Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1666Re: Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

Expand Messages
  • Oruaseht
    Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Excellent post Christopher!

      The Lutherans/Reformers chief complaint with the church of Rome (besides the selling of salvation) was the Papacy. Luther called the Pope the Anti-Christ after all. What I see completely disintegrated in the Western church(es) is the lack of conciliarity. (So foreign is it that even my spell checker in my web browser is showing it as a misspelled word with no suggestions!) When I started looking back into the history of the church, it was always the West who broke fellowship: excommunication of the East, changing the universally/conciliar Nicene Creed, claiming more authority than the other patriarchs and then the ultimate infallibility of the Pope himself.

      I honestly believe that the heinous fragmentation, division, schism, decomposed ecclesiology of the west (Rome & her Protestant children) is directly because of the aforementioned reasons. Then, one looks at Orthodoxy's long standing tradition, one-ness and on-going conciliar behaviour [http://www.antiochian.org/node/23226%5d and it is compelling as a witness to the one, true catholic and apostolic church.

      --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Orr <xcjorr@...> wrote:
      >
      > The primary error of the Roman Church is papalism, which sees the Bishop of
      > Rome as the infallible and necessary voice in determining every aspect of
      > Church life, universally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of
      > ecclesiology.
      >
      > The Orthodox believe no individual is infallible, not even a Patriarch or
      > Bishop. No one is preserved from error. Thus, the example of the so called
      > Council of Jerusalem is followed. The bishops gather in Council to
      > understand what seems good to them and the Holy Spirit. This is called
      > conciliarity. Those churches that broke away from the consensus of the
      > Universal Church did so often unilaterally and along cultural lines. Rome
      > broke away based on its own understanding of its own authority thus denying
      > any real or necessary input from the Universal Church - this allowed Rome to
      > continue innovating. There is often highly charged, less than PC language
      > in Orthodoxy against Papalism and its innovations. The Copts did the same.
      > I see much the same in the way that Lutheranism is a very northern European
      > teaching; Anglicanism was very much an English teaching - both having spread
      > beyond those bounds in more modern times due to immigration and/or
      > colonialism, as well as some missionary work. Orthodoxy from the beginning
      > cut across numerous cultural, political, linguistic and even intellectual
      > boundaries (Rome and the Latin West with the Orthodox for the first
      > millenium, as well).
      >
      > All that being said, numbers alone (even in a diversity) are not proof of
      > the Church's view. All of the disciples fled the Lord in the Garden, but
      > that didn't make Him less God when all he had were his mother and St. John
      > (his young cousin). Same, too, with the times when (almost) all the world's
      > leading bishops stood against Orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius (supported by Rome
      > and other bishops, but not the leading eastern bishops), Maximus Confessor
      > (who had Rome and/or Jerusalem [Sophronios] and others on his side, though
      > not the other leading bishops in the east.)
      >
      > One error cannot be solved by another (sola Scriptura). Christianity isn't
      > balanced out by a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme. The Reformers did
      > the best they could with the only unquestionable source they had: the
      > Bible. They had no access to the churches of the East suffering under the
      > Turks or across the Ukrainian steppe under the Mongols; Tradition to them
      > was limited to an appeal to the authority of the Pope and florilegia
      > compiled by Western theologians already cut off from the conciliar fulness
      > of the Church by the pretenstions of Rome (and the Carolingians) and a
      > centuries long decline in contact with the ancient, apostolic Churches
      > (plural! the West had but one apostolic foundation: Rome) and the loss of
      > facility in Greek (easterners also lost fluency in Latin at a pretty early
      > stage).
      >
      > Not sure if that helps.
      >
      > Christopher
      >
      >
      > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM, timothy_jackson87 <
      > timothy.jackson87@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Christopher,
      > >
      > > Thank you for sending me Solum corpus Christi document. I've also listened
      > > to the podcast, which has been helpful for understanding the Orthodox
      > > position.
      > >
      > > I just had some questions come to me concerning the question of authority
      > > in all this. Isn't the Roman Catholic Church (RC) founded on the same
      > > Apostolic authority as the other patriarchates of the Eastern Church? If
      > > yes, then how can their (RC) obvious and well documented errors be
      > > explained? The Reformation was trying to correct the abuses of tradition in
      > > the RC after all.
      > >
      > > My thought is that the very existence of the Roman Church and its many
      > > abuses seems to me to be a major dent in the idea that the Church has
      > > authority over the Scriptures, b/c if the Roman Church comes from the same
      > > seeds as that of the Orthodox Churches how is the heterodoxy of the RC
      > > accounted for? Conceivably couldn't the Orthodox Churches fall into the same
      > > sort of gross error that could only be corrected by something like Sola
      > > Scriptura? Does that make sense?
      > >
      > > I hope my questions and thoughts are coherent enough. Looking forward to
      > > any replies from any and all who care to weigh in.
      > >
      > > Timothy
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > xcjorr@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > My "Solum corpus Christi: the authority of scripture in the orthodox
      > > Church for lutherans" should help re the one question. It is available as a
      > > podcast on AFR and I can send it to you as well. It may be in the files or
      > > links of this list, too.
      > > >
      > > > Christopher Orr
      > > >
      > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: "timothy_jackson87" <timothy.jackson87@>
      > > > Sender: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:50:07
      > > > To: <LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > >
      > > > Reply-To: LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com<LutheransLookingEast%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Subject: [LutheransLookingEast] Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will
      > > >
      > > > Gentlemen,
      > > >
      > > > I'm interested in any thoughts and especially resources from an Orthodox
      > > point of view that address the Lutheran perspective on Sola Scriptura and
      > > the Bondage of the Will. These two doctrines are of primary importance as to
      > > why I am still a Lutheran to this day.
      > > >
      > > > I attempted to look back through previous posts but Yahoo makes it
      > > ridiculously difficult to navigate through 3 years of posts and find
      > > anything.
      > > >
      > > > *Sola Scriptura*
      > > > I have listened to a couple podcasts via Ancient Faith Radio talking
      > > about Sola Scriptura, but these have seemed to lump the Lutheran
      > > understanding in with Baptists, and pentecostals, etc, which is a
      > > misrepresentation and I've been taught Lutheran theology well enough to spot
      > > an inaccurate representation when I hear it. Most of the apologetic material
      > > I have read and listened to in favor of Sola Scriptura (usually via Issues
      > > Etc) deals with the complaints of the Roman Catholic apologists. Are the
      > > Roman Catholic complaints the same as the Eastern Orthordox? If there are
      > > differences, what might they be?
      > > >
      > > > *Bondage of the Will*
      > > > This very well might be the top issue for me in determining ultimately to
      > > either remain in the Lutheran Church or one day to become Eastern Orthodox.
      > > Does anyone know of a resource in the vast Orthodox corpus that specifically
      > > addresses Luther's writing in the Bondage of the Will?
      > > >
      > > > Thank you all for your time!
      > > >
      > > > Timothy
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic