Theodoret and Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
From Theodoret’s Dialog 1, (In the dialogues, Orthodoxes speaks for the Church; Eran. is his opponent)
Orthodoxes: Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone
Eran.: You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture, I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura. Theodoret died in 453 A.D.

This should be a fun thread.😃

Comments?
 
My comment to anyone who believes in *sola scriptura *is show me the proof–show me the precise book, chapter and verse in the Bible where *sola scriptura *is advocated. If you can find that, then explain why the Church went several centuries before the canon of scripture was completed. Also, why would people from a time in which oral traditions were far more common because most people couldn’t read or write–modern day literacy levels are a relatively new phenomenon compliments of the printing press–rely solely on the written word? To me there seems to be a fundamental disconnect (pun intended) just on that alone.
 
Truthstalker said:
From Theodoret’s Dialog 1, (In the dialogues, Orthodoxes speaks for the Church; Eran. is his opponent)

Sola Scriptura. Theodoret died in 453 A.D.

This should be a fun thread.😃

Comments?
Click to expand...
What is the context? This quote is coming from someone who as an Orthodox, was a member of a Church with seven sacraments and sacred oral Traditions. I doubt if he was implying that the Church should be scrapped and that any individual was capable of right interpretation.
 
I mentioned some things in another thread that no one answered. Mainly that no one was interpreting Scripture as a “hobby” outside Church Tradition for 1500 years. Your average Christian did not own Bibles in their homes. They were hand copied by monks and extremely rare. Your average believer couldn’t read anyway. They heard Scripture during Mass or Divine Liturgy, and that was about it. Even if they could read, most people would have been have felt quite unworthy to interpret the Word of God. The most sacred, complicated, and mysterious book ever written.
 
Then perforce he would have had to reject the very canon that identifies for him the scriptures in question. A real bind for his position…
 
Letchitsa1 said:
My comment to anyone who believes in *sola scriptura *is show me the proof–show me the precise book, chapter and verse in the Bible where *sola scriptura *is advocated. If you can find that, then explain why the Church went several centuries before the canon of scripture was completed. Also, why would people from a time in which oral traditions were far more common because most people couldn’t read or write–modern day literacy levels are a relatively new phenomenon compliments of the printing press–rely solely on the written word? To me there seems to be a fundamental disconnect (pun intended) just on that alone.
Click to expand...
Has your church defined any words or teachings of Jesus that are not found in scripture?

How about the apostles? Has your church defined anything that one of the 12 taught that isn’t found in the scriptures?
 
stalker << Sola Scriptura. Theodoret died in 453 A.D. This should be a fun thread. Comments? >>

Easily answered. St. Theodoret of Cyrus was arguing with a heretic who accepted only Scripture. Theodoret’s opponent would not accept the interpretation of the Fathers or saints so Theodoret dealt with him on the authority he would accept: “Scripture alone.”

The same with St. Augustine when arguing with the Arians:

“I must not press the authority of [the council of] Nicea against you, nor you that of [the council of] Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both – the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.” (To Maximim the Arian)

The same with St. Basil the Great who said:

“Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” (Letter 189, Epistle to Eustathius)

Many more citations could be made. Is that Sola Scriptura? It is not. Sola Scriptura means Scripture is a formally sufficient rule for the faith, which means there is no need for the Fathers, or the saints, or Councils to arrive at “the truth.” Webster/King (see Holy Scripture volume 2, page 9-10) define “formal sufficiency” to include these 2 among their 12 points:

“Scripture is the sole source of doctrine for the faith of the Church”
and
"Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e. it is self-interpreting"

The question is: does St. Theodoret (or St. Augustine, or St. Basil the Great, etc) believe Scripture is self-interpreting? Or did he accept the Fathers and interpretations of the saints and tradition as authority on par with Scripture? Decide for yourself:

“But up to now I have ever kept the faith of the apostles undefiled…[how does he know this?..because] I have learnt not only from the apostles and prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings: Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicaea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance, styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees, I invoke your greatness, now that you have heard from me in these terms, to shut the mouths of my clumniators.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, To Florentius, Epistle 89, NPNF 2, III:283)

“This is the doctrine delivered to us by the divine prophets; this is the doctrine of the company of the holy apostles; this is the doctrine of the great saints of the East and of the West; of the far-famed Ignatius, who received his archpriesthood by the right hand of the great [apostle] Peter…the great Eustathius, who presided over the assembled council…This doctrine was preached by the illustrious Meletius…for thrice was he driven from his flock in the cause of the apostles’ doctrines; by Flavianus, glory of the imperial see; and by the admirable Ephraim, instrument of divine grace…by Cyprian the illustrious ruler of Carthage and of all Libya…by Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and by Ambrose, glory of Milan…the same was taught by the great luminaries of Alexandria, Alexander and Athanasius, men of one mind…this was the pasture given to their flocks by the great teachers of the imperial city, by Gregory, shining friend and supporter of the truth; by John, teacher of the world, by Atticus, their successor alike in see and in sentiment…By these doctrines Basil, great light of the truth, and Gregory sprung from the same parents, and Amphilochius, who from him received the gift of the high-priesthood…Time would fail me to tell of Polycarp, and Irenaeus, of Methodius and Hippolytus, and the rest of the teachers of the Church. In a word I assert that I follow the divine oracles and at the same time all these saints.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, To the Monks, Epistle 151, NPNF 2, III:332)

Looks like St. Theodoret of Cyrus forgot to add: “I hold to Scripture alone and repudiate the teaching of the Church. I hereby reject the teachings of the Fathers and the saints and hold to Scripture alone. Scripture interprets Scripture.” Now that would be sola scriptura (Scripture alone). He does not say that. So sorry. 😃

Phil P
 
Phil P,

In arguing with an opponent who would accept Scripture alone, it is odd that instead of demonstrating to the opponent the superiority of “Scripture plus Tradition” over “Scripture Alone,” our hero goes for SS. No, he doesn’t define in explicit detail all the nuances of SS; he doesn’t prefigure Calvin or Hodge, he just throws away Tradition for the sake of an argument. When Tradition fails, in your quotes (an admirable collection), it seems that the ECFs fell back into an SS position. There seems to be a consensus here that when Tradition fails, the fall-back position is SS.

SS, as you well know, can be defined many different ways. Here Scripture, and any deduction from it, are regarded as grounds for settling an argument, in contrast to, say, an appeal to Nicea. To select one definition of SS and then demonstrate that the case does not fit it does not mean that another definition does not meet the case.

I will agree that Theodoret was no proto-Protestant. He clearly regarded Damasus as prime biship - seemingly, it can be inferred, as the one Pope - and he believed that in the Eucharist Christ’s body and blood are received.

But in the present instant Theodoret seems to be making an admission towards SS that no Catholic today, sensitive to the issue, would ever make. What to make of this? Either SS was not an issue at all, in which case SS can be disregarded, because Theodoret was simply making an argument, or SS truly was in play as a significant and respected tool in the apologist’s kit.

So now we argue about what SS is, and you come up with definitions under which the passage cannot be shown to support SS, and I come up with counter-definitions. You seem to be sorry:rolleyes: he did not come up with an explicit declaration of Nuda Scriptura. Now you will ask me to show you where he did, and ask me, since Theodoret interprets Theodoret, where he explains his Sola Scriptura. You of course are waiting in ambush with the passages from the Epistles you so readily furnished. I will see them in context soon. I have not yet finished my reading of Theodoret. So sorry.😃
 
stalk << So now we argue about what SS is, and you come up with definitions under which the passage cannot be shown to support SS, and I come up with counter-definitions. >>

The definition for “material and formal sufficiency” I would accept from Webster/King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, volume 2, page 9-10, their 12 points especially the “Scripture interprets Scripture” part.

Of course Keith Mathison goes much further than Webster/King in The Shape of Sola Scriptura and has additional points to make:

– We have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents (page 21).

– The concept of tradition in the Fathers designated the body of doctrine committed to the Church by the Lord or His Apostles whether oral or written (page 21).

– The Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church within the regula fidei (rule of faith); taken out of this context, it would inevitably be mishandled; this point is constantly repeated and emphasized: page 48, also 81, 85, 120, 140, 147, 150, 151, 167, 267.

– The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, established by Christ, given by Him the authority to “bind and loose” that is not given to every member of the Church as individuals.

– The Church is Christ’s body and bride, “the instrument through which God makes the truth of His Word known” (Eph 3:10); and outside the Church there is no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) refers to the VISIBLE Church according to Mathison (page 268).

– The Church is “our mother,” “the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…the Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her” (Luke 10:16).

– And “it is to the Church as a visible body that we must turn to find the true interpretation and preaching of the good news of Christ; it is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture, for it is in the Scripture that the gospel is found” (268-270). There are leaders in the Church “to whom we owe obedience and submission (Heb 13:17)” (page 272).

Mathison suggests this is all compatible with “Sola Scriptura.” However, once all of this is conceded, the only difference I see between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox and Reformed at this point is locating the authority of that true “visible Church” that does the interpreting of Scripture.

YES PLEASE check those St. Theodore quotes in context. I took them from Not By Scripture Alone and haven’t checked the context myself.

Yves Congar in Tradition and Traditions writes in “Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians” the following conclusions and analysis –

"There is a ‘fact of tradition’ which it is essential to take account of. Personally, I find no difficulty, and not a little joy, in discovering there the positive affirmation that Scripture contains, at least in the form of suggestion or principle, the entire treasury of truths which it is necessary to believe in order to be saved (provided there is an adequate presentation of the Gospel message). To say that, in the sense in which the Fathers and the medieval theologians held it, does not in any way amount to a profession of the principle of Scriptura sola demanded by the Reformers…

“It was with the intention of restoring the sovereignty of God alone that they presented that of Scripture as exclusive. In order to do this effectively, they affirmed the sufficiency of this Scripture, not uniquely in a material sense, that is to say as the object quod creditur, but in a formal sense, that is to say as the means whereby we know, the constitutive light by which we understand, the principle of the rule of faith…Not only was the whole of faith contained in Scripture, but the Christian, benefiting from the interior witness of the Holy Spirit could find it there.”

“Now, the Fathers and the medieval theologians, whom we have cited: (1) Admit the material sufficiency of Scripture…(2) Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot adequately present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly in the Church and in its tradition. If there is one position which the Fathers consistently maintained, it is the position that links inseparably Scripture, the Church and Tradition. Far from considering these three realities to be in opposition, they saw them as united and inseparable.” (Congar, p. 116,117)

My (unfinished) reply to Webster/King here

Phil P
 
I haven’t read Webster/King or Mathison or Congar. Of the three, I have heard good things about Congar.

Will a Catholic settle an issue on Scriptural authority alone without resorting to Church or Tradition? If not then what authority does Scripture have?
 
stalk << Will a Catholic settle an issue on Scriptural authority alone without resorting to Church or Tradition? If not then what authority does Scripture have? >>

Scripture has authority when properly interpreted. Do you concede that St. Theodore of Cyrus did not accept “Scripture alone” in the Protestant sense? That is the topic of this thread.

There are about 7 quotations from St. Theodore in Not By Scripture Alone. I only gave you the first two.

Do you accept the Reformed writer Mathison’s understanding of Sola Scriptura? (my quotes above from his book)

What did the Fathers believe about Scripture, Tradition, and Church? Here it is:

Summary of Part I, Chapter 2 of Congar’s Tradition and Traditions on the ante-Nicene Fathers –

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only – but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The “rule of faith” or “rule of truth” was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of conduct, behavior/practice, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted “materially” of the Scriptures, but “formally” of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition – the Church’s Tradition – is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow “the order of tradition” received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not “succession of doctrine” only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century – these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally “sufficient” or exclusive.

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
heretics also quoted Scripture
Click to expand...
Yep, and so did Satan. As St. Jerome, the great Biblical Doctor, says:

“And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning.”

And what is the meaning, but Tradition? 🙂
 
I looked up the Theodoret quotes - I have the same translation - I don’t think context attacks the meaning you ascribe to it.

In these passages, and in at least one other I have found not far from the OP passage, Theodoret makes another appeal to authority aside from Scripture. Perhaps it’s one of your seven.

From your quotes, Mathison sounds very Catholic to me. I’ll have to read him.
 
Reformed1 said:
Has your church defined any words or teachings of Jesus that are not found in scripture?

How about the apostles? Has your church defined anything that one of the 12 taught that isn’t found in the scriptures?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. The understanding in which to understand the Scriptures. Or else we come to it from our own understanding and define God’s truth ourselves. This is evil as it puts humans above God.

What is to be looked at is how we understand Scripture is it from an understanding that comes from Jesus or from our own understanding.

It really then comes back to mandate. Who sent whom? Even Jesus had to be sent and then sent others who sent others which gives us our understanding of the faith.
To not trace your way back to Jesus means that your faith doesn’t come from Jesus.

In Christ
Scylla
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top