Falsehoods of Orthodoxy

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by BibleHoarder, Oct 12, 2018.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    In terms of Anglicanism vs. Orthodoxy, what citations are commonly gleaned from the Church Fathers in support of Orthodoxy's theology which Anglicanism disagrees with, and how do Anglicans defend their views as historical and not a recent innovation?
     
  2. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I mean the Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura. They taught Sola Fide. They taught the 2 dominical sacraments. They had no magisterium but rather the consensus of the Fathers, plus the Councils. Their philosophy was that of Plato and Aristotle, not some medieval greek/byzantine invention from the 1300s. They believed the Church could fall, can fall, and can rise.

    The Church Fathers were Anglican.
     
  3. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    791
    Likes Received:
    969
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    • Sola Scriptura I accept the notion that the Fathers placed a very high value on the witness of Holy Scripture, however given the wide variety of understandings of the term Sola Scriptura that abound today I feel that I would be cautious in attributing this doctrine to them, which possibly owes much of its formation to the work of Martin Luther.
    • Sola Fide has been less abused as a term, and so yes I would accept this principle in general as reflecting the teachings of the Fathers.
    • No Magisterium save for the consensus Fathers and the Councils, is probably how Holy Tradition is understood in the ineffable East.
    • Their philosophy was that of Plato and Aristotle, not some medieval greek/byzantine invention from the 1300s. I am not sure what you are alluding to or why you felt to need to make this point. Innovation is not a widely accepted concept in the East in the areas of Theology and Holy Tradition.
    • They believed the Church could fall, can fall, and can rise. I think to express it more clearly the use of the definite article here is misleading, and they would hold more generally to the idea that 'a' Church may fall, fail, and rise, they would continue to uphold a notions that 'the' Church is indefectible rather than infallible. Indeed to would be hard to believe anything else if one has an appreciation of Church History.
    A friend of mine once described the Orthodox as Anglicans with more adjectives! :)

    The Thirty Nine Articles suggest at Article 19 As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, they are less clear about what those errors might be. I would be inclined to think that Antioch has been in error for their proximity to the Nestorian issue and Jerusalem to the notion of Arianism and Islam that followed in its wake. Alexandria is most likely being associated with the Monophysite controversy of the Council of Chalcedon, and the agreed statement we now have probably clarifies that matter.

    Anglicans, along with our brothers and sisters en Christo in the Orthodox Churches place a high value on the witness of the Fathers.

    At the time of the various Acts of Supremacy the primary conflict and issues were with Rome, and that is born out in reading the Thirty Nine Articles. I don't think we have every set out to be at enmity with the east, nor to point out falsehoods in orthodoxy. Giving God right glory is as important in Canterbury as it is in Constantinople.
     
    Peteprint likes this.
  4. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not that my view hinges on Martin Luther being a demigod or anything, but by his own testimony, he was only resurrecting a doctrine of the Fathers against the argument of the Roman Catholics that they have a deposit of faith, which is not recorded anywhere but which is indeed revelation, and is infallible. All must submit to this intangible and unknowable deposit.

    Sola Scriptura, by contrast, means that there is no other deposit of revelation in the world, apart from the sacred Scriptures. When you want to know what God has revealed of his Mind, you turn to (and only to) the sacred Scripture.

    I realize that the concept has been muddied in recent years, often by evangelicals ironically.
     
  5. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    Two sides of the same coin, really. Just like faith and works being mutually necessary and complimentary, the Fathers are necessary adjuncts to the scriptures. While they are not infallible, without them, we don't have a clear understanding of what the scriptures mean. Sola Scriptura, taken to the extreme, makes each man his own interpreter of the scriptures, his own Pope. The Fathers of the early Church are our guides in correctly understanding the faith. From an Anglican perspective, Prima Scriptura is preferable to Sola.
     
    Shane R and Stalwart like this.
  6. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    WE should not forget that the Anglican Church does not only apply to England and Reformed Roman Catholicism / Non Conformist Lolardism but also to the ancient tradition of Celtic Christianity. Part of our distinctive emphasis upon the 'normality of religion' infusing the whole of life and society, rather than adopting a sect like inner church life, is in my opinion owed to the 'all embracing spirituality of Celtic Christianity' we inherited from the welsh.

    Bet you don't have a Welsh Bible in your collection. :)
    .
     
    Botolph likes this.
  7. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Maybe not, but I have an Esperanto bible. Three, in fact. :p
     
  8. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Depending on how it’s defined, Prima is probably fine, especially with the modern evangelical muddles of the concept. If we use Sola as the Divines has meant it, I don’t think it would be a problem either, because they cited Church Fathers constantly and didn’t view tradition to be in competition with scipiture, but rather it’s accessory and handmaiden.
     
    Peteprint likes this.
  9. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Bet you haven't got one in Klingon though. :laugh: I'd be surprised if there isn't one out there somewhere though.

    I wonder what side of Christ's character would most appeal to the Klingon temperament? A difficult mission field I would imagine.
    .
     

Share This Page