Book Plunge: Light From The Christian East

[Leonhard]

The problem I have is that both claim that a tradition is infallible but there is no agreement on what that tradition is.

No agreement? You don't believe there's any agreement at all between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics in regards to the Church Fathers and tradition? That's as accurate as saying that a Baptist and a Lutheran have no agreement on Biblical interpretation.

I think you're exagerrating just a little bit there.

There's no way to test these traditions either to see if they go back to the apostles or not. Scripture on the other hand, I do think goes back and can be shown to go back to them.

Scripture cannot be tested. It cannot be proven that Christ rose from the dead, that He is the Lord, or that by following His commands that we can be forgiven of sin. These things belong solely within the domain of faith. Reason can inform faith, but in the end its a matter of trust.

I see no good reasons to throw out the tradition of the Church Fathers. I'm not committed to Sola Scriptura, and I don't think you've made a convincing argument here.

Leon. You know that passage is in the long ending of Mark 16 and that's often considered spurious. I don't think that passage goes back to the historical Jesus.

Then you can read on into the epistles. Its the same message there. Baptism is part of the process of being saved. Its not superfluous, or an empty ritual. It is always listed as mandatory, and never as merely something Jesus asks for. Its always tied together with the precepts of salvation, which is how the Church Fathers understood it. Both St. Peter and St. Paul ties the act of Baptism together within being burried with Christ. Always together with the act of salvation. No one disagreed with this until Zwingli declared that it was purely symbolic almost two millenia later.

Without good reason I'd rather trust the Church over Zwingli's opinion.

Both Luther and Calvin considered baptism necessary for salvation, though Calvin argues that the baptism itself wasn't efficacious, but he was clear that someone who neglected baptism was excluded from salvation. The Church has a softer view, especially as regards catechumens, and the martyrs. And its popular opinion among theologians that it might even be possible for non-baptised people to be saved.

But that opinion can never become doctrine since it falls outside of tradition.

If you wanna be saved, become baptised.

I don't see either baptism or Communion as conferring holiness onto someone. We are to do them because that is what Jesus commanded. I recall being at a Protestant church recently with my wife and she was debating whether to take Communion or not. I told her that many people in the church in all branches don't have a doctrine of Communion. They just take it because that is what Jesus said to do and they do it to honor Him. I think He is pleased with that.

I don't think God has us do anything in vain. You never see that in the Bible. The many sacrifices that the priests carried on in the Temple were small preenactments of what would eventually be Christ's sacrifice, yet at the same time they were efficacious. Israel and its people participated in the mercy of God through it. The same with the blessing of Jakob, it is both a father blessing his son, yet it also carried the power conferred to it by the authority God had granted Isaac.

But that's not what makes them secondary.

I think that's precisely what makes them secondary. I don't think a Church makes proper sense without a hierarchy. God established one, and gave first St. Peter and then the rest of the Apostles, the power to bind and to lose. To lead and to forgive sins. Which they have utilised to this day. The interpretation of binding is easy enough. It along with the power to forgive sins are what bishops and priests are doing to this day.

A power that is conferred to them the same way Isaac conferred his blessing on Jakob. By breathing on them.

Sure. Some could be saved in ignorance. The question is, when you explain it to them, if they are resistant still, are they really part of the body of Christ? That's where I'd get more skeptical.

We're not discussing ignorance here. We're talking about you, in almost all your articles, seperating things into primary and secondary issues, yet I don't think you're very clear about your reasoning for one being secondary and one being primary.

After all if we collapse Christianity down to the mere statement "Jesus is God; Make Jesus your Lord; Jesus was Resurrected" Then even Mormons are to be considered Christian. Yet I'd say that by denying the Trinity they're in a sense denying God as He is.

Yet I'd have a feeling that someone who categorically denied the Trinity. Lets say the pastor of your local parish. You wouldn't call that a secondary issue. Yet why? I can understand it from the perspective of the Church. Just about any alternative to the Trinity was declared a heresy, and Christians were bound to reject them. And so we must. Its bound on earth, and therefore bound in Heaven.

But I don't follow your reasoning about primary vs secondary. Its not clear to me at all why you should draw a line here and not there.

What do you think Sola Scriptura means?

That the Bible is the sole source of doctrinal authority for the Christian Church. Other sources can only inform our reading of the scriptures, but are not to be considered co-equal with the scriptures. The Bible is considered sufficient for informing a Christian of any doctrine.

Sola Scripture doesn't mean, that a Christian can't study Jewish or Greek culture and life to understand the social environment the Bible was writen in, to explore its idioms, typologies, etc....

[KingsGambit]

Well this is where I find things get problematic. Both OBP and Leon point to their churches as the one that Jesus established, both do it on the basis of tradition, and I think in turn both of them if being consistent would see the other as outside the true church. It's one more reason I have a hard time with tradition being infallible. I don't see a non-circular reasoning for thinking such.

I have a hard time with this argument. You could use the same logic to lump Christianity in with Islam, etc. because it's just another religion that sees itself as the one true religion. Instead, we have to actually examine the truth claim to be the one true branch/religion/etc.

[rogue06]

No agreement? You don't believe there's any agreement at all between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics in regards to the Church Fathers and tradition? That's as accurate as saying that a Baptist and a Lutheran have no agreement on Biblical interpretation.

Many of the Eastern Orthodox I've spoken with have little regard for the ECFs who resided west of Greece.

[thewriteranon]

Many of the Eastern Orthodox I've spoken with have little regard for the ECFs who resided west of Greece.

It's common and unfortunate, but Orthodox are people who have foibles and can sometimes be petty. It's especially common for our version of the RadTrad, who seem to have a hard time remembering to use the title "Saint" with St. Augustine. There's definitely still some bad blood from the Orthodox perspective towards Catholics in particular; there's a lot of history there. But the fact is that Western Saints and Fathers before 1054 are still our Saints and Fathers.

I've run into very few who don't have a significant amount of respect for St. Irenaeus of Lyons, though, jme.

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry, I've been really busy, and wanted to take the time to ponder this before answering.

It's your claim I don't believe in something that is essential to the Gospel. What am I denying? If I am denying it, then on what grounds can you say I am a Christian? Do you really think the overwhelming majority of us Protestants are lost?

I'm not sure where you're getting that. I claim you don't believe in things essential for unity. You follow Christ, and the Christology of most Protestants is not an issue. Salvation is up to God, not the Church. I think you're missing out in ways that make it more difficult for you to get closer to God, but I'm in no position to make a claim about your salvation.

Sure, although I would really prefer to just wait until I can see an Eastern church in person. Allie does want to go to Japan someday and maybe if I ever get to I will.

You can find them here, if you look. There's a Korean Protestant church a couple miles from mine.

[One Bad Pig]

Well this is where I find things get problematic. Both OBP and Leon point to their churches as the one that Jesus established, both do it on the basis of tradition, and I think in turn both of them if being consistent would see the other as outside the true church. It's one more reason I have a hard time with tradition being infallible. I don't see a non-circular reasoning for thinking such.

Jesus DID establish both. I just think the West went off the rails a bit with the filioque and papal supremacy.

[One Bad Pig]

It's common and unfortunate, but Orthodox are people who have foibles and can sometimes be petty. It's especially common for our version of the RadTrad, who seem to have a hard time remembering to use the title "Saint" with St. Augustine. There's definitely still some bad blood from the Orthodox perspective towards Catholics in particular; there's a lot of history there. But the fact is that Western Saints and Fathers before 1054 are still our Saints and Fathers.

And, in the case of English saints, even a few beyond that (England wasn't all that well connected to Rome until the Norman conquest, and there are a couple bishops appointed before then but who reposed later who are considered saints).

I've run into very few who don't have a significant amount of respect for St. Irenaeus of Lyons, though, jme.

Also St. Hilary of Poitiers, who supported Athanasius when many didn't, and St. Pope Gregory the Great, to whom is attributed our presanctified Liturgy. There are also a number of Western saints prominent on the liturgical calendar - Catherine the Great Martyr, Blessed Alexis, Man of God.... St. Irenaeus is pretty foundational, though.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No agreement? You don't believe there's any agreement at all between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics in regards to the Church Fathers and tradition? That's as accurate as saying that a Baptist and a Lutheran have no agreement on Biblical interpretation.

I think you're exagerrating just a little bit there.

Of course we all think similar on some beliefs, but there's nothing that says "We all agree that all of this is the tradition." Both disagree on tradition and both say that their traditions come from the apostles.

Scripture cannot be tested. It cannot be proven that Christ rose from the dead, that He is the Lord, or that by following His commands that we can be forgiven of sin. These things belong solely within the domain of faith. Reason can inform faith, but in the end its a matter of trust.

I see no good reasons to throw out the tradition of the Church Fathers. I'm not committed to Sola Scriptura, and I don't think you've made a convincing argument here.

Tested does not mean proved. We can make great historical arguments for the reliability of the Gospels and their origins in the apostles. I cannot make the same with traditions.

Then you can read on into the epistles. Its the same message there. Baptism is part of the process of being saved. Its not superfluous, or an empty ritual. It is always listed as mandatory, and never as merely something Jesus asks for. Its always tied together with the precepts of salvation, which is how the Church Fathers understood it. Both St. Peter and St. Paul ties the act of Baptism together within being burried with Christ. Always together with the act of salvation. No one disagreed with this until Zwingli declared that it was purely symbolic almost two millenia later.

Without good reason I'd rather trust the Church over Zwingli's opinion.

Done that reading, Leon. I went to a Bible College that was part of the Restoration tradition. I was told all the verses and how they applied. I didn't agree then and I don't now.

Both Luther and Calvin considered baptism necessary for salvation, though Calvin argues that the baptism itself wasn't efficacious, but he was clear that someone who neglected baptism was excluded from salvation. The Church has a softer view, especially as regards catechumens, and the martyrs. And its popular opinion among theologians that it might even be possible for non-baptised people to be saved.

Good for Luther and Calvin. Doesn't mean I agree.

But that opinion can never become doctrine since it falls outside of tradition.

If you wanna be saved, become baptised.

And again, the tradition for me is very secondary to Scripture. I just say if you want to be saved, trust in Jesus. That would include baptism eventually, though I'm not going to panic if someone isn't baptized for whatever reason. We have cases in Acts, such as in Acts 10, of the Spirit coming on people without baptism.

I don't think God has us do anything in vain. You never see that in the Bible. The many sacrifices that the priests carried on in the Temple were small preenactments of what would eventually be Christ's sacrifice, yet at the same time they were efficacious. Israel and its people participated in the mercy of God through it. The same with the blessing of Jakob, it is both a father blessing his son, yet it also carried the power conferred to it by the authority God had granted Isaac.

In vain? Who said anything about them being in vain. Jesus commanded them and I think that that is for good reason. Communion is meant to help us think about the sacrifice of Jesus for us regularly and to build unity among us, though I don't really see churches that I think accurately celebrate Communion.

I think that's precisely what makes them secondary. I don't think a Church makes proper sense without a hierarchy. God established one, and gave first St. Peter and then the rest of the Apostles, the power to bind and to lose. To lead and to forgive sins. Which they have utilised to this day. The interpretation of binding is easy enough. It along with the power to forgive sins are what bishops and priests are doing to this day.

And of course, I disagree with that interpretation of what happened with Peter. I have no reason to think the papacy is an early Christian tradition which I think the Orthodox would join me in that one.

We're not discussing ignorance here. We're talking about you, in almost all your articles, seperating things into primary and secondary issues, yet I don't think you're very clear about your reasoning for one being secondary and one being primary.

After all if we collapse Christianity down to the mere statement "Jesus is God; Make Jesus your Lord; Jesus was Resurrected" Then even Mormons are to be considered Christian. Yet I'd say that by denying the Trinity they're in a sense denying God as He is.

Yet I'd have a feeling that someone who categorically denied the Trinity. Lets say the pastor of your local parish. You wouldn't call that a secondary issue. Yet why? I can understand it from the perspective of the Church. Just about any alternative to the Trinity was declared a heresy, and Christians were bound to reject them. And so we must. Its bound on earth, and therefore bound in Heaven.

But I don't follow your reasoning about primary vs secondary. Its not clear to me at all why you should draw a line here and not there.

Primary is one that if this is not really the case, then Christianity cannot be true. For instance, if Jesus is not fully God, then He cannot be the mediator between God and man for us. That requires eventually the Trinity. Oneness ends up with an unknown God behind the three and destroys relationships among the persons. The resurrection has to be true because if Jesus isn't raised, then our sins aren't atoned for.

That the Bible is the sole source of doctrinal authority for the Christian Church. Other sources can only inform our reading of the scriptures, but are not to be considered co-equal with the scriptures. The Bible is considered sufficient for informing a Christian of any doctrine.

Sola Scripture doesn't mean, that a Christian can't study Jewish or Greek culture and life to understand the social environment the Bible was writen in, to explore its idioms, typologies, etc....

For the most part I'm fine with this and it has served me well. The Scriptures are the source I have reason to think to be infallible. I don't have such with tradition.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I have a hard time with this argument. You could use the same logic to lump Christianity in with Islam, etc. because it's just another religion that sees itself as the one true religion. Instead, we have to actually examine the truth claim to be the one true branch/religion/etc.

Exactly. Just saying "It's tradition" doesn't cut it for me. I need to know if this tradition does go back to the apostles or not. How do I know which religion is true? I examine the claims.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Sorry, I've been really busy, and wanted to take the time to ponder this before answering.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. I claim you don't believe in things essential for unity. You follow Christ, and the Christology of most Protestants is not an issue. Salvation is up to God, not the Church. I think you're missing out in ways that make it more difficult for you to get closer to God, but I'm in no position to make a claim about your salvation.

My concern is that when I'm told something I believe is a heresy, I think that would automatically put me outside of salvation. I also do remember seeing many statements on an Orthodox website that would indicate that yes, Protestants are heretics.

You can find them here, if you look. There's a Korean Protestant church a couple miles from mine.

Where? (And hey, I still would prefer to just take Allie directly to Japan.)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Jesus DID establish both. I just think the West went off the rails a bit with the filioque and papal supremacy.

And we think both churches went off on a number of other issues. I interviewed someone Saturday on the Reformation for my show who talked about how when the Reformation took place, the Protestants and Catholics both appealed to the Orthodox who pretty much said, "A plague on both your houses. You're both wrong."

[Leonhard]

My concern is that when I'm told something I believe is a heresy, I think that would automatically put me outside of salvation. I also do remember seeing many statements on an Orthodox website that would indicate that yes, Protestants are heretics.

Every baptist apologist I've ever encountered, and most of the evangelical apologists would say the exact same thing about Eastern Orthodox and Catholics. We can only be saved if we deny some of our doctrines, or can be judged 'innocently ignorant'. And that's at best. There's a couple of baptists even on this forum who haven't minced words with where One Bad Pig and me are going.

So what does it matter to you that there are some members of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox persuasion who take a stricter interpretation towards what counts as being among the saved? I hear the same thing on my end.

This reason is emotional Nick. I can sympathise, but its mostly people being people.

[Leonhard]

Of course we all think similar on some beliefs, but there's nothing that says "We all agree that all of this is the tradition." Both disagree on tradition and both say that their traditions come from the apostles.

I think you're confusing doctrine with tradition. As far as I understand, there's no Church Father recognised by the Eastern Orthodoxy that the Roman Catholics don't also recognise. And the approach we both have as to how those doctrines are established from that tradition rests on ecumenical councils.

If anything its the counsils of the Catholic Church you should be critical of, as they went on to specify things the Eastern Orthodox haven't signed onto. Not whether we hold to different traditions.

As far as I know there's no disagreement there.

It'd be like a Luthern and a Baptist. Both agree on the same tradition, namely the Bible. That's the source of their doctrines. But one leans closer to Luther and claims that baptism is part of the regeneration of the person, the other doesn't.

Does that mean that they disagree on which parts of the Bible are true?

[One Bad Pig]

My concern is that when I'm told something I believe is a heresy, I think that would automatically put me outside of salvation.

Can you support that from scripture?

I also do remember seeing many statements on an Orthodox website that would indicate that yes, Protestants are heretics.

You choose to reject foundational Orthodox praxis and belief, so yes, that makes you a 'heretic' (literally, one who chooses [other]).

Where? (And hey, I still would prefer to just take Allie directly to Japan.)

*googles* There's two! You wouldn't have to come nearly this far - just google "korean church tennessee" and you'll get bunches of hits. Even "ukrainian baptist church tennessee" gives me hits at the top for two in Knoxville and one in Chattanooga.

[One Bad Pig]

And we think both churches went off on a number of other issues.

You understand the implications of that, yes? Namely, that the entire church went off the rails, and the Reformers came along about 1,000 years later and fixed it. That's one heaping load of chutzpah, Nick.

I interviewed someone Saturday on the Reformation for my show who talked about how when the Reformation took place, the Protestants and Catholics both appealed to the Orthodox who pretty much said, "A plague on both your houses. You're both wrong."

The Catholic Church was in serious need of reformation; what it got instead was fragmentation. There wasn't much room for dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics; rather than concede on the papacy and filioque, the Catholic Church attempted to keep itself together by main force. There was dialogue between the Lutherans and Orthodox, but after a few rounds the Orthodox politely asked the Lutherans to desist; the gap was unbridgeable. If Luther had been a little humbler....