Sola Scriptura is a direct assault upon that. It is “bibleolatry” because it is, in a sense, worship of the written word as an idol. A thing is not apostolic teaching because it was reduced to writing in Scripture. Some things were and some were not. A thing is apostolic teaching because it came from the Apostles. As Elder Cleopa pointed out, only two Apostles wrote Gospels which were later accepted by the Church as Scripture. But Eleven (plus, later, St. Paul) spread the Gospel far and wide. Not everything they witnessed of Him or were taught by Him was reduced to writing, certainly not in Scripture. But the way we can know if it is their teaching is through catholicity. That is why it matters.

…you employ simplistic concepts. I’ve mentioned that before. “Biblieolatry” means — what? Worship of the written word as an idol? This means nothing of substance. It’s a polemical shot, nothing more.

The earliest Fathers up until at least the middle of the second century quoted “Gospel” the sayings of the Lord, without any reference to where the saying came from. They were not particularly concerned with whether it was written Gospel or not. Much of what they quoted they only know through oral tradition. Some weren’t even concerned which books were being used by the Church to convey the apostolic word so long as the books conformed to the apostolic word (see comment 38 above).

Of course they weren’t concerned about canonized scripture. The oral tradition was still operative because the disciples of the apostles were still living. Words were already written of course (these writings were compiled as scripture later on), but the apostolic teaching was easy to verify simply by word of mouth. As time wore on and the apostles and their disciples died, the true Gospel had to be sifted from the myriad false gospels emerging and thus their writings were canonized.

I hope you are not arguing that extant writings exist of equal authority. That brings you into Elaine Pagel’s backyard.

If you are arguing an oral tradition still exists, it must be defined as what St. Basil and Fr. Florovsky define it as: practices that contextualize the apostolic teaching contained in scripture.

Checkmate or not, it doesn’t matter to me either way. You asked for my opinion, I gave it. That was your last word, this is mine. The thread is closed.

“The result is that apostolic authority is relativized. It argues implicitly that apostolic authorship/teaching is of no higher authority than what, say, this elder and that elder would say.”

That is not what the “apologetic” claims (and the “apologetic” is actually just a statement or restatement of the Faith).

Because you reject catholicity, you cannot see that. The plain fact is that the apostolic word was not passed down solely through Scripture. You are confused on this point I can see from your use of the term “authorship/teaching” which refers to two different things – – the latter only includes the former. Thus, the “apologetic” (which is much older than the Reformation) is not relativizing apostolic authority at all. It is simply stating that the Church has a means of determining what the apostolic word is, and that means is definitely not sola scriptura (which is heresy). Eliot understands this well. It is essentially what is conveyed by his first quote from Elder Cleopa above. It was really just a restatement of the Faith in the face of heterodox teaching.

“Brother Scott”? Nick, I knew you were a Baptist at heart!

Anyway, been interesting discussing this with you all. I think I understand why I believe what I believe more clearly now.

Please respond to 52.2 before you take your leave. Othewise I have to consider it a “checkmate”.

“In his phraseology, kerygmata are precisely what in the later terminology was denoted as doctrine, that is, formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in matters of faith or the public teaching.”

That is definitely not what Basil was doing:

“. . . delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.”

What he was saying is that not all of apostolic tradition was passed down through Scripture alone. Many details of what the faith is and how it is practiced were passed down outside of Scripture as other quotes I have listed make clear. All of the things St. Basil mentioned have content and meaning and that meaning is of equal authority to Scripture, not as a derivative, but as reflecting the same apostolic word.

It argues implicitly that apostolic authorship/teaching is of no higher authority than what, say, this elder and that elder would say. This is clearly not correct. It ends up, as I mentioned above, defending the “truth of Orthodoxy” or some such variant, instead of preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Once the persecutions against the Church stopped after 391 AD the Church had to fight against the flood of errors and heresies God has promised to be with us until the end of the age. He said He will send us the Holy Spirit to guide us. When we listen to what the Saints said we believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and we listen to God.
Elder Arsenie Papacioc:

In every circumstance we must preserve all that the Ecumenical Councils have decided, because it wasn’t done either by you or me! It was done through Councils that lasted hundreds of days, abounding with signs and miracles, with the Holy Spirit! This is how the truth was established at the Seven Ecumenical Councils (EC) !
The first was in AD 325 and the last in AD 787! They decided in all things in unity.
The Catholics split in 1054; the Synods were complete by then!
At the Sixth EC Pope Martin was a martyr! Why do they betray him now? Why did they depart? And from here everything started! Luther began the protestant movement, the Anglicans, and so on…

Yes, Sola-scriptura means subjective interpretation and this is how all heresies start!

“Well, I am not sure. Can I bring along the writings of all the Holy Fathers not just one? I don’t think I would be able to understand the Holy Scripture.”

Very good answer.

Acts 8:27-31
“And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”

Scripture in and of itself is insufficient for salvation.

It is apropos to the discussion to bring up Chapter 27 of St. Basil’s “On the Holy Spirit”, particularly since I alluded to it in a previous post as did Fr. Georges Florovksy in the extend quotation of his which I posted. However, I think it best to set forth the entire text for contextual purposes. Therefore, I am setting forth below the balance of the text using the last sentence from your quotation as the first sentence of this quotation:

This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. Dogma and Kerugma are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of dogmas difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. Genesis 2:8 We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or standing again Grk. ἀ νάστασις) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to seek those things which are above, Colossians 3:1 but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says There was evening, and there was morning, one day, as though the same day often recurred. Now one and eighth are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really one and eighth of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which ends not or grows old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal there. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as it were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we show by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven.
67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on the mystery of godliness 1 Timothy 3:16 is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;— which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;— a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?
68. The force of both expressions has now been explained. I will proceed to state once more wherein they agree and wherein they differ from one another—not that they are opposed in mutual antagonism, but that each contributes its own meaning to true religion. The preposition in states the truth rather relatively to ourselves; while with proclaims the fellowship of the Spirit with God. Wherefore we use both words, by the one expressing the dignity of the Spirit; by the other announcing the grace that is with us. Thus we ascribe glory to God both in the Spirit, and with the Spirit; and herein it is not our word that we use, but we follow the teaching of the Lord as we might a fixed rule, and transfer His word to things connected and closely related, and of which the conjunction in the mysteries is necessary. We have deemed ourselves under a necessary obligation to combine in our confession of the faith Him who is numbered with Them at Baptism, and we have treated the confession of the faith as the origin and parent of the doxology. What, then, is to be done? They must now instruct us either not to baptize as we have received, or not to believe as we were baptized, or not to ascribe glory as we have believed. Let any man prove if he can that the relation of sequence in these acts is not necessary and unbroken; or let any man deny if he can that innovation here must mean ruin everywhere. Yet they never stop dinning in our ears that the ascription of glory with the Holy Spirit is unauthorized and unscriptural and the like. We have stated that so far as the sense goes it is the same to say glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, and glory be to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Ghost. It is impossible for any one to reject or cancel the syllable and, which is derived from the very words of our Lord, and there is nothing to hinder the acceptance of its equivalent. What amount of difference and similarity there is between the two we have already shown. And our argument is confirmed by the fact that the Apostle uses either word indifferently,— saying at one time in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God; 1 Corinthians 6:11 at another when you are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 1 Corinthians 5:4 with no idea that it makes any difference to the connection of the names whether he use the conjunction or the preposition.

Having done so, it is instructive to note that, out of the 30 chapters of the treatise, only 1 is devoted to “Tradition”. The other 29 are devoted to extensive citation to Scripture as proof texts for St. Basil’s discussion. In parts, it almosts looks like a florilegia. I find it significant that 97% of the treatise deals with Scripture and a mere 3% deals with Tradition. And with what Tradition does it deal, we should ask?

If you carefully read Chapter 27, you will readily see that it deals with our rituals: the facing to the East, the kneeling, the triple immersion at baptism, the invocation of the Holy Spirit during the anaphora, and the like. If you read the whole treatise, St. Basil uses 97% of it to argue, from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is God, that it is equal to the Father and the Son and that to it is due the same Glory and Worship. What he then does, in referring to Tradition is to say that our rituals dealing with the Holy Spirit are consistent with and confirm what he has derived from Scripture. This is precisely what Fr. Georges Florovsky says about Chapter 27:

The first reference to “unwritten traditions” is to be found in the famous treatise of St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit; And, at first glance, it may seem as if St. Basil admitted a double authority and double standard — unwritten traditions alongside of the Scriptures. The fact is however, that he is far from doing so. His terminology is peculiar. His main distnction is between kerygmata and dogmata. In his phraseology, kerygmata are precisely what in the later terminology was denoted as doctrine, that is, formal and authoritative teaching and ruling in matters of faith or the public teaching. On the other hand, dogmata are the total complex of “unwritten habits” — in fact, the total structure of liturgical and sacramental life. These “habits” were handed down, says St. Basil, en mysterio. It would be a flagrant mistranslation if we took these words to mean “in secret.” The only accurate rendering is: “by way of mysteries.” This means, under the form of rites and liturgical usages. Indeed, all the examples which St. Basil cites in this connection are ritual and symbolic. These rites and symbols are means of communication. In a sense they are extra-scriptural. But their purpose is to impart to the candidates for baptism the “rule of faith” and prepare them for their baptismal profession of faith. St. Basil’s appeal to these “unwritten habits” was no more than an appeal to the faith of the church, to her sensus catholicus. He had to break the deadlock created by the obstinate and narrow-minded pseudo-biblicism of his Arian, or Eunomian, opponents. And he pleaded that, apart from this “unwritten” rule of faith, expressed in sacramental rites and habits, it was impossible to grasp the true intention of the Scripture.

This is also what I and Fr. Hans have been saying about Tradition. The Tradition which has been reduced to writing in 1 Cor. 15 and the Tradition reflected in our ritual formulas, our hymnograpy and our doxologies puts into context the content of Scripture.

Brother Scott can say all he wants that the preeminent Orthodox theologian of the 20th Century, Fr. Georges Florosvky (who he presciently called a saint in one of his posts) is just plain, dead wrong. If my salvation depended on the teachings of Fr. Georges or the teachings of Brother Scott, I think everyone knows where the choice would lie.

One thing I’ve wanted to say for a while and have held back. Some of the posts have been quite vitriolic and insulting, especially against Fr. Hans. That is uncalled for and does not serve to advance the cause of intellectual discussion. We can agree to disagree, but we whould not disagree disagreeably. Christian charity is not just alms. It also entails respect. Another thing I’ve wanted to say is that, if everything were so cut and dried, why have Orthodox theologians spent so much time writing and not always agreeing? A good case in point is Basil and his brother Nyssa. Basil took the Genesis account in the literally sequential way as presented in Genesis 1. Nyssa totally disagreed and said all of creation and things created occurred simultaneously in one single act of Will and that Genensis was merely allegorical in trying to set up a sequence to show interrelations that our feeble minds could better comprehend.

On whose side does your so-called tradition lie? Is the Apostolic teaching on the side of Basil or on the side of Nyssa? Pray tell, answer that one if one can. The two were close and knew of their vehement disagreement over this. I don’t recall either one insulting the other. Those were both true intellects and Doctors of the Church.

We disagree, that is clear. But, I think it time to move on to other subjects.

Yes, Eliot. You are right.

Yep, what I said was correct. The Gospel was oral tradition, Holy Tradition, both before and after part of it was reduced to writing.

“That’s where it starts, Scott. In the apostolic proclamation — the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s because these words are true, these words that flow from God through the apostle, that the scriptures were canonized and that a Tradition arose. Tradition cannot precede the word, just like the creation cannot precede the words of God that spoke it into existence. It is an impossibility.”

Tradition came before the New Testament and the four Gospels. It is a fact. The content of the New Testament and the four Gospels began as Christ’s teaching and activity. It became oral tradition. Only later did part of it become Scripture. I was precisely correct on this point. Your perpetual confusion comes from not being able to admit that the apostolic teaching is not solely contained in Scripture.

“I have never argued that all things need to be written down in order to be authoritative. Nor have I argued that Tradition is not authoritative. I have argued that Tradition is authoritative to the measure to which it comports (stands in, conforms to) the apostolic word. This is precisely the ground that St. Basil lays out as well.”

No, that is not what you’ve been arguing and that is not what St. Basil meant. What you have been arguing is that Tradition only has derivative authority because it comports with Scripture. You believe that the entire apostolic word was reduced to Scripture. That is not the Orthodox faith and that is what St. Basil was conveying.

Fr. Johannes,

What you are really doing is rationalizing away the teaching of the Fathers in order to promote a Protestant teaching. You are rejecting catholicity.

St. Augustine:
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

We say a thing is the catholic faith if it enjoys universality, antiquity and consent. The reason we are concerned about these things – – the only serious reason – – is because they are the means the Church uses to determine if something is apostolic teaching, either explicitly or by necessary implication. If a thing is widely believed by most or all Christians or church leaders, and from antiquity, then it can have but one origin: The Apostles.

Sola Scriptura is a direct assault upon that. It is “bibleolatry” because it is, in a sense, worship of the written word as an idol. A thing is not apostolic teaching because it was reduced to writing in Scripture. Some things were and some were not. A thing is apostolic teaching because it came from the Apostles. As Elder Cleopa pointed out, only two Apostles wrote Gospels which were later accepted by the Church as Scripture. But Eleven (plus, later, St. Paul) spread the Gospel far and wide. Not everything they witnessed of Him or were taught by Him was reduced to writing, certainly not in Scripture. But the way we can know if it is their teaching is through catholicity. That is why it matters.

The earliest Fathers up until at least the middle of the second century quoted “Gospel” the sayings of the Lord, without any reference to where the saying came from. They were not particularly concerned with whether it was written Gospel or not. Much of what they quoted they only know through oral tradition. Some weren’t even concerned which books were being used by the Church to convey the apostolic word so long as the books conformed to the apostolic word (see comment 38 above).

Sola Scriptura is just an untenable mess that has no place in Orthodoxy.

Fr. Hans:

I think I would choose the Scripture though. But yes, teachers are needed.

I understand that. You are a priest of the Apostolic Church and a successor of the Apostles.

Saint Basil the Great wrote many centuries ago:

”If we consent to abandon the unwritten traditions on the pretext that they don’t have great worth, we err in great and elevated matters, rejecting the Gospel.”

From the time of the Apostles, the proper understanding of Scripture and Tradition was of crucial importance to the Christian Church.

St. Basil’s words were prophetic. Today, the rejection of the Gospel is happening all around us. Matt Dillahunty, your opponent in the debate is the son of a Baptist minister. He heard the Gospel, but he rejected it. One cannot properly understand the Scriptures outside the context of the Tradition. This is valid for all atheists: they reject the Gospel because they can’t understand it.

Jehovah’s Witnesses has always taught from its inception in 1896 that Jesus Christ was no more than a perfect man. They go door-to door, holding in their hand the Bible while rejecting the Gospel. We Orthodox say “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”. The say Christ was no more than a perfect man.

All the denominations have had their contribution the the state of confusion in the Christian world. Converts from Islam or other religion are surprised to learn about the very large number of Christian denominations.

The critical distinction, using St. Basil’s words, is between “Dogma” and “Kerygma” but it is a distinction valid within the Church and not outside of it since only the Kerygma (the proclamation, the Gospel) is proclaimed to the outside world. Dogma is not. The Kerygma is of course, the Good News (evangelion) that Christ is Risen from the dead.

The apologetic proclaims to the outside world that the “Kerygma” is not sufficient. It does this because it misunderstands the term “sola-scriptura” and reads the misunderstanding back into history. It conflates “Kerygma” into “Dogma”, something that clearly St. Basil does not do, then proclaims this new amalgamation is the real “Kerygma.” This is incorrect.

The apologetic, then, does not really deal with the “Kerygma”. Rather it’s really an attempt to undermine Protestant claims of authority and, as such, it changes the character of the “Kerygma”. Instead of preaching the Gospel, we get arguments about how Orthodoxy is the True Church and so forth. But this is not the preaching of the Gospel. It is apologetics replacing the Gospel.

Further, the Dogma, St. Basil writes, is authoritative because it has apostolic origin, another confirmation actually of the supremacy of the apostolic teaching. You see here the point I have been making all along: the apostolic teaching is primary. I have never argued that all things need to be written down in order to be authoritative. Nor have I argued that Tradition is not authoritative. I have argued that Tradition is authoritative to the measure to which it comports (stands in, conforms to) the apostolic word. This is precisely the ground that St. Basil lays out as well.

Luther’s notion of sola-scriptura was not an attack on Tradition in terms the polemic puts forth. It was actually a reaffirmation of the primacy of apostolic authority. His intent was to subject extra-biblical teachings promulgated by the Magisterium of his time back to the written text. In this he is entirely Orthodox. In fact, he developed his point reading the Church Fathers. The apologetic, because it misreads Luther to mean he advocated subjective interpretation (he didn’t), generalizes the term to mean that the scriptures are merely element in a host of elements that make up the tradition: iconography, hymnography, and so forth. (I am explaining history here, not making an implicit argument for or against the Reformation.)

The result is that apostolic authority is relativized. It argues implicitly that apostolic authorship/teaching is of no higher authority than what, say, this elder and that elder would say. This is clearly not correct. It ends up, as I mentioned above, defending the “truth of Orthodoxy” or some such variant, instead of preaching the Gospel of Christ. This is why I say the apologetic is captive to Protestant categories and not true to the Orthodox tradition.