Thank you, Christopher, for posting these links here and on your blog.  Only a
few people actually read them, and I rather think that's a pity, given what an
all-important topic this is.

--Anastasia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't think anyone who reads your posts through an RSS feed (as I do on
Google Reader) gets logged as a 'unique' reader by most analytics.  I'm
doing my bit to get them out there, though, because I agree that this is an
important topic - one where most Protestants (especially) get worried,
hung-up, frustrated, etc.

Christopher


On 7/14/08, Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...> wrote:
>
>   Thank you, Christopher, for posting these links here and on your blog.
> Only a few people actually read them, and I rather think that's a pity,
> given what an all-important topic this is.
>
> --Anastasia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

An anonymous friend wrote asking how the following article squares with
Orthodoxy's teaching(s) on the same topic(s).  Thoughts?

I was able to give some initial thoughts, but am simply unable to take the
time right now to read it through due to work.

Christopher


  Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes By Keith A. Mathison

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&va\
r2=19&var3=main

The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of
theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright
many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently
professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of
numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by
proponents of "openness theology." A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has
been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of
justification *sola fide* have been advocated by proponents of various "new
perspectives" on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a
more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out
that the revisions are actually distortions.

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has arisen
within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the
revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has caused very little controversy
among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much
less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* is that
this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for
centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the
revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that
this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the
revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of *sola
Scriptura* is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.

The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has resulted in
numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant
churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years
as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their
determination that the doctrine of *sola Scriptura* was indefensible. Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage
of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to
critiquing the doctrine of *sola Scriptura*. One issue, however, that
neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the
doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of *sola
Scriptura*, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to understand
the difference, some historical context is necessary.
Historical Observations

Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of *sola
Scriptura* is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed
simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are
said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach
"Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the
historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of
competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and
there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order
to understand the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura* we must
understand the historical context more accurately.

The Reformation debate over *sola Scriptura* did not occur in a vacuum. It
was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the
relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of
"tradition" itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the
church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole
source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was
understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine,
which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture
was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the *regula
fidei* ("rule of faith"), yet neither the church nor the *regula fidei* were
considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the
interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the *regula
fidei*was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word
of God. Heiko
Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation
"Tradition 1."

The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which
tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements
biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil
and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition "Tradition
2" (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was
apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil
or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is
hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold
in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of
the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the
early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not
begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in
the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of
the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the
two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we
witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and
Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that
the Reformation occurred.

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over *sola
Scriptura* becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine
out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for
centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular
historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman
Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the
sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the
church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the *regula
fidei*. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition
1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted
by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the
Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed
"Tradition 3," in which the "Magisterium of the moment" is understood to be
the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of
this brief essay).

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to
Tradition 1 (*sola Scriptura*), several radical reformers were calling for
the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a
completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that
Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the
only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church
and the *regula fidei* were rejected altogether. According to this view
(Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority.
Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit
and the Bible.

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the
radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment
and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of
Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of *sola
Scriptura* (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed *"solo"
Scriptura* instead of *sola Scriptura*, attacks the rightful subordinate
authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church.
Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others
that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.
The Reformation Doctrine of *Sola Scriptura*

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, or the
Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may
say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine
revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative
norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church;
and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of
faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of *sola
Scriptura*did not ever mean, "all of theology ought to be constructed
anew, without
reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete
confronting the naked text." That this is the Reformation doctrine of
Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of
the reformers' writings, only a sampling of which may be mentioned here.

Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the
authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my
conscience is captive to the Word of God." Many point to this statement as
evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church,
but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion,
namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther
said and wrote much more on the subject. As simply one example, in a 1532
letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of
Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther wrote the following:

This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning
of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire holy
Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for
us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the
united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church,
as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in
all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he
believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire
holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all
the apostles and prophets.

The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes
along similar lines in his *Examination of the Council of Trent*:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the
interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages.... We also
gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their
commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And
we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient
church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we
approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with
all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.


Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John
Calvin. In the 1559 edition of his *Institutes of the Christian Religion*,
for example, he writes:

In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils,
such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like,
which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the
teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine
exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual
prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

And further:

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that
the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened,
where the doctrine at issue may be examined.

To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the
nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are
appropriate:

Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition
of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there
has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian
Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so
far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do
not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body,
having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the
rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion
of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants
admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty
to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.

The Revisionist Doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, the
revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is marked by radical
individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the
ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of *"solo"
Scriptura* with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the
difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the
source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the
first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the
church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.

The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors
to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names,
councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'"
In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher
(1815-1900) denounced "creed power" and argued for "the Bible, the whole
Bible, and nothing but the Bible." The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d.
1884) declared in a similar way, "In religious faith we have but one Father
and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed
book."

The radical American version of *"solo" Scriptura* reached its fullest
expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the
principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809,
the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, "Venture to be as
independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in
which you live." Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be
"consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified." Alexander
Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear,
declaring, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had
read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them
to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am
against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system
whatever." As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850)
rightly observed, "the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been
latitudinarians and heretics."
Why "Solo" Scriptura Must Be Rejected

The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has become so entrenched in
the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more
with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than
they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of *"solo"
Scriptura*, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in
previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I
will address some of the more obvious problems.

The fundamental problem with *"solo" Scriptura* is that it results in
autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than
the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine.
The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final
authority in the church while *"solo" Scriptura* places final authority in
each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a
final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal
judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and
relativism. The reformers' appeal to "Scripture alone," however, was never
intended to mean "me alone."

The Bible itself simply does not teach *"solo" Scriptura* Christ established
his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who
are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When
disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go
home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a
council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not
support *"solo" Scriptura* (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not
instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for
himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and
studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in
order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.

In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is hopeless.
With *"solo" Scriptura*, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective
and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences.
It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of
various parts of Scripture. Adherents of *"solo" Scriptura* are told that
these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to
Scripture. But how is the problem of differing interpretations to be
resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? *All* appeals to Scripture
are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is:
whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture
cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In
order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and
interpreted by someone. According to *"solo" Scriptura*, that someone is
each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there
are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The
proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny
of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical
anarchy.

The doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* also faces historical problems due to the
fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the first
decades and centuries of the church. If *"solo" Scriptura* were true, much
of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the first century,
one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of
the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not found in every
believer's home. The first books of the New Testament did not even begin to
be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were
not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches
obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It
took many years before the New Testament as we know it was gathered and
available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it was not
available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone individual
is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by measuring
it against Scripture, as proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* would have it, how
would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the church before
the New Testament was completed?

One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of *"solo"
Scriptura* is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that
Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we
then define what is and is not "Scripture." Proponents of *"solo"
Scriptura*claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with
any authority what
Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible is not itself
an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in a very real
sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes to be the
content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem *"solo"
Scriptura*faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the
following: How would
*"solo" Scriptura* deal with a modern day Marcion? How, for example, would a
proponent of *"solo" Scriptura* argue with a person who claimed that the
real New Testament includes only the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and
Revelation? He can't appeal to the church, to history, or to tradition. A
self-consistent adherent of "solo Scriptura" would have no way to respond to
such a view because, as one such consistent adherent informed me in personal
correspondence, it is the right and duty of each individual Christian to
determine the canonicity of each biblical book by and for himself. This is
the only consistent position for a proponent of *"solo" Scriptura* to take,
but it is self-defeating because it destroys any objective notion of
Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical authority of Romans, for
example, if each believer determines for himself whether Romans is in fact
to be considered a canonical and authoritative biblical book.

The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by *"solo"
Scriptura*. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of *"solo"
Scriptura* destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of
what Christianity is and is not. *"solo" Scriptura* destroys the very
concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds
is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions
of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy
are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the
Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism
biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to
every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his
own eyes.

Finally, it must be realized that *"solo" Scriptura* ignores reality. The
Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be
able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others
including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians,
translators, and more. If *"solo" Scriptura* were true, it should be
possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of
biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe
member somewhere on earth, and with no one's assistance, that individual
should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various
manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an
orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not
possible, however, is because *"solo" Scriptura* is not true. It is an
unbiblical distortion of the truth.

The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has been a source of great
damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to
reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some
radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial
reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to
reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of
Tradition 2 or the *sola ecclesia* doctrine of Tradition 3), which places
final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the
revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*, which places final autonomous
authority in the hands of each and every individual.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The same person also wrote me with the same question, and I recommended Matthew
Gallatin's outstanding podcast series, "Sola Scriptura and the Philosophical
Church" on Ancient Faith Radio, at http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims

Each podcast takes 10-12 minutes, by my estimate, and they just keep getting
better and better.  I've now listened to the first 6, and although the topic has
shifted from SS to the Philosophical Church by #6, it's just a jewel!

Please, please listen to these!

Anastasia



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Christopher Orr
   To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:12 AM
   Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Solo Scriptura


   An anonymous friend wrote asking how the following article squares with
   Orthodoxy's teaching(s) on the same topic(s). Thoughts?

   I was able to give some initial thoughts, but am simply unable to take the
   time right now to read it through due to work.

   Christopher

   Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes By Keith A. Mathison

  
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&va\
r2=19&var3=main

   The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of
   theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright
   many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently
   professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of
   numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by
   proponents of "openness theology." A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has
   been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of
   justification *sola fide* have been advocated by proponents of various "new
   perspectives" on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a
   more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out
   that the revisions are actually distortions.

   Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has arisen
   within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the
   revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has caused very little controversy
   among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much
   less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* is that
   this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for
   centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the
   revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that
   this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the
   revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of *sola
   Scriptura* is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.

   The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has resulted in
   numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant
   churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years
   as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern
   Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their
   determination that the doctrine of *sola Scriptura* was indefensible. Roman
   Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage
   of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to
   critiquing the doctrine of *sola Scriptura*. One issue, however, that
   neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the
   doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of
*sola
   Scriptura*, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to understand
   the difference, some historical context is necessary.
   Historical Observations

   Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of *sola
   Scriptura* is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed
   simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are
   said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach
   "Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the
   historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of
   competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and
   there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order
   to understand the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura* we must
   understand the historical context more accurately.

   The Reformation debate over *sola Scriptura* did not occur in a vacuum. It
   was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the
   relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of
   "tradition" itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the
   church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole
   source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was
   understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine,
   which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture
   was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the *regula
   fidei* ("rule of faith"), yet neither the church nor the *regula fidei* were
   considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the
   interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the *regula
   fidei*was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word
   of God. Heiko
   Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation
   "Tradition 1."

   The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which
   tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements
   biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil
   and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition "Tradition
   2" (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was
   apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil
   or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is
   hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold
   in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of
   the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the
   early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not
   begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in
   the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of
   the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the
   two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we
   witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and
   Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that
   the Reformation occurred.

   When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over *sola
   Scriptura* becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine
   out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for
   centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular
   historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman
   Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the
   sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the
   church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the *regula
   fidei*. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition
   1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted
   by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the
   Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed
   "Tradition 3," in which the "Magisterium of the moment" is understood to be
   the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of
   this brief essay).

   At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to
   Tradition 1 (*sola Scriptura*), several radical reformers were calling for
   the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a
   completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that
   Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the
   only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church
   and the *regula fidei* were rejected altogether. According to this view
   (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority.
   Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit
   and the Bible.

   In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the
   radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment
   and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of
   Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of *sola
   Scriptura* (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed *"solo"
   Scriptura* instead of *sola Scriptura*, attacks the rightful subordinate
   authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church.
   Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others
   that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.
   The Reformation Doctrine of *Sola Scriptura*

   To summarize the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, or the
   Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may
   say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine
   revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative
   norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church;
   and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of
   faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of *sola
   Scriptura*did not ever mean, "all of theology ought to be constructed
   anew, without
   reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete
   confronting the naked text." That this is the Reformation doctrine of
   Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of
   the reformers' writings, only a sampling of which may be mentioned here.

   Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms:
   "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the
   authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my
   conscience is captive to the Word of God." Many point to this statement as
   evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church,
   but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion,
   namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther
   said and wrote much more on the subject. As simply one example, in a 1532
   letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of
   Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther wrote the following:

   This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning
   of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire holy
   Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for
   us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the
   united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church,
   as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in
   all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he
   believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire
   holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all
   the apostles and prophets.

   The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes
   along similar lines in his *Examination of the Council of Trent*:

   This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the
   interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages.... We also
   gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their
   commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And
   we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient
   church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we
   approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with
   all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

   Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John
   Calvin. In the 1559 edition of his *Institutes of the Christian Religion*,
   for example, he writes:

   In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils,
   such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like,
   which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the
   teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine
   exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual
   prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

   And further:

   We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that
   the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened,
   where the doctrine at issue may be examined.

   To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the
   nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are
   appropriate:

   Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition
   of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there
   has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian
   Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so
   far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do
   not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body,
   having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the
   rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion
   of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants
   admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty
   to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.

   The Revisionist Doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*

   In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, the
   revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is marked by radical
   individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the
   ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of *"solo"
   Scriptura* with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the
   difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the
   source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the
   first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the
   church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.

   The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors
   to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names,
   councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'"
   In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher
   (1815-1900) denounced "creed power" and argued for "the Bible, the whole
   Bible, and nothing but the Bible." The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d.
   1884) declared in a similar way, "In religious faith we have but one Father
   and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed
   book."

   The radical American version of *"solo" Scriptura* reached its fullest
   expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the
   principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809,
   the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, "Venture to be as
   independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in
   which you live." Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be
   "consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified." Alexander
   Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear,
   declaring, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had
   read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them
   to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am
   against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system
   whatever." As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850)
   rightly observed, "the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been
   latitudinarians and heretics."
   Why "Solo" Scriptura Must Be Rejected

   The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has become so entrenched in
   the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more
   with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than
   they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of *"solo"
   Scriptura*, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in
   previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I
   will address some of the more obvious problems.

   The fundamental problem with *"solo" Scriptura* is that it results in
   autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than
   the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine.
   The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final
   authority in the church while *"solo" Scriptura* places final authority in
   each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a
   final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal
   judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and
   relativism. The reformers' appeal to "Scripture alone," however, was never
   intended to mean "me alone."

   The Bible itself simply does not teach *"solo" Scriptura* Christ established
   his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who
   are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When
   disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go
   home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a
   council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not
   support *"solo" Scriptura* (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not
   instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for
   himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and
   studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in
   order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.

   In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is hopeless.
   With *"solo" Scriptura*, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective
   and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences.
   It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of
   various parts of Scripture. Adherents of *"solo" Scriptura* are told that
   these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to
   Scripture. But how is the problem of differing interpretations to be
   resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? *All* appeals to Scripture
   are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is:
   whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture
   cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In
   order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and
   interpreted by someone. According to *"solo" Scriptura*, that someone is
   each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there
   are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The
   proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny
   of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical
   anarchy.

   The doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* also faces historical problems due to the
   fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the first
   decades and centuries of the church. If *"solo" Scriptura* were true, much
   of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the first century,
   one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of
   the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not found in every
   believer's home. The first books of the New Testament did not even begin to
   be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were
   not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches
   obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It
   took many years before the New Testament as we know it was gathered and
   available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it was not
   available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone individual
   is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by measuring
   it against Scripture, as proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* would have it, how
   would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the church before
   the New Testament was completed?

   One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of *"solo"
   Scriptura* is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that
   Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we
   then define what is and is not "Scripture." Proponents of *"solo"
   Scriptura*claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with
   any authority what
   Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible is not itself
   an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in a very real
   sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes to be the
   content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem *"solo"
   Scriptura*faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the
   following: How would
   *"solo" Scriptura* deal with a modern day Marcion? How, for example, would a
   proponent of *"solo" Scriptura* argue with a person who claimed that the
   real New Testament includes only the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and
   Revelation? He can't appeal to the church, to history, or to tradition. A
   self-consistent adherent of "solo Scriptura" would have no way to respond to
   such a view because, as one such consistent adherent informed me in personal
   correspondence, it is the right and duty of each individual Christian to
   determine the canonicity of each biblical book by and for himself. This is
   the only consistent position for a proponent of *"solo" Scriptura* to take,
   but it is self-defeating because it destroys any objective notion of
   Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical authority of Romans, for
   example, if each believer determines for himself whether Romans is in fact
   to be considered a canonical and authoritative biblical book.

   The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by
*"solo"
   Scriptura*. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of *"solo"
   Scriptura* destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of
   what Christianity is and is not. *"solo" Scriptura* destroys the very
   concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds
   is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions
   of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy
   are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the
   Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism
   biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to
   every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his
   own eyes.

   Finally, it must be realized that *"solo" Scriptura* ignores reality. The
   Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be
   able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others
   including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians,
   translators, and more. If *"solo" Scriptura* were true, it should be
   possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of
   biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe
   member somewhere on earth, and with no one's assistance, that individual
   should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various
   manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an
   orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not
   possible, however, is because *"solo" Scriptura* is not true. It is an
   unbiblical distortion of the truth.

   The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has been a source of great
   damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to
   reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some
   radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial
   reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to
   reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of
   Tradition 2 or the *sola ecclesia* doctrine of Tradition 3), which places
   final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the
   revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*, which places final autonomous
   authority in the hands of each and every individual.

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Defining
Faith<http://conversiaddominum.blogspot.com/2008/07/defining-faith.html>
The word "faith" is variously
defined<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith>and is used
poplularly in many different ways. In addition, in theological
or religious studies, the word "faith" is narrowly or broadly defined,
depending on how it is distinguished from "belief" or other synonyms. One
helpful synonym that I often use is "trust." However, these definitions,
while helpful, tend toward the abstract. In other words, they don't give an
experiential picture of what it means to have faith.

Let me suggest, then, the following working definition:

Faith is living against the fears and doubts that arise from the flaws,
imperfections, disappointments and afflictions brought on us by others or
ourselves.

The devil plays on these turmoils to increase fear and doubt in our mind and
soul. To live against these is to live as if they will not control either
our life in God or our love for another. For to let them control us is to
fall into pride and selfishness--which is the mother of fear since fear is
fundamentally the child of the the lie that we matter most.

http://conversiaddominum.blogspot.com/2008/07/defining-faith.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do Orthodox want non-Orthodox to
convert?<http://frgregory.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-orthodox-want-non-orthodox-to.\
html>
In a word, yes. And why not? If we are convinced that "We have seen the true
Light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true Faith,
worshiping the undivided Trinity, Who has saved us"--how could we not want
others to see that same light, receive that same Spirit and find that same
faith?

Truth is not divided, or relative. So St. Paul frequented the synagogues,
after his conversion; he traveled to the Gentiles; he sought out rich and
poor, slave and free, man and woman. The Church and her message are for all
people alike, and the stakes are high. She rejects the Anglican "branch
theory" and the protestant "invisible church." She judges no individual, but
she can and must judge the bodies to which they belong.

The issue is urgent, as we see western Christendom give way to relativism.
It is one thing to be mistaken that something is the truth when it is not;
it is another thing entirely to say that truth no longer matters, and to
live in existential communion with falsehood. The former have hope; the
latter have none.

How we share this truth is important: the message shapes the life of its
messengers.

If we do not seek our own repentance and faith, we have nothing to share.
That is why St. Seraphim said, "Acquire the spirit of inner peace, and
thousands around you will be saved."

But it is also true that if we withhold speaking until we think we "get it,"
then we will never speak at all. We carry the treasure of the Gospel in clay
pots. We must make it our aim to be "all things to all people, so that by
all means we might save some."

We must also be willing to speak, as winsomely as possible, to those in
error with the nature of that error. Khomiakov did so in a marvelous and
prophetic way to the western confessions, as did Dostoyevsky and, more
recently, Fr. John Romanides. St. Ambrose of Optina wrote a tract against
Lutheranism. Every council, every father fought the good fight of faith, and
suffered willingly rather than deny the truth.

There is a synergy between the work of the Holy Spirit, and the works and
words of God's people. So St. Paul says, "we are co-workers with God"
precisely in the context of speaking the truth for others' conversion.

May the Lord convert me, an unworthy sinner, and bring me to the glory of
his Kingdom!

Mone me si erro.

http://frgregory.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-orthodox-want-non-orthodox-to.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I suggested he take a look at the paper I wrote on "The Authority of
Scripture in the Orthodox Church, for Lutherans" available here:

http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/09/sola-corpore-christi.html

and

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dgb96k3k_11dz22sz&hl=en

While the paper not address each individual point, the bibliography and
notes should point to other Orthodox resources that may better answer any
questions raised by the article.

Christopher Orr


On 7/15/08, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> An anonymous friend wrote asking how the following article squares with
> Orthodoxy's teaching(s) on the same topic(s).  Thoughts?
>
> I was able to give some initial thoughts, but am simply unable to take the
> time right now to read it through due to work.
>
> Christopher
>
>
>  Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes By Keith A. Mathison
>
>
>
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&va\
r2=19&var3=main
>
> The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of
> theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright
> many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently
> professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of
> numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by
> proponents of "openness theology." A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has
> been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of
> justification *sola fide* have been advocated by proponents of various
> "new perspectives" on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be
> restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick
> to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.
>
> Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has
> arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola
> fide, the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has caused very little
> controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has
> been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of *sola
> Scriptura* is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the
> Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the
> evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view
> now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine.
> However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist
> doctrine of *sola Scriptura* is actually a distortion of the Reformation
> doctrine.
>
> The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of *sola Scriptura* has resulted
> in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant
> churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years
> as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern
> Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their
> determination that the doctrine of *sola Scriptura* was indefensible.
> Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take
> advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted
> to critiquing the doctrine of *sola Scriptura*. One issue, however, that
> neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the
> doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of
> *sola Scriptura*, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to
> understand the difference, some historical context is necessary.
> Historical Observations
>
> Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of *sola
> Scriptura* is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed
> simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are
> said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach
> "Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the
> historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of
> competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and
> there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order
> to understand the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura* we must
> understand the historical context more accurately.
>
> The Reformation debate over *sola Scriptura* did not occur in a vacuum. It
> was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the
> relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of
> "tradition" itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the
> church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole
> source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was
> understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine,
> which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture
> was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the *regula
> fidei* ("rule of faith"), yet neither the church nor the *regula fidei*were
considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was
> the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the *regula
> fidei* was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of
> God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of
> revelation "Tradition 1."
>
> The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which
> tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements
> biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil
> and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition "Tradition
> 2" (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was
> apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil
> or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is
> hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold
> in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of
> the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the
> early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not
> begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in
> the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of
> the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the
> two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we
> witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and
> Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that
> the Reformation occurred.
>
> When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over *sola
> Scriptura* becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new
> doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been
> going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their
> particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within
> the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture
> was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by
> the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the *regula
> fidei*. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as
> Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause,
> Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it
> officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that
> Oberman has termed "Tradition 3," in which the "Magisterium of the moment"
> is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is
> beyond the scope of this brief essay).
>
> At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to
> Tradition 1 (*sola Scriptura*), several radical reformers were calling for
> the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a
> completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that
> Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the
> only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church
> and the *regula fidei* were rejected altogether. According to this view
> (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority.
> Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit
> and the Bible.
>
> In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the
> radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment
> and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of
> Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of *sola
> Scriptura* (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed *"solo"
> Scriptura* instead of *sola Scriptura*, attacks the rightful subordinate
> authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church.
> Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others
> that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.
> The Reformation Doctrine of *Sola Scriptura*
>
> To summarize the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, or the
> Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may
> say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine
> revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative
> norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church;
> and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of
> faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of *sola
> Scriptura* did not ever mean, "all of theology ought to be constructed
> anew, without reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the
> lonely exegete confronting the naked text." That this is the Reformation
> doctrine of Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an
> examination of the reformers' writings, only a sampling of which may be
> mentioned here.
>
> Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms:
> "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the
> authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my
> conscience is captive to the Word of God." Many point to this statement as
> evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church,
> but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion,
> namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther
> said and wrote much more on the subject. As simply one example, in a 1532
> letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of
> Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther wrote the following:
>
> This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the
> beginning of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire
> holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be
> sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe
> anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire
> holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the
> beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is
> even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he
> condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable
> heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.
>
> The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes
> along similar lines in his *Examination of the Council of Trent*:
>
> This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the
> interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages.... We also
> gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their
> commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And
> we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient
> church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we
> approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with
> all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.
>
>
> Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John
> Calvin. In the 1559 edition of his *Institutes of the Christian Religion*,
> for example, he writes:
>
> In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils,
> such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like,
> which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the
> teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine
> exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual
> prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.
>
> And further:
>
> We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that
> the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened,
> where the doctrine at issue may be examined.
>
> To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the
> nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are
> appropriate:
>
> Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition
> of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there
> has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian
> Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so
> far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do
> not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body,
> having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the
> rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion
> of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants
> admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty
> to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.
>
> The Revisionist Doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*
>
> In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of *sola Scriptura*, the
> revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is marked by radical
> individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the
> ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of *"solo"
> Scriptura* with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the
> difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the
> source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the
> first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the
> church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.
>
> The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised
> pastors to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to
> names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the
> Scriptures?'" In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles
> Beecher (1815-1900) denounced "creed power" and argued for "the Bible, the
> whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." The universalist minister A. B.
> Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, "In religious faith we have but
> one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only
> acknowledged creed book."
>
> The radical American version of *"solo" Scriptura* reached its fullest
> expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the
> principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809,
> the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, "Venture to be as
> independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in
> which you live." Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be
> "consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified." Alexander
> Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear,
> declaring, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had
> read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them
> to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am
> against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system
> whatever." As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850)
> rightly observed, "the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been
> latitudinarians and heretics."
> Why "Solo" Scriptura Must Be Rejected
>
> The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has become so entrenched in
> the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more
> with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than
> they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of *"solo"
> Scriptura*, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in
> previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I
> will address some of the more obvious problems.
>
> The fundamental problem with *"solo" Scriptura* is that it results in
> autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than
> the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine.
> The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final
> authority in the church while *"solo" Scriptura* places final authority in
> each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a
> final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal
> judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and
> relativism. The reformers' appeal to "Scripture alone," however, was never
> intended to mean "me alone."
>
> The Bible itself simply does not teach *"solo" Scriptura* Christ
> established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church
> those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4).
> When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer
> to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in
> a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does
> not support *"solo" Scriptura* (cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did
> not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for
> himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and
> studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in
> order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.
>
> In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* is hopeless.
> With *"solo" Scriptura*, the interpretation of Scripture becomes
> subjective and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of
> differences. It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different
> interpretations of various parts of Scripture. Adherents of *"solo"
> Scriptura* are told that these different interpretations can be resolved
> simply by an appeal to Scripture. But how is the problem of differing
> interpretations to be resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? *
> All* appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The
> only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing
> interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to
> resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an
> authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to *"solo"
> Scriptura*, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as
> many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism
> and relativism run amuck. The proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* rightly
> condemn the hermeneutical tyranny of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical
> tyranny is not hermeneutical anarchy.
>
> The doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* also faces historical problems due to
> the fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the
> first decades and centuries of the church. If *"solo" Scriptura* were
> true, much of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the
> first century, one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and
> buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not
> found in every believer's home. The first books of the New Testament did not
> even begin to be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ,
> and some were not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some
> churches obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of
> others. It took many years before the New Testament as we know it was
> gathered and available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it
> was not available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone
> individual is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by
> measuring it against Scripture, as proponents of *"solo" Scriptura* would
> have it, how would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the
> church before the New Testament was completed?
>
> One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of *"solo"
> Scriptura* is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that
> Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we
> then define what is and is not "Scripture." Proponents of *"solo"
> Scriptura* claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with any
> authority what Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible
> is not itself an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in
> a very real sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes
> to be the content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem *"solo"
> Scriptura* faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the
> following: How would *"solo" Scriptura* deal with a modern day Marcion?
> How, for example, would a proponent of *"solo" Scriptura* argue with a
> person who claimed that the real New Testament includes only the books of
> Luke, Acts, Romans, and Revelation? He can't appeal to the church, to
> history, or to tradition. A self-consistent adherent of "solo Scriptura"
> would have no way to respond to such a view because, as one such consistent
> adherent informed me in personal correspondence, it is the right and duty of
> each individual Christian to determine the canonicity of each biblical book
> by and for himself. This is the only consistent position for a proponent of
> *"solo" Scriptura* to take, but it is self-defeating because it destroys
> any objective notion of Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical
> authority of Romans, for example, if each believer determines for himself
> whether Romans is in fact to be considered a canonical and authoritative
> biblical book.
>
> The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by
*"solo"
> Scriptura*. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of *"solo"
> Scriptura* destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of
> what Christianity is and is not. *"solo" Scriptura* destroys the very
> concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds
> is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions
> of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy
> are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the
> Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism
> biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to
> every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his
> own eyes.
>
> Finally, it must be realized that *"solo" Scriptura* ignores reality. The
> Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be
> able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others
> including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians,
> translators, and more. If *"solo" Scriptura* were true, it should be
> possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of
> biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe
> member somewhere on earth, and with no one's assistance, that individual
> should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various
> manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an
> orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not
> possible, however, is because *"solo" Scriptura* is not true. It is an
> unbiblical distortion of the truth.
>
> The revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura* has been a source of great
> damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to
> reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some
> radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial
> reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to
> reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of
> Tradition 2 or the *sola ecclesia* doctrine of Tradition 3), which places
> final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the
> revisionist doctrine of *"solo" Scriptura*, which places final autonomous
> authority in the hands of each and every individual.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anastasia,

Thank you very much for your series on "Why Did Jesus Die?" Since I
must be one of the "few people," I do want to let you know that I've
been reading them, as well as copying them into a single Word document
for easier continuous reading. I appreciate your insights on the
various texts that you are putting forth.

(I must also admit that I'm a bit behind - #6 was the last one I read,
as I recall - due to extra obligations of late - a wedding and a
funeral both in one weekend, preparing a seminar and workshop
presentation for next week, getting ready for vacation, and, oh yeah,
regular parish duties. So, I'll get back to the rest of the posts and
play catch up! :-)

+  +  +  +  +
Rev. Randy Asburry
Pastor
Hope Lutheran Church & School
5218 Neosho St., St. Louis, MO 63109
St. Louis, MO
Church: 314-352-0014
Mobile: 314-853-4714

mailto:r.asburry@...
http://rasburrysres.blogspot.com
www.hopelutheranstl.org

Divine Services:
Sundays: 8:00 & 10:30 AM
Wednesdays: 7:00 PM



On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Anastasia Theodoridis wrote:

> Thank you, Christopher, for posting these links here and on your
> blog. Only a few people actually read them, and I rather think
> that's a pity, given what an all-important topic this is.
>
> --Anastasia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anastasia
�
I wouldn't want to be the one who destroys your growth toward humility - but I
thought the articles were outstanding. So good, that I felt compelled to put
them into a folder for re-reading later on!
�
As a protestant who is finally no longer protesting, I found them to be very
insightful. I may copy a fellow LLE and copy them into a single word document
for easier reading/distribution!
�
Thank you!
Todd

--- On Mon, 7/14/08, Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...> wrote:

From: Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...>
Subject: Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Links to the "Why Did Jesus Die?" Series by
Anastasia Theodorides
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 14, 2008, 9:31 PM






Thank you, Christopher, for posting these links here and on your blog. Only a
few people actually read them, and I rather think that's a pity, given what an
all-important topic this is.

--Anastasia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Todd and Randy,

Thank you both very much for letting me know.

It was worth writing all that if you were the only two readers!

love in Christ,
Anastasia




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not
bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.*  (1 Kings 19:18
KJV)

You never know who is doing what.  Google Analytics doesn't know all...  I
bet a lot of people will read this.  Now, how one defines 'a lot'...

Christopher


On 7/15/08, Anastasia Theodoridis <anastasiatheo01@...> wrote:
>
>   Dear Todd and Randy,
>
> Thank you both very much for letting me know.
>
> It was worth writing all that if you were the only two readers!
>
> love in Christ,
> Anastasia
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'll echo Todd and Pastor Asbury.  I've been copy/pasting them into
word/text files as well.... And printing them out, hole punching them, and
adding them to a binder of good reference material for Lutheran-Orthodox
dialoguing.  Like Pastor Asbury, #6 was the last I read.  I plan on
re-reading them later on, as they will be very edifying both for myself, and
for conversations with my family of whom I am the only non-LCMS - especially
for conversations with my Dad.

So thank you, Anastasia!  The articles are VERY encouraging and wonderfully
written.

And thank you, Chris, for making this such an open place for these kind of
materials to be shared for our encouragement, education, and edification.


Jeremy



On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:

>   *Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have
> not
> bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.* (1 Kings 19:18
> KJV)
>
> You never know who is doing what. Google Analytics doesn't know all... I
> bet a lot of people will read this. Now, how one defines 'a lot'...
>
> Christopher
>
>
> On 7/15/08, Anastasia Theodoridis
<anastasiatheo01@...<anastasiatheo01%40verizon.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Todd and Randy,
> >
> > Thank you both very much for letting me know.
> >
> > It was worth writing all that if you were the only two readers!
> >
> > love in Christ,
> > Anastasia
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

_Click here: Man  in Black_ (http://www.webng.com/mateliza/Man%20in%20Black/)




**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That was great.� What parish/priest is featured?

--- On Sat, 7/19/08, byza7@... <byza7@...> wrote:

From: byza7@... <byza7@...>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] MAN IN BLACK- Turn up your computer speakers and
enjoy
To: LutheransLookingEast@Yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 6:43 PM






_Click here: Man in Black_ (http://www.webng. com/mateliza/ Man%20in% 20Black/)


************ **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse .com/fantasyaffa ir?ncid=aolspr00 050000000020)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not featured but at slide 1:14 - 1:12 "wearin' the green" cassock (not the
black!) is Father Peter from St. Mary of Egypt, Norcross, GA, a suburb of
Atlanta.-----R

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Rebecca Wilson <emmy88heaven@...>
wrote:

>   That was great.  What parish/priest is featured?
>
> --- On Sat, 7/19/08, byza7@... <byza7%40aol.com>
<byza7@...<byza7%40aol.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: byza7@... <byza7%40aol.com> <byza7@... <byza7%40aol.com>>
> Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] MAN IN BLACK- Turn up your computer
> speakers and enjoy
> To:
LutheransLookingEast@Yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40Yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 6:43 PM
>
> _Click here: Man in Black_ (http://www.webng. com/mateliza/ Man%20in%
> 20Black/)
>
> ************ **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
> FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
> (http://www.fanhouse .com/fantasyaffa ir?ncid=aolspr00 050000000020)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello everyone,

I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
and ask for some prayers.  I am a former Lutheran who is being
Chrismated tomorrow.  My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL.  I'm
being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL.  Please
pray for me.

Harry

Harry,
Welcome home to Orthodoxy!
God grant you many years!
I'll be praying for you at church this morning.
Monica
(Antiochian Orthodox, chrismated at Pentecost 2006)


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Harry William Reineke IV
<kd5tmu@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
> and ask for some prayers.  I am a former Lutheran who is being
> Chrismated tomorrow.  My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL.  I'm
> being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL.  Please
> pray for me.
>
> Harry
>

Just joined. I decided that I couldn't write off the east without
looking east, so here I am, looking east. I've been a believer for
almost 2 decades and I converted to Lutheranism last year. I always
thought that Eastern Orthodox was the same thing as Roman Catholic,
but that they had a different holiday calendar. I was very surprised
to learn how much different they were - like the lack of a Pope for
example.

I'm here but I don't know where to start. I feel like a preschooler.
What are the basics? Is there an Orthodoxy catechism book I can pick
up like Lutheranism has?

Being a Christian for as long as I have been, you'd think I'd know my
bible better than I do... but being that I have a mutt protestant
background maybe it isn't too surprising after all.

What are the proof texts that support this "one true church" in the
form of a single denomination - rather than being part of the mystical
body of Christ?

What are the proof texts that say that that one denomination would
hold the fullness of truth - rather than the collective believers?

What must I do to be Orthodox? Is the answer different than "what must
I do to be saved?"?

I guess that's all I've got right now.

The Lord bless you.  Friends of mine were received into Orthodoxy at that
church many years ago, while at Wheaton.

Let us know what patron saint you took/were given.

Christopher


On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...>
wrote:

>   Hello everyone,
>
> I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
> and ask for some prayers. I am a former Lutheran who is being
> Chrismated tomorrow. My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL. I'm
> being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL. Please
> pray for me.
>
> Harry
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

First, the best and most important way to begin understanding Orthodoxy is
to see and/or participate in the Church's prayer.  Go to services: Liturgy,
Vigil, Matins/Orthros, Vespers.  Whatever you can get to, and stand
through.  Talk to a priest, in person.

Pray.  Pray to the Lord, and to His saints if you feel comfortable at this
stage.

Take it slow.  You can't cram for this, it isn't a test, it isn't about
knowing the right proof texts.

Oh yeah, and pray some more.  Morning and evening, say the Jesus Prayer
throughout the day whenever you can ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have
mercy on me a sinner.")

*The Orthodox Church* and *The Orthodox Way*, both by Bishop Kallistos Ware
(older editions may list him as Timothy Ware, his name prior to monasticism)
are both good introductions to Orthodoxy.  I also tend to recommend *The Way
of a Pilgrim* by an anonymous 19th Century Russian writer, the life of St.
Silouan the Athonite (*The Monk of Mount Athos: Staretz Silouan 1866-1938 *
or* Saint Silouan the Athonite,* both by SVS Press - the former is just the
Life section of the latter minus the Writings*) *and *Father Arseny,
1893�1973: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father*.  These last three give a
good sense of the flavor and savor of Orthodoxy beyond the bare facts.

Again, prayer is very important.  Here is a link to an Orthodox prayer book:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/prayerbook/main.htm

There are other translations available online, too.

And to reiterate something other than prayer: you have to "Come and see" in
the same way the Apostle Andrew invited his brother to "see" Jesus; Peter
only believed by seeing, not just by hearing about Jesus - and even then, it
was many years before he truly 'believed' and understood.  Slow and steady
wins the race.

The Lord bless us all.

Christopher





On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:30 AM, tfrjen <oxh973@...> wrote:

>   Just joined. I decided that I couldn't write off the east without
> looking east, so here I am, looking east. I've been a believer for
> almost 2 decades and I converted to Lutheranism last year. I always
> thought that Eastern Orthodox was the same thing as Roman Catholic,
> but that they had a different holiday calendar. I was very surprised
> to learn how much different they were - like the lack of a Pope for
> example.
>
> I'm here but I don't know where to start. I feel like a preschooler.
> What are the basics? Is there an Orthodoxy catechism book I can pick
> up like Lutheranism has?
>
> Being a Christian for as long as I have been, you'd think I'd know my
> bible better than I do... but being that I have a mutt protestant
> background maybe it isn't too surprising after all.
>
> What are the proof texts that support this "one true church" in the
> form of a single denomination - rather than being part of the mystical
> body of Christ?
>
> What are the proof texts that say that that one denomination would
> hold the fullness of truth - rather than the collective believers?
>
> What must I do to be Orthodox? Is the answer different than "what must
> I do to be saved?"?
>
> I guess that's all I've got right now.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Christopher,

when we read,


Canon CXIII.
(Greek cxiiii.)

That without the grace of God we can do no good thing.

IT seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of
justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily
by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will;
as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet
nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine
commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the
fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me ye can do
nothing," and not "Without me ye could do it but with difficulty."

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon CXIII.
Whoso preaches that without grace we could keep the commandments
although with difficulty, is to be thrice execrated. For the Lord
says, "Without me ye can do nothing."

do the Orthodox take issue with this at all, or is this compatible
with Orthodox belief?

thanks,

~micah


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
>
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2006/02/ecumenical-decrees-of-early-church.html
>
> Pelagianism (and the vague semi-Pelagianism) is an ancient heresy that
> has especially dogged Western Christianity since its advent in the 5th
> Century- often more as a bugaboo than a well-understood teaching. It
> is, therefore, interesting to look at the the actual canonical
> legislation ratified by the Universal (Ecumenical) Church of that day
> to understand better the contemporary view of the heresy, as well as
> what orthodox and catholic corrective (if any, in particular) was
> ratified. This "Pelagianism" does not always bear an exact or close
> likeness to what is known as "Pelagianism" in the West, especially
> from the Reformation onward.
>
> Collected below are the pertinent canons from the Third Ecumenical
> Council held at Ephesus in 431 A.D. concerning Pelagius and his
> cohort, Celestius. It is fascinating to see how little specificity
> there is concerning the teachings of Pelagianism, and that no answer
> was put forward that specifically stated the orthodox, catholic
> understanding of the how of salvation, its mechanism. The Council, in
> fact, seemed more concerned with the relationship between the
> arch-heretic Nestorius with Celestius, and then with Pelagius, and
> condemned all three together:
>
> …Pelagius and Celestius found a fitting harbour of refuge with
> Nestorius of Constantinople, and so all three were condemned together
> by the council of Ephesus, he that denied the incarnation of the Word,
> and they twain that denied the necessity of that incarnation and of
> the grace purchased thereby. (Excursus on Pelagianism, P. Schaff)
>
> Included also are the canons of the local Council of Carthage held in
> 418 which were accepted by the Quinisext Council, in Trullo, held at
> Constantinople in 692 A.D. and which holds Ecumenical authority in the
> East (1), and again by the Seventh Ecumenical Council held at Nicea in
> 787 A.D. This council was more specific in its refutation of the
> heresy as it was primarily a heresy of the West, in the West, handled
> by the West, all in the specifically Western lingua franca of Latin.
>
> Reader Christopher Orr
> Sunday of Orthodoxy, 2006
> Stroudsburg, PA
>
> +
>
> THE CANONS OF THE 200 HOLY AND BLESSED FATHERS
> WHO MET AT EPHESUS. (2)
>
> The holy and ecumenical Synod, gathered together in Ephesus by the
> decree of our most religious Emperors, to the bishops, presbyters,
> deacons, and all the people in every province and city:
> When we had assembled, according to the religious decree [of the
> Emperors], in the Metropolis of Ephesus, certain persons, a little
> more than thirty in number, withdrew from amongst us, having for the
> leader of their schism John, Bishop of Antioch…. from their refusing
> to join in our decree against Nestorius, it was manifestly evident to
> all men that they were all promoting the opinions of Nestorius and
> Celestius; the Holy Synod, by one common decree, deposed them from all
> ecclesiastical communion, and deprived them of all their priestly
> power by which they might injure or profit any persons.
>
> Canon I.
>
> Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy Synod
> and remained in their own district or city, for any reason,
> ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the matters
> which were thereby decreed; we, therefore, notify your holiness and
> charity that if any Metropolitan of a Province, forsaking the holy and
> Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly of the apostates, or shall
> join the same hereafter; or, if he has adopted, or shall hereafter
> adopt, the doctrines of Celestius, he has no power in any way to do
> anything in opposition to the bishops of the province, since he is
> already cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion and made
> incapable of exercising his ministry; but he shall himself be subject
> in all things to those very bishops of the province and to the
> neighbouring orthodox metropolitans, and shah be degraded from his
> episcopal rank.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon I.
> If a metropolitan, having deserted his synod, adheres or shall adhere
> to Celestine, let him be cast out.
>
> Nicholas Hydruntinus.
> Scholion concerning Celestine and Celestius. Whose finds at the end of
> the fourth canon of the Holy Synod of Ephesus [and thesame is true of
> this first canon. Ed.] "Clerics who shall have consented to Celestine
> or Nestorius, should be deposed," let him not read "Celestine" with an
> "n," but "Celestius" without the "n." For Celestine was the holy and
> orthodox Pope of Rome, Celestius was the heretic.It is perfectly
> certain that this was no ac cident on the part of Aristenus, for in
> his commentary on Canon V., he expressly says that "Celestine was
> Bishop of Rome" and goes on to affirm that, "The Holy Synod decreed
> that they who embraced the opinions of Nestorius and Celestine," etc.
> What perhaps is equally astonishing is that Nicholas Hydruntinus,
> while correcting the name, still is of opinion that Celestius was a
> pope of Rome and begins his scholion with the title. peri Kelesti/nou
> kai\ kelesti/ou Papw=n Rw/mhj. Beveridge well points out that this
> confusion is all the more remarkable as in the Kalendar of the Saints
> observed at that very time by the Greeks, on the eighth day of April
> was kept the memory of "Celestine, Pope of Rome, as a Saint and
> Champion against the Nestorian heretics." (Bev., Annot, in C. v.).
>
> Canon IV.
>
> If any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately
> presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius (3), it is
> declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
> If any of the clergy shall consent to Celestine or Nestorius, let them
> be deposed.
>
> Canon V.
>
> IF any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod, or by
> their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination,
> Nestorius (or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafter
> attempt, uncanonically to restore such persons to communion and to
> their former rank, we have declared that they shall not be profited
> thereby, but shall remain deposed nevertheless.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon V.
> If one condemned by his bishop is received by Nestorius it shall
> profit him nothing.This canon is interesting as shewing that thus
> early in the history of the Church, it was not unusual for those
> disciplined for their faults in one communion to go to another and
> there be welcomed and restored, to the overthrow of discipline and to
> the lowering of the moral sense of the people to whom they minister.
>
> Canon VI.
>
> Likewise, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in
> each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees
> that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit
> their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
> If any layman shall resist the Synod, let him be excommunicated. But
> if it be a cleric let him be discharged. How courageous the passing of
> this canon was can only be justly appreciated by those who are
> familiar with the weight of the imperial authority at that day in
> ecclesiastical matters and who will remember that at the very time
> this canon was passed it was extremely difficult to say whether the
> Emperor would support Cyril's or John's synod.
>
> Observation of the Roman Editors (Ed:1608).
> In the Vatican books and in some others only these six canons are
> found; but in certain texts there is added, under the name of Canon
> VII., the definition of the same holy Synod put forth after the
> Presbyter Charisius had stated his case, and for Canon VIII. another
> decree of the synod concerning the bishops of Cyprus.
>
> Observation of Philip Labbe, S.j.p.
> In the Collections of John Zonaras and of Theodore Balsamon, also in
> the "Code of the Universal Church" which has John Tilius, Bishop of
> St. Brieuc and Christopher Justellus for its editors, are found eight
> canons of the Ephesine council, to wit the six which are appended to
> the foregoing epistle and two others: but it is altogether a subject
> of wonder that in the Codex of Canons, made for the Roman Church by
> Dionysius Exiguus, none of these canons are found at all. I suppose
> that the reason of this is that the Latins saw that they were not
> decrees affecting the Universal Church, but that the Canons set forth
> by the Ephesine fathers dealt merely with the peculiar and private
> matters of Nestorius and of his followers. The Decree of the same holy
> Synod, pronounced after hearing the Exposition [of the Faith] by the
> Three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers in the city of
> Nice, and the impious formula composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
> given to the same holy Synod at Ephesus by the Presbyter Charisius, of
> Philadelphia:
>
> Canon VII.
>
> When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is
> unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a
> different (e9te/ran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy
> Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea. But those who shall
> dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to
> persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether
> from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall
> be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the
> episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they
> shall be anathematized. And in like manner, if any, whether bishops,
> clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the
> doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter
> Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God,
> or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are
> subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and
> ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from
> his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be
> stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be
> anathematized, as has been afore said.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon VII.
> Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an
> alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out. The
> heading is that found in the ordinary Greek texts. The canon itself is
> found verbatim in the Acts-Actio VI. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia,
> Tom. III., col. 689.)
>
> Beveridge.
> "When these things had been read." Balsamon here makes an egregious
> mistake, for it was not after the reading of the decree of this
> council and of the Nicene Creed, that this canon was set forth, as
> Balsamon affirms; but after the reading of the libellum of Charisius,
> and of the Nestorian Creed, as is abundantly evident from what we read
> in the Acts of the council. From this it is clear that Balsamon had
> never seen the Acts of this council, or at least had never carefully
> studied them, else he could not have written such a comment. [With
> regard to Charisius, Balsamon] makes another mistake. For not only did
> this presbyter not follow the evil opinions of Nestorius, but as a
> matter of fact exhibited to the synod his libellum written against
> Nestorius; in which so far from asserting that Nestorius was orthodox,
> he distinctly calls him kako/docoj. Photius has included this canon in
> his Nomocanons, Title I., cap. j.
>
> Excursus on Pelagianism [by Schaff].
>
> The only point which is material to the main object of this volume is
> that Pelagius and his fellow heretic Celestius were condemned by the
> Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy. On this point there
> can be no possible doubt. And further than this the Seventh Council by
> ratifying the Canons of Trullo received the Canons of the African Code
> which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the
> Pelagian heresy to which the attention of the reader is particularly
> drawn. The condemnation of these heretics at Ephesus is said to have
> been due chiefly to the energy of St. Augustine, assisted very
> materially by a layman living in Constantinople by the name of Marius
> Mercator. Pelagius and his heresy have a sad interest to us as he is
> said to have been born in Britain. He was a monk and preached at Rome
> with great applause in the early years of the fifth century. But in
> his extreme horror of Manichaeism and Gnosticism he fell into the
> opposite extreme; and from the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent
> evilness of humanity he fell into the error of denying the necessity
> of grace. Pelagius's doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam's sin
> injured only himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin.
> Infants therefore are not born in sin and the children of wrath, but
> are born innocent, and only need baptism so as to be knit into Christ,
> not "for the remission of sins" as is declared in the creed. Further
> he taught that man could live without committing any sin at all. And
> for this there was no need of grace; indeed grace was not possible,
> according to his teaching. The only "grace," which he would admit the
> existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g. the example of
> Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like. Petavius (4)
> indeed thinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to
> illumine the intellect, but this seems quite doubtful. Pelagius's
> writings have come down to us in a more or less-generally the
> latter-pure form. There are fourteen books on the Epistles of St.
> Paul, also a letter to Demetrius and his Libellus fidei ad Innocentium.
>
> In the writings of St. Augustine are found fragments of Pelagius's
> writings on free will. It would be absurd to attempt in the limits
> possible to this volume to give any, even the most sketchy, treatment
> of the doctrine involved in the Pelagian controversy: the reader must
> be referred to the great theologians for this and to aid him I append
> a bibliographical table on the subject. St. Augustine. St. Jerome.
> Marius Mercator, Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii. Vossius, G. J.,
> Histor. de controv. quas Pel. ejusque reliquioe moverunt. Noris.
> Historia Pelagiana.Garnier, J. Dissertat. in Pelag. in Opera Mar.
> Mercator.Quesnel, Dissert. de conc. Africanis in Pelag. causa
> celebratis etc.Fuchs, G. D., Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen.Horn,
> De sentent. Pat. de peccato orig.Habert, P. L., Theologioe Groecorum
> Patrum vindicatoe circa univers. materiam gratioe. Petavius, De Pelag.
> et Semi-Pelag (5). The English works on the subject are so well known
> to the English reader as to need no mention. As it is impossible to
> treat the theological question here, so too is it impossible to treat
> the historical question. However I may remind the reader that
> Nestorius and his heresy were defended by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
> that he and Celestius were declared by Pope Zosimus to be innocent in
> the year 417, a decision which was entirely disregarded by the rest of
> the world, a Carthaginian Synod subsequently anathematizing him.
> Finally the Pope retracted his former decision, and in 418
> anathematized him and his fellow, and gave notice of this in his
> "epistola tractoria" to the bishops. Eighteen Italian bishops, who had
> followed the Pope in his former decision of a twelve month before,
> refused to change their minds at his bidding now, and were accordingly
> deposed, among them Julian of Eclanum. After this Pelagius and
> Celestius found a fitting harbour of refuge with Nestorius of
> Constantinople, and so all three were condemned together by the
> council of Ephesus, he that denied the incarnation of the Word, and
> they twain that denied the necessity of that incarnation and of the
> grace purchased thereby.
> +
>
> SYNOD AGAINST THE HERESY OF PELAGIUS AND CELESTIUS
> (CARTHAGE, 418 AD)
>
> (Greek cxii.)
>
> In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors, Honorius for the XIIth
> time and Theodosius for the VIIIth, Augusti most exalted, on the
> Calends of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the Basilica of
> Faustus. When Aurelius the bishop presided over the whole council, the
> deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and
> subscriptions are indicated (6),1 met together in the holy synod of
> the Church of Carthage to define- (7)
>
> Canon CIX.
> (Greek cxij. continued.)
>
> That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
>
> That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so
> that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body-that is,
> he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited
> this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.
> Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and
> through natural necessity, let him be anathema.
>
> Canon CVIII. is the introduction to the Synod of Carthage of May 1,
> a.d. 418; and Canon CIX. is Canon j. of that synod.
>
> Canon CX.
> (Greek cxii. bis)
>
> That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.
>
> Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from
> their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for
> remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin,
> which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence
> the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the
> remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him
> be anathema.
>
> For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man
> sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed
> upon all men in that all have "sinned," than the Catholic Church
> everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this
> rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed
> as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the
> remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of
> generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CX.
> Whoso affirms that those newly born and baptized contract nothing from
> Adam's transgression, which needs to be washed away by baptism, is to
> be execrated: for through one both death and sin invaded the whole
world.
>
> This is Canon ij. of Carthage, a.d. 418 [Greek Canon 112]. See Can.
> 63, 104, both which are double, as this likewise is in the old Greek
> scholiasts.
>
> [Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the
> Lord, "In my Father's house are many mansions "is to be understood as
> meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle
> place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who
> have gone forth from tiffs life without baptism, without which they
> cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be
> anathema. For after our Lord has said: "Except a man be born again of
> water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of
> heaven," what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be
> coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who
> fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand
> portion.]
>
> Notes.
>
> The foregoing, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient
> codex. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns
> relegates it to a foot-note.
>
> Canon CXI.
> (Greek cxiij.)
>
> That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also
> affords aid that we sin no more.
>
> Likewise it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of
> God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails
> only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against
> committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXI.
> Whoever is of opinion that the grace of God only gives remission of
> those sins we have already committed, and does not afford aid against
> sin in the future, is to be twice execrated.
>
> Canon CXII.
> (Greek cxiij.)
>
> That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but
> also inspires us with a desire that we may be able to accomplish what
> we know.
>
> Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus
> Christ our Lord helps us only in not sinning by revealing to us and
> opening to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know
> what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to
> do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do
> what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle
> says: "Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth" it were truly infamous
> were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which
> puffeth us up, but have it not for that which edifieth, since in each
> case it is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to
> love to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is
> edifying us. For as of God it is written, "Who teacheth man
> knowledge," so also it is written, "Love is of God."
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXII.
> Whoever says that the grace of God is given to us only that we may
> know what we ought to do and what to flee from, but not also that we
> may love the thing known, and be able to accomplish it, let him be
> anathema.
>
> Canon cxi. is Canon iij. of Carthage, a.d. 418, and Canon cxii. is
> Canon iv. of the same synod.
>
> Canon CXIII.
> (Greek cxiiii.)
>
> That without the grace of God we can do no good thing.
>
> IT seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of
> justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily
> by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will;
> as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet
> nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine
> commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the
> fruits of the commandments, when he said: "Without me ye can do
> nothing," and not "Without me ye could do it but with difficulty."
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXIII.
> Whoso preaches that without grace we could keep the commandments
> although with difficulty, is to be thrice execrated. For the Lord
> says, "Without me ye can do nothing."
>
> This is Canon V. of Carthage, a.d. 418.
>
> Canon CXIV.
> (Greek cxv.)
>
> That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: "If we
> say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves."
>
> IT also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If we shall
> say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in
> us," whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean
> that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not
> because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on
> to add, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
> forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity," where it is
> sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also
> truly. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall say we have no
> sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in
> us;" but when he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in
> us" he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin
> would speak not that which is true but that which is false.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXIV.
> Whosoever shall interpret the saying of the Divine [i.e. St. John]:
> "If we shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves" as not
> being really true but as spoken out of humility, let him be
> anathema.This is Canon vj. of Carthage, a.d. 418.
>
> Canon CXV.
> (Greek cxvi.)
>
> That in the Lord's Prayer the Saints say for themselves: "Forgive us
> our trespasses."
>
> IT has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord's
> prayer, the saints say, "forgive us our trespasses," they say this not
> for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for
> the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of
> the saints can say, "Forgive me my trespasses," but "Forgive us our
> trespasses;" so that the just is understood to seek this for others
> rather than for himself; let him be anathema. For holy and just was
> the Apostle James, when he said, "For in many things we offend all."
> For why was it added "all," unless that this sentence might agree also
> with the psalm, where we read, "Enter not into judgment with thy
> servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified;"
> and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: "There is no man that
> sinneth not;" and in the book of the holy Job: "He sealeth in the hand
> of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity;" wherefore
> even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times: "We
> have sinned, we have done iniquity," and other things which there
> truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be thought (as some have
> thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people's
> sins, for he said further on: "When I shall pray and confess my sins
> and the sins of my people to the Lord my God;" he did not wish to say
> our sins, but he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since
> he as a prophet foresaw that those who were to come would thus
> misunderstand his words.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXV.
> Whoso expounds this, "forgive us our trespasses" as speaking only of
> the multitude and not of individuals let him be anathema: Since Daniel
> even he can behold saying with the multitude "I confessed my sins and
> the sins of my people."This is Canon vii. of Carthage, a.d. 418.
>
> Canon CXVI.
> (Greek cxvii.)
>
> That the Saints say with accuracy, "Forgive us our trespasses."
>
> Likewise also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of
> the Lord's prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our trespasses" are said
> by the saints out of humility and not in truth let them be anathema.
> For who would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would
> say with his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his
> heart that he had no sins to be forgiven.
>
> Notes.
>
> Ancient Epitome of Canon CXVI.
> (Lacking.) This is Canon viii. of Carthage, a.d. 418.
>
> ENDNOTES
>
> 1. See the “Introductory Note” to the this Council in Schaff,
Philip.
> Early Church Fathers: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II,
Vol. XIV.
> 2. Schaff, Philip ed. The Early Church Fathers: Nicene and Post-Nicene
> Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. This is the caption in most mss., but in
> the Cod. Seguierianus it is quite different. Vide Labbe. Conc..
III., 802.
> 3. It should read "Celestius"; see Scholion on Canon I [in Schaff].
> 4. Petav. De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag. Hoer., Cap. iv.
> 5. I [P. Schaff] am chiefly indebted to Michaud for this last.
> 6. The Latin here is corrupt.
> 7. Here begins Canon CIX. of the Latin text.
>

Christopher,
I was neither given, nor chose, a patron saint.  I kept my own name.
Some saints I have found need to call on for various things are St
Panteleimon, the Theotokos, and St Joseph, but there is not one
particular saint I have as a patron.  The etymology of my name (Harry
William) lends itself to the patronage of St Basil, but I'm not sure.

The newly Chrismated,
Harry


--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> The Lord bless you.  Friends of mine were received into Orthodoxy at
that
> church many years ago, while at Wheaton.
>
> Let us know what patron saint you took/were given.
>
> Christopher
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...>
> wrote:
>
> >   Hello everyone,
> >
> > I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
> > and ask for some prayers. I am a former Lutheran who is being
> > Chrismated tomorrow. My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL. I'm
> > being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL. Please
> > pray for me.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I would say that this fully conforms with the Orthodox view of things,
especially since this canon was originally written by the "217 Blessed
Fathers who assembled at Carthage" in 419, which were later accpted by the
Quinisext Council ('In Trullo'; 692), the which was then in turn accepted by
the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787).

Is there anything in particular you would like discussed regarding this
canon?

Christopher


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Very good.  Some jurisdctions do not require one to take a saint's name when
received, and others allow one to take a 'middle' name as a saint's name
while keeping a 'non-Orthodox' first name, e.g., Engelbert Barsanuphius.

Of course, there is also the Serbian custom of a Slava, which is a family's
patron saint.  It is usually the saint of the day that the family was
converted to Orthodoxy, which in your case would be the Prophet Elias
(Elijah) - mine would have been the Feast of the Seventy Apostles.  Serbs,
then, do not normally have saint's names as their names.

In fact, however, there are pre-Schism Orthodox saints named William:

> *William of Dijon Jan 1
> *962-1031. William was born near Novara in Italy and became a monk near
> Vercelli, from where he went to France. Here he was sent to restore the
> monastery of St Benignus in Dijon, Gentle with the poor, he showed great
> firmness in his dealings with the great. Towards the end of his life he
> founded the monastery of Fruttuaria in Piedmont and rebuilt that of F�camp.
>
> *William of Pe�acorada March 20
> *+ c 1042. Monk at the monastery of Satag�n in Le�n in Spain. In 988 he
> fled with the other monks from the Saracens and settled at Pe�acorada, where
> he built the monastery of Santa Maria de los Valles, later named after him
> San Guillermo de Pe�acorada.
>
> *William of Gellone May 28
> *755-812. After a military career, he built a monastery at Gellone in
> France not far from Aniane which he filled with monks. Later the monastery
> was named after him Saint-Guilhem-du-Desert.
>
I wasn't able to find any Orthodox saints name Harold, Harald, Harrald, etc.
though you could get a number that would work with Harry as the nickname,
e.g., Chariton
Christopher


On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Harry W Reineke IV, S.S.P. <
kd5tmu@...> wrote:

>   Christopher,
> I was neither given, nor chose, a patron saint. I kept my own name.
> Some saints I have found need to call on for various things are St
> Panteleimon, the Theotokos, and St Joseph, but there is not one
> particular saint I have as a patron. The etymology of my name (Harry
> William) lends itself to the patronage of St Basil, but I'm not sure.
>
> The newly Chrismated,
> Harry
>
> --- In
LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Christopher Orr"
> <xcjorr@...> wrote:
> >
> > The Lord bless you. Friends of mine were received into Orthodoxy at
> that
> > church many years ago, while at Wheaton.
> >
> > Let us know what patron saint you took/were given.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
> > > and ask for some prayers. I am a former Lutheran who is being
> > > Chrismated tomorrow. My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL. I'm
> > > being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL. Please
> > > pray for me.
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> First, the best and most important way to begin understanding
Orthodoxy is
> to see and/or participate in the Church's prayer.  Go to services:
Liturgy,
> Vigil, Matins/Orthros, Vespers.  Whatever you can get to, and stand
> through.  Talk to a priest, in person.
>
> Pray.  Pray to the Lord, and to His saints if you feel comfortable
at this
> stage.
>
> Take it slow.  You can't cram for this, it isn't a test, it isn't about
> knowing the right proof texts.
>


I did. In fact, I went to 3 Orthodox churches this weekend. One
Western Rite, one Romanian, one Antiochian. The Divine Liturgy was at
the Antiochian. I left a little hurt that nobody spoke to me or
offered me the blessed bread. Some people took home whole loaves, but
I didn't get one crumb. I talked to the priest at the Western Rite
church, but just scraped the surface really.

I'm not trying to prepare for a test. I am however testing the
Orthodox church to see if I think it's all it claims to be. This, for
me, involves hearing your proof texts. So please, if you'll indulge me....

Thanks

Glory to Jesus Christ!� Glory forever!
�
What blessed news, Harry.� Say "hi" to Fr. John and Matushka Barbara.� Tell them
it's from an old convert from St. Mary's Cathedral in Minneapolis since 1980 and
still thanking God.
�
Many years, Harry!

--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...> wrote:

From: Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Intro and prayer request.
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 11:22 PM






Hello everyone,

I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
and ask for some prayers. I am a former Lutheran who is being
Chrismated tomorrow. My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL. I'm
being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL. Please
pray for me.

Harry

















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

God grant you many years!
       Reader Peter

Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...> wrote:
           Hello everyone,



     Recent Activity

       5
   New Members

Visit Your Group
       Yahoo! News
   Get it all here
   Breaking news to
   entertainment news

     Discover Tips
   on healthy living
   and healthy eating
   on Yahoo! Groups.

     Popular Y! Groups
   Is your group one?
   Check it out and
   see.



   .






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Newly Illumined Harry,

What a GREAT day!  I guess I didn't realize your Chrismation was coming so
soon.  So...will you tell us about it?

Chronia polla! ----R (aka Dixie)

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Harry William Reineke IV <kd5tmu@...>
wrote:

>   Hello everyone,
>
> I have been on this list for a while, and would like to finally say Hi
> and ask for some prayers. I am a former Lutheran who is being
> Chrismated tomorrow. My name is Harry, and I live in Lisle, IL. I'm
> being Chrismated at St Joseph Orthodox Church in Wheaton, IL. Please
> pray for me.
>
> Harry
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry to hear about your experience at the Antiochian church. That was the first
Orthodox Church I attended - went for alomost a year before moving South - and
though I wasn't mobbed my first visit, I had a few people saw hello and offer
blessed bread to me. But in honesty, even the church I attended was very close
knit (I think teh majority of the church was from a few families) and it took a
few weeks of regular attendence to "warm" people up. I would just encourage you
to find a church you are comfortable in and go many times in a row. Not to
offend the Orthodox, but for me I needed to go several times to get the
wierdness out!!
�
As a former Lutheran/Episcopalian/Assemblies of God/Roman Catholic I'm with you
on the catechism!! Every church should have a book with the seven petitions of
the Lord's Prayer, the three parts of the Creed, and the mis numbered 10
(er...9) Commandments. And though I found a catechism at my local library (dated
1955 or so) I don't think it's really an Orthodox thing (please correct me if I
am wrong). The books by Timothy Ware are very good and I beleive they might give
you the proof texts you are searching for. I know I have seen Orthodox writers
give proof texts, but I can't remember them right now.
�
I would also recommend the books written by former Protestants (like Fr. Peter
Gillquist) who made the journey to Orhtodoxy - I found they addressed some of my
questions. Fr. Fenton also has a blog site and a church near Detroit, MI
(Western Rite). He is a former Lutheran and I found his information to be VERY
good (a little technical at times for me, but he is very thoughtful and
intelligent). I wish I could remember his blog address, but he is a member of
this group, maybe he'll read this and give it to you. The church is Holy
Incarnation in MI - if you parish search the Antiochian Archdiocese you can get
to the church website and I beleive he has a like to many things. He also has
his paper posted explaining why he left Lutheranism and that might be helpful to
you!
�
Sorry to babble...I just want to encourage you to keep searching and hopefully
give you some things to read. I had many of the same questions you seem to have
and by God's grace I found enough answers to be at peace regarding my "coming
home" to Orthodoxy!
�
Shalom!!
Todd

--- On Sun, 7/20/08, tfrjen <oxh973@...> wrote:

From: tfrjen <oxh973@...>
Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: New Here
To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 20, 2008, 6:46 PM






--- In LutheransLookingEas t@yahoogroups. com, "Christopher Orr"
<xcjorr@...> wrote:
>
> First, the best and most important way to begin understanding
Orthodoxy is
> to see and/or participate in the Church's prayer. Go to services:
Liturgy,
> Vigil, Matins/Orthros, Vespers. Whatever you can get to, and stand
> through. Talk to a priest, in person.
>
> Pray. Pray to the Lord, and to His saints if you feel comfortable
at this
> stage.
>
> Take it slow. You can't cram for this, it isn't a test, it isn't about
> knowing the right proof texts.
>

I did. In fact, I went to 3 Orthodox churches this weekend. One
Western Rite, one Romanian, one Antiochian. The Divine Liturgy was at
the Antiochian. I left a little hurt that nobody spoke to me or
offered me the blessed bread. Some people took home whole loaves, but
I didn't get one crumb. I talked to the priest at the Western Rite
church, but just scraped the surface really.

I'm not trying to prepare for a test. I am however testing the
Orthodox church to see if I think it's all it claims to be. This, for
me, involves hearing your proof texts. So please, if you'll indulge me....

Thanks


















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear tfrjen,

That was remiss of people not to offer you the bread.  They probably expected
you to help yourself, but still, they were supposed to offer it to you, and
obviously, they were supposed to speak to you, as well.

Come to think of it, I don't think anybody paid any attention to me, either, in
some of the Orthodox churches I've visited.

A few of these more ethnic parishes still don't quite seem to know how to act
when a visitor shows up who isn't Greek or Russian or whatever.

But as it was my soul, and as I was desperate, I decided to take the kingdom by
storm if necessary.  I introduced myself, and I somehow even wormed my way into
a Greek choir...(I had studied ancient Greek in school, so that helped.)  And
once they knew me a bit, people were extremely nice to me.


"Proof texts?"  Um, well, there's no way to indulge you there.  We don't really
have any.  But the reason for that will probably be an unexpected one:  it's
because Orthodoxy doesn't proceed that way.  Proof-texting is a different way of
using the Bible than we have.  Christopher has written a whole paper on that
subject, to which he can refer you.

Dear Harry,

Many years!  God grant you a good struggle.

Around here (Richmond, Virginia) people named after St. Charalambos ("Shining
Joy") are called Harry.

- Anastasia

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]