Okay, so the Didache's not technically one of the Fathers. But I've decided to cover it in this series anyway for a few reasons:
- It's the earliest Orthodox Christian writing we have that is not contained in the New Testament. It was written around AD 60, which means it actually predates much, if not most, of the writings contained in the New Testament.
- Because it predates so much of the New Testament, what we have here is a writing produced by a community by whom Sola Scriptura was not only not believed in, but for whom Sola Scriptura would have been impossible! (no Scriptura = no Sola Scriptura)
- Also because of its very early date, the Didache is a powerful witness to the early Church -- the earliest Church in fact; the Church of the Apostolic Age -- and is a powerful piece of evidence that the Faith of the Orthodox Church today is the exact same as that of Christians of those times.
The Didache (Greek, meaning "teaching") is a church order manual. Some of the early Fathers considered it Scriptural, but it was eventually excluded from the New Testament largely because it was unnecessary to include a manual of church order in Sacred Writ.
So let's look at the Faith as it was believed and lived by the early Christians who lived even before Scripture, and compare it on a few points with the Faith of the Orthodox Church today.
On Baptism:
"But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before." - Didache, 7:1-7The early Christian practices of Baptism via triple immersion and fasting before Baptism are still preserved in the Orthodox Church today.
On fasting:
"And let not your fastings be with the hypocrites [Jews], for they fast on the second [Monday] and the fifth [Thursday] day of the week; but do ye keep your fast on the fourth [Wednesday] and on the preparation [the sixth -- Friday] day." - Didache, 8:1-2The early Christian practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays is still preserved in the Orthodox Church today.
On the Eucharist:
"But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said:Give not that which is holy to the dogs." - Didache, 9:10-12The early Christian practice of closed Communion (that is, Communion only for Baptized members of the Church) is still preserved in the Orthodox Church today.
As you can see, the Didache preserves for us a record of how the earliest Christians lived, Christians who lived even before the writings of the New Testament were put to pen and paper. Sola Scriptura would have been completely impossible for them -- and yet they were a thriving Christian community and one whose Faith is still preserved and observed in the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church today, even in small details like triple immersion Baptism and fasting on Fridays. The community which produced the Didache was Apostolic in the most literal sense of the word and this document is a demonstration of the Apostolic nature of the Orthodox Church's Holy Traditions -- Traditions which may not be explicitly laid out in Scripture, in some cases, but which in many instances pre-date Scripture!
If you'd like to read the Didache for yourself and make your own comparisons with the various Christian groups today, you can check it out here.
Running tally:
| Father | Not Sola Scriptura | Sola Scriptura |
|---|---|---|
| Didache |  |
It was written around 100 AD, take or leave 25 yrs.
ReplyDeleteDepends on whose dating you choose to accept. Scholars range from about 50-120, as far as I've seen. I think an earlier date is the more likely, though, for a number of reasons. A couple off the top of my head: 1. It still reflects a largely Jewish Christianity (the "two ways" section, for instance); 2. it references a Christianity where traveling prophets were still very common; 3. its lack of quotes from NT writings. Jean-Paul Audet laid out quite a few reasons for an earlier date (he places it 50-70).
ReplyDeleteLater dates for the Didache very often hinge on two incorrect assumptions: 1. that it relied on Barnabas or other writings for its "two ways" section -- this has largely been thrown out the window, as it's been realized that "two ways" was a common aspect of Jewish-Christianity; 2. an atheist-biased view of development of Christology and theology.
ECW has an excellent page with some great articles by scholars on the Didache:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
"Theology" should be "ecclesiology." My mistake. It should be noted, also, that this same atheistic assumption about Church hierarchy has also forced (or allowed, depending on your perspective) some scholars to place the pastoral epistles of St. Paul around 120 -- meaning almost 60 years after Paul was dead, meaning he couldn't have written them -- and calling into question how pseudographic forgeries could possibly be inspired writings. It's dangerous ground -- that's why we have to look deeply at the reasons that various scholars attribute their various dates -- and make sure we and they being consistent.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the subject of Baptism, were you baptized upon entering the Orthodox faith, or did your bishop accept the baptism you received as a Protestant?
There seems to be a different understanding of whether or not to accept Protestant baptism depending upon whom one speaks to. As a catechumen, I would prefer to be baptised again because I wasn't baptised in the manner that Orthodox baptize. Further, it was a a church that professed believer's baptism.
Finally, I realize the decision isn't up to me. However, with many of the questionable practices within Protestantism, why not erase any question of whether or not such a serious sacrament as Baptism is done rightly? Rebaptizing the catechumen in most cases would eliminate any doubt.
Darlene,
ReplyDeleteMy son and I, having both been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, were not re-baptized. My wife, who had been baptized as a Pentecostal was re-baptized though, because Pentecostal baptisms are believers' baptisms, done "in the name of Jesus" only (not Trinitarian), and, of course, lacking in any sacramental understanding.
I think that a distinction based on individual needs has pretty much always existed in the Church. At the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, for instance, canon 8 states that those returning to the Church from Novatianism are not to be re-baptized and that even their ordinations are accept pretty much wholesale (although their Bishops have to defer to Orthodox Bishops if one should already exist in a given city).
On the other hand, canon 19 specifies that those coming to the Church from the heresy of Paul of Samosata are to be re-baptized and, in the case of clergy, re-baptized, examined, and re-ordained by an Orthodox Bishop.
The reason for the relative leniency given to the Novatianists and the harder line taken with the Paulines comes down to each individual sect's understanding of the Trinity, Christ, and the Sacramental nature of Baptism. The Novatianists had broken with the Church but still, largely, maintained Orthodoxy of belief and practice on these matters. The Paulines, on the other hand, disbelieved in the Trinity, disbelieved in the inherent Divinity of Christ (instead believing that it had been given by the Father at his Baptism, anticipating the heresy of Adoptionism), and didn't believe in the Sacramental nature of Baptism. I think that this standard of the Fathers is the standard we should carefully and prayerfully apply today.
In your case, I'd suggest that you express your wishes to your Priest to be re-baptized and submit yourself to his decision.
It's important to remember that God, although he works through the sacraments, is not limited by them. The Holy Spirit can make even the most heterodox of Baptisms worthy in the eyes of God. I agree with you, though, that, as a general rule, re-baptism is probably the best thing in most cases.
because Pentecostal baptisms are believers' baptisms, done "in the name of Jesus" only (not Trinitarian)
ReplyDeleteThat's ONENESS Pentecostals. Very big difference between them (as they Unitarian, salvation by faith+works heretics), and regular Pentecostals. I urge you to add that to your common vocabulary forthwith, in all seriousness.
Oops.
ReplyDeleteas they *are* Unitarian
Rho:
ReplyDeleteI'll take your word for it. I never did claim to be an expert on the ins and outs of each individual Protestant organization. There are about 30,000 of them now, you know; makes it a little hard to keep track.
Darlene,
ReplyDeleteMost mainstream Orthodox in the west will only chrismate western christians who were Baptized in the Triniterian formula. As far as I know, and I could be wrong about this, but as far as I know, only ROCOR, and the Other Old Calenderists (like the greek old Calenderists) rebaptize all converts.
An old calenderist helped me convert to EO 2 years ago. She is still on my top 32 friend list on Myspace.
ICXC NIKA
1) Quite a few denominations in your own rule of faith as well. And religions.
ReplyDelete2) You do realise that the same resource that provided the ridiculous 30K denominations figure also counted several hundred for Orthodoxy, don't you? My suggestion is that you file this "argument" in the "oops, that was stupid" file. No shame in that - I've been there numerous times.
3) Um, this was your wife, no? Seems to me you might want to be a little more precise about the religious origins of your own wife. But that's just me.
1) Quite a few denominations in your own rule of faith as well. And religions.
ReplyDeleteNo, just one -- Orthodoxy.
2) You do realise that the same resource that provided the ridiculous 30K denominations figure also counted several hundred for Orthodoxy, don't you?
I readily admit that I've never seen the study for myself -- only the frequently-quoted figure. That said, I could probably name at least a hundred different Protestant organizations off the top of my head. So the point still stands.
3) Um, this was your wife, no? Seems to me you might want to be a little more precise about the religious origins of your own wife. But that's just me.
As I said, I don't know the differences between the various Pentecostal organizations -- I doubt my wife does either, as she left those groups a very long time ago. I'll try to be more careful with my wording next time.
1) Did you miss what I said? I said RULE OF FAITH. Scripture + tradition + infallible interpreter.
ReplyDeleteRCC, OOC, JWs, LDS...
2) So why didn't you say "a few hundred"? Why "30K"?
Hint: Just admit you were wrong and move on. It's not a crippling blow.
3) Fair enough.
I said RULE OF FAITH. Scripture + tradition + infallible interpreter.
ReplyDeleteThat's not our "rule of Faith." Scripture is a part of Tradition, not a separate and equal entity as in RCCism, and Tradition is simply the Faith of the Church ("infallible interpreter"). So, our rule of Faith is the teaching of the Apostles as preserved and observed in the Church founded by said Apostles. Compare this to the "rule of Faith" of Protestants: bible + me.
RCC, OOC, JWs, LDS...
I'm talking about historical connections and movements -- not some vague similiarities of "rules of faith." The Protestant "bible + me" "rule of faith" created a massive break-up of Western Christian organizations over every possible matter of theology and practice, a break-up which continues to further fracture Western Christendom even today. The JWs and LDS both arise from this movement, and so are both Protestant -- they're yours, not mine.
Even so, you're proving my point here. The Orthodox way of maintaining the Faith apparently works quite well, as the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox have been separated from the Chalcedonian Orthodox for about 1500 years now and yet they differ very little (and then only in insignificant matters) in belief and practice.
The RCC, like the JWs and LDS, is your problem again: a departure from the Faith of the Church causes serious consequences. The RCCs departed from the Faith of the Church of the Apostles, and produced the extreme movement of Protestantism, which further departed from said Faith, which, in turn, produced the even more extreme JWs, LDS, and other pseudo-Christian cults, even further departing from said Faith.
A wise man once said: if you take one step in the wrong direction, the devil will take ten more for you.
Rho,
ReplyDeleteWhy so snarky? Why the rough edge always accompanied in your comments? You need not compromise your beliefs by responding with kindness. Cockiness gets no where fast.
"A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
Again, I encourage you to look within. Examine yourself as to whether the manner in which you respond is one that will draw people to Christ.
I recall a time when I used to slay people with what I believed to be the truth of the gospel. It was all about the letter of the law, dotting my i's and t's and making sure everyone I witnessed to submitted to dotting their i's and t's just the way I and those in my faith tradition did. I did it with gusto and zealously.
I misunderstood grace, love, the heart of the gospel. I cared only about defending my religious convictions. Those not towing the line of my faith tradition were rebuked and admonished. But the love of Christ, His compassion for sinners, was not working through me.
I encourage you to pray about what I've said to you here and on your blog. And I'm aware of my own failings even in saying what I have said to you. Nonetheless, my approach toward others in presenting Christ and Him crucified has changed drastically since the Holy Spirit has begun working on a heart change within me.
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone."
"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity."
Christ be with you.
Where was the snark in my last comment?
ReplyDeleteBesides, I find obvious strawmen like "Bible + me" pretty rude, myself. Is your correction reserved for schismatics, or do EO brethren get looked at too?
ReplyDelete1. Fair enough.
ReplyDelete2. No.
3. You forgot pastors, teachers, the church, the Holy Spirit, the numerous commands to be part of a local church and to submit to its elders. All sorts of things.
Rho:
ReplyDelete1. Darlene has corrected me several times; and I appreciate her for every time she does it. I lose focus sometimes (okay, a lot), and I'm deeply grateful for her, as she so often calls me back to my senses.
2. Scripture + tradition + infallible interpreter -- Do you really think this statement of yours is not a straw-man?
3. Comparing us to JWs and LDS? Not rude?
4. Please explain how my "Bible + me" is a straw-man. I really, honestly don't think it is.
Hmm, that was weird - you must've redone the comment. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteSwitch #3 to #4.
And the actual #3 about LDS and JWs, no, it's not rude at all, not in the way I mean it. You share the same rule of faith. Geez man, be proud of your rule of faith! I am!
3. You forgot pastors, teachers, the church, the Holy Spirit, the numerous commands to be part of a local church and to submit to its elders. All sorts of things.
ReplyDeleteDo you really submit yourself and your personal interpretations of Scripture to these people?
Why have you chosen to be a Baptist -- is it because you believe the Baptist organization to be the True Church or true expression of Christianity, or because that organization simply happened to have ideas most similar to your own amongst all Protestant organizations?
If the pastor, elders, and teachers at your local church decided to being teaching the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, would you leave for another local church or so change your personal interpretations?
If your local church's umbrella organization decided that Christus victor was the proper interpretation of the atonement, rather than penal substitution, would you leave for another denomination? Or submit yourself to the authority of your organization?
You know, this brings up sthg I forgot to mention, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe Scr means something by itself whether I believe that thing or not, just like you think Athanasius has a meaning, independent of what I or you or anyone else think(s) it means. In short, words mean things.
Which means that the Scripture is in itself a standard to which a man can submit himself, and responsibility before God is possible (indeed, commanded by God) w.r.t. the interp that man takes of the Scripture.
At any rate, yes, I am also subject to what you mentioned, to a lesser extent than the Scr. Problem is, if the church were to teach heresy like transubstantiation, I'd have to insist they repent, or I'd leave the church.
The Scr means something by itself whether I believe that thing or not, just like you think Athanasius has a meaning, independent of what I or you or anyone else think(s) it means.
ReplyDeleteWhich, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation?
I'd say the more innovative we get in our interpretations, the farther we are from what it really means. In other words, if you ever think you've discovered something new in Scripture -- you've become a heretic. That's exactly why the Fathers are important, especially the Apostolic Fathers (that is, those who knew Apostles or knew others who knew Apostles), as they are, logically speaking, those who would have had the best chance of getting it all right, having been taught by the very individuals who wrote the New Testament.
That's my problem with Protestantism in a nutshell right there -- in order to be a Protestant, you've got to assume that the Apostolic Fathers either completely misunderstood what the Apostles taught them (and were remarkable similar to each other in their misunderstandings of the Apostles) OR that they all conspired together to lie and distort the Gospel. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and all of the other so-called "Reconstructionist"/"Restorationist" groups are natural outgrowths of Protestantism; with their allegations of a "Great Apostasy" they have taken Protestantism to its logical conclusion. The least I can say for the "Restorationists" is that they are truthful -- they disagree with the early Christians, and they know and admit it; that's having much more integrity than, say, William Webster and James White, who try to twist the Fathers to make them sound as if they were Protestants, when all one has to do is read the writings and look at the historical evidence of their lives for yourself and you'll see they weren't.
Similarly, the Protestant idea of an invisible "Church of all true believers" is simply un-Scriptural and nowhere to be found amongst early Christians or, for that matter, Christians until Protestants -- because it was the Protestant massive break-up of Western Christendom that made such an idea necessary. The way that Christians understood the Church for their first 1500 years was clear enough -- there is the Church (founded by Christ, taught by the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, and uniquely preserving the True Faith) and there are not-churches; that is, everybody not in the Church -- Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc. It's a simple fact of history -- and it's one that Protestants have to deal with.
Problem is, if the church were to teach heresy like transubstantiation,
ReplyDeleteI think you're confusing "Real Presence" with "transubstantiation." The former is the belief taught by every single one of the Fathers without exception concerning the Eucharist. The latter is a late-Middle Ages Roman Catholic idea which resulted from typically-Western over-analyzation of how the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is achieved.
I'd have to insist they repent, or I'd leave the church.
Which is exactly why I asked these questions. This statement of yours is essentially a tacit admission that my charge that the Protestant "rule of faith" is "Bible + me" is correct. You're not really submitting yourself to your church, elders, pastor, teachers, etc.; you're following your own interpretations of the text, and, in the end, that's it.
You said that the words of Scripture have a meaning all their own apart from what you or I think -- I agree; but it must be awful hard to get at that meaning, considering the proliferation (whether hundreds or thousands doesn't matter -- it's a lot, more than ever before in Christian history) of Protestant organizations with significantly differing beliefs on every possible matter of disagreement.
And, so, in the end, we have to find ourselves an interpreter -- Scripture itself says so. Who's more likely to be able to tell us what a book really means: the authors' friends or a guy who lived over a thousand years after the authors and in a place thousands of miles from where the authors lived, and who had completely different cultural and linguistic influences? To me, the answer it obvious. I don't know what else to tell you.
That's exactly why the Fathers are important
ReplyDeleteWhich, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the Father?
Which, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the FatherS?
There's no escaping that question. It's both more fundamental and less problematic than you give it credit for.
I'd say the more innovative we get in our interpretations, the farther we are from what it really means
But more innovative FROM WHAT STANDARD?
YOU'RE the guy who's preferring later writings to the original Christian writings - the NT. Me, I stick with the ancient-est stuff out there, and conform my doctrine to what it says. EOC et al prefer the innovation.
in order to be a Protestant, you've got to assume that the Apostolic Fathers either completely misunderstood what the Apostles taught them
Now all of a sudden innovation, in which the CFs got away from the Scr, is a GOOD thing. See, I don't need to mess with all that. If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it. And it can easily be the INDIVIDUAL's fault for misunderstanding a given text, especially an infallible (or almost infallible, if we're talking about you) one.
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, and all of the other so-called "Reconstructionist"/"Restorationist" groups are natural outgrowths of Protestantism
JWs and LDS share a rule of faith with YOU, not me.
And it's hardly the Scr's fault that ppl misinterp it or neglect it or ignore it. Any more than it's the CFs fault that I don't "listen" to them.
I think you're confusing "Real Presence" with "transubstantiation." The former is the belief taught by every single one of the Fathers without exception concerning the Eucharist.
You're probably right, and I'm trying to quit. ;-)
I don't suppose you could point me to something that addresses EOC's view of the Eucharist, could you?
This statement of yours is essentially a tacit admission that my charge that the Protestant "rule of faith" is "Bible + me" is correct.
Only if you agree that your rule of faith is "Vincent's aphorism + me." the problem of individual interpretation is not limited to Protestantism.
I agree; but it must be awful hard to get at that meaning, considering the proliferation (whether hundreds or thousands doesn't matter -- it's a lot, more than ever before in Christian history) of Protestant organizations with significantly differing beliefs on every possible matter of disagreement.
Listen to yourself, switch "Scripture" in there with "writings of Christian tradition", and then try to see it from the other angle. And then ask yourself why it's OK for you to charge God with garbling.
And, so, in the end, we have to find ourselves an interpreter -- Scripture itself says so.
And back around goes the circle. I thought you couldn't know what the Scr says without an interper.
Peace,
Rhology
Which, of course, leads us to the question: how do we know we have the right interpretation of the FatherS?
ReplyDeleteOne of the great things about the Fathers is that there were so many of them, who said the same thing in different ways.
But more innovative FROM WHAT STANDARD?
From the standard of history, to begin with. If you're the first person in 2000 years to look at Scripture and see a certain thing -- there's probably a reason.
YOU'RE the guy who's preferring later writings to the original Christian writings - the NT. Me, I stick with the ancient-est stuff out there
Not that it's an important point, but some of the writings of the Fathers pre-date some of the writings in the New Testament.
Now all of a sudden innovation, in which the CFs got away from the Scr, is a GOOD thing.
So, are you admitting to holding what I charged that Protestants must hold? Did the Apostolic Fathers all misunderstand the Apostles' message and agree with each other in those ways in which they misunderstood it OR Did the Apostolic Fathers all conspire together to alter the message of the Apostles? By calling the Faith expressed in their writing "innovation" you are charging them with one of these things; I'd like to know which it is -- it would at least help me to understand your position.
If the Scr was clear enough for the CFs to properly understand it, then it's clear enough for someone today to properly understand it.
It definitely is -- but only within the context of the Church which produced and preserved it; as the Fathers, who themselves are the ones that put the NT as you and I know it together, made very clear.
I think it's also important to point out that one of the criteria, in fact probably the most important and most-used criteria, used by the Fathers in determining whether or not something was Scriptural is that it agreed with the Faith of the Church, especially as expressed in the Church's liturgical worship -- this means that the Faith of the Church comes first, then Scripture (logically and historically), and that the Fathers, in assembling the NT, worked with the assumption that the Faith taught by the Apostles was uniquely preserved in the Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "History of the Church," recounts one event that illustrates this point. A 3rd century Bishop (I apologize that I can't recall his name) found out that a book claiming to be a Gospel written by the Apostle Peter was in use in one of his churches. He read the book for himself and found in it things that disagreed with the Faith of the Church and so banned this church from using it any longer. He didn't do this because he had any historical reasons to doubt that the Gospel was written by the Apostle -- he did this because it didn't agree with the Faith of the Church.
I don't suppose you could point me to something that addresses EOC's view of the Eucharist, could you?
ReplyDeleteThis article at the Orthodox Church in America's website explains it very well:
http://www.oca.org/OCChapter.asp?SID=2&ID=53
the problem of individual interpretation is not limited to Protestantism.
I agree, but I would add also that it is an inevitable necessity for the Protestant, whereas, for the Orthodox, it is something to be avoided, as we seek to submit ourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church.
Listen to yourself, switch "Scripture" in there with "writings of Christian tradition", and then try to see it from the other angle.
I guess it comes down to this: is the Church the Church -- the one founded by Christ and the Apostles -- which Christ said the gates of hades would not prevail against. The Scriptures and the Fathers are both clear, I think, that there is a Church -- and anyone who stands outside of its visible walls is not in it. You don't find any of the Fathers saying that any of the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Ebionites are somehow "invisibly" part of the Church or that the Church can be divided at all -- they're clear -- you're in or you're out. So, now, we have to ask: did Christ lie? Did the gates of hades prevail against his Church? And I don't think that's possible. And so it comes to finding the True Church -- and I think that point is easily shown, honestly. And when one finds that Church, I think it's a necessity, as Scripture and the Fathers both say, for him to submit himself to it.
There were many things that I struggled with as I came into the Church. Ultimately, though, I knew that I had found the Church -- and was obligated to submit my own interpretations and suppositions to it. My time in the Church and my studies since then have done nothing but confirm my decision to do so.
This also brings up another important point. One of the main charges the Apostolic Fathers leveled against the various heterodox and heretical individuals and organizations was that their beliefs had a clear beginning point in their respective founders -- Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, etc. where as the Church had its beginnings with the Apostles. That's why Orthodox use this same argument today against Protestants -- that the various sects had their beginnings with John Calvin, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, etc. respectively.
Here's St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 4 (I highly recommend a reading of chapters 1-5 of the book -- Irenaeus' argument against the Gnostics is excellent, and applicable to Protestant organizations today):
ReplyDelete"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? "
And then ask yourself why it's OK for you to charge God with garbling.
I don't mean to do that at all -- I don't mean to say that the Scriptures are not clear, but that they are not clear on their own; they are only clear within the context of the Church. You can't read any book and make sense of it outside of its context, and that includes Holy Scripture. And the context of Holy Scripture, as both the Scriptures themselves and the Fathers make clear (as well as logical reasoning), is the Church.
One of the great things about the Fathers is that there were so many of them, who said the same thing in different ways.
ReplyDelete1) And alot of Bible authors too.
2) Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult. That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross. The consistency between biblical authors is one of the evidences of divine inspiration. Neither of us claim the Fathers were theopneustos.
From the standard of history, to begin with. If you're the first person in 2000 years to look at Scripture and see a certain thing -- there's probably a reason.
That's begging the question though, since the contention is that the BIBLICAL AUTHOR saw it.
Not that it's an important point, but some of the writings of the Fathers pre-date some of the writings in the New Testament.
A few, yes. Not very many.
Did the Apostolic Fathers all misunderstand the Apostles' message
No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton. The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
To get more specific to the Reformed/EO disagreements, the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura. 1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone. Infant baptism was inconsistently held. Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".
But fundamentally, what happened with the CFs makes little difference to me. I have good reason to trust God's self-revelation more than I trust the writings of mere men, good men though they may be. I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. I take them for who they were and what they believed, but not as any authority, especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.
It definitely is -- but only within the context of the Church which produced and preserved it;
1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.
2) And you've forgotten the fact that you had to choose which church/infall interper, on your own, w/o the aid of an infall interper. Your choice was fallible.
the Faith of the Church comes first, then Scripture (logically and historically)
ReplyDeleteSince the OT was the Bible of the earliest church (Acts 17, Bereans), and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error, I'd put the Scr at least the same level as "the Faith of the Church". But here we're talking authority, so it's not really all that relevant.
I agree, but I would add also that it is an inevitable necessity for the Protestant, whereas, for the Orthodox, it is something to be avoided, as we seek to submit ourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church.
It is no less an inevitable necessity for the EO. You may seek to submit yourselves to the phronema, or mind/spirit, of the Church, but you do so FALLIBLY.
Similarly, the Sola Scripturist seeks to submit himself to the Scripture. The same problem presents itself. Your framework doesn't solve the problem.
is the Church the Church -- the one founded by Christ and the Apostles -- which Christ said the gates of hades would not prevail against.
One would have to use one's fallible interpretation to figure that out, wouldn't one?
Let me be clear here - this is not an argument I use. I am refuting your attempted argument against SScrip here. It's a bad argument since it's a two-edged sword and bleeds your own position just as badly. I suggest you use another argument.
I don't mean to say that the Scriptures are not clear
That's a pretty disingenuous thing to say, since this whole time you've been making the CFs into at the very least a more useful tool. Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.
You can't read any book and make sense of it outside of its context
And how much truer that is for CF writings than of the Scr! Further, knowing the context doesn't help reconcile the irreconcilable in CF writings.
And thanks for the link to the Eucharist article. I was looking on that site yesterday but I guess I just didn't look in the right place!
Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agreed; which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous, and a sign of Christ's fulfilled promise that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Chruch and that the Holy Spirit would guide it.
That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject. So, the question remains: were they all simultaneously mistaken, but agreement with each other, as to the message of the Apostles OR did they conspire together to distort said message?
The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
100% agreed.
the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura.
That's the very thing I'm exploring in my series on the issue -- and I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone.
I've read St. Clement's letter several times and never seen such an endorsement. Perhaps you could provide me with the quote or at least verse number so I can read it for myself?
Infant baptism was inconsistently held.
I think the Protestants are skewing the evidence on this one. It's a topic I investigated quite a bit, because I had my own doubts about it initially (even having been baptized as an infant myself). St. Gregory Nazianzen's objections are rather late in the early Church -- and not quite what the guy at this blog is trying to make of them (read it for yourself). The inscriptions, paintings, and fathers of the first, second, and third centuries are pretty clear on the issue. Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away -- this practice was later condemned by the Church for being what it was: an attempt to evade living a Christian life.
Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".
St. Vincent, whose canon you're quoting here, addresses that very thing in the paragraph following that quote; and I've addressed it several times to you as well.
I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. ... especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case. I'd love to see one, especially on an essential matter of faith or practice.
1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but. No other Christian organization or church has a legitimate claim. The closest to having a decent claim are the Roman Catholics and the Assyrian Church of the East, as they both possess at least a physical link with the Apostles (via laying on of hands) -- but both have clear points of departure from the early Church, which can be quite easily named and dated.
Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church
ReplyDeleteBut not the Bible alone, else we'd all be Jewish.
and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded. Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone. Correcting errors is not explicating the entirety of the Gospel.
That's a pretty disingenuous thing to say, since this whole time you've been making the CFs into at the very least a more useful tool.
I never claimed they were "more useful." They are necessary to Scripture, as they teach us the correct interpretation thereof.
Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.
The Faith of the Church is the Scriptures and the Councils, speaking in terms of dogma. More correctly, though, the Faith of the Church is our worship -- if one were able to attend every Church service in an entire year, he'd have heard the entirety of the Orthodox Faith explained -- it's the same standard the Fathers used in determining what belonged in Scripture hundreds and hundreds of years ago: the Liturgy.
which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous
ReplyDeleteIt's only by willful blindness that anyone could consider the Fathers mutually consistent. You're inviting us to Patristic FantasyLand, but I prefer reality.
I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.
What cracks me up is your willingness to ignore the obvious wrt mutual patristic inconsistencies, but find "desperate" my friend Seth's harmony of the Cross inscriptions. Again, let the reader judge.
They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject
You're missing the point. Congrats, you came up with three issues on which I'd largely disagree with at least your characterisation of their position, but there are far more with which they and I *are* in agreement. Just b/c the disagreements are more visible b/c we're always debating them doesn't mean that the disagreements are more numerous than the agreements. So again, your argument fails.
As for how they ended up mistaken, we can see that at work already in the NT churches, the addressees of most of the epistles and the 7 letters in Revelation 1-3. I've said that many times to you; when are you going to take that fact into acct?
I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.
Rdr DavidB once told me sthg that an EO priest with whom he used to meet when considering conversion to EOC told him: EOdoxy is found in the Bible, just in the places less often quoted by evangelicals. That would apparently be the case for SS and the CFs. Maybe you should expand your reading and take a look at what Webster and King have found.
Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away
Next you're going to tell me that this fits in perfectly with Vincent de Lérins' aphorism and your rule of faith.
You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case.
Cyprian vs Pope Stephen on the issue of the baptism of heretics is a great place to start.
Council of Hieria vs 2nd Nicaea.
Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but.
yes, that's exactly my point. EOC says it's the OneTrueChurch, you've made the choice to switch your brain off when it comes to testing that claim, and so the circularity doesn't bother you. You have no way to test it, but you don't care to.
Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded.
Exactly.
Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone.
1) the NT epistles were not meant to stand alone.
2) You're assuming w/o proof that the oral msg delivered to the churches covered material found outside the Bible.
3) The churches, standing alone, didn't do so hot either. So... what's the answer?
I never claimed they were "more useful." They are necessary to Scripture, as they teach us the correct interpretation thereof.
ReplyDeleteUm, if the Scr can't teach us their own proper interp, but the CFs can...
And if the CFs can self-interp... I don't know what other word to use than "more useful". Maybe you could suggest sthg else.
The Faith of the Church is the Scriptures and the Councils, speaking in terms of dogma
1) Nothing else? Why have you elsewhere mentioned the living tradition, the voice of the church? Why has Rdr DavidB elsewhere told me the liturgies and hymns of the church?
2) How do you know when sthg is dogma?
More correctly, though, the Faith of the Church is our worship
And that's not incredibly vague? What is one to conclude who attends DLs and hears homilies from liberal, secular humanist-leaning EO priests? Or reads the Confession of Cyril of Lucaris? Or who read, back in the day, Christian iconoclasts' writings which were later destroyed?
What about the papist parts of the 1st millennium church? When guys like early Popes try to pull a "We're Rome, you better do what we say" on Augustine and the N African churches? They're part of the early church; just b/c you don't accept that stuff NOW doesn't mean that didn't exist THEN. See, that's another aspect of what I mean by the failure of your rule of faith. You simply dismiss and ignore parts that don't fit into your MODERN framework, when in fact history is much messier. The lover of truth can't accept such disingenuity.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology said...
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"2) You do realise that the same resource that provided the ridiculous 30K denominations figure also counted several hundred for Orthodoxy, don't you? My suggestion is that you file this "argument" in the "oops, that was stupid" file. No shame in that - I've been there numerous times."
From what I can recall off of memory, when everything was critiqued, the 30 thousand plus # was pushed down to about 8 thousand, which is still way too many.
But whenever I talk about the issue, I tend to say "thousands" of different protestant denominations. That way, it will be more accurate.
ICXC NIKA
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"And the actual #3 about LDS and JWs, no, it's not rude at all, not in the way I mean it. You share the same rule of faith. Geez man, be proud of your rule of faith! I am!"
From what I heard, JW's claim to believe in Sola Scriptura. But regardless, both JW's and LDS are modern North American inventions. They were not started by Jesus, His Apostles, and their disciples of the churches they planted in various regions of the World. So who cares what their rule of faith is......they are not ancient, and so it doesn't matter what they think. Just like it wouldn't matter what the next pop up North American group 5 years from now will think in regards to their rule of faith.
What do they have to do with the Ancient Church?
ICXC NIKA
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.
To get more specific to the Reformed/EO disagreements, the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura."
They did not. They held to "Prima Scriptura", which is different from both Solo and Sola Scriptura. They did not see scripture as being the only rule of faith in matters of Worship, church government, and individual conscience.
They held to other aspects of Tradition to help them determine the truth as well. Like the Divine Liturgy, the fathers who tought before them, general and local councils.....etc.
The ones that held to a form of sola scriptura were often the heretics.....A.K.A.....Arius.
Rhology said:
Quote:
"1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone."
All the early fathers and nonfathers I saw that tought a form of faith alone didn't believe like Martin Luther and John Calvin in regards to "faith".
1.) They saw salvation as a process.
2.) They believed one could fall from grace/loose their salvation.
3.) They didn't see it as the rock on which the church stands or falls on.
4.) They believed in the Mysteries/Sacraments
5.) They believed in the doctrines of free will and synergy
6.) As well as many more things....it's been a year or two since I last looked into the issue and so I have to review to see what the other things were.
But it's not the same. Even the Arminian version of "faith alone" can by pass many of the Anathemas of the Roman Catholic council of Trent.
And so every form of "faith alone" isn't the same.
Rhology said:
Quote:
"I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. I take them for who they were and what they believed, but not as any authority, especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority."
How do you know? When was the last time you read them? I have been reading them off and on now for 12 years. So when was the last time you read their actual works? And I'm not just talking about a quote here and there.
Rhology said:
Quote:
"Or reads the Confession of Cyril of Lucaris?"
He went to learn or get his education in Reformed/Calvinist western Europe. And so he came back to his homeland with reformed ideas. Some went to Roman Catholic western Europe and came back to their homeland with Roman Catholic ideas.
This time period in Orthodoxy is known as "The westernization of Orthodoxy" OR the "Latinization of Orthodoxy".
This was when Orthodoxy was mostly using protestant tools, formulas and words to fight Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholic tools, formulas, and words to fight Protestantism.
There were voices in those times that wanted to stop using foriegn Protestant and Roman Catholic tools in favor of just going back to the fathers in order to find their own tools.
And this is what happened, and this is another reason why it's hard for Orthodoxy to change into John Calvin and Rome. It's hard because we keep going back to the fathers. Over and over and over again.
Rhology said:
"Or who read, back in the day, Christian iconoclasts' writings which were later destroyed?"
Christians were allowed to argue about a number of things, but when the Church finally decides on an issue......then that's it...discussion over. Now this might take time for the people of the Church to accept a general council, but eventually through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the decisions of a general council are tested and embraced.
No one said that arguments about such and such didn't exist. Arianism existed, and so it's not about ignoring certain disputes of the past.
ICXC NIKA
Jnorm888,
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, whenever I talk about the issue, I tend to say "hundreds" of different EO denominations. Which is still way too many.
JW's claim to believe in Sola Scriptura
Well, they don't, they have an infallible interpreter.
They were not started by Jesus, His Apostles, and their disciples of the churches they planted in various regions of the World.
You don't understand my point either, and it's a shame, b/c it's really quite devastating to your position. Let me try again.
If one cedes responsibility to an infallible interper to define what is Scr and what is SacTrad, then you don't get to say "hold on, this one wasn't founded by Jesus", b/c the infall interper will just ignore the counterevidence and say "um, yes we are". That's exactly what EOC does, but you're too invested in EOC's success to see it. You do it when I cite Church Father X and you respond "he was just speaking as a private individual, not for the church". Same. Thing.
They held to "Prima Scriptura", which is different from both Solo and Sola Scriptura.
Have you read the book?
The ones that held to a form of sola scriptura were often the heretics.....A.K.A.....Arius.
Irrelevant ad hominem, guilty by association. Sola Scriptura doesn't claim that the Scr can't be misused.
Doesn't it bother you to use fallacious arguments? Anything in the service of Mother Church?
1.) They saw salvation as a process.
Clement of Rome (1st Clement) didn't.
And so every form of "faith alone" isn't the same.
True, never claimed any different.
When was the last time you read them?
A few months ago, finished Ignatius' letters in the ANF01 anthology.
He went to learn or get his education in Reformed/Calvinist western Europe. And so he came back to his homeland with reformed ideas.
Excuses, excuses. that's not "by all, everywhere, at all times". Either man up and drop the pretentious St Vincent's aphorism or scrub the history books, friend.
Christians were allowed to argue about a number of things, but when the Church finally decides on an issue......then that's it...discussion over
Yup, switch off the brain, abdicate Christ-ordained responsibility to test all things. Constantinople locuta est, causa finita est.
Problem is, there's more than just EOC out there that claims they're the rightful occupant of that chair. And your choice of one or the other is fallible.
Peace,
Rhology
It's only by willful blindness that anyone could consider the Fathers mutually consistent.
ReplyDeleteHow much of the writings of the Fathers have you actually read for yourself? Be honest.
Just b/c the disagreements are more visible b/c we're always debating them doesn't mean that the disagreements are more numerous than the agreements.
They are.
As for how they ended up mistaken, we can see that at work already in the NT churches, the addressees of most of the epistles and the 7 letters in Revelation 1-3.
So Christ's promise that the gates of hades will not prevail against the Church has failed. And you posit, just as your Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, and Mormon brethren, that there was a Great Apostasy of the early Church. Got it.
Maybe you should expand your reading and take a look at what Webster and King have found.
I've read some of the writings of both -- slanderous, rediculous, and malacious.
Next you're going to tell me that this fits in perfectly with Vincent de Lérins' aphorism and your rule of faith.
Well, yes; they were doing exactly what St. Vincent said we shouldn't do -- they were departing from the Faith always held, and the Church reacted by banning the practice.
Cyprian vs Pope Stephen on the issue of the baptism of heretics is a great place to start.
Nobody said there weren't disagreements -- there's still disagreements in the Church about who should (re)baptized and who simply chrismated. This isn't quite was I was looking for -- and these are really pathetic attempts -- I thought you meant disagreements on important matters of Faith between the early Fathers. Let's see some of those. Let's see the Fathers who don't believe in the Real Presence or Apostolic Succession.
Council of Hieria vs 2nd Nicaea.
Really? This is the best you can come up with? First, these councils took place in the 8th century -- awful late in time when I was asking for early Christian history. Second, the council of Hieria is a heretical council, as iconoclasts are heretics; therefore, not Church Fathers. I'll address this fuller at a later time.
1) the NT epistles were not meant to stand alone.
Yep.
2) You're assuming w/o proof that the oral msg delivered to the churches covered material found outside the Bible.
You're assuming it didn't -- based on statements in the NT directing us to both written and unwritten traditions of the Apostles, I'd say my position is much more Scriptural than yours.
3) The churches, standing alone, didn't do so hot either. So... what's the answer?
They weren't standing alone -- they had the Holy Spirit and the Apostles to guide them. There were problems, but said problems were duly corrected. Same today.
Um, if the Scr can't teach us their own proper interp, but the CFs can...
ReplyDeleteReally? Try interpreting Scripture without the help of Calvin and Luther's "traditions of men."
1) Nothing else? Why have you elsewhere mentioned the living tradition, the voice of the church? Why has Rdr DavidB elsewhere told me the liturgies and hymns of the church?
I did too -- in the sentence that follows this one.
2) How do you know when sthg is dogma?
If it's part of the Faith of all Orthodox Christians. -- As much as you try to say that our rule of Faith is unsound and confusing, you'd think you'd have at least ONE example of how it is so in modern Orthodox belief and practice. On what essential matter of Faith do Orthodox Christians disagree with each other?
And that's not incredibly vague?
No, it's not. The worship of the Church is pretty clear.
What is one to conclude who attends DLs and hears homilies from liberal, secular humanist-leaning EO priests?
Where are they? I haven't seen any yet. Also, we're not Protestants -- the homily is probably the least important part of the Liturgy (it's optional to the Liturgy, actually -- I didn't hear a single homily the entire year I attended a Romanian Orthodox Church in Iraq). The words of the worship itself contain our Faith.
Or reads the Confession of Cyril of Lucaris?
Cyril was a Calvinist -- he had renounced the Orthodox Faith in favor of heresy.
Or who read, back in the day, Christian iconoclasts' writings which were later destroyed?
Of course they were -- as were those of the Gnostics -- and the documents that say that Christ and Mary Magdalene were married. And the parts of the Bible that talked about reincarnation. It's all part of the Great Apostasy.
I'm sure Calvinists have never burned books that they thought were blasphemous, right? No, just people (like Michael Servetus), I guess.
What about the papist parts of the 1st millennium church?
The Church in Rome was pulling away from the other Patriarchs by about the 5th century.
They're part of the early church; just b/c you don't accept that stuff NOW doesn't mean that didn't exist THEN.
Because they depart from the Faith of the Apostles and Fathers -- go further back; go to the Apostolic Fathers especially -- take a look. There's always been disagreements -- the fact that there were heretics running around even in the 1st century doesn't undermine the truth of Christianity. You're going the way of Ehrman here again -- with his false idea that the existence of the Gnostics, Ebionites, and Marcionites undermines the validity of the Real Christianity. You're doing the same thing.
I just found this on an older blogpost of mine:
ReplyDeleteHere's how a debate about rule of faith could go down between two different sola ecclesia groups. O = Orthodox, X = some other 'ancient branch of Christianity' like a Copt.
O: Revelation is in the Canon... I think.
X: You think? You don't know for sure?
O: Well, it's traditionally held-to as canonical, but our canon is open.
X: So you can't be sure.
O: I can - the Church believes it to be canonical.
X: No, your church is not the true church. Mine is.
O: No, mine is. We have a history.
X: So do we.
O: We go back to the apostles.
X: So do we.
O: No you don't. here's my list.
X: Here's mine.
O: that's not Sacred Tradition.
X: Yes it is. My Church says it is and says your list is not.
O: Well, my Church says your list is not Tradition, even though it's tradition, and my list is Tradition.
X: How do you know it's Sacred Tradition?
O: My church says so and it's been traditionally held to.
X: But your church is the wrong one and so your claims to tradition are invalid.
O: But my church says it is and YOURS is wrong.
X: But your church isn't the true church. So your Tradition is just tradition, whereas my tradition is Tradition.
Etc.
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteYou're getting better and better at these straw-mans; good job!
By the way, can you show me any matter of Faith that the Copts (non-Chalcedonian Orthodox) differ from the Chalcedonian Orthodox in? Miaphysitism and diaphysitism don't count -- you and I both know that.
Or, for that matter, show me any way in which the Assyrian ("Nestorian") Church of the East differs in Faith from the Orthodox.
It's funny how all of these ancient churches which all have the same "rule of faith," one which you say is unreliable for maintaining belief, even after being separated for nearly 1500 years from each other -- all hold the exact same beliefs and practices.
Thanks for proving my point. :)
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteQuote:
"Jnorm888,
Similarly, whenever I talk about the issue, I tend to say "hundreds" of different EO denominations. Which is still way too many."
If the over all number of 30 thousand plus was droped to 8 thousand, then how can you still say "hundreds"? No, the hundreds would drop down to dozens.
Which is way less than thousands.
Rhology said:
Quote:
"Well, they don't, they have an infallible interpreter."
They still claim to only go by the Bible.
Rhology said
Quote:
"You don't understand my point either, and it's a shame, b/c it's really quite devastating to your position. Let me try again.
If one cedes responsibility to an infallible interper to define what is Scr and what is SacTrad, then you don't get to say "hold on, this one wasn't founded by Jesus", b/c the infall interper will just ignore the counterevidence and say "um, yes we are". That's exactly what EOC does, but you're too invested in EOC's success to see it. You do it when I cite Church Father X and you respond "he was just speaking as a private individual, not for the church". Same. Thing."
No it's not the samething. Ultimately the infallible Authority in EO is God, and since it is God who guides the Church into all Truth, some EO call the Church infallible, but it is in an indirect way. And EO doesn't call everyone in the past a church father.
Arius is not a church father,
Nestorius is not a church father
Origen is not a church father according to the East.
Tertullian is not a church father according to the East
Tatian is not a church father according to the east.
EO does have standards, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't change the fact that we have standards.
We don't have infallible church fathers. What we have is the phronema or mind of the Church.
Now you may not agree with that, but to say that we can't have it this way, but only in the way you see it and grasp it is to only argue against a strawman.
Church fathers and nonfathers are allowed to have personal oppinions or even error on a subject......just like individual scribes may error in a certain place when making a translation.
And so what you do is compare the work of different scribes for it is highly unlikely that every scribe will error exactly in the same place, with the exact same error, and in the exact same way.
This is how scholars weed out scribal error, and so, in like manor we look at the mind of the church or the mind of the fathers.
Now you may reject what we do, but it works for us.
Rhology said:
"Have you read the book?"
Why should I read a tertiary or a bad secondary source when I'm use to reading the primaries as well as good secondary sources myself?
Back when I was protestant, I did read these books:
"Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible" by Michael Horton, Robert Godfrey, James White, R.C. Sproul, John Armstrong, John Macarthur, Sinclair Ferguson, Joel Beeke, Ray Lanning, and the general editor was Don Kistler.
and
The shape of sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison.
I still have these books by the way, and after reading the primaries for myself.......it is easy to see why they are wrong.
What I said about the church fathers and Prima Scriptura is true. To ask me to change my mind on this is fruitless and pointless.......it just ain't gonna happen.
Why should I go back to believing in something I know to be false when I know that what I believe in now is true? Both interpretations of Sola Scripture(both the radical and magisterial versions) are false.
And in regards to the other stuff......you can call it Excuses all you want, but what I said is true.
ICXC NIKA
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to us and the Copts.......I don't think you understand. Unity doesn't mean 100% uniformity in customs. A difference in Biblical canons doesn't mean anything to us.....for back when Rome was in communion with us, she too had a slighty different # of Old Testament books than us. It's Patrairchate(jurisdiction) may differ in custom.
Now you may not like this nor understand this, but the lack of unity between the nonchalcedonians and us are some of the canons/decrees of the last 4 general councils. The main problem are the Saints on both sides and the proper method to get rid of an anathema.
Some(on both sides) just want a formal declaration uplifting the anathemas, while others(on both sides) want another general council to do it.
Also, they seemed to be worried about what to make of their history as nonchalcedonians. How will they interprete that?
The Orthodox Church in Georgia is a former nonchalcedonian Orthodox church. However, the other nonchalcedonians don't want to take the route that they took, and so full unity between us has nothing to do with what you said.
Our differences in regards to Bible canon doesn't matter......for we always had differences, and past unity was never based on 100% uniformity in regards to Biblical books.
It wasn't then, and it won't be now.
To listen to a podcast about the issue, go here:
Chalcedon
ICXC NIKA
DavidW,
ReplyDeleteStrawmen? Prove it.
By the way, can you show me any matter of Faith that the Copts (non-Chalcedonian Orthodox) differ from the Chalcedonian Orthodox in? Miaphysitism and diaphysitism don't count -- you and I both know that.
I don't understand the question.
"Tell me the way in which Baptists differ from Presbyterians. And infant baptism doesn't count."
Mono/dyophysitism is the only one I know. Well, that and Copts have a Pope, and you don't. Point is, you're not part of the same institution, but you claim that Christ's unity and gates of Hades and all that is based on institutional unity.
show me any way in which the Assyrian ("Nestorian") Church of the East differs in Faith from the Orthodox.
Ummmmm, the former is Nestorian? And you know, the other...kinda...isn't?
all hold the exact same beliefs and practices.
Except for the formal heresies of Nestorianism and monophysitism.
I must be missing sthg here. Please clarify.
Jnorm888,
No, the hundreds would drop down to dozens. Which is way less than thousands.
Why is dozens acceptable when you always talk like you have one, unified body?
They still claim to only go by the Bible.
No, they go by the living prophetic voice of the Watchtower. And yes, they'll tell you that.
Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it? Living. Voice.
Ultimately the infallible Authority in EO is God,
Don't change the subject. You claim the EOC itself is infallible. Yes, I know you think the infall comes from God.
And EO doesn't call everyone in the past a church father.
That is exactly my point. You pick and choose, according to a MODERN framework. YOu have your beliefs all laid out, and look BACK to find writings that you like, and promote them to **S**acred **A**postolic **T**radition. It's disingenuous and inconsistent.
What we have is the phronema or mind of the Church.
Yup, just like the RCC and the JWs and the Christian Scientists and the LDS and the Moonies.
Church fathers and nonfathers are allowed to have personal oppinions or even error on a subject
IOW, WE DECIDE when they err and when they were right.
This is how scholars weed out scribal error, and so, in like manor we look at the mind of the church or the mind of the fathers.
No, not really, not at all. Scribal error is weeded out by comparison of text to text. You're comparing interp to interp; it's totally different.
Why should I read a tertiary or a bad secondary source when I'm use to reading the primaries as well as good secondary sources myself?
1) Half the text is quotation of primary sources.
2) The 3rd book in the series is 100% primary.
3) The quotes are extremely long in most cases and provide their own context.
4) The EOC only takes into acct the parts it likes. How about giving the other side a hearing?
Back when I was protestant, I did read these books:
That's great and all, but we're talking patristics right now. You clearly don't give the Bible the authority it deserves, so I'm hoping to reach you on another level, a level you obviously respect more than the Bible.
after reading the primaries for myself.
that's part of the problem. You went into it intending to weigh the Bible, perhaps even to find it wanting. And surprise surprise - you found it wanting! God is not mocked, JNorm. Repent of your idolatry, of putting the words of men before the word of God.
. Unity doesn't mean 100% uniformity in customs.
ReplyDelete1) Excuses excuses. Either be consistent with the claim of unity or don't.
2) You differ with them in DOCTRINE.
3) If we can just write out of the question any other grp whom it is inconvenient to be paired with, I can play the same game. I hereby declare that I only have unity with Southern Baptists, and all the other religious affiliations in the world are out of communion with us.
See how easy that was? Now I have just the same situation that you claim.
Point is, anyone can do that. It's a meaningless claim. Stop using it.
Our differences in regards to Bible canon doesn't matter......for we always had differences, and past unity was never based on 100% uniformity in regards to Biblical books.
Oh, another naked assertion!
Guess what? My diffs with Presbys over infant baptism doesn't matter. With Church of Christ over bapt regeneration doesn't matter. With Methodists over authority. Doesn't matter. Just ask me - it all doesn't matter. See? Now we're equal again!
Peace,
Rhology
Strawmen? Prove it.
ReplyDeleteSuch a conversation would never take place between a Chalcedonian Orthodox and a Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, nor Assyrian. And such a conversation could never take place between a JW, Mormon, SDA, etc. and an Orthodox.
I don't understand the question. ... Mono/dyophysitism is the only one I know. ... Ummmmm, the former is Nestorian? ... Except for the formal heresies of Nestorianism and monophysitism.
I must be missing sthg here. Please clarify.
Let me explain:
1. Other than the Nestorianism of one and miaphysitism of the other, these two ancient Churches in no way differ in either Faith or practice from the Orthodox Church.
2. Both Nestorianism and Monophysitism have clear points of departure from the Faith of the Fathers -- Nestorianism with Nestorius and Monophysitism with Eutyches. (note: the non-Chalcedonians are not monophysites, but miaphysites, which position is compatible with diaphysitism and essentially expresses the same idea in different words).
3. Both of these Churches have the same "rule of Faith" as the Orthodox Church -- a rule which you have repeatedly stated is unreliable and easily susceptible to heretical influence.
4. Both of these Churches have been separated "institutionally" (and, often, geographically) from the Orthodox Church for about 1500 years.
5. There was often a measure of mutual hostility between these Churches and the Orthodox Church.
6. We can conclude from 3 and 4 that there was no concurrent development of doctrine via cross-fertilization from one Church to another.
7. We can also throw out as an absurdity the possibility that each Church individually developed the exact same doctrines and practices.
8. We can conclude from 6 and 7 that state "rule of Faith" (3) is in fact a remarkably reliable "rule of Faith" as said "rule of Faith" has preserved essentially the same Faith (see 1) in three disparate Churches each individually (4).
Follow me now?
9. Now compare said "rule of Faith" with massive disunity caused by Protestant "rule of Faith."
Well, that and Copts have a Pope, and you don't.
Sure we do. We got a bunch of them. Mine is Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. "Pope" is the same word as "Patriarch" -- the former being the Latin equivalent of the Latter's Greek. Traditionally, the Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria are referred to with the title "Pope" (Alexandria -- where the Coptic Church is based -- was using the word at least a hundred years before Rome, by the way) -- but the two words are pretty much interchangeable as they mean the exact same thing in two different languages.
Quick Church history lesson: There were originally five Popes/Patriarchs of the Church -- Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem -- Rome split from the four other Patriarchs due to a serious case of megalomania.
Point is, you're not part of the same institution, but you claim that Christ's unity and gates of Hades and all that is based on institutional unity.
No, it's not. "Institutional unity" is not what we're talking about when we say "visible unity." The Orthodox Church, being composed of about two dozen self-ruling jurisdictions doesn't even "institutional unity" -- we don't want it; look what it's done to Rome. What we mean when we say "visible unity" is unity of the Faith in Communion with Christ.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteWe know who we are in "full" communion with by every reading of the diptychs.
Now just because you may not understand ancient ways doesn't mean that we don't have ways to settle issues as well as knowing who we are or aren't in full communion with.
Also I just want you to know that I read what you said about "Justification" and Saint James, as well as what you said about Clement and the protestant prespyterian Norman Sheperd.
I want you to know that I disagree with everything you said.
I'm not new to this.....I've been there and done that. And so, the way you tried to harmonize St. James is flawed. Back when I was protestant, I recall 3 different ways various protestants tried to harmonize Saint James with what they "assumed" Saint Paul was saying.
And even back then, I wasn't satisfied with any of the explanations. If you look at what Saint James was saying with fresh eyes.....then you will see that he associates the word "faith" with "words"
To Saint James, if all you have is "talk", then you have "dead faith".
But if you have actions to back up what you said, then according to Saint James, your faith is "living".
And so, what David and the others said was true. We can't see faith, and so the only way to know if someone has faith is by what they think, say, and do.
In this way, "faith" permeates the whole man....body, mind, and soul.
And so, if all you have is talk, then your faith is dead. For your hands must have faith, your feet must have faith, and not just your tongue alone.
But yeah, I disagree with everything you had to say.
Also, I have been reading the church fathers, nonfathers, schizmatics, and heretics off and on for 10 years before I converted to EO. And so, what you assumed about me, in regards to this issue and sola Scriptura was false. Maybe you need to read the Caroline Divines, for they too were advocates of Prima Scriptura......and not Sola Scriptura. I disagree with Webster and King. And it is only a matter of time when it is proven, why they were wrong.
ICXC NIKA
Such a conversation would never take place between a Chalcedonian Orthodox and a Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, nor Assyrian.
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
And how about a RC?
And such a conversation could never take place between a JW, Mormon, SDA, etc. and an Orthodox.
Why not?
1. Other than the Nestorianism of one and miaphysitism of the other, these two ancient Churches in no way differ in either Faith or practice from the Orthodox Church.
Nestorianism has been declared to be formal heresy by an ecum council, remember? That's a fairly big deal. So has monophysitism, monothelitism... The councils would declare stuff like "Anathema to the heretic ______ b/c he taught monophys!"
Both of these Churches have been separated "institutionally" (and, often, geographically) from the Orthodox Church for about 1500 years.
And yet you make, whenever you critique Protestants, institutional unity as one of the foundations of your comparison. That matters.
Now compare said "rule of Faith" with massive disunity caused by Protestant "rule of Faith."
Sorry, Sola Ecclesia has a wider focus than what you're giving credit for, and Sola Scrip has less disunity than you give credit for.
Further, this implicitly commits the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Again. YOUR side needs to conform to its claims or change its claims.
Sure we do. We got a bunch of them. Mine is Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. "Pope" is the same word as "Patriarch" -- the former being the Latin equivalent of the Latter's Greek.
Equivocation. The Coptic Pope is not the same as one of your Patriarchs.
Rome split from the four other Patriarchs due to a serious case of megalomania.
No, the other 4 split b/c they wouldn't submit to the chair of Peter.
See how easy it is when you can pick and choose your CFs? You pick and choose yours, they theirs. Me, I let the CFs speak for themselves, and it's easy b/c I don't depend on them for my faith.
What we mean when we say "visible unity" is unity of the Faith in Communion with Christ.
1) Um, if you say so. So, where is this visible unity if not in the church?
2) You just got thru telling me that you have this unity with heretics. Interesting.
JNorm888,
the way you tried to harmonize St. James is flawed.
Prove it.
To Saint James, if all you have is "talk", then you have "dead faith".
Of course. Now, how does that touch on my position?
And so, what you assumed about me, in regards to this issue and sola Scriptura was false.
Actually, what I said about you was: You clearly don't give the Bible the authority it deserves, so I'm hoping to reach you on another level, a level you obviously respect more than the Bible.
Obviously I was right.
Why not?
ReplyDelete1. Because it's not the way we handle ourselves and discuss issues.
2. Because that's not the way Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians view each other in relation to each other and to the Fathers respectively.
3. Because the Assyrians are well-aware that Nestorius departed from the Faith of the Fathers.
And how about a RC?
Sure, something like that -- only less circular. I'll give you that one.
Why not?
Because they don't believe in Tradition and because they know better than to try to claim any kind of historical connection with the Apostles and Fathers.
Nestorianism has been declared to be formal heresy by an ecum council, remember? That's a fairly big deal. So has monophysitism, monothelitism... The councils would declare stuff like "Anathema to the heretic ______ b/c he taught monophys!"
Boy, did you completely ignore my overall point or what? I said right there in my post: Nestorianism is a heresy which has a clear historical beginning with Nestorius; Monophysitism is a heresy which has a clear historical beginning with Eutyches. And due to these heresies with clear historical departures from the Father of the Fathers, the three Churches split -- and yet, all holding to the same "rule of Faith," each individually and uniquely preserved the exact same beliefs and practices (OTHER THAN THE TWO HERESIES WITH CLEAR HISTORICAL BEGINNINGS).
And yet you make, whenever you critique Protestants, institutional unity as one of the foundations of your comparison. That matters.
No, I don't -- I critique Protestants because of their willingness to schism and make a brand new church over every single possible issue of contention that has ever popped up between them. And the fact that there are so many of said issues. If Protestants all believed the same thing but nonetheless still didn't have "institutional unity" I wouldn't criticize them as being divided.
Equivocation. The Coptic Pope is not the same as one of your Patriarchs.
No, Pope Shenouda is the exact same as one of our Patriarchs... Does he have superpowers? Show me how the Coptic Pope (or the Ethiopian Abuna, or the Armenian Catholicos, or the Syriac Patriarch, or any of the other heads of non-Chalcedonian Churches) differs from the same concept in Chalcedonian Churches.
See how easy it is when you can pick and choose your CFs?
And now, using St. Vincent's canon, we look for which is the more ancient of the two practices and which is the more widespread historically. And you find the obvious answer. Come on, Rho, it's not that hard. Even the Roman Catholics have had to invent their "development of doctrine" stuff to justify it.
1) Um, if you say so. So, where is this visible unity if not in the church?
It's in the Church and only in the Church -- but it's still not "institutional unity."
2) You just got thru telling me that you have this unity with heretics. Interesting.
No, I didn't. We don't have communion with Monophysites nor Nestorians. We share a common Faith with them in all things but the single departure which each holds from the Faith of the Fathers. Just as we share a common Faith with you except for in the dozens of ways in which you depart from the Faith of the Fathers.
Rhology said:
ReplyDelete"Equivocation. The Coptic Pope is not the same as one of your Patriarchs."
Yes it is, this shows how much you know. The Greek Patrairch of Alexandria is also called "Pope".
What David said is true!
ICXC NIKA
">> Problem is, if the church were to teach heresy like transubstantiation,"
ReplyDelete"> I think you're confusing "Real Presence" with "transubstantiation.""
David, be careful not to confuse polemic with fact. There are three ways of expressing "Real Presense":
(1) Christ is present "Spiritually", essentially, if you eat the "grape juice and crackers" Christ will be with you in your heart as you think of him.
(2) Consubstantiation, essentially, Christ goes in and out of the bread and wine at his choosing.
(3) Transubstantiation, essentially, Christ goes into the bread and wine by a validly ordanined priest and must be treated as Christ.
I know the Orthodox position is the Eucharist is a mystery and resists definition, but as you know, definition only really happens if one is forced to by external pressures. If there were no external pressures, the Trinity, for instance, would still lack a formal definition. Those definitions have traditionally been defined by the whole of tradition. The Orthodox had no challenge on "Real Presense" so they kept it a mystery.
So look at how the Orthodox would have defined it by looking at the practices that flow from each definition.
A peace of the Eucharist falls on the floor. Do you:
(1) Ignore it and don't care if anyone steps on it -- leave it for the cleaners (Christ is present Spiritually)
(2) Pick it up and avoid stepping on it (Consubstantiation)
(3) Pick it up and avoid stepping on it (Transubstantiation)
A peace of the Eucharist falls on the floor out of a sick person's mouth. Do you:
(1) Leave it for the cleaners (Christ is present Spiritually)
(2) Leave it for the cleaners (Consubstantiation)
(3) Bury it reverently (Transubstantiation)
(4) Eat it (Transubstantiation)
(Hint, Orthodox canon law indicates (4) whereas Catholic canon law indicates (3)).
Anil:
ReplyDeleteThis is quite an old post that you've dug up here!
The problem with transubstantiation from an Orthodox perspective, in short, is that it relies upon the Aristotelian philosophical concepts of "substance," "accidents," etc. Even had the Orthodox view had to be defined, it is highly unlikely that any definition like the one offered by the Scholastics in the Roman Church would have been the Orthodox answer; the terminology just doesn't work from an Orthodox perspective. The additional problem is that transubstantiation, if the Eucharist is interpreted Christologically, is essentially Eucharistic Monophysitism; I believe that Vladimir Lossky briefly discusses this in his "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church."