infallibility, indulgences etc., then you would have somewhat of an argument. But since there are no extra biblical doctrines, it actually supports our view that all “inspired apostolic tradition” was also contained in scripture. We are not denying “oral apostolic tradition”, we merely say it is identical with scripture.

Athanasius:
“The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say, more SUFFICIENT and ENOUGH BY ITSELF, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church”

Again, you provide this quote with absolutely no context. Athanasius and other Bishops in Libya and Egypt wrote this letter searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/athanasius/view.cgi?file=npnf2-04-69.htm to Bishops in Africa. The reason the letter was written is because the Arians were attempting to reassert their dominance by holding local councils and synods that were disagreeing with the Council of Nicea. Athanasius is writing to state that the Council of Nicea was sufficient to settle the matter once and for all.

Now, the Good Book says,Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle.2 Thessalonians 2:14

Can you please provide an example drawn from 2 Thess. 2 which states that Paul here is referring to extra scriptural doctrines such as the papacy, the assumption of Mary, purgatory etc?

If not, then please note that the oral tradition to which Paul refers to is his preaching the gospel in the city of Thessalonica as recorded in the book of Acts. The letter that he refers to is, of course, 1 Thessalonians. There is no indication here by Paul that the tradition to which he refers is a second body of knowledge which has not been inscripturated and is completely distinct from the doctrine of the gospel as recorded in Scripture.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by an epistle of ours’ [2 Thes 2:15]. Hence it is MANIFEST, that they did NOT deliver all things by Epistle, but MANY THINGS UNWRITTEN, and IN LIKE MANNER BOTH the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." Homilies on Second Thessalonians 4,2 -John Chrysostom

We must have recourse to TRADITION, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures. That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others by TRADITIONS. As Paul said: ‘Just as I handed them on to you’ [cf. 1 Cor 11:2,23ff; 15:1ff]."-Epiphanius of Salamis

When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where are the proofs of your teaching that I should leave behind the world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in before you have finished with the question: ‘It is written!’ He follows up immediately with thousands of texts and examples…" Commonitoria 1,26

“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another; Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius…Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” Commonitoria 2 -Vincent of Lerins

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of Bishops, have received the CERTAIN GIFT OF TRUTH, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in SUSPICION others who DEPART from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves…But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did.”-Irenaeus

My Words: Now, Irenaeus holds the church with apostolic succession to be the measure of correct interpretation of the scripture. He says that those who seperate themselves from the church are to be punished badly by God. He even says that the church has been given a gift of truth, I smell infallibility, so the church must be obeyed. The previous patristic quotes show that the rule of faith then was interpreting scripture according to the tradition of the church. You and I can sling verses all day, but the truth is found within the ecclesiatical meaning of the text as St.Vincent expounds. Also, the bible is a dynamic document, being the word of God, and cannot be interpreted on just one level. Your historical anaylisis was quite impressive I must say. However, the plain words of the text say to refer to both written and oral teaching. The literal words of the text are what I and other apologists look at. The Holy Writ says that the “…church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15. The divine Word of God says what the pillar of Orthodoxy is and that is the church. The bible cannot be put up against the church as a way of dismantling its teachings. The bible was always intepreted within the church and infallible teachings were handed down that were guided by the Holy Spirit.*see the Coucnil of Jerusalem in Acts

God Bless

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Here is a good website to explain the role of tradition and scripture from an Orthodox perspective.
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

The source of the faith and doctrine of the Orthodox Church is called “Sacred Tradition.” Unlike Western Christianity, which professes a kind of dichotomy between the Bible, considered to be the revealed word of God, and the tradition of the Church, considered to be:as important as the Bible (Roman Catholic Church) or
secondary, and even negligible (Protestantism), Orthodoxy holds the position that the Tradition of the Church includes the Bible, for the Bible is an epiphenomenon, an “outward form” of our Christian Tradition. (The bible is a part of the tradition and life of the church.)

I as an Eastern Catholic understand things more in a way like the one on this website.
God Bless