In response to Julie's links:

The writer makes some good points and, to be honest, my brief summary of "Scripture" was incomplete. There is much more that could be said. My primary purpose in the reply to my friend was to point out that what we call the Bible is indeed much more trustworthy a source of inspired writings than any other writing of that time. I personally believe that it continues to be so.

Fr Stephen makes very good points on the issue and his is very much my understanding of the Orthodox/Roman view of scripture. I do have some issues with the O/R view but I don’t claim to have any superior understanding and welcome discussion on the subject.

I lean heavily toward the Anglican tradition when it comes to the authority of scripture and, to a lesser extent, my personal studies and what seems logical to my understanding. Anglican tradition claims that the Church rests on a 3-legged stool, scripture, tradition and reason. Actually it’s a rather lopsided stool in that the leg of scripture is much longer than the other two. In other words, in fully recognizing the importance of Church tradition and reason, Holy Scripture is preeminent. I and many Anglicans would also add a 4^th leg, the Holy Spirit, for just as faith without works is dead, word without Spirit is tenured theology.

Fr Stephens seems to think that “Protestants” have made an idol out of the Bible. Perhaps some have. Most that I have known don’t know enough scripture to make the distinction (and even more O/Rs). For most “Protestants” the Bible is no more an idol than a statue of the Virgin Mary is to O/Rs. He also seems to think that “Protestants” view the Bible in the same way Muslims view the Quran. If they did they would get upset when someone burns or defaces a Bible the same way Muslims do when someone defaces a copy of the Quran. They don’t.

  

In the first essay Fr Stephen talks about the authority of scripture and how scripture was given by the Church and how the Church is preeminent in interpreting scripture.  My first issue is this, did the Church determine what was/is holy writ or did it recognize what is holy writ? The O/R view is the former, the Reform view, which I agree with on this point, is the latter. I respect the O/R view and I recognize that there is more to this view than many Protestants recognize. But, if the Church is equal to or above the Scripture then what is the Church? Is it strictly the priesthood or is it the entire body of Christ. For the Church to be the sole interpreter of scripture would seem to mean, the learned, ordained, apostolic members of the Church. I respect the need for traditional understanding and experience and I think we can all agree that we don’t want a novice interpreting scripture for us, even if there are exceptions but on the down side, without input by the whole body (the Church) the (c)urch is apt to develop interpretations, traditions and theologies that are self-serving which is the situation that provoked Luther’s 99 theses and the reformation movement.

In the second essay Fr Stephen makes a very good point about how the Quran is a false Bible. I whole heartedly agree. Islam is a cult as is Mormonism, and Rastafarianism and many others that twist and rewrite Scripture for their own benefit.

It is important to understand what the Bible is and isn’t. If you study the Bible as a scientist you will find many scientific errors. That is because, although there are many scientifically accurate entries, it is not a science book. If you study the Bible as a historian you will find many errors. That is because, although there are many historically accurate entries, it is not a book of history. What the Bible is is a book of Truth. I would personally say that it is not the only book that contains Truth but it is the most comprehensive, reliable and trustworthy book of Truth that exists and as such I consider it a gift from the living God to mankind.

He also talks about how Christianity is not a submitting to God. I understand what he is saying. It is not a forced submission. Conversion at the point of a sword or gun is not, usually, a true conversion, it is a conquest. I also appreciate what he’s saying about unity with God. Understanding our unity with our Creator leads us on paths of communion and fellowship that many saints have traveled before us. But, Christianity is a submission. It is a submission in the sense of a bride that submits herself to her husband, not legalistically or in fear but because he has won her. We do not submit to Christ because he has conquered our flesh but because He has conquered our heart. We do so willingly. Not out of fear.

I do passionately disagree with Fr Stephen when he attempts to attach Protestantism to Islam. It appears to me that he is taking rather liberal leaps of logic to encourage the Orthodox faithful to stay in the corral while at the same time apply guilt by association to the schismatics and heretical Protestants.  

To put it in modern political terms, one view believes that power and authority should be centralized and the other view is that individuals are generally intelligent enough to make good decisions when they are give the truth unfiltered.

It is not my intention to offend anyone with my views and, hopefully I have not. If I have I blame it on Julie who provoked me to expound ;-). My thoughts are not settled on the subject so please feel free to expound, expand, rebuke or reply.