Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 21 of 89)

Protestant Reformation in the Old Testament?

June 27, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 82 Comments

A response to Anastasiya Gutnik’s comment 24 June 2016:

From Anastasiya:

What do you think of Josiah? In his time the worship of God was corrupt. So much so that the law was literally a musty, dusty old book found hidden away in the temple. Upon rediscovering the law Josiah launched a reformation destroying the idols and the altars upon which idolatry was practiced. Does this mean there were none of God’s people left? But as Paul writes about the time of Elijah “I have reserved 7000 who have not bowed to Baal. So there is a remnant according to election of grace.” How is his any different than the Protestant Reformation? What are your thoughts on the Apostle Paul warning that wolves would come and tear up the flock and that apostasy would happen after his departure? And what are you thoughts on his statement regarding the times of Elijah?

The church is composed of individuals “one of a city, two of a family” as Jeremiah writes. So what do you have against individual believers receiving the Holy Spirit? In the Acts we see individuals corporately receiving the Spirit (such as Cornelius and his house). And what Protestant ever said this is done apart from the Church? Article 28 of the Belgic Confession explicitly says of the Church that “out of it is no salvation.” Even today in the apostate and corrupt churches like Hillsong they still recognize the importance of corporate worship and belonging to a community of believers.

See also Anastasiya Gutnik’s comment 26 June 2016

MyResponse

Whoa! All these questions! I feel like I’m being interrogated by a prosecuting attorney. What say you that we have a friendly dialogue between the two of us?

I appreciate your vigorous interaction with the OrthodoxBridge. We may not see eye-to-eye on some issues, but we share common ground in our respect for Scripture. I will explain my positions using the Bible.

Protestantism in the Old Testament?

Your listing of Old Testament passages seems to rest on the premise that the Protestant Reformation has parallels in the Old Testament, thereby providing biblical justification for the Reformation. This entails the hermeneutical strategy of reading the history of Christianity, especially the Protestant Reformation, onto the Old Testament text. Getting the types and parallels of Christ and Israel right is what the Jews of Jesus’ time were so poor and weak at. They were often dead wrong. This means that using the hermeneutics of history approach calls for caution. Orthodoxy approaches church history through the lens of the unique promise of Pentecost — Christ’s Upper Room promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church (John 14-16), and Christ’s promise that powers of hell would never prevail over the Church (Matthew 16:17-18). Orthodoxy sees church history as one continuous, unbroken narrative from the book of Acts to the present day. We view world history as the history of the one Church through which God’s power and wisdom unfold bringing about the salvation of the cosmos (Ephesians 1:18-22).

The Apostle Paul’s prediction of the coming of “savage wolves” attacking the flock (Acts 20:29-30) parallels Apostle John’s counsel about heretics who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh (1 John 2:18-23). The early Church had to deal with early heresies like Gnosticism, Arianism, and Manichaeism. It survived these heresies, and in time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It is difficult to see there being a universal apostasy as you seem to have implied.

If one wants to find a possible parallel for Protestantism, I suggest it would be the northern tribes’ revolt against Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:12-17). What made that schism so tragic was not so much the rejection of the Jerusalem monarchy but Jeroboam’s creation of rival worship centers in Bethel and Dan, and the installation of a new rival priesthood (1 Kings 12:26-33). These innovations made the schismatic Israelites susceptible to syncretistic borrowing of religious practices from their neighbors.

In your first paragraph you cited the example of King Josiah (2 Kings 23) reading the Book of the Covenant and cleansing the Temple of pagan idols suggesting it has parallels with the Reformation. What he did was to follow the covenant obligations imposed on the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. In no way did King Josiah introduce new doctrines or worship practices. This has been one of my primary critiques of the Protestant Reformers. They rightly reacted against many of the abuses and innovations of Medieval Catholicism. They sought to return to the original Church, not through the Pentecost paradigm — the Holy Spirit working without break through the Church for the past 1500 years, but rather through the novel method of sola scriptura. This gave rise to novel doctrines not taught by the early Church Fathers or were condemned by early Councils. Furthermore, it gave rise to a plethora of Protestant denominations with conflicting interpretations of the Bible. The Protestant rejection of the episcopacy (priestly leadership) and their rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (right worship) as understood by the early Church bears an uncanny parallel with Jehoboam’s innovations. This is something that should give thoughtful Protestants pause.

You mentioned the Apostle Paul’s quoting 1 Kings 18 about the faithful remnant of 7000 who refused to bow down to Baal (Romans 11:4). The important point to keep in mind is that Romans 11 is not about the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s, but about the perplexing situation in Paul’s time. The Messiah had come and instead of welcoming Jesus as the promised Messiah, Israel chose to reject and murder God’s Chosen One. This created a conundrum: Either Jesus was not the promised Messiah or the Jews were no longer God’s people. These questions were likely on the minds of Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians. This question quite possibly contributed to the tensions between Jews and Gentiles which seem to lurk in the background of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Did Paul’s conversion to Christ require the renunciation of his ethnic heritage and religious roots? Was Israel no longer Israel? Romans 11 is Paul’s solution to the conundrum. In it he explains the relationship between the Israel of the Old Testament and the New Israel, the Church. In this context it becomes clear that when Paul alludes to the faithful remnant of the 7,000, he has in mind himself, his fellow Apostles, and Jewish Christians.

To claim the Protestant Reformers comprise the faithful remnant of 7,000 mentioned by Paul involves reading Protestant church history into the Bible, a very dubious proposition. This reading of Scripture cannot be asserted; it must be proven. For several decades now, Anglican Bishop and bible scholar, NT Wright, has been pointing out this common Protestant flaw of reading the Reformation back into Scripture. Lowell Handy’s “The Good, Bad, Insignificant, Indispensable King Josiah” (2005) traces the place of King Josiah in church history. Among the early Church Fathers and into the Middle Ages, Josiah occupied a minor role in biblical studies (Handy 2005:41). He acquired prominence in the 1500s among the Protestant Reformers who saw in Josiah a model of a reforming king and in the 1800s among Protestant bible scholars who saw the “Book of the Covenant” read by Josiah as evidence for a revised understanding of Old Testament formation. In other words, the prominence given to Josiah is peculiar to Protestantism and does not reflect the broader Christian exegetical tradition. This retroactive approach of reading Protestant history into the Bible is highly speculative and self-serving.

Coptic Icon of Pentecost

The Church — Individuals versus Corporate Body

In your second paragraph you cited Jeremiah 3:14 — one from a city and two from a family — to justify the idea of the church as an aggregate of individuals. This is a bit of a stretch. Where is this interpretation found in church history? Some of the more extreme Protestant groups believe that all one needs to comprise a church is a group of like-minded believers who gather to hear sermons about the Bible. But that is like saying gathering a group of kids and giving them a ball makes them a team! They need to agree that they are a team, playing the same sport by the same rule, and under a team leader. A more pertinent passage for explaining the individual Christian’s relation to the corporate body, the Church, would be 1 Corinthians 12:12-13:

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

And then, there’s 1 Corinthians 12:17:

Now you are the body of Christ and each of you is a part of it.

The Amplified Bible translates 1 Corinthians 12:27 it this way:

Now you [collectively] are Christ’s body, and individually [you are] members of it [each with his own special purpose and function].

The key point here is that we become part of the Church through the sacrament of baptism. One does not join the Church as one is received by the Church. Furthermore, Paul understood the Church to possess an internal structure, an ordering of ranks. In 1 Corinthians 12:27-28, Paul lists the orders of church ministries: apostles, prophets, teachers, and workers of miracles. In Ephesians 4:11, he gives a slightly different ordering: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. From these passages we learn that the Church is not an aggregate of independent individuals, but rather a corporate body of interrelated members. There is no need to grasp at obscure or dubious Old Testament passages for our doctrine of the Church when there are New Testament passages that give us greater clarity on the question before us. As a matter of fact, the Reformed tradition’s teaching about the Church as a covenant community speaks against the individualistic approach that you seem to favor.

In no way am I opposed to the idea of individuals receiving the Holy Spirit. The real issue is whether one can receive the Holy Spirit independently of the visible Church. The main difference is that Protestants deny that we receive the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of the Church (chrismation). However, they need to take into account the fact that the sacrament of chrismation was very much a part of early Christian initiation. Cyril, the patriarch of Jerusalem in the 300s, described the sacrament of chrismation in which the newly baptized is anointed on the forehead, the ears, the nostrils, and the breast. (Catechetical Lecture 21.4) This remains the practice of the Orthodox Church to the present. The point here is that just as baptism is a sacrament administered by the Church through its ordained clergy, so the reception of the Holy Spirit takes place via the sacrament of chrismation which immediately follows baptism.

The issue of the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” has been an especially divisive one for Protestants. Baptists and many Evangelicals equate the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the “born again” experience. Pentecostals and many charismatics identify the baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience distinct from the born again experience and signified by the gift of tongues. It’s not clear to me what the Reformed tradition’s position of the reception of the Holy Spirit is. I searched through the Belgic Confession, which you cited, and while there were numerous references to the Holy Spirit, there seem to be no specific teaching about the point in time when the Christian receives the Holy Spirit. I then searched through the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Confession and was not able to find anything with respect to the reception of the Holy Spirit. Please help me on this. Where does the Reformed tradition stand on the baptism in the Holy Spirit? When does this take place for the Christian? Does it takes place at the time of baptism, the born again experience, or is it an individual experience distinct from baptism?

You cited article 28 of the Belgic Confession. The Belgic Confession‘s affirmation that there is no salvation outside the Church is a reflection of the historic understanding of the Church. The novelty of Protestantism is that it denies that claim to Roman Catholicism. It justifies this denial on the grounds that Roman Catholicism under the papacy has become corrupt, unbiblical, and even apostate. Furthermore, Protestantism lays claim to belonging to the true Church on the grounds that it has the true interpretation of Scripture. This despite the numerous conflicting interpretations of Scripture held by the myriad of denominations! My point is that you can cite Article 28 of the Belgic Confession all you want, but how do you know your church is part of the true Church? Which makes me wonder: “What is your church affiliation? And what leads you to think that your local congregation is part of the true Church?”

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are two quite different religious traditions. They once shared in a common Faith, however, tragically the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) following the Schism of 1054 has moved more and more from the patristic consensus. What Martin Luther and John Calvin were protesting against was a medieval Catholicism quite different from the Church of the first millennium. In that light, I view Protestants as unwitting victims of Rome’s deviation from the early Church Fathers.

I have done my best to respond to your questions. I trust that I have answered them satisfactorily. I look forward to hearing your responses to my questions and to the interesting conversation you and I will have in the near future.

Robert Arakaki

Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled

June 21, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 8 Comments

Icon of Pentecost

This article is a reposting of an article published on 29 May 2012.

The Orthodox Church celebrates Pentecost as the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that the Father would send the Holy Spirit to His Church to lead Her into all Truth.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

This abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church is foundational to Orthodox Christianity. The Holy Spirit is God with us, who leads the Church through the Liturgy, gave supernatural courage to the early martyrs, and guided the Ecumenical Councils to defeat the various heresies. The Holy Spirit led the bishops in the formulation of the Nicene Creed and in defining the canon of Holy Scripture. Indeed when we look at church history we see the work of the Holy Spirit. The power of the Holy Spirit preserves the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

What sets Orthodoxy apart from the Protestant understanding of Pentecost is Orthodoxy’s strong corporate sense of the Holy Spirit. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is given to the Church corporately, through the Apostles to their disciples in the laying on of hands, to ensure the preservation of Tradition. This corporate and historic view of Pentecost and its implications offer a sharp contrast to Protestant views and practices in which the role of the Church is minimized or neglected.

In Protestantism the Holy Spirit is understood to be given to individual believers separately, privately and independently of the Church (which is assumed to be flawed and weak). In this blog I will be comparing the two traditions’ understanding of Pentecost.

The River of God Flowing into History

The prophet Ezekiel had a vision of the eschatological temple. In chapter 47, he tells of a stream of water issuing from the altar in the New Temple. As this stream of water gets longer, it grows deeper and wider. It then branches out in various directions and wherever it goes it brings renewal and healing.

This prophetic vision was fulfilled on Pentecost. The Apostle Peter in his Pentecost sermon opens by quoting the prophet Joel: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17; OSB; emphasis added). Pentecost also fulfills a prophecy made by Christ. In John’s Gospel Jesus announced:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 37-40; OSB)

We enter into Ezekiel’s prophetic vision in our conversion to Christ. In the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 47:3 we read that the river was the “water of remission.” This is fulfilled in our baptism when we are baptized into Christ and receive forgiveness for our sins. The word “poured out” is also found in Romans 5:4 which talks about “the love of God being poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” (OSB; emphasis added.)

Ezekiel’s prophecy presents a vivid picture of trees lining the side of the great river:

Along the bank of the river on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food. Their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing. (Ezekiel 47:12; OSB; emphasis added.)

This verse is a picture of a spirituality rooted in divine grace. It echoes Psalm 1 which describes a life grounded in the reading and meditation of God’s Law. This verse also echoes Genesis 2:10-14 which describes how the Garden of Eden had a river that flowed in four different directions. The trees bearing fruit year round in Ezekiel’s prophecy can be understood as the restoration of the access to the Tree of Life forfeited by Adam and Eve. The river lined with fruit bearing trees can be understood as the Church as the river of God. It can also be understood as the Church as a tree offering the healing life-giving fruits of the Cross (Christ’s body and blood that we receive for life everlasting). Ezekiel’s vision of the river of life is recapitulated in the book of Revelation 22:1-5 with a slight twist, a Christocentric reference is made to the Lamb of God slain for the salvation of the world.

Church History as the River of God

The book of Acts is fundamentally a theological book. Luke structured his narrative along the lines of a particular trajectory framed by the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:47-49). Acts 1:8 sketches the three phases of the book: Jerusalem (the Jews), Samaria (the half-Jews), and the Gentiles (the ends of the earth or the non-Jews). Acts begins with Jesus’ original followers in Jerusalem and the Gospel being preached primarily to the Jews (Acts 1-11). This is the Jerusalem phase. Then we see Gospel preached to the Samaritans (Acts 8). It is not until we come to Acts 13 that we read of the Church engaged in intentional missions when the Church at Antioch sends out Paul and Barnabas to evangelize. Acts closes with Paul reaching Rome, the political capital of the Roman Empire and preaching the Gospel freely for two years. What we see is the river of God flowing into history from Jerusalem into the various parts of the Roman Empire as foretold by Ezekiel.

Protestant Version of Church History — Disruption

What happened afterwards? Did the river of God that began on Pentecost in Acts 2 run dry? One would think so given the widespread belief among Protestants that a general apostasy occurred soon after the original Apostles passed on. Many believed that Christianity remained largely in spiritual darkness (with the exception of a “faithful secret remnant”) for the next thousand years or more until Martin Luther rediscovered the true Gospel. Another trope used by Protestants hold that the early church valiantly bore witness to the Gospel but was captured by Emperor Constantine and transformed into an institutionalized church barely recognizable to the original Christians. This historical trope is important for Protestant theology because it needs some kind of disjuncture (apostasy or compromise) to justify its claim that the Protestant Reformation was necessary for the restoration of Gospel and Church of the New Testament. If there was no such break then there would be no need for a Reformed Church separated from the Church of Rome.

Ralph Winter, a prominent Protestant missiologist, called this the BOBO theory — that the Christian faith Blinked Off after the apostles, then Blinked On in our time or whenever our church began (1517 for Protestants, 1823 for Mormons). But there is no hint whatsoever in Scripture that Blinked Off-Blinked On would happen to Christ’s Church especially in light of Christ’s promise that he would not leave them orphans but would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and protect them! Nor is there historical evidence that the Christian faith went AWOL for almost fifteen hundred years! The uncompromising witness of the martyrs in the face of persecution and the early church’s memorializing the martyrs contradict the notion of a widespread early apostasy. Ralph Winter’s article described how the Gospel advanced among the barbarian tribes even during the so-called Dark Ages.

While Rome and Western Europe saw the collapse of civilization and the onset of the Dark Ages, it must be kept in mind that in the Byzantine East culture, commerce, and learning continued to thrive for almost the next thousand years. Thus, the Protestant paradigm of church history has two major problems: (1) it cannot be supported by historical evidence and (2) it contradicts the promises given by Christ to his followers. Ultimately, the BOBO view of church history is a denial of Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit to be in and with the Church throughout history.

In their approach to church history many Protestants make two mistakes: (1) they assume that the church in the New Testament was Protestant in structure and practice, and (2) they ignore the historical continuity between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of the first millennium. The Protestant dismissal of the Orthodox understanding of church history with a wave of the hand is astounding. They assume this without looking at the evidence! But, the fact is that the pre and post Nicean Church simply did not look anything like a Protestant Church. Very early on Christians crossed themselves frequently. Early Christian worship was focused on the Eucharist, not the sermon, and all Christians held to the real presence in the Eucharist. Christian initiation was done via the sacrament of baptism after a lengthy process of instruction in which one had to commit to memory a creed. The early church was episcopal in structure (ruled by bishops) and conciliar (major decisions made by gatherings of bishops).

That the early Christians followed these practices is supported by leading scholars with no axe to grind. Highly recommended are: Jaroslav Pelikan’s magisterial The Christian Tradition, J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines,Oscar Cullmann’s Early Christian Worship, W.H.C. Frend’s The Rise of Christianity. For primary sources highly recommended are: The Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics, and Eusebius’ Church History.

This unfounded assumption resulted in Protestants misreading the New Testament and the early church fathers. There is in the Reformed tradition a growing appreciation of the fact that original Reformers like Calvin had a high regard for the church fathers. But even here, the Reformers’ appreciation of the church fathers was limited and selective. When the fathers’ writings seem to support Protestant ideas, Calvin and the Reformers freely quoted Athanasius and Augustine. But these same Fathers were ignored when they spoke on the rule of bishops, the Eucharist, church unity, the place of Holy Tradition, and a theosis union with God.

Orthodox Version of Church History – Continuity

The trope of church history as the river of God is useful for understanding Orthodoxy. The trope of the river of God assumes a fulfillment in history of Christ’s promises that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that it would be stronger than the powers of Hell (Matthew 16:18). The Orthodox Church believes that we can expect to see these Scriptural promises fulfilled throughout the age of the church. It believes that what began on Pentecost continues to the present day.

The Orthodox Church is the river of God flowing in the book of Acts into the two millennia continuously and without break to the present day. This trope assumes a fundamental continuity in terms of doctrine, liturgy, and spirituality from Pentecost to the present day. If Orthodoxy can support its claim to historical continuity then Protestants will need to reexamine their assumption of a fundamental break occurring in church history and with that the need for a Reformation.

Worship. The Eucharist has been integral to Christian worship from the beginning. The Orthodox Church uses the Liturgy of St. James which dates to the first century in Jerusalem, the Liturgy of St. Basil which dates to the fourth century and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which dates to the fifth century. Without exception, the Eucharist has been a part of the Sunday worship in Orthodoxy. The same cannot be said of Protestant worship. Most Protestant churches celebrate the Eucharist infrequently. While many Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran Christians claim to practice weekly communion, their claim rings hollow in light of the fact that they reject the historic understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist.

Leadership. Pastoral authority in Orthodoxy is grounded in apostolic succession. The five ancient patriarchates can all trace their spiritual lineage back to the original Apostles. Protestantism, due to its being a schismatic break off from the Papacy, cannot lay claim to apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is more than formal authorization but a sharing in the Holy Spirit across the generations that goes back to the original Pentecost in Acts. Critical to apostolic succession is faithfulness to the “pattern of sound words” (II Timothy 1:13). Thus, while Anglicanism can claim to possess apostolic succession, the fact that many of its current bishops hold blatantly heretical views undermines this claim. In short, in no way can Protestants claim continuity in leadership.

Doctrine. An important means of maintaining doctrinal unity in the early Church are the Ecumenical Councils. The entire Church of the first millennium accepted the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Protestantism has abandoned them in several ways: (1) it passively accepted the Papacy’s insertion of the Filioque clause and (2) it downgraded the binding authority of the Nicene Creed with its novel doctrine of sola scriptura. Having rejected the binding authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils Protestant churches underwent a bewildering number of doctrinal permutations that would be unrecognizable and unacceptable to the early church fathers.

Spirituality. There is a rich stream of spirituality running through the history of the Orthodox Church. One of the best examples is the lives of the saints. The Orthodox Church considers them heroes of the faith whose lives exemplify the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives throughout the history of the church. Orthodoxy can point to Saint Polycarp who boldly confessed Christ even when the Roman governor threatened to burn him alive, Saint Mary of Egypt a prostitute who spent decades in the desert in order to cleanse her soul, Saint Athanasius who defended the divine nature of Christ against the heresies of Arius, Saint Gregory Palamas who expounded on the uncreated light of Mount Tabor, the Chinese Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion, Peter the Aleut martyred in San Francisco in the early 1800s, Father Arseny who suffered in the Soviet gulags. The river of God flows on!

When one looks for the heroes of the faith in Protestantism, especially in popular Evangelicalism, what one is likely to find are popular radio preachers, well respected seminary professors, and celebrity athletes. Many of these Protestant celebrities will be forgotten in time. It would be hard for a Protestant to claim a rich and unbroken history of spiritual formation.

When one compares Orthodox with Protestant spirituality, we find a marked sobriety and stillness in Orthodoxy not often found in Evangelical and Pentecostal circles where emotional fervor and free expression typically dominate. All too often the charismatic quest for a continuous spiritual high has led to burn outs and spiritual collapse. Christians in Reformed and mainstream Protestantism struggle with a spirituality grounded in cerebral propositional reasoning rather than that inner stillness nourished by the liturgical worship found in historic Orthodoxy.

Synergy: God provides the water, we receive it.

Come and Drink!

Come and Drink!

On Pentecost Sunday Orthodoxy celebrates Pentecost in a special service that comprises three long kneeling prayers. Aside from this annual service, Pentecost is an ongoing reality in Orthodoxy. It is experienced in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church. It is experienced vividly in the monastic communities.

In Protestantism the individual reception of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the understanding of the Holy Spirit being given to the Church. There has been much debate between Evangelicals and Pentecostals over whether the baptism in the Spirit occurs when one has a born again experience or as a separate event accompanied by speaking in tongues. What the two sides have in common is their silence on the role of the Church. However, historically one receives the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of chrismation which follows the sacrament of baptism. This sacramental approach to Christian conversion avoids Protestantism’s subjectivism. To those who deny the efficacy of sacraments I would respond that the sacraments are no mere rituals anymore than wedding vows are just words. For the Orthodox, Pentecost is not so much something I experience by myself, but through life in the Church. Life in the Church is like the River of God in which we are immersed into its water of life (the sacrament of baptism) and eat of the fruit of the tree (partake of the Eucharist). To the Protestants and Evangelicals who are spiritually thirsty, the Orthodox Church says: Come and Drink!

Robert Arakaki

Getting to Know Your Church Fathers

June 19, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 11 Comments

First Ecumenical Council – Nicea AD 325

One reason why many Protestants today bought the notion that the early Church Fathers were theological infants is their ignorance of church history. The best remedy for that is getting to know the Church Fathers by actually reading their writings. The early Church Fathers are the heritage of all Christians, regardless of denomination. One way Reformed Christians, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians can deepen fellowship with each other is by exploring their common roots in the Fathers of the early Church. The ministry of the Church Fathers was based on the charismatic gift of teaching (Ephesians 4:11-13) and together as a collective witness they have ensured the doctrinal stability of the Church and preserved the Faith which was passed on to them as a sacred Trust (Ephesians 4:14-16, 2 Timothy 1:14).

Getting to know the early Church Fathers will not be an easy task for many Protestants. For many reading the early Christian writings will be like stumbling into a foreign land where the customs and landmarks are either unfamiliar or entirely absent. I remember struggling to make sense of the early Church Fathers when I was at seminary. Looking back, one important lesson I learned was the need to hold in suspension the assumption that the early Church was Protestant and to pay attention to the issues, vocabulary, and the methods employed by the early Christians, only then could I make headway in comprehending the early Church Fathers.

This article presents a quick sketch of Church Fathers with whom all Reformed Christians and Evangelicals should become acquainted with. I also included an early handbook and an early Liturgy widely used in the early Church; these were included because they are important for understanding early Christianity. The list of these ten sources starts with the earliest writings around the end of the first century and ends in the eighth century. The article is intended to be like a travel guide for first-time visitors who want to be ready to take in the sights and sounds of a new culture.

1. Ignatius of Antioch – The city of Antioch was the Apostle Paul’s home church (see Acts 13-14). As the third bishop of the church of Antioch Ignatius was heir to the same Apostolic Tradition as Apostle Paul. It is believed that Ignatius was the child that Jesus used as an acted out parable in Matthew 18:1-4. Ignatius was arrested by Roman authorities during the reign of Trajan (AD 98/117) and sent to Rome to be executed. On his way to Rome he composed seven letters to the churches he visited; all seven of them are available to us today.

Present day Protestants may find surprising the importance Ignatius placed on the Eucharist and the office of the bishop. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius stressed that a Sunday gathering could only be valid if it was done in unity with the Bishop (Smyrnaeans chapter 8).

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Smyrnaeans chapter 8)

Another surprise for Evangelicals who hold to a memorialist understanding of the Lord’s Supper is Ignatius’ affirming that the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans chapter 7). He writes of the Gnostic heretics:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . . (Smyrnaeans chapter 7)

Ignatius’ Letters

2. The Didache — In the late 1800s a church handbook with instructions about Christian living and worship was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople. Scholars generally date the Didache to AD 100, some even date it as early as AD 70! Christians who debate about baptism by total immersion versus baptism by sprinkling will find it informative that the early Church gave preference to baptism by immersion but allowed for baptism by pouring under certain circumstances (Didache VII). The Didache also records one of the earliest known Eucharistic prayers (Didache IX). Early documents like the Didache brings clarity to certain ambiguities in Scripture. For example, the Eucharist as a normal part of Christian worship and early Christians worshiped on Sunday, not Saturday.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache VII)

Didache

3. Irenaeus of Lyons – Considered the leading theologian of the second century, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the Apostle John. The Apostle John in his three epistles combated the heresy of Gnosticism. A century later Gnosticism was still a problem for the early Church leading Irenaeus to write Against Heresies (AH), a comprehensive refutation of Gnosticism. The Gnostics did not deny the bishops’ claim to authority but insinuated: (1) that within the outward Church was a secret tradition that offered “deeper” insights into the Gospel and (2) that the bishops only gave the external meaning of the Gospel. Irenaeus refuted Gnosticism by expounding on Scripture and the Rule of Faith (Tradition).

Against Heresies is a lengthy work comprised of five books. The bulk of the book is a detailed description and refutation of Gnosticism but here and there like golden nuggets are passages of outstanding theological wisdom. Protestants would be surprised to learn that Irenaeus knew about a creed much like today’s Nicene Creed (AH 1.10.1). Irenaeus taught that in the Eucharist the bread and the wine became the body and blood of Christ (AH 4.18.4-5). Christians troubled by Protestantism’s many denominations and church splits will be daunted by Irenaeus’ claim that across the Roman Empire Christians confessed the same Faith (AH 1.10.4).

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. (AH 1.10.2)

We find Irenaeus refuting an argument that resembles today’s “church fathers = infant” argument:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles . . . . (AH 3.2.2; emphasis added)

Against Heresies

4. Athanasius the Great – Many Protestants appreciate Athanasius’ staunch defense of Christ’s divinity. His book On the Incarnation is a theological classic, in which one finds an explanation of how the uniting of Christ’s divine and human natures were needed to bring about our salvation. Many Protestants will be surprised to find that Athanasius did not follow the forensic paradigm which saw death as punishment meted out by the divine Judge but as the consequence of our loss of union with Christ (§5).

. . .to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. (§9)

Athanasius understood salvation as the uniting of created mortal flesh with the infinite immortality of the uncreated Word (§9). He understood the goal of our salvation as theosis, a doctrine known to Orthodox Christians but largely unknown among Protestants.

For He was made man that we might be made God. (§5)

On the Incarnation

5. Basil the Great – Where Athanasius defended the divinity of Christ, Basil defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Arian heresy was at root anti-Trinitarian. Consistent Arianism denied not just the divinity of Christ but also that of the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants will find it confusing that Basil opens the book by parsing the doxologies to the Trinity used in early Christian worship. Basil’s parsing of the doxologies reflects the fact that theology in the early Church was liturgical theology. What the early Christians believed was found in the Sunday Liturgy, not in thick tomes of systematic theology. Another challenge to the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura can be found in §66 where Basil affirms that unwritten tradition has equal authority to written tradition, Scripture. Protestants will be surprised to learn how many of the unwritten traditions enumerated by Basil are still kept in the Orthodox Church today.

If we attacked the unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions. . . . (§66)

On the Holy Spirit

6. John Chrysostom – Many Protestants know him as “Golden Mouth” — one of the greatest preachers in Christianity. His giftedness as a preacher was such that the sermon was moved from its usual place – immediately following the Gospel reading – to the end of Liturgy so that people would stay to receive Holy Communion. Otherwise they would leave as soon as the sermon was over! His sermons were typically straightforward and didactic; many are still available today. One particular sermon, the Easter or Paschal sermon, has become part of Orthodox Tradition. This sermon is read in Orthodox churches everywhere on Easter Sunday. In this famous Easter sermon is the Christus Victor motif – Christ’s conquering death by his death.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. Source

Homilies on the Gospel of John

7. Liturgy St. John Chrysostom – On most Sundays Orthodox worship services will be the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. In the prayers are eloquent affirmations of faith and devotion. Through faithful Sunday attendance people will find their minds and hearts shaped by the prayers of the Church. Before the Gospel reading, the priest will say this eloquent prayer:

Shine in our hearts, loving Master, the pure light of Your divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our minds that we may comprehend the message of your Gospel.

Christians who struggle with Calvin’s harsh doctrine of double predestination will find it comforting that every Liturgy closes with: . . . for He is good and He loves mankind.

Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

8. Cyril of Jerusalem – It was the practice of the early Church to have prospective converts undergo a lengthy course of instruction (catechumenate). It was expected that catechumens would attend the Sunday services and afterwards listen to lectures on the Christian Faith. Cyril was the patriarch or bishop of Jerusalem in the 300s. Many people undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to visit the places mentioned in the Gospels, to learn about the Christian Faith from a bishop who could claim to be a successor to James the Lord’s brother and first patriarch of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12-21).

The Catechetical Lectures provide a valuable window into the theology of the early Church as articulated by one of its prominent leaders. Cyril stressed the fact that the Faith they were about to learn was part of a chain of tradition.

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. (Lecture 5.12.22; NPNF Vol. VII p. 32)

Cyril expected the catechumens to memorize the Nicene Creed:

This summary [creed] I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing out of paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the thing which have been delivered to you. (Lecture 5.12.23; NPNF Vol. VII p. 32; emphasis added)

The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

9. Vincent of Lerins – Vincent lived in the 400s in Gaul (France) during a time when theological questions and opinions were proliferating. This led to theological confusion as people began to think that the Bible could be interpreted in various ways. In his Commonitory Vincent argued that Scripture was to be interpreted in light of the catholic tradition. This principle was summed up in a Latin phrase known as the Vincentian Canon.

Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.) (Commonitory 2.6)

Although more a short treatise than a full length book, the Commonitory gives the reader a concise and cogent explanation of how the teachings of the Church is based on Scripture interpreted in light of sacred Tradition.

Commonitory

10. John of Damascus – He was born in AD 676 under Muslim rule and is reported to have worked for the caliph of Damascus. John is known for his eloquent defense of icons, On the Divine Images, and for one of the earliest systematic theologies, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Like other Church Fathers John of Damascus affirmed human free will (See Exposition 3.14; NPNF vol. IX, p. 58). By John’s time much of the Christological and Trinitarian controversies had been settled. The more recent debates were about energies and free-will, issues crucial to refuting the monothelite heresy which denied that Christ had two wills, human and divine. From these debates came a nuanced understanding of the Trinity in the form of the doctrine of perichoresis – the three Persons of the Trinity mutually indwelling or interpenetrating one another.

For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. (Exposition 1.14; NPNF vol. IX p. 17)

His eloquent defense of icons helped lay the groundwork for the repudiation of iconoclasm at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II).

In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake. . . . (On the Divine Images)

Exposition on the Orthodox Faith

On the Divine Images

Closing Observations

When we speak of the Church Fathers we are talking about a diverse group of great Christians, some of whom lived in the first century on the western edge of the Roman Empire, and others who lived in the eighth century in Damascus under Muslim rule. Despite vast distances in space and time between them, they shared in a common Faith and worship. For Protestants it is important not to assume that the Church Fathers are like them. For me a major breakthrough came when I realized I had been assuming that the early Church Fathers were Protestants when clearly they were not. Another breakthrough came when I began to notice strong similarities between present day Orthodoxy and the early Church. There is no getting around the fact that early Christian worship was liturgical and its church polity episcopal. In terms of theological method the early Church Fathers did theology using the paradigm of Scripture in Tradition, rather than the Protestant paradigm of Scripture alone (sola scriptura). As a church history major I was struck by the fact that in contrast to Protestantism’s many denominations, the early Church maintained theological unity for a thousand years until the Great Schism of 1054 when Rome parted ways with the other four patriarchates.

For those interested in learning more about the Church Fathers, it is useful to know that there are collections of these writings easily accessible. One of the better known collections is the one initiated by Philip Schaff and still being published today, the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. See the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL). A convenient one-volume work is James Payton’s A Patristic Treasury. It should be noted that not all early Christian writers are regarded by the Orthodox Church to be “church fathers.” This title or honor is given to those notable for the orthodoxy of their teachings and the sanctity of their lives. The Orthodox Church does not have an official listing but commemorates them in its Liturgy.

Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox should get to know the Church Fathers of the first millennium. The Church Fathers represent a shared heritage among us. As we learn from the Fathers, we will be able to talk to each other using a shared vocabulary and theological paradigm. To disavow the Church Fathers is to become unmoored from historic Christianity. To embrace the Church Fathers is to be grounded in the historic Christian Faith “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).

Robert Arakaki

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 21 of 89)

Protestant Reformation in the Old Testament?

Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled

Getting to Know Your Church Fathers

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives