A comment I left on John Bugay's post about the similarities between Orwellian visions of rewriting the past and the way Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy rewrite church history:
And that is precisely what the practice of bestowing the title "Church Father" and "Doctor of the Church" does as well - it artificially inflates the early author of Christendom to a more exalted status, such that now Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy, which does this just as flagrantly) can appeal back to that man as support for its Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In reality, if you want to know what early Christians believed, it's pretty hard since we have an infinitesimally small % of people writing compared to the total population of Christians at the time, and out of those writers an underwhelming % of their writings are extant. As Steve Hays likes to say: Show me the survey data.
All this illustrates the impossibility of any rational appeal to "tradition" to found a prescription for doctrine. We must stick with God's revealed Word, not what a modern organisation picks and chooses out of history.
Showing posts with label Eastern Orthodoxy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eastern Orthodoxy. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wrangling about the Canon of Scripture with the Society for Orthodox Apologetics -2
Continuing from last post:
Exactly my point -- so please stop begging the question.
??
are you willing to change your view every time that modern scholarship comes across new evidence that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
It's hardly modern.
I'm not sure how sticking your fingers in your ears is supposed to make anyone think you're a serious seeker of truth. If it's an interpolation, it's an interpolation.
And it's not as if you know for sure that John is Apostolic either. Are you willing to change your view every time that the modern EOC comes across new Tradition that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
2 Peter was probably written between AD 130-150
1) No it wasn't.
2) How strange that you'd prefer liberal scholarship over believing. Almost as if you were back in your errantist phase, as if you were like most other EOx, a liberal.
3) If you really believed that, it speaks even less highly of your desire to know the truth, since if it were written then it wouldn't be Apostolic, but your church thinks it is. So it's just another example of authority pulling the rug over your eyes and you letting them do so.
Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.
Because of our drastically different viewpoints? While the Orthodox uphold the Bible, the Protestants undermine it...
Who knows what this even means, or how it answers my challenge. Apparently you don't have an answer.
How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK?
How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?
Again, no answer to my challenge that you're acting like an atheist when it suits you.
How will YOU answer the question?
By demonstrating:
1. That Christ is risen, therefore God
2. That Christ founded a Church, which is therefore perfect and eternal3. That this Church decided the canon of Scripture
Um, atheists don't accept that Christ is risen, or that there is a God. Why wouldn't the atheist just dismiss the arguments for the resurrection as anomalous: "Weird stuff happens sometimes, but we know there's no God, so..."?
And premise 2 is, um, highly questionable.
As for premise 3, it shows me where you put your trust. Whereas my position is that God decides canon and the church recognises it, you prefer it the other way around. You start with man. Man-centered religion.
How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
Are you trying to convince me or just justify yourself? This is about the most circular argumentation I've ever seen...
You ask me how God could have used Specific Sinful Man X to carry out His plan and I remind you that all men are sinful and that God uses sinful men to carry out His plan, and that's circular? Um, OK.
And you show no recognition of that pattern throughout the entire Bible. Wow.
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ?
Are you not familiar with the Council of Jamnia
Familiar enough to know it wasn't a "Council" at all.
How does this answer my question?
How did He quote from it all the time then?
Did he quote from every book of your Old Testament?
Um, if there's no canon, then quoting from ANY book leaves Him open to the question of whether it's canonical. Gotta follow the thought here, man.
There are quotes in the New Testament from the deuterocanonicals and even the apocrypha
Hahahaha.
1) Prove it.
2) Have you so quickly forgotten our debate?
Does Romans 3:2 refer to the Jews before Christ's time who accepted the Septuagint with deuterocanonicals as Scriptural (as St. Paul did)? Or to the Jews after Christ's time who edited the Scriptures, excised verses and entire books, and turned to the Masoretic instead?
1) So now you're changing your argument. First it was that the Jews didn't have a Canon. Now it's that they did but it was the one with DC books. Make up your mind.
2) And their canon didn't include those books. Nice try, though.
All of history is but an illusion... Your "god" is a rather deceptive fellow
Again, no answer to the challenge.
It is important to distinguish between pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation Jews.
Quite. Which is why I did so.
1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
Is all Tradition written?
This is nothing less than an admission that you can't answer the challenge.
Remember: I, unlike you, actually believe that Christ's promise is fulfilled and the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
OOh, is it OK if I quote you from just above? "How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?"
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition?
We've covered this already; I'm not going over it again.
Yep, I refer everyone to our debate. I laugh every time I read your "answer" to my first cross-examination question.
What if the Gospel of John really was written in the late 2nd century as some scholars have posited? Should we throw the whole thing out?
More atheist-type questions, right after whining about "atheist-dominated scholarship" too. You can't decide when you're coming and when you're going!
John 7:53-8:11 and 2 Peter were written around the same time.
1) How could you possibly know that?
2) What does time of writing have to do with it?
Peace,
Rhology
Exactly my point -- so please stop begging the question.
??
are you willing to change your view every time that modern scholarship comes across new evidence that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
It's hardly modern.
I'm not sure how sticking your fingers in your ears is supposed to make anyone think you're a serious seeker of truth. If it's an interpolation, it's an interpolation.
And it's not as if you know for sure that John is Apostolic either. Are you willing to change your view every time that the modern EOC comes across new Tradition that a certain verse or a certain book isn't really Apostolic?
2 Peter was probably written between AD 130-150
1) No it wasn't.
2) How strange that you'd prefer liberal scholarship over believing. Almost as if you were back in your errantist phase, as if you were like most other EOx, a liberal.
3) If you really believed that, it speaks even less highly of your desire to know the truth, since if it were written then it wouldn't be Apostolic, but your church thinks it is. So it's just another example of authority pulling the rug over your eyes and you letting them do so.
Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.
Because of our drastically different viewpoints? While the Orthodox uphold the Bible, the Protestants undermine it...
Who knows what this even means, or how it answers my challenge. Apparently you don't have an answer.
How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK?
How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?
Again, no answer to my challenge that you're acting like an atheist when it suits you.
How will YOU answer the question?
By demonstrating:
1. That Christ is risen, therefore God
2. That Christ founded a Church, which is therefore perfect and eternal3. That this Church decided the canon of Scripture
Um, atheists don't accept that Christ is risen, or that there is a God. Why wouldn't the atheist just dismiss the arguments for the resurrection as anomalous: "Weird stuff happens sometimes, but we know there's no God, so..."?
And premise 2 is, um, highly questionable.
As for premise 3, it shows me where you put your trust. Whereas my position is that God decides canon and the church recognises it, you prefer it the other way around. You start with man. Man-centered religion.
How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
Are you trying to convince me or just justify yourself? This is about the most circular argumentation I've ever seen...
You ask me how God could have used Specific Sinful Man X to carry out His plan and I remind you that all men are sinful and that God uses sinful men to carry out His plan, and that's circular? Um, OK.
And you show no recognition of that pattern throughout the entire Bible. Wow.
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ?
Are you not familiar with the Council of Jamnia
Familiar enough to know it wasn't a "Council" at all.
How does this answer my question?
How did He quote from it all the time then?
Did he quote from every book of your Old Testament?
Um, if there's no canon, then quoting from ANY book leaves Him open to the question of whether it's canonical. Gotta follow the thought here, man.
There are quotes in the New Testament from the deuterocanonicals and even the apocrypha
Hahahaha.
1) Prove it.
2) Have you so quickly forgotten our debate?
Does Romans 3:2 refer to the Jews before Christ's time who accepted the Septuagint with deuterocanonicals as Scriptural (as St. Paul did)? Or to the Jews after Christ's time who edited the Scriptures, excised verses and entire books, and turned to the Masoretic instead?
1) So now you're changing your argument. First it was that the Jews didn't have a Canon. Now it's that they did but it was the one with DC books. Make up your mind.
2) And their canon didn't include those books. Nice try, though.
All of history is but an illusion... Your "god" is a rather deceptive fellow
Again, no answer to the challenge.
It is important to distinguish between pre-Incarnation and post-Incarnation Jews.
Quite. Which is why I did so.
1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
Is all Tradition written?
This is nothing less than an admission that you can't answer the challenge.
Remember: I, unlike you, actually believe that Christ's promise is fulfilled and the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
OOh, is it OK if I quote you from just above? "How about giving better evidence for your position than "it's true because I believe it" which is all that your comments here have amounted to thus far?"
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition?
We've covered this already; I'm not going over it again.
Yep, I refer everyone to our debate. I laugh every time I read your "answer" to my first cross-examination question.
What if the Gospel of John really was written in the late 2nd century as some scholars have posited? Should we throw the whole thing out?
More atheist-type questions, right after whining about "atheist-dominated scholarship" too. You can't decide when you're coming and when you're going!
John 7:53-8:11 and 2 Peter were written around the same time.
1) How could you possibly know that?
2) What does time of writing have to do with it?
Peace,
Rhology
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Wrangling about the Canon of Scripture with the Society for Orthodox Apologetics
The always-bizarre Lvka has posted a brief and more or less worthless article at the Society for Orthodox Apologetics. I asked a question and the far-more-competent DavidW got involved.
Notice, before we begin, how he discusses the Jews. Why does he use such language about them?
Also, note how biblically illiterate the man is. When I say that I don't see how faithful EOx could have eternal life, I mean comments like those found here (wherein Lvka defines his version of the gospel - fearfully damnable!) and also in the following comments where DavidW asks why God would use thus-and-such horrible men to do His work. Does DavidW even realise he's a sinner in need of a Savior? He might say he does if you ask him directly, but by his comments he denies such a concept. It's the same idea as he demonstrated not long ago. I wish he'd learned from it.
Here is my latest comment:
how do we know the name was in the autograph?
We don't KNOW it. How do we know it wasn't? We don't. So the question is kind of worthless.
And I don't consider John 7:53-8:11 inspired Scripture, no. Nor the longer ending of Mark. Nor the Comma Johanneum. Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.
how do you know God wrote it?
Are we back to this "I, the EO theist, will pretend to be an atheist" merry-go-round? How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK? All this jumping to skeptical positions doesn't do you any good. How will YOU answer the question?
How/why did God work through them to create a perfect New Testament canon while leaving them in horrible error about nearly everything else?
How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
I know, crazy, right? It's nuts. God's a weird dude.
Your Old Testament canon was decided by a group of Jews who rejected and explicitly cursed Christ
1) Oh, so all Jews of Jesus' time rejected and cursed Christ? Like Elisabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist, the 11 apostles, Anna, Simeon, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus...
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ? How did He quote from it all the time then?
3) Romans 3:1.
4) They didn't DECIDE it. God did.
5) The LXX was compiled by...Jews.
why did God choose to work through these Jews who spurned his Incarnation, cursed his Son, and persecuted his people instead of working through the Church he had founded as he did with the creation of the New Testament canon?
1) See above 5 comments.
2) Imagine David at the time of Habakkuk. "Why did God choose to work through these Babylonians who spurned His temple, razed His holy city, and persecuted His people instead of working through the nation he had founded as He did with the promise to Abraham? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
I know, crazy, right? It's nuts. God's a weird dude.
Turnback answer: How do you know who wrote the Gospels?
David: The unimpeachable Holy Tradition of the Church. In other words, the exact same way that you know; the difference is that I'm willing to be honest about it.
1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition? We've seen before that your answer is merely a viciously circular appeal to "Tradition", which cashes out to "the modern EOC says so", which doesn't help anyone. So I love it when you ask these sorts of questions.
3) And it's a strawman of course to think that Christian tradition is totally out of the question for me. When it comes to naming the human authors, why not look at tradition? And yes, I have read from others who are familiar with the situation that tradition favors these authors for these books, so, fine, I accept these authors' names as appended to the books, and b/c the names appear on the manuscript copies. It's not like it's a matter of essential faith!
Peace,
Rhology
Notice, before we begin, how he discusses the Jews. Why does he use such language about them?
Also, note how biblically illiterate the man is. When I say that I don't see how faithful EOx could have eternal life, I mean comments like those found here (wherein Lvka defines his version of the gospel - fearfully damnable!) and also in the following comments where DavidW asks why God would use thus-and-such horrible men to do His work. Does DavidW even realise he's a sinner in need of a Savior? He might say he does if you ask him directly, but by his comments he denies such a concept. It's the same idea as he demonstrated not long ago. I wish he'd learned from it.
Here is my latest comment:
how do we know the name was in the autograph?
We don't KNOW it. How do we know it wasn't? We don't. So the question is kind of worthless.
And I don't consider John 7:53-8:11 inspired Scripture, no. Nor the longer ending of Mark. Nor the Comma Johanneum. Incidentally, it's been Protestant scholarship that has detected these things, not EO scholarship. Wonder why that is.
how do you know God wrote it?
Are we back to this "I, the EO theist, will pretend to be an atheist" merry-go-round? How about you just stay in your own position, I'll stay in mine, and we'll talk, OK? All this jumping to skeptical positions doesn't do you any good. How will YOU answer the question?
How/why did God work through them to create a perfect New Testament canon while leaving them in horrible error about nearly everything else?
How? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
I know, crazy, right? It's nuts. God's a weird dude.
Your Old Testament canon was decided by a group of Jews who rejected and explicitly cursed Christ
1) Oh, so all Jews of Jesus' time rejected and cursed Christ? Like Elisabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist, the 11 apostles, Anna, Simeon, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus...
2) Oh, so the OT Canon wasn't known to the Jews until after Christ? How did He quote from it all the time then?
3) Romans 3:1.
4) They didn't DECIDE it. God did.
5) The LXX was compiled by...Jews.
why did God choose to work through these Jews who spurned his Incarnation, cursed his Son, and persecuted his people instead of working through the Church he had founded as he did with the creation of the New Testament canon?
1) See above 5 comments.
2) Imagine David at the time of Habakkuk. "Why did God choose to work through these Babylonians who spurned His temple, razed His holy city, and persecuted His people instead of working through the nation he had founded as He did with the promise to Abraham? OK, get this - God uses sinful men to carry out His perfect plan.
I know, crazy, right? It's nuts. God's a weird dude.
Turnback answer: How do you know who wrote the Gospels?
David: The unimpeachable Holy Tradition of the Church. In other words, the exact same way that you know; the difference is that I'm willing to be honest about it.
1) And how do you know who wrote the parts of Tradition that name the authors?
2) And how do you know that those parts of tradition are big-T Tradition? We've seen before that your answer is merely a viciously circular appeal to "Tradition", which cashes out to "the modern EOC says so", which doesn't help anyone. So I love it when you ask these sorts of questions.
3) And it's a strawman of course to think that Christian tradition is totally out of the question for me. When it comes to naming the human authors, why not look at tradition? And yes, I have read from others who are familiar with the situation that tradition favors these authors for these books, so, fine, I accept these authors' names as appended to the books, and b/c the names appear on the manuscript copies. It's not like it's a matter of essential faith!
Peace,
Rhology
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
DavidW changes his position, and 2 conversations
DavidW of Pious Fabrications, who debated me on Sola Scriptura, has changed his position on the Scripture. Before, he thought there were some minor factual errors in Scripture, but now says he no longer thinks that.
That's good news. Full stop.
It also brings up an interesting question for an EO like him, which I asked but which he declined to answer - Why is it "your position" at all? Why didn't the EOC inform your position authoritatively on this? Are you "working thru it" or something? Why? Just repeat what the EOC teaches on the topic!
...Unless it doesn't teach sthg monolithic on the topic. In which case, I have to question what good EOC's teaching authority is to you in real life.
Anyway, so that's one conversation I've been having.
The other is over at Catholic Nick's place. Nick is an interesting fellow - he's debated TurretinFan and brought up an interesting post on 2 Tim 3:16-17 which is far from injurious to Sola Scriptura, but still warrants some more careful thought. So kudos to him on that, and to be honest, from that post and from previous interactions on Beggars All, I'd taken him for a cut above the typical Roman epologist. Unfortunately, his blindness to his rampant special pleading in this combox has reduced my respect for him significantly.
Two things:
1) He will not recognise or deal with the fact that the RCC has acceded to the wishes of hetero couples who were duly and properly married and who consummated the marriage, in some cases even having children together(!), and who wanted to get an annulment. As Nick said: An annulment means a valid marriage never took place to begin with; a divorce is the severing of a valid marriage. Indeed. Yet taking what is a divorce by any measurement and renaming it an annulment is not honorable nor good. Still less is subsequent chest-thumping about how Rome teaches divorce is wrong and never grants divorces. Nick has not even attempted to deal with this.
2) He has, OTOH, attempted to deal with his special pleading with respect to "interpretive authority". Let's see how well that's turned out for him by examining a few snippets (and of course anyone can read the whole thing by following the link):
Nick: (Protestantism) has no way of correcting the problem.
Me: That's just silly. We have the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to illuminate. That's more than enough.
Or will you retreat to more special pleading? It's not like "Sacred Tradition" has a much better track record.
Nick: yet *MY* point is that Protestants "illuminated" in such a manner cannot agree on what Scripture is really saying on this subject,
Me: Um, remember what you just said? How someone who disobeys a teaching says nothing about the integrity of the teaching itself?
Nick: If the Church teaches X, then any member who teaches other than X is being disobedient.
Me: If the Scripture teaches X, then any member who teaches other than X is being disobedient.
Nick: The situation you are describing is not Church teaching but an *abuse* of Church teaching.
Me: So nick, what authority do YOU have to call what real priests do "abuse"? How very Protestant of you...Sometimes ppl disobey what the Scr says. We call them "disobedient".
You claim when ppl disobey what the Mag says, they're "disobedient".
Nick: You're blind, utterly blind, to the fact regenerate pastors DISAGREE on what the Scripture SAYS. One pastor thinks Scripture SAYS Divorce is ok, while another pastor thinks Scripture SAYS divorce is not ok. WHICH PASTOR IS CORRECT? Answer: In Protestantism, BOTH. Both pastors are functioning as their personal, stand-alone, magisterium.
Me: Let's look at it another way, Nick.
You're blind, utterly blind, to the fact baptised and ordained priests DISAGREE on what the RC Magisterium/tradition SAYS. One priest thinks the Magisterium/tradition SAYS Divorce is ok, while another priest thinks Magisterium/tradition SAYS divorce is not ok. WHICH PRIEST IS CORRECT? Answer: In RCC, BOTH. Both pastors are functioning as their personal, stand-alone, magisterium of what the Magisterium/tradition says.
Nick: But Protestants cannot agree on whether the Bible forbids it or not, and the quote I gave of John Piper's Church says: "The same freedom of conscience applies to each of the other pastors as well" in regards to each pastor deciding for themself if it is a sin or not.
Me: And RCs cannot agree on whether Sacred Tradition/Magisterium forbids it or not, since some do divorces and some don't. And some annul marriages post-coitus and some don't. So, since your position is not any better, what is your point?
Nick: It follows from the fact each pastor is operating as their own magisterium and you can't see that
Me: It follows from the fact each priest is operating as their own magisterium (fallibly, individually interpreting what the Magisterium says) and you can't see that.
It follows from THAT fact that each parishioner, including you, is operating as their own magisterium of what the priest said the Magisterium said, and you can't see that, either.
Nick: If a Church document teaches Marriage is permanent, then the priest (who contradicts) is wrong.
Me: OK, now watch how I take the same thing and apply it to my situation:
If the Bible teaches Marriage is permanent but divorce is permissible under certain specific circumstances, then John Piper is wrong.
What's the difference here?
Nick: Divorce is forbidden very clearly in official Catholic teaching. It doesn't matter how many priests disobey, the dogma doesn't change. Period.
Me: Divorce is permitted under certain circumstances very clearly in Scriptural teaching. It doesn't matter how many pastors disobey, the dogma doesn't change. Period.
See how you're just engaging, over and over again, in special pleading?
Nick: The Bible is for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when two Protestants point to the same verse(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
Me: Magisterial declarations are for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when two RCs point to the same decree(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
Uh oh - you've got a problem.
Or lookie here:
Sacred Tradition is for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when one Romanist and one Eastern Orthodox point to the same passage(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
That's good news. Full stop.
It also brings up an interesting question for an EO like him, which I asked but which he declined to answer - Why is it "your position" at all? Why didn't the EOC inform your position authoritatively on this? Are you "working thru it" or something? Why? Just repeat what the EOC teaches on the topic!
...Unless it doesn't teach sthg monolithic on the topic. In which case, I have to question what good EOC's teaching authority is to you in real life.
Anyway, so that's one conversation I've been having.
The other is over at Catholic Nick's place. Nick is an interesting fellow - he's debated TurretinFan and brought up an interesting post on 2 Tim 3:16-17 which is far from injurious to Sola Scriptura, but still warrants some more careful thought. So kudos to him on that, and to be honest, from that post and from previous interactions on Beggars All, I'd taken him for a cut above the typical Roman epologist. Unfortunately, his blindness to his rampant special pleading in this combox has reduced my respect for him significantly.
Two things:
1) He will not recognise or deal with the fact that the RCC has acceded to the wishes of hetero couples who were duly and properly married and who consummated the marriage, in some cases even having children together(!), and who wanted to get an annulment. As Nick said: An annulment means a valid marriage never took place to begin with; a divorce is the severing of a valid marriage. Indeed. Yet taking what is a divorce by any measurement and renaming it an annulment is not honorable nor good. Still less is subsequent chest-thumping about how Rome teaches divorce is wrong and never grants divorces. Nick has not even attempted to deal with this.
2) He has, OTOH, attempted to deal with his special pleading with respect to "interpretive authority". Let's see how well that's turned out for him by examining a few snippets (and of course anyone can read the whole thing by following the link):
Nick: (Protestantism) has no way of correcting the problem.
Me: That's just silly. We have the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to illuminate. That's more than enough.
Or will you retreat to more special pleading? It's not like "Sacred Tradition" has a much better track record.
Nick: yet *MY* point is that Protestants "illuminated" in such a manner cannot agree on what Scripture is really saying on this subject,
Me: Um, remember what you just said? How someone who disobeys a teaching says nothing about the integrity of the teaching itself?
Nick: If the Church teaches X, then any member who teaches other than X is being disobedient.
Me: If the Scripture teaches X, then any member who teaches other than X is being disobedient.
Nick: The situation you are describing is not Church teaching but an *abuse* of Church teaching.
Me: So nick, what authority do YOU have to call what real priests do "abuse"? How very Protestant of you...Sometimes ppl disobey what the Scr says. We call them "disobedient".
You claim when ppl disobey what the Mag says, they're "disobedient".
Nick: You're blind, utterly blind, to the fact regenerate pastors DISAGREE on what the Scripture SAYS. One pastor thinks Scripture SAYS Divorce is ok, while another pastor thinks Scripture SAYS divorce is not ok. WHICH PASTOR IS CORRECT? Answer: In Protestantism, BOTH. Both pastors are functioning as their personal, stand-alone, magisterium.
Me: Let's look at it another way, Nick.
You're blind, utterly blind, to the fact baptised and ordained priests DISAGREE on what the RC Magisterium/tradition SAYS. One priest thinks the Magisterium/tradition SAYS Divorce is ok, while another priest thinks Magisterium/tradition SAYS divorce is not ok. WHICH PRIEST IS CORRECT? Answer: In RCC, BOTH. Both pastors are functioning as their personal, stand-alone, magisterium of what the Magisterium/tradition says.
Nick: But Protestants cannot agree on whether the Bible forbids it or not, and the quote I gave of John Piper's Church says: "The same freedom of conscience applies to each of the other pastors as well" in regards to each pastor deciding for themself if it is a sin or not.
Me: And RCs cannot agree on whether Sacred Tradition/Magisterium forbids it or not, since some do divorces and some don't. And some annul marriages post-coitus and some don't. So, since your position is not any better, what is your point?
Nick: It follows from the fact each pastor is operating as their own magisterium and you can't see that
Me: It follows from the fact each priest is operating as their own magisterium (fallibly, individually interpreting what the Magisterium says) and you can't see that.
It follows from THAT fact that each parishioner, including you, is operating as their own magisterium of what the priest said the Magisterium said, and you can't see that, either.
Nick: If a Church document teaches Marriage is permanent, then the priest (who contradicts) is wrong.
Me: OK, now watch how I take the same thing and apply it to my situation:
If the Bible teaches Marriage is permanent but divorce is permissible under certain specific circumstances, then John Piper is wrong.
What's the difference here?
Nick: Divorce is forbidden very clearly in official Catholic teaching. It doesn't matter how many priests disobey, the dogma doesn't change. Period.
Me: Divorce is permitted under certain circumstances very clearly in Scriptural teaching. It doesn't matter how many pastors disobey, the dogma doesn't change. Period.
See how you're just engaging, over and over again, in special pleading?
Nick: The Bible is for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when two Protestants point to the same verse(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
Me: Magisterial declarations are for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when two RCs point to the same decree(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
Uh oh - you've got a problem.
Or lookie here:
Sacred Tradition is for the most part "plain English" and can be comprehended by the average reader. The problem arises when one Romanist and one Eastern Orthodox point to the same passage(s) and come to polar opposite dogmatic conclusions.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Look, the "unity" argument just doesn't work
Let me try to give a fuller explanation of the point of my last post with respect to what David B has said starting here.
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to put forward a Sola Scripturist position. The point is to rebut a very common Sola Ecclesia-ist argument, and nothing more. SEists like to rip Sola Scr b/c it produces all these denominations. I'm just showing another way (to say nothing of what's already been said that this is a terribly stupid argument to use.
David B says that the GOC have excommunicated themselves.
This is not excommunication, at least not biblically. Biblical excommunication/church discipline is an action taken by the church. Of course there's room biblically for them to go "out from us" (1 John 2), but that's not the same thing. So when I said "So excommunicate them" and David B said "Already done", this is not precise. It would have been far more precise and informative, apparently, to say "We can't; they already left", although apparently some of these GOC-ers, the priest in question included, see themselves as "resisting from within". Within what, if not EOC?
Along those lines, I'd asked for an "authoritative church statement", and didn't get one. I'd still like to know whether that exists, or whether this is David B's private, fallible interpretation of history. (Not that this is a big deal to me, but I say that to mock still others who use the "private fallible interpretation" argument, which is, if possible, even stupider.) (I do not recall David B ever using said argument, fortunately.)
Now, we turn to this comment:
the main reason I see the calendar as NOT part of tradition and NOT reason for schism is that it was simply the civil (and pagan!) calendar of Julian's day...
That sounds an awful lot like "the main reason I see the question of Presbyterian infant baptism as NOT part of the essentials and NOT reason for schism is that it is simply the outworking of Presby covenant theology and has nothing to do with the question of the Gospel", doesn't it? Yet do we Sola Scripturists ever get a pass from our Sola Ecclesia friends when we say that? Nope.
So when we see "The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called 'New' (Gregorian) Calendar." (Source), I don't see a good reason not to doubt this kind of "we have unity, and you don't, so haha" argument. David B's church is in the minority.
He or other EOx might respond:
But we are in communion with most of the Old Calendarists who aren't schismatics!
I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I'm in communion with all sortsa people - Presbyterians, not-Reformed Baptists, Assemblies of God, charismatics, Pentecostals...
But y'all don't go to the same church!
Neither do y'all.
And you don't earn any points for fudging on the definition of "denomination" either. Your not-denomination denominations, in which you disagree with each other about certain things, are the same situation as the one in which I find myself today among Sola Scripturists.
But we have the same name!
No, you don't. ROCOR, Russian Orthodox, OCA, GOA...
Those are just ethnic divisions for convenience' sake!
1) Then why do some of you differ on, for example, the calendar?
2) So it's better that y'all hold to the same doctrine and just squabble amongst yourselves like you do on the basis of racial dislikes? Nice.
But you're not in communion at all with other Protestants!
You mean so-called Protestants? Those with whom I'm not in communion have excommunicated themselves by denying the Gospel or another essential of the faith.
And you're not in communion with other Orthodox.
You mean so-called Orthodox?
Yep, that's precisely what I mean. Why do you get to play the "they've schismed" game while I don't? Where's your consistency?
It would appear that this is a case of "they're in communion with us unless they're not". I shouldn't have to remind anyone that this is a tautology, and yet that is what's behind any appeal to this "unity" argument.
But we have a way to tell which tradition is right!
So do we - the Scripture. Which doesn't keep writing itself with every new church pronouncement, BTW. And which is far less question-begging.
Having said all that, one has to ask how David B knows that OCA is part of The True Orthodox Church, whereas those who've kept to the ostensibly older tradition of the Old Calendar aren't the ones holding firm in the face of innovation, a new calendar, ecumenism,getting all liberal-soft on baby murder, but by God making sure that everyone knows that the EOC is really serious about being green. Nnnoooo, none of that is suspicious!
You know, for a while it sure seemed like the Arians were going to win the struggle in the 4th century, and anathemas had been flung about. If David B had been alive that day, how would he know that the party of Athanasius was correct? Appeal to "the Fathers"? Each side had their own "Fathers". Besides, a mere individual man like David doesn't get to define who is a Father and who isn't. And since the typical Sola Ecclesia interp of Matthew 16:18 tells us that the church will never go largely down into heresy, the only way to be sure would be to wait and see who'd win the struggle.
How is that helpful for the believer at the time whose very soul is at stake?
How is that a good guide for the believer who wants to further the cause of good and of God? How can he know where to direct his efforts?
Easy - he can't know, b/c individual interpretation of the Scripture is not available to him, and Apostolic Tradition hasn't been defined yet, and can't be by any one man.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The rich, rich irony
Following in the spirit of this older post pointing out the gross and obvious chasm between how Eastern Orthodox talk up their church's unity and the actual exercise of that "unity", I pause to note the just-published article "Why the True Orthodox are Truly Orthodox" from The Holy Metropolis of the COC of America. As the first link should make clear, it's not as if this is a recent development, hot off the presses, and I just couldn't wait to crow about how the Eastern Orthodox Church's long-invulnerable armor of unity has just now been cracked. I'm writing about it because it activated my brain. Yes, it hurt.
Anyway, let's consider this irony.
Eastern Orthodox (like their partners on the other side of the Sola Ecclesia coin, Romanists) love to rip "Protestants" for their disunity, for fragmenting into 59 gazillion (and growing) denominations. The answers we've given to that are manifold (and not well dealt with by EOx and RCs) but what do we see here if not a break within the Eastern Orthodox Church itself?
It's pretty funny how it's gone down, too. Often I have to explain to our EO and RC friends that we are biblically commanded to break fellowship with those who have fallen into heresy. They want to count towards the 59 gazillion, say, Oneness Pentecostals among the ranks of "Protestants", or liberal types who deny virtually everything supernatural in the Bible but still go to a "Presbyterian" or "Lutheran" or "Methodist" church. When we respond, "Um, no, those guys are called 'heretics' and are not Christian in any meaningful sense", they often choose to ignore the obvious and settle for the pejorative quip that, see? we even call each other non-Christians and heretics!
And that's for major differences in doctrine - the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, etc.
Now, they'll say, you also break fellowship with others over minor matters, such as the music you use during worship, women pastors, who gets to head the Agape Meal Planning Committee, etc. That can be true, and sometimes it's sad and a bad thing, sometimes not so sad or bad.
But lookie here - I don't guess the Eastern Orthodox have room to talk noise about that. These guys are throwing the Heretic Card for people who hold to a different calendar. In terms of pettiness, that's sandwiched riiiigggghhhhttt between the music-during-worship schism and the Meal-Planning-Committee schism.
But Rhology! The Calendar is a big deal!
||Nodding skeptically|| Um, OK, if you say so. Then so's the Meal Planning Committee, yo.
To wit, from the article:
butts in pews feet on the floor (they don't sit at most Divine Liturgies) and more rubles in the offering plate than to be consistent and cease fellowship with heretics? Wouldn't that put them in the same position as the Sola Scripturist, who appeals to the remnant paradigm from the Old Testament people of God to rebut the challenge that believers in the slightly-later-than-early church were not Sola Scripturists or Sola Fide-ists (which we don't necessarily grant, but just for the sake of argument)?
Or could it be that Matt 16:18 doesn't say what our EO and RC friends like to say it says?
One thing I've learned over the years is that RCs and EOx like to make attractive and impressive claims about how their church is this and that, and how bad my church is, and it can be tempting. But just take a hard look at the alternative they're offering you, and it becomes clear it's really poison and fake.
Here's the punchline - I don't see a good reason to think that a lack of unity within a certain faith group has a whole lot to do with the truth value of the system the group is proposing. In this way I am unlike our EO and RC friends, but unfortunately since neither EOC nor RCC can live up to the standard that they brag they fulfill, this makes me more intellectually honest than they. Further, since each bills itself as "The Church Christ Founded®", thus entailing some great unbroken unity, which turns out to be a product of wishful imagination, this becomes an argument against the truth of EOC and RCC because of the claims each makes. Sola Scripturist churches do not make that kind of claim; why would we think that disunity in our ranks is evidence of our beliefs' untruth? So, at best, this internal squabbling and tossing around of "Heretic"s shows that EOC and RCC are false churches. At minimum, it destroys a very common argument that EOx and RCs use against Sola Scripturists.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
Anyway, let's consider this irony.
Eastern Orthodox (like their partners on the other side of the Sola Ecclesia coin, Romanists) love to rip "Protestants" for their disunity, for fragmenting into 59 gazillion (and growing) denominations. The answers we've given to that are manifold (and not well dealt with by EOx and RCs) but what do we see here if not a break within the Eastern Orthodox Church itself?
It's pretty funny how it's gone down, too. Often I have to explain to our EO and RC friends that we are biblically commanded to break fellowship with those who have fallen into heresy. They want to count towards the 59 gazillion, say, Oneness Pentecostals among the ranks of "Protestants", or liberal types who deny virtually everything supernatural in the Bible but still go to a "Presbyterian" or "Lutheran" or "Methodist" church. When we respond, "Um, no, those guys are called 'heretics' and are not Christian in any meaningful sense", they often choose to ignore the obvious and settle for the pejorative quip that, see? we even call each other non-Christians and heretics!
And that's for major differences in doctrine - the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, etc.
Now, they'll say, you also break fellowship with others over minor matters, such as the music you use during worship, women pastors, who gets to head the Agape Meal Planning Committee, etc. That can be true, and sometimes it's sad and a bad thing, sometimes not so sad or bad.
But lookie here - I don't guess the Eastern Orthodox have room to talk noise about that. These guys are throwing the Heretic Card for people who hold to a different calendar. In terms of pettiness, that's sandwiched riiiigggghhhhttt between the music-during-worship schism and the Meal-Planning-Committee schism.
But Rhology! The Calendar is a big deal!
In our day a new heresy has appeared which seeks to bring all these together and for this reason is aptly referred to as a "pan-heresy." This is Ecumenism, which we may briefly define as the belief that sects which the Church had previously considered heretical and cut off from her are in fact in some way still part of her. The threat Ecumenism poses to the Church is perhaps greater than that of any heresy of the past, for two reasons. First, by far the larger part of the Church has succumbed to its temptation.Get that? Most of the EOC has engaged in heresy. Is that "the gates of Hades" overcoming the church (Matt 16:18)? So, since this is the church that believes the true meaning of the Bible, I presume they'll be excommunicating over half their members pretty soon? No? Hmmm. But, wouldn't just keeping those people around in the churches imply that they prefer more
Or could it be that Matt 16:18 doesn't say what our EO and RC friends like to say it says?
One thing I've learned over the years is that RCs and EOx like to make attractive and impressive claims about how their church is this and that, and how bad my church is, and it can be tempting. But just take a hard look at the alternative they're offering you, and it becomes clear it's really poison and fake.
Here's the punchline - I don't see a good reason to think that a lack of unity within a certain faith group has a whole lot to do with the truth value of the system the group is proposing. In this way I am unlike our EO and RC friends, but unfortunately since neither EOC nor RCC can live up to the standard that they brag they fulfill, this makes me more intellectually honest than they. Further, since each bills itself as "The Church Christ Founded®", thus entailing some great unbroken unity, which turns out to be a product of wishful imagination, this becomes an argument against the truth of EOC and RCC because of the claims each makes. Sola Scripturist churches do not make that kind of claim; why would we think that disunity in our ranks is evidence of our beliefs' untruth? So, at best, this internal squabbling and tossing around of "Heretic"s shows that EOC and RCC are false churches. At minimum, it destroys a very common argument that EOx and RCs use against Sola Scripturists.
(Please leave any comments at the Beggars All post.)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A compendium of resources on Eastern Orthodoxy, so far
James Swan, the head honcho at Beggars All, was contacted by an acquaintance inquiring about Eastern Orthodoxy, because he was alarmed at the rate of conversion to EOC among seminarians with whom he is familiar. James (perhaps unwisely) forwarded him on to me, and I gave it my best shot. I'd like to reproduce a distillation of our brief correspondence here, for future reference. May the Lord use this information for His glory.
----
Hello!
I'm a coblogger/underling on James' blog, and in my blogging career, I've written on EOC and interacted a significant amount with EOdox. That is mostly b/c a close friend of mine with whom I grew up in the faith, after some 6 years as a Bapticostal and a student at ORU in Tulsa, converted to EOC. I was alarmed, of course, and tried to stop him, and our discussions actually for a time had me on the ropes. I was unprepared for the things he'd already thought through a few steps ahead, and so for a time I felt my own foundations shaking. Then, however, I was able to get on top of things with the help mainly of James White lectures and debates on Romanism (which is in many ways, especially in terms of authority and religious epistemology, very similar to EOC) and on Sola Scriptura, a couple of books by Eric Svendsen, and the 3-volume set "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" by Webster and King.
That started me down the road of being able to deconstruct the arguments that EOx put forward, and with all that behind me now, I can say with confidence (Lord willing) that EOC is totally off the table as a live option for piety toward God. My further interactions with knowledgeable EOx, both in person and in the blogosphere, both have convinced me further of the folly of EOxy and have helped me develop even more powerful arguments against it.
I'd encourage you to learn a little about EOC. A good place to start is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church", but unfortunately it's a pretty sanitised version of EO theology. All the really heretical and "red flag! Danger, Will Robinson!" stuff is removed out of its presentation of EO theology, but not a bad place to start. If nothing else, someone will ask you if you've read anything, and you can tell them that. It might help satisfy them that you're not just shooting in the dark.
I've read a fair amount of "dialogue" and "conversion" stories, but most of them weren't any good, weren't helpful. Two I think would be helpful would be:
--Conversion-themed stuff written by Peter Gillquist
--My friend's conversion story
Also, I'd recommend this short e-book/long pamphlet from a Romanian who is quite familiar with EOC theology and especially the more unsavory elements and sayings from their "church fathers". I just finished reading it and recommend it because of its lengthy quotations and evaluations of what you might call "EOC's source documents" - the church writers who have gone before. Point these pagan and Platonic ideas out to those who are wavering, and if they respond with "but that's not what the Church itself believes!", ask them on what basis these same early church writers are cited sometimes to back up EOC's authority and are sometimes cast aside as "speaking only as a private theologian". It's a fatal epistemological flaw in EOC, and one that is, if nothing else, sort of fun to exploit, to watch the dancing and writhing commence.
Now, as for refuting EO assertions, I'd recommend, just like with a Romanist or a Mormon, majoring on the majors, and that would be the question of authority. I think you'll have a fairly difficult time if you try to go at it from any other position than Sola Scriptura. That is to say, the 3/4-legged stool I've heard expressed in certain Protestant contexts will not serve you well in this arena, but perhaps that's not where you're coming from.
Anyway, you can start with my recent debate on Sola Scriptura with a knowledgeable EO blogger. It's maybe not the best ever done, but I think it was quite good, it raised a lot of good issues, and it was accessible, not super super long.
In other blogging arenas, a great deal of superior material has been delivered on the Triablogue.
http://triablogue.blogspot.
I am in awe of these men's abilities and output. I would encourage you not to unwisely confuse earnestness and gladness to know and be able to communicate the truth with nastiness.
My blog also has a lot of material on EOxy, so here you go:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
My most fundamental recommendation would be, as I said, on the topic of authority.
Here are some posts I'd encourage you to focus on:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
You'll probably also find that EOx will challenge you with "But there are so many denominations in Protestantism!" Don't let them get away with it!
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
---/---
The correspondent replied: I have been shocked and saddened by the number of seminarians turning Orthodox. It seems to be the cool, sentimental thing to do.
I responded: Yes, it is the cool sentimental thing to do. It's embracing "ancient" faith, "the church of the church fathers", "the early church", with liturgy and all that stuff. It looks mystically attractive. It's much more sensibly rich than a Protestant service. I can relate to the attraction. But the false Gospel, you know...sorta spoils it for me.
And that is, of course, the bottom line - does this church preach the Gospel? Does it teach that the filthy, spiritually dead, enemy of God, God-hating sinner can be reconciled to God and have peace with God by God's grace alone by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone as mediator for the forgiveness of sins? Ask any Eastern Orthodox, and make the question specific enough so as to eliminate wiggle room, and you'll find that the answer is a very clear no. Which makes the answer to the question, "Should I join this church?" pretty clear as well.
----
Hello!
I'm a coblogger/underling on James' blog, and in my blogging career, I've written on EOC and interacted a significant amount with EOdox. That is mostly b/c a close friend of mine with whom I grew up in the faith, after some 6 years as a Bapticostal and a student at ORU in Tulsa, converted to EOC. I was alarmed, of course, and tried to stop him, and our discussions actually for a time had me on the ropes. I was unprepared for the things he'd already thought through a few steps ahead, and so for a time I felt my own foundations shaking. Then, however, I was able to get on top of things with the help mainly of James White lectures and debates on Romanism (which is in many ways, especially in terms of authority and religious epistemology, very similar to EOC) and on Sola Scriptura, a couple of books by Eric Svendsen, and the 3-volume set "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" by Webster and King.
That started me down the road of being able to deconstruct the arguments that EOx put forward, and with all that behind me now, I can say with confidence (Lord willing) that EOC is totally off the table as a live option for piety toward God. My further interactions with knowledgeable EOx, both in person and in the blogosphere, both have convinced me further of the folly of EOxy and have helped me develop even more powerful arguments against it.
I'd encourage you to learn a little about EOC. A good place to start is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church", but unfortunately it's a pretty sanitised version of EO theology. All the really heretical and "red flag! Danger, Will Robinson!" stuff is removed out of its presentation of EO theology, but not a bad place to start. If nothing else, someone will ask you if you've read anything, and you can tell them that. It might help satisfy them that you're not just shooting in the dark.
I've read a fair amount of "dialogue" and "conversion" stories, but most of them weren't any good, weren't helpful. Two I think would be helpful would be:
--Conversion-themed stuff written by Peter Gillquist
--My friend's conversion story
Also, I'd recommend this short e-book/long pamphlet from a Romanian who is quite familiar with EOC theology and especially the more unsavory elements and sayings from their "church fathers". I just finished reading it and recommend it because of its lengthy quotations and evaluations of what you might call "EOC's source documents" - the church writers who have gone before. Point these pagan and Platonic ideas out to those who are wavering, and if they respond with "but that's not what the Church itself believes!", ask them on what basis these same early church writers are cited sometimes to back up EOC's authority and are sometimes cast aside as "speaking only as a private theologian". It's a fatal epistemological flaw in EOC, and one that is, if nothing else, sort of fun to exploit, to watch the dancing and writhing commence.
Now, as for refuting EO assertions, I'd recommend, just like with a Romanist or a Mormon, majoring on the majors, and that would be the question of authority. I think you'll have a fairly difficult time if you try to go at it from any other position than Sola Scriptura. That is to say, the 3/4-legged stool I've heard expressed in certain Protestant contexts will not serve you well in this arena, but perhaps that's not where you're coming from.
Anyway, you can start with my recent debate on Sola Scriptura with a knowledgeable EO blogger. It's maybe not the best ever done, but I think it was quite good, it raised a lot of good issues, and it was accessible, not super super long.
In other blogging arenas, a great deal of superior material has been delivered on the Triablogue.
http://triablogue.blogspot.
I am in awe of these men's abilities and output. I would encourage you not to unwisely confuse earnestness and gladness to know and be able to communicate the truth with nastiness.
My blog also has a lot of material on EOxy, so here you go:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
My most fundamental recommendation would be, as I said, on the topic of authority.
Here are some posts I'd encourage you to focus on:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
You'll probably also find that EOx will challenge you with "But there are so many denominations in Protestantism!" Don't let them get away with it!
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/
---/---
The correspondent replied: I have been shocked and saddened by the number of seminarians turning Orthodox. It seems to be the cool, sentimental thing to do.
I responded: Yes, it is the cool sentimental thing to do. It's embracing "ancient" faith, "the church of the church fathers", "the early church", with liturgy and all that stuff. It looks mystically attractive. It's much more sensibly rich than a Protestant service. I can relate to the attraction. But the false Gospel, you know...sorta spoils it for me.
And that is, of course, the bottom line - does this church preach the Gospel? Does it teach that the filthy, spiritually dead, enemy of God, God-hating sinner can be reconciled to God and have peace with God by God's grace alone by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone as mediator for the forgiveness of sins? Ask any Eastern Orthodox, and make the question specific enough so as to eliminate wiggle room, and you'll find that the answer is a very clear no. Which makes the answer to the question, "Should I join this church?" pretty clear as well.
Friday, April 23, 2010
More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 4
Continuing with Monk Patrick:
From the essay:
Also, the reason used to deny icons would also mean the denial of the Incarnation. How so? The iconoclasts assume that it is the nature that is portrayed in the icon and that the icon can only represent Christ if both His natures are somehow represented on the icon because he has two natures
Since I deny neither the Incarnation, nor the Hypostatic Union, nor the permissibility to make an image of Jesus in His Incarnation (whereas it IS impermissible to bow down to it and give it religious piety), hopefully you'll commendably break ranks with your other EO brethren and no longer use the idiotic claim that I somehow deny the Incarnation b/c I reject icons. To do so would be the only honest thing to do, since the arguments I'm using are not cited at this point (or actually, anywhere) in the essay.
Interestingly, that's exactly what Perry Robinson is doing when he asks whether Thomas' worship of Jesus was "passed on to the divine person". One hopes (probably in vain) that you'll correct him on that.
However, Christ and His icon receive the same veneration because they have the same hypostasis even though there is a difference in essence
Here the author jumps to this conclusion w/o the necessary adjoining argument. Where's the argument that ANY image is due veneration?
This would support then the position of St Theodore that prototypes have an image and the necessity that that image is displayed.
Now you're getting into Platonic realms. Let me also recommend an essay to you.
Thus, Christ is present in His icon not in essence but in His energies.
Asserted but not argued-for.
the main cause of Protestant iconoclasm may be explained with the association of revelation of the Word with Scripture and hence the impossibility of using images.
No, the main cause is b/c Scripture tells us not to use them in worshipful piety. So we don't. Simple as that.
All in all, an essay that misses the point. Thanks for the link though.
Attributing evidence to demons in not a sufficient reason, unless you can prove demonic activity on grounds other than the miracle does not support your choice of doctrine.
1) Please provide an argument why it is not sufficient reason.
2) Demonic activity is identified in the Scr in many ways, not least of which is provoking ppl to sinful and idolatrous activities in collusion with groups that deny the Gospel. Um, yeah, that would be EOC.
3) Category error - you pejoratively describe as "your choice of doctrine" what Scripture actually teaches. This shows no recognition of the fact the Scripture means things, since words mean things. If I identify and submit to what Scr teaches, that's hardly "my choice".
I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons
I was granting you the miraculous for the sake of argument and asking you to prove that they came from God, not from demons. Your response so far is indignity, but that's not my problem.
If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.
1) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as worshiping pictures of dead ppl.
2) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as ascribing to a false Gospel.
3) You've not yet made the connection you need to make between the fact of "the icon is weeping myrrh" to the prescriptive command, "You must bow down and worship it". Get on it.
Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.
So what's your argument against that very condemnation? I have some, but I'd like to know yours. Unless it's "I don't care about the 2nd cmdmt", which wouldn't surprise me.
You said a little lower: "Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim."
Correct, I agree, thank you. Done and done.
Now, you need to move from "God commanded cherubim be made" to "God thinks it's OK to bow down to and worship pictures of dead people". Get on it.
How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you?
I said it b/c no one has. You keep dividing up the elements that I've numerous times identified as occurring ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME in EO dead-people worship. Don't divide it all up if you think your case is so strong.
Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant
Sorry, it's not irrelevant. You don't talk to other ppl INaudibly. You talk to dead people INaudibly. Thus you show that you recognise the diff between the living and the dead, even though you won't admit it now when it's convenient to obfuscate for the sake of the debate.
The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also.
Please provide the backing exegesis of the relevant Scr psgs to substantiate this.
Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.
Why would I do that? What specifically is it answering?
The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works.
You who've shown no familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews are hardly in a position to tell me that "this changes how the law works".
Exegesis, please. Show me where the NT says it's in fact OK to worship pictures of dead people.
You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean.
I provided plenty of exegesis here. Anyone can see what I meant.
The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon.
Bishop Kallistos Ware disagrees. I'm going with him rather than some anonymous blog commenter.
Further, I didn't see anywhere in your comment a specific and infallible canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition. You claimed it exists; I'd really like to see it. Thanks!
This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures
If other writings are equally inspired, how is that a closed canon? What is the meaning of "canon" at all if other writings are just as breathed out by God?
Do you submit to all things in the NT Scriptures both personally and corporately in your parish? Please list a few.
List a few what? I don't understand the question.
Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law?
If you had any understanding of the NT presentation of one's relationship to the OT Law, you'd know that "under the law" means "under the curse of the law", ie, I am not under the curse of the law b/c I am forgiven in Christ, not by works, not by personal doing good and obeying the Law. The law condemns me (Gal 3) but Christ forgives sinners.
The OT moral law is still in effect. Did you read my post on that? Sounds like you didn't. Read it.
Are you not saved by faith alone?
Are you so foolish as not to understand that being justified is not the only goal of the human?
Do we not believe in Jesus?
You believe in a false Jesus, One Who communicated a flawed revelation, spoke where He in fact did not speak (ie, in "inspired" patristic writings), and Whose work on the Cross requires man's cooperation to become sufficient to save, etc.
Do we not confess Him as Lord?
"Depart from Me; for I never knew you."
From the essay:
Also, the reason used to deny icons would also mean the denial of the Incarnation. How so? The iconoclasts assume that it is the nature that is portrayed in the icon and that the icon can only represent Christ if both His natures are somehow represented on the icon because he has two natures
Since I deny neither the Incarnation, nor the Hypostatic Union, nor the permissibility to make an image of Jesus in His Incarnation (whereas it IS impermissible to bow down to it and give it religious piety), hopefully you'll commendably break ranks with your other EO brethren and no longer use the idiotic claim that I somehow deny the Incarnation b/c I reject icons. To do so would be the only honest thing to do, since the arguments I'm using are not cited at this point (or actually, anywhere) in the essay.
Interestingly, that's exactly what Perry Robinson is doing when he asks whether Thomas' worship of Jesus was "passed on to the divine person". One hopes (probably in vain) that you'll correct him on that.
However, Christ and His icon receive the same veneration because they have the same hypostasis even though there is a difference in essence
Here the author jumps to this conclusion w/o the necessary adjoining argument. Where's the argument that ANY image is due veneration?
This would support then the position of St Theodore that prototypes have an image and the necessity that that image is displayed.
Now you're getting into Platonic realms. Let me also recommend an essay to you.
Thus, Christ is present in His icon not in essence but in His energies.
Asserted but not argued-for.
the main cause of Protestant iconoclasm may be explained with the association of revelation of the Word with Scripture and hence the impossibility of using images.
No, the main cause is b/c Scripture tells us not to use them in worshipful piety. So we don't. Simple as that.
All in all, an essay that misses the point. Thanks for the link though.
Attributing evidence to demons in not a sufficient reason, unless you can prove demonic activity on grounds other than the miracle does not support your choice of doctrine.
1) Please provide an argument why it is not sufficient reason.
2) Demonic activity is identified in the Scr in many ways, not least of which is provoking ppl to sinful and idolatrous activities in collusion with groups that deny the Gospel. Um, yeah, that would be EOC.
3) Category error - you pejoratively describe as "your choice of doctrine" what Scripture actually teaches. This shows no recognition of the fact the Scripture means things, since words mean things. If I identify and submit to what Scr teaches, that's hardly "my choice".
I provided the evidence of miracles and you attributed them to demons
I was granting you the miraculous for the sake of argument and asking you to prove that they came from God, not from demons. Your response so far is indignity, but that's not my problem.
If you wish to attribute these fruits to demons fell free but Scripture says that a bad tree does not yield good fruit.
1) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as worshiping pictures of dead ppl.
2) Good trees don't yield sinful activities such as ascribing to a false Gospel.
3) You've not yet made the connection you need to make between the fact of "the icon is weeping myrrh" to the prescriptive command, "You must bow down and worship it". Get on it.
Exodus 20:4. The text does not say you can make images but not bow down nor worship them. You are inconsistent.
So what's your argument against that very condemnation? I have some, but I'd like to know yours. Unless it's "I don't care about the 2nd cmdmt", which wouldn't surprise me.
You said a little lower: "Making images is not a moral issue and is not forbidden in itself because God commanded them to be created of cherubim."
Correct, I agree, thank you. Done and done.
Now, you need to move from "God commanded cherubim be made" to "God thinks it's OK to bow down to and worship pictures of dead people". Get on it.
How do you mean that no-one had dealt about that with you?
I said it b/c no one has. You keep dividing up the elements that I've numerous times identified as occurring ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME in EO dead-people worship. Don't divide it all up if you think your case is so strong.
Audible or inaudible prayer is irrelevant
Sorry, it's not irrelevant. You don't talk to other ppl INaudibly. You talk to dead people INaudibly. Thus you show that you recognise the diff between the living and the dead, even though you won't admit it now when it's convenient to obfuscate for the sake of the debate.
The fact that God calls them living means that they can communicate and not only among themselves but with us also.
Please provide the backing exegesis of the relevant Scr psgs to substantiate this.
Read Volume 14 of the Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.
Why would I do that? What specifically is it answering?
The scenario that you raised about Moses is irrelevant because it is before Christ's incarnation because this changes how the law works.
You who've shown no familiarity with the Epistle to the Hebrews are hardly in a position to tell me that "this changes how the law works".
Exegesis, please. Show me where the NT says it's in fact OK to worship pictures of dead people.
You keep saying that we give latreia and doulea to icons because that is what you think these words mean.
I provided plenty of exegesis here. Anyone can see what I meant.
The Holy Scriptures are a set canon of Apostolic writings which were accepted as genuine. As such it is a closed canon.
Bishop Kallistos Ware disagrees. I'm going with him rather than some anonymous blog commenter.
Further, I didn't see anywhere in your comment a specific and infallible canon of Sacred Apostolic Tradition. You claimed it exists; I'd really like to see it. Thanks!
This does not mean that other writers are not equally inspired even if we do not include their writings in the Scriptures
If other writings are equally inspired, how is that a closed canon? What is the meaning of "canon" at all if other writings are just as breathed out by God?
Do you submit to all things in the NT Scriptures both personally and corporately in your parish? Please list a few.
List a few what? I don't understand the question.
Why do you care about obeying the OT in any case? Are you under the law?
If you had any understanding of the NT presentation of one's relationship to the OT Law, you'd know that "under the law" means "under the curse of the law", ie, I am not under the curse of the law b/c I am forgiven in Christ, not by works, not by personal doing good and obeying the Law. The law condemns me (Gal 3) but Christ forgives sinners.
The OT moral law is still in effect. Did you read my post on that? Sounds like you didn't. Read it.
Are you not saved by faith alone?
Are you so foolish as not to understand that being justified is not the only goal of the human?
Do we not believe in Jesus?
You believe in a false Jesus, One Who communicated a flawed revelation, spoke where He in fact did not speak (ie, in "inspired" patristic writings), and Whose work on the Cross requires man's cooperation to become sufficient to save, etc.
Do we not confess Him as Lord?
"Depart from Me; for I never knew you."
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Emergent Church - 2
Continuing from last time, my priest friend has responded.
Well, I certainly find EC disturbing too! :-) And I agree with your estimation of its origin; in addition, some/many of them seem to be refugees from the seeker-sensitive megachurch model. That said, they've taken on themselves quite a few EO-esque or RC-esque or Eastern-esque practices, so the resemblances are probably mostly due to their aping of what's out there in other religious movements. But the resemblances remain.
You said:
--I have never seen anything liturgical in an EC situation
I have.
--monks with spiritual father
Well, ECers aren't very hierarchical, but you see, say, Rob Bell in Michigan doing this kind of stuff all the time, and he's a rockstar, so that's kinda like a spiritual father. Not exactly, sure, but it's close in practice.
-- do not involve any mental imagery whatsoever (which defines centering prayer)
That might be fair enough. I don't know how much the EC-ers involve mental imagery, tbh. But EC-ers like to accuse the Reformed of being "Platonic" all the time, too - they've proven they don't really know what they're talking about a lot of the time. Misapplying the term "centering" would just be par for the course.
--Christ-centered, not man-centered, the idea being to keep your mind and your heart united, on the name of Jesus
Well, the NAME of Jesus is not Jesus, not even close. If you want to be united with Jesus, we must do what He said and know His revelation, and hesychastic prayer is not even close to any Jesus-ordained prayer.
On tradition:
--not redefining them for cultural relevancy
When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. Y'all don't look at it that simplistically, of course, but the question-begging way that you set yourselves apart from post-facto-labeled heretics and then appeal back to only the ECWriters who've passed your dogma tests to support your position as being the continual faith of the early church is what I'm pointing out is so ridiculously circular.
--but our aim is not to take small t traditions and expand them everywhere as big T tradition
Yes, I know; what I'm saying is that you take SOME small t traditions and expand them everywhere as big T tradition. The ones that fit your later agenda and later dogma.
--the Bible contains errors of fact, but that that was intended by God on purpose in some cases or was the result of the Jews misunderstanding what God was talking about in the OT
1) God intended to miscommunicate, or to communicate error? How do you figure that?
2) One has to wonder on what basis you assume that God did not ensure that the Jews wouldn't misunderstand the Big Stuff, like the Crucifixion or the Resurrection, versus misunderstanding only small stuff. I've never understood that sort of reasoning, as if your human reason gets to sit in judgment over what God has spoken. "True." "False! I in concert with modern science have thus decreed it!"
--The Bible is subservient to the Word of God (the Logos)
Well, I would call that a category mistake. The Logos breathed out His revelation; it's not subservient to Him. It's how we know Him.
--EC still maintains it is sola scriptura,
No no no no, this is definitely false. Not a chance. It's one of evangelicals'/Reformeds' biggest critiques of their position.
--You guys seem to be a "let's keep it within a certain boundary" (i.e. what is written down in the Bible or can be implied from the Bible) kind of group
1) I don't see a big problem with that, really. One could certainly do a lot worse than staying close to what God has said.
2) That said, I think you're confusing me with a Presby, who subscribes to the Regulative Principle. I hold to Sola Scriptura and in questions of non-essentials appeal often to Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8.
--I haven't noticed any more liberalism than in many of the Baptist Churches down here in NC.
This is a tu quoque; just b/c some (or even many) Baptists in your acquaintance are also liberals doesn't change the resemblance between EOC and EC in this area.
--So the modern Republican party is too liberal for me.
Well, on THAT we can agree! :-)
--I don't know any Orthodox person who does not beleive that Christ will return on Judgment Day and transform everything into some New Heaven and New Earth, utterly destroying this fallen creation.
That's actually an identical position to the Reformed/evangelical. But it's what we do in the interim, and especially the importance/priority placed on it, is what I was referring to.
And yes, please do send me the statement you're writing on EC. I'd like to see it, definitely.
Peace,
Rhology
Thanks for writing with your thoughts!
Your comment surprised me, because as an Orthodox Christian, along with almost every other Orthodox Christian I know, I find the EC phenomenon to be disturbing. It has always struck me as the dying gasp of Modern Evangelicalism "Lite", the last attempt to "make Church relevant." But you can't water it down anymore and still have it be Christian...Joel Olsteen has already left Jesus behind, IMO.
"For one thing, EC (ie, Emergent Church) as opposed to EOC) patterns itself after more mystical theologians, with prayers such as hesychastic prayers, centering oneself, controlling one's breathing, seeking the contemplative part of worship, etc. Use of icons, incense, candles."
I must admit, I have never seen anything liturgical in an EC situation. Are we talking about the same thing? All of the ECs here have signs that say things like "Redefining Church" and "Church without walls" and have names like "Living Water Church" etc. I agree they use centering prayer, but Orthodox don't "do" centering prayer. Centering prayer is heretical. Hesychasm with its breathing techniques are a) restricted to a very small minority of monks who are under the direction of a spiritual father b) do not involve any mental imagery whatsoever (which defines centering prayer), c) is Christ-centered, not man-centered, the idea being to keep your mind and your heart united, on the name of Jesus, instead of letting your mind wander about thinking about material things. So any similarity to me would be superficial in this regard.
"EC puts a strong emphasis on community and the voices of the community, which is very similar to the way EOC recognises post facto out of all little-t tradition the big-S Sacred big-A Apostolic big-T Tradition that it acknowledges as authoritative and normative for the church."
We do in fact put an emphasis on the people of God, but our emphasis is always on the people of God protecting the eternal truths, not redefining them for cultural relevancy. You may disagree that that is what we are doing, but our aim is not to take small t traditions and expand them everywhere as big T tradition (Traditionalist Orthodox don't even believe that is a real dichotomy anyway, but that is another discussion), but to preserve Tradition and only define it as a reaction to an error. The EC phenomenon seems to relish in "recontextualizing" the "message" as often as possible.
"Following that, EC has a strong errantist streak wherein the Bible is not held to be without error. It ends up being subservient to traditions from within the church (or "the community" as ECs like to say). Same as in EOC, and quite different from evangelicals or Reformed."
Well, I agree that the Bible contains errors of fact, but that that was intended by God on purpose in some cases or was the result of the Jews misunderstanding what God was talking about in the OT. The Bible is subservient to the Word of God (the Logos), as is the Tradition of the Church. EC still maintains it is sola scriptura, and rejects the "traditions of men" which while you would say the same thing, they often take that as grounds to strip out things that you and I would agree upon, i.e. Theology 101. So EC seems to be a reductionist sect, whereas Orthodox seem to be a maximalist trend. You guys seem to be a "let's keep it within a certain boundary" (i.e. what is written down in the Bible or can be implied from the Bible) kind of group. I suppose you could argue we are two extremes of the same presupposition (i.e. against sola sciptura either de facto or de jure) but I could argue that you and they are both reductionists, but only differing on how far to take the program.
"In many EC congregations/communities, the Eucharist is a big central deal. (I actually wish that my own SBC church would make the Eucharist a bigger more central deal and am about to teach to that effect in my Sunday School class; I've asked the elders to do so but not really seen much change.) In EOC, of course, the Eucharist is also fairly central to worship."
Well if they are into that, they are on the right track. I hope you will succeed in your intentions as well.
"There's a strong streak of political liberalism and Social Gospel-type orientation toward action in both EC and EOC."
I haven't noticed any more liberalism than in many of the Baptist Churches down here in NC. I think there are social gospel streaks all over the place here. I don't care about politics much myself, but I consider myself a reactionary. So the modern Republican party is too liberal for me. Only a few modernists (such as the people I studied with at SVS) could I ever see as true social gospel types. Even the most liberal of them see it in terms of being stewards of God's creation, though, not in creating some kind of utopia on earth. I don't know any Orthodox person who does not beleive that Christ will return on Judgment Day and transform everything into some New Heaven and New Earth, utterly destroying this fallen creation. Maybe because you see us as semi-Pelagian or even Pelagian, this is where your perception comes from though? Because we don't beleive that man has lost the image of God (only the likeness?)
"Similarly, since EC is basically (theological) liberalism 2.0, 'salvation' is not viewed as getting right with a God Whose Law has been gravely transgressed and trampled on by sinful men, but rather it's growing this world towards a fair and just society in which God is honored thru everyone living out the love of Jesus in everything all the time. This is far more similar to theosis than to a Reformed/evangelical understanding of justification+transformation/regeneration -> sanctification -> glorification."
But I don't agree that that is what theosis is...so I can't say it's similiar :)
"Hope that helps!"
It does! I am wondering how much of this is due to not agreeing on some common assumptions...but now I sound like an ecumenist!
What is ironic is that I was just writing an essay against my local EC when I saw your post!! I will let you see it when I am done.
In Christ,
Well, I certainly find EC disturbing too! :-) And I agree with your estimation of its origin; in addition, some/many of them seem to be refugees from the seeker-sensitive megachurch model. That said, they've taken on themselves quite a few EO-esque or RC-esque or Eastern-esque practices, so the resemblances are probably mostly due to their aping of what's out there in other religious movements. But the resemblances remain.
You said:
--I have never seen anything liturgical in an EC situation
I have.
--monks with spiritual father
Well, ECers aren't very hierarchical, but you see, say, Rob Bell in Michigan doing this kind of stuff all the time, and he's a rockstar, so that's kinda like a spiritual father. Not exactly, sure, but it's close in practice.
-- do not involve any mental imagery whatsoever (which defines centering prayer)
That might be fair enough. I don't know how much the EC-ers involve mental imagery, tbh. But EC-ers like to accuse the Reformed of being "Platonic" all the time, too - they've proven they don't really know what they're talking about a lot of the time. Misapplying the term "centering" would just be par for the course.
--Christ-centered, not man-centered, the idea being to keep your mind and your heart united, on the name of Jesus
Well, the NAME of Jesus is not Jesus, not even close. If you want to be united with Jesus, we must do what He said and know His revelation, and hesychastic prayer is not even close to any Jesus-ordained prayer.
On tradition:
--not redefining them for cultural relevancy
When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. Y'all don't look at it that simplistically, of course, but the question-begging way that you set yourselves apart from post-facto-labeled heretics and then appeal back to only the ECWriters who've passed your dogma tests to support your position as being the continual faith of the early church is what I'm pointing out is so ridiculously circular.
--but our aim is not to take small t traditions and expand them everywhere as big T tradition
Yes, I know; what I'm saying is that you take SOME small t traditions and expand them everywhere as big T tradition. The ones that fit your later agenda and later dogma.
--the Bible contains errors of fact, but that that was intended by God on purpose in some cases or was the result of the Jews misunderstanding what God was talking about in the OT
1) God intended to miscommunicate, or to communicate error? How do you figure that?
2) One has to wonder on what basis you assume that God did not ensure that the Jews wouldn't misunderstand the Big Stuff, like the Crucifixion or the Resurrection, versus misunderstanding only small stuff. I've never understood that sort of reasoning, as if your human reason gets to sit in judgment over what God has spoken. "True." "False! I in concert with modern science have thus decreed it!"
--The Bible is subservient to the Word of God (the Logos)
Well, I would call that a category mistake. The Logos breathed out His revelation; it's not subservient to Him. It's how we know Him.
--EC still maintains it is sola scriptura,
No no no no, this is definitely false. Not a chance. It's one of evangelicals'/Reformeds' biggest critiques of their position.
--You guys seem to be a "let's keep it within a certain boundary" (i.e. what is written down in the Bible or can be implied from the Bible) kind of group
1) I don't see a big problem with that, really. One could certainly do a lot worse than staying close to what God has said.
2) That said, I think you're confusing me with a Presby, who subscribes to the Regulative Principle. I hold to Sola Scriptura and in questions of non-essentials appeal often to Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8.
--I haven't noticed any more liberalism than in many of the Baptist Churches down here in NC.
This is a tu quoque; just b/c some (or even many) Baptists in your acquaintance are also liberals doesn't change the resemblance between EOC and EC in this area.
--So the modern Republican party is too liberal for me.
Well, on THAT we can agree! :-)
--I don't know any Orthodox person who does not beleive that Christ will return on Judgment Day and transform everything into some New Heaven and New Earth, utterly destroying this fallen creation.
That's actually an identical position to the Reformed/evangelical. But it's what we do in the interim, and especially the importance/priority placed on it, is what I was referring to.
And yes, please do send me the statement you're writing on EC. I'd like to see it, definitely.
Peace,
Rhology
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Emergent Church
A Facebook friend of mine is an acquaintance from my days on the orthodoxchristianity.net forums, and is now an EO priest. He had made a joke about turning a church over which he has some kind of influence (maybe it's in his parish or something [if indeed "parish" is the right word for EOC], I'm not sure) into an Emergent church, and then said "...or not, LOL" or something to that effect. I commented that there seem to me to be numerous similarities I've noticed over the years between EOC and the Emergent church. He asked me to PM him a rundown of them, and I paste my response here:
Howdy,
Just a few ways off the top of my head.
For one thing, EC (ie, Emergent Church, as opposed to EOC) patterns itself after more mystical theologians, with prayers such as hesychastic prayers, centering oneself, controlling one's breathing, seeking the contemplative part of worship, etc. Use of icons, incense, candles.
EC puts a strong emphasis on community and the voices of the community, which is very similar to the way EOC recognises post facto out of all little-t tradition the big-S Sacred big-A Apostolic big-T Tradition that it acknowledges as authoritative and normative for the church.
Following that, EC has a strong errantist streak wherein the Bible is not held to be without error. It ends up being subservient to traditions from within the church (or "the community" as ECs like to say). Same as in EOC, and quite different from evangelicals or Reformed.
In many EC congregations/communities, the Eucharist is a big central deal. (I actually wish that my own SBC church would make the Eucharist a bigger more central deal and am about to teach to that effect in my Sunday School class; I've asked the elders to do so but not really seen much change.) In EOC, of course, the Eucharist is also fairly central to worship.
There's a strong streak of political liberalism and Social Gospel-type orientation toward action in both EC and EOC.
Similarly, since EC is basically (theological) liberalism 2.0, 'salvation' is not viewed as getting right with a God Whose Law has been gravely transgressed and trampled on by sinful men, but rather it's growing this world towards a fair and just society in which God is honored thru everyone living out the love of Jesus in everything all the time. This is far more similar to theosis than to a Reformed/evangelical understanding of justification+transformation/regeneration -> sanctification -> glorification.
Hope that helps!
Howdy,
Just a few ways off the top of my head.
For one thing, EC (ie, Emergent Church, as opposed to EOC) patterns itself after more mystical theologians, with prayers such as hesychastic prayers, centering oneself, controlling one's breathing, seeking the contemplative part of worship, etc. Use of icons, incense, candles.
EC puts a strong emphasis on community and the voices of the community, which is very similar to the way EOC recognises post facto out of all little-t tradition the big-S Sacred big-A Apostolic big-T Tradition that it acknowledges as authoritative and normative for the church.
Following that, EC has a strong errantist streak wherein the Bible is not held to be without error. It ends up being subservient to traditions from within the church (or "the community" as ECs like to say). Same as in EOC, and quite different from evangelicals or Reformed.
In many EC congregations/communities, the Eucharist is a big central deal. (I actually wish that my own SBC church would make the Eucharist a bigger more central deal and am about to teach to that effect in my Sunday School class; I've asked the elders to do so but not really seen much change.) In EOC, of course, the Eucharist is also fairly central to worship.
There's a strong streak of political liberalism and Social Gospel-type orientation toward action in both EC and EOC.
Similarly, since EC is basically (theological) liberalism 2.0, 'salvation' is not viewed as getting right with a God Whose Law has been gravely transgressed and trampled on by sinful men, but rather it's growing this world towards a fair and just society in which God is honored thru everyone living out the love of Jesus in everything all the time. This is far more similar to theosis than to a Reformed/evangelical understanding of justification+transformation/regeneration -> sanctification -> glorification.
Hope that helps!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 3
Continuing at Perry Robinson's blog...
Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick) Says:
Yes, the Saints have appeared and talked with various people a large number of times and continue to do so to this day.
My guess is that any request for evidence of this will be shadowy and fourthhand accts from the Russian or Armenian frontier.
But heedless, I forge on: Evidence, please?
They know each other and those living and those living know them, this is assumed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Transfiguration;
How is this assumed in that parable? Abraham specifically refused to send Lazarus back to the rich man's family. Instead, he indicated that the Scriptures should be enough for them. Sage advice for anyone, especially an EOx like yourself who is used to "exceed(ing) what is written" (1 Cor 4:6).
how do you think Peter knew who Moses and Elijah were when he had never seen them in the flesh and there is no evidence of Jesus introducing them?
1) It should be obvious that the Gospel writers rarely include the exhaustive acct of everythg that happened at any given incident; they write what they thought was important.
2) The entire event is miraculous. What's wrong with positing that Peter got a miraculous word of knowledge at that moment?
They do hear our prayers and answer them, especially the Mother of God.
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
There are a large number of miracles worked by the presence of icons and many give off sweet smelling myrrh.
Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin.
When Jesus and the apostles worked wonders like obvious and public complete healings and writing Scripture, what about "giving off myrrh" is supposed to impress?
The alternate reading is not only not in keeping with the text, as Perry has showed, but would conflict with the experience of Christians for centuries.
The action of venerating icons ALSO conflicts with "the experience of Christians for centuries".
This is another double-edged argument.
Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick) Says:
Yes, the Saints have appeared and talked with various people a large number of times and continue to do so to this day.
My guess is that any request for evidence of this will be shadowy and fourthhand accts from the Russian or Armenian frontier.
But heedless, I forge on: Evidence, please?
They know each other and those living and those living know them, this is assumed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Transfiguration;
How is this assumed in that parable? Abraham specifically refused to send Lazarus back to the rich man's family. Instead, he indicated that the Scriptures should be enough for them. Sage advice for anyone, especially an EOx like yourself who is used to "exceed(ing) what is written" (1 Cor 4:6).
how do you think Peter knew who Moses and Elijah were when he had never seen them in the flesh and there is no evidence of Jesus introducing them?
1) It should be obvious that the Gospel writers rarely include the exhaustive acct of everythg that happened at any given incident; they write what they thought was important.
2) The entire event is miraculous. What's wrong with positing that Peter got a miraculous word of knowledge at that moment?
They do hear our prayers and answer them, especially the Mother of God.
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
There are a large number of miracles worked by the presence of icons and many give off sweet smelling myrrh.
Please give us a reason to think that such things could not be demonic in nature and origin.
When Jesus and the apostles worked wonders like obvious and public complete healings and writing Scripture, what about "giving off myrrh" is supposed to impress?
The alternate reading is not only not in keeping with the text, as Perry has showed, but would conflict with the experience of Christians for centuries.
The action of venerating icons ALSO conflicts with "the experience of Christians for centuries".
This is another double-edged argument.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Some notes from the Council of Hieria
A council took place near/in Constantinople in 754 AD, aka the Council of Hieria. It was well-attended, ~338 bishops, and called itself an Ecumenical Council.
So...why isn't it an official EO Ecumenical Council? Ultimately, because the church came to reject its conclusions; ie, the more modern church looked back and picked and chose what traditions from church history would become Sacred Tradition. The point is so obvious as to be beyond reasonable dispute, but that doesn't mean that our friendly neighborhood sold-out on-fire EOx are going to be reasonable.
Here are some notes on this council that I thought are interesting.
This would appear when the enquiry is made, of which of the two Natures was the image of Christ the representation? Of the human nature or of the human and divine conjoined? If it was the picture of the human nature only, then did not the worshippers become practical Nestorians, worshipping the humanity apart from the divinity? But did they, on the other hand, assert that the image of Christ was an image of His human and divine nature conjoined — what was that but the error of Eutyches?
This part of their discussion they conclude by showing that no other image of Christ was needed than that which He Himself had left us — namely, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, true and real images of His body and blood.
(Source)
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (ὁμοιωμάτων) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (λατρείας) of God to the low and material adoration (λατρείαν) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject...
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians...
The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind them any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter...
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service...
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative (σχετική) union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc...
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ!
(Source)
To forestall possible objections:
-Remember that I am a Sola Scripturist and subject everything, even voices from the earlier church that agree largely with me, to Scripture. I can identify what is right and wrong out of those voices, praise God for what is good and true, and reject what is false. Thus I obey Jesus' commands and example from Mark 7:1-13.
-In citing all this I do not seek to establish my own position. Rather I am showing how the EO (and RC) illusion of an unbroken consensus throughout history for their pet dogmas is bogus. It is an internal critique.
-Further, I am showing how the modern EOC and RCC beg the very question they're supposed to be arguing for when they cite early church writings. When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. The problem is not with history; the problem is with the claims made by these groups. They are so overgeneral and so sweeping that it takes only a little digging in history to disprove and embarrass such ridiculous claims as they make.
-"But that council has long been called a 'robber council'!" our EO and RC friends might object. Thus they'll simply demonstrate what I've said. These people lived in earlier times and were members of the church. They disagreed with you. Going back later and slandering them or refusing to accept their conclusions does not change the fact that these disagreements in these earlier times actually existed.
So...why isn't it an official EO Ecumenical Council? Ultimately, because the church came to reject its conclusions; ie, the more modern church looked back and picked and chose what traditions from church history would become Sacred Tradition. The point is so obvious as to be beyond reasonable dispute, but that doesn't mean that our friendly neighborhood sold-out on-fire EOx are going to be reasonable.
Here are some notes on this council that I thought are interesting.
This would appear when the enquiry is made, of which of the two Natures was the image of Christ the representation? Of the human nature or of the human and divine conjoined? If it was the picture of the human nature only, then did not the worshippers become practical Nestorians, worshipping the humanity apart from the divinity? But did they, on the other hand, assert that the image of Christ was an image of His human and divine nature conjoined — what was that but the error of Eutyches?
This part of their discussion they conclude by showing that no other image of Christ was needed than that which He Himself had left us — namely, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, true and real images of His body and blood.
(Source)
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (ὁμοιωμάτων) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (λατρείας) of God to the low and material adoration (λατρείαν) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject...
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it with the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians...
The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind them any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter...
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service...
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and thus falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative (σχετική) union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc...
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ!
(Source)
To forestall possible objections:
-Remember that I am a Sola Scripturist and subject everything, even voices from the earlier church that agree largely with me, to Scripture. I can identify what is right and wrong out of those voices, praise God for what is good and true, and reject what is false. Thus I obey Jesus' commands and example from Mark 7:1-13.
-In citing all this I do not seek to establish my own position. Rather I am showing how the EO (and RC) illusion of an unbroken consensus throughout history for their pet dogmas is bogus. It is an internal critique.
-Further, I am showing how the modern EOC and RCC beg the very question they're supposed to be arguing for when they cite early church writings. When you claim to be reproducing and believing what the early church believed, or what the church throughout history believed, ANY dissenting voice from that history proves the claim to be false. The problem is not with history; the problem is with the claims made by these groups. They are so overgeneral and so sweeping that it takes only a little digging in history to disprove and embarrass such ridiculous claims as they make.
-"But that council has long been called a 'robber council'!" our EO and RC friends might object. Thus they'll simply demonstrate what I've said. These people lived in earlier times and were members of the church. They disagreed with you. Going back later and slandering them or refusing to accept their conclusions does not change the fact that these disagreements in these earlier times actually existed.
Monday, April 12, 2010
More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority - 2
Perry Robinson has gone off on another rambling, repetitive comment at his blog. You'll note that numerous things he said go unresponded-to, and that's b/c I don't think such things are worth rebutting, either b/c they are redundant, unimportant, or mere naked assertions in place of arguments refuting my own previously-offered arguments. You'll also note the screwed-up Christology he's working with, which is, it is becoming clear, is effectively monophysite.
Here's the comment:
You equate worship and veneration. I showed that veneration or honoring comes in a variety of forms.
1) But since I *don't* equate worship and veneration...
I simply identify the actions you perform in conjunction with each other to painted pictures of dead people as fulfilling the conditions of worship, and reject the convenient "but it's not our INTENTION" excuse.
2) Have I admitted to venerating the Reformers themselves in memory? No. To say nothing of statues of them.
The Reformed statues are religious in nature given the name Jesus below them in abbreviated form as “IHS”.
1) You'd need more proof that the IHS refers to the statues and not to the Jesus that they preached, reminding us that above all they preached Jesus.
2) You still wouldn't've proved any inconsistency on MY part since you never asked me if I would've built those statues or supported their construction. Which I probably wouldn't've.
And since you go on to say (in another example of your being all over the place): "I grant with the Geneva idols that no one is bowing down and rendering honor to them", it would appear you grant me the point. Thanks!
will only bring to light the Procrustean lengths you need to go to maintain your position.
Sorry, it's not ad hoc that I would claim to judge everything by the Scripture. Have I ever said that before?
you also noted that you would allow images of Jesus even in a church building even if not in the “worship hall.”
And you might have sthg if I'd said sthg like "...and it's OK to venerate those images of Jesus".
But, since I didn't...
Certainly the Reformed tradition has held that it is impermissible. Is it or not?
Am I "the Reformed tradition"? I don't see how my position isn't quite clear.
And if it is, how then do you evade the objections from the Reformed that you are guilty of idolatry and breaking the second commandment?
Anyone can contact me to get the email fwded to them of my convo with one TurretinFan's friends about this very point.
But 1 Kings shows things that Solomon put in on his own apart from a command by God and yet God approved them.
This is me being consistent.
Where did anyone ever do before those images what you do before yours? And where did God say that was OK?
Third, if you think that I need to refute them all jointly because jointly they have some argumentative force that individually they lack, you will not actually demonstrate that this is so and that my dealing with them one at a time fails to take this into account
I'll have to appeal to the reader's common sense at this point.
You keep asking where it's wrong to kiss someone or a Bible or sthg. Yet do you ONLY kiss sthg in the practices to which I object? Ditto for candles, incense, bowing down, etc. Then you attempt to equivocate and ask "oh, so it's wrong to ask living persons to pray for you?" But you do ALL of those TOGETHER. To PICTURES OF DEAD PEOPLE. Sorry, again, it's pretty clear this is self-serving equivocation on your part. Either defend your practices or don't.
Here's the comment:
You equate worship and veneration. I showed that veneration or honoring comes in a variety of forms.
1) But since I *don't* equate worship and veneration...
I simply identify the actions you perform in conjunction with each other to painted pictures of dead people as fulfilling the conditions of worship, and reject the convenient "but it's not our INTENTION" excuse.
2) Have I admitted to venerating the Reformers themselves in memory? No. To say nothing of statues of them.
The Reformed statues are religious in nature given the name Jesus below them in abbreviated form as “IHS”.
1) You'd need more proof that the IHS refers to the statues and not to the Jesus that they preached, reminding us that above all they preached Jesus.
2) You still wouldn't've proved any inconsistency on MY part since you never asked me if I would've built those statues or supported their construction. Which I probably wouldn't've.
And since you go on to say (in another example of your being all over the place): "I grant with the Geneva idols that no one is bowing down and rendering honor to them", it would appear you grant me the point. Thanks!
will only bring to light the Procrustean lengths you need to go to maintain your position.
Sorry, it's not ad hoc that I would claim to judge everything by the Scripture. Have I ever said that before?
you also noted that you would allow images of Jesus even in a church building even if not in the “worship hall.”
And you might have sthg if I'd said sthg like "...and it's OK to venerate those images of Jesus".
But, since I didn't...
Certainly the Reformed tradition has held that it is impermissible. Is it or not?
Am I "the Reformed tradition"? I don't see how my position isn't quite clear.
And if it is, how then do you evade the objections from the Reformed that you are guilty of idolatry and breaking the second commandment?
Anyone can contact me to get the email fwded to them of my convo with one TurretinFan's friends about this very point.
But 1 Kings shows things that Solomon put in on his own apart from a command by God and yet God approved them.
This is me being consistent.
Where did anyone ever do before those images what you do before yours? And where did God say that was OK?
Third, if you think that I need to refute them all jointly because jointly they have some argumentative force that individually they lack, you will not actually demonstrate that this is so and that my dealing with them one at a time fails to take this into account
I'll have to appeal to the reader's common sense at this point.
You keep asking where it's wrong to kiss someone or a Bible or sthg. Yet do you ONLY kiss sthg in the practices to which I object? Ditto for candles, incense, bowing down, etc. Then you attempt to equivocate and ask "oh, so it's wrong to ask living persons to pray for you?" But you do ALL of those TOGETHER. To PICTURES OF DEAD PEOPLE. Sorry, again, it's pretty clear this is self-serving equivocation on your part. Either defend your practices or don't.
Friday, April 09, 2010
More on Energetic Procession about icons and authority
Perry Robinson probably has other stuff going on, but some other commenters have taken up common cause with him and been questioning me. The comments start here.
Here is my reply:
Here is my reply:
Hi Fr Dcn Patrick (Monk Patrick),
They are only dead in the flesh but otherwise alive.
And yet God makes that distinction too, and tells us not to practice communication with those who’ve passed on. Let God worry about communicating with them, since they’re alive TO HIM, but not to YOU.
Have you considered that being alive incorporates the ability to relate to others and to communicate, without which there is no meaning to being alive?
And yet you have no evidence, whether pragmatic or biblical, that dead ppl can indeed relate to the living or communicate with them.
And a lot of evidence to the contrary, including God’s repeated warnings not to communicate with them. Like I said, I presume He’s got that covered and doesn’t need my help.
And a lot of evidence to the contrary, including God’s repeated warnings not to communicate with them. Like I said, I presume He’s got that covered and doesn’t need my help.
Have you considered that communication does not have to be merely through physical means picked up by the senses?
Tell that to all the RCs and EOx who like to make the argument “So what’s the diff between prayer to the dead and asking intercession of the living saints in our church?” I’m glad to hear someone more reasonable like you on this point.
What does alive in Christ mean? Alive in Christ means that you share His life in and with Him.
Yep. And yet it doesn’t necessarily mean you walk and talk on THIS EARTH. It could mean you’re in Paradise/Heaven, and that means your physical body is (for the moment) dead, and God told us not to talk to those ppl. Why would you? Plenty of ppl in your church who are still alive, and Christ Himself is infinite! Yet you insist on talking to ppl who are obviously dead and making excuses for your sin.
To honour the Saints in Him is to honour Christ,
Actually, God doesn’t really agree.
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”
I was referring to the theological debates of the eighth and ninth centuries not to the old Testament commandments.
OK, but I’m referring to the OT. You know, what God said. I don’t care much about 8th century stuff when we need to get to the bottom of what God said.
Please point to texts where it says to reverence God alone.
The point over and over again is not to worship or serve idols.
Here – I’ve already written on this.
Here – I’ve already written on this.
It is not right (~97% is not right) by your own testimony thus it is heresy by the thought of this commentator.
Oh wow! A Protestant commentator said sthg that is wrong! SHOCK of shocks.
One wonders where he’d find a church that is 100% right.
One wonders where he’d find a church that is 100% right.
1 Tim 3:15 taking into account 1 John 2:21
1 Tim 3: 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth
1 Jn 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1 Jn 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
A pillar and support holds sthg else up – the Scripture, in this case.
Anyway, did not John also write 1 John 1: 8 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us”?
Presumably you think EOC is 100% right on everythg. If that’s the case, please adjudicate between each of these two warring factions in EOC and tell us who is right, and most importantly, how you know. Thanks!
Anyway, did not John also write 1 John 1: 8 “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us”?
Presumably you think EOC is 100% right on everythg. If that’s the case, please adjudicate between each of these two warring factions in EOC and tell us who is right, and most importantly, how you know. Thanks!
The Father’s are not chosen arbitrarily so that cuts the circularity on your argument.
I’m sorry (but not surprised) you can’t see it, but naked assertions aren’t particularly helpful.
That whole paragraph was just more circular reasoning, and didn’t prove anythg. Sorry.
That whole paragraph was just more circular reasoning, and didn’t prove anythg. Sorry.
There were different lists of Canonical Scripture written by different Fathers in the past.
So which one was right, and how do you know? You were just telling me that anythg less than 100% is unacceptable, and now you want me to swallow “they’re close, and vary by only a few books here and there”? Answer the problem, tell us for sure which ones were right and wrong, and how you know.
You have not demonstrated in your response that you have read Hebrews 13:7-9 with the care that warranted the reason to reference it.
7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
I do remember those who’ve led me. They’re my church elders, and I see them every Sunday.
I also imitate their faith and action.
We don’t hold to a Jesus Who gets eaten and drunk, but rather One Who is actually the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I’m not carried away by innovations, b/c I test everythg by the light of what God has revealed in Scripture.
I don’t practice compulsory fasting, unlike (in practice) EOC.
Looks like YOU’RE the one reading not too carefully. Show me in the text where “those who spoke the word of God to you” = “the early church writers whose writings agree best with our doctrine, whom we accept”.
I also imitate their faith and action.
We don’t hold to a Jesus Who gets eaten and drunk, but rather One Who is actually the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I’m not carried away by innovations, b/c I test everythg by the light of what God has revealed in Scripture.
I don’t practice compulsory fasting, unlike (in practice) EOC.
Looks like YOU’RE the one reading not too carefully. Show me in the text where “those who spoke the word of God to you” = “the early church writers whose writings agree best with our doctrine, whom we accept”.
Elders or teachers either Abbots or Bishops), or Fathers, from generation to generation (does Paul intend this process to last only one generation, if so why?)
No, ELDERS AND TEACHERS are meant to pass on a la 2 Tim 2:2. He doesn’t say anythg about infallibility, however, nor about apostolicity. Watch out for equivocation, no matter how many other EOx run off the cliff before you.
Androgen,
Thanks for your unsupported opinion.
Thanks for your unsupported opinion.
mome,
Forgive me if I was patronizing. That wasn’t my intent in writing about the meaning of prayer
Apology accepted. I hope you’ll make it stick by actually engaging my real objection instead of breaking it up and making me look like I think, say, lighting candles is a bad thing.
I see the distinction you mean to make when you say that it’s untrue to say that Christ WAS eternally the God-man, but it is false.
So Jesus HAS ALWAYS BEEN the God-man? The Incarnation is not an event in time?
You’ve got some problems here…
You’ve got some problems here…
It is incorrect Christology to understand the Word as ever anything other than the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus Christ.
Now all you need is an argument.
Now, THIS statement is correct: It is incorrect Christology to understand the Word as, from the point of the Crucifixion on, anything other than the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus Christ, or from the Incarnation on anything other than the incarnate Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity.
But you’re assigning “crucifiED and risEN” before He was crucified or risen. That’s the disconnect.
Now, THIS statement is correct: It is incorrect Christology to understand the Word as, from the point of the Crucifixion on, anything other than the incarnate, crucified and risen Jesus Christ, or from the Incarnation on anything other than the incarnate Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity.
But you’re assigning “crucifiED and risEN” before He was crucified or risen. That’s the disconnect.
Eternity doesn’t admit stages of being or becoming.
It’s funny that most EOx have a hard time verbalising their doctrines, retreating to “mystery” all the time with their apophaticism. Maybe this is why – you’re not allowing enough mystery to the Incarnation. How did the eternal God enter into flesh, time, and matter? I don’t know, but I do know one thing – He did so. You need a bigger dose of mystery.
“In the beginning” is a reference to time, the beginning of time, the beginning of creation.
And the Bible uses it multiple times, in reference to the Logos and God’s action in creation.
However, the incarnate Christ has returned to his Father, as incarnate. His crucified and resurrected flesh is now eternal,
Are you using arguments about His nature and state of existence INTO THE FUTURE as justification for reading events that happened in His incarnate life on Earth back into His existence before all that happened? Why would you do that? Is it b/c you don’t have an argument?
Of course, while on earth, Christ as a man moved through time, and events in his earthly life have a temporal “location.”
And of course, since He retains a physical body now and forevermore, Jesus *still* has a temporal and physical location.
The lamb is slain “from the foundation of the world.” The interpretation you offer, that this indicates that his death was planned from the beginning, does not match what the verse actually says.
Thank you for your opinion. Now please offer an argument.
Such a notion is not wrong as far as it goes, but the way you are using it is slightly reminiscent of platonic idealism
I doubt you have any idea what that means; you just like to throw it out there b/c it’s popular among EOx to say “Platonic”. Read Acts 2:23 and get back to me.
God’s foreknowledge and plan is not a knowledge of things that God has yet to witness coming to pass.
That’s rich, coming from an EOx to a Calvinist.
Of course, I never said that it’s “knowledge of things that God has yet to witness”; that would be totally against my view.
Of course, I never said that it’s “knowledge of things that God has yet to witness”; that would be totally against my view.
Book XI of Augustine’s “Confessions” might provide some decent grist for the mill.
Perry tells me not to trust Augustine. But you’re recommending him? How can I know whom to trust?
Well, first off, I don’t consider my motivations to be “pure.”
Good first step. How about just offering your worship and prayer to God, then?
First, in Moses’ time, the dead were in Sheol and were not accessible to those living on earth except in certain God-deigned cases.
And now the dead are in Hades or Paradise and are not accessible to those living on earth except in certain God-deigned cases.
The Orthodox, however, are not conjuring the dead; they are living in the reality of the Church brought about by the advent of Pentecost.
That’s nothing more than fancy wordplay. Of course you’re COMMUNICATING with the dead. Deal with what you actually do. See, here you’re back to patronising not only me but all the other Reformed critics of EO necromancy that are reading this. It’s disrespectful for those of us who’ve witnessed EO practice with our own eyes and who are concerned for your very souls.
In that reality, all those in Christ, those alive on earth today and those who have fallen asleep, share one life, which is that of the Holy Spirit
What makes you think that the OT reality is so diff than the reality of today? Were not the dead “alive in God” then?
Peter, Paul, Maximos the Confessor? Yes, they have died to this life, which is really something that happened when they died with Christ in baptism, but they are not “dead.”
They’re not “dead”? Where do they live, then?
Haha, trick question – they don’t LIVE anywhere. They’re DEAD, their bodies have rotted in the grave. God has not resurrected them yet.
Haha, trick question – they don’t LIVE anywhere. They’re DEAD, their bodies have rotted in the grave. God has not resurrected them yet.
There is no other life.
EOx are fond of accusing the Reformed of being Docetists, but this is far more Docetistic than anything I’ve ever even gotten *close* to saying.
The command is there because the idols aren’t gods at all.
And are the saints gods at all? What about angels?
No Orthodox makes the claim that any saint is God or equal to God
Aaron didn’t claim that for the Golden Calf.
Nor did the Israelites that worshiped Nehushtan.
Your distinction is not God’s.
Nor did the Israelites that worshiped Nehushtan.
Your distinction is not God’s.
ioannis,
You’d asked: “Where does God say that He disapproves of making icons of Himself?”
That’s where it all began. “Of Himself” is not specific enough to be useful, so that’s why I quoted 1 Tim 6.
That’s where it all began. “Of Himself” is not specific enough to be useful, so that’s why I quoted 1 Tim 6.
That means that you do not believe Christ as God.
Hopefully you’ll understand better now. You should know better than to say that.
That fact and your interpretation of 1 Tim 6 confirmed to me your judaism.
Now you’re just being idiotic, sorry. You know, I have a 4-yr old blog with 1000s 100s of posts, and thus a massive paper trail. You’re engaging in willful ignorance. Have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)