Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 14 of 17)

Crossing The Bosphorus

January 15, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 138 Comments

The Bosphorus Strait

With its many denominations Protestantism is no stranger to people changing churches, but there is something deeply unsettling about a Protestant family deciding to move over to a nearby Orthodox parish. The phrase “swimming the Tiber” or “crossing the Bosphorus” alludes to the deep chasm separating Protestantism from the two ancient traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Constantinople, the site of Orthodoxy’s leading patriarchal see, is located next to the Bosphorus, a narrow strait that separates Europe from Asia. Thus, there is a certain aptness to the Bosphorus as a symbol of the divide between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

In this blog posting I will discuss the significance of switching over from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. I will be using three issues to explore the Protestant versus Orthodox divide: the authority to interpret Scripture, the visible church as the true church, and the meaning of Communion. I will also discuss the reactions Protestants looking into Orthodoxy may encounter from their fellow Protestants and give advice to Protestants thinking about becoming Orthodox.

Relinquishing Sola Scriptura

Protestantism is based on the doctrine of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). A corollary to sola scriptura is “soul competency,” the notion that the individual Christian is competent to interpret Scripture for themselves because they have the Holy Spirit in them as a result of the born again experience. While historic Protestant churches have tempered this view by insisting on a learned clergy and confessional statements like the Westminster Confession, all these were jettisoned on the American frontier in the early 1800s. This gave rise to an extreme version that eschews learned clergy and creeds. This view is popular among Evangelicals and other conservative Protestants today. All across Protestantism, regardless of denomination, the authority to interpret Scripture is assumed to rest with the individual. You join a church because they have the same understanding of the Bible as you do, and because doing so is consistent with your conscience. For Protestants there is no universally binding doctrinal authority apart from Scripture.

One reason why converting to Orthodoxy is so unsettling lies in the fact one must reject the notion of soul competency which accompanies sola scriptura and submit to the Church’s teaching authority. Orthodoxy claims that because it has received and preserved the Apostolic Tradition it has the right interpretation of Scripture (II Thessalonians 2:15). This claim is supported by the lists of episcopal succession for the various patriarchates such as Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church claims that Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) was fulfilled in the formation of the biblical canon and the Ecumenical Councils. It was at the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the Christian Faith was affirmed and heresy rejected. And it is thanks to the early Church that we have the Bible we have today.

Many Protestants troubled by Protestantism’s doctrinal anarchy have reached the conclusion that sola scriptura as a theological method is unworkable. This has led them to seek doctrinal stability in the older Christian traditions. This quest for doctrinal stability has led many to the Orthodox Church. Questions about sola scriptura were what precipitated the theological crisis that led this author to Orthodoxy.

Accepting the Visible Church

The Orthodox Church’s claim to be the true Church is a second reason why Protestants crossing over to Orthodoxy is unsettling. This is contrary to the widespread belief among Protestants that the true church is the invisible church comprised of all born again Christians. Basically, it means that the true Church is everywhere and nowhere. In contrast, Orthodoxy asserts that the true Church can be found in the visible entity called the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that there has always been one Church. The Church has never been divided into two or many branches. Such a notion contradicts Christ’s promise that he would build the Church upon the rock (Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ) and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18). For this reason the belief by some Protestants that the early visible church fell into apostasy and corruption leaving only an invisible faithful remnant is heresy. Similarly, Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory that the true Church can be found among either Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or Anglican churches.

The troubling implication here is that Protestant churches are not really churches and that to be a Protestant is to be outside the true Church. In Protestantism if one’s belief changes then one change churches through a letter of transfer of church membership. This is a common practice done all the time. But in the case of a Protestant becoming Orthodox, a letter of transfer is null and void. To become Orthodox one must go through the sacraments of conversion: baptism, chrismation, and Communion.

Recently many Evangelicals have reacted to the extremes of the invisible church view and embraced the high view of the church espoused by Calvin and other Reformers and the ecumenical movement’s vision of restoring visible church unity. Among them are some who claim to be more “catholic” than the Catholic Church! They view doctrinal differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy as arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, unnecessarily divisive and obstructive to “true” church unity. They believe that we can enter into ecumenical dialogue, negotiate our differences, and make compromises and adjustments that will result in church unity. An Orthodox Christian can only be skeptical of such a claim. To take this route is to define the Church according to what we want rather than following Apostolic Tradition. Because Orthodoxy will never compromise Holy Tradition this kind of ecumenical venture is unfeasible.

The Meaning of Holy Communion

There are two things Protestants find disturbing about the Orthodox approach to Holy Communion. One is that Orthodoxy believes that in the Eucharist we feed on Christ’s body and blood. This is something all the early Christians believed, but sadly many Protestants today believe that Holy Communion is just a symbolic reminder of Christ’s death. More traditional or high church Protestants might protest that they too like the Orthodox Church believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But this claim is highly suspect in light of the fact that they lack bishops and have no apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession there is no covenantal authority to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice.

When I was a high church Calvinist (Mercersburg Theology), I strongly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But one day I realized: “They’re right. It’s just a symbol. It’s a symbol because it’s not the real thing. It’s not the real thing because there’s no valid priestly authority to consecrate the elements.” I was at an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student retreat when I had this realization. InterVarsity is a parachurch organization, but as I began to think about the more established Protestant churches I realized with a sinking feeling in my stomach they were in the same boat as InterVarsity – lacking proper covenantal authority that comes from apostolic succession.

Furthermore, the claim to a valid Eucharist is suspect in light of the fact that much of Protestantism is at odds with the Seven Ecumenical Councils. For example, to use the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is in violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) which prohibits alteration to the Creed. To refuse to honor Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) is to reject the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431). To refuse to venerate icons is to reject the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II 787). In light of these numerous deviations from the Ecumenical Councils it is highly doubtful that Protestantism can claim doctrinal agreement with the early Church. There can be no valid Eucharist where heresy is embraced and promulgated. And even if a person or a congregation did agree with all of the above points, they would need to be in communion with the five ancient patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils (see Canon VI and VII of Nicea I (325), Canon III of I Constantinople (381), and Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon (451)). (Note: It is tragic that the Schism of 1054 has resulted in Rome’s departure from the ancient Pentarchy. While Orthodoxy disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church, it recognizes its episcopal lineage as one going back to Saints Peter and Paul.) Thus, unless one is in communion with one of the ancient patriarchates one’s link to the early Church is imagined and not real.

Another unsettling fact is that Orthodoxy practices closed communion, that is, Communion is reserved only for those who belong to the Orthodox Church. Lutherans or Anglicans who hold a high Christology and affirm the real presence in the Eucharist become upset when they learn that they are barred from receiving Communion in an Orthodox Church. They view this as a judgment on their faith in Christ but this is not the case. In Orthodoxy receiving Communion means that one accepts the Tradition of the Church and that one submits to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Orthodox Church in the person of the local bishop. For me to receive Communion at Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Honolulu puts me under the authority of Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco and in communion with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Therefore, communion in Orthodoxy is not just a matter of being in doctrinal agreement with the bishop but submitting to his authority as well.

Becoming Orthodox

The general pattern in the Greek Orthodox Church is for Protestants to be received into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of chrismation and the receiving of Holy Communion. Prior to that the priest will ask for evidence or documentation that one has been baptized in the name of the Trinity, that is, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Most Protestant denominations follow this practice, but some baptize in Jesus’ name (e.g., Oneness Pentecostalism); for Orthodoxy this is not a valid baptism. Similarly, a baptism done in a liberal church using inclusive language like: Parent, Child, and Holy Spirit, will be rejected. Some Orthodox jurisdictions, like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, are especially strict and will insist that all Protestants and even Roman Catholics be baptized for reception into the Orthodox Church.

As much as one might desire to become Orthodox, the decision is made by the priest with the approval of the bishop. Some Orthodox priests will insist that one attend the Liturgy for at least a year to show one’s seriousness about becoming Orthodox and in order to learn what Orthodoxy is all about. Other priests will want you to attend a 24 week class along with regular Sunday attendance. The priest is concerned not just with how much doctrine you understand, but also with your commitment to the worship life of the Church, your willingness to accept the spiritual disciplines like fasting, and your willingness to submit to the authority of the Church.

The Orthodox attitude towards people wanting to become Orthodox is that of welcome and caution. We want people to become Orthodox, but we also want them to realize the seriousness of the commitment. We often counsel patience in the case of people who are married and have children. We prefer the whole family become Orthodox in due time rather than the father becoming Orthodox right away with the wife and the children remaining Protestant. Orthodoxy believes that God intended the family to be a spiritual unity. Conversely, a spiritually divided household falls short of the ideal. Oftentimes patient waiting can result in a greater blessing for more people. That is why sitting down with the priest is so critically important. Letting the priest guide you in transitioning to Orthodoxy is a key step in learning to humbly submit to pastoral authority (Hebrews 13:17).

Due Diligence

Warren Buffet – Investment Guru

The famous investment guru, Warren Buffet, before making a major purchase in a company does due diligence. He researches the company’s history, its performance record, as well as its assets and liabilities. To not do this is irresponsible. Similarly, with respect to having the right faith and ensuring the spiritual well being of one’s family, it is important that due diligence be done before converting to Orthodoxy.

Pancake Breakast

I recently had pleasant breakfast conversation with ‘Jim’ who was raised in an ethnic Orthodox parish. Because there was very little emphasis on explaining the Orthodox faith in that parish, he drifted over to Calvary Chapel. Recently, he started looking into Orthodoxy and was pleasantly surprised to find the spiritual and biblical depths of Orthodoxy. While strongly drawn to Orthodoxy and thinking about returning to Orthodoxy, ‘Jim’ is at the present time still a Protestant. Some of his Calvary Chapel friends became quite concerned and warned him that he might lose his salvation. In our conversation over pancakes and coffee we talked about the Bible and the Orthodox faith. He is, as he puts it, doing “due diligence” by studying Orthodoxy and looking carefully at the Scriptural and historical evidence. I admired the wisdom of his approach and recommend this for others.

Folks considering becoming Orthodox should at a minimum do the following:

- Read basic works like Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church,
- Attend the Divine Liturgy several times,
- Meet one on one with an Orthodox priest, and
- Complete a catechism class if offered.

Joining the Orthodox Church is a lifetime commitment. It is more than agreeing with a theological system; it also entails a commitment to a way of life and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. Unlike cults, clerical authority in the Orthodox Church is circumscribed by Holy Tradition. There is no secret hidden Tradition. Neither will there be a new doctrine or a new marriage ceremony coming down from the denominational headquarters. Everyone in the Orthodox Church, from the newest convert to the bishop, is constrained by Holy Tradition. And just as important everyone, both laity and clergy, is responsible for guarding Holy Tradition.

Protestants who read a lot or have gone to seminary may find it harder to become Orthodox. They have a lot more to unlearn. It took me several years to review my Protestant beliefs and come to the point where I could sincerely and intelligently renounce my Protestant beliefs. (I could not in good conscience do a theological lobotomy.) Having gone to a leading Reformed seminary and majored in church history I knew that the core of Protestant theology rested on the five solas: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. It was the questions about sola scriptura that started my theological crisis, but it was sola fide that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. When I reached the conclusion sola fide was based on a misreading of Scripture and was never taught by the early church fathers, I realized that my days as a Protestant were over.

How much does one need to know before one becomes Orthodox? If becoming Orthodox is like getting married, then the catechumenate is like courtship. During the dating phase you check out the other person, you find out what they’re like, their likes and dislikes, you spend time with them, and then you ask yourself: Do I want to spend the rest of my life with so-and-so? Becoming Orthodox is really about making a commitment to Jesus Christ the head of the Church. Everything in Orthodoxy is for the purpose of uniting us with Christ. The Liturgy is not just a beautiful ceremony; we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Whenever we behold the Virgin Mary, we see the one who said: “Do whatever He (Jesus) tells you” and whom the Church honors as the Mother of God. So the basic question is: Is this the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Many inquirers come to Orthodoxy with theological concerns. However, it is important to keep in mind that Orthodoxy is more than a theological system. It leads us into the mystery of God. Orthodoxy teaches that beyond our conceptual understanding of God is the mystical encounter that is beyond words. We come to a true knowledge of God through worship. That is why the Divine Liturgy lies at the heart of Orthodoxy. There is an ancient saying: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly; if you pray truly, you are a theologian.” This emphasis on mystical knowledge in Orthodoxy stands in contrast to the Western Christian tradition which emphasizes scientific study of the biblical text and reliance on logic for doing theology.

Transitioning to Orthodoxy

A Quiet Border Crossing (closing scene – Sound of Music)

My transition from Protestantism to Orthodoxy was gradual and low key. My former home church had several Sunday morning services. I would often attend the 7:30 service then head over to the Greek Orthodox Church for the 9:30 Liturgy. When the priest offered an Orthodoxy 101 class on Thursday night I would go without raising any eyebrows. This is the Nicodemus stage of quiet inquiry (John 3:1-2). The main value of the Thursday night class was that I could find out whether I had a good grasp of what Orthodoxy was about.

For me the biggest obstacle to becoming Orthodox were issues like sola scriptura, icons, and sola fide. I handled the problem like any good graduate student, I wrote research papers. To my great surprise Orthodoxy was indeed biblical in its teachings. I remember the moment when sola scriptura fell apart and I said to myself: “My God! I’m going to have to become Orthodox!” When sola fide fell by the wayside, I met quietly with the leaders of the church and shared with them my decision to become Orthodox. I also gave them the opportunity to talk me out of it. Part of me desperately wanted them to talk me out of it because I knew becoming Orthodox would change our relationship in very fundamental ways. Unfortunately the Evangelical response was not a vigorous one. I remember the dean of a local Evangelical seminary responding to my paper on sola scriptura by asking: “Have you read Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God?” My response was a mildly exasperated: “Yes, I’ve read Packer, so what about my critique of sola scriptura?” I didn’t hear anything more from him. My pastor wasn’t able to rebut my critique of sola fide. I remember thinking in my head in dumbfounded amazement: “That’s it!?!? You mean I’m going to have to become Orthodox?!?!” Even now I find myself baffled and disappointed by the unwillingness of many Protestant pastors and theologians to defend the basic tenets of Protestantism.

Going Through Customs

Going Through Customs

A common experience when travelling abroad is going through customs. One purpose of customs to prevent contraband items from entering the country. When I was received into the Orthodox Church the priest asked me: “Do you renounce all heresies, ancient and modern?” This was a big question because it meant not just the ancient heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism but also Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide, dispensationalism, double predestination, congregationalism etc. I was ready for that question because I had read up on Orthodoxy, attended the Liturgy, attended the catechism class, and spoke with the priest. For me there was no surprise, I knew that there would be big changes but I was prepared. Becoming Orthodox did not mean I rejected my Evangelical past. I took with me many good things from Evangelicalism: a love for studying Scripture, the discipline of daily prayer, and a passion for world evangelism.

Once I met with a former Protestant who had converted to Roman Catholicism. For some strange reason he didn’t know about the Pope’s infallibility when he joined the Catholic Church. Later when he was reading the official catechism he learned that anyone who did not accept the Pope’s infallibility was a heretic. ‘Hank’ told me he sat there stunned with the realization that in the eyes of the Catholic Church he was a heretic, but he stayed on because of his godson. It was a short breakfast meeting, but as I drove to the airport I reflected on his perplexing story. Two thoughts came to me: (1) he was probably catechized by folks who glossed over some of the more difficult aspects of Roman Catholicism, and (2) “‘Hank’ you were snookered!” The lesson to be learned is that leaving Protestantism is going to be a costly decision and one needs to have done the necessary due diligence prior to making that change.

Border Crossings

We live in interesting times. There once was a time when hardly anyone knew about the Orthodox Church. But that is changing as growing numbers of people become interested in Orthodoxy and even go so far as to become Orthodox. But why the change? I suspect that it is due to massive changes in the Protestant landscape following World War II. Up till then, denominational lines remained stable but that began to change dramatically. Now we have Fundamentalists discovering Calvin, and Calvinists rediscovering the church fathers; we have Pentecostals becoming Anglicans, and we have Evangelicals becoming post-Evangelicals or Emergent Christians. In addition to all this confusion is the growing apostasy among the mainline Protestant denominations.

The situation today is much like the early days of the Cold War before the Iron Curtain came down. In the early days the borders were relatively open. Many families quietly packed their belongings and crossed the border in the dark of the night. But as growing numbers of people began to leave, the authorities became alarmed and finally began erecting the infamous Berlin Wall to keep their people in.

A Family Moving

Similarly, many Protestant families today quietly say goodbye to their friends and start worshiping at a nearby Orthodox parish. There are reports of a growing uneasiness in certain leadership circles. Interest in Orthodoxy or in icons and the saints is discouraged or viewed as drifting away from the true faith. People expressing an interest in Orthodoxy are warned that they could be in danger of losing their salvation. In such a situation a chill is in the air and a feeling of distrust comes between once close friends. In some churches they come under closer pastoral surveillance, pressured not to stray from the true faith, and even excluded from certain functions in the church for fear that they might infect others with their interest in Orthodoxy.

I am glad in that my former home church provided me with a warm Christ centered fellowship where I could study Scripture, and read up on theology and church history. I found it quite frustrating that many of my Evangelical friends were not able to understand the questions I had about the basis for Protestant theology. So when I became Orthodox, many were surprised and a little confused, but we remain friends. My experience has been more like a friendly border crossing. I picked up my belongings and one Sunday morning I crossed the border into the Orthodox Church.

Refugees Fleeing

I feel sad for those whose transition has been marked by suspicion and judgment. It is my hope that open relations between Protestants and Orthodoxy will not be replaced by a Cold War atmosphere marked by barbed wires and aloof guards with grim stares. Barbed wires and restricted exit are signs of defensiveness and tyranny. An open and healthy society is marked by hospitality to strangers and mutual respect among its members. More preferable is a Glasnost in which Protestants can read up on the early church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, and investigate the issues of icons, the Virgin Mary, and liturgical worship. In this period of openness curious Protestants should feel they have the freedom to visit the Orthodox worship services and come back with questions about what they saw. The best defense is not: “Those people are wrong!” but “Come and see!”

The Pearl of Great Price

Someone reading this blog posting might be thinking to themselves: “Why would someone give up all the benefits of Protestantism to become Orthodox?”

The Glorious Pearl – Domenico Fetti

My answer is Matthew 13:44-45:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. (NIV; emphasis added)

If the Orthodox Church has kept the teachings of the Apostles intact for two thousand years, if there is only one true Church, and if the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ given for you, wouldn’t that be enough reason to come home to the Church of the Apostles?

Robert Arakaki

Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

December 30, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 45 Comments

Revised 3 March 2014

Orthodox Baptism

Martin wrote:

I have a question. Baptists and Pentecostals say infant baptism is not biblical. Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible? I heard someone say that this practice started around year 200. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism? When is the first time the early Fathers mentioned it? What does the Orthodox Church teach about this? How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism? What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

My Response

You asked some very good questions about the rationale for infant baptism. I will attempt to answer each of your questions below but before I do so I need to discuss the role of Scripture in the various Christian traditions. But feel free to jump to Question 1.

For Protestants the Bible is the preeminent source of theology. This arises from the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). But what does one do when Scripture is silent or the biblical text is not clear? Protestants respond to this ambiguity in several ways: (1) some will argue that this makes the practice unbiblical and thus prohibited; (2) some will argue that this is a matter of liberty subject to personal opinion or conscience, and (3) some will attempt to rely on historical precedents to guide them. This accounts for the wide array, even contradictory, positions Protestants hold on baptism, including infant baptism.

Orthodoxy base its doctrines and practice on Tradition (with a capital ‘T’), a combination of oral tradition and written tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15). Orthodoxy also relies on Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). Thus, with respect to the Orthodox approach to infant baptism we find an ancient practice widely accepted that in time was formally acknowledged by the Ecumenical Councils.

In contrast to Orthodoxy’s conciliar approach to church authority, Roman Catholicism holds to a monarchical understanding of church authority. It views the Pope as having ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Thus, on matters where Scripture is silent the Pope speaks. This view stems from the understanding that the Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter and thus has the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture and define Tradition. This monarchical understanding of the Bishop of Rome arose in the Middle Ages. Orthodoxy rejects this as a departure from the conciliar approach of the early Church. While it has roots in the early Church, the Great Schism of 1054 resulted in the Church of Rome going its own way. It began to adopt innovative teachings and practices that many found objectionable. This resulted in the Protestant Reformation. In order to counter the authority of the Pope, Luther and the other Reformers invoked the authority of Scripture. This led to sola scriptura as a foundational principle for Protestantism.

With this new theological method of sola scriptura, Tradition — oral tradition, the church fathers, and Ecumenical Councils — took on a subordinate position to Scripture. Orthodoxy rejects the Protestant subordination of Tradition to Scripture because it views written and oral tradition as two sides of the same coin, integral and inseparable to the other (II Thessalonians 2:15). Understanding these differences will help you understand how I put together my answer to your questions. In answering your questions I seek to show how Orthodoxy is at its core biblical in its doctrine and practice while also consistent with the early Church founded by the Apostles.

1. Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible?

A lot depends on the question we ask. If you ask a question the wrong way, you are quite likely to get an incorrect answer. If we take your question about infants as a starting point, we can extend it to adults, teenagers and elderly as well. Just as there is no teaching in the Bible in support of infant baptism so likewise there is no teaching in the Bible in support of teenagers or of senior citizens being baptized.

A better way to frame the question is to ask: What does the Bible teach about covenant initiation? We find throughout the Bible God establishing covenants (contracts) and people entering into a covenant relationship by means of a certain ritual act. In Genesis 17 God invites Abram to enter into a covenant via circumcision. What is the age span of those circumcised in Genesis 17? Anywhere from a new born male child eight days old (Genesis 17:12), a teenage boy (Ishmael was 13 years old at the time; see Genesis 16:16), to a male senior citizen (Abraham was 99 years old at the time; see Genesis 17:1).

When we look at Peter’s Pentecost Sermon we find some interesting teaching about covenant initiation. At the climax of the sermon Peter exhorts:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39: NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “you and your children” implies both the adult listeners and their offspring. The Greek word for “offspring” (τεκνος, teknos) can include young children as well as those grownup. If we look at the opening quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17 Peter is describing those receiving the Holy Spirit broadly, not restrictively. Notice the language used: sons versus daughters, young men versus old men. In Peter’s Pentecost sermon water baptism is closely linked to Spirit baptism. The Orthodox Church maintains this linkage by administering Chrismation immediately following baptism.

Another element we need to take into consideration is the fact that the Bible teaches the salvation of families. Luke in his account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer wrote:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. (Acts 16:33-34; NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “his whole family” can be read to include little children and infants. This emphasis on the family unit parallels the first Passover when the Israelites gathered in a home to celebrate a Passover meal (Exodus 12). The blood of the sacrificed lamb was smeared over the door of the house, not on individuals. This contrasts with the modern mindset that elevates the individual over the family, and which emphasizes individualized faith over believing together with others.

Baptism is the new circumcision. Just as circumcision was the rite of initiation into the old covenant, so likewise baptism is the rite of initiation into the new covenant founded by Christ on the Cross.

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

Orthodoxy does not view the sacrament of baptism as magic. Rather, it understands baptism as making one part of God’s family. It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to make sure the baptized child learn about Christ and the Christian way of life. In II Timothy 3:15 we learn that Timothy was exposed to the Old Testament at a very early age, from infancy. As the child grows up he or she will begin to make their own decisions and develop a lively personal faith in Christ. If there is “magic,” it is the powerful influence a loving and faith-filled environment at home and church will have on a child. One of the biggest threats to this model of Orthodox discipleship is a mindless nominalism in which people do church things because it is part of their ethnic heritage and are not able to give a reasoned response to youths asking questions about the doctrines and practices of the Church.

2. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism?

The thing to keep in mind is that the early church allowed for infant baptism, it did not mandate the baptizing of infants. It was a common practice among Christians and there was very little protests against it. Infant baptism became the standard practice with the conversion of entire people groups. When a ruler converted, he would be followed by his supporters and their entire families. It is also important to keep in mind that given the high mortality rates at the time many parents would seek to baptize their child especially if death was imminent.

An overview of the early church’s attitude towards infant baptism can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Christian Tradition (100-600), (pp. 290-292). The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian (c. 160-220) who voiced skepticism about the practice of baptizing infants. The renowned Alexandrian theologian, Origen (185-254), admitted infant baptism to be part of the church tradition going back to the Apostles even as he struggled to articulate a clear rationale for the practice. With the church father Cyprian (c. 200-258) we find infant baptism defended on the basis of original sin. Of the three sources mentioned here only Cyprian is regarded as a church father. J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted while the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist were universally practiced in the early Church there was very little evidence of a systematic sacramental theology at the time of the fourth and fifth centuries (p. 422 ff.). This points to the sacraments and Liturgy preceding theology in the early Church.

Dating infant baptism to AD 200 is based on a restrictive reading of the evidence. The evidence is clear that the first mention of infant baptism took place circa 200 which means that its origin can be placed earlier than 200. Given Origen’s testimony that infant baptism has apostolic roots and the absence of contrary evidence, we can assume that infant baptism dates back to the early days of the church, even the Apostles. Given Christianity’s Jewish roots and the established practice of infant circumcision among Jews, it should be no big leap to infant baptism among Christians.

3. What does the Orthodox Church teach about this?

Orthodoxy accepts infant baptism as an ancient practice. For Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Councils comprise an important authority for faith and practice. We find in Canon 84 of the Quinisext Council (692) instructions on how to handle those who claimed to have been baptized as infants but unable to provide witnesses to support that claim—baptize them provisionally. Van Espen in his commentary on Canon 13 of the Council of Nicea (325) noted “that after baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist was given even to infants.” The implicit acceptance of infant baptism by the major church councils points to infant baptism being a widely accepted practice among Christians.

From the standpoint of church history infant baptism was an ancient practice accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox churches. It was even accepted by the mainstream Protestant churches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. But it was rejected by the radical Anabaptists then by the Baptists. In time it became popular among many Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Thus, the strict credobaptist position which rejects paedobaptism is a doctrinal novelty that originated in the 1500s and marks a major departure from the historic Christian faith.

The Visitation Icon

4. How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism?

This question defines faith in Christ narrowly in terms of an intellectual acceptance of certain precepts on who God is (God is loving and just), what human nature is like (sinful and fallen), what Christ has done for us (died on the Cross for our sins), and the expected response (saying the “sinners prayer” to receive Christ into your heart). This intellectual understanding of faith has resulted in certain branches of Protestants debating among themselves about the “age of accountability.”

Evangelicals have projected their subjective emotionalism into the phrase “born again.” Being “born again” is not an emotional experience as it is a new life in Christ. Once we were living life apart from Christ, but now we put our faith in Christ and come under his authority through baptism. In Genesis 17 when Abram entered into a covenant with Yahweh via circumcision, he took on a new name “Abraham” signifying his new life as a follower of Yahweh. Genesis 17 is about a change in relationship with God, it was not about Abram having an emotional “born again” experience.

“The baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41)

If we look at what the Bible has to say about the spiritual capacity of young children the answer might surprise us. Luke reports that when the Virgin Mary entered into Elizabeth’s home and greeted her that the baby inside Elizabeth’s womb “leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44) John the Baptist’s pre-natal response to the presence of the Incarnate Logos points to our desire for God in the primordial core of our being. An infant may not have a fully developed intellect, but it possesses the ability to respond to love. This is because the ability to love and respond in love is foundational to our humanity. Faith as the ability to trust someone is critical to our being able to love another person. That is why the betrayal of trust is so damaging to our being able to love another. This relational approach to faith can be seen in Orthodoxy’s Holy Week services which mourn Judas’ betrayal of Christ. This is something I did not learn as a Protestant.

But what is Jesus’ attitude about the spiritual capacity of children? The incident of Jesus blessing the little children appears in all three synoptic Gospels. Where Matthew and Mark used the general term for children παιδιον (paidion), Luke used the more precise term βρεφος (brephos) which can mean infant and new born, and even unborn children.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18:16; NIV)

This incident contains a powerful lesson about the accessibility of the kingdom of God. It is for those who have an open heart like little children. It does not teach that the children should wait until they are old enough to understand before they can enter the kingdom of God. The phrase “enter the kingdom of God” is a synonym for entering into a covenant relationship with Christ. This phrase crops up in Jesus’ night conversation with Nicodemus (see John 3:5). Read in the larger context of the entire chapter Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus in the first half of John 3 dovetails with the second half which describes how Jesus’ baptism was superseding that of John the Baptist. The message behind the need to be “born again” was not about an emotional spiritual experience but about a new life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism.

Our understanding of the spiritual capacity of children will be consequential for our understanding of their place in church. Because the sermon is the focal point of many Protestant worship services, many infants are sent off to the child care ministry. They are not expected to be in main worship service. It is by and large assumed that the main worship service is for adult members.

Baby receiving Holy Communion

In Orthodoxy the general understanding is that children, even young infants, belong in the Liturgy. They may not fully comprehend what is going on but they are in the presence of God. Orthodoxy believes this exposure is important for their spiritual growth. Furthermore, as a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of God, children are given Holy Communion. The practice in many Orthodox parishes is to let the children go up first to receive Communion followed by the grownups. For me this stands in stark contrast to my Protestant experience where I would see parents go up to receive Communion while their children remained behind because they have not yet made a profession of faith.

Sacrament of Chrismation (receiving the Holy Spirit)

5. What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

All three traditions baptize infants but the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches tend to defer Confirmation and Communion until the child reaches a certain age. The practice in Orthodoxy is to baptize infants about a month after they are born, and to give them the sacraments of Chrismation and Holy Communion in the same service as baptism. This makes them full members of the Church.

Children Receiving Communion in Indonesia

It is a touching sight to see parents carrying babies up for Communion, followed by a line of toddlers and teenagers, then adults and seniors. The demographics of a line for Orthodox Communion is something you won’t find in either Roman Catholic or Lutheran parishes Orthodoxy is for people of all ages!

Robert Arakaki

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation

December 1, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 51 Comments

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation: A Response to Prof. Daniel Wallace

Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (perhaps the leading dispensational seminary in the world), wrote a thoughtful blog posting: “The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology.”

He starts off by unabashedly proclaiming his Protestant convictions. Then, amazingly, he points out what he sees as Protestantism’s weakness, its ecclesiology.

Prof. Wallace notes that: (1) there is a lack of consistency in Protestant worship services,(2) many Protestant congregations are ill prepared to deal with a pastor who forsakes the historic Christian faith, and (3) recent scholarship is drawing attention to the fact that canonicity – which books belong to the Bible – cannot be understood apart from the authority of the church. Orthodox Christians have made similar criticisms, but these are stunning admissions and observations coming from within the Protestant camp. Protestants, whether of dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or more mainstream persuasion, should give attention to what Prof. Wallace has to say.

He closes with the suggestion that Protestants be open to learning from the more ancient branches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He also recommends that Protestants listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the early church fathers and embrace the ancient historic forms of worship.

This blog posting has three parts: (1) my personal reactions to Prof. Wallace’s posting, (2) a discussion of the evidence that point to the role of the traditioning process in canon formation, and (3) a discussion of an Orthodox approach to canon formation.

1. My Reactions

As I read through Prof. Wallace’s blog posting I had a sense of déjà vu. It reminded me of the time I had graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with an M.A. in Church History and was committed to helping to bring the United Church of Christ back to its biblical roots. Yet unbeknownst to me at the time were the tiny cracks in my Protestant theology that would in time become major fissures that would result in a theological crisis. The concerns voiced by Prof. Wallace are quite similar that I and others were asking when we embarked on our journey to Orthodoxy. I was just a seminary graduate then, here we have similar critical questions being voiced by a seminary professor at a major Protestant seminary!

My studies in church history made me keenly aware of Protestantism’s theological anarchy. My involvement in the evangelical renewal movement put me squarely in the middle of the Cold War hostilities between Evangelicals and Liberals who belonged to the same denomination. Prof. Wallace recounted the struggle of one Protestant congregation with an apostate pastor; I had to struggle with the question of a denomination that had gone apostate. Could I as an Evangelical belong to a denomination with historic roots in Puritan New England and yet had many pastors and theologians who had become de facto Arians?

As I wrestled with the doctrinal controversies of modern Protestantism I was at the same time haunted by voices from the early church. It took the form of quotes from two church fathers. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century church father, wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

This quote by Irenaeus described the organic connection between church unity and doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church. What I longed for was not an impossible ideal but had existed in fact in the early church. It caused me wonder: How did Protestant Christianity get into such a mess and how could we recover the church unity and orthodoxy of the early Church?

The other quote came from Augustine of Hippo, the towering giant of Western theology. He is reputed to have said:

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

This quote by Augustine shone a spotlight on the egocentric core of the Protestant approach to doing theology. I realized that my evangelical theology was at its core my personal interpretation of the Bible and my church identity the result of which denomination I chose to affiliate with.

Even the Reformed tradition with confessional statements like the Westminster Confession suffered from this egocentric flaw. There were not one but a variety of confessions one could choose from. Moreover, the authority of these confessions was contingent and provisional at best. These confessions had no authority in themselves but were dependent on their faithfully reflecting Scripture. Absent from the Reformed creeds were any claim to a universal binding authority on all Christians. Among Presbyterians the conservatives view the confessions as prescriptive and binding while the liberals understand them to be historic witnesses and no longer binding. I had no objective guarantee that this was the true Christian faith. As a Protestant I had no external authority like the Church to fall back on.

As Prof. Wallace suggested, I started listening to what the Holy Spirit had to say through the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies. This led me to follow in the paths of the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevins and Philip Schaff, who advocated a catholic and Reformed Christianity. This took me to the Seven Ecumenical Councils that claimed to make decisions binding on all Christians. But the weakness of Mercersburg theology was that the early church fathers for the most part were books on my bookshelf and most people in my former home church couldn’t care less about patristics and ancient liturgies. Ultimately I found myself caught between a Protestantism that suffered from extensive historical amnesia and the Orthodox Church which claimed to have unbroken historic continuity going back to the original Apostles.

2. The Importance of the Traditioning Process to Canon Formation

Manuscript from St. Katherine at Mt. Sinai

The unexpected surprise in Prof. Wallace’s blog posting was his discussion of what Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, had to say about the formation of the biblical canon. Unlike today’s bibles that have neatly printed table of contents in the front, the early church had no clear cut listing. Even by the fourth century there were still some debate as to what books belonged to the canon, that is, were divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture. So Eusebius needed to distinguish between homolegoumena (that which everyone agreed was Scripture), antilegomena (that which was in question or disputed), apocrypha (that which was rejected by many but accepted by some), and pseudepigrapha (that which was rejected by all) (Church History 3.3.6). Prof. Wallace paraphrasing David Dungan observes:

What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church.

This observation points to a tension embedded in the Protestant view of Scripture; despite Protestantism’s assigning supreme authority to Scripture, Scripture itself is unavoidably a product of the Church. It did not come into existence independently of the Church. Moreover, the early bishops played a key role in determining which books would comprise Scripture. One cannot understand the formation of the biblical canon without taking into account the early bishops. To ignore the bishops is to create an artificial mental construct that has no historical basis.

For modern Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, to grasp the nature of canon formation they must beware of inadvertently imposing their modern assumptions on the early church. They should research the early church and try to imagine themselves in the early church service when there were no electric guitars, PowerPoint overheads, worship bulletins, or leather bound gold leaf Bibles. Early Christians did not have personal Bibles. Scripture in the early church consisted of a limited number of copied scrolls or codices in the safekeeping of one of the clergy. This was especially critical in times of persecution. Back then Christians would painstakingly copy by hand whatever Scripture they could borrow from another church. There were no denominational publishing houses back then! Early Christians experienced the Bible in the context of the Sunday worship. A reader would stand in the front of the assembly and read out loud the Scripture. The bishop was responsible for deciding what would be read in the Sunday Liturgy. This meant that he needed to identify spurious books be excluded from the Sunday worship.

What is fascinating about Book 3 of Eusebius’ Church History is his juxtaposing of accounts of canon formation with accounts of apostolic succession. Church History 3.4 describes the immediate successors to the Apostles: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete. Linus who was mentioned in II Timothy was Peter’s successor to the episcopacy in Rome. We learn that the third bishop of Rome was Clement. Church History 3.22 describes Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch. Thus, Eusebius provides a valuable external witness to some of the early post-apostolic writings.

In Church History 3.9-10 Eusebius draws on Josephus for a description of the Old Testament canon. In Church History 3.25 Eusebius describes the undisputed and disputed books of the New Testament writings.

What is striking about Eusebius’ discussion of the biblical canon are his references to the traditioning process. In Church History 3.26.6 Eusebius wrote:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers…. (Emphasis added)

In Church History 6.12, Eusebius quotes from a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, concerning a question about a so-called Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. (Emphasis added)

Bishop Serapion’s principal criterion for determining canonicity was apostolic tradition. The way the early Christians approached canonicity is at variance with the more recent discussion about canon formation which asume a tension between the authority of the writings and the authority of the church. The issue of Scripture versus the Church was not a concern of the early Christians. Instead they were more concerned about the traditioning process: Could a bishopric, a liturgical practice, or an alleged apostolic writing be shown to have apostolic origins?

Many Protestants and Evangelicals admire Athanasius the Great for his staunch defense of Christ’s divinity. But many are not aware of his role as a bishop in the early church. Athanasius’ Letter 39 which provides one of the earliest listing of canonical books also affirmed the traditioning process as critical to canon formation. He wrote:

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand, to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scriptures, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine…. (Emphasis added)

Letter 39 was not an ordinary correspondence. It was the custom for the Patriarch of Alexandria to send a letter to the churches in the diocese every Easter. In other words this was an authoritative letter by the bishop to all those under his care. There was a practical aspect to the letter. Apparently there was some confusion as to which books ought to be read out loud in the Sunday Liturgy. As bishop Athanasius sought to bring order and regularity to the congregations under his care. What is striking here is that Athanasius did not invoke the institutional power of the church but rather he referenced the traditioning process that he was part of. As a bishop of the early church he was obligated to safeguard the sacred deposit of Faith which included the writings of the Apostles.

Eusebius and Athanasius were bishops who lived in the fourth century. When we look for earlier evidence we find similar evidence in the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons. In his defense of the four Gospels, Irenaeus made reference to the traditioning process. He wrote:

For if what they [the heretics] had published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. (Against the Heretics 3.11.9, p. 429; Emphasis added)

Going back even earlier to the New Testament period we find evidence of the traditioning process. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (NKJV; emphasis added)

What is striking in this verse is Paul’s use of the word “whether.” This means that oral tradition is just as authoritative as written tradition. We also find Paul exhorting Timothy to pass on the deposit of faith to other faithful men when ordaining the future generation of clergy (II Timothy 2:2).

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)

The word “commit” used by Paul is similar to: “delivered,” “pass on,” and “hand down” terms used by the church fathers; they are all refer to the traditioning process.

When we consider that I and II Thessalonians were among Paul’s earliest letters and that the two letters to Timothy were written just before his death we find that the traditioning process was an integral to the Apostle Paul’s ministry. So I was shocked when I read Eusebius’ Church History and discovered that II Timothy 2:2 did not disappear into the foggy mists of church history but continued like a strong iron chain in the form detailed listings of bishops. Eusebius’ Church History gives us long detailed lists of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles! Thus, the traditioning of Scripture was a widely known practice endorsed by both Scripture and the early church fathers. (See my article on Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Basis for the Tradition.)

3. An Orthodox Approach to Canon Formation

The significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of debate. The tension between an authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue. This is because both have a common source, the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.

The dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect. This tension apparently stem from the Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s. Defining the canon as an authoritative listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is authoritative because it has the backing of the Church. Defining the canon as a listing of authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is independent of the church.

The Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative listing of authoritative books. The apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors and the guardian of Scripture. For Orthodoxy, Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic whole.

Brinks Guards

This makes for some troubling practical consequences for Protestants. Scripture can no longer be viewed as existing independently of the Church. The Bible is the property of the Church, much like the bags of money stored in Brinks armored trucks. The money does not belong to the guards, but are nonetheless the guards’ responsibility. Similarly, Scripture is the word of God left in the care of the bishops.

The significance of the traditioning process is that it assumes that one belongs to a historic chain that goes back to the Apostles. With the advent of the printing press many Protestants have come to view the Bible as their personal property but such an understanding is a radical departure from historic Christianity which understood Scripture to be the sacred deposit entrusted to the Church. Where an Orthodox Christian is part of a historic chain of tradition that goes back to the original Apostles a Protestant Christian is not. They believe in a Bible that stands independently of the church. Professor Wallace rightly noted that the divorcing of Scripture from church has resulted in Protestantism’s weak ecclesiology. One can even question whether all the disparities in doctrine, worship, and church governance render “Protestant ecclesiology” an oxymoron – a self-contradictory statement.

Thomas Jefferson’s Bible

There are problems with the Protestant approach to the biblical canon as just a list. How should a Protestant respond to Martin Luther wanting to exclude the book of James from the New Testament or Thomas Jefferson excising passages from the Bible based upon his well informed judgment? And how should a Protestant respond to a “prophet” like Joseph Smith who wants expand the canonical collection? Or a university scholar who discovered a “lost gospel”? Without being able to appeal to an authoritative listing, a Protestant will be forced to fall back on reason, scholarship, or inner conscience. But would one have confidence in a round table of scholars like the Jesus Seminar voting by means of colored slips? An Orthodox Christian can simply reply that to tamper with the biblical canon is to break with the historic Christian faith that goes back to the Apostles. This is because the Church as the recipient and guardian of Scripture has the authority to draw up an authoritative listing of biblical books.

The Jurassic Park Experience

330px-Jurassic_Park_First_Brachiosaurus_Reveal

Movie: Jurassic Park

Professor Daniel Wallace is perceptive when he recognizes that Protestantism’s ecclesiology is its weakness. This leaves him yearning for a church unified in worship and doctrine but he dismisses that as just a dream. My response is that the true church is not wishful thinking but a living reality. Professor Wallace wrote positively about his visits to the Orthodox Church. He may not know it but every time he visits an Orthodox Liturgy he is seeing a living walking dinosaur straight from the ancient church. The Orthodox Church today is the same church as the church described by Irenaeus of Lyons. This is because it has not suffered a break in the traditioning process like Protestantism. Orthodoxy’s strong ecclesiology has enabled it to maintain unity in worship and doctrinal orthodoxy for the past two millennia.

Robert Arakaki

Category: Sola Scriptura (Page 14 of 17)

Crossing The Bosphorus

Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

Revised 3 March 2014

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives