It's a line of thought I've come across frequently from Western Christians: that the Orthodox are so "stubborn." I've even heard one Protestant refer to the Orthodox as "bigoted." To be honest, I had similar thoughts as a former Roman Catholic investigating Orthodoxy. It seemed to me like the dialogues between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches were largely one-sided; it seemed like the Roman Catholics were making all the concessions and the Orthodox were making few, if any.Since becoming Orthodox myself, though, I've realized something: this is exactly as it should be; and, to the thinking mind, it stands as a testament to the Truth of Orthodoxy. Whereas I was formerly disturbed by the unwillingness of the Orthodox to budge on even seemingly inconsequential matters, I'm now deeply disturbed by Western Christians' insistence that the Orthodox should compromise on anything, or that they themselves should be willing to compromise in any way what they consider to be the Gospel.
Relativism is an ugly thing, especially amongst Christians. Unfortunately, though, the Protestant Reformation, and ensuing large-scale break-up of Western Christendom, has necessitated a form of "Christian" relativism. Outside of the Restorationist movement, each individual Christian sect knows that it individually has no legitimate claim, theologically or historically, to being the One True Church, and so they've had to invent the patently false doctrine of a "Church of all true believers," in which all true Christians of whatever sect are the "real One True Church." This, though, is a stark departure not only from historic Christian thought on the subject, but Scriptural injunctions demanding visible unity and commonality of doctrine.
Pentecostals, Methodists, and Baptists, to compare just three of the dozens of strains of thought in Protestanism, each hold to doctrines and practices, both essential and non-essential, in mutual contradiction to the others. Historically, Scripturally, and logically speaking, then, they cannot be members of the same Church.
And this is why the Orthodox are just so darn stubborn and bigoted. We're so stubborn because we're just not willing to compromise the True Faith; when we say we're Orthodox ("right-believing") we really mean it. And this is why we're so bigoted; when we say we're Orthodox ("right-believing") we take this to its logical conclusion: if we're right, anyone who disagrees with us is, necessarily, wrong.
I'll admit; it sounds stubborn, even a little bigoted. But it's how we've guarded the Gospel for the last 2000 years, and it hasn't failed us yet.
"Pentecostals, Methodists, and Baptists, to compare just three of the dozens of strains of thought in Protestanism, each hold to doctrines and practices, both essential and non-essential, in mutual contradiction to the others."
ReplyDeleteI occasionally ask Protestant friends to ask themselves regarding their knee-jerk reaction to statements like this, "Suppose you are right and all protestants have the same god. What kind of god leads his followers into such complete confusion?" Relativism makes so little sense when applied to an unchanging, eternal God.
It also seems that often Protestant Christian belief isn't just one man's interpretation against another's, but that same man against himself 5 or 20 years before. Perhaps such rapid change is limited to non-denominational groups, but most Lutherans hardly agree with Luther's prayers to the Mother of God, or thinks that it matters that he did pray to Her.
Anyway, I said all that to say that I'm glad that the Church is 'stubborn' about keeping the one Faith given by Christ to the apostles!
Btw, have you read Holy Scripture and the Church by St. Hilarion Troitsky?
Would Marcionites be considered Western or Eastern in your opinion?
ReplyDelete"We're so stubborn because we're just not willing to compromise the True Faith;"
ReplyDeleteExcept for when the Pope has a big enough army to force you to beatify a demon like Augustine. Or when a bunch of drunken bishops decide (because they're drunk) that in spite of Heb 7:3, Mary is the mother of God. And that triple baptism thing, when Paul says we are baptized into Jesus' death, burried with him in baptism--he was only burried once, not thrice, he only died once not thrice--and we rise from baptism to walk in newness of life--he only rose once, not thrice--Romans 6, there again you compromise the truth to create an artificial protection for the doctrine of the Trinity.
As to my question about about Marcionites, those guys were stubborn. And they persisted in the East until the 10th century when the crusades finally wiped them out. The difference between them and you, in light of my immediately above post, is that they were stubborn enough to die out rather than compromise. The Pope couldn't muster a big enough army to make them believe whatever he wanted. Not so with you. Send a few troops over to Constantinople, and poof, Augustine's a saint!
ReplyDeleteWould Marcionites be considered Western or Eastern in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteNeither. Marcion lived and founded his sect before such distinctions became necessary from a historical viewpoint.
Except for when the Pope has a big enough army to force you to beatify a demon like Augustine.
When did the Pope ever have an army of his own or force anyone to accept the beatification of Augustine?
And that triple baptism thing,
Baptism has been by triple immersion since the earliest days of the Church. See the Didache, written ca. AD 60.
And they persisted in the East until the 10th century when the crusades finally wiped them out.
Historical evidence, please?
Send a few troops over to Constantinople, and poof, Augustine's a saint!
Present some historical evidence for your ridiculous claims.
Demi:
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I said all that to say that I'm glad that the Church is 'stubborn' about keeping the one Faith given by Christ to the apostles!
Amen!
I haven't read that article, but I will now. Thanks for directing me to it.
I believe the current Pope is in earnest in trying to build bridges to Orthodoxy, unfortunately, I don't think the Vatican *can* become Orthodox any time soon.
ReplyDeleteGiven the current Protestantism and Pentecostalism that is infesting the RCC, the Pope has lost most of the control of the laity and lowest level ordinaries. If the RCC were to become Orthodox, it would go the way of the Anglicans within 20-50 years. Consider the following:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/feminism/article_246.shtml
http://www.awid.org/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/USA-Vatican-American-Nuns-Under-the-Vatican-Microscope
Unfortunately such cases are not uncommon. Being a former Roman Catholic, I can honestly say I had little idea about the richness and grounding of the faith I was born into. The RCC really wasn't that different than the world around me, other than being a bit more conservative for reasons I didn't understand.
Most Roman Catholics I know are the same. They see the RCC as impoverished and ritualistic and go looking for spiritual food elsewhere in other religions and philosophies. While they don't outright convert, there is a large tendency to be a Cafeteria Christian since "all religions and belief systems are essentially the same".
The current Pope recognizes this mess and has tried to reverse some of the causes (e.g. allowing the Tridentine Mass, adding an Anglican Liturgy, focusing more on getting laity to understand their faith). But other than the Pope and the bishops, the RCC is sick now and needs strong leadership to return to the RCC faith of the early 1900s (minus the improvements in Vatican II). The RCC might look at the EOC for inspiration, and get closer in terms of doctrine (e.g. some "Infallible Teachings" like the "Assumption of Mary" can easily be reversed the way Limbo was reversed...it may be true in the eyes of the Vatican but it does not have to be a doctrinal belief). But, actual reunion couldn't happen until the RCC gets itself straight....I don't think I'll live to see the day.
Anil,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. I think Pope Benedict is the most "orthodox" man to be Pope of Rome in a very, very long time. And, if it were entirely up to him, I don't think he would have a problem at all really returning the Roman Catholics to Orthodoxy. The problem is that it's not entirely up to him, and I don't think things would turn out well if he tried to suddenly overhaul the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church. I have to, sadly, agree that I don't believe we'll see the end of the Great Schism within our lifetimes.
Demi,
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of god leads his followers into such complete confusion?
Please read these articles.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the doctrine of God--which I believe determines what communion in which one should go--I have a question for you.
Louis Berkhof, whose reformed credentials cannot be questioned, affirmred that:
Hence we can also say that God and His attributes are one, and that He is life, light, love, righteousness, truth, and so on.
Part 2. chapter 6. 1. d.
In other words, Berkhof is stating the classic Western doctrine of Absolute DIvine SImplicity. I ask:
Do you agree with Berkhof?
1) If you say yes, you have to face up to the earlier difficulties I outlined earlier.
2) If you say no, then you Reject the protestant view of God.
Which is it?
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate what you're saying and the reasons for saying it. I honestly have never heard of this before you started bringing it up recently, so I don't have an educated answer for you. I am sorry about that, but I'm just a layman (with young children).
I would encourage you to recognise there is not much of a "Protestant" view on much of anything. The term is nearly meaningless anymore; I'd recommend "Reformed" at minimum. Can you see what I mean on that?
Peace,
Rhology
Rho,
ReplyDeleteI understand the difficulty (Keep in mind I went to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson for 2 years). I've read EVERY Reformed systematic theology text (except for any released in the past 3 years).
MOre importantly, I was caught in the crossfire in the Federal VIsion controversy where conswervative Calvinists had to find out just what they believed about Confession and authority. Believe me, I have the battlescars to illustrate the confusion.
My question is pertinent, though. If the Western view of Absolute Divine Simplicity is false, then the only other option is the eastern view of essence and energies, whioch then determines the rest of theology.
I was protestant until faced with this problem--I couldn't answer the eastern claims on CHristology and Triadology.
Well, I think you paid much too high a price by jettisoning the authority of Scr for a cheap knock-off like Whatever The Church Happens To Be Saying Now About What It Claims It Has Always Said, like EOC.
ReplyDeleteThe FV seems to me a tempest in a teapot, but it serves the Presbys right for having paedobaptism and for holding the WCF too tightly, if it cost them clarity of vision wrt salvation and the Gospel. I have to admit I have difficulty understanding the, well, the difficulty, haha.
Peace,
Rhology
Triadology and Christology aren't cheap knock-offs. Cf Basil, Gregories, John of Damascus, Athanasius, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn my Systematic Theology 1 class we admitted (including the prof) that we couldn't defend the Protestant view of the Canon by scriptura alone. We spent two months fighting that battle (and losing) while only spending a week on doctrine of God and a week on Christ. Yes, it was that bad.
Evidently your prof hadn't thought it thru all that well. Have you been reading the debate between DavidW and me?
ReplyDeleteWhile you do give better defenses than my prof, David is winning this debate. No offense. Don't get me wrong. You scored some points to be sure, but David has this one.
ReplyDeleteSure he is.
ReplyDelete;-)
At least you're reading it. It's all anyone could ask.
for me it comes down to two points:
ReplyDelete1) the earl;y fathers (athanasius, Augustine, ect) didn't use the PRotestant canon (they often quoted Sirach et al). That doesn't refute Sola SCriptura, to be sure, but it does make protestant canon difficult
2) Sola Scriptura can't be proven a priori. You have to appeal to history and evidence to prove it. But when you do that, you are moving outside of SCripture to prove scripture, which according to the presuppositionalists (see monergism.com) you can't do.
You can't do that because if you prove your highest authority by something other than your highest authority, you now have a new highest authority--there goes SCripture. Greg Bahnsen and Van Til, of whom I was a student for many years, make this clear.
1) Neither of those men used the EO Canon of Scr either. Ath explicitly did NOT use the EO Canon.
ReplyDelete(In fact, there is no completed EO Canon of Scr.)
2) I don't argue that way; if others do, it's b/c they haven't realised the epistemological inconsistencies of classical apologetics. I don't know why this statement of yours would bother me.
Further, why react against a perversion of a position by abandoning the true one?
What I'm saying is, your stated reasons don't add up. Leaves me wondering what was the real reason.
Peace,
Rhology
Rho,
ReplyDeleteI'd read through those three posts before, though I've heard the arguments previously, particularly, "We respond ... that the unity Christ prayed for was not organisational or institutional in nature, but rather spiritual, as God builds together the Body of Christ into spiritual union with Christ."
I've never fully understood how this stance works. I understand that some Protestants feel that Holy Tradition (Holy Scripture plus the teachings given to the Holy Fathers and to us though the apostles) is in the same quandary as Sola Scriptura leading to a plethora of beliefs (Btw, this may have been mentioned before, but the chart about Holy Tradition in one of the posts includes different Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions as separate groups of belief). But its also seems apparent that "Holy Tradition" is used differently by the different groups, say the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. It is readily apparent from a historical viewpoint that modern Roman Catholicism is a radical departure from the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, most notably the role of bishops (that of Rome in particular) in the life of the Church (Abbe Guette's "The Papacy" is an interesting read on that topic). So obviously they do not use the same measure for what Tradition is or perhaps what its place is, or whether the practice of ancient times is the correct one.
What instead is the 'spiritual unity' that exists among Protestants? I understand from the posts (and links) it is a belief in striving towards the unity for which Christ prayed, but it doesn't appear to exist. Does that mean that "that they may be one" hasn't happened yet?
How then can the Church be the visible witness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on this earth to all nations and all peoples?
How can we preach the gospel if we have no path and way of life to give the nations which is illumined by the light of the Holy Scriptures?
How can we even begin to grasp the unity of the Trinity or the meaning of God becoming man to ransom men from the sickness of sin without important works such as "on the Incarnation" or St. Basil the Great's "On the Holy Spirit"? What greater guard can we have on our hearts against heresy than the very words and understanding that defended the Faith from the heretics of old?
Why speculate and deduce from Holy Scripture (using a mindset and rationale completely foreign to the Apostles and Fathers, including a belief that the Holy Faith can be passed on and expressed by unholy men) rather than accepting the interpretation and testimony of not only the faith but also the holy lives of the Fathers? If their teachings are those of the Apostles, produce in us holiness and restore the image of God in us, what more can we ask for?
Demi,
ReplyDeleteWrt the spiritual unity, it refers to being in the spiritual Body of Christ. This guy said it well.
I don't "feel" that you're in the same quandary - you ARE. And it's a false quandary, but EOC/RCC act like it's a real one all the time, so I'm just showing how stupid that is.
I don't understand the "visible witness" thing; surely you know that Reformed doctrine has very explicit teachings on ecclesiology, missions, church gov't, don't you?
We have plenty of path and life - the Gospel.
No one's claiming other works aren't useful. I think you've been fed a long line of misrepresentations about Sola Scriptura.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology:
ReplyDeleteAnd surely you're familiar with 1 Corinthians 1:10-13? There's no unity if there's not doctrinal unity, unity of Faith.
Protestant attempts to water-down what Christ meant when he was talking about unity are novel inventions created as a kind of afterthought to the breaking up of the western church.
None of the early Christians (including Christ and his Apostles) ever thought of the Church this way. Perhaps you should read more of their arguments against the Gnostics and Marcionites, as this is one of the primary points which they used to counter those sects.
You haven't even commented very much on those posts to which I linked, so until you do, there's not much to take from your thoughts on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing to be said on them, full, as they are, of inaccuracies of every nature. Several people have already pointed out that you list different Orthodox jurisdictions as if they were separate churches altogether. I've also pointed out to you that you have a flawed understanding of the way the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians view each other, and Roman Catholicism is such a major departure from the early Church that it's laughable. They too have had to develop a new understanding of what Tradition means in order to justify themselves.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question:
I vacation a lot, so I've visited a lot of different Orthodox churches. Generally, the way I choose which one to go to is which is closest to my hotel. I've visited about a dozen different jurisdictions in this way.
So: You go on vacation. Your hotel has a Methodist church next door to it; a Pentecostal church two blocks away; and a Baptist church about a mile away. Which one do you go to?
Or, if you don't like hypotheticals, is the church you attend the closest Protestant church to your house? If not, why not?
i join you in rejecting classical apologetics. Here is what I was saying. To be tryue to presup, you have to use the bible to prove the bible.
ReplyDeleteThat means, you have to use the bible to prove the canon of scripture, which is impossible.
Okay,
I know i've been asking doctrine of God type questions when the main debate is on sola scriptura. I'll tie them together.
Rho,
Where in Scripture do you find proof for the Filioque? or the doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity? If you can't find these in SCripture, why do you hold to them?
I call each of the churches to find out about their doctrinal stances.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, my church does happen to be closest, but I go there b/c I agree most with its teaching and practice. So what?
(Also, give up on the "you put multiple jurisdictions on your ugly graphic". I know it's ugly; I can't draw. The point remains untouched. If you don't see it, so much the worse for you.)
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteyou have to use the bible to prove the canon of scripture, which is impossible.
1) Read my debate (again) and read James White's "Scripture Alone". It's not a long book and it's inexpensive.
2) Now ask yourself the same question about the Church proving the Church. You don't ask EOC the same questions that you ask Sola Scriptura, and that's a huge problem.
Triablogue's been discussing the Filioque a lot recently; I'd refer you to that discussion.
rho,
ReplyDeleteyou don't understand orthodox jurisdictions, do you?
i have a signed copy of SCripture alone.
I am asking you questions on the doctrine of god. answer them.
i've since given my copy of scripture alone away. i know james white's stuff. listened to most of his debates. great refutation of islam and rome. But that's a moot point for me.
ReplyDeletebut it comes down to this:
ReplyDeleteChrist, God, Trinity, however you want to call it: that is the ultimate foundational issue of all reality.
If I convert to Orthodoxy it will be on those issues. I believe the Pope of Rome was wrong to demand Filioque and absolute divine simpilicty (which Protestantism accepted).
Rejecting that I am led to the essence and energies of God. This determines the rest of theology. I don't know how else to say it. Our doctrine of God should determine what we believe.
I understand them somewhat, Jacob. Doesn't change the point of the post, like I said - I'm addressing more than just EOC.
ReplyDeleteIf you've read Scr Alone well and my debate, you'd know that your point is flawed. It's a shame you can't see it.
I don't know the answer to the ADS, I already told you. And you may take Steve Hays' thoughts on the filioque as mine.
Christ, God, Trinity, however you want to call it: that is the ultimate foundational issue of all reality..
I agree but without knowing HOW YOU KNOW THEM, one is in trouble.
Yeah,
ReplyDeleteYou're going to need to do more than "ah so, Grasshopper" responses. The mystical "my point is there you can't see it" is bad form in debate.
Steve Hays essentially rejects the western doctrine of God. Which is good. But he doesn't really offer a coherent alternative, which is why he isn't Orthodox. He's actually very unconfessional on that point and he makes no bones about it. In fact, in rejecting the eternal generation of the Son, steve is skating on thin ice.
"Wrt the spiritual unity, it refers to being in the spiritual Body of Christ. This guy said it well."
ReplyDeleteI read it, I just don't understand it. From the conclusion: "That is precisely the kind of unity Christ was praying for. There is nothing superficial about it. It is a unity of spirit. It is a unity in truth. And that is why, in the context of his prayer for unity, Christ also prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17)."
How is this reflected by the unity of those who adhere to Sola Scriptura? How can we be the united Body of Christ without common faith and doctrine, particularly if the common faith in "Scripture" produces discord?
"We have plenty of path and life - the Gospel."
From Thy commandments have I gained understanding; therefore have I hated every way of unrighteousness. Thy law is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my paths. Psalm 118:104-5
How can the Scripture be both the light and the path?
"I don't "feel" that you're in the same quandary - you ARE. And it's a false quandary, but EOC/RCC act like it's a real one all the time, so I'm just showing how stupid that is."
Perhaps (I might be assuming falsely here) its not that your acquaintances are saying "You're not organized therefore you're obviously not the Church." but rather to look to the wide array of beliefs as a fruit of a flawed understanding of God, the Church, history, et cetera, and that a shared belief of most (if not all) of these groups is the ability of Scripture to be self-interpreted (meaning both that the Scripture interprets itself through other Scripture and that an individual can interpret it thus). Aren't all of these 33,000+ denominations applying the principles of Sola Scriptura and thus arriving at different conclusions? How many systematic theologies are there anyway?
In the light of what I said about the application of Holy Tradition rather than just the claiming of its authority (i.e. the passing down of the faith rather than claiming authority simply because of the physical link), how then are the Orthodox in the quandary?
From Thy commandments have I gained understanding; therefore have I hated every way of unrighteousness. Thy law is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my paths. Psalm 118:104-5
ReplyDeleteHow can the Scripture be both the light and the path?
I don't understand the question, since you just quoted Ps 118/9. Maybe read the rest of the Psalm?
How is this reflected by the unity of those who adhere to Sola Scriptura?
B/c the Holy Spirit works to bring recognition to His sheep of those who are His sheep.
It's a spiritual unity. Given the failure of the institutional unity model, you need to discard your mistaken categories and think more biblically here.
How can we be the united Body of Christ without common faith and doctrine
?? We DO have common faith and doctrine - the Gospel. that's the point, and the Gospel is the dividing line.
Aren't all of these 33,000+ denominations applying the principles of Sola Scriptura and thus arriving at different conclusions?
There aren't 33000 denoms. I thought you read the articles.
Even if there were, EOC and RCC and other Sola Ecclesiaists are in no better position. You need to give up this objection. If you're going to object, do so on some other point, b/c there's no good answer for you, no church immune.
A little comparison might help - ask the same questions of ONLY Reformed Baptist that you've been asking of ONLY EOC, and make the same statements of ONLY RefBaps that you've been making of ONLY EOC. Each time, they work just fine, so the problem is the premise of your objection.
Peace,
Rhology
Rho,
ReplyDeleteI have a more neutral question.
When is the earliest in church history you can find a complete Protestant canon? I'm curious.
Hmm, not sure.
ReplyDeleteHere's a good candidate:
The next work of Melito from which Eusebius has given an extract is called Selections, addressed to a friend named Onesimus, who had asked Melito to make selections from the law and the prophets of passages concerning our Saviour, and concerning all our faith, and also to give him accurate information as to the number and order of the O.T. books. Melito relates that he had gone up to the East to the place where the things were preached and done, and had accurately learned the books of the O.T. He enumerates the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehemiah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise omitted. This list gives the Hebrew canon adopted by the Church of England; but gives a different order of the books from that of Josephus, and does not attempt to make the number of books 22. The expressions "the Old Books," "the Books of the O.T.," shew clearly that the church of Melito's time had a New Testament canon.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/melito-wace.html
I can grant that Esdras probably includes "Esther" (nothing definite, though) but it also more likely includes 1 and 2 Esdras as well, which, sadly, is not in the Protestant canon.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, even if you are correct in that Melito's list is identical to the Protestant canon, and few scholars think it is, you then have to prove, in light of my next argument, that this list was widespread and normative for the church. It wasn't. A sampling of church history (either East or West) proves as much.
Now here's my argument: if the bible is "the rule of faith and lief for the church," and the canon is the bible, if the Church had the wrong canon for most of its history, ipso facto, it had the wrong bible and the wrong rule of faith and life.
The entire history of the church until protestantism was in error, then. Are you a Restorationist?
Rho,
ReplyDelete"Even if there were, EOC and RCC and other Sola Ecclesiaists are in no better position. You need to give up this objection. If you're going to object, do so on some other point, b/c there's no good answer for you, no church immune."
That's what I'm asking; how are the Orthodox in no better position, given the numerous times its been demonstrated that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic views of tradition are different, particularly that the Orthodox hold the view of the Apostles and Fathers?
"A little comparison might help - ask the same questions of ONLY Reformed Baptist that you've been asking of ONLY EOC, and make the same statements of ONLY RefBaps that you've been making of ONLY EOC."
Ah, I understand that. The Orthodox Church holds to the unchanging Faith preserved and defended by countless martyrs, holy men, and apostles since the first century. Do the Reformed Baptists do the same? Who amongst the Fathers (Apostolic in particular) taught les five points?
"the Holy Spirit works to bring recognition to His sheep of those who are His sheep.
It's a spiritual unity."
:( Oh dear, I can't say anything to that.
"Given the failure of the institutional unity model, you need to discard your mistaken categories and think more biblically here."
The "institutional unity model"? What is there to be mistaken about? The Orthodox are not trying to create unity in form without substance here. In antiquity God chose Abram to father the nation who would be His people, who were supposed to be a witness to the world of the true God. Through them God was born as a man, and chose men to pass on his teachings and commandments, and these men spread the true Faith and holy way of life to all people, and were all united to a common faith, held by the Orthodox Church to this day.
The Hebrews - Visible.
Christ - Visible.
The Apostles and the Church founded on Pentecost - Visible.
"I don't understand the question, since you just quoted Ps 118/9. Maybe read the rest of the Psalm?"
I refrained from posting the psalm in its entirely. ;-) Though all I intended by the question was your/the Reformed Baptists' view on King David's contemplation on the word of the Lord in Psalm 118. In the midst of extolling the greatness of the law and testament given to the people of God, and asking God to indeed teach him his statutes, he calls it the lamp unto his path, rather than his light and his path.
Off-topic: I've also really enjoyed your debate with DavidW. Its been a very interesting read.
that this list was widespread and normative for the church. It wasn't. A sampling of church history (either East or West) proves as much.
ReplyDeleteSince my rule of faith and my ideas of Scr canon have little to do with some kind of widespread acceptance, this is no objection for my position.
Since YOURS, however, DOES rely highly on some imaginary consensus, this cuts your own position's throat.
The entire history of the church until protestantism was in error, then
1) No, not the entire history. Did you forget my quote from Melito already?
2) A small remnant is precisely what I expect, given the OT.
how are the Orthodox in no better position, given the numerous times its been demonstrated that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic views of tradition are different, particularly that the Orthodox hold the view of the Apostles and Fathers?
Either you compare churches (EOC vs Reformed Baptists, say) or you compare rules of faith (Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia).
EOC comes out badly either way. It's in the post. Seriously, did you read them?
Do the Reformed Baptists do the same? Who amongst the Fathers (Apostolic in particular) taught les five points?
Yes, there are plenty of martyrs in the church, both early and more modern times.
Jesus, Paul, and Peter believed what later came to be known as Calvinism.
In antiquity God chose Abram to father the nation who would be His people, who were supposed to be a witness to the world of the true God.
This is what I mean about misunderstanding. Do you think I believe there is to be no visible church? It seems you do, and that's wrong.
The Hebrews - Visible.
BELIEVING Hebrews - Invisible.
The Apostles and the Church founded on Pentecost - Visible.
The Apostles and the BELIEVING Church founded on Pentecost - Invisible (Judas was a visible apostle but an invisible reprobate).
It's both, but in this context invisible is the crux.
In the midst of extolling the greatness of the law and testament given to the people of God, and asking God to indeed teach him his statutes, he calls it the lamp unto his path, rather than his light and his path.
I think that's just semantical gymnastics. Jesus is the Light of the world - the Scr tells us about Him. Our life is the path we have to walk - the Scr illumines it.
Why didn't David extol Church Tradition or a Jewish Council?
And I'm glad you've enjoyed the debate. I have too! And DavidW has been a very courteous and fair debate opponent
Peace,
Rhology
The EO does not rely on the "text" of the Bible in the same way that Protestantism does. Please familiarize yourself with EO sources. Familiarize yourself with EO's concept of "tradition." The EO says the church is the pillar of the truth. You've been corrected on misrepresenting EO at least a dozen times on this blog.
ReplyDeleteYour reference to Melito does no good, since he accepted "apocryphal" books as part of the canon. I don't see why you keep referring to him.
I've proven that your use of Melito is faulty. Now, I repeat my challenge:
Now here's my argument: if the bible is "the rule of faith and lief for the church," and the canon is the bible, if the Church had the wrong canon for most of its history, ipso facto, it had the wrong bible and the wrong rule of faith and life.
This doesn't bother the EO because the Church is the pillar of Truth, the apostlic succession.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say what you said I said. You're not one to go around correcting ppl on mischaracterisations.
And my arguments don't persuade you b/c you've checked your brain at the door, I'm sorry to say. You assume EOC and so nothing can touch it, but in fact you have made no substantive response. Let the reader judge.
I won't resort to ad hom like you do. James White isn't even that crass in debate.
ReplyDeleteAs to checking my brain at the door on EO, a few points to note:
1) I am not EO.
2) I am not convinced by EO apologists on what makes an Ecumenical Council and ecumenical council.
I simply state, based on a wide reading of church history from various ideological sources (Protestant, Orthodox, Roman) that sola scriptura can't stand under it's own weight.
My final points:
1) IN failing to address my challenge on Absolute Divine Simplicity, you confess ignorance. In other words, you can't even defend the most basic Western and Reformed doctrine of God. And then you have the nerve to say that East, following the Fathers (who did get the doctrine of God correct) are wrong.
2) Given the Protestant view of the bible as the final rule of faith and life, and asking repeatedly to see a Protestant canon (I had already refuted your use of Melito), you refused to engage me on that point. Leaving me to the conclusion that on your terms the church was without an adequate rule for faith and life for most of her history (no, you didn't say that, but that is the legitmate implication of yuor position).
That was not an abusive ad hominem, Jacob, and I'm sorry you took it that way.
ReplyDeleteMy point about the councils was that EOC has a worse problem than Sola Scriptura does, and RCC still worse.
1) Yes, I do confess ignorance. I'm sorry I can't be an expert on everythg.
2) I refused to engage further b/c the question is moot. I have every reason to and am fully justified in trusting in God to make His revelation known sufficiently to His people (John 10). Do I know the mechanism for EVERYthing God does? Far from it. I might know it sometimes, and I might know some of it with some specificity but not all specificity, and that's the case here. I know it vaguely, but not exhaustively, and will never know it exhaustively due to the vagaries and lack of exhaustive testimony that are the hallmarks of ancient history.
You in turn have not taken into acct the OT paradigm, at least two points of which are very relevant and which I've mentioned.
Also, you spoke in "probably"s when you discussed Melito. "Probably" is not a refutation.
Peace,
Rhology
Fair enough, it's not a refuation. But it does weaken the claim that Melito had a Protestant canon. Severely weaken it, actually--and I'll rest with that.
ReplyDeleteI guess there's nothing new to add. I have no further comments on this point. David might. I'm out.
Farewell,
Jacob
I don't have much to add here; I think you've done a great job, far better than I ever could, Jacob. Only two things I have to say:
ReplyDelete1. I go there b/c I agree most with its teaching and practice. So what?
That's exactly the point. So drop your false claim to "spiritual unity" with other Protestants.
2. The next work of Melito etc.
See my previous post on St. Melito's canon in my series on the Fathers and Sola Scriptura. There's no reason, short of Protestant apologetics, to assume that the Wisdom of Solomon is not mentioned in his list. It differs from the Protestant canon; it differs from the Orthodox canon. Judging from Melito's words about where he got the canon, it was probably the canon of Jewish Palestine at his time.
I should add to that also that this, using the canon of the Jews due an assumption that their canon is the correct Old Testament canon, is really the problem here, and it was what led both St. Jerome and Luther to decide upon the canon they did. It's a false assumption, however, as we know that ancient Jews did not always agree on the canon and the canon they did finally settle on (whether at Jamnia or elsewhere) had a blatantly anti-Christian bias. Even as early as about 150, St. Justin Martyr writes against the Jews for having changed their canon of Scripture as a measure against the Christians. There's something deeply troubling about choosing a canon of Scripture decided upon by people who persecuted Christians.
ReplyDeleteThe safe and sensible route is to cling to the canon (and translation) of the Holy Apostles, which is the Septuagint.
Is there a version of the LXX not derived from Aleph and B? I've asked this many times before of GO's and never found an answer. I don't trust Aleph and B for obvious reasons in the New Testament and am afraid the OT there is probably as bad. I'd prefer an LXX from anywhere but these two manuscripts, but alas have not been able to find any edition that ignores them and goes for something similar to a Textus Receptus of the LXX or suchlike. In fact, as far as scholars seem to be concerned, it almost seems as if Aleph and B are the only two manuscripts there are of the LXX!
ReplyDeleteyour false claim to "spiritual unity"
ReplyDelete1) Not with "Protestants". How many times do you have to be corrected on that?
2) The GOSPEL is that which grants unity. Not one's eschat position, for example.
3) I've pointed out to you numerous diffs you have with other EOdox. This is special pleading. You still haven't dealt with the posts, and it's getting kind of ridiculous.
Melito
If it doesn't bother you that Melito's canon differed from yours, why should it bother me?
LXX
The LXX is hardly monolithic in its textual transmission, and I don't see how it answers the question of Canon.
Apparently EOC doesn't see how either, since your Canon is not closed.
IOW, get some better arguments on this count, actually interact with what I've said, esp in those posts, or I'm done here.
Peace,
Rhology
1) Not with "Protestants".
ReplyDeleteWith who then?
And Protestants consistently disagree with each other on what the Gospel consists of.
3) I've pointed out to you numerous diffs you have with other EOdox.
On a calender. Good job.
If it doesn't bother you that Melito's canon differed from yours, why should it bother me?
Because it's possible to have a very different canon of Scripture from the one I hold and yet still have the same Faith as I do; our Faith is passed down and preserved by the Church by means of Apostolic Succession. Yours, on the other hand, hinges on any given verse of Scripture. What happens if my canon doesn't include Romans? What happens if it does include Ignatius' letters? All of a sudden all of my believes are very different from yours.
The LXX is hardly monolithic in its textual transmission, and I don't see how it answers the question of Canon.
The New Testament textual transmission is hardly monolithic either, and yet you don't have a problem accepting that right?
This statement is a sorry excuse to reject the Scriptures as used by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Christians in favor of a revised version (Masoretic) created by people who hated Christ and persecuted his Church. (And then preserved by generations of Jews, not Christians, throughout ancient times and the Middle Ages.)
Apparently EOC doesn't see how either, since your Canon is not closed.
Yep, you're right. A whole bunch of jurisdictions all functioning independently and with differing Scripture canons, and yet we hold to the exact same Faith. On the other hand, there's a whole bunch of Protestant groups who all have the exact same canon of Scripture and yet have widely differing beliefs. What gives?
Good try, I guess, but you still show no indication that my points from those posts I've linked you to more than once have made any impact on your thinking. For real, it's getting harder to take these questions seriously.
ReplyDelete1) Not with "Protestants".
With who then?
Those who believe the Gospel.
And Protestants consistently disagree with each other on what the Gospel consists of.
And Romanists and EOdox consistently disagree with each other on what Sacred Tradition consists of, and which Church Fathers to listen to, and who has what authority.
But we're not part of the same church!
Neither are most Protestants part of the same church as I. Seriously, you haven't even caught up to the first step of my argument yet.
3) I've pointed out to you numerous diffs you have with other EOdox.
On a calender. Good job.
And I showed you that apparently even EOdox disagree with each other on what the Gospel consists of, since a for-real EO authority, not a 20-sthg layman blogger from Texas, thinks the calendar question is a matter of hell and heaven.
Because it's possible to have a very different canon of Scripture from the one I hold and yet still have the same Faith as I do;
Which is very funny, and very revealing of how much authority your position allows to the God-breathed Scriptures. You can have that mess, if it doesn't matter what God said.
The New Testament textual transmission is hardly monolithic either, and yet you don't have a problem accepting that right?
Step back a moment and recall who started that question. YOU did b/c you thought you had a SUPERIOR position. Now you're like "Well, YOURS is as bad as MINE. Nyah nyah!"
Which was my whole point - they have the same proble, and the solution is not to run away screaming "LXX!"
in favor of a revised version (Masoretic) created by people who hated Christ and persecuted his Church.
You may not know this, but Prot Bibles take both the MT and the LXX into acct for their OTs.
This isn't really a debative point, so I'm not backtracking.
ReplyDeleteRho,
I have a proposal that will be mutually beneficiary to everyone. I'll read the best defense of Protestantism if you read the best critique.
I will read Phillip Schaff's *Principle of Protestantism* (sorry, I won't read James White for a number of reasons. 1) Even when I was a Calvinist I cringed at his idea of tradition and scripture; 2) it is better to read the "big dogs" than...well, Schaff has more weight that James White; 3) I listened to White's radio program every day for several years).
On the other hand, you can read the first chapter of each of the first three volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan's *History of the Christian Tradition.*
You are getting off easy for a number of reasons: 1) my book read is longer; 2) When Pelikan wrote this he was a Protestant; 3) These books can be found at any university library.
When you are reading Pelikan, note the following: the guys who are extolling tradition are considered heroes by many Protestants (St Ireaneus, St Maximus, Venerable Bede, etc., etc.). Does or does this not constitute a problem for the anti-tradition crowd, for they are not defining tradition as "what was merely later to be inscripturated?"
Basically, Pelikan is trying to say this:
ReplyDelete“The supporters of the sole authority of Scripture, arguing from radical hermeneutical principles to conservative dogmatic conclusions, overlooked the foundational role of tradition”
Pelikan, I: 119
And he is writing from the standpoint of the Reformation at this time in his life. He unofficially converted to Mother Russia in 1988. Officially, in 1998.
Why would what Pelikan, or the later early church, said about tradition concern a Sola Scripturist?
ReplyDeleteAnd do you hear me saying that tradition has no role? I certainly don't mean to communicate that, but it can sound like it when I object strenuously to the blasphemous pedestal that EOdox and RCs place it on.
I appreciate the reading rec, but I don't have time right now. Trying to read thru Owen's Mortification of Sin with a friend plus preparing Sunday School lessons on the Eucharist, upcoming. I've already read thru more than a volume of Schaff's Church History, JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and various other works related to it. I only have time for so much. :-(
Peace,
Rhology
And he is writing from the standpoint of the Reformation at this time in his life. He unofficially converted to Mother Russia in 1988. Officially, in 1998.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed a definite trend that as Protestants (and, to a lesser extent, Roman Catholics) get to know the Fathers more and more they move more and more towards Orthodoxy. Not that I compare myself to a genius like Pelikan, but I'm amongst them.
Regarding what Pelikan said: It's not really a "refutation" of the SS position, but if the discussion ever turns toward how the Reformed incorporate church history, then it's relevant.
ReplyDeleteTo be more fair, though, you continually link to White or somebody and expect us to read it (And between James White, Michael Horton, and RC Sproul, I've probably read at least 50 of their works). You even link to audio clips by White (which take up more time), expecting our interaction.
In any case, what I recommended would take all of 90 minutes whereas mine is going to take about a week (since I plan on personally translating the Latin footnotes that argue for Protestantism).
I don't know if I specifically said you deny tradition. I can't remember. But it's hard to see exactly what y'all believe on tradition. And if one identifies "tradition" with "what was only going to be later inscripturated" (cf Geisler, Schaff, et al), then practically there is no tradition.
But not all Protestants go that route. Keith Mathison has a better take on it (ironically, Mathison's view of tradition and regula fide in *Shape of Sola Scriptura* is fundamentally Orthodox!).
But it's hard to see exactly what y'all believe on tradition.
ReplyDeleteReally?
-Chicken dinner on Sundays
-Baptism in a raised font overlooking the congregation
-Meeting on Sunday morning
-The music we use
-Pastor generally preaches ~45 min, usually not more or less
etc. Tons of things in any given Reformed or SoBap church are based on tradition!
And if one identifies "tradition" with "what was only going to be later inscripturated" (cf Geisler, Schaff, et al), then practically there is no tradition.
Ah, well I'm afraid that's a big misunderstanding there. When I said that, I was referring to the prevailing meaning of "paradosis" among ECFs, but "tradition" has a larger meaning today, and your question was in a diff context.
Rho,
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much as a misunderstand, but difficulty in identifyng how tradition is used. Geisler and Co. take a lame "tradition simply is scripture spoken" view. Mathison takes a more robust tradition = regula fide (I actually agree with Mathison; I just wish he would be consistent). Rome has taken 3 differnet views on tradition.
Orthodox has yet a different view of tradition over against the above view. Lossky does a good job on explicating what is and isn't meant by tradition.
Dave,
I know what you mean, and I've seen people go overboard. It's like reading RC Sproul say, "If you affirm a doctrine that hasn't been held in church history, then you are probably wrong" and then applying it to Luther. After reading Reformation21 blog and others, then going to the Patristics, it's tempting to overreact.
But yeah, even Pope Benedict says that the late medievals got it wrong and the patristic model is better. And even though he doesn't disagree with Trent, Henri de Lubac has been another Catholic force in geting the conversation back to the Fathers.
Hello David!
ReplyDeleteI am an inquirer at an Eastern Orthodox Church. I ran across your youtube videos months ago and found them helpful.
I frequent Christian forums and it's rare to find Orthodox Christians that participate. However, on most of these forums most of the dialogue on topics like, "sola scriptura, Constantine, etc" are between protestants and Roman Catholics.
I would like to invite you and any Orthodox Christian reading this to realize (and I'm sure that you do) that the West really doesn't know much about Orthodoxy and that most of their preconceptions about Orthodoxy are just protestant beliefs about Roman Catholicism being juxtaposed onto the Orthodox.
Knowing this I find it worthwhile to engage people both in life and on the internet that people might get to know more about it.
Any "Christian" forum or chat site will do but some of the more protestant ones seem completely devoid of Orthodox Christians.
The one forum I'm posting on currently is called, grace centered forums. You can google it, free to join. My handle there is Ryan2010.
I hope you don't mind David but I did post your series on the myths of the council of Nicaea. People are beginning to reply to the subject but I often feel a bit overwhelmed because I'm just an inquirer.
Also posted your series on Orthodoxy and scripture.
I also have a few threads on sola scriptura, Apostolic succession, etc. and also engage on topics posted to the Roman Catholics section because it's a good opportunity to introduce both protestants and Roman Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Anyway, love the blog david. Love the youtube videos. My entire family has benefited from those videos.
God willing I'll be reading David Bentley Hart's work (thanks for the recommend) in hopes to more skillfully engage Atheists and those that perpetuate revised histories in order to slander the faithful.
Hope to see more Orthodox out there on the interwebs! :P
Hope to see the West become more familiar with how Orthodoxy views herself in contrast to the presuppositions and reactionary rhetoric so prevalent out there.
God bless!
-- Ryan
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much this message. I really appreciate the support -- it's hard to stay motivated sometimes! :-P
I'm very happy that my videos and posts were able to be of value to you. Thank you for posting them for others to see. I'll have to check out the grace centered forums sometime. :)