Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 11 of 17)

Tertullian Refutes the “Fall of the Church” Heresy

February 17, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 77 Comments

Tertullian

The “fall of the church” heresy is widely held among Protestants but not unique to Protestants. The “fall of the church” was something that early Christians had to contend with as well. Tertullian answered it in “The Prescription Against Heretics.”

The “fall of the church” refers to the belief that after the Apostles died the early Christians strayed from the original Apostles’ teachings and practices. This has been known as the great Apostasy, or the BOBO theory – the Blink Off/Blink On of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the life of the Church.

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) lived in Carthage, a North African Roman province. He was a lawyer by training and one of the more influential Latin theologians in the early Church. While he did fall into error towards the end of his life and is not considered by many Orthodox a “church father,” his early writings can nevertheless be helpful to understanding early Christianity.

Prescription is one of the more important and highly regarded works of Tertullian for patristic studies. Quasten wrote in his Patrology:

De praesciptione haereticorum is by far the most finished, the most characteristic, and the most valuable of Tertullian’s writings. The main ideas of this treatise have won for it enduring timeliness and admiration. Although it can be assigned no definite date, it was quite obviously written when the author was still on the best of terms with the Catholic Church, probably around the year 200 A.D. (p. 272)

Apostles of Christ

Defining Orthodoxy

The “fall of the church” was one of several arguments used by early heretics to draw people away from the Church. To understand these errors it is important to understand the way early Christians understood orthodoxy. In the early Church orthodoxy (right doctrine) was based on apostolicity. Apostolicity meant that a local church was able to trace its teachings back to the original Apostles via the traditioning process.

Tertullian wrote:

It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have not given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. (Prescription 21; italics in original; bold added).

. . . and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. (Prescription 20.4-6; emphasis added)

Here we see that the Great Commission is basically the transmission of Holy Tradition. This may come as a surprise to many Evangelicals who assume that the Apostles went out to all the nations with a leather bound Bible under their arms. But it needs to be kept in mind that all that the Apostles had were Christ’s teachings and deeds carefully memorized and stored in their hearts. Similarly, when they planted churches the early converts had to learn by heart the Apostles’ teachings. It would not be until decades later that the Gospels and the Epistles be written down on paper; and even then it would not be until centuries later that a formal collection known as the “New Testament” came to be recognized by the early Church. The biblical canon came about as the early bishops individually and in councils carefully scrutinized which early writings were indeed divinely inspired and apostolic.

In Tertullian’s time there were churches planted by the Apostles and there were churches that learned the Gospel from the first churches; both could claim apostolicity in light of the fact that they shared the same Apostolic Faith. Tertullian wrote:

Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, —privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. (Prescription 20.7-8; emphasis added)

In Tertullian’s time Christianity did not have an elaborate set of institutions like seminaries, bookstores, bible camps, and TV stations. Basically, early Christianity consisted of the local church under the leadership of the bishop, the successor to the Apostles. For Tertullian one indicator of theological orthodoxy was being able to trace one’s bishop’s succession back to the original Apostles.

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. (Prescription 32; emphasis added)

Just as significant is the importance Tertullian placed on the Eucharist as proof of orthodoxy: to be doctrinally orthodox was to be in communion with the apostolic churches. In the early church the claim was made that the teachings one heard at the weekly Eucharist were the same one as that taught by the original Twelve.

We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness to the truth. (Prescription 21)

In summary, Tertullian’s description of early orthodoxy consisted of: (1) the traditioning process, (2) the local bishop as successor to the Apostles, and (3) the Eucharist as the sign of doctrinal unity.

Holy Tradition or Sola Scriptura?

Tertullian advanced a number of arguments that would make a Protestant’s hair stand. In Prescription 19.1 he opens with: “Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures. . . .” Unlike Protestants who view Scriptures as a level playing field that anyone can read and anyone can interpret according to their conscience, Tertullian viewed Scripture as part of the sacred deposit entrusted to Church, recognized by the Church, and safeguarded for future generations by that same Church.

For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. (Prescription 19.3; italics in original)

There is no shred of evidence of Protestantism’s sola scriptura in Tertullian’s Prescription. What we find is the oral Tradition supplemented by written Tradition, and the two complementing the other.

Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles (Prescription 21.3; italics in original; bold added)

The early Christians never separated the two but saw the oral and the written forms of Tradition as integral to each other. Naturally, the oral form of the Apostolic teaching preceded the written form and continues to this day to inform the Church’s understanding of the New Testament text. In other words, early biblical exegesis was rooted in oral Tradition and did not arise from an independent objective reading of the Scripture text. It was a ecclesial activity, and not something carried out independently of the Church and its bishops.

Early Attacks on Orthodoxy

The early heretics used a variety of arguments designed to undermine the faith of the early Christians. The heresies are all aimed at attacking the notion of apostolicity. They make sense if orthodoxy is grounded in the traditioning process; but don’t make sense if early orthodoxy is based on sola scriptura.

Heresy # 1 – Christ had Other Apostles (Prescription 21)

Heresy #2 -– The Apostles Didn’t Know All There Was to Know (Prescription 22.2)

Heresy #3 – The Apostles Knew All There Was to Know But Chose to Hold Some Things Back (Prescription 22.2)

Heresy #4 – Peter’s Knowledge of the Gospel Inferior to Paul’s (Prescription 23 & 24)

Heresy #5 – Paul’s Knowledge of the Gospel Superior to Peter’s (Prescription 23 & 24)

Tertullian Refutes the “Fall of the Church” Heresy

Tertullian describes the “fall of the church” heresy:

. . .let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. (Prescription 27.1)

The early heretics cited Paul’s letter to the Galatians in support of the fall of the church theory: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” and “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” They also pointed to Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians about their being carnal and suited only for milk, not meat. Tertullian points out that the heretics failed to take into account that the early churches likewise responded to Paul’s correction. In addition, Tertullian pointed to Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church “into all truth” (John 14:26) as evidence against the fall theory.

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? (Prescription 28.1; emphasis added)

In Chapter 28, Tertullian points out the implication of the fall of the church heresy. It means a widespread apostasy among the early Christians and that even Paul was mistaken in his witness to the Gospel. Furthermore, it means that John 14:26 was not fulfilled even though Christ promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Furthermore, it implies that the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the “Vicar of Christ” failed to do his job and that Christ made a false promise!

Tertullian points out that if the “fall of the church” theory held true then the churches would have diverged significantly from the teachings of the Apostles and that in turn would have resulted in theological divergences among the churches. But theological divergences were not to be found among the churches but with the heretics.

Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Prescription 28.2-4)

Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine. (Prescription 38.1-2)

Tertullian notes that where error results in fragmentation, orthodoxy results in doctrinal uniformity (unity) among the early Christians. Doctrinal unity flows from fidelity to the traditioning process used by the Apostles in transmitting the Gospel.

Tertullian sketches out what the “fall of the church” would have looked like if it did in fact happen:

During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! (Prescription 29.3)

In other words (at least in Tertullian’s mind) it is unthinkable and ludicrous to suppose that all the good things done by the early Christians were in fact bad things. Also, Tertullian points out that if such a massive defection had occurred then one logical consequence would be doctrinal pluralism. To put it another way, it does not make sense that so many Christians would have gone wrong all in the same direction at the same time!

Tertullian Compared With Irenaeus of Lyons

Where Tertullian’s standing as a church father is in question, the same cannot be said of Irenaeus of Lyons who is considered to be the greatest theologian of the second century. Tertullian and Irenaeus were contemporaries having lived in the latter half of the second century.

While Tertullian’s apologetics strategy In Prescription Against Heretics may strike Protestants as somewhat odd, it bears strong resemblance to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. A comparison between the two shows strong similarities in the way they understood early orthodoxy: (1) both assumed doctrinal orthodoxy to rest on Apostolic Tradition (Prescription 20.4-6; Against Heresies 3.1.1), (2) both understood Apostolic Tradition to exist first in oral then in written form (Prescription 21.3; Against Heresies 3.4.2), (3) both taught that orthodox churches were those who could trace their bishop’s succession back to the original Apostles (Prescription 32.1; Against Heresies 3.3.1), and (4) both asserted that a key sign of doctrinal orthodoxy is the unity of faith among Christians (Prescription 20.7-8; Against Heresies 1.10.1).

Tertullian taken together with Irenaeus gives us valuable insight into the theological method of the early Church. Their theological method bears a striking resemblance to the Orthodox Church but also striking disparity with the theological method(s) of Protestantism.

Conclusions

The “fall of the church” heresy was not unique to Protestants but something that the early Church had to contend with as well. Protestants have used the “fall” as a way of justifying their breaking away from the Church of Rome, and the early heretics used it as a way creating an opening so they could present their alternative gospel to their listeners.

Tertullian refuted the “fall of the church” theory on four grounds: (1) biblical – it implied the failure of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church “into all truth” which in turn implied the failure of Christ’s promise in John 14:26, (2) theological – it implied the denial of divine sovereignty, (3) sociological – if true the fall of the church would have resulted into doctrinal fragmentation which flies in the face of the doctrinal unity shared by early Christians, and (4) historical –there was no evidence of a massive defection among early Christians.

Tertullian’s refutation of the “fall of the church” heresy is instructive for Orthodox-Reformed dialogue. It sheds light on how orthodoxy was understood in the early Church. In early Christianity orthodoxy was premised on apostolic succession and fidelity to the traditioning process resulting from a continuing Pentecost via the Holy Spirit. Capital “O” Orthodoxy today claims this same basis for its claim to be the true Church founded by Christ and his Apostles.

Protestants have an understanding of apostolicity different from Tertullian’s. The Protestant principle of sola scriptura assumes that apostolicity resides in the apostolic authorship of the New Testament and that Scripture is sufficient in itself to guarantee right doctrine. With the exception of the Anglicans, the vast majority of Protestants reject apostolic succession as a marker of orthodoxy.

One of the biggest challenges that Tertullian’s Prescription poses to Protestantism is his claim that heresy results in doctrinal diversity. This is especially daunting in light of the multitude of Protestant denominations. There are some Protestants who might point out differences even among some of the Apostolic Fathers, as if this disproves Tertullian’s claim to unity. What do we say to this? Was Tertullian’s sense of broad unity among the early churches wrong? Was there, as these Protestants must establish, a doctrinal free-for-all among the early churches? No, the early Christians’ unity in the Pentecost promise of the Holy Spirit was real and Tertullian was right. What differences that existed were largely minor for the Church as a whole and did not disrupt the Eucharistic unity among the early Christians. If there was no “fall of the church” in early Christianity then Protestants will need to reconsider their insistence on the need for the reform of the Church. Orthodoxy claims that in light of the fact that it has faithfully kept the Apostolic Tradition Protestants need look no further for the primitive apostolic Church described by Tertullian.

Robert Arakaki

Source

Tertullian. 1980. “The Prescription Against the Heretics.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, pp. 243-265. Reprinted 1980. Translators: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Wm. B. Eerdmans Press: Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Irenaeus of Lyons. 1985. “Against Heresies.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 315-567. Reprinted 1985. Translators: A. Cleveland Coxe. Wm. B. Eerdmans Press: Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Quasten, Johannes. 1986. Patrology. Volume II. The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus. Christian Classics, Inc.: Westminster, Maryland.

Geneva Bible Compared With Orthodox Study Bible

December 4, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 16 Comments

See online version here.

Third of a four part review of the Geneva Bible Part 1 Part 2

Study bibles do more than help the reader understand the Bible, they also shape the reader’s theology according to a particular faith tradition. This can be seen in the Geneva Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible. I will show this by laying out side by side their respective marginal comments on various topics: icons, justification by faith, Tradition, and the Eucharist.

I. Icons in Worship

Exodus 20:4

Geneva Bible — Thou shalt make thee no graven image, neither any similitude of things that are in heaven above, neither that are in the earth beneath, nor that are in the waters under the earth.

Note: None. No comment either for the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 5:9.

Orthodox Study Bible – You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.

Note: “An idol, or image, depicts some god as having a form or shape, but the true God has no form or shape. Why therefore did Israel use images in their worship? Because all these foreshadowed the Incarnation of the Son of God, whom we worship both as God and Man. Also, icons used in Church worship do not depict the divine nature. They draw attention to the Incarnation.”

Comparison: One contentious issue between Reformed Christians and the Orthodox has been the Orthodox use of icons (images) in worship. The bible passage often invoked by the iconoclasts is the Second Commandment; yet it is interesting to find the Geneva Bible silent on this important passage. The Orthodox Study Bible on the other hand places the Second Commandment in the broader context of Israelite worship versus pagan worship in a way that allows for the use of images without compromising biblical monotheism.

Icon – Crucifixion

II. Justification by Faith

Romans 5:1

Geneva Bible — Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: . . . .

Note: “Another argument taken from the effects: we are justified with that which truly appeases our conscience before God: and faith in Christ does appease our conscience and not the law, as it was said before, therefore by faith we are justified, and not by the law.”

Orthodox Study Bible – Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . .

Note: “Faith in Christ makes us justified, an ongoing state of communion with Him (see note at 3:24. Because of this ongoing communion, we have peace with God which is also ongoing. The Greek word pistis, here translated as faith, can also be rendered “faithfulness.” Faith is more than the conviction that something is true (Jam 2:19). Genuine faithfulness is continuous loyalty and obedience to God. Such faithfulness justifies a person through God’s grace.” (Emphasis in original.)

Comparison: Sola fide (justification by faith alone) is the bedrock of the Protestant Reformation. What is striking about the Geneva Bible’s commentary is the subjective understanding of justification, i.e., bringing peace of mind to a guilty conscience, as opposed to an objective understanding of justification, i.e., repairing one’s relationship with God. The Orthodox Study Bible takes pain to make two points: (1) faith in Christ is more than intellectual but involves loyalty to Christ and (2) it is an ongoing relationship with God.

Ephesians 2:8-10

Geneva Bible — ⁸ For by ^h grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: ⁹ Not of works, lest any man should boast. ¹⁰For we are ⁱ his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Note: (h) “So then, grace, that is to say, the gift of God, and faith, stand with one another, to which two it is contrary to be saved by ourselves, or by our works. Therefore, what do those mean who would join together things of such contrary natures? (9) “He specifically and completely takes away from our works the praise of justification, seeing that the good works themselves are the effects of grace in us. (i) “He speaks here of grace, and not of nature: therefore if the works are ever so good, see what they are, and know that they are that way because of grace.”

Orthodox Study Bible – For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Note: “How can one get from the one kingdom to the other (vv. 1-7)? By the unity of grace, faith, and works (v. 9). Not that these are equal, for grace is uncreated and infinite, whereas our faith is limited and can grow; good works flow out of authentic faith. Works cannot earn us this great treasure—it is a pure gift—but those who receive this gift do good. We are not saved by good works, but for good works (v. 10).” (Emphasis in original)

Comparison: Where the Orthodox Study Bible emphasizes the unity of good works with faith and grace, the Geneva Bible emphasizes that good works can only be good because of grace. In its reaction to medieval Roman Catholicism Protestantism became allergic to the role of good works in salvation. Orthodoxy was not affected by this legalistic understanding of salvation. It does not see a tension between good works and salvation in Christ; the two are complementary to the other. The two marginal commentaries are not opposed to the other but one can sense in the Geneva Bible commentary a defensive tone with respect to good works.

III. Holy Tradition

I Corinthians 15:3

Geneva Bible — For first of all, I delivered unto you that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,

Note: None.

Orthodox Study Bible – For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, . . . .

Note: “Paul delivered an apostolic tradition of Christ’s Resurrection which is unchanging and sufficient or salvation (v. 2). How had Paul received his gospel? By direct experience with the risen Lord (v. 8), confirmed by his interactions with the original apostles (Gal 2:2-10) and the whole Church. It is impossible to decipher what he learned where: in Paul’s mind his gospel forms a seamless whole. “To receive” designates the passing of tradition (see 11:2, 23; Gal 1:9; Php 4:9; 1 Th 2:13; 4:1`).” (Emphasis in original)

Comparison: The Geneva Bible had no comment on this verse. This gap represents a blind spot in the Protestant tradition. The Protestant understanding of capital “T” Tradition was likely shaped by the medieval Catholic version which by then had moved quite a bit from its patristic roots. The evolution of the medieval Catholicism led Protestants to view Tradition as a later addition alien to the New Testament writings. Eastern Orthodoxy, because it remained closer to its patristic roots, had a more balanced understanding of capital “T” Tradition viewing written and oral Apostolic Tradition as complementary to each other.

When I was a Protestant I would skip over certain words, not being aware of their exegetical or theological significance. Once I became alert to the language of the traditioning process: ‘deliver,’ ‘pass on,’ ‘received,’ ‘guard,’ my understanding of the biblical basis for Holy Tradition began to shift from the Protestant view to the Orthodox view. I began to see Tradition as something parallel to Scripture. See the “Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Geneva Bible — Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Note: “The conclusion: it remains then that we continue in the doctrine which was delivered to us by the mouth and writings of the apostles, through the free good will of God, who comforts us with an invincible hope, and that we also continue in all godliness our whole life long.”

Orthodox Study Bible — Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Note: “Holy Tradition is that which Jesus taught to the apostles, and which they in turn taught the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in (a) their instructions as they visited the churches and (b) their writings. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we adhere to Holy Tradition as it is present in the apostles’ writings and as it is resident in the Church to which the truth is promised (Jn 1613).”

Comparison: This is a key passage because it is one of the few places where the Apostle Paul describes the relationship between oral and written tradition. This passage affirms the Orthodox understanding that Apostolic Tradition is expressed in both oral and written forms. Tradition is not the dead tradition of men but a living Tradition inspired by the Holy Spirit who works in the Church. The Geneva Bible commentary mostly repeats the text but does not delve into the deeper meaning of the passage.

2 Timothy 2:2

Geneva Bible — And the things that thou hast heard of me among ^a many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Note: “When many were there, who can bear witness of these things.”

Orthodox Study Bible — And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Note: “Paul establishes a clear chain of witnesses to oral tradition. Christian tradition is for all believers; it is “catholic,” belonging to the whole Church, and needs to be passed down to others unhindered. This stands in clear contrast to the elitism of the major religions of the first-century Roman world, including gnosticism and the various mystery religions.”

Comparison: This passage lays the biblical basis for apostolic succession. Timothy was not being ordained to the pastorate of a local church but rather to the office of bishop. He would be exercising apostolic authority as Paul’s successor. Timothy’s episcopal authority lay not so much in church ritual as in fidelity to the Apostolic Gospel. The presence of the many witnesses ensured that the message Timothy proclaimed was same as Paul’s. When one reads the Geneva commentary for this verse one is struck by the paucity of exegesis. This lacuna points to another blind spot in Reformed exegesis.

Jude 3

Geneva Bible — Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the ^d common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should ^e earnestly contend for the faith which was ^f once delivered unto the saints.

Note: (e) “That you should defend the faith with all the strength you can muster, both by true doctrine and good example of life. (f) Which was once given, that it may never be changed.”

Orthodox Study Bible – Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Note: “Jude had intended to write a more general letter on salvation but the danger of false teachers caused him to write a polemic instead. There is one salvation which is the same for all the elect, or common salvation. And this salvation is set in apostolic tradition once for all delivered to the saints; it cannot be changed.”

Comparison: One thing both the Geneva Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible are agreed on is that the Christian faith is fixed, it cannot be changed. The thinking that the Christian faith was relative or mutable is characteristic of ancient heresies like gnosticism or modern liberalism. The Gospel is not the result of personal discovery or creative insight but rather received through a line of apostolic succession.

"The Lamb of God is broken and shared, broken but divided; forever eaten yet never consumed, but sanctifying those who partake of Him."

Last Supper Icon

IV. The Eucharist

Luke 22:20

Geneva Bible — Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This ^g cup [is] ^h the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Note: (g) “Here is a double use of metonymy: for first, the vessel is taken for that which is contained in the vessel, as the cup is spoken of for the wine which is within the cup. Second, the wine is called the covenant or testament, whereas in reality it is but the sign of the testament, or rather of the blood of Christ by which the testament was made: neither is it a vain sign, although it is not the same as the thing that it represents.”

Orthodox Study Bible – Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Note: “Gave thanks has at its root the Greek word eucharist, which immediately came to refer to both the Liturgy and the sacrament of Holy Communion. Before the end of the first century, a manuscript called the Didache refers to the celebration of the Liturgy as the “the Eucharist,” and in the year AD 150, St. Justin says of Holy Communion, “This food we call ‘Eucharist,’ of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing [holy baptism] for the forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ commanded us.” This is my body: The Orthodox Church has always accepted Christ’s words as true, “that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from Him is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (Justin).” (Emphasis in original)

Comparison: The Geneva Bible seeks to avoid the extremes of the Roman Catholic literal reading of the Words of Institution and the more symbolic understanding. The word “metonymy” is a literary device where the name of one thing is used as a reference for something else, e.g., “Lend me your ears!” One finds in the Geneva Bible commentary an ambivalent affirmation of the real presence. The Orthodox Church takes a more straightforward approach by affirming the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. The Orthodox Study Bible points to an ancient witness of Justin Martyr who lived in the second century.

John 6:52-53

Geneva Bible — The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have ^s no life in you.

Note: “Flesh cannot make a difference between fleshly eating, which is done by the help of the teeth, and spiritual eating, which consists in faith: and therefore it condemns that which it does not understand: yet nonetheless, the truth must be preached and taught.”

(v. 53) If Christ is present, life is present, but when Christ is absent, then death is present.”

Orthodox Study Bible – The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

Note: “We receive the grace of Christ’s sacrificial offering by coming to Him in faith (v. 35) and by receiving Holy Communion in faith. In Communion, we truly eat His flesh and drink His blood, and this grants the faithful eternal life (v. 54), with Christ abiding in us and us in Him (v. 56). ‘There is no room left for any doubt about the reality of His flesh and blood, because we have both the witness of His words and our won faith. Thus when we eat and drink these elements, we are in Christ and Christ is in us” (HilryP).’”

Comparison: The Geneva Bible commentary puts the focus on the Christian’s believing in Christ. The efficacy of the Lord’s Supper resides more in the Christian’s believing than in Christ’s actual presence in the Eucharist. The Orthodox Study Bible’s commentary affirms the importance both of the real presence and our having faith in Christ as the basis of the Eucharist.

Conclusion

Philip teaching the Ethiopian eunuch: Source

In Acts 8 we read of the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading the book of Isaiah all on his own with no commentary notes to assist him. So when Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading, he answered: “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31)

There are some who believe that we do not need any external aids to understand the Bible that all we need to do is read the Bible carefully and logically and we will discover its true meaning. But as the experience of many people has shown, not to mention Scripture as well, we need someone to guide us in reading Scripture.

When one walks into a Christian bookstore one will see a plethora of study bibles: Geneva, Scofield, Ryrie, McArthur or whatever type you might want. Protestants instinctively know (like the Ethiopian eunuch above) they will need help in understanding what the Bible means. This brings to light an embarrassing fact that many Protestants are not ready to acknowledge openly: The words of Scripture by themselves are not enough; something more is needed. This something more is a faith tradition be it Reformed, Dispensationalist, Charismatic etc. Even those who make today’s study bibles relied on others before them.

Protestants need to wake up to the fact that their understanding of Scripture is framed by a particular theological tradition. Certain Scripture passages are highlighted and others are passed over as being of lesser importance. One striking finding in our comparison is the Geneva Bible’s silence where Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition diverge significantly, e.g., the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4) and I Corinthians 15:3 which supports the notion of a traditioning process. These gaps in the Geneva Bible bring to light to blind spots in the Reformed tradition.

The Reformed tradition grounds its reading of Scripture on its supposed superior exegesis; the Orthodox tradition grounds its reading of Scripture on a tradition going back to the Apostles. It needs to be noted that the Reformed tradition was shaped by its rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church. This means that its exegetical tradition is not objective, nor grounded in apostolic Tradition, but influenced by its antagonism against Catholicism.

The real question then becomes: Whose particular theological tradition should we follow: one that started in the 1500s – or one that can trace its roots back to the first Apostles? This is the advantage of the Orthodox Study Bible and its commentary that draws on the wisdom of the early church fathers.

Robert Arakaki

Note

I visited two sites for this review. Studylight.org site is much more user friendly than BibleStudyTools.com site. Where StudyLight.org presented Scripture passage and commentary in distinct visual units, BibleStudyTools.com listed the commentary directly under the Scripture passage with no intervening space in between. This dense and compact visual style can be hard on the reader’s eyes after a while. Despite their shortcomings, the two websites are much easier on the eyes than hard copy the New England Puritans had. On a recent visit to the Graduate Theological Union library in Berkeley, CA, I checked out a hard copy version, and found myself straining to read the commentary notes which appeared to be in font size 8!

Are Conversions to Orthodoxy Tragic? A Response to Leithart

October 11, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 7 Comments

Folks, Today’s posting contains Gabe Martini’s excellent response to Peter Leithart. I will be uploading my response to Rev. Leithart shortly. Robert

Are conversions to Orthodoxy tragic?

This is a continuing notion from Leithart and other, similar Protestants, who have adopted certain aspects of the Catholic tradition while refusing to adopt the fullness of the Body of Christ. This it not to say (at all) that Dr. Leithart is not a Christian, but that his approach to Christianity remains bodiless—an adoption of ideas and theories, but not the living and Spirit-filled community that has embodied such ideas and theories.

Are Conversions to Orthodoxy Tragic?

In his latest post at First Things, Leithart laments about “cross-Christian conversions,” naming them “tragic.”

Leithart does not deem these tragic necessarily because they are to the detriment of the convert themselves, but because the “logic behind some conversions” is flawed. According to Leithart, the quest for “the true church” is such flawed logic, and the “assumptions” behind such a movement are nothing short of “un-Christian.”

These are bold claims, especially from those who repackage Patristic theology for an audience under-exposed to both Patristics and the Catholic tradition. But, I digress. The real point of responding to this assertion of “tragedy” is that it misses the mark in a number of important ways.

First, Leithart claims that seeking out the true church is un-Christian. He explains:

Apart from all the detailed historical arguments, this quest makes an assumption about the nature of time, an assumption that I have labeled “tragic.” It’s the assumption that the old is always purer and better, and that if we want to regain life and health we need to go back to the beginning.

While many apologetics of Orthodoxy (and Rome) are centered around returning to the “original Church,” this is not a linear movement. Holy Tradition is not “older is better,” and our Tradition is not a lifeless stack of books, but the continuing life and work of both Christ and the Holy Spirit in Christ’s one, holy Body.

In fact, there is nothing more Deistic or backwards-facing than classical Protestantism, with sola scriptura and the perspicuity and self-sufficiency of the (Protestant canon of the) Bible. Sola scriptura claims that God—through his prophets and apostles—has left us a set of books by which one is to both understand and determine everything regarding faith and life. But the way to interpret this set of books was not included, and no interpretation is without subjectivity, nor is it the result of osmosis.

As a result, hundreds of denominations or new, individual church movements are started every year. Despite the claims to perspicuity, no two people within Protestantism agree on the right interpretation of any given sets of verses, and this even within their own, segregated, confessional communions. Leithart understands this very well, himself having been put under scrutiny by his own presbytery on a number of occasions, with each side talking past the other regarding the proper interpretation of both the Bible and the Westminster Standards.

On the other hand, the Orthodox faith teaches that we are not abandoned by God with either a single set of books (the Bible) or an old, static thing called tradition. We are not always looking back, but are instead transformed through the Body and Blood of Christ to a communion that transcends both time and place.

In the Eucharistic fellowship of the Church, we are ever-united with all the Saints of history, both past and present. Our orientation is eschatological, and eschatology is not merely “the future,” in a strictly linear sense. This is nowhere more pronounced than in our celebration of the Eucharist, which is an event that points the faithful towards the east—not merely towards Eden or the beginnings of a nostalgic faith, but towards the great wedding feast of the Lamb. This is played out not only in our written tradition and services, but also in our iconography of the Mystical Supper, which shows both Jesus and the apostles not in a dingy upper room of first-century Palestine but at the table of the wedding feast in eternity.

We certainly believe that the apostolic Church is the source of life and health for the faithful Christian, but this is not a return to “the beginning,” but rather an adoption into a timeless family. A family that is oriented towards the east (a redundancy, I know); towards the second coming and the culmination of all things in Christ (which paradoxically restores us to a unity with God found heretofore only in Eden).

Our tradition is holy, since it is the tradition of the Holy Spirit. This means that it is grounded not in a place of the past, but in the dynamic life of the Life-giving Trinity. This is an essential aspect of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints, as well: “Neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come … shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

Leithart continues:

Truth is not just the Father; the Son – the supplement, the second, the one begotten – identifies Himself as Truth, and then comes a third, the Spirit, also Truth, the Spirit of Truth. Truth is not just in the Father; the fullness of Truth is not at the origin, but in the fullness of the divine life, which includes a double supplement to the origin.

Despite the appearance of Sabellianism, and a denial of orthodox triadology, I think I understand what Leithart is getting at here.

The tradition of the Church has borne a perspective that is more nuanced than Leithart appears to allow. The earthly bulwarks of our faith (throughout the centuries, and not just in the “early Church”) have pointed to a Trinity that ismonarchical, with the Father as “origin.” For example, the Father begets the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (in eternity). Still, Leithart rightly notes that truth is not only of the Father, but is also an essential aspect of both the Spirit and the Son. What’s important to emphasize here is that our Tradition originates and rests in the life of God himself; in the life of the Holy Trinity. Not just the Father, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their roles in both revealing and preserving this Faith through synergy with the Church varies according to the divine person, but we must be careful not to conflate the persons for the sake of flawed arguments.

Leithart concludes:

History is patterned in the same way. Eden is not the golden time to which we return; it is the infancy from which we begin and grow up. The golden age is ahead, in the Edenic Jerusalem.

And the church’s history is patterned in the same way too. It’s disorienting to think that we have to press ahead rather than try to discover or recover the safety of an achieved ecclesia, disorienting because we can’t know or predict the future. But it’s the only assumption Trinitarians can consistently make: The ecclesial peace we seek is not behind us, but in front. We get there by following the pillar of fire that leads us to a land we do not know.

Orthodox Christians do not believe in a mythical “golden age” of the Church. Our hagiography makes this more than plain, as we recount one exile of a Saint or one new heresy after another. What we do believe in, however, is the continuing presence of the life and light of God in the Body of Christ. Because of this fact, we know that the Church is the true community and family of God. It is not a future reality to be anticipated, but neither is it a nostalgic idea of the past. It is a continuing, apostolic mission of God’s people, transformed and recreated into the image of Christ through the passage of time. When we face the east in worship (per St. Basil the Great in On the Holy Spirit), we are facing both Eden and the glorious and second coming. Leithart bifurcates along linear projections, when it is both inappropriate and even impossible to do so.

He is right in saying that we follow the “pillar of fire” as the Church, but this pillar is within each of us. It is not a distant figure that has left us only a book and a few thousand years in order to figure everything out. It is a personal witness and indwelling in the Body of Christ that warms and guides our souls towards the kingdom; a kingdom that can, in fact, be within each one of us in Christ (Luke 17:21).

So while Leithart brings up a few important concepts in this short argument against conversions to Orthodox-Catholic Christianity, he misses the mark when it comes to not only understanding Holy Tradition and the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, but also limits this experience of the Church to a single direction, where no such limitation is warranted.

Conversion to the one, true Church is not tragic; it is a journey home. And this home is not found in any single point in time, but transcends all such limitations, being the very Body of the Eternal One.

Gabe Martini has a BA in Philosophy from Indiana University and serves as a subdeacon at Saint Sophia Greek Orthodox Church in Bellingham, WA. He is the editor-in-chief of On Behalf of All and is a Product Marketing Lead for Logos Bible Software.

Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 11 of 17)

Tertullian Refutes the “Fall of the Church” Heresy

Geneva Bible Compared With Orthodox Study Bible

Third of a four part review of the Geneva Bible Part 1 Part 2

Are Conversions to Orthodoxy Tragic? A Response to Leithart

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives