Church Fathers

(This is intended as a companion piece to Dustin Germain's excellent article.)

People everywhere within Christendom want to claim the "Church Fathers" as supporters of their own position. Eastern Orthodox cite Chrysostom against Rome, which counter-cites (sometimes-imaginary quotes from) Augustine, whom Protestants then cite against Rome, who then counter-cites Irenæus, who then gets claimed by the Eastern Orthodox... on and on it goes.

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, it's understandable that they do this, for a few reasons. One is that their concept of spiritual authority is pretty murky and leaves room for "Church Fathers" to hold sway in persuading people. If Basil of Cæsarea believed it, well, who am I to question such a Great Man? Another is that for a great deal of the distinctive doctrines of Rome and the East, there is no legitimate or remotely convincing biblical proof, so really all they have are quotes from church history and naked appeals to their own authority.

But for the adherent to Sola Scriptura, the usage of the appellation "Church Father" is puzzling and unnecessary and should be jettisoned. Further, Sola Scripturists ought to take great care in how they cite "Church Fathers", for what reason, and in which context. Let's explore this more.

First of all, the word "Father" has to do with generation and origin, parenthood. In no way are any of the men usually referred to as "Church Fathers" actually fathers of The Church. The Father of The Church is God the Father. The Founder of The Church is Jesus Christ. He who inducts people into The Church is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus handpicked men who would be the first preachers of His Church. Their names are recorded in the Gospel accounts and Acts. There are twelve of them, give or take one.
"And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons. And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot..."
--Mark 3:13-18

Throw in Paul and maybe Matthias, subtract Judas, and you have your human Church Fathers.

Second, there is no reason for confidence that we in modern times, so far removed from the context in which these "Church Fathers" lived, taught, and wrote, have sufficient understanding of their writings. Here are some challenges to hubristic overestimation of what can be gleaned for our use today from their extant writings:

The shallow route

One Tyler Dalton McNabb, a street evangelist, formerly affiliated with the good folks at Way of the Master/Living Waters, has decided to swim the Tiber.

It's often instructive to read these types of conversion stories with a careful eye toward the reasons they give for forsaking the Gospel of grace. It's like there's a dozen or so common cheap "arguments" that proved persuasive to the feckless new convert, and they slide glibly by seemingly without any awareness of the standing rebuttals that were available to them and have been for years and years without effective reply from the other side of the Tiber. No, rather, it's as if Catholic Answers is the final word on the matter. Don't listen to men like the Triablogue, Eric Svendsen, or James White, because as we all know, they're just too mean and nasty to be taken seriously.

I left a comment on his post. We'll see if it makes it through moderation. Here it is:


Hello,

I am quite saddened to hear of what amounts to apostasy and I have some reactions to what you've written here.

Now coming back to how my graduate studies in philosophy helped pave the way, it was by reading the medieval Catholic philosophers like Anselm, Aquinas, and Molina, as well as reading contemporary Catholic philosophers like Feser, van Inwagen, Stump, and Flint. Reading philosophers like these allowed me to see that Catholics were not the enemies.

How funny. Reading the Scripture allowed me to see that Roman dogma (not "Catholics", however) is an (not the) enemy.
Unsurprising that someone who shows little indication of being grounded firmly in Scripture would fall into such error.
What is a little surprising is that someone who is attempting to sound like he's really thought this all the way through would say something like "Catholics were not the enemies". I mean, are you reacting against backwoods fundies or some other class of ignoramus Protestant, or are you supposed to be appealing to people who have a halfway-decent idea of what they're talking about and what the true issues at hand are?



There was even one night last Mother’s Day where I had a dream that a man was calling me to become a Catholic. What is even more strange is that the same night, my wife had a spiritual dream. The conclusion of her dream was that we were not to go to Israel but we were to help defend the faith here. Why were these dreams so strange? These dreams were strange for us because the few weeks beforehand, we were praying on the topics of going to Israel and if Rome’s doctrines were true. Needless to say, we attended Mass that day.

The other day I had a disgusting borderline-pornographic dream, I'm sorry to say.
I doubt you'd think, however, that I'd be justified in now engaging in pædophilia.


as I figured presuppositionally, if Peter is reining still, then Rome is true

Well, he's not. He died.
*Jesus* is reigning still.
It's pretty common for Romanists to say stuff like that, about Peter, other Popes, or Mary. It's amazing to me that they don't see how it clearly denigrates Jesus.


It was overwhelming to see that the early fathers believed in the real presence/sacrifice in regards to the Eucharist (some even quoting Mal. for justification), baptismal regeneration, bishops, and confession (Cyprian, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine etc.). Have I mentioned how nice it is to now have a Church history?

You must have missed how Rome claims the support of the unanimous consent of the "Fathers" for several of her dogmas, and that there is no such consent.
You must have missed that numerous "Fathers" teach "Protestant" doctrine, such as sola fide, iconoclasm, and Sola Scriptura.
You clearly missed the implication that you're relying on men like Origen - the universalism-espousing father of allegorical interpretation uber alles - as one of your guidiing lights. How do you justify the picking and choosing in which you have to engage?
Oh wait, let me guess - the modern Magisterium told you which writings of which men we are to acknowledge as prooftexts, and others are to be ignored/rejected/suppressed.
"Fathers" are not our authority. God is. Correct me if I missed it but I don't see much indication at all in this post that the Scriptures were your authority even as you began this journey, that you were looking for how best to follow what God said, as opposed to finding a system that you could overlay on top and prooftext with at least some degree of credibility. Sad.

Peace,
Rhology

Picking and choosing from history

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.

DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

I've been interacting some on DavidW's blogpost about his comparisons of Gnostic predestination and Calvinistic predestination.  He swears up and down that Calvinism is dressed-up Gnosticism, and I already corrected him on his point, told him:

My response is basically that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Alot of EOC doctrines resemble Mormonism; that doesn't mean they're related. Looking at it the other way, all the ancient heretics held to doctrines that EOC would accept as well - that's what makes heretics so dangerous. They creep in, sound the same in almost everything, but secretly introduce destructive heresies, subtly, drawing away disciples after them. So this point of yours in principle proves too much. Otherwise stated, it proves nothing. 

 DavidW today laid out 5 questions on this topic he'd like me to address.  Let's see how well he did.

David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.

2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.

2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination

I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.

3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.

Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)

Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.


Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.

Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.


Ye are originally immortal

Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.


he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature

It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.


In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil

And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)


For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.

1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.


a rigidly deterministic scheme

Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.


4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.

(Please leave any comments at the BeggarsAll cross-post.)

Irony in Patristics

I haven't read a ton of patristic writing, I freely admit.  About 200+ pages starting from page 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and taking notes the whole way, so far.
But I can apply logical argumentation to common Eastern Orthodox argumentation in regard to the way they view patristic support for their position, and thus perform an internal critique of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Now, given that the Scriptures are the way they indeed are, it makes very little difference to me whether the entirety of those who identify themselves as "The Church®" over the course of history stand in opposition to what the Scripture teaches - "Let God be true and every man a liar." 

But of course, anyone who's familiar with patristic writings to a more than surface-level extent will know that the early church situation is not nearly that simple.  The questions of who was in schism from whom, who agreed with whom, who contradicted whom, who contradicted himself, who properly represented the actual position of most of the people in the church at his time, etc, are fundamental questions, and far too often our EO and RC friends simply assume that they are unimportant, assume that their church is The One True Church® and thus the default position, and any dissenter from such necessarily has all the burden of proof to defend his dissent. 
Let's take a look, for a case study, at DavidW's blog in which he likens Calvinism to Gnosticism.  I dropped by and dropped an Irenaeus quote from Jason Engwer:

"They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images. (source)

DavidW has responded, I replied, and DavidW once more.  I encourage you to read what he said, and here I relate my own rebuttal.

approach Orthodoxy on its own terms, free of such confutation.

Do you venerate images?  Bow down to them? 
What substantial differences can you name between EO practice and RC practice, besides that they use statues and you don't?

the book explores the supposedly iconoclastic references that Protestants cherry-pick from the Church Fathers

The existence of which is evidence in support of my position.  I don't think the early church writers had a consistent consensual position, remember?  I judge ALL THINGS by Scripture.

it's a case of looking at the Fathers on their own terms and in their fulness, as you are unwilling to do.

Hahaha, that makes me laugh, that you who ignore early church writers who dissent want to "look at the Fathers on their own terms".  Whatever, man.

3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?
Answers.

The very existence of ppl who'd like to forge such a letter shows that there did exist such an iconoclastic strain of tradition.  Which, again, is my position.

The iconoclasts of the 8th century picked up their iconoclasm from the Muslims.

Even Muslims get stuff right, you know.  I sorta picked mine up from the OT Jews.

You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it.
Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history

OK, I listened to it, thank you. 
Macdonald:  "He's not technically a Church Father" - begging the very question at hand.  Who decided that?  Why isn't whoever decided that himself in schism, himself unreliable with respect to what is authoritative and normative in church history?
"He wrote a lot" - yup.  And yet you judge him wrong on many counts.  How is that any diff than what I do with what you claim about CFs that you DO agree with?  Why do you get to disagree with an early church writer and I don't?
"He did not remain in the Orthodox Church" - so he schismed?  So he was Protestant before there were Protestants? 
"Gnostics wanted Christians to live under extra rules" - that's very interesting. You mean like necessitating works like baptism on top of faith for salvation from sin?
"most of the CFs tried to work thru Greek philosophy, that meant to Tatian's crew that they were apostatising" - doesn't sound like there's a ton of unity and agreement in the early church, now was there?  There sure seems to be a big diff in the way you EOx talk to Protestants and the way you talk to each other.  Kinda like how Yasser Arafat would say "Peace, peace" in English to the Western goober politicians, then go say "War, war" in Arabic to his own ppl (though obviously less violently).
"Tertullian is not reflecting the reality of early Christianity, he's reflecting a particular position" - What a dumb thing to say!  Of COURSE he was reflecting a particular position.  EVERY writer "reflects a particular position".  Sheesh.

Now, around minute 48-49, Macdonald has a very interesting extended quotation:

"The church has a tradition that the married women did this, and the girls, I guess, they didn't wear veils.  So he makes the statement:  'Whatever favors the opposition to truth is heresy, even if it's ancient custom'.  And he says that in a number of places where he's contrasting the tradition of the church, he rejects the tradition of the church, in favor of the prophecies of the women.  And it stuck in my mind b/c Cyprian, who comes after him in Carthage, makes almost the same statements; for Cyprian, to him he's not a Montanist, but he always refers, Tertullian for him is the only church father b/c he wrote in Latin, and he refers to Tertullian as 'a master', but he makes that statement in regard to the rebaptism, b/c the church was not rebaptising people from heretical groups but was receiving them by chrismation and Cyprian says 'well, ancient custom is just ancient error', you know, so it's this ultimately, the church disagreed with Cyprian on that and have the canons and everything, but this attitude of rejection of the church tradition.  And we will say that OK, not everything that every early Christian ever did is necessarily Gospel, but the consensus of the church and the tradition of the church's practice is part of what Irenaeus is referring to, when he says 'What's to separate us from the Gnostics, who make up their errors?  Each Gnostic is just making stuff up.  That our teachings go back and are continuous back to Christ' and that's what distinguishes the church from a heretical group.  For Tertullian and later Cyprian, they both say 'no, that the church's practice is no indication of what is true,' particularly Tertullian.  And of course, he's coming at it from the idea that these Montanist teachers were in fact revelations of the Holy Spirit."

There is a lot to catch there, but notice how Macdonald says Saint Cyprian treated Tertullian, a guy who was headed to heresy according to the EOC.
Notice how Macdonald even characterises Cyprian's view that Tertullian was the only church father.
Notice how these two early witnesses seem to be treating "church tradition" just like I do - easily prone to error, and in the case of the doctrine under dispute, just a mistaken tradition that got accepted by enough people, handed down enough, and eventually crystallised into unshakable "Sacred Tradition".  And yet these two men disparage it as merely "ancient error".  So what is the EO antidote to this problem?  More appeals to more so-called Sacred Tradition?  As if that's not the very problem at hand?  Why not appeal to what God has said?  Oh no, they've got more important things!  Like preserving their Sola Ecclesia presuppositions, their pet authority. 

Questioner - "It's not like he did a flipflop." 

"That's not surprising.  Alot of his writings, when he's writing against the church he's also contradicting his own early writings, when he was in the church...Tertullian sort of took exception with the decision of the Roman church and ultimately decided, even in his pre-Montanist writings, you start seeing, not the earliest ones, but the period about 204 on, he starts adopting Montanist ideas and then 207 he leaves..."

So...Tertullian takes exception to what a bishop (the one in Rome) defined.  And yet 1800 years later, the Reformed are roundly criticised for following his example.  (Macdonald clarifies that this dissent by Tertullian took place in 197, BTW.)
And I have said in the past that a strong case can be made that church fathers contradict themselves in their own writings over the course of time.  Of course, I catch flak for that kind of statement from RCs and EOdox, but I bet Macdonald won't catch any.  Oh no, b/c he's one of the boys. 

DavidW continues:

Historians don't have polling data; we work with what we have

And then you assume that's what the early church believed.  So you DON'T have any polling data, yet you take ~50 writers who wrote variegated things on a wide variety of topics with some disagreement between them and frequent disagreement between writings from any one of them over the course of his life, and from THAT you decide what the early church believed?  No, you decide after the fact. That's always been my point.  You, the modern EOC, decide which views out of the sparse info that you have from the past you're going to follow.  Sola Ecclesia.
Pardon me, but I don't want to follow such circular self-referential reasoning, such begging of the very question at hand.  I follow what God has most surely said - the Scripture. 

Okay: I say that aliens came to earth, enslaved all people, and set up a kingdom that was only finally overthrown in the 6th century by St. Justinian the Emperor. It's okay, though, lack of documentary evidence doesn't mean it's not true

You're exactly right - that doesn't mean it's not true.  ANYthing could conceivably be true; that's the problem of induction at work (since you mentioned logic).  You have faith on the modern EOC's interp of archaeology and historical data, despite when we show you that your view of history is flawed. You are a humanist at the core.  I have faith in God's Holy Word. 

Right -- he was a heretic. He did become a Montanist, you know?

Yes, I know that, and you're begging the question to claim that joining a Montanist sect means that he was necessarily wrong or out of step with the church.  Prove that most ppl weren't in fact part of the Montanists.  Polling data. 

Irenaeus is not talking about my position because my position is the same as Irenaeus' and I sincerely doubt that Irenaeus is calling his own position Gnostic.

Wow.  That was a naked assertion of epic proportion.  How about you actually deal with what he said?

(Please leave any comments at the cross-post at Beggars All.)

More discussion of the title of "heretic" for early writers

My opponent in my recently-concluded debate on Sola Scriptura, DavidW, has had some interesting things to say afterwards, and it has provoked some (what I hope are) helpful thoughts, which I'd like to share here.

I thought I'd sort of broken his spirit and will to debate any more, but it doesn't appear that is completely true, so oh well.
(That's mostly a joke, about me breaking his spirit, just FYI.)

OK, so DavidW likes to assert that I hold to some kind of great apostasy in the early church not long after the apostles died, and that I think the early church 'fathers' were heretics. I wrote this post to correct him, and then Viisaus made some very good comments in the combox and PilgrimsArbour a good one as well.
DavidW lastly left a thought-provoking comment, trying to bring the discussion to a concrete level and then accusing me of "distorting and ignoring the evidence and the historical facts".
So, here is my answer.

But were they points of controversy with respect to what the biblical position actually is? Was the biblical position represented? That's the big question.
As we've discussed numerous times before, I don't grant that "Augustinianism" didn't exist before Augustine. Paul, Peter, and Jesus all taught what I teach today with respect to soteriology, predestination, hamartiology, etc. But at least some of it was forgotten by at least some people in the early church. Since this is a difficult thing for you to remember, apparently, please note that "some" does not mean "all". Got that?

Now, as for your three:
1) A. So they were proto-monophysites, is what you're saying. That's a problem. (For you.)
B. I don't know why you think that I think that a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist is heresy. Do you think I consider Presbyterians or Lutherans heretical?
C. You know, there's plenty of reason not to grant that point to you at all. But even if I did grant it, I'd have to ask whether the writers whose writings are still extant ever wrestled with the issue as it is defined biblically. Did he have an opportunity to be corrected by someone correctly interpreting the Scripture? Remember how I made resistance to correction a big deal in the post?
D. To say nothing of the question-begging nature of such appeals to "the early church" on your part, as if you knew anything about said early church masses beyond what a handful of people said that they themselves believed and, less commonly, said what others of their time believed. If you want to substantiate your claims that "the early church" believed what you believe, show me the polling data.

2) James White has admitted that all of the Fathers held to Baptismal Regeneration

I'd like to see that quote, actually.
And obviously Clement of Rome didn't, as he held to sola fide. Further, there's reason to think that Mathetes, Polycarp, and Tertullian didn't hold to such.
It occurs to me that quoting these early writers against your assertion that they "all... held to Baptismal Regen" actually weakens my point in the post, though it's worth it as it is just one more example of how wrecked and untenable your "early church consensus" position is.

3) Not holding to Calvinistic predestination is not heresy.

OK, moving on:

and you still claim that Calvinism isn't Gnosticism?

Yes, I still claim that it is not, unless you're willing to claim that EOdoxy is Muslim, since both hold to monotheism, prophets and supernatural revelation, angels, etc. Just waiting for some non-fallacious inferences from you. Apparently I'll be waiting a while.


which would be that you are condemning yourself, your Scriptures, and the Apostles in the process?

The idea that you or I could "condemn" the Scripture or Apostles is laughable.
This further begs the question at hand, both that the early extant church writings do in fact represent unbroken and uncorrupted DOCTRINAL transmission from the apostles, and that the Scripture does a worse job than those other writings of teaching us apostolic doctrine.


The Fathers of the early Church largely sorted the Apostolic from the apocryphal in their collation of the New Testament by deciding based on whether or not it agreed with their Faith.

1) Taken in isolation, that's certainly quite commendable. Reminds me of some town in Acts 17 that begins with "Bere" and ends in "a".
2) This raises an interesting point.
Let's say I grant that the extant early church writings express more or less EO doctrine.
Given other facts, such as that the Scripture is God-inspired and sufficiently clear to communicate what it intends to communicate, and that the Scr does not teach more or less EO doctrine on these points of contention between us, I don't see why I wouldn't be fully justified in positing with certainty either that either the entire church of the time was in serious, serious error or that these men didn't properly represent the beliefs of the church at large. In the absence of any data to the contrary (such as polling data from the laity and other church leaders from the time periods in question which I've repeatedly requested and you've repeatedly been unable to provide), my position has logical consistency in affirming the latter.
Yes, I know you'd dispute the statements about the Scripture, but as we've seen over and over again, your position just can't get there, sorry. And I think you know that, which is why you slip in these little jabs at Scr's reliability, whether in affirming its errancy when you want to, or in moving away from it towards early church writers, or in doubting its clarity and ability to communicate sufficiently. Or I could be wrong; as we saw in our debate, your exegesis of most every Scr text you tried to deal with was horrific, so I guess that could be it too.


They did not have access to the same historical and archaeological methods as we do, and so this was the rule of which they made use.

1) And so much the worse for them. I thought you'd want to make arguments that help your position...
2) Though my own arguments for the Canon to which I subscribe are primarily theological.


If the Faith of the early Church was as deeply flawed as you allege that it is, your New Testament is also apparently deeply flawed.

Back to the old myth that I hold to some universal apostasy after the 1st century.


Error does not produce truth.

This is equivocation between the TEACHING and the TEACHER. We need to be more careful than that.

(Please leave any comments at the cross-post at Beggars All.)

The title of "heretic" for early writers

This I write in response to DavidW's assertion here.

All I want to say here is that it makes a difference at what point in history certain things are discussed.  Context, you know?  If there wasn't a great deal of discussion about a certain topic beforehand or contemporarily for a given writer and he makes some comments that, if placed in someone's mouth today, AND if that person today had been educated from the Scripture and refuted from the Scripture and then refused correction, then the label "heretic" would certainly apply.  So it has to do with what people had a responsibility and opportunity to know, and in what capacity.  "From the one to whom much is given, much will be demanded" - Luke 12:48.  It also has a lot to do with resistance to correction.
For example, I can share the Gospel with some total unbeliever, let's say a Muslim.  He hears the Gospel, is pricked to the heart, is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repents of his sin and places his full faith and trust in Christ.  We then start walking to a place so I can teach him about the Bible a bit and set up times to meet later so I can disciple him, "teaching him to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt 28:20).  On the way, I get run over by a truck.  Said just-converted man knows the name of Jesus, that He is the Savior, that He was crucified for our sins and raised to bring us eternal life, that he himself is a sinner and needs to have a growing friendship with the Savior...and that's it.  And it just so happens he doesn't meet another Christian for quite some time, during which time he reads the Bible and reaches the correct conclusion, say, that "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:27-28) and thus that he will never perish, which is a great encouragement to him.  He also forms the erroneous position that God is a unitary being with three various modes of self-expression.  Then he meets another Christian, finally, who knows the Bible better than he.  Shall that Christian, upon learning that this man holds to modalism and learning of his story of faith, then harshly rebuke the younger believer for his heresy?  No!  He'd teach him the true Scriptural position of the Trinity.  A mark (not a cause, but an effect) of a regenerate heart is a proper response to biblical correction.  This guy, being for the sake of argument (from our "omniscient view" as the narrators of the story) a true regenerate adopted child of God, not self-deceived or playacting, would inevitably submit himself to correction.  In the real world, you never know for sure what's in someone else's heart, so you have to watch for the fruit.  Stubborn resistance to biblical correction on essential doctrine is a great sign of an unregenerate heart, but auto-downloads of the entire corpus of knowledge in the Scripture into the brain is not to be expected.  So the amount of knowledge beyond a bare minimum is not a sign of that; refusing biblical correction is. 

So, having said all that, I am not going to put these early church writers in the position of forcing their words into commenting on issues they didn't know much about nor had experienced much discussion of.  Just as much of the formal and conciliar formulations of Christian doctrine were hammered out in response to the rise of large movements of support for doctrines that, it would turn out, were incorrect and of central importance to the Gospel and the nature and identity of God Himself, just as Roman anathemas "don't work retroactively", I don't expect these early church writers to have the opportunity of exposure to the breadth and depth of theology and reflection on every single issue that I have opportunity of exposure to.  I have every reason to expect that these men, being adherents to the idea that God-inspired Scripture was to be held to on a higher level of authority than non-Scripture, would hold to MY positions, were they alive today.  Hope that helps clear this up.  It will thus be dishonest of you to continue saying things like "You don't see the problem with stating that the early Christians, many of whom sat at the feet of Apostles and listened to them speak, who gave us the New Testament we know today and without whom Christianity would have ceased to exist, were all heretics?"
So I hope you will stop.

The monolithic early church

DavidW, my EO debate opponent, keeps asking me things like this in the various threads in which we've been informally debating things (mostly on his blog):

And for the umpteenth time I ask you kindly to show me a single Father who disagreed concerning essential matters of Faith. Baptismal regeneration? Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The visible unity of the Church? Anything, really. Better yet, show me one that agrees with you on any of these matters.

I of course take issue with artificially restricting such questions to pet issues of his like baptismal regeneration, visible church unity, and Eucharistic dogma, and I've told him that, but helpfully this time he adds "anything, really". With that in mind, I'd like to give a few summary links and demonstrate where I've already done so.

My first comment is to note that he seems to be labeling these three issues as essential matters of Faith. That's very interesting indeed. Me, I'd've picked, I don't know, the Gospel, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the guilty status of a sinner before a holy God. Like I said, that's just me. Maybe I'm just being too Western, or too Protestant, or (gasp!) too Calvinist.
Which leads to another salient point, because DavidW and other EOx and RCs like to challenge Sola Scripturists to point out "just one" place where our theology and ECF theology agree. So the answer is very easy, and it exposes the disingenuous nature of the challenge - we agree with the entire content of the Apostles' Creed. So, what does that contain?

-God
-Father
-Who is Almighty
-Who made heaven and earth,
-Jesus Christ
-The Father's only Son
-Who is our Lord
-Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost
-Who was born of the virgin Mary
-Who suffered under Pontius Pilate
-Who was crucified
-Who died
-Who was buried
-Who descended into Hades
-Who arose again from the dead on the third day
-Who ascended into heaven
-Who now sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty
-Who thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead
-The Holy Ghost
-The holy catholic (ie, universal) church
-The communion of saints
-The forgiveness of sins
-The resurrection of the body
-The life everlasting

That's a lot of agreement! Oh, that's not what the EO or RC questioner meant? Well, maybe they should have asked a question they meant instead of the question they asked!
The question they of course meant was: Who in the early church believed in the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism? And of course our answer is: Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the other NT authors including most certainly the author of Hebrews, who had a particular interest in the Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Covenant theology.

Anyway, on to the list of places where I've already answered DavidW's challenge, and which he has so far refused to take into account.

Athanasius, Chrysostom, and the modern EOC
More disunity in Eastern Orthodoxy, in which I quote official EO clergy anathematising other self-labeled EOdox for such crazy important and essential matters as which calendar one uses and what kind of bread one uses in the Eucharist. I mean, crucial stuff, "concerning essential matters of Faith", as DavidW would say.
Taking sin seriously, or, the Gospel, in which DavidW exposes his clear disagreement with a fairly important Early Church Father - Jesus Christ.
1st Clement on sola fide, in which I quote the very early letter of 1st Clement extolling the doctrine of sola fide, and with which DavidW misleadingly protests that he agrees in its totality.

Also, I just thought I'd go ahead and throw in the testimony of Epiphanius with respect to iconoclasm. And a link to Jason Engwer's helpful Catholic But Not Roman Catholic index (not that EOC is the same as RCC, but many of the entries are relevant).

Plenty more could be said, but I've tried to narrow my focus to mostly what I've said, to be as specific as possible to DavidW's challenge.

Not just a problem for Sola Scriptura part 2

DavidW said...

Multiplying authors simply makes mutual consistency that much more difficult.

Absolutely agreed; which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous, and a sign of Christ's fulfilled promise that the gates of hades would not prevail against the Chruch and that the Holy Spirit would guide it.

That's precisely what you were getting at when we were discussing the sign over Christ's Cross.

I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.

No. They held to the deity of Christ. Monotheism. Baptism. An as-yet unrealised Eschaton.

They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject. So, the question remains: were they all simultaneously mistaken, but agreement with each other, as to the message of the Apostles OR did they conspire together to distort said message?

The shared beliefs far outweigh the differences.

100% agreed.

the majority of CFs held to Sola Scriptura.

That's the very thing I'm exploring in my series on the issue -- and I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.

1 Clement contains a very clear endorsement of justification by grace alone thru faith alone.

I've read St. Clement's letter several times and never seen such an endorsement. Perhaps you could provide me with the quote or at least verse number so I can read it for myself?

Infant baptism was inconsistently held.

I think the Protestants are skewing the evidence on this one. It's a topic I investigated quite a bit, because I had my own doubts about it initially (even having been baptized as an infant myself). St. Gregory Nazianzen's objections are rather late in the early Church -- and not quite what the guy at this blog is trying to make of them (read it for yourself). The inscriptions, paintings, and fathers of the first, second, and third centuries are pretty clear on the issue. Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away -- this practice was later condemned by the Church for being what it was: an attempt to evade living a Christian life.

Kinda puts the kibosh on the whole "everywhere by all at all times".

St. Vincent, whose canon you're quoting here, addresses that very thing in the paragraph following that quote; and I've addressed it several times to you as well.

I take the CFs' mutual and internal inconsistencies and count them as 100% expected - they were MEN. ... especially since on many issues they were jumbled and thus useless as a prescriptive authority.

You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case. I'd love to see one, especially on an essential matter of faith or practice.

1) Which claim of course begs the question in favor of the EOC.

Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but. No other Christian organization or church has a legitimate claim. The closest to having a decent claim are the Roman Catholics and the Assyrian Church of the East, as they both possess at least a physical link with the Apostles (via laying on of hands) -- but both have clear points of departure from the early Church, which can be quite easily named and dated.

December 4, 2009 6:01 PM

DavidW said...

Since the OT was the Bible of the earliest church

But not the Bible alone, else we'd all be Jewish.
and then the NT served in large measure to inform and correct churches in their error

Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded. Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone. Correcting errors is not explicating the entirety of the Gospel.

That's a pretty disingenuous thing to say, since this whole time you've been making the CFs into at the very least a more useful tool.

I never claimed they were "more useful." They are necessary to Scripture, as they teach us the correct interpretation thereof.

Not to mention "the Faith of the Church", whatever that is.

The Faith of the Church is the Scriptures and the Councils, speaking in terms of dogma. More correctly, though, the Faith of the Church is our worship -- if one were able to attend every Church service in an entire year, he'd have heard the entirety of the Orthodox Faith explained -- it's the same standard the Fathers used in determining what belonged in Scripture hundreds and hundreds of years ago: the Liturgy.

December 4, 2009 6:02 PM

Rhology said...

which is why I consider the mutual consistency of the Fathers nothing short of miraculous

It's only by willful blindness that anyone could consider the Fathers mutually consistent. You're inviting us to Patristic FantasyLand, but I prefer reality.


I've read this and other attempts at harmonizing the signs as reported by the evangelists. I find them unconvincing; too desperate.

What cracks me up is your willingness to ignore the obvious wrt mutual patristic inconsistencies, but find "desperate" my friend Seth's harmony of the Cross inscriptions. Again, let the reader judge.


They also held to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the visibility and unity of the One True Church founded by the Apostles, Apostolic Succession in said Church, and a belief in Theosis -- all of which you reject

You're missing the point. Congrats, you came up with three issues on which I'd largely disagree with at least your characterisation of their position, but there are far more with which they and I *are* in agreement. Just b/c the disagreements are more visible b/c we're always debating them doesn't mean that the disagreements are more numerous than the agreements. So again, your argument fails.
As for how they ended up mistaken, we can see that at work already in the NT churches, the addressees of most of the epistles and the 7 letters in Revelation 1-3. I've said that many times to you; when are you going to take that fact into acct?


I'm finding the exact opposite of Mr. Webster, as everyone who actually takes the time to read the writings of the Fathers tends to do.

Rdr DavidB once told me sthg that an EO priest with whom he used to meet when considering conversion to EOC told him: EOdoxy is found in the Bible, just in the places less often quoted by evangelicals. That would apparently be the case for SS and the CFs. Maybe you should expand your reading and take a look at what Webster and King have found.


Later, beginning in about the 3rd century, some began to delay baptism into adulthood in order to assure that all previous sins were washed away

Next you're going to tell me that this fits in perfectly with Vincent de Lérins' aphorism and your rule of faith.


You've made this allegations many times in the past, but you have yet to present a single issue upon which this was the case.

Cyprian vs Pope Stephen on the issue of the baptism of heretics is a great place to start.
Council of Hieria vs 2nd Nicaea.


Insofar as the Orthodox Church is the One True Church founded by the Apostles and preserving the Faith thereof, yes, it does; it can't help but.

yes, that's exactly my point. EOC says it's the OneTrueChurch, you've made the choice to switch your brain off when it comes to testing that claim, and so the circularity doesn't bother you. You have no way to test it, but you don't care to.


Exactly -- for the most part, they were written to correct problems in the churches already founded.

Exactly.


Which calls into question how they could have ever been intended as all-encompassing -- as standing alone.

1) the NT epistles were not meant to stand alone.
2) You're assuming w/o proof that the oral msg delivered to the churches covered material found outside the Bible.
3) The churches, standing alone, didn't do so hot either. So... what's the answer?

December 7, 2009 10:45 AM

1st Clement on sola fide

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (source, emphasis mine)

To be read in conjunction with this post of mine. DavidW and other EOdox (not to mention RCC) would have us believe that their position represents "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all", quoting Vincent de Lérins (a Western Christian, interestingly enough). So... what's the answer here?

Was Clement wrong and just speaking as a private individual? Is it intellectually honest just to scrub this testimony out of your annals of Sacred Tradition? If it's OK to ignore any writing you want to, why can't I do that too and only cite as For Real Sacred Tradition anyone I want and claim that the Reformed faith is "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"?

Am I mischaracterising him? I only quoted him, you know.
Some other option?

(See here a lame attempt by a Romanist to explain this away that I encountered.)

Orthodox the Disingenuous

This is not the 1st time I've seen him do this but it's certainly fairly egregious this time around.

1st came this exchange:

>ORTHODOX: I'd be curious to know if the early church fathers who are very clearly the same as EO, are also "not the people of God". People like say, John Chrysostom, or Athanasius.
RHOLOGY: Their beliefs are not directly in line w/ modern EOC.

ORTHODOX: Oh do tell. PLEASE PLEASE tell, how Chrysostom or Athanasius are substantially different to modern EOC. This will be very interesting if you bother to provide more than a sound bite.

In response, I wrote this post.

In that post's combox, Orthodox now writes the following:

ORTHODOX: LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT THE CHALLENGE WAS. THE CONTENTION IS THAT ATHANASISUS AND CHRYSOSTOM ARE IN THE TRUE CHURCH AND EOC ARE SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE TRUE CHURCH.

Was that indeed the original challenge? Did my post completely and totally miss the point as Orthodox implicates? You make the call.

Athanasius, Chrysostom, and the modern EOC

The question has been raised as regarding my claim that Athanasius and John Chrysostom (for ex) did not teach the same as modern EO-doxy. I will paste several statements from each of them below to defend that. I of course don't expect Orthodox the poster to buy it, but he won't have any good reason not to concede the point.

As far as this goes, I'm not going to comment much on these but I will list them b/c I was challenged. I am not a patristics scholar or even very well-read in them. But what I will do is try to head some objections off and then defend those in the combox if challenged.

Athanasius is first in alphabetical and historical order:

1A) Athanasius had a Canon of Scripture (unlike the modern Eastern Orthodox Church [EOC]). Also, his books are different from those that EO-dox usually present as their Canon.

"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

2A) See above citation - "this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews". Athanasius disagrees w/ EO posters on this very blog in that he was convinced that his was the Canon of the Hebrews.

3A) See above citation - just two 'verses' later in the same letter, Athanasius says: "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." (Festal Letter 39:6)

4A)

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)

5A)

"The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,-while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,-still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,-the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable." (Against the Heathen, 1:1)

John Chrysostom:


1J) John Chrysostom wanted people to read and hear scripture as often as possible and to possess copies of the Bible. He included unbelievers, even young children. As opposed to the EOC (or at the very least quite a few EO-dox w/ whom I have interacted over the past few years).

"this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 32:3)

"It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures!...For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom....How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)

"And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him [Paul] with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, 'Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.' (Matt. vii. 7.)...For from this it is that our countless evils have arisen - from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out; from this that there are negligent lives; from this labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must needs be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking the worst darkness." (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, The Argument)

2J) "All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain." (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

3J) John Chrysostom didn't think there was much unity in what is alleged to have been the Eastern Orthodox Church® of his day:

"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

4J) He refers to 2 Timothy 3:17 applying to all Christians, not just members of the church hierarchy:

"'That the man of God may be perfect.' For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!" (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)

Many thanks to Jason Engwer for the sourcing of these quotes.


Now, someone might object: You got these from an article meant to refute Roman Catholicism.
True, but the citations stand on their own and refute the EO position too.

This is just your own private personal interpretation.
Ah geez, don't even get me started.
Of course everyone interprets things - that is not open to question. Do you believe, however, that every interpretation is the same? If so, then here is how I interpret your last statement:

MY INTERPRETATION OF OBJECTOR: My feet are made of broccoli and I won 500 corn chips in the lottery.

See how silly it is to talk that way?
If you disagree w/ my statement, you must show me (and any reader) why w/ a reasoned argument. Which will then be interpreted by me and every reader. Just running around questioning interpretation or retorting “That’s just your interpretation!” is a conversation-killer. And it’s an ugly death for the conversation.

(If you're keeping score at home, that's my exact response to a liberal Protestant who used the same line. Just sayin'.)

You've taken them out of context.

i) According to YOU. But you tell me to eschew private interpretation all the time, so why should I listen to your private interpretation?
ii) I don't have time right now to read thru the Fathers, so I don't feel the force of the objection very strongly anyway.
iii) **Main point** Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right - Ath and JoChr taught in more than one *other* place the opposite doctrine to what I've presented here.
That leaves us w/ CFs who have contradicted themselves. To be consistent w/ these Ch Fathers (and remember, my claim is that modern EO-doxy is inconsistent w/ them), EOC would either have to:
A: Teach just as inconsistently as these two guys do, sometimes saying one thing, sometimes the other, or
B: Call these teachings not actually part of Divine Tradition.

The problem w/ resolution A is that the cognitive dissonance would be pretty much unbearable. The upshot is that I don't know if I'd expect a lot of people to turn away from EO-doxy in real life.
The thing about resolution B is that they have indeed already done just that. Somehow these two godly, forcible, powerful writers, from whom EOC ostensibly derives much of its tradition and doctrine, also produced impious, ungodly, and flat wrong teachings.

Now, how would the EO know this? Apparently from judging these non-"Apostolic Traditions" by... yup, you guessed it! What The Church® Says.
In the end, it's a vicious circle of question-begging. I claim the modern EOC is not totally faithful w/ Ch Fathers and then cite them when challenged. Then they say, "Hey, those aren't part of Apostolic Tradition!" I say, "Thanks for proving my point."

I also pause to note how pernicious this is. The Lord Jesus set an authoritative example for how one is to judge tradition - by Scripture. The EO refuses to do that and instead appeals to his own doctrinal construct which is already in place to then look BACK on tradition AND Scripture and pick and choose what he'll believe and what he won't believe. Thus the EO holds to the Scriptural teaching of the Deity of Christ and rejects the Scriptural teaching of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone. He accepts the Trinity and rejects sola scriptura. He accepts the fact that we should pray to God as commanded in the Scripture and rejects the fact that prayer to dead people and angels is strictly prohibited in the Scripture.
It becomes easy to see how this not only dishonors God in ideal (that is, that we should not judge men's teachings by God's) but also later in practice (bowing down to images, praying to dead people, trying to work one's way to salvation).