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

Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: Sola Scriptura & Bondage of the Will

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Orr
    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
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Jeremy Finck
      The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart from the
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the
        Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart
        from the Church. Think of it this way: we know that the Scriptures claim
        that they they are not given to any individual's interpretation. Even a
        Lutheran knows that while an atheist may get an interpretation of some
        verses correct, the atheist's understanding and teaching is far from
        authoritative; similarly any cult, whether it is like that cult that ended
        itself in Waco, TX or whether it's the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
        Every individual group has their own take. Jesus Christ Himself
        appointed His Body the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth", through
        His bestowing that authority on the Apostles and their successors by the
        power and operation of the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of Scripture
        supports this much more strongly than any Lutheran or Protestant teaching on
        Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is definitely an unScriptural teaching.
        Many very conservative, Confessional, and Historically-wise Lutherans even
        understand this, and that Sola Scriptura is not even a Confessional
        teaching, strictly speaking. (My college History teacher is a VERY devout
        LC-MS Lutheran, and he was emphatic about this, when we went through a VERY
        long series of Adult Sunday School classes on the Book of Concord). If one
        reads the Book of Concord carefully, especially placed within its historical
        context, one will fine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or some
        variant of it) has been super-imposed upon the Confessions by later
        generations. Scripture itself points to the authority of the Church, both in
        word (in the Gospel and Epistles) and in practice (as demonstrated in the
        book of Acts).

        I went through the Scriptures and History books with the assistance of some
        classes and partially on my own to discover this. I would challenge you to
        do the same, Timothy. You may be very surprised at what you find.

        It has been a long time since I did that research, and I didn't keep track
        of my resources at the time. Perhaps some others can point to good resources
        on these topics?


        Jeremy





        On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, 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]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jeremy Finck
        Oh.... and I realized I neglected to mention this. When I m speaking of Christ s Body the Church I implicitly meant the Orthodox Church. ... [Non-text
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh.... and I realized I neglected to mention this. When I'm speaking of
          "Christ's Body the Church" I implicitly meant the Orthodox Church.



          On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Jeremy Finck <adonaiuplifts@...>wrote:

          > The Scriptures are essential, central, and pivotal to the faith of the
          > Orthodox Church. However, the Scriptures are not rightly understood apart
          > from the Church. Think of it this way: we know that the Scriptures claim
          > that they they are not given to any individual's interpretation. Even a
          > Lutheran knows that while an atheist may get an interpretation of some
          > verses correct, the atheist's understanding and teaching is far from
          > authoritative; similarly any cult, whether it is like that cult that ended
          > itself in Waco, TX or whether it's the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
          > Every individual group has their own take. Jesus Christ Himself
          > appointed His Body the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth", through
          > His bestowing that authority on the Apostles and their successors by the
          > power and operation of the Holy Spirit. A careful reading of Scripture
          > supports this much more strongly than any Lutheran or Protestant teaching on
          > Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is definitely an unScriptural teaching.
          > Many very conservative, Confessional, and Historically-wise Lutherans even
          > understand this, and that Sola Scriptura is not even a Confessional
          > teaching, strictly speaking. (My college History teacher is a VERY devout
          > LC-MS Lutheran, and he was emphatic about this, when we went through a VERY
          > long series of Adult Sunday School classes on the Book of Concord). If one
          > reads the Book of Concord carefully, especially placed within its historical
          > context, one will fine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or some
          > variant of it) has been super-imposed upon the Confessions by later
          > generations. Scripture itself points to the authority of the Church, both in
          > word (in the Gospel and Epistles) and in practice (as demonstrated in the
          > book of Acts).
          >
          > I went through the Scriptures and History books with the assistance of some
          > classes and partially on my own to discover this. I would challenge you to
          > do the same, Timothy. You may be very surprised at what you find.
          >
          > It has been a long time since I did that research, and I didn't keep track
          > of my resources at the time. Perhaps some others can point to good resources
          > on these topics?
          >
          >
          > Jeremy
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, 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]
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Oruaseht
          Excellent post Christopher! The Lutherans/Reformers chief complaint with the church of Rome (besides the selling of salvation) was the Papacy. Luther called
          Message 4 of 17 , 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]
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.