Georges Florovsky on the Eastern Orthodox Rejection of Sola Scriptura/the Formal Sufficiency of the Bible

  

We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient, and this not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency. We can say that Scripture is a God-inspired scheme or image (eikon) of truth, but not truth itself. Strange to say, we often limit the freedom of the Church as a whole, for the sake of furthering individual freedom of individual Christians. In the name of individual freedom the Catholic, ecumenical freedom of the Church is denied and limited. The liberty of the Church is shacked by an abstract biblical standard for the sake of setting free individual consciousness from the spiritual demands enforced by the experience of the Church. This is a denial of catholicity, a destruction of catholic consciousness; this is the sin of the Reformation. Dean Inge neatly says of the Reformers: “their creeds has been described as a return to the Gospel in the spirit of the Koran” (The Platonic Tradition in English Religious Thought [1926], p. 2). If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallizing centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Eucharist, Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them. (Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View [Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972], 48)

 

Further Reading

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Georges Florovsky on the Regula Fidei in the Early Church

  

The Regula Fidei

 

Tradition was in the Early Church, first of all, an hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light and in the context of the living Apostolic Tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so, of course, not because Tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which only the true “intention” and total “design” of the Holy Writ of Divine Revelation itself, could be detected and grasped. The truth was, according to St. Irenaeus, a “well-grounded system,” a corpus (adv. haeres. II. 27. 1—veritatis corpus), a “harmonious melody” (II, 38. 3). But it was precisely this “harmony” which could be grasped only by the insight of faith. Indeed, Tradition was not just a transmission of inherited doctrines, in a “Judaic manner,” but rather the continuous life of the truth (5Cf. Dom Odo Casel, O.S.B., Benedict von Nursia als Pneumatiker, in "Heilige Überlieferung" (Münster, 1938), ss. 100-101). It was not a fixed core or complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and impact of the revelatory events, of this revelation of the “God who acts.” And this was determinative in the field of Biblical exegesis. G. L. Prestige has well put it: “The voice of the Bible could be plainly heard only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom. It was the heretics that relied on isolated texts, and the Catholics who paid more attention on the whole to scriptural principles” (Fathers and Heretics, p. 43). Summarizing her careful analysis of the use of Tradition in the Early Church, Dr. Ellen Flesseman-van-Leer has written: “Scripture without interpretation is not Scripture at all; the moment it is used and becomes alive it is always interpreted Scripture.” Now Scripture must be interpreted “according to its own basic purport,” which is disclosed in the regula fidei. Thus, this regula becomes, as it were, the controlling instance in the exegesis. “Real interpretation of Scripture is Church preaching, is tradition” (Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, pp. 92-96). (Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View [Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972], 79-80)

 

Contemporary of Augustine (354-430) who was a Proponent of Sola Scriptura

I have some good news for my Protestant friends. I have found a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo (354-430) who believed in Sola Scriptura. Here are some quotations you can appeal to: (and no doubt, will say 'Amen' at the end of each quote)

If you produce from the divine scriptures something we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, ‘In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 15:9) [1]

 

“I state this on the basis of the scriptures. At your bidding, I will follow up with testimonies [from the scriptures]” [2]

 

“But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous.” [3]

 

“And I profess in accord with the statement of divine scriptures . . .” [4]

 

“After all, we are protected not by mere talk, but by the testimonies of the divine scriptures” [5]

 

“We believe the scriptures, and we venerate the divine scriptures. We do not want a single particle of a letter to perish, for we fear the threat that is stated in these divine scriptures, ‘Woe to those who take away or add!’ (Dt 4:2) [6]

 

“All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, ‘not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt. 5:18). The Lord said, ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.’ (Mt 24:35) [7]

 

“We ought to accept all the things that are brought forth from the holy scriptures with full veneration. The divine scripture has not come as a source of our instruction so that we might correct it. How I wish that we may prove to be worthy disciples of the scriptures!” [8]

 

“The truth is not obtained by argumentation, but is proved by certain testimonies [i.e., the Scriptures]” [9]

 

“[T]hat, if you state this [i.e., the doctrine of the Trinity] from the divine scriptures, if you produce any passage of scripture, we are eager to be found disciples of the divine scriptures.” [10]

 

The bad news is that this is Maximinus, an Arian bishop. An early proponent of the formal doctrine of Protestantism was someone you would believe to be a formal heretic.

 

Sources for the Above

 

[1] Debate with Maximinus, 1

 

[2] Ibid., 4

 

[3] Ibid., 13

 

[4] Ibid., 14

 

[5] Ibid., 15:1

 

[6] Ibid., 15:13

 

[7] Ibid., 15:16

 

[8] Ibid., 15:20

 

[9] Ibid., 15:21

 

[10] 15:26

Athanasius (297-373) on the Council of Nicea Having an Intrinsic Binding Authority on Christians

While Athanasius' works are quote mined by some Protestants to show he believed in the formal sufficiency of the Bible, Athanasius held a view of the authority of councils that are opposed to various Protestant formulations thereof. In his To the Bishops of Africa (Ad Afros), he clearly believed that ecumenical councils had an intrinsic, binding authority upon Christians; they were not binding simply by their fidelity to the Bible. Note the following quotes and the original language text thereof:

The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church (To the Bishops of Africa, 1)

 

PG 26:1029:

 

 

Notice that Athanasius uses αυταρκη to describe the 'sufficiency' of Nicea; this is the same term used of Scripture by Athanasius in his On the Incarnation of the Word, 56. For Athanasius, Nicea was just as "self-sufficient" as the Bible!

 

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (To the Bishops of Africa, 2)

 

PG 26:1032:

Here, Athanasius says that the word (ρημα) of the Lord came through Nicea, and it "abides for ever" (με νει εις τον αιωνα). Athanasius is borrowing from the language of Isa 40:8 LXX:

τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ("the word of our God remains forever" [NETS])

No Protestant would ever say such things about any source of truth/authority other than inscripturated revelation, but Athanasius explicitly imputes the authority of inscripturated revelation to the council of Nicea. Athanasius was clearly not a Proto-Protestant.

Further Reading

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Georges Florovsky, "Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View"

While it is out of print, I have come across the following book (which I just printed off to read for preparation for a public debate on the topic of Sola Scriptura):

Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View

Protestant Apologist Bill Grover: Paul's Oral Inspired Teachings/Traditions as En Par with the Authority and Inspiration of Inscripturated Revelation

 

Criterion for Determining Theological Mistakes

 

Every response I’ve made to the ten reasons advanced by this good Mormon woman contains an allusion to the Bible. Why? It is because the Bible is to be the standard by which we judge religious teaching:

 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17 my emphasis)

 

And, one needs to remember that Paul added his teachings to that standard in 2 Timothy 1:13, (“Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me”) . . . ‎(Bill Grover, And, Man Made God in His Own Image: The Misbegotten Mormon Doctrine of Deity [Rapid City, S.Dak.: New Harbor House, 2021], 6-7, emphasis added)

 

Further Reading

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Did Joseph Smith Remove Mark 13:32 in the JST?

Bill Grover, who has produced a number of sub-par books on “Mormonism,” confidently states that Joseph Smith removed Mark 13:32 in his revision of the Bible:

 

So, if you are a Mormon reading this, can you justify Joe’s additions and omissions to the Bible in his “Inspired Version” like Genesis 50:33, 33 and his removing Mark 13:32 from his translation? (Bill Grover, And, Man Made God in His Own Image: The Misbegotten Mormon Doctrine of Deity [Rapid City, S.Dak.: New Harbor House, 2021], 3)

 

Also, Joe removed 13:32 from Mark likely due to his errant belief that Christ has only one nature which has all knowledge. (Ibid., 10)

 

. . . Mormons wish to erase the teaching about Christ in Mark 13:32 . . . (Ibid., 70)

 

In reality, Grover, his confidence notwithstanding, shows he has not bothered to crack open a copy of the Joseph Smith Translation/JST (AKA Inspired Revision). It has been retained, though it is verse 47, not 32 as it is in the KJV and other translations. In my copy of the RLDS 1867 Inspired Version, it reads:

 

But of that day and hour no one knoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only. (‎New Testament‎ | ‎Mark‎ ‎13‎:‎47‎)‎

 

On page 38 of New Testament Manuscript 2, Folio 2, we read:

 

But of that day and hour, knoweth no man <one> knoweth; no, not the angles of God in heaven, but my father only

 

Here is the relevant portion of the manuscript itself:

If one only learns one thing from this post, it is that one should always check claims made by critics of the Church and check the primary sources.