Authority

[justaname]

I recently went to an Orthodox Vespers service that also had a seminar on an Orthodox perspective on the Bible.

My concern is on the question of authority. The Orthodox Church claims to be the authority over Scripture whereas they organized the cannon, they decide what Scripture is, and revelation has not ceased thereby Scripture can be added (as seen in their services). Ultimately the Church is the authority.

I know the majority Protestant perspective is Scripture itself is the authority, the cannon is closed, and new revelation has ceased. From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority, hence the splintering of denominations. No one can argue the Scriptures "speak for themselves" else there would be no variance in interpretation.

Now before proceed I would like to proclaim God as the authority, but for a practical discussion on the issue of authority we must concede that man/woman is the agent God uses as implementing His authority. To defuse further arguments also the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is claimed throughout the whole of Christianity, thereby God's agent implementing authority is still men/women indwelled with the Holy Spirit. I do not deny the Spirit's activity within any organization so much as He is present, thereby God uses all His churches for His purpose in drawing men and women to Him. Even within this there are organizations where the Spirit is not present and I do not advocate His activity within these organizations yet we do know God works all things for the good of those who love Him.

So again lets honestly and patiently explore authority. Is it a concern? Shall the individual or the Church be the authority and if we concede the individual is then how are we to argue correct or incorrect doctrine and if we concede the Church is the authority then which church shall we choose? If it is we concede a particular denomination is the authority then shall we then be subject their to all their dogma and political assertions? This then also leads to the Church Fathers (as this is the foundation of interpretation for the Orthodox and RC Churches) and which Church Fathers are we to validate. As it is even within organizations there are individual preferences as to which "Father" to appreciate and which of their writings to admit and which to omit. Many of the historical doctrines have been the involvement of political activity within the organization, thereby the outcome has been profaned in all churches through a vote of majority rule or authoritarian decision. As we know God does not always side with the majority even when dealing with whom we might deem as holy men.

As moderator and originator of this topic I will not tolerate any defacing of individuals or their religious affiliations!

 

[HammerStone]

I'm following this one!

Loaded question, but in light of the Bosphorus and Tiber crossings, this is important. I've explored both Roman Catholicism (RC) and Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) because I find this to be the strongest argument in favor of either. Where the hole in the argument emerged for me was that essentially the OT canon emerged prior to the church even existing or, at least, prior to the church being the incarnation that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claim it to be. I think this argument also makes use of passages like 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter refers to Pauls "writings" (IE: Scriptures). Essentially Peter, Paul, and the remainder had some concept that some of what they were writing would be a part of Scripture either as a divine revelation or simply for their status as Apostles.

As the Protestant Reformation came about, this began to upset the metaphorical apple cart because RC (in the West) and EO (in the East) held to this view of tradition. More or less, the argument is that tradition -- embodied in the form of the Church's tradition -- is roughly equal to Scripture. This is the basis for "we gave you Scripture"-type arguments that you'll hear from either church.

I think perhaps the most succinct rebuttal summary to this comes from John Wesley:

"The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church."

To me, this is essentially the Protestant argument. All authority rests within Scripture and we derive our practice from Scripture alone...sola Scriptura. Given that at least some of Scripture pre-existed the church, then there must be some other form of external authority that determined Scripture's validity.

So, to me, to answer your questions, yes it is an area of major concern to understand. Most Protestants don't. Many Catholics don't and EO I cannot quite speak for because I don't know enough of them. That said, RC and EO do a much better job of teaching Scriptural epistemology. Unfortunately, we Protestants tend to be much too guilty of taking sola Scriptura to an unnatural end by substituting our own opinion as the authority. This is where we need to dust off the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture and recognize that all of Protestantism derives from this doctrine. This even includes the Pentecostal camps which are more experiential.

That said, I will part this discussion with a couple key statements from major documents about Scripture:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

- Wesminster Confession of Faith

Article 5: The Authority of Scripture




We receive all these books
and these only
as holy and canonical,
for the regulating, founding, and establishing
of our faith.


And we believe
without a doubt
all things contained in them—
not so much because the church
receives and approves them as such
but above all because the Holy Spirit
testifies in our hearts
that they are from God,
and also because they
prove themselves
to be from God.


For even the blind themselves are able to see
that the things predicted in them
do happen.

- Belgic Confession

Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

- 39 Articles

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed.

- The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

 

[StanJ]

What Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is IMO uncontestable. At that point of course he was referring to the OT but he also knew his letters would or should be considered such.
Peter affirms this in 2 Peter 3:14-16 so as such the writings of the Apostles in the first century were also considered scripture. I have no problem with this. Luke is the ONLY writer that was NOT an apostle but he was definitely a witness and approved by Paul.
We were given the Holy Spirit to guide us into scriptural truth, NOT denominational leaders. IMO most leadership in denominations is political, not called.

 

[OzSpen]

On this issue of authority for the church, should we not take some guidance from the OT? There are any number of verses with content such as 'if you obey my commandments, then I will....' (e.g. Deut 11:13; 13:4, 16)

There are verses in the Pentateuch that parallel this one from Joshua: Joshua 1:8 ESV, 'This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success'.

From the beginning of the Israelite nation, the seat of authority was not in the nation of Israel, but in God's law. That seems to be the message also from the NT with these verses with which you are familiar: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Maybe I've overlooked something in the NT, but where does it say that the Church is the authoritative source for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness? Yes, the church teaches the Scripture, but it is not the source of the authority of this teaching. Perhaps I'm heading down the wrong path as a convinced Protestant with my view of authority.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

I think it is important to recognize that Jesus often rebuked the religious leaders of his day because of their focus on following their traditions over the Scriptures. It seems to me that Jesus saw the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. Now, some might claim that this changed with the outpouring of the Spirit and the establishment of the Church. However, I just don't see any Scriptural basis for a transition that would put the Church over the Scriptures. Moreover, historically, the church had agreed for some time regarding the NT canon. The leaders of the church did not create the NT. They simply affirmed and put an official stamp on what had been understood by Christians throughout the previous couple hundred years. The Holy Spirit created the Scriptures through the inspiration of the writers and the Church affirmed the canon by the guidance of the Spirit. To say the Church is an authority over the Spirit-inspired Scriptures is very problematic and sets up a false dichotomy in my opinion.

 

[OzSpen]

I think it is important to recognize that Jesus often rebuked the religious leaders of his day because of their focus on following their traditions over the Scriptures. It seems to me that Jesus saw the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. Now, some might claim that this changed with the outpouring of the Spirit and the establishment of the Church. However, I just don't see any Scriptural basis for a transition that would put the Church over the Scriptures. Moreover, historically, the church had agreed for some time regarding the NT canon. The leaders of the church did not create the NT. They simply affirmed and put an official stamp on what had been understood by Christians throughout the previous couple hundred years. The Holy Spirit created the Scriptures through the inspiration of the writers and the Church affirmed the canon by the guidance of the Spirit. To say the Church is an authority over the Spirit-inspired Scriptures is very problematic and sets up a false dichotomy in my opinion.

Wormwood,

There is a practical issue here that has ramifications for many people in our world.

According to Wycliffe Global Alliance, Scripture & Language Statistics 2014 were:

There are about 7000 languages in active use and at least one book of Scripture exists in almost 2,900 of these languages.

At least 1.3 billion people do not have the full Bible available in their first language. Over 634 million of these have the New Testament; others have portions or at least some level of work begun.

There is known active translation and/or linguistic development happening in 2,195 languages across more than 130 countries.

Staff from organisations in the Alliance are involved in approximately 78% of these programmes.

As of October 1st 2014, estimates suggest around 180 million people speaking at least 1,860 languages are understood to ‘likely need Bible Translation to begin’ (see notes in our FAQ).

The challenge is: How can the authority of Scripture apply to these 180 million people from the 1,860 languages that don't have even one book of the Bible? It doesn't alter the fact that authority is from Scripture - in my view - but it does offer challenges of how that is communicated to these people when evangelists go to such people. Seems to me that we are in a situation like that of the early centuries where oral tradition (memorisation) is necessary to communicate God's Word. Therefore, it is an impossibility to urge these people to 'read the Word daily' for edification, teaching, etc.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

The challenge is: How can the authority of Scripture apply to these 180 million people from the 1,860 languages that don't have even one book of the Bible? It doesn't alter the fact that authority is from Scripture - in my view - but it does offer challenges of how that is communicated to these people when evangelists go to such people. Seems to me that we are in a situation like that of the early centuries where oral tradition (memorisation) is necessary to communicate God's Word. Therefore, it is an impossibility to urge these people to 'read the Word daily' for edification, teaching, etc.

I appreciate your response Oz. It is true that many people do not have access to the Scriptures. Not only can we point to people in remote parts of the world, but even in places like America many children grow up in homes where the Bible is never taught or referenced. Many children grow up today in homes where there is complete ignorance of the Scriptures. I think the Bible speaks to such issues.

Paul's passion was to get the Gospel out to all people. The revelation of God's work in Jesus Christ is one that must be shared. Our preaching is based on the message revealed to the Apostles that they shared. We have that inspired message in the Bible (although the Bible contains more than Gospel, it also contains history, law, etc.). It is authoritative because it reflects God's revelation of himself and his word to the world. Thus, I have no other source for inspired truth of God's self-revelation other than the Bible. My proclamation is authoritative so long as it lines up with God's proclamation.

I think the question you are reflecting on is "If there is no Bible, where does the pagan look for authority?" The unbeliever is still under the authority of God as Creator. Although they may not have God's special revelation in his Word, they still have the revelation of creation and conscience. Romans 1:19-20 explains that the lack of special revelation is no excuse. God's general revelation of himself is sufficient for people to know right from wrong and worship him as the Creator. Thus, people are not condemned because they do not have Bibles or access to the Gospel. People are condemned because they sin by defying conscience and by failing to honor the Creator. The Gospel is "good news" to let people know that God has made a way through His Son to rescue them from the penalty of their evil behavior.

In sum, we are all under God's authority as his creatures. Those without access to the Scriptures are under the authority of their Creator as creatures with the ability to discern right from wrong and recognize the glory of God in his creation. The Christian has God's self-revelation in the Scriptures and are obliged to follow this fuller revelation of God's desire and plan, including sharing his grace in Jesus Christ with others. There is no other inerrant source of God's revelation and plan in Christ than the Bible. Thus, it alone is our authority for discerning God's special revelation of himself.

 

[OzSpen]

I appreciate your response Oz. It is true that many people do not have access to the Scriptures. Not only can we point to people in remote parts of the world, but even in places like America many children grow up in homes where the Bible is never taught or referenced. Many children grow up today in homes where there is complete ignorance of the Scriptures. I think the Bible speaks to such issues.

Paul's passion was to get the Gospel out to all people. The revelation of God's work in Jesus Christ is one that must be shared. Our preaching is based on the message revealed to the Apostles that they shared. We have that inspired message in the Bible (although the Bible contains more than Gospel, it also contains history, law, etc.). It is authoritative because it reflects God's revelation of himself and his word to the world. Thus, I have no other source for inspired truth of God's self-revelation other than the Bible. My proclamation is authoritative so long as it lines up with God's proclamation.

I think the question you are reflecting on is "If there is no Bible, where does the pagan look for authority?" The unbeliever is still under the authority of God as Creator. Although they may not have God's special revelation in his Word, they still have the revelation of creation and conscience. Romans 1:19-20 explains that the lack of special revelation is no excuse. God's general revelation of himself is sufficient for people to know right from wrong and worship him as the Creator. Thus, people are not condemned because they do not have Bibles or access to the Gospel. People are condemned because they sin by defying conscience and by failing to honor the Creator. The Gospel is "good news" to let people know that God has made a way through His Son to rescue them from the penalty of their evil behavior.

In sum, we are all under God's authority as his creatures. Those without access to the Scriptures are under the authority of their Creator as creatures with the ability to discern right from wrong and recognize the glory of God in his creation. The Christian has God's self-revelation in the Scriptures and are obliged to follow this fuller revelation of God's desire and plan, including sharing his grace in Jesus Christ with others. There is no other inerrant source of God's revelation and plan in Christ than the Bible. Thus, it alone is our authority for discerning God's special revelation of himself.

Wormwood,

You have provided an excellent response to demonstrate that the Scripture teaches from Romans 1:19-20 that all are responsible before God for the revelation of God in creation and in conscience. The revelation is such that all people, when they stand before God 'are without excuse' (Rm 1:20 ESV).

 

[JimParker]

A few thoughts:

First: the scriptures came from the church, not the church from the scriptures. Yes, yes, I know; they came from God. But they came through the Church and the church determined which documents accurately represented the teachings of Christ and which did not. There are no "lost" or "forbidden" books of the Bible; those "lost" and "forbidden" books were rejected because they were heretical. (In spite pf what the "National Inquirerer" or the "Star" might say about them in print. Rmemeber, those are the same people who predicted that Liz Taylor and Micharl Jackson would get married. :-O )

Next: The Orhtodox Church bases its theology on what was taught "everyshere and at all times" by the very early church. It is called the "teaching of the apostles" or the "apostolic tradition" or "holy tradition." Basically, it is what the apostles were taught by Jesus (God incarnate) and which they then tuaght their successors who then passed it on to the next generation according to Paul's instruction to Timothy.

And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

So, the Orthodox church gets it's doctrine from what the primitive church taught from the beginning through the 7 great eccumenical counsels. (8th century)

And, just in case you are under the misconceptions that Protestant churches don't have "Hole Tradition", try telling your pastor he's got it wrong.

Try, "Tithing is not a New Testament teaching." Let me now what he says.

Thirdly: Sola Scriptura obviously doesn't work. There are approximately 50 THOUSAND Protestant sects and denomnations an autonimous churches all of which declare their source of doctrine to be the inspired, inerrant, Bible alone and yet they all have some kind of disagreement or there would be 50,000 different churches. (and growing!) And those 50k have popped up in the past 500 years.

In comparison, over the last 2000 years, there are less than a dozen divisions among the "Catholic" churches and some of those divisions are based primarily on misunderstandings which arose from semantic issues inherent in translation from Greek to Coptic and Oriental lnaguages.

And, yes, I am aware of all the "introduction of paganism" nonsense which I have heard from people who, with monotonous regularity, have either no knowledge of the paganism they think Constantine or some Pope introduced, or they have fanciful and inaccurate information which they have been taught by their religious organizations.

Finally: Learning "from God" or "from the Holy Spirit" is totally subjective and an endless source of an exceedingly wide range of complete nonsense. If a person, in prayer, in studey, in meditation, in a vision, in whatever manner, "gets" something new that is contrary to what has been taught from the beginning of the church, almost 2000 years ago, then that person has "gotten" a "different Gospel."

Consider Paul's admonition to the Galatian church.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:6-8)

How do you know that there is a good chance a person is about to tell you something really flakey? He'll include words like, "The holy Spirit told me..." in his statement.

When you hear those words, step back; look at your watch; then say, "Goodness! Look at the TIME! I'm going to be late! Gotta go! Bye!" Or change the channel.



Peace be with you!

jim

 

[StanJ]

Paul said we were to follow the traditions he taught, which was Jesus and Him crucified. Not the traditions of men or denoms.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit was to replace Him and that He would lead us into all truth.

I think I'll stick with Jesus and Paul.

 

[HammerStone]

Jim, not as sure about the Orthodox, but I know the Roman Catholic side of the house maintains more sacraments than most to all Protestants.

However, I think there is one huge difference in how Protestants handle the Scriptures versus how the Roman Catholic and Orthodox do in praxis. Protestants read the Scriptures sacramentally. We believe that as we open up a Bible and read it, God, through the Holy Spirit, aids us in interpreting and understanding a particular passage. This may even be suited to a particular understanding in our life or it may be a look into a deeper Biblical truth that we are to share with others. I am reminded of the Methodist Prayer for Illumination, and I know there are obviously similar Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist and so on prayers.

We maintain the priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:5-9), thus there is no room for a church monopoly on teaching. Where I do admit Protestants often fail in application, is we too often do not persist in community with other believers to guard against private interpretation. However, the reason we have denominations is because we do not interpret the key passages in the same light as Rome or Constantinople, thus we do not have the same authority structure, believing in both the sacramental aspect and the reasonable perspicuity of Scripture.

I realize that's probably not much different an argument than you typically encounter as an Orthodox believer, but Protestant fragmentation is also not as unique as some RC and EO believers would have us believe. RC differences are masked under the Papal authority which seeks to hide distinctions, and EO differences are masked by the sometimes confederate (little "c" not big "C" for us USA folks) structure of the church. For instance, why are there so many EO jurisdictions in the US? If it were as simple as church authority, surely this would have been decided years ago, no?

Anyway, please do not take my comments too hard. I very much respect EO as an esteemed branch of orthodox (little "o") Christianity. Some of the doctrines say things a little better than we tend to say in the West.

I think a number of errant claims of authority are erased by Paul's own testimony:

Galatians 1:15-16 HCSB
But when God, who from my birth set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone.

 

[River Jordan]

While I'm neither Orthodox or Catholic, I see the benefit of having a final authority on interpretation of scripture. Without that, essentially everyone becomes their own authority, firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit has guided them to the correct interpretation. We see that on these boards. Most of the heated arguments are over whose interpretation is correct, and as far as I've seen, they never get resolved and both parties usually part ways in anger and/or frustration.

I guess it's kind of like....if everyone is an authority, then no one is.

 

[justaname]

Taken from the CARM website...
https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture

1. Scripture Alone is final Authority
   Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1).
2. Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), “They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,” (Stromata 7:16:3).
3. Origen (185?-252), “No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,” (Tract. 26 in Matt.).
4. St. Cyprian of Carthage (200?-258), “Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written . . . If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).
5. Athanasius (300?-375),
   “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).
6. "5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz., of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6 These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.' " (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6).
7. "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).

[*]Ambrose (340?-396), “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).
[*]Cyril of Jerusalem (315?-386), “Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures,” (Cat. 4).
[*]Jerome (342?-420), “Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1) As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it,” (Adv. Helvidium).

[*]Scripture Alone is not final Authority

1. Athanasius (300?-375), “But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." (Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28).
2. Basil (330-379), "Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." (To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2).
3. Ambrose (340?-396), "Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth," (Commentary of Psalm 118,19).
4. Cyril of Jerusalem (315?-386), "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
5. Gregory of Nyssa (330-394), “And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them," (Against Eunomius, 4:6).

 

[Forsakenone]

That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it;

Since the principle of eternal is defined by the following precepts:
a ) a living being or life form;
b ) has no beginning existence, since it always has existed;
c ) has no end of existence, since it will always exist; and
d ) immutable nature.

Thus, an eternal God can not be born, nor change forms.

Thus as written in Ephesians 4:14 regarding those who "...are tossed to
and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men,
and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it,” (Adv. Helvidium).

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt 1:18
Mary was married before she was found with child. The term 'espoused' means vowed in marriage as husband and wife [See: (2 Sam 3:14)(2 Cor 11:2)(Matt 1:19)]

 

[HammerStone]

While I'm neither Orthodox or Catholic, I see the benefit of having a final authority on interpretation of scripture. Without that, essentially everyone becomes their own authority, firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit has guided them to the correct interpretation. We see that on these boards. Most of the heated arguments are over whose interpretation is correct, and as far as I've seen, they never get resolved and both parties usually part ways in anger and/or frustration.

I guess it's kind of like....if everyone is an authority, then no one is.

Fair enough, but I am afraid this is a the-grass-is-always-greener scenario. For instance, even with the view of the authority of the Church, sample any 10 Catholics and you will get 3-4 different views on many modern, controversial issues that the Pope has clearly spoken on, hence the derogatory term "cafeteria Catholic." At the end of the day, people are going to prejudice their own arguments irregardless of how many doctrinal statements that they can draw upon. If this wasn't the case, then you'd never hear terms like Liberal or Conservative Catholic, but they do exist. What's interesting is the convoluted arguments to reconcile to distinct statements. Those are always entertaining and often quite original!

 

[Wormwood]

I think its safe to say that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians all have challenges that come from their particular ecclesiology. Yes, Protestantism has many divides but I wouldn't concede this to being a "failure" of their ecclesiology or that it doesn't work. We could point to the failures of leaders from Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology and also point out faults that led to things like indulgences and simony. I don't think it does much good to point to the issues of the other as proof that we have it right. We all have our issues because people are fallen and therefore the church and its structure and leadership will never be flawless on this side of eternity. I think we should be passionate about our convictions while extending grace and love to those who disagree with us on debatable matters. I think church leadership structures are one of those debatable matters.

 

[River Jordan]

Fair enough, but I am afraid this is a the-grass-is-always-greener scenario. For instance, even with the view of the authority of the Church, sample any 10 Catholics and you will get 3-4 different views on many modern, controversial issues that the Pope has clearly spoken on, hence the derogatory term "cafeteria Catholic." At the end of the day, people are going to prejudice their own arguments irregardless of how many doctrinal statements that they can draw upon. If this wasn't the case, then you'd never hear terms like Liberal or Conservative Catholic, but they do exist. What's interesting is the convoluted arguments to reconcile to distinct statements. Those are always entertaining and often quite original!

Oh sure, no doubt that's the case in just about any Christian denomination. But at least the RCC and Orthodox Churches have a system that attempts to minimize such things, whereas the Protestant system seems to go the opposite route and encourages everyone to be their own authority.

 

[Wormwood]

I would say the Protestant model encourages everyone to be accountable to God based on his Word rather than being accountable to a man who acts as a filter for God's Word. In a dictatorship, you have one authority and one voice and therefore the direction of the country would be unchallenged (although there may be dissention to that authority (as Hammerstone pointed out with regards to various views among Catholics). In a democracy, you still have one authority, but that authority has checks and balances and is always supposed to be about upholding and defending the Constitution. While there are various interpretations on parts of the Constitution and different parties, you still have one group.

While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it fits. Protestant churches still have leadership structures that someone should submit to if they are part of that local fellowship. However, the role of the leadership is not to provide the final interpretation of all things concerning the Word of God. The problem with Protestants is that they can be divisive and lose sight of the real purpose of the church due to debatable matters. The problem with the Catholic ecclesiology, for instance, is that while you may have one voice and one interpretation, if that one person is in error then the whole church is in error. Of course, if you believe that the Pope is the see of Christ, then you can put your faith in them without hesitation because they are the very voice and representative of God on earth. Many just do not believe this to be the case. Personally, I think it is safer to keep the Scriptures the authority since we all agree they are the Word of God.

 

[JimParker]

I recently went to an Orthodox Vespers service that also had a seminar on an Orthodox perspective on the Bible.

My concern is on the question of authority. The Orthodox Church claims to be the authority over Scripture whereas they organized the cannon, they decide what Scripture is, and revelation has not ceased thereby Scripture can be added (as seen in their services). Ultimately the Church is the authority.

I know the majority Protestant perspective is Scripture itself is the authority, the cannon is closed, and new revelation has ceased. From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority, hence the splintering of denominations. No one can argue the Scriptures "speak for themselves" else there would be no variance in interpretation.

Now before proceed I would like to proclaim God as the authority, but for a practical discussion on the issue of authority we must concede that man/woman is the agent God uses as implementing His authority. To defuse further arguments also the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is claimed throughout the whole of Christianity, thereby God's agent implementing authority is still men/women indwelled with the Holy Spirit. I do not deny the Spirit's activity within any organization so much as He is present, thereby God uses all His churches for His purpose in drawing men and women to Him. Even within this there are organizations where the Spirit is not present and I do not advocate His activity within these organizations yet we do know God works all things for the good of those who love Him.

So again lets honestly and patiently explore authority. Is it a concern? Shall the individual or the Church be the authority and if we concede the individual is then how are we to argue correct or incorrect doctrine and if we concede the Church is the authority then which church shall we choose? If it is we concede a particular denomination is the authority then shall we then be subject their to all their dogma and political assertions? This then also leads to the Church Fathers (as this is the foundation of interpretation for the Orthodox and RC Churches) and which Church Fathers are we to validate. As it is even within organizations there are individual preferences as to which "Father" to appreciate and which of their writings to admit and which to omit. Many of the historical doctrines have been the involvement of political activity within the organization, thereby the outcome has been profaned in all churches through a vote of majority rule or authoritarian decision. As we know God does not always side with the majority even when dealing with whom we might deem as holy men.

As moderator and originator of this topic I will not tolerate any defacing of individuals or their religious affiliations!

<< The Orthodox Church claims to be the authority over Scripture...>>

Not quite. The scriptures did not produce the Church, the Church produced the scriptures. It was the Church which determined which documents were authentic apostolic teaching and which were not.

<<thereby Scripture can be added (as seen in their services).>>

To what are you referring??

The Orthodox church does not add anything to the scriptures in it's services.

<<Ultimately the Church is the authority.>>

That is correct. The Orthodox church holds to the teachings of the early church and the cannons of the 7 great ecumenical counsels. Those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught his apostles and which they passed on to the next generation. The Church has the responsibility of maintaining the purity of those teachings.

<<I know the majority Protestant perspective is Scripture itself is the authority,>>

That is an error. The way "sola scriptura" works out is that every individual becomes his own authority based on his own interpretation of the scriptures without regard to ( and most commonly, total ignorance of) what had been taught by the apostles and preserved by the early church fathers.

That belief had produced over 50,000 denominations, sects, and schismatic groups since the inception of that teaching about 500 years ago by Fr. Martin Luther. It was never meant to be understood that anyone with the ability to read the words on the page of a Bible was automatically an authority, but that is what a vast multitude believe. "All I need is my Bible and the HOLY Ghost!" (And my 3rd grade education...)

<<No one can argue the Scriptures "speak for themselves" else there would be no variance in interpretation.>>

Exactly.

<< Many of the historical doctrines have been the involvement of political activity within the organization, thereby the outcome has been profaned in all churches through a vote of majority rule or authoritarian decision.>>

I don't believe that is accurate. Certain;y the word "many" is not. Please give examples of what you think were politically based decisions.

<<As we know God does not always side with the majority even when dealing with whom we might deem as holy men.>>

Very true. If He did, we'd all be Arians! Western Europe almost went Arian until Clovis1 was converted to Catholicism by his wife and imposed trinitarianism upon the Franks and Gauls.

 

[justaname]

<< The Orthodox Church claims to be the authority over Scripture...>>

Not quite. The scriptures did not produce the Church, the Church produced the scriptures. It was the Church which determined which documents were authentic apostolic teaching and which were not.

And your explanation confirms my conclusion.

<<thereby Scripture can be added (as seen in their services).>>

To what are you referring??

The Orthodox church does not add anything to the scriptures in it's services.

I was not referring to the cannon of Scripture. But we can refer to Mary of Egypt being venerated...these "scriptures" of the service are of the tradition.

<<Ultimately the Church is the authority.>>

That is correct. The Orthodox church holds to the teachings of the early church and the cannons of the 7 great ecumenical counsels. Those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught his apostles and which they passed on to the next generation. The Church has the responsibility of maintaining the purity of those teachings.

I somewhat agree, yet this would depend on which ECF you hold more to. As it is we know not all the interpretations agree through the ECFs and some interpretations widely vary. Some interpretations are more of a literal while others allegorical. In this we do know that all of Scripture adheres to a literal interpretation without invalidating the use of metaphors, figures of speech, and the like, yet the allegorical interpretation has no such bounds. In this the text can mean almost whatever someone wants it to mean, hence sacramental theology.

So then to say the Orthodox holds to the teaching of the early Church is to say they agree with some of the ECFs in varying degrees and not all. To say those teachings are the deposit of what Christ taught is to understand those teachings have been redefined through time through the interpretations of the ECFs the Orthodox church holds to.

<<I know the majority Protestant perspective is Scripture itself is the authority,>>

That is an error. The way "sola scriptura" works out is that every individual becomes his own authority based on his own interpretation of the scriptures without regard to ( and most commonly, total ignorance of) what had been taught by the apostles and preserved by the early church fathers.

That belief had produced over 50,000 denominations, sects, and schismatic groups since the inception of that teaching about 500 years ago by Fr. Martin Luther. It was never meant to be understood that anyone with the ability to read the words on the page of a Bible was automatically an authority, but that is what a vast multitude believe. "All I need is my Bible and the HOLY Ghost!" (And my 3rd grade education...)

Firstly there is no error in that statement. This is the Protestant perspective.

Secondly this entire issue is summed up in my OP. "From that position interpretation must be understood to be relevant, thereby the individual interpreting is the authority,"

And here I will quote again, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church." John Wesley
I do agree in the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It is not sola scriptura that is in error, it is man.

This is the conundrum. Truly respected men and women are to be found in any denomination whose interpretation of the Scriptures is valid. If we concede it is the responsibility of the Church to interpret Scripture (which I believe we all do), the Church is only made up of individual believers. Church membership is not to be considered names on any organization's roster, rather names in the Lamb's Book of Life. Apostolic claim is to be had through the Spirit of God working within the life of the individual. These individuals corporately make up the Body of Christ, the Church.

Any individual can claim the Spirt dwells within, yet that does not validate the truth of the claim. It is God who validates while the life of the individual bares witness through the exemplification of love.

<<No one can argue the Scriptures "speak for themselves" else there would be no variance in interpretation.>>

Exactly.

<< Many of the historical doctrines have been the involvement of political activity within the organization, thereby the outcome has been profaned in all churches through a vote of majority rule or authoritarian decision.>>

I don't believe that is accurate. Certain;y the word "many" is not. Please give examples of what you think were politically based decisions.

How about every ecumenical council for starters...then we can move to the many Protestant denominations choosing doctrine.
This is not to say every decision made or doctrine formed must be considered incorrect, yet an honest look through history proves political activity motivated doctrinal decisions. Without question every organization man is involved with has political activity.

<<As we know God does not always side with the majority even when dealing with whom we might deem as holy men.>>

Very true. If He did, we'd all be Arians! Western Europe almost went Arian until Clovis1 was converted to Catholicism by his wife and imposed trinitarianism upon the Franks and Gauls.

And the history behind this very issue proves my point of politics within the Church. Even the seventh council is an overturning of a different council that proved not to have enough political clout.