I can understand that but all I can say is that these days it doesn't seem an appropriate question to ask. It'd be a bit like asking me which of my two daughters should take precedent over the other, or whether when I'm eating a meal the carrots should take precedence over the potatoes.
My wife has strong opinions regarding carrots 😉
Thanks for replying - I'll have a proper read in the morning.
I remember Fr Gregory fondly from the olden days of the ship.
I’m not at all clear on whether it would ever be safe for me to publicly tell everything, since so much is confidential and/or puts living people in an embarrassing light. It may have to wait for the Kingdom, where i hope for a nice fire to sit by and a glass of wine as we hear everybody’s stories at last.
Your journey is interesting. Do you see yourself still as a learner?
Of course. Why would I not do so?
I haven't even scratched the surface. What a strange question!
All Christians are disciples whichever tradition they are involved with, so I'm not being flippant.
As for Orthodoxy in particular, I can't imagine stepping into such a rich, deep and ancient Tradition and thinking I'd got it all sussed from Day One.
It's an immersive thing, not a case of giving intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and Christianity as a whole isn't about that either, whichever 'flavour' we're talking about.
I'm pretty sure that all posters here still see themselves as 'learners.'
The 'L-plates' never come off. I'm sure we'll all go on learning into Eternity.
@Gamma Gamaliel Orthodoxy gives you a more holistic, big picture perspective that seems much more integrated than your previous somewhat atomised and perhaps compartmentalised experience as a Protestant?
And in that way your ongoing faith journey feels more fulfilled (not that you've "arrived" as such).
Would that be a fair summary?
My apologies. I did have something in mind but that was a very bad way of opening it. It may be best summarised in the Ephesians observation about speaking the truth in love as a necessary precursor to growth,
No excuses. I was offensive. Please believe it was inadvertent. I withdraw the question and need to think through a better way of opening up what I was thinking about. I’m not sure the following is very good for that!
My question related to a notion that perhaps learning as a disciple (growing in grace) might be affected by the way belief in scripture was advanced in the denominations to which we belong. I have a feeling that suppression of learning is not just about imperfect oppressive leadership though that obviously is important. I relate quite strongly to Rowan Williams’ belief in the importance of keeping the questions alive. That requires space for both questioning and open discussion. But my thoughts aren’t very coherent, I’m afraid.
Thanks @Barnabas62, no offence taken and I'd anticipated that you didn't mean any.
I'll be careful how I phrase my response. I think it can be assumed - and I made the assumption myself - that because the Orthodox have a very prescriptive view of Tradition that there is very little room for manouevre. To some extent I would agree. The Orthodox can be behind the curve on many things. For instance, when I ghost-wrote a book about a friend's child-protection charity I interviewed a guy from Eastern Europe who told me that when it came to implementing changes in practice away from residential children's homes towards adoption, fostering and family-based alternatives the Protestants were the first adopters, followed by the RCs and then the Orthodox.
I don't doubt that.
As a former 'non-conformist' I was worried lest my more 'rebellious' tendencies be curbed.
It's certainly the case that Orthodox bishops and heirarchs find it difficult to deal with priests who are former Anglican clergy, for instance. They aren't used to being challenged or opposed back in their 'home countries' as it were.
If there's kick-back from former Anglicans then yes, there will be kick-backs from former Baptists or 'new church' people etc - although we are seeing some more fundamentalist Protestants swap their hardline biblical fundamentalism or a kind of 'Church Fundamentalism' or 'Patristic Fundamentalism.'
There are concerns about the development of a 'Protestant Orthodoxy'. But that's for another thread ...
I'm not sure that I've encountered 'suppression of learning' within Orthodoxy. Learning and study are encouraged. Would that more Orthodox would take up those opportunities.
The Orthodox aren't 'frightened' of Higher Criticism or Protestant scholarship in general, indeed I've come across many who welcome it. They are suspicious though when they think it goes 'too far' or becomes too academic for the sake of it.
I'm not sure that answers your question but the broader point I'm making is that for all of us who are Christian believers we never stop learning, never stop questioning, never stop exploring.
It's interesting that in Ephesians the Apostle Paul wrote about how we 'learn' Christ.
Not learn doctrine or learn the scriptures - vital though those are - but how we learn Christ and scripture is obviously crucial to that. See: Ephesians 4:20-24.
@Gamma Gamaliel Orthodoxy gives you a more holistic, big picture perspective that seems much more integrated than your previous somewhat atomised and perhaps compartmentalised experience as a Protestant?
And in that way your ongoing faith journey feels more fulfilled (not that you've "arrived" as such).
Would that be a fair summary?
Yes, I think that's a fair summary but with the caveat that I haven't arrived.
We never fully arrive.
There's the story of one of the Desert Fathers, a godly and holy man, who was heard calling out to God for mercy on his death bed. His brother monks were distressed and disturbed.
'Abba,' they said. 'We know you to be an exemplary and godly man. Why call out to God for mercy?'
'My brethren,' he replied. 'I have not even begun to repent.'
Yes, I do feel as if my faith is 'fulfilled' - or being fulfilled rather - but not that I have 'arrived'. We are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That applies to all of us, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
I’ve described the church I go to as “ruined Brethren”! Given the roots, one preacher I remember saying that after he got converted at a Billy Graham rally he was advised to go to what was described as an Open Brethren assembly. He described it as about as “Open” as Fort Knox!
The congo I go to is a lot more open than that! Headcovering is not an issue. Nor are women speakers and the eldership is about 50/50 women and men. The church leader is male, noticeably humble and not in the least authoritarian. It’s got more “liberal” in my 50 years there and that’s definitely not all down to me! But maybe I’ve had some influence? It’s based in a poor area and is very much engaged in support for poverty. Including a food bank, a charity shop and practical advice and help with money management (CAP).
It’s a kind, generous, community with a lot of kind, generous people in it. Not very big (about 80 members). If you’d told me 50 years ago I would still be there, I’d have laughed. If you’d asked the then elders they would have found it hard to believe! I’ve learned a lot from being there.
I think a lot of more conservative outfits grow more liberal over time.
That might sound odd coming from someone who is Orthodox as that's essentially very conservative and slow-moving.
I'm not thinking in terms of party politics there necessarily, but FWIW in our parish we have both Corbynista types as well as those who are to the right of Attila the Hun.
I think there are certainly echoes, overlaps and parallels between Orthodoxy and what I'd call the more 'reflective' end of the evangelical spectrum, as indeed there are with other traditions such as Roman and Anglo-Catholicism, of course and some aspects of the historic Protestant churches such as the Lutherans, Anglicans and the Reformed.
It ain't identical though. But it's not a completely different species in zoological terms.
Shared individual journeys can be a source of great blessing.
I have a really good friend (over 50 years) whose journey is much more mixed in terms of church membership than mine. When it came to change he had the unfortunate experience of being ahead of his time! On women in ministry and leadership, on ecology, on ecumenism, on sexual preference and gender issues, on social responsibility, on all sorts of justice issues. He’s been in hot water for talking to leaders who couldn’t take his challenge. He has an endearing combination of a very sharp mind and a very kind heart.
To quote Gamaliel, he’s a classic example of the more reflective end of the evangelical spectrum. He’s been describing himself as post evangelical since well before that term became more used! He’s 77 now, full of energy and commitment, and has finally got into a church where he feels comfortable and they are comfortable with him! I never leave a conversation with him without feeling more aware, more enlightened, often more challenged.
Couldn’t agree more. Belonging and continuing to belong make learning more possible since we as individuals are no longer the only source of what life means. I think that it vital for the life of faith.
The fact that my faith journey began in a place where I was initially uncomfortable has turned out after 50 years (!) to have been a great advantage. The wrestling has been more of a struggle but of greater value as a result. I wouldn’t be where I am now if I hadn’t had to wrestle with Fundamentalists, wonder that some of them showed often annoying gentleness and kindness. And continuing love for me despite my argumentativeness! It didn’t have any tinge of superiority and used to make me scratch my head!
I’m not a Fundamentalist, never will be. But I’ve discovered through some of them that loving the apparently different and being loved by them was not a threat to my personal
autonomy or integrity. And I learned a lot more about what integrity and love meant as a result.
The affectionate dialogues I’ve had for 20 years with Lamb Chopped, who has an inerrant view of scripture within Lutheranism coupled with great compassion, have often reminded me (and still do) of those earlier days.
“To live above with those we love will be all bliss and glory. To live below with those we know, that’s quite a different story.”
There's an African saying, I think which runs something like, 'I need you to be me.'
In other words in order to be myself I need other people to be themselves.
Your thing about fundamentalism is a bit like what a 19th century Russian Bishop said about the RCs and Protestants - the 'Younger Brother' in his terms to Orthodoxy as the 'Elder Brother.'
The Elder Brother needed the Younger Brother in order to appreciate his own Elder Brotherliness as it were ... which undoubtedly sounds highly patronising if you are the Younger Brother/s.
Like all analogies it only stretches so far. Besides, I have no difficulty in seeing the RCs as equal in antiquity as it were to the Orthodox. We were both the Orthodox-Catholic Church as it were before the Schism.
That doesn't mean I dismiss the Protestants as Johnny-Come-Latelys with nothing of value for the rest of us other than for their very existence to demonstrate the 'rightness' of our own position.
Which is how it could sound.
But the Orthodox do believe that we have the 'fullness of the faith.'
'We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshipping the Undivided Trinity; for He has saved us.'
That doesn't mean that other people aren't worshipping the Undivided Trinity of course.
I don't frame the inerrancy/infallibility thing in the way @Lamb Chopped does because I use a different frame of reference. I've got different specs. A different opthalmic prescription.
That doesn't mean I don’t recognise the hallmarks of Christ in her work and mission. It simply means that I no longer get exercised about specifically Protestant concerns because they are no longer within my frame of reference.
It doesn't mean I don't care about Protestants or anything of that kind. It's just that some of the foundational concerns that Luther Calvin and the other Reformers no longer apply, although I'd certainly recognise some of the principles to which they adhered.
Apologies for double-posting but in conversation today, someone, who isn't Big O Orthodox suggested that discussing the relative weight accorded to scripture and tradition or Tradition might be like asking which is the most important, petrol (gas) or the car?
@Gamma Gamaliel has mentioned that scripture was written in context with the church.
The problem I have with prima ecclesia is that on this side of eternity the church is prone to human error. Even now, there is no complete agreement among Christians of what scripture is all about.
@Gamma Gamaliel has mentioned that scripture was written in context with the church.
The problem I have with prima ecclesia is that on this side of eternity the church is prone to human error. Even now, there is no complete agreement among Christians of what scripture is all about.
Interpretation of scripture is prone to human error. Seems like half of one, six dozen of the other.
Indeed. Which is why I press for a both/and position.
Both could be wrong of course... 😉
@Barnabas62 I think @Nick Tamen will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his take on 'sola scriptura' is more akin to what you mean by 'prima scriptura.'
On other occasions both he and other Reformed folk have pointed out that 'sola scriptura' is not solo scriptura and that due weight is given to tradition, reason and discussion/debate in the context of the faith community.
So I imagine your position is closer to that definition/understanding of 'sola scriptura.'
I do understand the Reformed position, for all the understandable objections I've received from Reformed Christians to my sometimes caricatured depiction of it.
It's rather like another of the 'sola' slogans - and as Nick has said himself, that's what they are, slogans - sola fide.
You'll often hear Reformed people add the caveat, 'But the faith which saves is never alone.'
They add that of course to avoid ay dint of misapprehension that they might be antinomian or promoting 'easy-believism' or reducing faith to intellectual assent to a set of propositions.
And rightly so.
But whatever else we might say about them the 'sola' slogans should come with a note saying, 'Handle with care.'
The same applies, of course, to any religious aphorisms or attempts to summarise or represent doctrines in sound-bite or slogan form.
All that said, it still begs all sorts of questions.
@Lamb Chopped arguably sets the Church against scripture and scripture against the Church when she says that if there's a discrepancy then the Church is wrong.
I can see why she would say that but it still begs the question as to whether your, mine or anyone else's interpretation is authoritive, rather than, say, 'that believed everywhere and by all' or conciliar and collegial agreements.
We may think we are interpreting scripture correctly. Someone down the road may think otherwise. Who decides?
That may sound like I'm promoting a 'prima ecclesia' position but what I'm trying to underline is that it's a both/and thing with scripture and the faith community in dialogue as it were.
I'll start another thread saying complementary things about other Christian traditions soon. Partly to show how even-handed and reasonable I try to be, but more seriously to give praise where it's due and to acknowledge the 'charism' - as the RCs might put it - within all Christian bodies.
Meanwhile, without getting into ad-hominem territory or scatalogical jibes, how do we evaluate something like Luther's 'On The Bondage Of The Will' or Calvin's 'Institutes' without drawing equally on scripture and the wider Christian Tradition/traditions of both East and West?
Whatever the merits and demerits of these works, we have to take them in context - historically, culturally, etc etc - and evaluate them against scripture and Tradition - by which I mean here the broad thrust of Christian belief, understanding and practice from the earliest times to the present.
We'll find that much of it does accord with what's been handed down. Other aspects may be more questionable. If we go to the 'bar of scripture' as the final arbiter it presupposes that we all agree in what scripture actually teaches.
The reality is that on some aspects, we don't.
As I was becoming Orthodox I was struck by how the 'East' understood passages in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians rather differently to how I'd understood them as a Protestant.
Why? Because I'd been reading those epistles through evangelical Protestant lenses whereas the Orthodox had been reading them through the lens of their own Tradition.
If I'd turned around and disagreed with them on that, would it have been on the basis of scripture or my particular interpretation of scripture?
I'd say the latter.
Who was right and who was wrong?
The Orthodox Church or me as a Good Little Evangelical?
If the latter then we'd have to demonstrate that the Orthodox Church got it wrong somewhere along the line. If so, when?
@Barnabas62 I think @Nick Tamen will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his take on 'sola scriptura' is more akin to what you mean by 'prima scriptura.'
No, I would say you’re wrong. To be honest, I generally struggle to find a meaningful, practical difference between sola scriptura as I have understood and experienced it in my 6+ decades as a Presbyterian, and what I understand—or at least think I understand—others to mean by prima scriptura.
It's rather like another of the 'sola' slogans - and as Nick has said himself, that's what they are, slogans - sola fide.
I have said that the solas are slogans, and I won’t backpedal on that.
But I wouldn’t say that’s all they are. They operate as shorthand for my complicated ideas. As I said on the first page of this thread,
I have to say I was taught under the Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura, but I also was taught that we should look back at the history of the development of a doctrine in order to fully understand it.
As another coming from a sola scriptura tradition, but also a credal, confessional tradition that emphasizes scriptural discernment in community, I agree completely. I think sola scriptura has to be understood in the context of the debates of the time in which it became a slogan. Used without reference to the papacy of the 16th and 17th Centuries, the context is lost and the meaning can easily become skewed.
I would add to that that I don’t think—again, at least for Lutherans and the Reformed—that sola scriptura can be properly understood unless joined with the other solae—sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone) and soli die gloria (the glory of God alone). They’re all part of a package, as it were.
So, a slogan, but not a slogan that can just be tossed or applied around haphazardly. Rather, a slogan that represents a particular perspective connected to a particular conflict that has ongoing implications with regard to a particular approach or attitude.
I get that and respect that @Nick Tamen but forgive my ignorance, I'm still finding it difficult to pin-point how your approach to 'sola scriptura' differs from what @Barnabas62 refers to as 'prima scriptura' - and I don't think he's using the term in isolation from the other 'primas' or 'solas'.
Perhaps I'm missing or overlooking something.
We appear to have 'talked past' each other a few times on this thread and I'm keen to remedy that.
I get that and respect that @Nick Tamen but forgive my ignorance, I'm still finding it difficult to pin-point how your approach to 'sola scriptura' differs from what @Barnabas62 refers to as 'prima scriptura' -
I suspect your difficulty comes solely from the fact that there’s a pesky “n’t” misting from my first sentence. It should have read: “No, I wouldn’t say you’re wrong.”
Apologies!
and I don't think he's using the term in isolation from the other 'primas' or 'solas'.
My reference to the other solae was in the context of sola scriptura as a slogan, not in the context of how @Barnabas62 has been using the term.
And yes I understand your point about slogans, but slogans which draw on a wider hinterland as it were.
Is it still a hinterland when it seems to be so foundational? I would say for instance, that the solas are incidental features of my belief, but they aren't only incidental or even accidental, but part of a larger whole.
Without putting words in his mouth what I took from what @Nick Tamen said was that the solas were a feature of something much richer underneath (those complicated ideas, historical understanding and decades spent in a confessional context).
And yes I understand your point about slogans, but slogans which draw on a wider hinterland as it were.
Is it still a hinterland when it seems to be so foundational? I would say for instance, that the solas are incidental features of my belief, but they aren't only incidental or even accidental, but part of a larger whole.
Without putting words in his mouth what I took from what @Nick Tamen said was that the solas were a feature of something much richer underneath (those complicated ideas, historical understanding and decades spent in a confessional context).
Feel free to put words in my mouth! That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say.
Comments
My wife has strong opinions regarding carrots 😉
Thanks for replying - I'll have a proper read in the morning.
I remember Fr Gregory fondly from the olden days of the ship.
I shall look forward to that day
Of course. Why would I not do so?
I haven't even scratched the surface. What a strange question!
All Christians are disciples whichever tradition they are involved with, so I'm not being flippant.
As for Orthodoxy in particular, I can't imagine stepping into such a rich, deep and ancient Tradition and thinking I'd got it all sussed from Day One.
It's an immersive thing, not a case of giving intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and Christianity as a whole isn't about that either, whichever 'flavour' we're talking about.
I'm pretty sure that all posters here still see themselves as 'learners.'
The 'L-plates' never come off. I'm sure we'll all go on learning into Eternity.
And in that way your ongoing faith journey feels more fulfilled (not that you've "arrived" as such).
Would that be a fair summary?
My apologies. I did have something in mind but that was a very bad way of opening it. It may be best summarised in the Ephesians observation about speaking the truth in love as a necessary precursor to growth,
No excuses. I was offensive. Please believe it was inadvertent. I withdraw the question and need to think through a better way of opening up what I was thinking about. I’m not sure the following is very good for that!
My question related to a notion that perhaps learning as a disciple (growing in grace) might be affected by the way belief in scripture was advanced in the denominations to which we belong. I have a feeling that suppression of learning is not just about imperfect oppressive leadership though that obviously is important. I relate quite strongly to Rowan Williams’ belief in the importance of keeping the questions alive. That requires space for both questioning and open discussion. But my thoughts aren’t very coherent, I’m afraid.
I'll be careful how I phrase my response. I think it can be assumed - and I made the assumption myself - that because the Orthodox have a very prescriptive view of Tradition that there is very little room for manouevre. To some extent I would agree. The Orthodox can be behind the curve on many things. For instance, when I ghost-wrote a book about a friend's child-protection charity I interviewed a guy from Eastern Europe who told me that when it came to implementing changes in practice away from residential children's homes towards adoption, fostering and family-based alternatives the Protestants were the first adopters, followed by the RCs and then the Orthodox.
I don't doubt that.
As a former 'non-conformist' I was worried lest my more 'rebellious' tendencies be curbed.
It's certainly the case that Orthodox bishops and heirarchs find it difficult to deal with priests who are former Anglican clergy, for instance. They aren't used to being challenged or opposed back in their 'home countries' as it were.
If there's kick-back from former Anglicans then yes, there will be kick-backs from former Baptists or 'new church' people etc - although we are seeing some more fundamentalist Protestants swap their hardline biblical fundamentalism or a kind of 'Church Fundamentalism' or 'Patristic Fundamentalism.'
There are concerns about the development of a 'Protestant Orthodoxy'. But that's for another thread ...
I'm not sure that I've encountered 'suppression of learning' within Orthodoxy. Learning and study are encouraged. Would that more Orthodox would take up those opportunities.
The Orthodox aren't 'frightened' of Higher Criticism or Protestant scholarship in general, indeed I've come across many who welcome it. They are suspicious though when they think it goes 'too far' or becomes too academic for the sake of it.
I'm not sure that answers your question but the broader point I'm making is that for all of us who are Christian believers we never stop learning, never stop questioning, never stop exploring.
It's interesting that in Ephesians the Apostle Paul wrote about how we 'learn' Christ.
Not learn doctrine or learn the scriptures - vital though those are - but how we learn Christ and scripture is obviously crucial to that. See: Ephesians 4:20-24.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians 4:20-24&version=NASB
It's not just about acquiring knowledge but becoming transformed and conformed to Christ.
Yes, I think that's a fair summary but with the caveat that I haven't arrived.
We never fully arrive.
There's the story of one of the Desert Fathers, a godly and holy man, who was heard calling out to God for mercy on his death bed. His brother monks were distressed and disturbed.
'Abba,' they said. 'We know you to be an exemplary and godly man. Why call out to God for mercy?'
'My brethren,' he replied. 'I have not even begun to repent.'
Yes, I do feel as if my faith is 'fulfilled' - or being fulfilled rather - but not that I have 'arrived'. We are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That applies to all of us, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
That’s very much how I see it.
I’ve described the church I go to as “ruined Brethren”! Given the roots, one preacher I remember saying that after he got converted at a Billy Graham rally he was advised to go to what was described as an Open Brethren assembly. He described it as about as “Open” as Fort Knox!
The congo I go to is a lot more open than that! Headcovering is not an issue. Nor are women speakers and the eldership is about 50/50 women and men. The church leader is male, noticeably humble and not in the least authoritarian. It’s got more “liberal” in my 50 years there and that’s definitely not all down to me! But maybe I’ve had some influence? It’s based in a poor area and is very much engaged in support for poverty. Including a food bank, a charity shop and practical advice and help with money management (CAP).
It’s a kind, generous, community with a lot of kind, generous people in it. Not very big (about 80 members). If you’d told me 50 years ago I would still be there, I’d have laughed. If you’d asked the then elders they would have found it hard to believe! I’ve learned a lot from being there.
That might sound odd coming from someone who is Orthodox as that's essentially very conservative and slow-moving.
I'm not thinking in terms of party politics there necessarily, but FWIW in our parish we have both Corbynista types as well as those who are to the right of Attila the Hun.
I think there are certainly echoes, overlaps and parallels between Orthodoxy and what I'd call the more 'reflective' end of the evangelical spectrum, as indeed there are with other traditions such as Roman and Anglo-Catholicism, of course and some aspects of the historic Protestant churches such as the Lutherans, Anglicans and the Reformed.
It ain't identical though. But it's not a completely different species in zoological terms.
I have a really good friend (over 50 years) whose journey is much more mixed in terms of church membership than mine. When it came to change he had the unfortunate experience of being ahead of his time! On women in ministry and leadership, on ecology, on ecumenism, on sexual preference and gender issues, on social responsibility, on all sorts of justice issues. He’s been in hot water for talking to leaders who couldn’t take his challenge. He has an endearing combination of a very sharp mind and a very kind heart.
To quote Gamaliel, he’s a classic example of the more reflective end of the evangelical spectrum. He’s been describing himself as post evangelical since well before that term became more used! He’s 77 now, full of energy and commitment, and has finally got into a church where he feels comfortable and they are comfortable with him! I never leave a conversation with him without feeling more aware, more enlightened, often more challenged.
We can learn a lot from one another.
The fact that my faith journey began in a place where I was initially uncomfortable has turned out after 50 years (!) to have been a great advantage. The wrestling has been more of a struggle but of greater value as a result. I wouldn’t be where I am now if I hadn’t had to wrestle with Fundamentalists, wonder that some of them showed often annoying gentleness and kindness. And continuing love for me despite my argumentativeness! It didn’t have any tinge of superiority and used to make me scratch my head!
I’m not a Fundamentalist, never will be. But I’ve discovered through some of them that loving the apparently different and being loved by them was not a threat to my personal
autonomy or integrity. And I learned a lot more about what integrity and love meant as a result.
The affectionate dialogues I’ve had for 20 years with Lamb Chopped, who has an inerrant view of scripture within Lutheranism coupled with great compassion, have often reminded me (and still do) of those earlier days.
“To live above with those we love will be all bliss and glory. To live below with those we know, that’s quite a different story.”
In other words in order to be myself I need other people to be themselves.
Your thing about fundamentalism is a bit like what a 19th century Russian Bishop said about the RCs and Protestants - the 'Younger Brother' in his terms to Orthodoxy as the 'Elder Brother.'
The Elder Brother needed the Younger Brother in order to appreciate his own Elder Brotherliness as it were ... which undoubtedly sounds highly patronising if you are the Younger Brother/s.
Like all analogies it only stretches so far. Besides, I have no difficulty in seeing the RCs as equal in antiquity as it were to the Orthodox. We were both the Orthodox-Catholic Church as it were before the Schism.
That doesn't mean I dismiss the Protestants as Johnny-Come-Latelys with nothing of value for the rest of us other than for their very existence to demonstrate the 'rightness' of our own position.
Which is how it could sound.
But the Orthodox do believe that we have the 'fullness of the faith.'
'We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshipping the Undivided Trinity; for He has saved us.'
That doesn't mean that other people aren't worshipping the Undivided Trinity of course.
I don't frame the inerrancy/infallibility thing in the way @Lamb Chopped does because I use a different frame of reference. I've got different specs. A different opthalmic prescription.
That doesn't mean I don’t recognise the hallmarks of Christ in her work and mission. It simply means that I no longer get exercised about specifically Protestant concerns because they are no longer within my frame of reference.
It doesn't mean I don't care about Protestants or anything of that kind. It's just that some of the foundational concerns that Luther Calvin and the other Reformers no longer apply, although I'd certainly recognise some of the principles to which they adhered.
As well as the fart jokes.
What think ye of this analogy?
Does it have wheels?
This thread has actually confirmed that I am more prima scriptura than sola scriptura. Also that I am historical critical.
The problem I have with prima ecclesia is that on this side of eternity the church is prone to human error. Even now, there is no complete agreement among Christians of what scripture is all about.
Interpretation of scripture is prone to human error. Seems like half of one, six dozen of the other.
Both could be wrong of course... 😉
@Barnabas62 I think @Nick Tamen will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine his take on 'sola scriptura' is more akin to what you mean by 'prima scriptura.'
On other occasions both he and other Reformed folk have pointed out that 'sola scriptura' is not solo scriptura and that due weight is given to tradition, reason and discussion/debate in the context of the faith community.
So I imagine your position is closer to that definition/understanding of 'sola scriptura.'
I do understand the Reformed position, for all the understandable objections I've received from Reformed Christians to my sometimes caricatured depiction of it.
It's rather like another of the 'sola' slogans - and as Nick has said himself, that's what they are, slogans - sola fide.
You'll often hear Reformed people add the caveat, 'But the faith which saves is never alone.'
They add that of course to avoid ay dint of misapprehension that they might be antinomian or promoting 'easy-believism' or reducing faith to intellectual assent to a set of propositions.
And rightly so.
But whatever else we might say about them the 'sola' slogans should come with a note saying, 'Handle with care.'
The same applies, of course, to any religious aphorisms or attempts to summarise or represent doctrines in sound-bite or slogan form.
All that said, it still begs all sorts of questions.
@Lamb Chopped arguably sets the Church against scripture and scripture against the Church when she says that if there's a discrepancy then the Church is wrong.
I can see why she would say that but it still begs the question as to whether your, mine or anyone else's interpretation is authoritive, rather than, say, 'that believed everywhere and by all' or conciliar and collegial agreements.
We may think we are interpreting scripture correctly. Someone down the road may think otherwise. Who decides?
That may sound like I'm promoting a 'prima ecclesia' position but what I'm trying to underline is that it's a both/and thing with scripture and the faith community in dialogue as it were.
I'll start another thread saying complementary things about other Christian traditions soon. Partly to show how even-handed and reasonable I try to be, but more seriously to give praise where it's due and to acknowledge the 'charism' - as the RCs might put it - within all Christian bodies.
Meanwhile, without getting into ad-hominem territory or scatalogical jibes, how do we evaluate something like Luther's 'On The Bondage Of The Will' or Calvin's 'Institutes' without drawing equally on scripture and the wider Christian Tradition/traditions of both East and West?
Whatever the merits and demerits of these works, we have to take them in context - historically, culturally, etc etc - and evaluate them against scripture and Tradition - by which I mean here the broad thrust of Christian belief, understanding and practice from the earliest times to the present.
We'll find that much of it does accord with what's been handed down. Other aspects may be more questionable. If we go to the 'bar of scripture' as the final arbiter it presupposes that we all agree in what scripture actually teaches.
The reality is that on some aspects, we don't.
As I was becoming Orthodox I was struck by how the 'East' understood passages in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians rather differently to how I'd understood them as a Protestant.
Why? Because I'd been reading those epistles through evangelical Protestant lenses whereas the Orthodox had been reading them through the lens of their own Tradition.
If I'd turned around and disagreed with them on that, would it have been on the basis of scripture or my particular interpretation of scripture?
I'd say the latter.
Who was right and who was wrong?
The Orthodox Church or me as a Good Little Evangelical?
If the latter then we'd have to demonstrate that the Orthodox Church got it wrong somewhere along the line. If so, when?
Which us one reason why I started the thread about those features we admire about one another's traditions or affiliations.
I have said that the solas are slogans, and I won’t backpedal on that.
But I wouldn’t say that’s all they are. They operate as shorthand for my complicated ideas. As I said on the first page of this thread,
And, So, a slogan, but not a slogan that can just be tossed or applied around haphazardly. Rather, a slogan that represents a particular perspective connected to a particular conflict that has ongoing implications with regard to a particular approach or attitude.
Perhaps I'm missing or overlooking something.
We appear to have 'talked past' each other a few times on this thread and I'm keen to remedy that.
Apologies!
My reference to the other solae was in the context of sola scriptura as a slogan, not in the context of how @Barnabas62 has been using the term.
And yes I understand your point about slogans, but slogans which draw on a wider hinterland as it were.
Is it still a hinterland when it seems to be so foundational? I would say for instance, that the solas are incidental features of my belief, but they aren't only incidental or even accidental, but part of a larger whole.
Without putting words in his mouth what I took from what @Nick Tamen said was that the solas were a feature of something much richer underneath (those complicated ideas, historical understanding and decades spent in a confessional context).
I get what you Reformed/reformed folk are saying of course, even though I'm not drawing on the 'solas' but whatever the Latin is for 'both/and' ... 😉
There are - of course - richer and more intricate relationships than agglomeration.
Dully, if memory serves its et...et...
Sorry chrisstiles. I had the misspell in my auto text correction options list. But I did like your summary a lot.
The solas have become an overfull portmanteau with the zip broken.