As someone who has transitioned from a Protestant background (Baptist tradition for 35 years) to the Orthodox Church, I've often struggled with the modern application of Sola Scriptura.

However, I recently listened to Wes Huff on the Shawn Ryan podcast, and his perspective offered a nuance I rarely hear in Protestant circles.


Around the 1:48:00 mark, Huff argues that while Tradition and the Church are vital, they must ultimately align with Scripture, which remains the sole infallible source of revelation.

In the Orthodox faith, we refer to the Bible as our "Canon." Etymologically, this means "measuring stick." We are taught that while Scripture and the Church are inextricably linked, any extra-biblical Tradition must "measure up" to the written Word. Hearing Wes put it this way felt remarkably familiarit mirrors the Orthodox understanding of how the Church guards the Truth.

Despite this, I often encounter a certain hostility toward "Tradition" when speaking with contemporary Protestants. My experience suggests a "Hard Sola Scriptura" viewone where Church history and historical consensus have virtually no role.

I suspect this reactivity stems more from a rejection of Roman Catholic claims (like Papal Infallibility or indulgences) than a rejection of the historic Church itself. For the Protestants here: does Wes Huff's "subordinate but significant" view of Tradition align with your own, or do you find the "Hard Sola Scriptura" approach to be the standard?

I have heard of this referred to as Classical Sola Scriptura vs "Solo Scriptura" (Me and My Bible) that emphasizes Individuality, What does my Bible mean to me personally along with a rejection of history and hostility to Tradition.

The bit of research I have done today seems to indicate that "solo scriptura" doesn't have any place in traditional Reformation movement but that seems to be the version that I seem to run into the most. Is this a misunderstanding of what the Reformers desired or is it a more deliberate movement in more modern times.

MY GOAL ON THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DISCUSS THE CORRECTNESS OR NOT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA BUT RATHER THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND WHAT IS MOST COMMON OR WHETHER SOME HERE ALIGN WITH ONE PERSPECTIVE OR THE OTHER.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/sola-scripture-three-views-in-church-history-on-the-relationship-between-tradition-and-scripture/

This briefly summarizes your post. Yes, the Reformers believed in tradition as defined by Heiko Oberman's Tradition 1. It was important for them to trace doctrine through church history. They rejected Tradition 2 which was seen as a medieval accretion. Most American evangelicals that you encounter abandon tradition altogether.

Thank you for bringing up that explanation. That is an incredibly helpful framework for me to continue to understand where this comes from. It helps explain the disconnect I can feel with trying to even understand it.

Coming from a Baptist background into Orthodoxy, it seems I spent my life in Tradition Zero without realizing that the original Reformers actually held to Tradition One Sola Scriptura. It also explains why never heard Solo Scriptura. I think it is just "the way its done" so they don't label it.

Its fascinating that the hostility I often encounter from Protestants regarding The Church &Tradition is actually a departure from their own historical roots in the Reformation.

I do tend to feel like while I don't agree with the Reformation obviously this type of thing does help me understand what the original intent was. While I grew up Protestant these were not discussion I had so it really is the one of the gaps in understanding I have and provides a "Why" perspective.

For those of you in denominations that lean toward the new Tradition Zero (like many Baptist or Non-denominational circles from my quick query), is there a growing desire to recover Tradition One?

Is that what people mean when they say "reformed Baptist" like Huff? Mine was Southern Baptist so not Reformed. Never thought about it even though I had heard of it.

Is the suspicion of Church History and the RCC so baked into the identity of modern Evangelicalism that a move toward Church Tradition feels like a move toward Rome?

In todays age of information how do groups justify Tradition Zero adherence?

I am always skeptical of Non-Denom churches as I suspect there interest are not necessarily being correct and Solo Scriptura Tradition Zero allows them to not be held to any standard. Being "Bible Led" means they just get to be charismatic and not much more.

I certainly understand the issue with Tradition Two and the RCC at the time leading to the need to Reform. Reform would have been better but a lot of Nationalism and Monarchies played a role and took advantage.

Again, thanks for the response.

To answer your thread title question, yes it is misunderstood, both by non-Protestants and Protestants alike.

I spent the last year digging into church history for really the first time in my life. I'm ashamed it took me so long to get into it, and I will assign partial blame to the modern Protestant church as it is mostly disregarded, at least in my experience. So far, it has truly enriched my faith and has given me new energy and appreciation for the early church fathers and tradition. It makes me eager to continue participating in the same things the early church did. We obviously have some disagreement on some of that but we can agree that's not what we are interested in here.

I will continue to beat the Sola Scriptura drum, however I do believe there is an important place for tradition. To your point, yes, it absolutely should fall within the bounds of scripture. I have also heard the "solo" descriptor and I would also agree that "sola" is the more appropriate word and there is a distinction to be made.

Bottom line, tradition is important and most Protestants do not rightly appreciate it or really even know it. I am all for embracing it so far as Scripture would regulate and allow it.

There is really nothing else that needs to be said.

Quote:

---

Whether they realize it or not Protestants rely on this Infallible Witness every day. The Scriptures you hold are a product of the Church's witness.

---

This is actually questionable. I usually use the ESV and I was reading Acts 15.

v27 Judas and Silas are sent to Antioch.
v32-33 Judas and Silas return to Jerusalem.
v35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch.
v39 Barnabas took Mark to Cyprus.
v40 Paul chose Silas to go to Syria.

Wait, I thought Silas returned to Jerusalem. Then I realize v34 is missing because "older" manuscripts don't have it. Yet, the "church's witness" has always included it. So modern, critical text Bibles are omitting what the church has always believed. That v34 it seemed good to Silas to remain there.

There are many instances of this. The end of Mark, the woman caught in adultery.

To expand a bit on the doctrine of the Trinity, which almost all Protestants hold as essential.

Our shared belief was formally defined and guarded at the Council of Nicaea. If we claim the Church had no authority at Nicaea to settle the nature of Christ, then on what basis do we hold to this definition of the Trinity? It certainly was not a foregone conclusion and was fiercely debated for centuries.

Church and Tradition held firm to the Divinity of Christ. When the entirety of the West (99%) fell to Arianism (outside of the Pope) it was The Church, Tradition and a lot of Belisarius that was able to straighten it out.

Some may say that the Trinity (not a term in the Bible) is obvious implicit in the Scriptures.

If the Trinity is obvious in the Bible, why was the early Church nearly torn apart by Arianism? Arius used the Bible too and he had his own measuring stick/canon he applied like verses "The Father is greater than I". Arius didn't argue against the Bible. He argued from the Bible

It wasn't until the Church in Council provided the correct lens that the obvious truth of the Trinity was protected.

Not picking up what you are laying down. That's probably on me. Do you mind expanding your thought?


I'm Orthodox as I'm stated. Do you mind telling me what perspective you are coming from? How you personally define yourself if not part of any defined Denomination or set of held beliefs.

Do the Orthodox use a particular manuscript tradition? Because Acts 15:34 is missing in many Bibles. If the church's witness is that it seemed good to Silas to remain in Antioch, then the Scriptures that Protestants hold are not a product of the church's witness.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Whether they realize it or not Protestants rely on this Infallible Witness every day. The Scriptures you hold are a product of the Church's witness.

---

This is actually questionable. I usually use the ESV and I was reading Acts 15.

v27 Judas and Silas are sent to Antioch.
v32-33 Judas and Silas return to Jerusalem.
v35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch.
v39 Barnabas took Mark to Cyprus.
v40 Paul chose Silas to go to Syria.

Wait, I thought Silas returned to Jerusalem. Then I realize v34 is missing because "older" manuscripts don't have it. Yet, the "church's witness" has always included it. So modern, critical text Bibles are omitting what the church has always believed. That v34 it seemed good to Silas to remain there.

There are many instances of this. The end of Mark, the woman caught in adultery.

---

Watching sola scriptura advocates begin to question what verses do or don't belong in the bible is wild. The same group that claims scripture is inerrant now questions which verses count as scripture and which one don't. Now we can't even know for sure what does and doesn't belong? Right now that is confined to a few segments. But how long before people start wondering if any of it is truly accurate, since the writings we can find date to 100+ years after they were originally written? How can we know it was accurately copied during that 100+ year period?

This is going to lead to an even higher rate of "deconstruction" in evangelical circles. Hopefully this will lead those who struggle to the ancient faiths because the Church and the Bible can never e separated., I fear it will lead many to lose faith altogether instead.

I'm Orthodox as I'm stated. Do you mind telling me what perspective you are coming from? How you personally define yourself if not part of any pre-defined Denomination or set of held beliefs.

The hard "solo scriptura" is the logical end of their suspicion of tradition, whether certain protestants want to admit it or not. Huff's church (wherever that is) will admit it is fallible. Every protestant church will admit this. So their interpretation of what scripture means could be wrong, and there is no way to prove that they aren't. If one of their congregants believe their pastor has erred in interpretation, how can a pastor prove them wrong? All one has to do is ask the pastor why he is so certain he is correct if he is a potentially fallible interpreter. There is no formal way to decide who is correct and who isn't. Holding to a particular protestant tradition is done out of preference or personal belief that this particular tradition is correct. The reality is that it can be tossed aside the second the person disagrees without conflicting with sola scriptura.

Huff et al are trying to resurrect a protestant tradition of some kind because they realize now just how off the rails solo scriptura goes. Luther had to do the same in his day when the anabaptists went off the rails (from his perspective).

I think the issues of deciding between/considering the difference of "sola scriptura OR scripture + tradition" is similar to the false dilemma of "faith alone OR faith + works". The way many protestants frame it makes it sound like these are the only two options.... pick one. The problem is their both incorrect. It's not faith alone or faith + works.... it's "faithfulness". Believing in Jesus means following Him (works). And you can't follow Him if you don't have believe in Him (faith). They are two elements of one encompassing truth.

Similarly, it's not scripture + tradition or scripture alone. It's The Church. The Church is what Jesus established. He did not write a book. He did not tell His apostles to write a book. He gave them authority. Scripture and tradition are how The Church has authoritatively handed on the true faith. EO's and Catholics alike would benefit from pushing back on these false dilemmas

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I suspect much of the Protestant hostility toward Tradition and Church is actually a justified fear of Papal Infallibility. The idea that one man can define truth apart from, or in addition to, the Bible.

As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that as well. We must distinguish between the "Possibly Infallible Office" of the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it from a magical really tall chair or something, and the Infallible Witness of the historic Church.

---

I know this is supposed to be about sola scriptura, but I can't help but take the bait...

You would really benefit from asking a knowledgeable Catholic what papal infallibility is and how it acts. This is an absolute caricature, right down to the "really tall chair". As a former protestant, you just knew the Catholic Church and the pope was wrong/evil. You also knew sola scriptura was true. You now know you were wrong about sola scriptura. But you are still unwilling to consider that you may be wrong about this.

I'm not saying you'll be convinced by Catholic arguments, but you may as well inspect them like you did arguments against sola scriptura however long ago you did that. At the very least it'll prevent you from claiming the pope alone defines truth, even if it doesn't align with scipture.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That is a brilliant point, despite the fact that you still use 99.999% the Bible established through Church History and Tradition, and it actually reinforces my original thought. You've highlighted the fact that modern Bibles often prioritize individual manuscript age over the Ecclesiastical use of the text.

In the Orthodox Church, we use the Byzantine/Majority text tradition precisely because we believe the Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures through the Church's constant liturgical use. By omitting those verses based on modern "expert" consensus, many modern Protestant Bibles are moving further away from the Church's Witness and closer to a "Solo Scriptura" that relies on the latest archaeological find rather than the living memory of the Church. You would trust academia and archeology over Church Tradition? That seems like a slippery slope to having nothing eventually.

In the Orthodox Patriarchal Text, Acts 15:34 is included because the "Church's Witness" found it necessary for the narrative and consistent with Apostolic tradition.

If the "measuring stick" is being shortened or altered by modern scholars, doesn't that make the Witness of the Church even more vital for ensuring we have the right words to begin with?

ByzantineText.com

---

Wouldn't an older text that was found closer to the location of the event, generally, be more reliable than a newer, farther away text?

Farmer1906 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That is a brilliant point, despite the fact that you still use 99.999% the Bible established through Church History and Tradition, and it actually reinforces my original thought. You've highlighted the fact that modern Bibles often prioritize individual manuscript age over the Ecclesiastical use of the text.

In the Orthodox Church, we use the Byzantine/Majority text tradition precisely because we believe the Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures through the Church's constant liturgical use. By omitting those verses based on modern "expert" consensus, many modern Protestant Bibles are moving further away from the Church's Witness and closer to a "Solo Scriptura" that relies on the latest archaeological find rather than the living memory of the Church. You would trust academia and archeology over Church Tradition? That seems like a slippery slope to having nothing eventually.

In the Orthodox Patriarchal Text, Acts 15:34 is included because the "Church's Witness" found it necessary for the narrative and consistent with Apostolic tradition.

If the "measuring stick" is being shortened or altered by modern scholars, doesn't that make the Witness of the Church even more vital for ensuring we have the right words to begin with?

ByzantineText.com

---

Wouldn't an older text that was found closer to the location of the event, generally, be more reliable than a newer, farther away text?

---

This is my thought. Also, every Bible I've used still includes these "omitted" verses. They are either in the main text with a corresponding footnote, or moved down to the footnote.

As for tradition, Mark 7 is a good place to go to address this question.

Farmer1906 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That is a brilliant point, despite the fact that you still use 99.999% the Bible established through Church History and Tradition, and it actually reinforces my original thought. You've highlighted the fact that modern Bibles often prioritize individual manuscript age over the Ecclesiastical use of the text.

In the Orthodox Church, we use the Byzantine/Majority text tradition precisely because we believe the Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures through the Church's constant liturgical use. By omitting those verses based on modern "expert" consensus, many modern Protestant Bibles are moving further away from the Church's Witness and closer to a "Solo Scriptura" that relies on the latest archaeological find rather than the living memory of the Church. You would trust academia and archeology over Church Tradition? That seems like a slippery slope to having nothing eventually.

In the Orthodox Patriarchal Text, Acts 15:34 is included because the "Church's Witness" found it necessary for the narrative and consistent with Apostolic tradition.

If the "measuring stick" is being shortened or altered by modern scholars, doesn't that make the Witness of the Church even more vital for ensuring we have the right words to begin with?

ByzantineText.com

---

Wouldn't an older text that was found closer to the location of the event, generally, be more reliable than a newer, farther away text?

---

Irenaeus quotes the longer ending of Mark in a writing that is older than the codices used to say the longer ending wasn't present in the early church. Deciding for ourselves 1900 years later what the proper ending should be sets a very dangerous precedent. Especially since it's authenticity is only questioned in debated because it doesn't align with one side's view on baptism.

That is the core of the debate, isn't it? The assumption is that older equals better but age and reliability are not always synonyms.


If a future archaeologist finds a piece of 21st-century bathroom stall graffiti from the men's room that says "Call Farmer1906 for a good time" from when you were 12 and they also find a slightly later government tax record indicating your profession as a wheat farmer rather than that of dudes is the graffiti more accurate simply because it might be a few years older? Or does the tax record hold more weight because it was the official, preserved record of the community?

In the same way, the Church is like that official record. It represents the text that was scrubbed, verified, and used by the entire community for over a millennium. Modern archaeology might find an older version in a desert but that might have been discarded precisely because it was inaccurate or poorly copied.

By prioritizing a solitary, ancient fragment over the living memory and official use of the Church, we are effectively saying that the Holy Spirit lost the true Bible for 1,500 years until a modern scholar dug it up.

As an Orthodox Christian, I find the preserved, liturgical record of the Church to be far more reliable than the unknown of a lone, discarded manuscript.

Farmer1906 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That is a brilliant point, despite the fact that you still use 99.999% the Bible established through Church History and Tradition, and it actually reinforces my original thought. You've highlighted the fact that modern Bibles often prioritize individual manuscript age over the Ecclesiastical use of the text.

In the Orthodox Church, we use the Byzantine/Majority text tradition precisely because we believe the Holy Spirit preserved the Scriptures through the Church's constant liturgical use. By omitting those verses based on modern "expert" consensus, many modern Protestant Bibles are moving further away from the Church's Witness and closer to a "Solo Scriptura" that relies on the latest archaeological find rather than the living memory of the Church. You would trust academia and archeology over Church Tradition? That seems like a slippery slope to having nothing eventually.

In the Orthodox Patriarchal Text, Acts 15:34 is included because the "Church's Witness" found it necessary for the narrative and consistent with Apostolic tradition.

If the "measuring stick" is being shortened or altered by modern scholars, doesn't that make the Witness of the Church even more vital for ensuring we have the right words to begin with?

ByzantineText.com

---

Wouldn't an older text that was found closer to the location of the event, generally, be more reliable than a newer, farther away text?

---

Generally, but we don't know. Why did the church go with this manuscript tradition and not that? Clearly for a reason that is lost. "Older" is not necessarily better.

I think it's also most important to focus on the fact that peoples that were much more close to these text and the authors made the conscious decisions to preserve certain versions.

I found the notion ridiculous that we 2000 years later can dig up a random manuscript and say that the people who lived and breathe at this every day got it wrong with zero context as to why there is a difference.

Not to mention the fact you are quibbling over the most minor things.

It seems to be in the service of destroying the Bible as a whole rather than preserving it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That is the core of the debate, isn't it? The assumption is that older equals better but age and reliability are not always synonyms.


If a future archaeologist finds a piece of 21st-century bathroom stall graffiti from the men's room that says "Call Farmer1906 for a good time" from when you were 12 and they also find a slightly later government tax record indicating your profession as a wheat farmer rather than that of dudes is the graffiti more accurate simply because it might be a few years older? Or does the tax record hold more weight because it was the official, preserved record of the community?

In the same way, the Church is like that official record. It represents the text that was scrubbed, verified, and used by the entire community for over a millennium. Modern archaeology might find an older version in a desert but that might have been discarded precisely because it was inaccurate or poorly copied.

By prioritizing a solitary, ancient fragment over the living memory and official use of the Church, we are effectively saying that the Holy Spirit lost the true Bible for 1,500 years until a modern scholar dug it up.

As an Orthodox Christian, I find the preserved, liturgical record of the Church to be far more reliable than the unknown of a lone, discarded manuscript.

---

This is a good, well-thought out argument and explanation.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I agree. Christ established a Church and The Scriptures spring from that.

However, from the Orthodox side, the question of Authority remains the sticking point. While we agree that a fallible pastor cannot be his own final authority, we also hesitate to place that finality in a single Infallible Office. We see the Church as a conciliar body where the Holy Spirit preserves the Truth through consensus rather than a singular decree.

Stark example in the difference in perspective and belief:

In Confession your Priests say "I absolve you"

In Confession Orthodox Priests say "May God, through me a sinner, forgive you" or "I am but a witness"

The Catholic Priests acts in the Person of Christ "Persona Christi".

The Orthodox as a physician or witness.

---

So what about the Russian/Slavic Orthodox Church's that use this:

Quote:

---

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, through the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, child, all your transgressions; and I, His unworthy priest, through the power given to me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I suspect much of the Protestant hostility toward Tradition and Church is actually a justified fear of Papal Infallibility. The idea that one man can define truth apart from, or in addition to, the Bible.

As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that as well. We must distinguish between the "Possibly Infallible Office" of the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it from a magical really tall chair or something, and the Infallible Witness of the historic Church.

---

I know this is supposed to be about sola scriptura, but I can't help but take the bait...

You would really benefit from asking a knowledgeable Catholic what papal infallibility is and how it acts. This is an absolute caricature, right down to the "really tall chair". As a former protestant, you just knew the Catholic Church and the pope was wrong/evil. You also knew sola scriptura was true. You now know you were wrong about sola scriptura. But you are still unwilling to consider that you may be wrong about this.

I'm not saying you'll be convinced by Catholic arguments, but you may as well inspect them like you did arguments against sola scriptura however long ago you did that. At the very least it'll prevent you from claiming the pope alone defines truth, even if it doesn't align with scipture.

---

I actually never heard the terms Sola Scriptura and I didn't even know a Catholic growing up until I met a hot one when she moved into our town when I was 17. Didn't even know there was a Catholic Church 15 minutes up the road.

I do understand Papal Infallibility. I reject the premise 100%. Doesn't mean the two instances it was officially applied he was wrong.

I spend a lot of time defending the Catholic Faith and Church as 100% valid.

I can do that and still disagree with the RCCs interpretation of the Pope and possible infallibility even if he uses the really important chair;-)

I'm teasing you a bit and honestly this disagreement goes back 1000+ years and it's not getting resolved soon so no point in arguing it here.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I suspect much of the Protestant hostility toward Tradition and Church is actually a justified fear of Papal Infallibility. The idea that one man can define truth apart from, or in addition to, the Bible.

As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that as well. We must distinguish between the "Possibly Infallible Office" of the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it from a magical really tall chair or something, and the Infallible Witness of the historic Church.

---

I know this is supposed to be about sola scriptura, but I can't help but take the bait...

You would really benefit from asking a knowledgeable Catholic what papal infallibility is and how it acts. This is an absolute caricature, right down to the "really tall chair". As a former protestant, you just knew the Catholic Church and the pope was wrong/evil. You also knew sola scriptura was true. You now know you were wrong about sola scriptura. But you are still unwilling to consider that you may be wrong about this.

I'm not saying you'll be convinced by Catholic arguments, but you may as well inspect them like you did arguments against sola scriptura however long ago you did that. At the very least it'll prevent you from claiming the pope alone defines truth, even if it doesn't align with scipture.

---

I actually never heard the terms Sola Scriptura and I didn't even know a Catholic growing up until I met a hot one when she moved into our town when I was 17. Didn't even know there was a Catholic Church 15 minutes up the road.

I do understand Papal Infallibility. I reject the premise 100%. Doesn't mean the two instances it was officially applied he was wrong.

I spend a lot of time defending the Catholic Faith and Church as 100% valid.

I can do that and still disagree with the RCCs interpretation of the Pope and possible infallibility even if he uses the really important chair;-)

I'm teasing you a bit and honestly this disagreement goes back 1000+ years and it's not getting resolved soon so no point in arguing it here.

---

I'm just curious what you think papal infallibility is/how it acts. You say you understand it, but the way you described it originally was a far cry from what it really is.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I think it's also most important to focus on the fact that peoples that were much more close to these text and the authors made the conscious decisions to preserve certain versions.

I found the notion ridiculous that we 2000 years later can dig up a random manuscript and say that the people who lived and breathe at this every day got it wrong with zero context as to why there is a difference.

Not to mention the fact you are quibbling over the most minor things.

It seems to be in the service of destroying the Bible as a whole rather than preserving it.

---

Agreed, and especially with the last line. Doubting whether or not certain passages belong will increase doubt in the whole thing if thoughtfully considered. The "deconstruction" in evangelical circles is a real and awful thing.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I agree. Christ established a Church and The Scriptures spring from that.

However, from the Orthodox side, the question of Authority remains the sticking point. While we agree that a fallible pastor cannot be his own final authority, we also hesitate to place that finality in a single Infallible Office. We see the Church as a conciliar body where the Holy Spirit preserves the Truth through consensus rather than a singular decree.

Stark example in the difference in perspective and belief:

In Confession your Priests say "I absolve you"

In Confession Orthodox Priests say "May God, through me a sinner, forgive you" or "I am but a witness"

The Catholic Priests acts in the Person of Christ "Persona Christi".

The Orthodox as a physician or witness.

---

So what about the Russian/Slavic Orthodox Church's that use this:

Quote:

---

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, through the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, child, all your transgressions; and I, His unworthy priest, through the power given to me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

---

---

You've correctly identified the indicative form used in Slavic traditions. I've never made confession in a Russian church so I had to look this up. This appears to be a relatively new thing by Church Standards

However, from an Orthodox perspective, this doesn't prove a need for a Papal office it actually highlights the beauty of Conciliarity. Even with the Slavic linguistic shift, the underlying theology remains that the priest's authority is derived from the consensus and life of the whole Church, not from a singular Vicar of Christ.

Whether the priest says "I" the Orthodox understanding is that the priest is performing a liturgical act on behalf of the community.

In Orthodoxy we don't need perfect uniformity to have unity

The Slavic and Greek traditions may use different words, but they share the same Witness of the ancient approach to sin as a disease requiring a physician as opposed to a legal relationship.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I suspect much of the Protestant hostility toward Tradition and Church is actually a justified fear of Papal Infallibility. The idea that one man can define truth apart from, or in addition to, the Bible.

As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that as well. We must distinguish between the "Possibly Infallible Office" of the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it from a magical really tall chair or something, and the Infallible Witness of the historic Church.

---

I know this is supposed to be about sola scriptura, but I can't help but take the bait...

You would really benefit from asking a knowledgeable Catholic what papal infallibility is and how it acts. This is an absolute caricature, right down to the "really tall chair". As a former protestant, you just knew the Catholic Church and the pope was wrong/evil. You also knew sola scriptura was true. You now know you were wrong about sola scriptura. But you are still unwilling to consider that you may be wrong about this.

I'm not saying you'll be convinced by Catholic arguments, but you may as well inspect them like you did arguments against sola scriptura however long ago you did that. At the very least it'll prevent you from claiming the pope alone defines truth, even if it doesn't align with scipture.

---

I actually never heard the terms Sola Scriptura and I didn't even know a Catholic growing up until I met a hot one when she moved into our town when I was 17. Didn't even know there was a Catholic Church 15 minutes up the road.

I do understand Papal Infallibility. I reject the premise 100%. Doesn't mean the two instances it was officially applied he was wrong.

I spend a lot of time defending the Catholic Faith and Church as 100% valid.

I can do that and still disagree with the RCCs interpretation of the Pope and possible infallibility even if he uses the really important chair;-)

I'm teasing you a bit and honestly this disagreement goes back 1000+ years and it's not getting resolved soon so no point in arguing it here.

---

I'm just curious what you think papal infallibility is/how it acts. You say you understand it, but the way you described it originally was a far cry from what it really is.

---

You tell me. If I'm wrong and you are a Catholic then please explain it to me. I'm genuinely interested. I don't think we will come to an agreement and my conversion but I would like to better understand.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I agree. Christ established a Church and The Scriptures spring from that.

However, from the Orthodox side, the question of Authority remains the sticking point. While we agree that a fallible pastor cannot be his own final authority, we also hesitate to place that finality in a single Infallible Office. We see the Church as a conciliar body where the Holy Spirit preserves the Truth through consensus rather than a singular decree.

Stark example in the difference in perspective and belief:

In Confession your Priests say "I absolve you"

In Confession Orthodox Priests say "May God, through me a sinner, forgive you" or "I am but a witness"

The Catholic Priests acts in the Person of Christ "Persona Christi".

The Orthodox as a physician or witness.

---

So what about the Russian/Slavic Orthodox Church's that use this:

Quote:

---

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, through the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, child, all your transgressions; and I, His unworthy priest, through the power given to me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

---

---

You've correctly identified the indicative form used in Slavic traditions. I've never made confession in a Russian church so I had to look this up. This appears to be a relatively new thing by Church Standards

However, from an Orthodox perspective, this doesn't prove a need for a Papal office it actually highlights the beauty of Conciliarity. Even with the Slavic linguistic shift, the underlying theology remains that the priest's authority is derived from the consensus and life of the whole Church, not from a singular Vicar of Christ.

Whether the priest says "I" the Orthodox understanding is that the priest is performing a liturgical act on behalf of the community.

In Orthodoxy we don't need perfect uniformity to have unity

The Slavic and Greek traditions may use different words, but they share the same Witness of the ancient approach to sin as a disease requiring a physician as opposed to a legal relationship.

---

What you are saying is present in Orthodoxy and not in Catholicism is demonstrably untrue.

Allowing for linguistic shifts: say hello to 24 different rites, many of whom use confessional language you'd prefer

Alexandrian: "O Lord, forgive your servant and through your servant the priest, grant absolution from all sins."
Ambrosia: "May God, through the merits of Christ, forgive you and I, by the power entrusted to me, absolve you from your sins."
Byzantine: same as the Russian one above

Worried that the Catholic Church is only focused on a legal relationship? From the Catechism:

Quote:

---

1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."73 Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament. For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation "is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation."74 Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true "spiritual resurrection," restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God.75

1469 This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks fraternal communion. the sacrament of Penance repairs or restores it. In this sense it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but has also a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members.76 Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ, whether still on pilgrimage or already in the heavenly homeland:77

---

EOs and Catholics have differences for sure. Sometimes it seems like there is such a great desire from EOs to be different that things we agree on have to somehow contain differences.

Can we get this thread back to the Original Topic? This is a really big conversation and one that has differences (obviously) that don't have much to do with this topic.

Didn't mean to bait you. Was trying to only go so far as Church/Tradition and how terms like "Vicar or Christ", Papal Infalibility or the Pope in general is what creates a lot of the distrust in Church and Tradition among Protestants.

I was probably leaning in a bit to get traction with Protestants for the sake of furthering conversation.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I suspect much of the Protestant hostility toward Tradition and Church is actually a justified fear of Papal Infallibility. The idea that one man can define truth apart from, or in addition to, the Bible.

As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that as well. We must distinguish between the "Possibly Infallible Office" of the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it from a magical really tall chair or something, and the Infallible Witness of the historic Church.

---

I know this is supposed to be about sola scriptura, but I can't help but take the bait...

You would really benefit from asking a knowledgeable Catholic what papal infallibility is and how it acts. This is an absolute caricature, right down to the "really tall chair". As a former protestant, you just knew the Catholic Church and the pope was wrong/evil. You also knew sola scriptura was true. You now know you were wrong about sola scriptura. But you are still unwilling to consider that you may be wrong about this.

I'm not saying you'll be convinced by Catholic arguments, but you may as well inspect them like you did arguments against sola scriptura however long ago you did that. At the very least it'll prevent you from claiming the pope alone defines truth, even if it doesn't align with scipture.

---

I actually never heard the terms Sola Scriptura and I didn't even know a Catholic growing up until I met a hot one when she moved into our town when I was 17. Didn't even know there was a Catholic Church 15 minutes up the road.

I do understand Papal Infallibility. I reject the premise 100%. Doesn't mean the two instances it was officially applied he was wrong.

I spend a lot of time defending the Catholic Faith and Church as 100% valid.

I can do that and still disagree with the RCCs interpretation of the Pope and possible infallibility even if he uses the really important chair;-)

I'm teasing you a bit and honestly this disagreement goes back 1000+ years and it's not getting resolved soon so no point in arguing it here.

---

I'm just curious what you think papal infallibility is/how it acts. You say you understand it, but the way you described it originally was a far cry from what it really is.

---

You tell me. If I'm wrong and you are a Catholic then please explain it to me. I'm genuinely interested. I don't think we will come to an agreement and my conversion but I would like to better understand.

---

I'm sure we won't, but I do appreciate you asking.

Papal infallibility is inherently a defensive role. The pope doesn't claim to have to ability to make up new teaching. He would would say he can't make new teaching. His role is to defend what has been taught, and clarify where this is confusion.

Premise:

1. Christ established a Church that teaches the truth infallibly.
2. The bishop of Rome is the head of this Church
3. Therefore, if the bishop of Rome weighs in on a matter of faith and gives it the full weight of his authority, it is necessarily true. Not because he decided what the truth is unilaterally, but because his role is of one that ratifies what the Church already teaches.

I know you'll disagree with 2, which makes 3 incorrect for you. But I hope 3 shows how the pope's role is only as a defender of orthodoxy, not as the creator of it.

For example: the Marian dogmas. The first thing the pope did was to ask all of the bishops all over to world if these beliefs were held, in order to see if it fit with the universal Church. Over 90% of bishops responded back that it was. The rest never responded. 0 responses in the negative. So the ex cathedra statement of the pope was essentially the same thing as his ratification of an Ecumenical Council, not him taking the credit for said teachings. The only difference between this and a council was choosing to send out letters to save everyone a ton of time and money instead of gathering all the bishops together to talk about it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Can we get this thread back to the Original Topic? This is a really big conversation and one that has differences (obviously) that don't have much to do with this topic.

Didn't mean to bait you. Was trying to only go so far as Church/Tradition and how terms like "Vicar or Christ", Papal Infalibility or the Pope in general is what creates a lot of the distrust in Church and Tradition among Protestants.

I was probably leaning in a bit to get traction with Protestants for the sake of furthering conversation.

---

You're right. My bad. I will defer back to my "on topic" post earlier. Sorry to all for my derail.

I am not an expect in ancient manuscripts. I am not trying to play one on TexAgs. But if we're painting the exclusion of Act 15:34 as some one-off mistake on some partial manuscript, then I think we're being somewhat dishonest.

Here are manuscripts that omit Acts 15:34 (thanks, AI):

• (Papyrus 74, 7th century): Omits the verse entirely. As a relatively early papyrus, it's a strong witness for omission.
• (Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century): Omits the verse. This is one of the oldest complete NT manuscripts and a primary Alexandrian witness.
• A (Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century): Omits the verse. Another key Alexandrian uncial.
• B (Codex Vaticanus, 4th century): Omits the verse. Widely regarded as one of the most reliable early witnesses.
• E (Codex Laudianus, 6th century): Omits the verse. This bilingual (Greek-Latin) manuscript is sometimes debated in variants due to its Western/Byzantine influences, but the apparatus consistently places it among omitters for this passage (no inclusion noted in sources like UBS or detailed variant lists).
• (Codex Athous Laurae, 8th/9th century): Omits the verse. A later uncial but aligned with early omission traditions.
• The Majority Text (Byzantine majority): The bulk of Byzantine manuscripts omit the verse, aligning with the overall Majority Text reading here. However, as noted, a minority of later Byzantine minuscules (e.g., some from the 9th century onward) do include variant forms, but these are secondary additions.

From my very basic understanding, these (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, & Alexandrinus) are some of the heaviest hitters when it comes to early manuscripts.

Regardless, I don't think the omission or addition of this verse impacts the reliability of the scripture or the church.

Well thought out response and observations. TY. I agree that when you add the role of tradition and church it not only adds a deepness to one's faith and connection to the first Christians/apostles, but those two things also act as guardrails to prevent deviation from "the Word" that is Christ (John 1:14).

BTW, Its not the "high, special chair", it is the "keys". But we will have to agree to disagree since that is not the focus of this thread.