Category: Response (Page 5 of 10)

Response to James White (2 of 4)

May 21, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 22 Comments

James White – Alpha and Omega Ministries Source

This article is a continuation of “Response to James White – Part 1 of 4.”

Loaded Words

At the 2:55 mark, James White refers to sola fide and sola scriptura as “fundamental beliefs.” Here he uses a phrase filled with good feeling words. This can lead the listener to think that these are basic beliefs held by all Christians universally from Day One. This claim needs to be substantiated by historical evidence. Until then, it would be more accurate to refer to these two doctrines as “fundamental Protestant beliefs.” Asserting that early Christians held to sola fide is arguing from silence (argumentum ex silentio) fallacy. The fact is, imposing sola scriptura on the early Church Fathers IS a highly disputed matter, and does not hold up under scrutiny. Where is the supporting evidence?

Recommended resources

Michael Hyatt — Scripture and Tradition – “Part 1: Presuppositions,” “Part 2: Proof Texts,” and “Part 3: Tradition.”

Robert Arakaki – Contra Sola Scriptura – “Part 1: Book Review – The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison,” “Part 2: If Not Sola Scriptura, Then What? – The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition,” “Part 3: Where Does Sola Scriptura Come From? – The Humanist Origins of the Protestant Reformation,” and “Part 4: Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos.”

Seventh Ecumenical Council

At the 23:00 mark, James White derides the Seventh Ecumenical Council for hermeneutics – interpreting the Bible — he described as “embarrassingly horrific at any exegetical level.” Here Mr. White uses two words loaded with negative connotations. However, he gives zero supporting evidence. Nada. This leaves one to assume that the Council’s exegesis (interpretation) of Scripture is “horrific” because Mr. White does not like the outcome. The lack of clearly defined criterion for good hermeneutics and supporting evidence suggests unreasoning Protestant prejudice. Here we see the poisoning of the well fallacy (casting aspersions on the Council’s biblical exegesis) combined with external expectations (the Council’s not endorsing Reformed iconoclasm). Again, where is the supporting evidence?

When I was studying at a Reformed seminary I was curious about Orthodoxy’s acceptance of icons. My thinking when I started my paper was: “Of course, there’s no biblical basis for icons, so why did the early Church come to accept icons?” I shared in many of the Reformed tradition’s external expectations of Orthodoxy, but at least I was open to doing research on the matter. What I found surprised me. The research resulted in two papers published on this blog: “Is There a Biblical Basis for Icons ?” and “Calvin Versus the Icon: Was John Calvin Wrong?”

Historical Anachronism and “After This, Because of This” Fallacy

Really? Islam fossilized Orthodoxy?

At the 19:07 mark, James White discusses Orthodoxy’s claim to have the Faith of the primitive Church. He then notes at 19:15 (cf. 21:50) that what Orthodoxy identifies as Tradition really dates back to the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. He asserts that Eastern Orthodoxy became frozen in time as a result of the rise of Islam (20:30). As one who received his M.A. in Church History from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I found Mr. White’s claim novel, if not uninformed and simply wrong. It is disappointing that he does not cite the scholarship that supports his argument. What we see here is a “after this, therefore, because of this” (post hoc, ergo, propter hoc) fallacy.

At the 1:19:10 mark, James White states: “This is the problem with Orthodoxy. It’s been fossilized.” The word “fossil” is a loaded one that has the negative connotation of being dead, lifeless. This assumes doctrinal development is good. Here Mr. White imposes the Protestant expectation that Orthodoxy ought to have evolved like Western Christianity. But is this desirable? Does divine Truth, the Gospel the Apostles once and for all delivered to the saints, change and evolve? Mr. White does seem to emphatically think: Yes, Divine Truth does evolve! But isn’t the idea of evolving of theological Truth something that needs to be proven? Until then, this is an external expectations fallacy, i.e., that Orthodoxy should conform to Protestant standards.

In any event, an Orthodox Christian could point to Gregory of Palamas’ defense of hesychasm in the 1300s against Scholastic rationalism and Orthodoxy’s decisive rejection of Reformed Protestantism at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 as evidence that Orthodox theology has not remained static. In both instances, what we see is not a new teaching but rather the restatement of the Faith the Church Fathers had received from the Apostles. Orthodoxy to this day has remained zealously committed to preserving Gospel Truth as delivered to them by the Apostles. We view the Faith as a body of teachings received from the Apostles and safeguarded for future generations, not as the result of creative theologizing that evolves over time.

Robert Arakaki

James White - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Response to James White (1 of 4)

May 13, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 38 Comments

James White – Alpha and Omega Ministries source

As I listened to James White’s 13 April 2017 podcast “Can a Consistent Eastern Orthodox Christian Be the Bible Answer Man?,” I was struck by the numerous fallacies that so often mar Protestant critiques of Orthodoxy. The quotes below are organized topically, not chronologically. The intent here is to promote good reasoning and courteous interaction in Protestant-Orthodox dialogue. Please see my earlier posting: “How NOT to Do Anti-Orthodox Apologetics” for a description of fallacies and faulty reasoning.

Sola Fide and the False Dilemma Fallacy

At the 3:39 mark, James White brings up one of Protestantism’s core doctrines sola fide – justification by grace alone through faith alone. He insists that the omission of that one word “alone” opens the door to the legalism and works righteousness of Roman Catholicism. Here we see the conflating of two fallacies: hasty generalization and false equivalence. Just because Orthodoxy refrains from using “alone,” that does not mean that their reasons are the same as or identical to Roman Catholicism. First, it must be shown what the Orthodox understanding of salvation actually is. Second, that doctrine must be compared with the Roman Catholic understanding to see if they are identical. They are not — as any historic theological investigator without an axe to grind will quickly see. By casting the question in terms of Protestantism versus Roman Catholicism, Mr. White presents the listener with a false dilemma. This is the fallacy where something is presented as an either-or situation, when in fact there is one additional option.

At the 33:42 mark, we hear the recording of Hank Hanegraaff reciting the Nicene Creed. At the 35:15 mark we hear the line: “Who for us and our salvation descended from heaven. . . .” At that point, Mr. White interjects:

Flesh it out! They didn’t at that point. That’s why it isn’t sufficient. If you say that’s the basis for mere Christianity then there’s no place for the Gospel.

For James White, because the Fathers at the Council of Nicea failed to articulate sola fide the Nicene Creed is theologically insufficient. Here he passes judgment on the universal confession of the Early Church! By what standards? By that of the sixteenth century Reformation?!?!

At the 1:10:05 mark, Hank Hanegraaff is heard saying that he has been saved “by grace alone through faith.” Here James White leans eagerly on the edge of his chair then theatrically slumps in disappointment when he does not hear the word “alone.” He notes:

This is purposeful folks. This is not “through grace alone by faith alone.” “Through grace alone by faith” that is . . . that’s not even . . . he’s accurately dealt with James 2 in the past. This is Eastern Orthodoxy speaking. This is a knowing, unwillingness to affirm the language of sola fide (1:10:35).

False Dilemma Fallacy Source

When James White (or anyone else) asserts: “there’s no place for the Gospel,” he commits the false dilemma fallacy presenting the listener with a stark black-and-white choice between salvation and damnation. When Mr. White insists that the Gospel be understood in terms of “justification by faith alone,” he makes the false equivalence fallacy. Sola fide here is presented as the untouchable touchstone for true Christianity. It may be for Protestants, but did any of the Church Fathers make a similar assertion? Was sola fide part of the historic Christian Faith?

In Protestant-Orthodox dialogue sola fide must be proven from Scripture, not just from the biblical text but from the way the text has been understood historically. It should be kept in mind that Protestant Reformer John Calvin had no qualms about citing the Church Fathers. Calvin was not a simple-minded Fundamentalist. It must be shown how the doctrine “salvation through grace alone by faith alone” is the core meaning of what Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-9. At 1:45:48-1:46:01, James White interjects:

And wouldn’t you say that in light of Galatians chapter 1 that justification is one of those dividing lines? . . . . It’s right there: “Let him be anathema.” False brethren. You can actually make an argument. ?? There’s stronger evidence that that was an apostolic dividing line.

False Analogy – Apple vs. Orange

Protestants often fall into the false analogy fallacy when they assume that Paul’s argument with the Judaizers about the Jewish Torah in first century Asia Minor is the same as the Protestant-Catholic controversy over earning merits in sixteenth-century Europe. While there are overlaps in terminology, the issues and contents of the two debates are significantly different.

Noted Anglican biblical scholar NT Wright has written and spoken about how the Protestant Reformers have misread or misunderstood Paul. See R. Alan Strett’s interview with NT Wright in Criswell Theological Review.

See Seraphim Hamilton ’s “Those Whom He Justified He Glorified: Paul’s Argument in Romans 1:17-3:31.” On Behalf of All.

These articles show how Mr. White’s false dilemma of Protestant versus Roman Catholic understanding of justification by faith oversimplifies the theological issues within Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. He compounds the confusion through the false equivalence fallacy: Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism.

In closing, Orthodoxy must be treated by Protestants as a faith tradition distinct and separate from Roman Catholicism. While they have much in common, they also diverge significantly. Furthermore, Protestants cannot take sola fide (justification by faith alone) for granted in Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. Does the phrase “faith alone” appear in the Bible? Where? Did the early Church Fathers universally teach justification by faith alone? One cannot cherry pick the Church Fathers. To persuade the Orthodox, Protestant apologists need to show that justification by faith alone was part of early Christianity, not a sixteenth century doctrinal innovation. As they dialogue with the Orthodox, Reformed Christians and other Protestants need to be open to the historic Christian Faith as understood by the Orthodox. Let’s have a frank and friendly dialogue!

Robert Arakaki

How The Reformation Continues To Fail

April 28, 2017 / Robert Arakaki / 12 Comments

Martin Luther Posting the 95 Theses

A Reply to Dr. Peter Leithart’s “How the Reformation Failed.”

Reverend Leithart writes:

The Reformers did not start out with a plan to establish separated churches. Their goal was to reform the entire Latin church. In this they failed….

Some have charged that the Reformers were willing to split the church because they had little interest in visible unity, but that is false. All the Reformers and all Protestant confessions stressed the unity and catholicity of the church. Calvin lamented the “mutilation” of Christ’s body….

As Lee Palmer Wandel ( The Reformation ) has pointed out, the fragmentation of the church was pervasive, deep, and unprecedented. In 1500, the word “Christian” was univocal; by 1600, there were a variety of definitions of the word, and Christians of one sort didn’t necessarily recognize Christians of other sorts as Christians. In 1500, a Christian could travel from one end of Europe to another without fear of persecution; by 1600, every form of Christianity was illegal somewhere in Europe. In 1500, the Latin Mass was the church’s liturgy throughout Western Europe; by 1600, several different, mutually exclusive, Eucharistic liturgies were enacted across Europe.

The division penetrated to families and neighborhoods. Catholics whose children married in non-sacramental Protestant weddings considered their own grandchildren to be bastards. Time was reckoned differently in different parts of Europe: Catholics and Protestants lived in different time zones.

How did this happen? How did a Reformation committed to the gospel, catholicity, and unity shatter the Western church and European civilization? [Source]

Luther’s Good Intentions

In his recent article “How the Reformation Failed,” Peter Leithart is right to assume Luther had no intention to create a rival Church when he posted his 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church. Yet it must be noted that in the 3⅓ years between Wittenberg (Oct. 1517) and the Diet of Worms (Jan. 1521) much had changed. Facilitated by the the printing press, Luther’s 95 Theses and other of his tracts were quickly translated from Latin into German, printed, and distributed widely across Europe. For example, Luther’s 95 Theses spread through Germany within two weeks and throughout Europe in two months!

When he attended the Diet of Worms, Luther was all but certain of his excommunication should he refuse to recant. It is most unlikely that a new Church, at least a separated National Church under his political protector, Frederick the Wise, had not occurred to him. Indeed, the Reformation must not be simplistically reduced to mere theological considerations. The political lust for power and independence was a growing presence throughout Europe’s socio-political realm at the time. In his excellent book, Rock and Sand, Fr Josiah Trenham suggests,

A strong argument can be made that the Protestant Reformation itself was more a land grab by the Protestant princes than about ecclesiastical renewal, and that without their cooperation Martin Luther would have been a flame that quickly ignited, but then rapidly dissipated. (Trenham, p. 8)

Speaking Outside the Bubble

We are thankful that Peter Leithart is a not only a scholar; he is a gentleman as well. He tries to be measured in his writing and analyses. We grant that he sees himself (as one cohort of his is apt to say) “riding the brake” on innovation. His scholarship has broadened his vision so he speaks from outside the bubble of Reformed sectarian purity. Rev. Leithart has given up the glasses of naïveté that so often prevents one from seeing the log(s) in his own tradition’s eye. This has enabled him to observe insightfully:

Yet, the Reformers eventually turned their considerable rhetorical powers against each other, creating stark polarities and treating every dispute as a cosmic war of light and darkness, truth and error. Reformation polemic descended into propaganda, which bolstered the group of identity of separated communions by demonizing other churches. For all the virtues of polemic, Lutheran and Reformed would often have been better served by gentle answers.

Remarks like these are commendable for their insightfulness and courage.

Zwingli and Luther at the Marburg Colloquy – 1529

Protestantism’s First Failure

While it is wise to see logs in our own small traditions, we must point out that Pastor Leithart remains unwilling to confront the root problem destroying ecclesiastical unity even among Protestant churches, the departing from Holy Tradition. This problem showed itself some twelve years after Luther’s 95 Theses at the Marburg Colloquy. This historic meeting between Luther and Zwingli provides tragic and telling lesson about Protestantism. Fr. Josiah Trenham’s comments are on point here:

The greatest of these [controversies] took place at the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529. This official gathering was designed to unify the Protestant theologians, but instead served to express the deepest of divisions between Luther and Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli on the subject of the eucharist. Luther thought his teaching on consubstantiation was the clear teaching of Scripture, and neither could understand why the other was being so hardheaded and disobedient to the ‘clear teaching of Scripture.’ The Marburg Colloquy and Protestant eucharistic controversy revealed the greatest weakness of the Protestant embrace of the doctrine of sola scriptura, and proved the absurdity of any dependence on the clarity of Scripture alone to establish common doctrines. Luther felt very deeply on this matter, and said ‘Before I would have mere wine with the fanatics, I would rather receive sheer blood with the pope. Accomplished Protestant leaders like Carlstadt, Zwingli, Oecolampadius in Basel and Bucer in Strasbourg disavowed Luther’s teaching on the sacraments and church polity. We Orthodox Christians are led to ponder: where is the reality of sola scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture if even those bound by faculty, friendship, politics and faith cannot agree on the meaning of the central Christian act of worship? (pp. 36, 37)

The failure at Marburg – the inability for sola scriptura to generate a unified understanding of Scripture and a shared Eucharist – has been repeated over and over in the history of Protestantism resulting not just in the shattering of church unity, but its pulverization into thousands of Protestant denominations.

Source

Marriage Advice to a Friend

What do you say to a very likeable, knowledgeable and engaging man [hypothetical/ not Peter Leithart!] who is a friend of yours who claims he loves his wife dearly and wants to reconcile with her. But, he refuses to end his open marriage relationships with other women? You tell him as gently but as firmly as possible, “My dear friend, your commitment to your open marriage and other women is destroying any chance you have for marital Unity. You must repudiate and give up this destructive open-marriage commitment.”

Sadly, and all to similarly, Protestant hubris (old & new) seeks a ‘Unity’ centered around their own current & morphing take on sola scriptura. They do so while spurning the Unity which held together the Church through the major controversies in the first millennium until the tragic Great Schism of 1054. There is no Unity that can arise from sola scriptura’s exegetical and ecclesial autonomy. The Church (not autonomous exegesis) is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Nor will there be any lasting unity without Her renewed centrality as the proper guardian of Scripture.

Thus, we bid our Protestant friends to do what Luther and the Reformers should have done upon leaving Rome and her errors — forsake sola scriptura and return to the One Holy Orthodox Church. Thankfully, it is far easier today than it would have been for them. Lord have mercy.

David Rockett and Robert Arakaki

References

Peter Leithart. 2017. “How the Reformation Failed.” In Theopolis , April 18.

Lee Palmer Wandel. 2011. The Reformation: Towards a New History. Cambridge University Press.

Josiah Trenham. 2015. Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Theology. New Rome Press.

Category: Response (Page 5 of 10)

Response to James White (2 of 4)

Response to James White (1 of 4)

How The Reformation Continues To Fail

A Reply to Dr. Peter Leithart’s “How the Reformation Failed.”

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives