Sola Scriptura and the Early Church

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/solascriptura.html ^ | William Webster

[caww]

It's all very well to talk about Sola Scriptura, but in reality it's an impossible doctrine.

Most can and do rely on and trust the Lord for discerning Historical truth, or not, when it comes to the formation of the church as it's moved thru the ages. With so many Historians writing their versions of times and events it is no surprise people will differ.

The problems generally have been and continue to this day which "group" has it right or not...and each who claim they do. If we look at the Seven churches addressed in Revelations we see each one at differing places of growth and development. Christ had words for each depending on where they were in their adherence to what was required of them ....and that varied very much......

This is so in the non-catholic Denominations, even the individual churches...but it is the same Spirit over each addressing their issues and leading them. The catholic belief is they must abide by the dictates of the Pope and Vatican. That is where we differ so. Thus IMO the Spirit of God is stifled from mvoing within each congregation as He sees fit...the "Law of the Vatican" stands above the truth Christ might otherwise reveal.

My experience in Scriptures is that Christ does indeed use His word to interpret what is written. Often times in some very remarkable ways...... But never before an individual is ready...or willing to accept it. Each varies on what they can digest and the order Christ intends to reveal. It's His call for He knows our minds as well as our condition to accept.

Hermeneutics..and theories...speculation and various approaches to how one interprets the scriptures in and of itself becomes a hot topic. IMO Christ can and does very well in revealing to those who seek Him and His way no matter what their approach...if indeed they desire the truth.

The idea of this article was and remains that of the final authority being the scripture over and above the traditions of men...and Jesus was clear about teaching mans traditions.

[bkaycee]

I can see no reason why they would reject the subsequent 4 councils, but, oh, well. Much of the Protestantism that I grew up with was simply a rejection of anything Roman.

Sorry, my, error, Most protestants accept the first 7.

[Yudan]

"The office of Bishop only developed after the number of Christian Churches (mostly house churches) had grown dramatically."

Certainly the structure evolved as the Church grew and the necessity for layers of administration became greater, but the word ἐπίσκοπος, "episcopos", or "overseer" appears in at least the following places in the New Testament:

Acts 1:20

Acts 20:28

Philippians 1:1

First Timothy 3:2

Titus 1:7

First Peter 2:25

That's pretty good evidence that a hierarchy was in place when the Apostles trod the earth. It's also fairly clear from scripture and the Fathers that when the local elders did something without consulting the guidance of the Apostles, they got metaphorically slapped around for it.

[caww]

1Jn 5:9.....” If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater:..... for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.”

Enjoyed that scripture reference..thank you for posting that.

[what's up]

For instance, there are some Campbellites that don’t celebrate Christmas...because it isn’t in the Bible.

However, the celebration of Christmas does not CONFLICT withe the sense of Scripture.

That's the problem. The teaching of the church should of course be embraced if it it attuned to the spirit of scripture. If church teaching or practice conflicts with Scripture it should be rejected.

[caww]

Notice how the discussion changes to who's church is older and then quoting theologians who developed new doctrines not found in Scripture. It illustrates why Scripture must be the final authority.

Yes, I noticed that as well. It generally happens though. But as you stated..."illustrates why Scripture must be the final authority".

You know there are more than numerous "voices" thru the ages of Christinaity.... Jesus told us to "watch" repeatedly. Many leave the centrality of Christ and bring into the church (as numerous) "other" practices and beliefs Jesus never spoke about.

It's like the Liberals trying to ignore and/or change the constitution to be something other than what it states. They claim it doesn't address our times and is "hard" to understand, when in fact it is quite clear to those who accept it. Those who don't struggle with understanding because they simply cannot accept what it clearly is.

[Kolokotronis]

"The EO have fallen into the same trap as the RC, only to a lesser degree, because they have accepted "tradition" as an equal of Scripture."

It's not a matter of Holy Tradition being superior to Scripture, rather Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition of The Church. It was Holy Tradition which those Greek speaking bishops in the 4th century used to measure the theological quality and Apostolic pedigree of the many writings contending for a place in the universal canon of Scripture for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the God Bearing Fathers of the the 2nd Ecumenical Council called it.

"Then the question the EO should be asking is how different are your religious services from the Apostolic Era and the generations immediately following."

Well, close and not so close. The earliest liturgy in use is the Divine Liturgy of +James which is used almost exclusively in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. I've only seen it once and it is quite similar to our regular Sunday liturgy. It is very very long, hours long. The Church speculates that it dates from about 60-70 AD but it has clearly been updated with Trinitarian theology as it developed in the 4th century. Personally, I think the anaphorae are 1st century. The Liturgy we will celebrate tonight, the Divine Liturgy of +Basil the Great is a relative late comer, being from the 300s. So the same, no, but sort of a generation or two removed from what they were celebrating in Jerusalem in, say, 75 AD.

[Kolokotronis]

"If church teaching or practice conflicts with Scripture it should be rejected."

Or one's personal interpretation of Scripture should be examined to see if it is itself correct. It was Church teaching and practice which was used to determine what Scripture went into the canon and what didn't. To the extent that you see an innovative teaching or practice, remember what The Church taught and believed in the late 4th century and then see if the new teaching or praxis passes muster with that standard, not what you think or the local Rev. said last Sunday. By this I do not mean that it must be exactly the same, though that is safest, but rather see if the new idea or practice is just a different package on a traditional belief.

[what's up]

To the extent that you see an innovative teaching or practice, remember what The Church taught and believed in the late 4th century and then see if the new teaching or praxis passes muster with that standard, not what you think or the local Rev. said last Sunday

It is far superior to measure an innovative teaching or what the Rev. taught against Scripture instead.

We can use other sources to help us but even the early church fathers did not elevate their own sayings/writings/teachings to the level of scripture, obviously knowing the Canon of Scripture was superior and rightly termed the Word of God where the works of the early church fathers are not.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is far superior to measure an innovative teaching or what the Rev. taught against Scripture instead." It's not "instead", it's "both". Measuring it only against Scripture as a practical matter means only against one's own personal interpretation of Scripture. To me, and meaning no offense to my Latin brothers and sisters, that makes about as much sense to me as papal infallibility does. In any event, that's no standard at all, wu. This is why it is always safe to measure against what the canon was measured against, 4th century Holy Tradition of The Church. "even the early church fathers did not elevate their own sayings/writings/teachings to the level of scripture, obviously knowing the Canon of Scripture was superior and rightly termed the Word of God where the works of the early church fathers are not."

Indeed they did not. They were very careful to support their positions by reference to Scripture. And even they erred. This is why we speak of the "consensus patrum" as the standard against which we measure the orthodoxy of the teachings of individual Fathers.

[wmfights]

You might want to go back and read those passages again.

[wmfights]

It's not a matter of Holy Tradition being superior to Scripture, rather Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition of The Church.

Please don't misrepresent what I said, that is a RC practice. I haven't encountered that from the EO before and hope that was an error. What I said was the EO accept their "tradition" (dress it up as you will) as an equal of Scripture. Accepting anything as an equal of Scripture as the rule of your faith will inevitably lead to heresy.

One thought as to why the EO did not have a Reformation is the influence of muslim domination. I agree that the refusal to accept the RC Pope as your supreme ruler is also a factor.

[what's up]

Measuring it only against Scripture as a practical matter means only against one's own personal interpretation of Scripture

An individual's reading of the scripture does not usually involve "only" one's interpretation. Background information will usually have been provided from what others have taught one which very well include not only modern teachers but what other interpreters have said in the past...sometimes distant past. Bible groups continually come together to share interpretations and learn from each other and each other's experiences of Bible study so as not to rely only on their own interpretations.

Why do you think so many people read study Bibles? So they can glean extra insight from the sideline notes and not rely only on their own interpretations.

They were very careful to support their positions by reference to Scripture

Which is another indication why we should consider the Scripture the superior source.

[cizinec]

“It’s not a matter of Holy Tradition being superior to Scripture, rather Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition of The Church.”

Thank you. I was getting around to that eventually. :)

As for our ancestors recognizing our liturgy, I’m Serbian and our hymnography has become distinctly Russian. That’s for another thread on another message list.

[wmfights]

Indeed they did not. They were very careful to support their positions by reference to Scripture. And even they erred. This is why we speak of the "consensus patrum" as the standard against which we measure the orthodoxy of the teachings of individual Fathers.

It's a shame the EO can't step back and see how this "consensus patrum" can lead to heresy. As a Born Again Christian I don't give any special weight to the various gatherings of theologians and their pronouncements. The answers are in Scripture. If something is not clear in Scripture it's better to just leave it alone rather than to rely on politically connected theologians that did a good job submitting to the prevailing power.

A great example of how badly things go awry when depending on your "consensus partum" is the Marian Cult and worship of Mary that is so prevalent in the RCC.

[Yudan]

One example, family activities for the New Year celebration are starting up, so I don't have time to do all of the passages I cited. And please remember that the New Testament scriptures went down on paper in Greek when they were canonized.

Acts 20:28, Greek Study Bible

προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

KJV

Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood

[CynicalBear]

>> It’s all very well to talk about Sola Scriptura, but in reality it’s an impossible doctrine.<<

Different interpretation of the one written Scripture does not make it an impossible doctrine. Each holds that Scripture alone holds the complete truth even though they may differ on what parts of that written Scripture means. Those who don’t believe in Sola Scriptura believe there are doctrines that are clearly not contained in Scripture.

[what's up]

A great example of how badly things go awry when depending on your "consensus partum" is the Marian Cult and worship of Mary that is so prevalent in the RCC

Agreed.

[Yudan]

"... I don't give any special weight to the various gatherings of theologians and their pronouncements. The answers are in Scripture."

Does that include the gatherings of theologians that canonized the scripture in the 4th century? Seems you give an awful lot of weight to them.

[Kolokotronis]

"What I said was the EO accept their "tradition" (dress it up as you will) as an equal of Scripture. Accepting anything as an equal of Scripture as the rule of your faith will inevitably lead to heresy."

Indeed you did. I apologize. I assure you it was unintentional. But it isn't a matter of "equal" either. Scripture is part of Holy Tradition. Here's an article by a respected American Orthodox priest on the question. I find Fr. Serfes' writings to be accurate and succinct and especially accessible by Western readers. http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm