Cloud of Witnesses Radio
Audio drama retellings of the stories of the Christian Saints, Panel Discussions, Cast Commentary, Reaction Videos, Screwtape Returns, and more!
Cloud of Witnesses Radio
Dismantling Sola Scriptura Through Orthodox Theology | Ben (Luigi) Seminar Session 1 | TIO015 CWP098
What happens when we examine the foundational Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura through an Orthodox Christian lens? This thought-provoking seminar challenges the notion that Scripture alone is the final authority for Christians by examining biblical, historical, and theological evidence to the contrary.
Ben (Luigi), a former Protestant pastor's son who later embraced Reformed theology before finding his home in Orthodox Christianity, brings both personal experience and scholarly depth to this complex subject. With remarkable clarity, Luigi demonstrates how Scripture itself affirms the authority of oral tradition alongside written texts, pointing to passages where Jesus and the apostles relied on extrabiblical traditions as binding and authoritative.
The seminar explores how the early Church resolved doctrinal disputes through councils rather than individual interpretation, establishing a pattern that continued through the ecumenical councils which defined essential Christian doctrines. Ben tackles the challenging "canon conundrum" – how Protestants must rely on Church authority to establish which books belong in the Bible while simultaneously rejecting that same authority in matters of interpretation and practice.
Drawing from Church Fathers like St. Basil and St. Irenaeus, Ben reveals how the earliest Christians viewed Scripture and Tradition not as competing authorities but as complementary expressions of divine revelation. Even Protestant scholars acknowledge that the early Church didn't limit "inspiration" to canonical writings alone.
Whether you're an Orthodox Christian seeking to better understand and articulate your faith, a Protestant curious about Orthodox perspectives, or simply interested in Christian history and theology, this seminar provides valuable insights into how the earliest Christians understood authority, revelation, and the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Join us for this illuminating exploration of a foundational theological difference that continues to shape Christian dialogue today.
Find an Orthodox Church near you today. Visit https://www.antiochian.org/home
Visit Cloud of Witnesses Radio: https://cloudofwitnessesradio.com/
Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server:
https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdh
*****
Contact this episode's sponsor:
LuciaCandleCompany.Etsy.com
*****
Please prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses Radio:
https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesRadio
Find Cloud of Witnesses Radio on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.
Thank you for journeying w/ the Saints with us!
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Ben. Today is going to be the first of three seminars that I'm going to be giving on answering Protestantism from an Orthodox perspective. Now, many of us that are in the Orthodox Church have come from a background that includes Protestantism. Myself, I grew up under a non-denominational church, my dad is a non-denominational pastor, and then I came from a Reformed tradition after that pastor, and then I came from a Reformed tradition after that, and so, like me, many of you have come from those backgrounds, and those of you who have not still like to engage with your Protestant friends on a lot of these topics, and so the purpose of this seminar series is really to equip you in your conversations with Protestants, helping them understand the Orthodox perspective and answering some of the objections that they may have.
Speaker 1:Now, today, the first of the topics that I want to cover is going to be sola scriptura. Now, the reason why I want to cover sola scriptura is because really all other challenges from a protestant perspective come from sola scriptura. Whenever we're engaging on topics like icon veneration or intercession of the saints, oftentimes we're really granting them subconsciously their whole position, which is sola scriptura, if we're able to prove that holy tradition is just as authoritative as scripture in the Orthodox paradigm. Then we are able to address these other claims, such as icon veneration and intercession to the saints. Now, first, I want to define sola scriptura. Now, it is true that you're going to get different definitions of sola scriptura from different Protestants. From a low church, non-denominational Protestant, they're going to tell you, sola scriptura just means that, like we don't listen to anything except for Scripture. However, a higher church Protestant, like a Presbyterian or an Anglican or a Lutheran, is going to say now we accept Holy Tradition to an extent, but it's not the same level as Scripture. Now for the Orthodox perspective. As I'm going to cover later in the presentation, for us, holy Tradition at least Big T Tradition is right alongside Holy scripture.
Speaker 1:Oftentimes we hear this distinction between solo scriptura. Sola scriptura Usually it's a higher church Protestant that's trying to make this distinction. Now, that's terrible Latin, but it's also completely disconnected from what the Reformers were actually teaching. Now, it is the case that the reformers did believe in tradition, and in fact, I make this argument against low church Protestants all the time. In fact, I make it against high church Protestants too, because when you read Martin Luther, he still held to things like honoring the Holy Theotokos, things that a modern Protestant would completely reject, or something as simple as like infant baptism for a lower church Protestant.
Speaker 1:I would say the actual definition of sola scriptura is that which the Reformers actually held to, which is going to be that Scripture is the only final infallible authority, and what that means is we can accept all other tradition, provided that it does not interfere with what Scripture teaches, or at least what their interpretation of Scripture teaches. Now we get from this two different views, however, because Calvin and Luther actually disagreed on this point. In Calvin's view, you could have a form of worship that was only what was prescribed in Scripture. When you were talking about forms of worship, you couldn't go beyond that which was prescribed in Scripture. For Luther, he believed that no, you could actually have a form of worship as long as it doesn't contradict anything in Scripture, and so there were different views on sola scriptura, even amongst the Reformers, and so that's why I would say it is hard to define precisely what it means, even from a reform perspective, but I would say the best definition is what I said earlier, which is going to be that it's the sole infallible authority. I want to further justify my claim that in Scripture we actually see holy tradition being held to the same level as far as authority as scripture itself.
Speaker 1:We see in 2 Chronicles 29,. King Hezekiah is prescribing liturgical processes from King David, who had lived roughly 10 hundred years before him. Now to put that in perspective, when we read Leviticus 10, nadab and Abihu are killed by God for worshiping God improperly. There's nothing the God of Abraham takes more seriously than how he is worshiped, the form in which he's worshiped, and yet we see here King Hezekiah is relying upon an oral tradition that originally came from King David in order to transcribe the liturgy for the temple and for the sacrificial processes.
Speaker 1:We see elsewhere in the Old Testament that the oral and written tradition are called conjunctively this word In Isaiah 8, 20, to the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Again, we can see here that conjunctively, they're referred to as this word. In other words, they are considered of the same authority. They are both considered the word of God. Now we don't see this ending in the Old Testament.
Speaker 1:There are multiple other examples throughout the Old Testament, but I also want to spend some time. In the New Testament we see in Matthew 23, verses 2 through 3, jesus says the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but do not do according to their works. Now, the seat of Moses is not a concept found in Scripture, because when it was established it was in the time of Ezra, when synagogues were becoming commonplaces of gathering for Jews. This is a tradition completely reliant on oral transmission and Jesus is citing it as an authority that gives doctrine binding to the conscience. He's citing the seat of Moses as something authoritative, even though it's not found itself in Scripture. Throughout the rest of the New Testament we see this almost taken for granted. It's taken for granted throughout the New Testament that oral tradition is right alongside the Old Testament as far as its authority.
Speaker 1:We see in Acts 20, 20-35,. Now you might be asking why I'm reading that verse. What is it about this verse that's relevant to Sola Scriptura? Well, jesus doesn't say it is more blessed to give than to receive anywhere in any of the Gospels. What St Paul is citing here in Acts 20 is an oral tradition that he has heard from the eyewitnesses of his ministry. We see in Jude that there is a description of an argument between the devil and Michael the archangel regarding the body of Moses. This is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. This is found in Jude, verse 9. It says but Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, dost thou not bring him to a railing judgment, but said the Lord, rebuke thee.
Speaker 2:I think, as a Protestant, someone would may say sure, ben, that's great, you know these. This quote from Christ. And it didn't come from you know the gospels. It was part of the oral tradition. That's great. But God knew that was going to happen, and so that's why he allowed that to be inspired, to be part of the written word of God. So really, ultimately, it's only what's written down.
Speaker 1:What would you say to that? What I would say to that is I would say that that's not addressing the argument that I'm making. The argument that I'm making by citing these verses is simply that Paul is taking for granted the oral transmission, and this actually builds on the point I'm making here with Jude. When Jude is writing this passage, it is completely taken for granted that this is equal with Holy Scripture, even though it's not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Jude doesn't care. Jude is writing it as if it is found in the Old Testament, because to him, because it's an oral transmission, it's just as authoritative as the written scripture itself. We see the same thing in 2 Timothy 3.8, where St Paul gives the names of the magicians that opposed Moses. These names are not found in the scriptures, so he's quoting an oral tradition from 1300 years before he lived.
Speaker 1:Now I want to further give some justification for scripture, adjacent authority and specifically of councils. Oftentimes we're told oh yeah, the council of Nicaea, the council of Constantinople, there's good things from these councils, but it's wrong to say that they're infallible or that they're just as authoritative as Scripture. Now there are some inerrant decisions that most Protestants would actually accept that these councils really determined, for example, at the first council of Nicaea, determining that Jesus is uncreated and is consubstantial with the Father. The second ecumenical council, where the Holy Spirit was determined to be God. Ephesus, where Jesus was determined to be one hypostasis or one person. These are all things that a Protestant would accept. So in other words, there was inerrant decisions made at these councils and Protestants actually admit that.
Speaker 1:Now I want to go back to Acts, chapter 15, because what we see here is really the prescribed method in how to manage doctrinal disputes in the church. Now in Acts, chapter 15, we see a council called and the universal church comes to the council in Jerusalem, where St James the bishop oversees the council. Now they came to this council, likely in disagreement. St James the bishop oversees the council. Now they came to this council, likely in disagreement, otherwise there wouldn't have been a council. There were people that were claiming that the Gentiles had to be circumcised, for example, and actually there were people claiming that afterwards, as we see in the epistles of St Paul. So the purpose of this council was to address that dispute and not everybody agreed. That's why they had to call the council. Now, when they made the decision at the council that Gentiles indeed did not need to be circumcised. Did everybody go off and make their own church? Did they all go off and decide? I actually don't agree with this council because it doesn't align with this passage, that passage and you know, x passage, y passage, whatever? No, of course not. Instead, they all submitted to the council and those who did not submit to the council were anathematized, as Paul says in Galatians.
Speaker 1:So what we see here is the actual method for resolving doctrinal disputes. This is the prescribed method and we see the continuity of this in the ecumenical councils. Now it's actually on the Protestant, as far as the burden of proof, to say that this method ceased after the Acts 15 council. There's nothing in scripture that says that this method is going to cease at the death of St John. That's nowhere in scripture. So it's actually the burden of proof on the Protestant to say, yeah, this ceased and the Council of Nicaea is not inspired, the Council of Constantinople is not inspired. It's their burden of proof.
Speaker 2:But you're saying prescribed. It's prescribed in Acts 15. I think a Protestant might say it's not prescribed, Ben, it's simply descriptive. It's just descriptive of what they did in that case. Nowhere says they have to do it that way.
Speaker 1:Well, yeah, I've heard this response before. When we talk about the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive, what we're talking about is like just describing an event versus a prescription, or this is what we ought to do. Right? The Old Testament is full of passages that are descriptive, that atheists like to try to use against the Christian. The reason why I believe this passage is different is because this is the holy apostles that are resolving this conflict this way, so you would have to argue now that it's the holy apostles that are wrong in their method of resolving conflict, which is, of course, not true. I believe that the Protestant is going to have a difficult time justifying that claim.
Speaker 2:The Acts 15, council was called by apostles, and so I'm willing to accept that as a Protestant. However, first ecumenical council, all the ecumenical councils, were not apostles. These were men, bishops, deacons. You know, so be it, but they were not apostles, and so that's why it doesn't have the same authority.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I, and I can totally understand where a Protestant would be coming from with this, with this argument, because it is the case that divine public revelation ceased after the death of St John. That is true. And so what the ecumenical councils are doing is they are protecting, they are guarding that which the apostles gave us as the deposit once for all. Now, what I would say as a response to that is that we are also promised that even unto the end of the age, that Christ will be with us, that the Holy Spirit will be here guarding the church. And this is an argument that I often make to the Protestant is, I say are you willing to accept, are you willing to accept that the church fell into mass error for roughly at least a thousand years? If I granted the entire Protestant position, if I said they're right about all the early church teachings, well, we're at least operating in the Orthodox Church, if I'm being generous, the way the church was operating in the fifth century. So this means that for roughly a thousand years the church was operating erroneously. And are you, as a Protestant, willing to accept that? So I would say as a response you're in a difficult position if you're going to say that these councils erred Because A you're really in the same position as a Mormon, because a Mormon is going to say the same thing, they're going to be willing to admit that the church fell into apostasy. Are you just going to be in that same position To us? We believe, no. We believe that Jesus told the truth in Matthew 28 when he promised that he'd be with us in every single age, protecting us from error, and we're doing that by the same method that was done in Acts, chapter 15. I want to move on to another challenge that someone who subscribes to a soul scriptural paradigm is going to have to address, and that's books that are referenced in scripture that we don't even have. For example, st Paul's letter to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4.16. We do not have St Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, the lost letter to the Corinthians, which is referenced in 1 Corinthians 5.9 and 2 Corinthians 2.3-4. The Book of Wars, which is referenced in Numbers 21.4-15. The Book of the Just, which is referenced in Joshua, 10.12-13. And the Book of Nathan, the Prophet, which is referenced in 1 Chronicles 29.29 and 2 Chronicles 9.29. Now, the Book of Nathan is especially significant, given that he was a prophet and therefore this book contained revelation. The question is, where is this revelation preserved? Revelation, like scripture, is infallible. Therefore, if we do not have the written text itself, there must be an infallible body that is preserving it, which, of course, for us as Orthodox Christians, is the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1:I want to also address passages that I believe are challenging not only to the Swole Scriptura paradigm, but are also supporting our view as Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition holding the same authority, and that is 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15, where St Paul says so then, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by epistle of ours. Now the Protestant often, with this verse, will hyper-focus on the word tradition and they'll get into the Greek and they'll say, oh, it doesn't really mean tradition. And the reality is that word actually is not the important one in this verse. The important part of this verse is where St Paul draws a distinction between that which is passed by epistle and that which is passed by word or orally. You simply cannot make the assertion that this verse is only talking about the written text, because he specifically makes a distinction between the written text and the oral tradition, specifically makes a distinction between the written text and the oral tradition. I want to move on to an argument that I believe is instrumental in this conversation, and it's one that was very influential for me in coming to the Orthodox Church, and it's what's called the canon conundrum.
Speaker 1:Now, what the canon conundrum has to do with is the assembling of the books of the Bible itself. Now, I've spoken to many Protestants about this question. Many of them have never even thought about where did the Bible come from. In fact, it's a very common misconception that the books of the Bible were assembled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which is not true at all. In fact, there's only one reference of the books of the Bible being even addressed at the Council of Nicaea, and it's in passing comment by St Jerome. Other than that, we have no source that says that that's where the books of the Bible were assembled. In fact, that's a myth that really comes from the Da Vinci Code of all things, and that's really where we start to see this misconception of the Council of Nicaea being where the books were assembled.
Speaker 1:However, this gets into a greater challenge that I believe Protestants have, which is if they're going to say that the Second Council of Nicaea erred or the Third Council of Constantinople erred. What they're going to have to do is they're going to have to special plead against out of their authority structure when it comes to the canon itself, because they're going to appeal to the church for establishing the books of the Bible, but then they're going to reject that same church and its interpretation of the Bible, and in the same councils that establish the biblical canon. I want to move on to a concept that is relevant in the conversation of Holy Scripture, being adjacent with Holy Tradition, and that is the compiling of the canon itself. Now, this argument to Protestants is what's known as the canon conundrum, and it's really just the question of what is the table of contents of the books of the Bible. Now, a Protestant is going to say that they accept the authority of the church to an extent, but the problem is they're relying upon that. They accept the authority of the church to an extent, but the problem is they're relying upon that same church's authority to establish a biblical canon. They often will reference the Council of Carthage in 397. The problem with the Council of Carthage for them, though, is that it includes the Deuterocanonical text, and so they're going to accept it for the New Testament books, but they're not going to accept it for the Old Testament books, which is a common special pleading fallacy.
Speaker 1:Now they might reference various church fathers, such as St Athanasius or St Jerome, who maybe rejected a few of the Deuterocanonical books or at least didn't include it in their formal canon, although they still did reference those books. However, why are they picking those church fathers? It's random reference those books. However, why are they picking those church fathers? It's random. They don't actually have a method to determine which church fathers got the canon right and which church fathers got it wrong. In fact, all the way up until St John of Damascus, we see varying biblical canons, and so what we see in the early church, at least the first thousand years with the biblical canon, is we see that the canon is not disconnected from the life of the church itself, and many of the church fathers viewed it in a tiered view. They did not view it in. This black and white of this book is canonical. This book is not canonical. What they viewed it as, as tiered. They didn't throw out a book just because it wasn't in a formal canon. Instead, they just put that in a lower tier.
Speaker 1:For a Protestant, this does not work. For a Protestant, it is black and white. Either a book is canonical or it's not. In other words, this method is extremely important for a Protestant, and yet it's completely random. In Appendix B of the book the Biblical Canon by Lee MacDonald, who is a Protestant scholar, he goes over all of the various canons that church fathers had, not only on the Old Testament but also the New Testament, and so this begs the question how is a Protestant going to resolve the disparity between church fathers and the canons that they listed? Again, for us, as Orthodox, this is not a problem. These same church fathers that maybe exclude a book from their formal canon, they still reference those books as authoritative. So for them the canon was not black and white, which is akin to the orthodox view, this is incompatible with the protestant view of the canon.
Speaker 2:Ben, I've heard it said that the Council of Nicaea is actually responsible for establishing the canon, so doesn't that go against what you were saying in terms of not having an actual site canon?
Speaker 1:Yeah. So this is a common misconception which we actually get from the Da Vinci code of all things. That's where it was popularized. But yeah, the council of Nicaea was primarily addressing the consubstantial nature of Christ and that he was uncreated. The only patristic reference that we have that even remotely says that the canon was talked about is a passing comment by Saint Jerome, and he's actually referencing a deuterocanonical book that he says was included when it was addressed at the Council of Nicaea. So if a Protestant is using the Council of Nicaea as some sort of refutation, it's not going to work very well.
Speaker 1:Now I want to move on to a common misconception about the term Word of God. Oftentimes we hear Protestants they say I trust the Word of God above the Word of man. Now, of course, we also trust the Word of God above the Word of man in the Orthodox Church. However, I would argue that the Word of God is both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy scripture and holy tradition.
Speaker 1:In regards to the term, it is actually almost never used in scripture, addressing specifically scripture itself. The word of God, instead, is a message that comes from God. The phrase occurs 46 times in the Bible and in three cases Matthew 15, 6, mark 7, 3, john 10, 35, it is used to refer to the message contained in the passage of Scripture, but not referring to the Scripture itself. In two cases Hebrews 11.3 and 2 Peter 3.5, it refers to God's creative word In one passage, revelation 19.13,. It refers to Jesus also John 1.1 and John 1.14. In 11 cases it refers to the divine revelation newly given in oral form or to a past divine revelation not limited to Scripture. In 29 cases it refers to the oral transmission of a past divine revelation. All but one of these is in the New Testament. Making these references to apostolic tradition, it is an anachronistic mistake to think that Scripture is what the Bible is referring to when it says Word of God. The overwhelming number of times the phrase is used, it refers to apostolic tradition. Since the Word of God is God-breathed, apostolic tradition is also God-breathed.
Speaker 1:Now I want to move on to the patristic witness that's going to justify the modern Orthodox view of holy tradition and holy Scripture. The reason why I'm going to address the churchathers is you will often hear quotes from High Church Protestants that try to leverage the Church Fathers against the modern Orthodox view. They try to say that the Church Fathers actually did hold a sola scriptura and we've distorted it. As I read these quotes, you'll find quickly that any Protestant that's saying that is simply quote mining. The first quote comes from Saint Vincent of Lorenz. He says this quote we said above that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways First, by the authority of the divine canon and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. End quote. And of course by Catholic Church he means the one holy Catholic and apostolic church which today is the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1:St Basil, in On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27, says this no one would deny these points, at least no one who has even a little experience of ecclesiastical institutions. Or, if we attempt to reject non-scriptural customs as insignificant, we would unaware lose very vital parts of the gospel. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence? Who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the east to pray? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread, of the Eucharist and the cup of the blessing. We are not, as it is known, content with what the apostle or what the gospel has recorded, but in both preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism and, besides this, the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this Is not our authority. Silent and mystical tradition. Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the customs of the? Baptizing three times, and Every one of these today is practiced in the Orthodox Church, and not one of them, except maybe the sign of the cross, and only in Lutheran Anglican circles, is practiced in Protestant churches.
Speaker 1:Yet St Basil, a 4th century father who is absolutely crucial to the doctrine of the Trinity universally held today, states these are vital parts of the gospel. St Irenaeus, in Against Heresiesesy's book three, chapter four, says this suppose there arisea dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches, with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them which is certain and clear in regard to the present question, or how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the churches? What St Irenaeus says here is that even if the apostles didn't give us any scriptures, we would be fine because of apostolic tradition that is passed down via apostolic succession.
Speaker 1:Now, this is very significant because St Irenaeus is a saint often cited by Protestants trying to say that he held the sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is completely incompatible with this quote. Now there are some common proof texts in favor of Sola Scriptura. One of the most common is 2 Timothy 3.16, which says All Scripture is inspired by God or God-breathed and beneficial for teaching, rebuke, correction and training in righteousness. Another one is Acts 17.10-11, which says the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea and when they arrived they went are being tested by the scriptures.
Speaker 1:I first want to address 2 Timothy 3.16, and I'm going to reference Protestant scholar Lee MacDonald again, and this is in page 418 of the same book, the biblical canon. He says this, generally speaking in the early church, the common word for inspiration, the anostos was used not only in reference for the scriptures Old Testament or New Testament but also of individuals who spoke or wrote the truth of God. For example, gregory of Nyssa describes basal commentary on the creation story and claims that the work was inspired, the Anostas. It was an exposition given by the inspiration of God, admired no less than the words composed by Moses himself. Kalen, a Lutheran scholar, notes that a synodical letter of the Council of Ephesus describing the Council's condemnation of Nestorius was termed their inspired judgment for decision, the Anustas. He goes on from his own investigation of the church fathers up to 400 AD.
Speaker 1:Kalen failed to turn up one example where an orthodox but non-canonical writing was ever called uninspired. Such a designation was reserved only for heretical authors. Kalen concludes if the scriptures were the only writings the Church Fathers considered inspired, one would expect them to say so at least once in a while. He adds that in the early church, inspiration applied not only to all scripture. Adds that in the early church, inspiration applied not only to all scripture but also to the Christian community as it bore living witness of Jesus Christ. Kalen could find no evidence that the early church can find inspiration to an already past apostolic age or even to a collection of sacred writings.
Speaker 1:The traditional assumption that the early Christians believed that only canonical writings were inspired is highly questionable. Unquote this again is two Protestant scholars that are admitting that in the early church they were fully reliant upon apostolic tradition, even as much as Holy Scripture itself. I also want to point out that in this quote he addresses the life of the church being just as important as that tradition, which is the modern view of the Orthodox Church. We read scripture, we interpret tradition through the life of the local Orthodox Church. No-transcript. Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 1:So I would say that, of course, scripture is an authority and it is in the highest tier of authority, but Scripture itself needs to be interpreted and in order to do that, you need a normative method to interpret it. Every Protestant is actually going to hold their own conscience as the highest interpreter of Scripture. Their own conscience is what becomes infallible. Luther says this, turretin says this. They say that look, if your normative authority, your normative church, says something that your conscience disagrees with, you always have the right to appeal to your conscience over that normative authority. For us, disagreement amongst the church followers actually proves our method, because it proves that you need a method. There's going to be disagreement about interpretation of scripture, and so you need councils that are protected by the Holy Spirit in order to determine Orthodox doctrine, which is what we see happening at every ecumenical council.
Speaker 1:The other common proof text, as mentioned earlier, is in Acts, chapter 17, when the Bereans are challenging the apostles via Scripture. Now, this actually correlates to what you just asked, but significant about this passage is that the Bereans were Jews. They didn't recognize Paul's authority as an apostle. This would be akin to us ministering to modern Jews. We wouldn't use the apostles to prove the authority of the apostles. We would use the law, the Psalms and the prophets. Also, in Acts 8, verse 31, the Ethiopian eunuch is asked by Philip if he understands the scriptures he's reading. The Ethiopian responds by saying how can I, unless someone guides me? So, as we see from both these two common soul scriptura passages, neither of them truly do teach soul scriptura.
Speaker 2:Ben, I hear from my Protestant friends very often that you know the table of contents argument against Sola Scriptura doesn't really matter, because we know from scripture that Christ's sheep will know the shepherd's voice, and so we know the Holy Spirit is within us and it illumines us. So I can know with assurance and confidence that those books of the Bible are and in fact when I've read you know non-scriptural things like the. You know the Gnostic gospels I can. I know they're not the truth because the Holy Spirit's shown me they're not the truth.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this is a good question and it's one that often comes from the Reformed crowd. Yeah, this is a good question and it's one that often comes from the Reformed crowd. I would say in response that to a Calvinist well, they acknowledge that they also have a sin nature. Even after they've been regenerated, they have a sin nature. So how do you know that it's not the sin nature that's telling you that the book of Jude is canonical, but the book of 1 Clement is not? How do you know? That's the Holy Spirit. I would extend this to interpretation of Scripture itself. As 2nd Peter 3.16 says, scripture is difficult to interpret, especially for those who are uneducated and those who misinterpret it, misinterpret it to their own destruction. You, as a Calvinist, as a Reformed, that are separated from the tradition of the church, you have no way of knowing whether or not you have the proper interpretation, whether or not you're listening to the sin nature or listening to the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1:Us in the Orthodox Church, we have the promise from Matthew 16, where Jesus says the gates of hell will not prevail against us. In the Orthodox Church, we have that promise. We have the promise he'll be with us in every age, guiding us. You, as an individual, are always going to have that sin nature, always corrupting the things that are being whispered to you, which is why we need the teachers that are tied back to apostolic tradition and apostolic succession. So today, what I've gone over is two different paradigms, one being sola scriptura, where the church has a role. However, the church is not truly protected by the Holy Spirit In the Orthodox view. We believe that the church and its holy tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit, just like Holy Scripture is, and I covered 2 Chronicles 29, where Hezekiah is transcribing the liturgy 200 years after David had passed it down. How important is the form of worship? And we see this today in the Orthodox Church with our liturgy that was passed by the apostles, which is not prescribed in Scripture. By the way, the apostles didn't write down a form of worship, not in Scripture. Now we have them from St Mark, we have them from St John Chrysostom, who are passed down from the apostles. That is our form of worship in the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 1:I've talked about the Acts 15 Council. I've talked about the importance of the continuity of that method of resolving conflict In the Orthodox Church. We don't go off and make our own church when we disagree with the decisions of the church, we submit to it, just as they did in the Acts 15 Council. I've talked about the patristic witness from saints like Saint Basil and Saint Irenaeus, who are often misquoted by Protestants, and it's very clear that they held holy tradition alongside that holy scripture.
Speaker 1:I've talked about Protestant scholars who admit that this was the model of the early church, that sola scriptura was not the mentality of the first or second or third or even fourth century church, that that church operated with the same mentality that we do today in the Orthodox Church. So thank you all for listening. Again, I want to reiterate the goal of this project is to equip all of you with the material you have to have these conversations with charity with your Protestant friends and family as well as understand, maybe your past Protestant beliefs in light of the Orthodox Church and how the Orthodox Church interprets those beliefs. Hopefully you found this helpful and thank you for tuning in.