Lutheran-Orthodox joint statement on Scripture vs Tradition

[Jezz]

As I have stated elsewhere, I come from a strong Lutheran background and I have recently developed very strong Orthodox leanings. I guess then that it was a natural step that I would start to investigate the relationship between these two churches, which I have been doing recently.

There are at present several Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues in progress. At the global level, there is a dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in addition to several regional dialogues (eg, the Lutheran and Orthodox Churches in Finland, the Lutheran Church in Germany and the Orthodox Church of Russia, etc). I think the advent of the information age and the relative political stability of the world in the last couple of decades has made these dialogues possible for the first time since not long after the Reformation, where there was that famous correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople and the Lutheran reformers (in the mid-late 16th century).

When I first discovered Orthodoxy, the thing that struck me most was how similar they are to Lutherans. I read the correspondence between Jeremias and the Reformers, and came away thinking that the differences were not as great as the two parties had made out. To my delight, when I discovered the contemporary dialogues, I found that many others in our respective churches were of like mind. Reading the joint statements that have been issued so far, I must say that I am extremely hopeful for future reconciliation, perhaps even within my lifetime. I have only read the statements from the global dialogue between LWF and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the results are encouraging - but even more encouraging is the fact that the global dialogue has apparently had the least progress out of all the dialogues. Apparently, some of the regional dialogues have progressed even further.

One of the most significant features of the dialogue that I immediately stumbled on is the joint statement on the roles of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html

4th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission
27 May - 4 June 1987, Crete/ Greece


SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION


1. The divine revelation in the Old and in the New Testament of the saving intervention of God (oikonomia), consummated in the person of Jesus Christ, is communicated to the world through the operation of the Holy Spirit. This saving intervention of God through the Son in the Holy Spirit is the essence of the "euangelion" of salvation.

2. The word of God made known to the prophets is revealed to us through the incarnation, the life and teaching, the passion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ and the sending of his Spirit at Pentecost. By all this Jesus Christ accomplished and secured the unity of the testaments and the continuity of the once and for all offering of his body and blood for our salvation and his abiding presence with us to the end of the ages. Therefore, the "euangelion" of salvation, to which holy scriptures bears witness, is not simply speech from or about God but the hypostatic Word of God incarnate. This "euangelion" of Jesus Christ, which by the operation of the Holy Spirit is communicated to us by the church to the end of the ages, is the holy Tradition.

3. The holy Tradition is the authentic expression of divine revelation in the living experience of the church, the body of the Word incarnate. The church in its sacraments and spiritual life transmits this "euangelion" of our salvation through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostolic faith is not only a matter of proclamation but an incarnate faith (Heb. 11:1,; enhypostatos pistis, Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones 25, PG 90, 336D) in the church.

4. This "euangelion"of salvation is the content of the holy Tradition, preserved, confessed and transmitted in scripture, in the lives of the saints in all ages, and in the conciliar tradition of the church.

5. The Orthodox and the Lutheran churches have the same Bible, comprising the Old and New Testament, but the following ten books of the Old Testament have varying degrees of authority in our churches: Judith, 1 Ezra, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. In the future we will have to discuss the problem of the canon in more detail.

6. The same triune God is revealed in the Old and in fullness in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains God's unconditional promise of salvation, and the New Testament contains its fulfilment in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Both Testaments reveal God's judgment of the sin inside and outside God's people and God's saving grace in Christ. Holy scripture, being the work of the Holy Spirit in holy Tradition, has as criterion for its true understanding Jesus Christ himself in the life and teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

7. The revelation of God, even as contained in scripture, transcends all verbal expressions. It is hidden from all creatures, especially from sinful human beings (palaios anthropos). Its true meaning is revealed only through the Holy Spirit in the living experience of salvation, which is accomplished in the church through the Christian life. This catholic experience of salvation in the church is at the same time the only authentic expression of the true understanding of the word of God.

8. The holy Tradition as ongoing action of the Holy Spirit in the church expresses itself in the church's whole life. The decisions of the ecumenical councils and local synods of the church, the teaching of the holy fathers and liturgical texts and rites are especially important and authoritative expressions of this manifold action of the Holy Spirit. However, not every synod claiming to be orthodox, not every teaching of an ecclesiastical writer, not all rites are expressions of the holy Tradition, if they are not accepted by the whole church. They may be only human traditions, lacking the presence of the Holy Spirit. That is why the problem of the criteria for determination of the presence of the holy Tradition in the traditions of the churches is of great importance and needs further study.

9. Therefore, those church decisions which have been received by the catholic church as true expressions of the intent of the holy scripture can be considered authentic criteria of the church's faith and its confession (cf. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, 2,3; PL 50, 640). The church's doctrinal definitions which confess the holy Trinity and God's saving act in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit are guidelines for defending truth against falsehood. Proclaiming, confessing and living in Christ, the church communicates the mystery of God's revelation. The church's doctrinal statements are rooted in its whole spiritual life and at the same time are shaped by it. As St. Basil affirmed about holy scripture and holy Tradition: "... regarding the true faith, both of these have the same value" (St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, XXVII, 66, PG 32, 188A). In another place St Basil argued for the formula "the glory is common to the Father and to the Son" (he doxa koine Patri kai Hyio) first on the basis of some of the fathers; then he continued: "But it is not sufficient for us that it is a tradition of the fathers. For even they followed the intent (boulema) of the scriptures because they have used as principles the testimonies of the scriptures as mentioned shortly before (St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, VII,16; PG 32,96).

10. The function of holy scriptures is to serve the authenticity of the church's living experience in safeguarding the holy Tradition from all attempts to falsify the true faith (cf. Heb. 4:12, etc.), not to undermine the authority of the church, the body of Christ.

11. Regarding the relation of scripture and Tradition, for centuries there seemed to have been a deep difference between Orthodox and Lutheran teaching. Orthodox hear with satisfaction the affirmation of the Lutheran theologians that the formula "sola scriptura" was always intended to point to God's revelation, God's saving act through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to the holy Tradition of the church, as expressed in this paper, against human traditions that darken the authentic teaching in the church.

12. Pointing to scripture is pointing to the "euangelion" of salvation, to Christ and therefore to the holy Tradition which is the life of the church, to act as criterion of its authenticity and so to stress the church's unity and catholicity for the joyful common praise of the triune God.

© source where applicable

Especially encouraging is point 11.

There are subsequent joint statements expressing agreement on the canon of Scripture and in the authority of all 7 Ecumenical Councils - which are two very big steps. Many Protestant denominations balk at the idea of according the "apocrypha" any sort of authority, and many are iconoclastic (and hence wouldn't accept the 7th Council).

I think this is all very encouraging stuff. I hope that the respective members of these churches will pray for the reunion of these two churches at some point in the future. As someone torn with a foot in both camps at the moment, I would find that very satisfying.

[Maxentius]

Especially encouraging is point 11.

Yes, point 11 is very encouraging. As you know, Lutherans allow quite a bit of lattitude as far as practice, so long as we do not over turn Scripture or bind conciences to doctrines which are not too clear.

There are subsequent joint statements expressing agreement on the canon of Scripture and in the authority of all 7 Ecumenical Councils - which are two very big steps. Many Protestant denominations balk at the idea of according the "apocrypha" any sort of authority, and many are iconoclastic (and hence wouldn't accept the 7th Council).

Strictly speaking, Lutherans do not have a canon, or list of official books. Neither did the RCC until Trent. Interesting.

[elysian]

Interesting view on the Apocrypha. In my church we don't normally study the Apocrypha, but our senior Pastor occasionally uses passages from Apocryphal books. He explained that the Apocryphal books were considered to be of lesser importance than the 66 books included in the Protestant Bible but that it can still be beneficial to study them. He also reminded us that if Luther would have had his way he would have done away with (or reduced them to apocryphal status as well) both the books of James and Revelation too. I think we Lutherans still have a hard time with both of those books: James is in our face telling us that discipleship has a cost, if we're going to talk the talk we need to walk the walk (not to be confused with works-righteousness, which is probably why Luther had a hard time with James, given his times) and the visions John of Patmos shares with us in Revelation are downright scary to many, confusing to most.

In the past I used to view the Apocrypha much in the same light as writings that are likely not trustworthy and were intentionally excluded from the canon such as "The Gospel of Thomas." It could be interesting reading...but is it edifying? Does it include concepts contrary to the rest of Scripture? Does it point us to Christ? I don't know how much emphasis we should place upon the Apocrypha but parts of it are interesting reading.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm a very ecumenically-minded Christian myself, and personally, I love to see dialogues like this taking place, with both sides open to the possibility of reconciliation. If reconciliation can be acheived, fantastic! If not, I pray that the two sides can still live in love and fellowship with one another, with mutual respect to the others.

And speaking of ecumenicism in general, I love it- Christians who are united in the essentials of the faith ought to have no trouble fellowshipping with Christians who may differ from them on the peripheral issues.

[Maxentius]

In the past I used to view the Apocrypha much in the same light as writings that are likely not trustworthy and were intentionally excluded from the canon such as "The Gospel of Thomas." It could be interesting reading...but is it edifying? Does it include concepts contrary to the rest of Scripture? Does it point us to Christ? I don't know how much emphasis we should place upon the Apocrypha but parts of it are interesting reading.

I have read the Apocrypha, and in my estimation they do not have the same quality or authority as the Protestant Canon.

But they are useful! Why not read them?

I think the Apocrypha would be a difficult difference to overcome though. If I am not mistaken, there is an EO council which states that these books are part of the canon.

But with God all things are possible.

[Amazing Rando]

I have read the Apocrypha, and in my estimation they do not have the same quality or authority as the Protestant Canon.

But they are useful! Why not read them?

I think the Apocrypha would be a difficult difference to overcome though. If I am not mistaken, there is an EO council which states that these books are part of the canon.

But with God all things are possible.

The EO views all the ecumenical councils as Holy Tradition, am I right?

If so, it would seem to me to suggest that should the Church decide one day that one of the decisions made by a council was mistaken in light of Scripture, they couldn't really amend or negate it, could they?

[spl_cadet]

Hate to rain on your parade, but the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered irrelevant by most Orthodox who aren't exactly fond of his ecumenical gestures.

[Maxentius]

The EO views all the ecumenical councils as Holy Tradition, am I right?

If so, it would seem to me to suggest that should the Church decide one day that one of the decisions made by a council was mistaken in light of Scripture, they couldn't really amend or negate it, could they?

In my opinion, and I am not EO, I do not think they could. In the same vein the Pope can not say the assumption of Mary is false, because that it dogmatically true for the RCC. Also, Lutherans cannot abandon the Augsberg Confession or the Book of Concord. All three examples have in common that the symbols of faith are dogmatically true and so they cannot be changed.

The Reformed have more lattitude.

But, like I said, all things are possible with God.

Regarding the Canon, since Lutherans do not have an official list, we have some lattitude..

[Jezz]

Hate to rain on your parade, but the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered irrelevant by most Orthodox who aren't exactly fond of his ecumenical gestures.

I did point out that there are other dialogues in progress. In particular, there is dialogue between the Finnish Lutherans and the Russian Orthodox, and likewise between the German Lutherans and the Russian Orthodox. The Russian Patriarchate is typically the most conservative and anti-Ecumenical of all Orthodox Patriarchates, isn't it?

Besides which, the statement speaks for itself - Lutherans believe in Holy Tradition, and interpret the phrase "sola scriptura" as meaning that Scripture is the pointer to that Tradition. How does this differ in any way from the Orthodox view of their relationship, or (for that matter) the Roman Catholic view?

[Jezz]

I have read the Apocrypha, and in my estimation they do not have the same quality or authority as the Protestant Canon.

But they are useful! Why not read them?

I think the Apocrypha would be a difficult difference to overcome though. If I am not mistaken, there is an EO council which states that these books are part of the canon.

But with God all things are possible.

The EO views all the ecumenical councils as Holy Tradition, am I right?

If so, it would seem to me to suggest that should the Church decide one day that one of the decisions made by a council was mistaken in light of Scripture, they couldn't really amend or negate it, could they?

This is a little bit mixed up, Rando.

The EO regards lots of things as sources of Holy Tradition, but just because it is considered a source of Tradition, this does not automatically make it an infallible source. There is not much that the EO considers an infallible source of Holy Tradition. In their view, the only real infallible source is the Church itself - which is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)

Having said that, there are definitely different sources of Tradition that are accorded differing levels of authority - with Scripture followed by the Ecumenical Councils being the most important (I suspect that they would be called "infallible"). Individual Church Fathers and various local councils are also sources of tradition, but are considered less important and potentially fallible.

And this leads me to discuss the second slightly misleading thing about your post - it was in response to Max's post, which discussed the fact that there was an Orthodox council that set the canon of Scripture. However, it is important to note that not all councils are reckoned as Ecumenical (the council Max was referring to was not Ecumenical). The decisions of local councils can be (and many times throughout history, have been) reversed by a later council. I'm not sure if the dogmatic assertions of an Ecumenical Council can be reversed - at the very least, it would take an Ecumenical Council to reverse them (incidentally, this is one of the best arguments for removing the filioque from the Nicene Creed - even if it is theologically sound, its addition was never sanctioned by an Ecumenical Council).

[Jezz]

I have read the Apocrypha, and in my estimation they do not have the same quality or authority as the Protestant Canon.

But they are useful! Why not read them?

I agree. They form a useful background to the NT times, and fill in what would otherwise be a gap in Jewish history and theology from the time of Malachi through to the time of Jesus.

I think the Apocrypha would be a difficult difference to overcome though. If I am not mistaken, there is an EO council which states that these books are part of the canon.

But with God all things are possible.

According to Kallistos Ware, who is a prominent contemporary Orthodox theologian:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.

© source where applicable

Note well the last sentence: it is the opinion of modern Orthodox scholars that the deutero-canonicals are of less authority than the rest. This is essentially the belief of the Lutheran Church. And what's more, it's a belief that is not without precedent in the history of the Church, with two prominent theologians of the 4th century adhering to the same position. So I don't think the issue of the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals is really that big a deal.

But aside from that, I actually don't think the precise form of the canon of Scripture really matters all that much anyway. What matters is whether or not two churches share the same faith. For example, the NT of the churches of the Syriac tradition only has 22 books - omitting 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. And yet, most of them are in communion with other churches of either the Greek or Latin traditions that accept the longer canon of 27 books.

I mean, let's face it - how would our faith change if those 5 books were missing? As Lutherans, for example, how many of the statements in the Augsburg Confessions or in the Book of Concord rely on statements from these books? I suspect that most people wouldn't even notice if they happened to buy a Bible that had 2 & 3 John or Jude missing. And as for Revelation - I can't help but wonder if our church wouldn't be better off if it had never found its way into the canon. It produces so much end-times speculation in modern-day Protestantism that it is unhealthy, and it so often seems to play a prominent role in the theology of sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses... we'd have none of these problems today if Revelation hadn't made its way into the canon. Not that I advocate taking it out, just that I can see the case for it.

And also, whatever canon we end up with, there will always be some books in it that attract more attention than others. All books in the canon will never be "equal". That is why in liturgical services we sit for the Old Testament and Epistle readings, and stand for the Gospel reading - because the Gospels are more important.

[Maxentius]

Note well the last sentence: it is the opinion of modern Orthodox scholars that the deutero-canonicals are of less authority than the rest. This is essentially the belief of the Lutheran Church. And what's more, it's a belief that is not without precedent in the history of the Church, with two prominent theologians of the 4th century adhering to the same position. So I don't think the issue of the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals is really that big a deal.

This is interesting. I was not aware that different parts of Orthodox Tradition have different levels of authority. That makes things a bit more complicated but it also leaves more room for mutual understanding.

But aside from that, I actually don't think the precise form of the canon of Scripture really matters all that much anyway. What matters is whether or not two churches share the same faith. For example, the NT of the churches of the Syriac tradition only has 22 books - omitting 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. And yet, most of them are in communion with other churches of either the Greek or Latin traditions that accept the longer canon of 27 books.

OK, I can agree with this. But if we do not share the same canon we do not share the same authority. If one person does not accept the authority of the other the argument will fail to persuade; like when the RCC argue for pirgatory from one of the Maccabees books. I do not accept that as authoritative so I do not find the argument to be very strong.

And as for Revelation - I can't help but wonder if our church wouldn't be better off if it had never found its way into the canon. It produces so much end-times speculation in modern-day Protestantism that it is unhealthy, and it so often seems to play a prominent role in the theology of sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses... we'd have none of these problems today if Revelation hadn't made its way into the canon. Not that I advocate taking it out, just that I can see the case for it.

That was Luther's position too. Interestingly, my pastor does not encourage people to read Revelation for those very resasons. It tends to raise far more questions than it answers. I seem to remember that Revelation was allowed into the canon so long as doctrines were not drawn from it alone. I may be wrong.

And also, whatever canon we end up with, there will always be some books in it that attract more attention than others.

Yes, we all have our own canon so to speak.

[elysian]

IMO the most useful/edifying part of Revelation is the letters to the seven churches. We can see examples today of the same flaws/merits in modern churches.

Admittedly the emphasis upon eschatology in some churches is scary and speculative but even then they're taking inferences from prophetic books such as Revelation and Daniel - reading into them a lot more than what is actually written. I believe the primary misuse of such eschatological teachings is to evangelize (?) with such scare tactics as "Where Will You Be In the Rapture?" To me it sounds like "Come to Jesus now or you will be left behind to burn in hell." Yes I believe hell is a real place and a real punishment for those who reject Christ, but the emphasis should be on His grace, His mercy and His love. Evangelization is more of reflecting Christ and His love, letting the Holy Spirit use us as His emissaries to build disciples for Christ. Yet in churches who are heavily focused upon eschatology evangelization turns into a numbers game: "How many sinners can we get to pray this prayer so they won't burn in hell? How many souls can we save?" There is a distinct difference between "how many souls can we save" and "how can we better grow disciples for Christ?"- for here and now as well as hereafter.

I think the fascinating part of Revelation is the imagery it evokes but even so it is to be interpreted and seen in light of the totality of Scripture. IMO Jesus told us what we need to know about the End of Days in Matthew 24.

[themuzicman]

As St. Basil affirmed about holy scripture and holy Tradition: "... regarding the true faith, both of these have the same value"

I could argue that EO's hold to an open canon (albiet unadmittedly) from this piece. Basically what you're saying is that the Holy Spirit continues to communicate truth on par with (having the same value as) the authority of scripture. If there is inspired, inerrant, authoratative truth still coming from the Holy Spirit through the church, then the canon cannot be closed.

Michael

[Maxentius]

I think the fascinating part of Revelation is the imagery it evokes but even so it is to be interpreted and seen in light of the totality of Scripture. IMO Jesus told us what we need to know about the End of Days in Matthew 24.

I agree with this. Revelation does use some really cool, or even frightening, imagery. It is just that sometimes I wish I did not have to hear all the theories about the end times from a book that was meant to be obscure.

Regarding the end times, here is a preety good Luther annecdote that captures my attitude toward the eschathon:

Luther liked to garden and liked to raise apple trees. One of his students asked him "What would you do if you knew that Christ would return tomorrow?"

Luther answered "I would plant an apple tree."

The idea is that Christ will return when he returns, we should go about doing our various callings so when he returns he finds us as faithful servants.