Some Scripture
Before Paul wrote this...
II Timothy 3Paul wrote this...16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NASB)
I Timothy 3Certainly my point is not to place one verse as more important than the other. Rather I just wanted to reiterate a point Fr. Steve made during the last Orthodoxy 101 class at St. Paul's. (Paraphrasing) Protestants often quote II Timothy 3:16 as a proof text for Sola Scriptura, but they often gloss what Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy, namely 3:15.15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (NASB)
I think his is a fair statement, however, my point is not so much that Protestants gloss the I Timothy passage, but rather they have such drastically different views of "the church of the living God" that they simply miss the thrust of Paul's statement.
The Church, for the first 1000 years of its existence, did not have different views on what Paul meant by "the church of the living God." Even for the next 500 years or so there was hardly much disagreement as to the "interpretation" of that passage: everyone knew it was speaking of the ONE Church, manifested physically on earth that descended from the apostolic line. (The question after A.D. 1054 was not the interpretation of the passage, just who it best applied to-- Rome or the East?).
Interesting that it really wasn't until the Protestant Reformation (some 1500 years after the Church began) that "disagreement" erupted over various "interpretations" of Scripture, including verses such as I Timothy 3:15. These somewhat novel "interpretive disagreements" contributed to the creation of the 20,000+ Protestant denominations in existence today. All those denominations, mind you, have claimed to be a part (in some way) of "the church of the living God."
All very interesting.
Posted by jeremy stock at January 27, 2003 01:01 PMGood points. I agree.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at January 28, 2003 08:53 AMInteresting that it really wasn't until the Protestant Reformation (some 1500 years after the Church began) that "disagreement" erupted over various "interpretations" of Scripture, including verses such as I Timothy 3:15.Ugh. This is not true. Go back and take a look at the Council of Nicea and the arguments not just over interpretations but meanings of Greek words. It didn't start with the Reformation, brother.
Next, though it didn't start at the Reformation, it did get to be a lot more common and a lot hotter. Why? A number of reasons but one that I think is over looked is that only the professionals in the Church had the Bible. Jer, are you going to give all your copies of Scripture (paper and electronic) to Fr. Steve and never look at them again? That is pretty much how the "peace" of the era before the Reformation existed.
Sometimes you guys are worse at history than we are! And we're pretty darn bad!!
[The preceding was said in love even if it didn't sound like it and if I had my teeth clenched and banged on my keyboard with closed fists. It was said in love because I said it was and that means I can then say anything I want in any way I want. See, solus scriptura works just great!]
[P.S. Congrats on the nuptials! Now get off the computer and go kiss you wife or do the dishes or rub her feet/neck/back.]
Posted by: at January 28, 2003 10:32 AMHm. It seems to me that Jeremy was pointing out not disagreement per se but disagreement on ecclesiology. In that regard, it would seem that his comments still stand.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at January 28, 2003 12:44 PMI think that you have some misunderstandings about the authority of the Church. Of course Jeremy (or myself, any other Orthodox layperson) is not going to hand all their scriptures over to their priests. Perhaps you can look into the conciliar structure of the Church a little more before making statements like that, because it's actually quite absurd.
Of course there was disagreement at the council of Nicea (the council was called for a reason), but the Church was able to come to an agreement about scripture...hence, the Nicene Creed. They disagreed...and they reached conclusions. Nothing is wrong with disagreement, per se.
The difference is that when Protestants disagree, they very seldom come to conclusions and agreements about the meaning of scripture, but rather go start another denomination! How is this re-writing history?
On a more personal note, in my opinion if it is your wish to sound as though you are speaking "in love" you might consider re-reading what you have written before posting it.
PS. My husband does not need to be told to kiss me... (or do the dishes, etc. etc.) :)
Posted by: The Mrs. at January 28, 2003 02:23 PMDear Mrs. the "love" comment was a joke. I thought I'd worded it correctly to convey that.
My "beef" with Orthodox and Roman Catholics is that they act like all disupte over scripture started at the Reformation which just ain't true.
Perhaps you can look into the conciliar structure of the Church a little more before making statements like that, because it's actually quite absurd.Ah, the conciliar structure, yes, of course... What is the conciliar structure again?
To be fair (and probably a bit more accurate) most of the Church back in "those" days couldn't read Greek/Hebrew/Latin anyway so evey if you dropped a Bible in their hands they would've commented on the pretty pictures and not much else.
P.S. So does it still sound strange saying "my husband"?
Posted by: Tim at January 28, 2003 05:10 PMTim,
I think you missed the point of my post. I may not have been very clear, and I apologize. I'm not as articulate about Orthodoxy or Church history as the other people who post here.
Mr. Healy writes:
~~~Hm. It seems to me that Jeremy was pointing out not disagreement per se but disagreement on ecclesiology. In that regard, it would seem that his comments still stand.~~~ (Italics mine)You're absolutely correct sir. Thank you.
Tim, I think if you re-read my post (I apologize for being unclear), you’ll see that I was writing on the interpretations of the Timothy passages as they relate to ecclesiology (the doctrines of whom and what is the church).
Certainly it would be foolish to assert that prior to the creation of Protestant churches there was no disagreement over Scripture. It seems not foolish, however, to claim that prior to the creation of Protestant churches there was little to no debate over the issue of whom and what is the Church. (Regarding post A.D. 1054 please make reference my comments in the original post).
I would appreciate your comments concerning my point on ecclesiology. Until then, let me say a couple things more and then make some points in regards to some of your comments.
It seems to me that there are two key differences in regards to Patriarchal disagreement (say... during the first several centuries of church history), and the common result of disagreement within Protestantism seen today. First, when there was disagreement over Scripture during the time of the Patriarchs the matters remained what we might call “in house” debates. By “in house” I mean the Patriarchs and laity were convinced that their disagreements would be adjudicated (or not) by the Church, within the confines of the Church. Second, as my beautiful wife so zealously defended me by saying (and this is crucial), the patriarchs and laity did not consider it an option to upstart their own church based on their own convictions that happened to differ with the Church at large. On these two points Protestants are often quite contrary to the rule of history.
Yes there were men who started their own churches…you and I know them as heretics (oriental churches aside. At this current time I do not have enough knowledge about the monophysite issue to elaborate here.)
You write:
~~~Next, though it didn't start at the Reformation, it did get to be a lot more common and a lot hotter. Why? A number of reasons but one that I think is over looked is that only the professionals in the Church had the Bible. Jer, are you going to give all your copies of Scripture (paper and electronic) to Fr. Steve and never look at them again? That is pretty much how the "peace" of the era before the Reformation existed.~~~It has been said before, but indulge me to write it here, for I think there is some of this taking place in your words: it is an ad homonym argument to combat Orthodoxy by kicking Rome in the groin. (okay so that was a paraphrase) *snicker* In all seriousness however I must caution you against grossly misrepresenting history by a failure to make distinctions and consider contexts. First, what happened in the West during the medieval period is certainly not what happened in the East during that same period. The Roman empire had collapsed in the West, yet continued for well over 900 more years in the East. I think if you better understood the East (and the West) on this point of "professionals" you'd find two things. One, Rome had some arguably valid reasons for their handling of Scriptural texts in that period. Two, the Eastern churches were not guilty of your charge.
You continue…
To be fair (and probably a bit more accurate) most of the Church back in "those" days couldn't read Greek/Hebrew/Latin anyway so even if you dropped a Bible in their hands they would've commented on the pretty pictures and not much elseI’m not sure where you read your history, but this is simply not true. To the extent that it is true you must take into account the very rich oral tradition/culture of the Christian people at that time. Philip Schaff, Protestant historian (one of your boys), even notes a passage from Eusibeus where even the most sophisticated nuances of Christian doctrine, at the time of the first ecumenical council, (ideas relating to the Homo-ousia, for example) were zealously discussed in the marketplace. Eusibius notes something along the lines of how one was not able to buy one’s groceries without getting involved in a discussion on the nature of Christ, etc. In light of this, your comment: “…even if you dropped a Bible in their hands they would've commented on the pretty pictures and not much else” seems very out of place.
I’ll leave the rest to future discussions, but thank you for writing.
Okay, so I should have checked to make sure there was water in the swimming pool BEFORE diving in head first! :)
I'll try to clarify my historical "blunders" and speak a little to the ecclesiology issues. But they will have to wait a bit. I have two tests next week and about 250 pages (or so) to read.
Can ya wait? I knew ya could. ;o)
Posted by: Tim at January 29, 2003 07:30 PM