• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

The Protestant Reformation and the Orthodox Christian East (Video Lecture)

Jude1:3

High Elder
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
553
Reaction score
66
Points
28
Location
USA
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Great Lecture by FR. PANAYIOTIS PAPAGEORGIOU, Ph.D

Enjoy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNO29Q4ppXk
 

WPM

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
39
Faith
Ethiopian Jew
Maybe the OC church had little to do with the Reformation
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Good topic, especially because he is giving the talk at Lutherstadt in Germany at a conference about the Reformation.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
His story about the Lutheran bishop going to Moldova in the time of Melanchthon is illustrative. The video talk says that the Lutheran bishop was trying to introduce Lutheranism into Moldova and they were destroying ikons. Certainly this event shows Lutheranism being in practical conflict with Orthodoxy.

The video takes the view that Pat. Cyril Lucaris of the 17th century was actually a Calvinist and wrote the Calvinist "Confession" circulating in Western Europe and ascribed to him. It sounds like he did because there was a lot of conflict between him and the RC Church, with the Protestant countries supporting him.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
You do realize that you just reposted the same video as you posted earlier?
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
7,242
Reaction score
669
Points
113
Age
38
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
But it's two years later. :)
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
I saw a whole bunch of EO podcasts on Sola Scriptura a few days ago on Ancient Faith Radio. This video lecture that Jude posted was very much in the spirit of those podcasts. One of those was Fr. Stephen's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" series.

Jude's lecture by FR. PANAYIOTIS PAPAGEORGIOU goes along with them, talking about how with Sola Scriptura, in Lutheran theory you are getting what the Bible says vs. what Church leaders teach, but in actual practice you are getting what individuals believe that the Bible says vs. what the consensus of the Church handed down says that the Bible says. The individuals who read the Bible have their own opinions about what it means and those individual opinions sometimes do not agree with each other. So in reality, the debate is between individual opinions of the Bible's meaning vs. the Church's historical understandings/opinions of the Bible's meaning. And in Orthodoxy, we go by what the Church has passed down instead of saying just that an individual person's opinion is right.

Probably as a child I just accepted what people told me about going by the Bible Alone to judge religious matters and did not question it. Even in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the Bible is the highest text. So the idea of going by the Bible alone felt normal to me. When I went to Catholic school, I got more introduced to what Tradition meant instead of just hearing Protestant polemics against Tradition, so the idea of using Tradition made sense to me too. The Scripture vs Tradition debate was not really an important disconcerting conflict for me.

For the last 10 years or so, I thought that Sola Scriptura just meant that the Bible is the only Final, Infallible authority, which is what I read on Wikipedia and is how some Protestants describe it in common sense terms. But over the last year when I heard and read more about how Luther used it, it looks like he meant literally using the Bible ALONE to interpret the Bible and to judge religious texts. Luther AFAIK interestingly did not explicitly announce that the Bible was everywhere "perspicacious", ie. simple and easy to read. Sometimes he really worked alot trying to prove the Bible's meaning on different topics. But he did seem to imply this at times, like when he used rhetorical questions to imply that the Bible was easier to understand than the Church fathers. The Sola Scriptura idea that you can read the Bible ALONE without commentaries to get its meaning has to be premised on the idea that the Bible is everywhere easy to understand in order to make the Sola Scriptura idea realistic. Otherwise, if the Bible's meaning is not clear and you have to work alot to try to get it and even then it is not plain, then your average person can't reliably go by obscure scriptures alone to get the Biblical position right on everything.
 

JTLoganville

High Elder
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
787
Reaction score
117
Points
43
Location
Pennsylvania
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox
Lutherans (and i used to be one!) pledge fidelity to the Book of Concorrd aka "The Lutheran Confessios" or just "the Confessions" for short.

The Confessions NEVER enumerate the fabled "five solas".

Including Sola Scriptura.

In fact, the Confessions nowhere enumerate which books are/are not to be considered canonically Scripture.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Lutherans (and i used to be one!) pledge fidelity to the Book of Concorrd aka "The Lutheran Confessios" or just "the Confessions" for short.

The Confessions NEVER enumerate the fabled "five solas".

Including Sola Scriptura.
It's significant that the Book of Concord does not pull out and explicitly define "Sola Scriptura" or nearly enumerate the 5 Solas. If it did, it would be easier to deal with the doctrine because everyone would be more likely to face a shared defini5ion.

In any case, the Book of Concord does have the kind of idea that people call Sola Scriptura:
"We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it…”

When it calls the Bible "the only rule" for judging all teachings, the implication is that other texts like Creeds or Confessions can't also be used to judge all teachings. But this creates a practical problem because some teachings do not correspond to a clear pro or contra position in the Bible or else don't correspond to a position at all that is found in the Bible. De Facto, you are also going to have to use a Creed or Confession that will also help you judge all teachings.

One objection to what I just wrote could be that a Creed or Confession can't judge all writings because it's not broad enough. But in fact, a Creed or Confession could be just as broad and even clearer than a Biblical writing, like an exposition of the Trinity.

Another pro-Lutheran argument might be that the Bible judges the commentaries but the commentaries don't judge the Bible. But this is also not correct because both the early Church and Luther himself went through a process of deciding which books they were going to include in their respective Bibles. And De Facto the early Church as well as Luther himself used writings outside the Bible, such as lists of the canonical books, eg. The Muratorian Canon, in order to help decide what books were in the Bible. De facto Luther did know that the Jews and the Church for centuries considered certain books Biblical. He didn't just go to a library and pull out all Christian texts and decide on his list of Bible books with no outside writings to help him like other lists to help him decide. So De Facto Protestants have used other writings outside the Bible to judge or evaluate the Bible, its content, its list of books, and its meaning. The Protestants judge the Bible to be correct, and in the process of making that judgment, they do use extrabiblical books.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
The bible itself states that the substantive meaning is hidden from plain view.



2 Corinthians 4:3

English Standard Version



3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
The bible itself states that the substantive meaning is hidden from plain view.


2 Corinthians 4:3

English Standard Version




3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
Well that verse doesn't clear up the issue because it says that it's veiled to those who are perishing. Calvinists could agree with that statement and then just say that they THEY (Calvinists) have it in plain view and that it's veiled to those who are perishing.

To give an example, there is major disagreement between Protestants on whether to do Infant Baptism. The Bible never explicitly and specifically addresses this topic. But Calvin wrote that opponents of Infant Baptism were from the Devil. So Calvin could claim that the Bible was clear on the topic but that Protestants who didn't get it (and BTW there are Calvinists who reject Infant Baptism) don't understand the Bible on the issue for that reason.
 

Tzimis

Taxiarches
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,507
Reaction score
190
Points
63
Location
wilderness
Faith
Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction
EP
Well that verse doesn't clear up the issue because it says that it's veiled to those who are perishing. Calvinists could agree with that statement and then just say that they THEY (Calvinists) have it in plain view and that it's veiled to those who are perishing.

To give an example, there is major disagreement between Protestants on whether to do Infant Baptism. The Bible never explicitly and specifically addresses this topic. But Calvin wrote that opponents of Infant Baptism were from the Devil. So Calvin could claim that the Bible was clear on the topic but that Protestants who didn't get it (and BTW there are Calvinists who reject Infant Baptism) don't understand the Bible on the issue for that reason.
The reality is, that all are perishing and that is a classic example of subjective conjecture.
 
Last edited:

Jude1:3

High Elder
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
553
Reaction score
66
Points
28
Location
USA
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
You do realize that you just reposted the same video as you posted earlier?
Yeah, I posted it again because it didn't display on the forum automatically.
 
Top