I am having a dialogue with someone who believes in this, as all protestants I think do, and thinks that the Lord was so against legalism that He would not institute a Church that we see now.
I would respond by demonstrating that the Orthodox conception of the Church and her Tradition is precisely the antidote to pharisaic legalism and institutionalism, and that his application of Christ's anti-legalism to the Orthodox Church hence stems from his own misunderstanding of Orthodox teaching.
This is another common Protestant charge, based, as Iqbal advises you, on their inadequate understanding of what the Church is.
The Church is the body of the faithful. Who founded, it, Christ did. Its doctrine is Divine; as He tells us in John 7:16: 16 Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
Was there an early Church? Yes, people did not just do as they felt best, see Acts 2:42: 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. St. Paul in Romans 6:17-18 writes: 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
So a 'doctrine' was taught form the earliest times. Indeed, from those times there were those who argued like your Protestant friend, so let us see what the Holy Apostles had to say about them. Read what St. Paul says in Romans 16:17-18 17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
In Ephesians 4:14 he writes similarly: 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting In 1 Timothy 1:8-10 St. Paul is very precise: 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
Look what the Saint says at the end of 1 Timothy 4:14-16 13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. 15 Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. 16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
One of the problems with sola scriptura is that those who cite it as the foundation of their faith seem not to actually read the Bible. There are dozens of references in Paul's letters to the importance of right doctrine. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is particularly relevant here: 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
And lest anyone be in any doubt, see too what the Blessed St. John wrote when people questioned the idea of doctrine (2 John 1:9-11): 9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
I am sorry if this is a little long, but so many Protestants say what you report, and I think it important that we should be well-armed against such ideas.
Sola Scriptura understood in its true sense was a reaction to the broad power of the Roman Pontiff experience by Luther and the people of the Western Church in the 1500's. It was a doctrine that called people to see the power of Rome as an earthly kingdom and not a spiritual kingdom. Through this doctrine, the Bible was translated into the language of the people and the people began to see how "legalist" the Roman church had become.
Luther though always saw himself as a good Catholic. He believed in the Traditions of the church as long as they were not spoken against in the Bible.
Calvin only upheld the traditions that were spoken of in the Bible, thus Calvinism and it's descendent's are far more distrustful of ritual.
Either way, both Luther and Calvin missed something of supreme importance from the Orthodox point of view.
Scripture did not spring up in one place suddenly. The Gospels were written at different times and places, St. Paul sent his letters. Luke recorded the Acts, and the other Saints wrote their epistles, even as St. John recorded his Revelation. Other writers added their piece, and by the early second century the Church was recognising some texts as canonical and some as not. Because the different Churches had different parts of what would become the New Testament, and because of the attempts of heretics to provide what came to be known as 'Gnostic Gospels', it gradually became necessary for the Church to declare which volumes were and were not canonical.
Thus the Scriptures really came out of the life and work of the early Church, they were the central part of its tradition, and if one simply concentrates on what was written down and not on what was remembered in tradition, you miss out a great deal. Moreover, the way in which the Church has taught the Scriptures is a vital help to us. We have, after all, a few decades here on earth, the Church has two thousand years of experience and wisdom. How like mankind to decide, in its self-willed way, that it knows best. Coming away from reading St. Cyril's commentaries on the Gospels of St. John and St. Luke, I am much better able to get into their real meaning by reading them through the mind of one the greatest of the Saints.
Through Tradition and the Fathers, Our Holy Father has prepared a great banquet for us - we may choose to dine off a burger in the corner and think we are well-fed - but that is part of our fallen nature, weakened, as it is, by the effects of sin.
The Scriptures are, of course, part of the Tradition of the Church, and whilst they can be read apart from that Tradition, they are most fully understood within it.
That is not to deny the insights of other Churches, or to be in any way exclusive - the Tradition is open to all who will come into the Church and receive it.
Comments
This is another common Protestant charge, based, as Iqbal advises you, on their inadequate understanding of what the Church is.
The Church is the body of the faithful. Who founded, it, Christ did. Its doctrine is Divine; as He tells us in John 7:16:
16 Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
Was there an early Church? Yes, people did not just do as they felt best, see Acts 2:42:
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
St. Paul in Romans 6:17-18 writes:
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
So a 'doctrine' was taught form the earliest times. Indeed, from those times there were those who argued like your Protestant friend, so let us see what the Holy Apostles had to say about them. Read what St. Paul says in Romans 16:17-18
17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
In Ephesians 4:14 he writes similarly:
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting
In 1 Timothy 1:8-10 St. Paul is very precise:
1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
Look what the Saint says at the end of 1 Timothy 4:14-16
13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.
15 Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all.
16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
One of the problems with sola scriptura is that those who cite it as the foundation of their faith seem not to actually read the Bible. There are dozens of references in Paul's letters to the importance of right doctrine. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is particularly relevant here:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
And lest anyone be in any doubt, see too what the Blessed St. John wrote when people questioned the idea of doctrine (2 John 1:9-11):
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
I am sorry if this is a little long, but so many Protestants say what you report, and I think it important that we should be well-armed against such ideas.
In Christ,
Anglian
Luther though always saw himself as a good Catholic. He believed in the Traditions of the church as long as they were not spoken against in the Bible.
Calvin only upheld the traditions that were spoken of in the Bible, thus Calvinism and it's descendent's are far more distrustful of ritual.
Taylor
Thank you for an interesting post.
Either way, both Luther and Calvin missed something of supreme importance from the Orthodox point of view.
Scripture did not spring up in one place suddenly. The Gospels were written at different times and places, St. Paul sent his letters. Luke recorded the Acts, and the other Saints wrote their epistles, even as St. John recorded his Revelation. Other writers added their piece, and by the early second century the Church was recognising some texts as canonical and some as not. Because the different Churches had different parts of what would become the New Testament, and because of the attempts of heretics to provide what came to be known as 'Gnostic Gospels', it gradually became necessary for the Church to declare which volumes were and were not canonical.
Thus the Scriptures really came out of the life and work of the early Church, they were the central part of its tradition, and if one simply concentrates on what was written down and not on what was remembered in tradition, you miss out a great deal. Moreover, the way in which the Church has taught the Scriptures is a vital help to us. We have, after all, a few decades here on earth, the Church has two thousand years of experience and wisdom. How like mankind to decide, in its self-willed way, that it knows best. Coming away from reading St. Cyril's commentaries on the Gospels of St. John and St. Luke, I am much better able to get into their real meaning by reading them through the mind of one the greatest of the Saints.
Through Tradition and the Fathers, Our Holy Father has prepared a great banquet for us - we may choose to dine off a burger in the corner and think we are well-fed - but that is part of our fallen nature, weakened, as it is, by the effects of sin.
In Christ,
Anglian
Taylor
The Scriptures are, of course, part of the Tradition of the Church, and whilst they can be read apart from that Tradition, they are most fully understood within it.
That is not to deny the insights of other Churches, or to be in any way exclusive - the Tradition is open to all who will come into the Church and receive it.
In Christ,
Anglian