Category: Tradition (Page 1 of 17)

Reconsidering 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Sola Scriptura

April 22, 2023 / Robert Arakaki / 0 Comments

A Response to Father Stephen De Young

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15; RSV)

Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. (2 Thessalonians 2:15; NA28)

A reader brought to my attention the 18 October 2021 The Whole Counsel of God podcast by Father Stephen De Young in which he criticized the way certain unnamed Orthodox apologists have used 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to refute the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). As I listened to his comments, I could not help but wonder if he was directing his criticism at me. From time to time, I had used 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to disprove sola scriptura. See my article, “IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA, THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition” which was posted in the OrthodoxBridge on 12 June 2011.

What is of interest to us is the section of the podcast that begins at -14:54 and ends at -10:49. [Note: the minus sign is used for marking time when the podcast is in countdown mode.] In this section Father Stephen argues against Orthodox Christians using 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to refute the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

[-14:54] Now, I have to correct my Orthodox friends. [Chuckle] So, this verse gets quoted a lot out of context. Actually, it’s our Roman Catholic friends who started this. Unfortunately, some of our fellow Orthodox Christians have picked up on this. And they use this as a bad argument against sola scriptura. …..

[-14:10] The idea is that they will quote this and say: “Ahh, see look, Paul said they were to hold to tradition whether they were taught by word or by letter. Ahh! See! It’s not just the Bible. It’s some nebulous oral tradition. Right?” That works if you have the Roman Catholic view of Tradition. Which is, there are these things written down in Scripture, and there are these other things, other dogmas, other theological propositions. Right? That are true and just as true as the ones in the Bible but have been passed down orally among the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church since the Apostles. That never got written down until the sixteenth century.

[-13:15] But as Orthodox Christians we don’t accept that view of tradition. That’s problem number one. Our view of Tradition is that Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. That includes in every age what the Holy Spirit is doing in the Church. At the center of Tradition is the Scripture which the Holy Spirit inspires. The Holy Spirit has guarded and protected the handing down of the Scriptures to all generations. That’s at the center of Tradition. There aren’t these two different things for us.

[-12:43] But the bigger problem is that Saint Paul is saying this to the Church at Thessalonica. …. Saint Paul’s letters are letters to churches. They are not theological treatises. They had theological and philosophical treatises in the ancient world. That’s not what Saint Paul wrote. If Saint Paul did write those, we don’t have them and they’re not in the Bible. What we do have are actual letters to actual churches, to actual people to deal with actual problems.

[-12:05] To put it in context here, Saint Paul is saying to these specific people in Thessalonica that they need to hold fast to all the things he taught them whether in person (when he talked to them) or by letter (meaning 1 Thessalonians). That’s what he means by ‘letter.’ He’s not talking about the Scripture. He’s not talking about the Old Testament. He’s talking about 1 Thessalonians. And 2 Thessalonians that they’re reading right now. So, the things I wrote (these two relatively short letters) and all these stuffs I told you while I was there. And these stuffs he told them while he was there, he’s not saying: ‘By the way, tell the next generation of bishops all that stuff. Don’t write it down. And, tell them to tell the next set of bishops and so on.’ He didn’t say any of that here. That’s not what this verse is about. Orthodox Christians hearing this. [-11:06] I don’t want to catch you quoting this verse at our Protestant friends, trying to attack sola scriptura, because that’s not what the verse is about. At all. [Emphasis added.]

There are two notable aspects of what Father Stephen De Young is saying in the passage above. First, he is arguing that the Apostle Paul did not have in mind oral Tradition when he wrote “word of mouth” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For Father Stephen, “word of mouth” was a short hand way of referring to what Paul had said to the Thessalonian Christians when he was with them a short time before. Second, Father Stephen is of the opinion that it is inappropriate for Orthodox apologists to use 2 Thessalonians against the Protestant tenet—sola scriptura.

In this article I will be reexamining the passage in its historical and biblical contexts. This will be done by understanding 2 Thessalonians 2:15 against the backdrop of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and against the social situation described by Luke the Evangelist in Acts 17:1-15. As I review 1 and 2 Thessalonians, I will be looking for clues as to how the Apostle Paul understood the role of oral and written traditions in the early Church. Beyond that, I will be asking whether 1 and 2 Thessalonians support the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, or if they lend support to an alternative model of Scripture and Tradition. Because Father Stephen’s objection to the way certain Orthodox apologists used 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is based on his exegesis of the passage, it becomes necessary that we examine the passage in the original Greek. For this article I will be relying on the Nestle-Aland 28th edition found on the Academic-Bible.com website.

In this article I will be making reference to the formal principle of theology. In the 1800s, a distinction was drawn between the formal principle of theology (the authoritative source) and the material principle of theology (the central teachings). These conceptual categories can help us better understand the recent debates between Orthodox and Protestant apologists. For example, the debate over icons is over the material principle of theology (what is believed), whereas the debate over sola scriptura and capital “T” Tradition is over the formal principle of theology (the authority for and source of doctrine). See Philip Schaff’s The Principle of Protestantism, p. 80 and p. 97. [The Wikipedia article “Formal and material principles of theology” has also been included in the Reference section for accessibility.]

The General Context

In comparison with the Apostle Paul’s other letters, 1 and 2 Thessalonians are notable for the warm, affectionate tone the Apostle lavishes on the recent converts in Thessalonica. Luke describes how the Apostle Paul came to Thessalonica during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1-15). Paul preached in the local Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica on three Sabbaths. His preaching was favorably received, not just by the local Jews, but also by many of the non-Jews and some of the leading citizens there. Enraged by the non-Jews’ favorable response to Paul’s message, the local Jews fomented a public protest that came to the attention of local authorities. This caused Paul and his entourage to move on to the neighboring town of Berea. When the Jews of Thessalonica learned that Paul was making converts in Berea, they headed over to stir up yet another public protest against Paul. This led to Paul being sent to Athens, which was a long way off. It can be inferred that while in Athens Paul was delighted to have the opportunity to present the Good News of Christ to the leading intellectuals of the time, he was also sick with worry about the new Christians in Thessalonica he had left behind so suddenly. Apparently, Paul feared that under pressure from their persecutors, the new converts would forsake the Christian Faith. This concern might have been amplified by Paul’s teaching on the impending apostasy in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This concern about possible apostasy would explain why Paul described how the Thessalonian Christians “stand fast in the Lord” (ὑμεῖς στήκετε ἐν κυρίῳ) (1 Thessalonians 3:8; RSV, NA28) and why he urged them to “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions” (στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις) (2 Thessalonians 2:15; RSV, NA28). In this context, Paul was not concerned with theology but with the spiritual wellbeing of the recent converts.

Another notable aspect of 1 and 2 Thessalonians is the amount of attention given to the end times – the events preceding the Second Coming. Where justification by faith predominated his letter to the Galatians (another early letter by Paul), it seems that questions and rumors about the rise of the Antichrist and the prospect of apostasy were agitating the new converts in Thessalonica. This is an important clue about the pastoral situation the Apostle Paul was addressing when he wrote 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

The Pastoral Context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15

It is important to note that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 opens with the transitional phrase “so then” (ἄρα οὖν). This transitional phrase can also be found in Romans 5:18, 7:8, 7:25, 8:12, 9:16, 9:18, 14:19; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19; and 1 Thessalonians 5:6. It signals to the reader that verse 15 marks the culmination of a line of thought or argument that Paul has been making. This obliges us to look for the beginning of Paul’s argument that leads to the conclusion in verse 15. Only then can we have a proper understanding of verse 15.

A close reading suggests two possible starting discourse units. One is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, in which Paul discusses the end times: the coming of the Antichrist, the Great Apostasy, and the Second Coming of Christ. The other possible starting discourse unit is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 in which Paul assures the Thessalonian Christians of their salvation. It suggests that Paul is seeking to allay the Thessalonian Christians’ fear of apostasy by reviewing the Christian message about the end time events then to reassure them of their salvation in Christ. Paul and the early Christians all believed in the imminent return of Christ. Even in his second letter to Timothy, written decades later towards the end of his life, the Apostle Paul warned of the apostasy that would take place in the last days (2 Timothy 3).

Paul’s admonition that the Thessalonian Christians stand firm in the Faith stems from the concern that they might be unsettled by the upheavals of the end time events or by persecution. In 1 Thessalonians 3:2-3, Paul wrote “. . .to establish you in your faith and to exhort you, that no one be moved (σαίνεσθαι) by these afflictions.” Similarly, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 Paul implores the Thessalonian Christians not to be “quickly shaken (σαλευθῆναι) in mind or excited (θροεῖσθαι)” (RSV). The same word can be found in the Olivet Discourse. In this sermon Jesus warns his followers not to be “alarmed” (θροεῖσθε) when they hear about “wars and rumors of wars” (Mark 13:7). This reflects the fact that people who are caught up in eschatology excitement can lose their spiritual bearings. This can result in people abandoning their everyday responsibilities for end times speculation or even ceasing to work. This probably accounts for the Apostle Paul’s strong words directed at freeloading Christians in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 complements and roughly parallels 2 Thessalonians 2:2. First, in verse 2:2, Paul is concerned about the Thessalonian Christians’ spiritual wellbeing. He worries about their being “shaken” (σαλευθῆναι) by some oral report (λόγου) that the Second Coming had already taken place. This explains why in verse 2:15, he admonishes the Thessalonian Christians to “stand firm” (στήκετε) in spirit and to “hold fast” (κρατεῖτε) to “the traditions” (τὰς παραδόσεις) he taught them. To “stand firm” refers to the state of their hearts and to “hold fast” refers to their adherence to Paul’s teachings. Second, in verse 2:2 Paul describes the means of communication for learning about the end times: (1) a letter (ἐπιστολῆς) purportedly from Paul, (2) a spoken word (λόγου) allegedly said by Paul, or (3) a prophetic utterance (πνεύματος). The presence of the charismatic gift of prophecy is evident in light of Paul’s admonition that prophetic utterances were not to be despised but rather tested (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). The gift of prophecy was fairly common in the New Testament Church (see 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, Acts 21). In verse 15, Paul refers again to the two primary means of communication: letter (ἐπιστολῆς) and word of mouth (λόγου). If the Apostle Paul intended verse 15 to parallel verse 2, then we can expect the meaning for “word” (λόγου) to be symmetrical for both verses. That Paul used “word of mouth” in tandem with “letter” suggests that both were valid and authoritative means of communicating divine revelation. Paul did not exclude oral communications, nor did he subordinate the oral word to the written word; doing either of these would be suggestive of the Protestant sola scriptura paradigm. Paul’s placement of the oral word alongside the written word suggests the Orthodox paradigm of capital “T” Tradition comprising written Tradition with oral Tradition. This understanding of two complementary halves of one singular Tradition diverges from the Roman Catholic paradigm which sees Tradition as two streams from one divine source (see Dei Verbum §9).

There are pastoral implications to 2 Thessalonians 2:15. One is that Tradition (written and oral) provides a spiritual, doctrinal, and ethical foundation for the Christian life. If we stand firm and hold fast to Tradition, our lives will be marked by stability and sobriety instead of wavering and excitability. This verse is especially pertinent for modern-day Evangelicals and Dispensationalists who obsess about the Rapture and the End Times. It should also be noted that Paul makes no mention of seeking a revelation by the Holy Spirit. Private revelations are much more prone to fickle subjectivity than the stable foundation provided by Tradition (written and oral). In other words, when modern-day Protestants and Orthodox Christians read 2 Thessalonians 2:15, they should keep in mind that Paul’s primary concern was pastoral, not theological apologetics. So, while 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does give us important insights into the formal principle of Paul’s theology, present-day Christians should beware reading the verse solely from the standpoint of doing apologetics. This I believe was the intent behind Fr. Stephen’s criticism of Orthodox apologists.

So, while 1 and 2 Thessalonians are primarily pastoral in nature, they contain useful information regarding faith and practice. The challenge for us here is not to succumb to proof texting but to listen attentively to the biblical text and discern the underlying theological principle. Paul wrote: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching . . . .” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The Traditioning Process in 1 and 2 Thessalonians

Paul used a wide range of words to describe the traditioning process in 1 and 2 Thessalonians: δίδωμι (didōmi) (to give, entrust), παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi) (to hand over, give over, deliver, pass on), διδάσκω (didaskō) (to teach), γνωρίζω (gnōrizō) (to make known, disclose), παραγγέλλω (paraggellō) (to command, order) (Morris p. 240). Paul’s reference to Apostolic tradition in 2 Thessalonians was not accidental but reflects an important aspect of his apostolic ministry. Paul referred to the traditioning process in his other letters (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:2). When I was a Protestant, I would gloss over Paul’s use of the words: tradition, receive, pass on, and hold fast as mere linguistic quirks. However, when I began to study early Church history and the Church Fathers, I began to appreciate the major role the traditioning process played in Paul’s apostolic ministry. I became more receptive to there being an oral Apostolic Tradition complementing written Apostolic Tradition. I also became painfully aware of the paucity of evidence for sola scriptura. This led to my writing “IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA, THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.” In the article I show that early Christian doctrine was something received from the apostles and their disciples, that is, through the traditioning process. Protestantism’s sola scriptura assumes that the Bible possesses a unique authority and can be understood apart from the Church. My argument is that the Church (the covenant community) is the custodian of Scripture (the covenant document), which must be interpreted by those who have received the covenant authority to expound on the meaning of Scripture. In other words, Scripture cannot be understood apart from the Apostolic Church which stands in continuity with the Apostles the source of Tradition (Written and Oral).

One of the key questions in recent Protestant-Orthodox dialogue pertains to the formal principle of theology. What best describes the formal principle of the Apostle Paul’s theology? To be more specific: Did Paul teach Scripture (written Tradition) comprising a unique authoritative source for Christian belief and practice (the Protestant understanding)? Or did he teach Oral Tradition as an authoritative source for Christian belief and practice comparable to written Tradition (the Orthodox understanding)? The answer to these questions has significant implications for Christians today, especially if they believe that their theology and theological methods ought to align with that of the Apostle Paul.

Oral Tradition – Paul Preaching in Athens

The Authority of the Apostle Paul’s Oral Instructions

One source of the Apostle Paul’s theology is the Good News (εὐαγγέλιον). When Paul evangelized, he was announcing the coming of the kingdom of God and inviting his listeners to enter into a covenant relationship with Christ. In this context we can see why Paul referred to the Good News as the “word of God” (λόγον θεοῦ) (1 Thessalonians 2:13). As the agent of the New Covenant, Paul’s spoken word carries the weight of divine authority. That he was referring to his spoken words can be seen in the phrase: “which you heard from us.”

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received (παραλαβόντες) the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what is really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13; RSV; emphasis added)

Also noteworthy is the fact that Paul makes reference to the traditioning process in the use of the phrase “you received” (παραλαβόντες). In my 2011 OrthodoxBridge article, I noted that biblical support for the traditioning process can be found in the use of words such as “passed on” (παρέδωκα) and “receive” (κατέχω) (see 1 Corinthians 11:2). This is an important clue to the Apostle Paul’s formal principle of theology.

For Paul, it was not just his kerygmatic proclamation of the Good News that was endued with divine authority but also his pastoral instructions on the Christian way of life.

For you know what instructions (παραγγελίας) we gave (ἐδώκαμεν) you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this instruction, [παραγγελίας], disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4:2-8; RSV; emphasis added)

The phrase in verse 2 “through the Lord Jesus” is another indicator that Paul was conscious of the fact that he spoke on behalf of the Risen Lord, that is, with divine authority. Jesus in the Great Commission passage affirmed his divine authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18) before authorizing his Apostles to go into all the world to teach the nations. See also, “He who hears you hears me. . . .” (Luke 10:16; RSV) which implies that the spoken word of an Apostle can be invested with divine authority. When the Apostles went into all the world, they taught with divine authority being representatives of Jesus Christ. Both their spoken words and their written words possessed divine authority.

The Authority of the Apostle Paul’s Letters

The importance that the Apostle Paul gives to his letters can be seen in his closing instruction to 1 Thessalonians that the letter be read to all the brethren (1 Thessalonians 5:27). The letter was not a private communication, nor was it meant for a particular group, but to the entire Christian community in Thessalonica. One way to interpret this instruction was that it was to be read out loud at the weekly Eucharistic celebration.

Towards the end of 2 Thessalonians, Paul makes it clear that he expects his instruction about all Christians earning their living to be obeyed (3:14). “If anyone refuses to obey what we say in this letter. . . .” (RSV) The weightiness of this injunction stems from the divine authority behind his apostolic office. He writes in 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . .” The phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” is not mere decorative pious prose, but equivalent to the Old Testament prophet’s “Thus says the Lord.”

A review of 1 and 2 Thessalonians shows that Paul did not use the term “Scripture” (τῶν γραφῶν). One could expect to find Paul referring to the Scriptures in light of his reliance on the Jewish Scripture in his missionary outreach in Acts 17:1-15. What we do find are three instances of Paul using the related verb “γράφω” (write). The Apostle Paul in two different places in 1 Thessalonians noted that there was no need for him to write to them about love for the brethren (4:9) or about the end times (times and seasons) (5:1). This indicates that the Apostle Paul would not hesitate to commit his thoughts to writing if the need arose. Apparently, in the early days of Paul’s apostolic ministry there was no conscious effort to create a new set of Scripture. It would only be years later that Paul’s letter would be accorded the status of Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16-17).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 sheds important light about on the Apostle Paul’s theological method. We learn that the Apostle Paul was of the opinion that both his spoken word and his written word were endued with divine authority. This points to Paul’s formal principle consisting of Scripture with Oral Tradition.

The Formal Principle of the Early Church

Icon of St. Irenaeus of Lyons

If Saint Paul’s formal principle of theology consisted of Scripture with Oral Tradition, we can expect that the early Church held to a similar approach. One early evidence for Tradition as the formal principle of the early Church can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons who lived in the second century. He writes:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. . . . (Against Heresies 1.10.1; ANF vol. 1, p. 330; emphasis added)

Here we see a very early creed that bears a striking resemblance to the Nicene Creed. This is not some “nebulous oral tradition” as Father Stephen alleged Roman Catholics hold to, but a well-crafted theological system. The phrase “received from the apostles and their disciples” refer to the traditioning process in the early Church. If sola scriptura had been the theological method, we would see something along the lines of “according to the Bible, God’s inspired word, we believe . . . .”

Irenaeus explicitly affirms Tradition as the Church’s formal principle in his account of his debates with the Gnostic heretics.

But again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. (Against Heresies 3.2.1; ANF vol. 1, p. 415; see also Book 5 preface, p. 526; emphasis added)

For Irenaeus, Tradition is not some vague, mysterious phenomenon but an identifiable body of teachings found in the public office of the bishops.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times. . . . (Against Heresies 3.3.1; ANF vol. 1, p. 415; emphasis added)

Irenaeus’ reference to the succession of bishops from the Apostles to his time points to the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 2 Timothy 2:2 regarding the ordaining of clergy. The Christian Faith was transmitted by the Apostles to subsequent generations via the succession of bishops. This is a process familiar to Orthodoxy, but not to Protestantism (Anglicanism being the exception). Protestantism with its commitment to sola scriptura has denigrated the office of the bishop as the bearer or Apostolic Tradition.

Basil the Great

Another instructive source is Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit in which he describes Tradition as the faith and practice received from the Apostles and handed down via the bishops.

Of the beliefs and practice whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. (On the Holy Spirit chapter 27 §66; NPNF vol. 8 pp. 40-41; emphasis added)

Chapter 27 is especially significant because here Basil lists and describes in detail oral Tradition in the fourth century. He lists practices which may seem strange to many Protestants and Evangelicals but are very familiar to present-day Orthodox: making the sign of the cross, facing east during liturgical prayers (ad orientem), the Eucharistic prayer, threefold baptism, etc. The specificity with which Irenaeus and Basil described Unwritten Tradition stands in contrast to Father Stephen’s more nebulous and mystical understanding of Tradition as the “life of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.”

A better description of Holy Tradition can be found in Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Church. In this highly regarded work Metropolitan Ware describes Tradition as the beliefs and practices Christ imparted to the Apostles (p. 196). Ware then goes on to describe the relations between Written and Oral Tradition.

Note that the Bible forms a part of Tradition. Sometimes Tradition is defined as the oral teachings of Christ, not recorded in writing by His immediate disciples. Not only non-Orthodox but many Orthodox writers have adopted this way of speaking, treating Scripture and Tradition as two different things, two distinct sources of the Christian faith. But in reality there is only one source, since Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike (pp. 196-197; emphasis added).

After discussing the complementary relations between Written and Oral Tradition, Ware goes on to note that for the Orthodox Church Tradition is not static but a dynamic reality.

Tradition is not only kept by the Church – it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church (p. 198).

As I reviewed Fr. Stephen’s description of Holy Tradition, I find that he downplayed Tradition as beliefs and practices and overemphasized Tradition as the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence in the Church. I understand that he was under considerable time constraint due to his giving a podcast presentation, however, Fr. Stephen created a straw man argument. As Metropolitan Ware notes, Tradition is both a set of definable beliefs and practices, and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The point being that there are justifiable grounds for Orthodox apologists to present and defend Oral Tradition as the beliefs and practices handed down by the Apostles.

The distinction between Written and Unwritten Tradition is subtle and can lead to different understandings even among the Orthodox. Fr. Stephen suggests that Scripture is at the center of tradition and the rest flows out of it, allowing for customs that are “beside” but not contradictory (e.g., signing the cross, praying to the east, icons, etc.). While I am in substantial agreement with this position, I am of the understanding that there was an implicit understanding of the meaning of Scripture (Oral Tradition) that accompanied the physical handing over of Scripture in the ordination ceremony. Authorial intent is situated not just in the text (the Bible) but also in the duly authorized readers of the text (the successors to the Apostles, i.e., the bishops). In Orthodoxy, Oral Tradition possesses parity with Scripture. If Oral Tradition is derived from Scripture, then the implication is that the authority of Oral Tradition is derivative of Scripture and not independent of Scripture. Taken to extremes this can lead to Protestantism’s sola scriptura.

What the Commentaries Say about 2 Thessalonians 2:15

An examination of bible commentaries across religious traditions can provide us with interesting insights on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as well as the hermeneutical bias of those commenting on the text. Below are several commentaries from Protestant and Orthodox sources.

The NIV Study Bible’s commentary note on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reflects the point of view of low church Evangelicalism. This bias can be seen its rendering the Greek word παράδοσις (paradosis) as “teachings” instead of “traditions.” In the commentary note for the NIV Study Bible we find:

Until the NT was written, essential Christian teaching was passed on in the ‘traditions,’ just as rabbinic law was (see note on Mt 15:2); it could be either oral or written. (Emphasis added.)

The phrase “until the NT was written” is not based on the biblical text but on a Protestant understanding of church history. This is the belief that originally the Christian message consisted of a mixture of oral and written traditions, then when the New Testament canon was finalized, oral tradition fell into disuse or was relegated to a secondary status. The problem with this assumption is that there is no evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers or other ancient sources of such a shift taking place.

In the RSV, preferred among mainline Protestants, we find paradosis translated as “traditions.” The commentary footnote to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible—An Ecumenical Study Bible takes a more neutral posture noting:

The traditions would involve doctrinal, moral, and liturgical teaching, as 1 Corinthians show (italics in original text).

Historically, low church Evangelicals are much more hostile to tradition in comparison to mainline Protestantism and the magisterial Reformers.

An important concession to the Orthodox understanding can be found in the Protestant commentator Leon Morris. He notes:

He puts no difference between the authority of the written and the spoken word. Both alike were in very deed the word of God, as we see from 1 Thess. 2:13 and 1 Cor. 14:37 (p. 240; emphasis added).

By accepting that for the Apostle Paul both his written and his oral communications were divinely authoritative, Morris acknowledged something akin to the Orthodox position. In other words, in the New Testament Church there was no indication of the sola scriptura paradigm in which written tradition was distinct from and superior to oral tradition as both alike were the word of God.

The Orthodox Study Bible is an important source because it reflects the general Orthodox understanding and because it carries the approval of the bishops. The Orthodox Study Bible commentary note to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states that there are two kinds of traditions: the tradition of men and the tradition of the apostles or “Holy Tradition.” It notes that God is the source of apostolic tradition. Holy Tradition is that which Christ taught the Apostles and which the Apostles taught the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when visiting the local churches or in their writings. The closing sentence to the commentary note presents the Orthodox Church’s understanding of Holy Tradition.

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 16:13).

In this sentence we find an affirmation of Holy Tradition existing in two modes, written and unwritten. The first mode—the apostles’ writings—is easily identifiable, but the second mode is more nebulous— “as it is resident in the Church to which the truth is promised.” This fuzziness can be seen as pointing away from unwritten tradition as a distinct corpus of doctrines and practices transmitted solely among the upper echelons of the ordained clergy. This to me opens the way for understanding unwritten tradition as (1) the implicit understanding of the meaning of the written text transmitted from one generation of clergy to the next and (2) the clarification and elaboration of church doctrine and practice in church history. What is notable about this commentary note is that the editors did not seek to identify with precision the contents or parameters of unwritten tradition.

Icon: St. John Chrysostom

The fourth-century Church Father, John Chrysostom, holds to a dual-source understanding of Tradition. In his Homilies on Thessalonians (NPNF Vol. 13 p. 390) he writes:

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no further. (NPNF Vol. 13)

In this passage, John Chrysostom makes two points: (1) the Apostles did not deliver all things via written Tradition (Scripture) and (2) Tradition, which was both written and unwritten (oral), both modes were “worthy of credit.” For Chrysostom: (1) written tradition does not stand over unwritten tradition and (2) unwritten tradition is equally authoritative as written tradition. This puts him at odds with Protestantism’s sola scriptura. Chrysostom’s observation that the Apostles “did not deliver all things by Epistle,” puts him at odds with the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is clear that John Chrysostom, one of the great Church Fathers, supports Orthodoxy’s formal principle of Holy Tradition than Protestantism’s formal principle of sola scriptura.

Occam’s Razor and 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Father Stephen is of the opinion that in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 the Apostle Paul was simply urging the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to his teachings whether in the letters they currently had in their hands or to his oral teachings when he was physically present with them earlier. In other words, he suggests that enthusiastic Orthodox apologists have amplified a simple prosaic remark into an argument against sola scriptura which had yet to appear on the scene. From the standpoint of the philosophical principle Occam’s Razor—that all things being equal, the simpler explanation is to be preferred over more elaborate ones. In other words, Father Stephen’s prosaic reading of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is to be preferred over the more elaborate theological readings that had been used to argue against sola scriptura. However, the simpler solution is not always the best. Father Stephen’s prosaic reading of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 falters in the face of the counterevidence: (1) the Apostle Paul’s oral teachings possessed divine authority equal to that of his written teachings, (2) while Paul’s letters were not formal theological treatises, they have been used as theological resources by Christians across traditions, and (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:15 shed valuable light on the formal principle of early Christianity as corroborated by the Church Fathers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 in Early Christian Apologetics

John of Damascus

For Orthodox Christians, the Church Fathers play an important role in how we read Scripture. For this present discussion, the question is: Did any of the Church Fathers understood 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as supporting the notion of oral Tradition? One example of this is John of Damascus. In his Exposition on the Christian Faith, he cites two bible passages—2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2—in support of oral Tradition.

Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle. And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith chapter 16 ‘Concerning Images’; NPNF vol. 9 p. 88; emphasis added; see also New Advent Book IV Chapter 16)

The phrase “handed down” indicates that John of Damascus was referring to Tradition. It is interesting that he used Written Tradition to support Oral Tradition. Another interesting fact is that he claimed that much of Tradition was unwritten, which suggest that Oral Tradition was not some minor add on but provides a broader, general context from which the Church understood Written Tradition.

Another Church Father who cited 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in defense of unwritten Tradition is Basil the Great. Saint Basil was embroiled in a controversy over the prayers used in the Liturgy—more specifically, the Trinitarian formula used at the end of the Litany. His opponents, the Semi-Arians who questioned and even denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, in a strategy much like Protestants, argued that the Trinitarian ending had no basis in Scripture.

In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. (On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29; NPNF vol. 8 p. 45; emphasis added)

Basically, the Semi-Arians were arguing that the doxological formula “with the Spirit,” has no biblical backing and therefore ought not to be used in the liturgical prayers in Sunday worship. Basil’s rejoinder was that the inclusion of “with the Spirit” was part of the Church’s unwritten Tradition. One cannot but be struck by the certitude with which Saint Basil invokes the authority of unwritten Tradition. He writes:

For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” [1 Cor. 11:2] and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” [2 Thess. 2:15] One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. (Chapter 29; NPNF vol. 8 p. 45; emphasis added).

Saint Basil’s On the Holy Spirit has been frequently cited for his detailed list of examples of unwritten Tradition (see chapter 27). So, it should come as no surprise that he would use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in defense of unwritten Tradition.

In conclusion, the controversy over oral Tradition versus written Tradition is not new. John of Damascus had to deal with the issue in the eighth century. Basil the Great defended oral Tradition in the fourth century. The controversy can be found as early as the second century in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons. The controversy over oral Tradition versus written Tradition continues on into the twenty-first century. Thus, it can be said that citing 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in defense of Oral Tradition is not a recent innovation by Orthodox apologists. By citing 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in defense of Oral Tradition, present-day Orthodox apologists are following in the footsteps of the early Orthodox apologists: Irenaeus of Lyons, Basil the Great, and John of Damascus. In light of this, I respectfully ask that Father Stephen De Young reconsider the criticism he made in his 18 October 2021 podcast of Orthodox apologists who cite 2 Thessalonians when discussing sola scriptura with Protestants.

The current debate between Protestantism’s sola scriptura and Orthodoxy’s capital “T” Tradition presents an opportunity for Orthodox Christians to present the ancient Faith to inquiring Protestants and Evangelicals. Broad sweeping caricatures on both sides are not helpful and can even be harmful to the current conversation. The present dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox can be enriched with careful scholarship combined with the spirit of charity and courtesy. This is the path of true Christian apologetics.

Robert Arakaki

References

Robert Arakaki. “IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.” Contra Sola Scriptura (Part 2 of 4). OrthodoxBridge, 12 June 2011.

Robert Arakaki. “Calvin Dissing the Fathers.” OrthodoxBridge, 10 November 2013.

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. NPNF Vol. 8. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

John Chrysostom. “Homily IV.” Homilies on Thessalonians, pp. 388-392. NPNF Vol. 13.

John of Damascus. Book 4 Chapter 16 “Concerning Images.” In Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, p. 88. NPNF Vol. 9. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Leon Morris. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. F.F. Bruce, General Editor. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Pope Paul VI. Verbum Dei. 18 November 1965.

Philip Schaff. The Principle of Protestantism. Lancaster Series on the Mercersburg Theology, Bard Thompson and George H. Bricker, editors. Philadelphia: United Church Press.

Wikipedia. “Formal and material principles of theology.”

Fr. Stephen De Young. “2 Thessalonians, Chapters 2 and 3.” [33:07] The Whole Counsel of God | Ancient Faith Ministries, 18 October 2021.

Orthodoxy on Your Radar Screen

October 2, 2019 / Robert Arakaki / 2 Comments

For years Orthodoxy was invisible on the American religious landscape. Few people paid attention as they drove past Orthodox churches with exotic ethnic names on their way to the more familiar Protestant or Roman Catholic churches services. Odds are high that Orthodoxy was not on your radar screen. However, that has changed. Over the past several decades, American Christianity has undergone massive changes. The implosion of liberal mainline Protestantism, the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass in Roman Catholicism, the shift to contemporary worship among Evangelicals, post-Evangelicalism, the YRR (Young, Restless, and Reformed) movement, and the growing numbers of Nones (not religious) and Dones (formerly religious) have rendered America’s religious landscape unrecognizable to those familiar with the America of the 1950s and 1960s.

These developments gave rise to a small but growing trend: Protestants and Evangelicals searching for the early Church, the historic Faith, and hungering for a more reverent liturgical worship. Many eventually converted to Orthodoxy. While small, this trend has been ongoing and steadily growing. The fact that Protestants and Evangelicals—many pastors, elders, lay leaders—have been converting to Orthodoxy caught the attention of church leader leading them to investigate Orthodoxy and formulate ways of responding.

A reader brought to my attention a 2017 committee report presented to the URCNA (United Reformed Churches in North America). The URCNA broke off in the 1990s from the CRCNA (Christian Reformed Churches in North America), which traces its roots back to Belgium and the Netherlands. The committee was chaired by the Rev. Adam Kaloostian of the SWUS classis of the URCNA. What struck me as I read the report was how seriously they were taking Orthodoxy. I did not always agree with the way they presented Orthodoxy, but I appreciated the way they treated the Orthodox Church with respect. Orthodoxy in America is no longer invisible but is now on the Reformed churches radar screen. Reformed churches are beginning to take notice of Orthodoxy in America and wondering what to make of it. [See the Report.]

Using the Radar for Detection and Identification

The radar was used during World War II for the purpose of detecting enemy aircraft or ships at a distance. At the time it was a brand new technology. While its scientific and technological basis can be traced back to the late 1800s, it was not until the 1930s that countries began to work in earnest in refining the technology to gain an advantage militarily. In the case of the Pearl Harbor attack, there was an early warning radar stationed on the North Shore of the island of Oahu. In the early hours of 7 December 1941, the two operators saw a large number of approaching aircraft. They called Fort Shafter with this worrisome information. The officer who received the report dismissed it, and the rest—as they say—is history.
The URCNA report can be considered an early warning to Reformed church leaders of a new religious phenomenon heading their way. It appears that ancient Christianity brought over by immigrants may finally be extending beyond its ethnic confines and drawing in people from the mainstream of American Protestantism and Evangelicalism. In addition to using the radar for detecting incoming objects, the military also needed a means for identifying friendly and hostile forces. This led to the creation of IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe). The URCNA report on Orthodoxy is like the military radar seeking to identify incoming objects as friend or foe. Hence, the Report’s seeking to evaluate Orthodoxy.

Using the Radar for Navigation

In addition to detection, the radar can also be used for navigation. In the case of navigation the radar is positioned on a moving vessel and the vessel is moving towards a desired destination. Radar technology has advanced considerably since its early days. Range measurement—in the form of concentric rings—makes it possible to estimate how far away detected objects are. Gain control can be adjusted to enable the operator to detect remote objects and/or sea clutter or rain. Parallel index lines can help the ship’s captain assess the distance at which the ship will pass a fixed object on a particular course. Vector mode, past position, and mark are all useful means for navigating one’s way through a busy and confusing waterway. However advanced the radar technology may be, it won’t be of much help unless one also has in hand a good map.

In the same way, Christians trying to make their way through the confusing and turbulent waters of modern day post-Christian society are in need of good navigation tools and accurate maps if they wish to find safe harbor. Many confused Evangelicals and Protestants feel adrift, caught up in a huge theological storm in which their boat (church) is taking on water. They may not know it but safe harbor can be found in historic Orthodoxy.

Church history can serve as a map for Evangelicals and Protestants troubled by the present situation. I once told a bible college student doing a research project on why local Hawaii Evangelicals were converting to Orthodoxy: “If you don’t know where you’re from, you won’t know where you’re going.” By that I meant by knowing church history, you will be in a better position to discern whether what your church believes and practices is in line with historic Christianity or a deviant heresy.

An Assessment of the URCNA Report

The primary intent of this article is not to refute the URCNA report (Report) but rather to make a few points for inquirers to consider and to stimulate further conversation between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. The Report has four sections: (1) Mystery, (2) History, (3) Beauty, and (4) Experience. There is one more section that discusses how Reformed churches should deal with members curious about Orthodoxy. One strength of the Report is the ample citations from Orthodox sources. One does not find vague generalizations or bizarre caricatures but a quite accurate depiction of the Orthodox point of view. Another strength is the awareness that Orthodoxy is not the same as Roman Catholicism (see page 22).

The “Bibliography / Suggested Resources” listed towards the bottom of the Report is quite good. It’s balanced and quite comprehensive. If there is a glaring omission to the list, it would be the absence of the 1672 “Confession of Dositheus,” which comprises Orthodoxy’s formal position on the Reformed tradition. I have a few additions for the book list: Jaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, and Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor. I recommend these works because they will provide the inquirer with the historical context for understanding Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition.

Section 1 – Mystery

The Report did a good job of describing Orthodoxy’s understanding of God as Mystery. The writers of the Report are to be commended for their humility in admitting that they—the Reformed community—could do a better job of embodying the mystery of God’s love. They noted that people with emotional wounds and scars will desire something more than abstract ideas about God. They recommended that Reformed churches spend more time in practical fellowship—weeping with those who weep, rejoicing with those who rejoice—in order to enable those who are hungering for something more to experience the “mysteries of the Christian life” (p. 6). However, it should be noted that it is not just the emotionally wounded Calvinists who are drawn to Orthodoxy. Among the converts to Orthodoxy are often pastors, elders, and seminarians who have experienced the best the Reformed world has to offer.

What sets Orthodoxy apart from Calvinism is not so much apophatic theology, but how Orthodox theology is deeply grounded in worship and prayer. There is an ancient Christian saying: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian.” It is through prayer that we come to know God. While Calvinists do take prayer seriously, prayer seems to be detached from Reformed doctrine. The Reformed tradition abounds with theologians who wrote books on theology and the Bible, but where are the Reformed mystics, holy men, or saints? It was perhaps in reaction to the abuses in medieval Roman Catholicism that led to a spiritual egalitarianism that had little or no place for such radical transformation of lives. This neglect of the mystical dimension of worship for rational theology has caused many Reformed Christians to be drawn to the mystical depths of Orthodoxy and her Liturgy.

The Report concluded the first section with a call for “a robust and consistent Reformed piety [that] is saturated by delight in the mysteries of God.” This is very commendable but it should be noted that this particular paragraph says nothing about the mystery of the Eucharist. This oversight contributes to the hunger for mystery that is drawing many Reformed Christians to Orthodoxy. It is a sad fact that in the majority of Reformed churches the Lord’s Supper is celebrated only occasionally. Moreover, the early Christians believed in the real presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Yet in many Reformed churches today the mystery of the Eucharist has been replaced with a symbolic understanding. The debate between Princeton’s Charles Hodge and Mercersburg’s John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff in the mid-1800s over the Eucharist shows how far Reformed churches in America have drifted, not just from the early Church, but also from John Calvin as well. Many would be shocked to learn that Calvin held that thinking of the Lord’s Supper as “naked and bare signs” an “error not to be tolerated in the Church” (“Confession of Faith concerning the Eucharist” in Reid p. 169).

Section 2 – History

Another reason why Reformed Christians are turning to Orthodoxy is the hunger for the early Church. The Report’s response is twofold: (1) to challenge Orthodoxy’s claim to unbroken historical continuity and (2) to show that Reformed churches have a historical continuity that is just as valid as Orthodoxy.

The Report pointed to icons as proof against Orthodoxy’s claim to unbroken historical continuity (p. 13 ff.). This is not surprising as icons represent the most visible point of difference between Orthodoxy and Calvinism. The controversy over icons is far from simple. The differences go beyond aesthetics to doctrine, authority, and practice. For the sake of brevity, I will note two weaknesses in the Report: (1) the Report failed to take into account the images found in the Christian church in Dura Europos dated by archaeologists back to 250 and (2) there is no attempt by the Report to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the Second Commandment in Exodus 20 and the making of images in Exodus 26. The presence of images in the Tabernacle described in Exodus, Solomon’s Temple, and in the early church in Dura Europa and the Roman catacombs all point to the acceptance of images in Jewish and Christian worship. If the Reformed tradition wishes to argue that icons in churches is an innovation, they will need to present evidence showing when this innovation emerged, who introduced this novel practice, and how this resulted in a radical departure from ancient Christian worship.

It must be kept in mind that Orthodox Tradition is dynamic, not static. The continuity in Tradition is much like a little mango seedling growing into a huge fruit-bearing mango tree. What we see here is development and growth, not evolutionary mutation from one species into another. Reformed inquirers need to keep in mind that church history is a complicated and messy affair. It is not straightforward and simple. If Christian theology was static, we would not have theological terms like “Trinity,” “Incarnation,” and Christ having “two nature.” More will be said about this in my discussion about Robert Godfrey’s historical critique of the iconoclasm controversy. My advice for Reformed inquirers is that as they compare the beliefs and practices of the early Church against Reformed and Orthodox churches today and determine which of the two most closely resemble the early Church.

Section 3 – Beauty

The report did a commendable job on the appeal of the beauty in Orthodox worship. They responded by noting that there is beauty as well in the Reformed emphasis on simplicity in worship:

Since a hallmark of Reformed churches since the Reformation has been simplicity of worship and since Reformed church décor is often designed to minimize distraction from the preached word, converts like the one just cited describe their transition as one from worship that is ugly and bland to worship that is beautiful and vibrant (p. 19).

The question that needs to be asked with respect to the Reformed emphasis on simplicity in worship is: “Where does the Bible teach simplicity in worship?” This emphasis on simplicity is not grounded in Scripture but more in the Reformers’ emotional reaction to medieval Catholicism and to the overzealous Puritans who went even further than the original Reformers.

While granting that the aesthetics of Orthodox worship does appeal to many people, the Report makes two criticisms of Orthodox worship. First, they make the claim that that the aesthetics of Orthodox worship is not so much rooted in heavenly worship but rather represents “a particular version of artistic expression . . . of the Byzantine Empire” (p. 23; italics in original). Second, they assert that the sensuous beauty of Orthodox worship fails to provide true beauty in the apparent outward ugliness of the Cross (p. 24). Note here the Report’s apparent assumption—that early Christian worship emerged out of a radical break from Old Testament Jewish worship and drew its inspiration from Greco-Roman paganism. The problem with this position is that it completely ignores what the Old Testament Scriptures had to say about worship. And more significantly, it ignores the divine injunction that the Old Testament place of worship be constructed according to pattern shown Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25:40, 26:30). Old Testament worship is based on divine revelation. Early Christian worship sought to retain the received tradition of worship divinely given by God to Moses, not in emotional reactions to some prior tradition.

The Report notes that the Reformers in Geneva sought a liturgy “according to the custom of the ancient church.” (p. 16) However, it should be kept in mind that they were attempting to recover a lost tradition by relying on the tools of humanist scholarship, studying the ancient texts then applying the results of their study to their churches. The sad fact of the matter is that this methodology is at best unstable and shifting as can be seen in the prevalence of the symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the widespread acceptance of contemporary praise music by Reformed churches.

Ironically for all their insistence on biblical worship, the Reformed tradition overlooked the role of Tradition in worship. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23 reminded the Corinthian Christians that the Eucharist was traditioned (delivered) to them from Paul who received the Eucharist from Christ himself: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread . . . .” For the early Christians, the Eucharist did not come from the exegesis of the New Testament text but rather from a received Tradition that went back to the Apostles who were taught by Christ. There is evidence that the early Christian understood the Eucharist as part of Tradition. An examination of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98/117), e.g., Letter to the Smyrnaeans, showed that the early Christians believed in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist and the importance of the bishop presiding over the Liturgy. The Reformed tradition on the other hand started from scratch in the 1500s and came up with a version of the Lord’s Supper that diverged from the early Church.

While appreciative of the link between beauty and eschatology in Orthodox worship, the Report criticizes Orthodoxy for what it sees as a tendency to an “over-realized eschatology” (p. 20). This is an interesting criticism. I would be interested in learning on what basis an eschatology can be considered over-realized. I suspect that behind this criticism is an implicit secular worldview in Reformed theology that detaches Sunday worship from the eternal heavenly worship and reduces Sunday worship to verbal proclamation of that which the listeners will not partake of until the Second Coming of Christ. My response is that Reformed theology underestimates the radical implications of the Incarnation. The Incarnation provides the basis for Orthodoxy’s sacramental approach to material creation. The eternal Word has entered the cosmos turning mere creation into sacraments of the kingdom of God. Because of the Incarnation mere humans become vessels of the Holy Spirit, fallen sinners are transformed into creatures of glory, the “ordinary” Sunday Liturgy becomes an extension of the heavenly worship, in the sacrament of confession we come before Christ the Judge of all humanity, the bread and wine offered in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ, and wood and paint become icons—windows to heaven. In the Reformed secular framework, the kingdom of God remains at a distance, but for the Orthodox the kingdom of God has arrived. This is realized eschatology.

Section 4 – Experience

This section opens with testimonies by former Calvinists who found in Orthodox worship a beauty and spiritual fulfillment that they did not experience in the Reformed tradition. I am in agreement with the Report’s assessment that happy spiritual experiences are not sufficient in themselves. Beauty in worship must be grounded in truth, in faithful worship of the one true God.

I was pleasantly surprised by the Report’s endorsement of the Christus Victor understanding of salvation until I took a closer look at the way this confession was worded.

We readily admit that the proclamation of these broader elements of redemption may be inappropriately neglected, not only in churches which indeed have a narrow view of gospel blessings, but even in churches that explicitly confess a rich and broad understanding of the gospel. Preaching and liturgy absent of communicating the Lord’s victory through Christ over all of humanity’s enemies is surely deficient, and we do well to be self-critical if we have lapsed into such an imbalance. Rounded preaching and worship includes the gospel themes of restoration from ruin, repair of brokenness, victory over Satan, the glorification, and the like. [Emphasis added.]

The insertion of qualifiers such as “may” and “if” in effect empties the confession of its force. It would much like someone telling me: “Please forgive me if I may have done any wrong to you.” Such an apology is really a non-apology. It would have been much more meaningful if the Report admitted that the Christus Victor motif had in fact been neglected and that the Reformed tradition could learn something from Orthodoxy in this area.

In the section “Experience,” the committee notes:

Practically, we are concerned that when professing Christians flee to EO [Eastern Orthodoxy] for a kinder, gentler gospel, some are taking that path to evade accepting and confronting the horrific nature and extent of their sin, and cultivating a godly sorrow for it that leads to repentance (p. 28; emphasis added).

I found it amusing that the Report would accuse Orthodoxy of purveying a “kinder, gentler gospel” (p. 28). In Orthodoxy I am reminded more frequently of the danger of Hell (Hades) and of the need to repent of my sins. These reminders come not so much from the pulpit as in the liturgical services and in the various prayers found in Orthodox prayer books. Every year, just before Orthodox Lent begins, the Orthodox Church celebrates the Sunday of the Great Judgment in which Matthew 25:31-46 is read out loud to the entire congregation.

Be that as it may, the real issue that Report seems to have glossed over is Protestantism’s core dogma sola fide (justification by faith alone). Page 27 of the Report asserts that the “courtroom model” is the dominant framework taught in Scripture but does not support this position with evidence. There is no doubt that Scripture uses the courtroom model to explain Christ’s death. But, what is at issue here is whether the courtroom model is the central and dominant motif of Scripture, or one of many motifs of salvation found in the rich tapestry of Scripture. As a church history major at Gordon-Conwell I was puzzled by the relatively minor role of the courtroom model in the early Church Fathers’ explanation of Christ’s death on the Cross. Reading the early Church Fathers and the ancient liturgies made me conscious how my Protestantism blinded me to other motifs used in Scripture: ransom, liberation, enlightenment, ascension, healing, restoration, etc.

While the forensic paradigm may not be as prominent in Orthodoxy, it does take sin seriously. Orthodoxy with its view of sin as corruption and spiritual illness gives greater emphasis to the horrific effects of sin on the human soul. Orthodox Christians are confronted with the darkness within and the intractable self-centeredness in their preparation for confession. While forgiveness is an essential part of the sacrament of confession, Orthodoxy understands confession primarily as the healing of the soul.

In the subsection “Longing for Certainty” (p. 30 ff.), the Report raises some important questions about the Orthodox Church’s claim to be the true Church in light of other churches that also claim an ancient pedigree, e.g., the Oriental Orthodox. Christians concerned about historical continuity to the early Church will confront the fact that there are other churches that make a similar claim. Implicit to the Report’s skeptical stance is the assumption that no church body today can truly claim historical continuity with the early Church. But to take the position that there exists no historical link with the early Church has disturbing implications. One implication is that there is no one true Church, that all churches are man-made denominations and that each church preaches only a fragment of the Gospel. The absence of a true Church opens the door to theological chaos, relativism and syncretism, leaving us bereft and adrift from the true knowledge of God.

The Report’s skepticism about Orthodoxy’s claim to historical continuity raises an important theological question about church history: Do we believe in Jesus’ promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth? (John 16:13) Do we believe that the miracle of Pentecost was confined only to the book of Acts and the first century, or that the miracle of Pentecost continued into the following centuries? This question becomes acute in the case of the Ecumenical Councils. Either one believes that the Holy Spirit guided the Ecumenical Councils or we believe that the decisions made at the Ecumenical Councils were that made by mere men. Reformed inquirers must settle the question: How does the Holy Spirit guide the Church? The Report states that Reformed churches have always confessed the great creeds of the ancient Church (pp. 16-17). However, it should be noted that for the Reformed tradition the ancient creeds are fallible human attempts to interpret Scripture (p. 14). On the other hand, Orthodoxy believes that the Ecumenical Councils definitively and authoritatively settled some of the major theological issues. This acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils has given Orthodoxy a theological unity and stability sadly lacking among Protestants and Evangelicals. The Reformed tradition has a multiplicity of Reformed creeds, many of them comprehensive and detailed in scope. Yet the sad fact remains that the Reformed tradition has become theologically incoherent as a result of the inroads of liberal theology and numerous church splits. The URCNA’s origin in a split from the CRCNA is evidence of this.

Icons

The URCNA report’s assessment on icons is found in two places: in the report itself (pp. 22-23) and in the appended report by W. Robert Godfrey “The Roman Catholic Church and History” (“Appendix on Icons” pp. 21-27). The brevity of the first discussion of icons (pp. 22-23) is due to its being part of the larger section: “Part III. Beauty” (pp. 18-25). The Report’s concern here is more with the sensory appeal of Orthodox worship—the gold overlay, candles, the smell of incense, and icons—as opposed to the four bare walls of Reformed worship.

Those drawn to the beauty of EO [Eastern Orthodoxy] have demonstrated an emotional/existential angst on account of which they flee to the refuge of EO worship. When surrounded by the gold and the icons, and when engulfed with the sweet smells of incense, converts have felt better about the struggles of life. The sensory atmosphere enables them to forget the troubles of the pilgrim life, if only for a moment, as they get caught up in the cosmic and eschatological beauty that they feel is breaking into their worship. (p. 23)

Artist depiction of Exodus 26:31

The Report criticizes Orthodoxy for relying excessively on the cultural aesthetics of imperial Byzantium. What the Report failed to address is the fact that so much of the aesthetics of Orthodox worship is traced first to Scripture, to Exodus chapters 25 to 31. While Calvinists have repeatedly pointed to the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5), they failed to take into account the two contexts of the Second Commandment. The immediate context, the First Commandment (Exodus 20:2-3), forbids the Israelites from worshiping other gods. The Second Commandment is an application of the First. It pertains to the worship of other gods, not about how to worship Yahweh–that would come later. The broader context, the rest of Exodus has instructions about how to worship Yahweh. It contains instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, a luxurious, aesthetically rich structure decorated with tapestries, gold overlay, and images. Close attention must be given to Exodus 26:1 and 31 which specifically instructed the Israelites to make images of the cherubim for the Tabernacle.

Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled craftsman. (Exodus 26:1)

Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim worked into it by a skilled craftsman. (Exodus 26:31)

Depiction of Interior of Solomon’s Temple

The curtain with the image of the cherubim was to be hung over the entrance to the Holy of Holies (Exodus 26:33). That the image of the cherubim was prominently and centrally situated in the Tabernacle and not relegated to the sidelines speaks to the prominent role of images in Old Testament worship. This tradition of making images continued in Solomon’s Temple (see 1 Kings 6:29-33). It should also be noted that Solomon did not slavishly replicate Moses’ Tabernacle; embroidered tapestries were replaced with wooden panels with images of carved cherubim and overlaid with gold. Given the explicit endorsement of the use of images in the Old Testament place of worship, it comes as no surprise that Orthodox worship continues the biblical pattern. The bigger question that needs to be asked is why the Reformed tradition has strayed so far from Scripture with its characteristic four bare walls. This exegetical blind spot has yet to be addressed by the Report, Reformed apologists, and by the Reformed tradition as a whole. The Reformed critique of Orthodox worship goes far beyond conflicting aesthetics to the fundamental question as to which tradition has maintained fidelity to the biblical pattern of worship as presented in the Old Testament. These are not new issues or arguments but old ones that have been dealt with by the Church, most notably by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787). Why the Report chose to ignore and refuse to interact with the language of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is both interesting and telling.

I was disturbed by the Report’s claim that for the Orthodox icons possess more beauty than true preaching of the word (pp. 22-23). This is the first I heard of this. If an Orthodox person were to make such a statement, I would take issue with them pointing out that the Liturgy is really comprised of two liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. One cannot have one or the other; the proclaimed word of the Gospel leads to the incarnated Word in the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, if one comes late to church and misses the reading of the Gospels one ought not partake of the Eucharist, because hearing the Gospel is an important aspect of preparing for Holy Communion. How could one be properly prepared to receive the Body and Blood of Christ if one has not received his word presented in the Gospel reading?

The Apparent Novelty of Depicting Christ in Icons

Probably the most significant critique of icons is to be found, not in the Report itself, but in Robert Godfrey’s report which was appended to the Report. The bulk of Godfrey’s report focuses on the iconoclast controversy and engages in an extensive critique of the second Council of Nicea (787). He takes issue with the direct representation of Christ noting that this did not happen until 400 (p. 22). Godfrey cites two well respected Orthodox authorities: Kallistos (Timothy) Ware and Jaroslav Pelikan to make his case. Godfrey’s argument here must be addressed by the Orthodox.

My response to Godfrey’s allegation that icons depicting Christ represent a break in historic continuity is that icons must be understood in terms of the development of Tradition. The Christian Tradition is not static but dynamic. While the Christian Tradition underwent development in the centuries following the first century, it retained a certain fundamental continuity. The element of continuity can be seen in the acceptance of visual representations in early Christian churches that has roots in early Jewish worship. The element of development can be seen in the gradual acceptance of the direct depiction of Christ’s face. The novelty of the direct depiction of Christ—circa the fifth and sixth centuries—can be seen as a consequence of the early Church gradually coming to terms with the radical implications of the Incarnation. Another likely factor is that Greco-Roman paganism had been superseded by a Christianized Roman Empire.

The Incarnation was a revolutionary event with disconcerting implications. If God truly became human with a tangible body and visible visage—as John of Damascus argued—then direct representation of the Word-made-flesh is permissible. We find other similar scandalous implications stemming from the Incarnation. For example, the Incarnation opened the way for the divine Son to die on the Cross for the sins of humanity. The idea of a suffering Messiah was an early stumbling block for many first century Jews. In time the Incarnation would clash with Jewish monotheism. Early Jewish monotheism could not contain the mystery of the Incarnation. The breakthrough was made with the Unoriginate Father who eternally begets the Son, and later the Holy Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father. In time the theological formula would emerge of God as one Ousia (Essence) in three eternal Persons (Hypostases). Thus, the Good News of Christ was preserved and defended through what appears to be theological innovations that ultimately carried out a conserving role for the Christian Faith. While Christian monotheism has roots in Jewish monotheism, it marks a break with Jewish monotheism with the development of the dogma of the Trinity. A static view of the development of doctrine would rule out “innovations” like “ousia” (essence), “hypostasis” and “propospon” (person), “consubstantial” (homoousios), and “Trinity.”

Thus, if one were to take a static view of the development of Christian theology, one would be compelled, not only to reject the direct visual representation of Christ in icons, but also to reject the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. Without the precise dogmatic boundaries set forth by the Ecumenical Councils, Christianity becomes susceptible to the return of ancient Trinitarian and Christological heresies. It should not surprise us that this is precisely what has happened in Protestantism. By dispensing with the dogmatic authority of the Ecumenical Councils in their adherence to sola scriptura, many Protestant denominations became receptive to the early heresies, e.g., Arianism in many liberal mainline Protestant denominations and Modalism among Oneness Pentecostalism. See Christianity Today article: “Christian, What Do You Believe? Probably a Heresy Says a Survey.”

The Incarnation has startling implications for church history. The miracle of Pentecost implies that the Incarnation did not terminate with Christ’s Ascension to heaven. Rather, the Incarnation entered into the flow of human history via the Church, the Body of Christ. Orthodoxy believes that the visible Church is truly the Body of Christ and that this visible Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit who guides her into all truth (John 16:13). Orthodoxy believes that the Ecumenical Councils were not mere human gatherings but divinely guided by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Church in her formulation of the biblical canon, likewise inspired the Ecumenical Councils in their refutation of heresies. The premise of an ongoing Pentecost creates a radically different paradigm for understanding church history. If one accepts the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ then one becomes receptive to the idea of the development of Christian Tradition. An ongoing Pentecost provides a safeguard against the early Church straying from the Apostolic Faith into heresy and corruption as so many Protestants assume about church history. The Protestant tenet of sola scriptura is hostile to the development of Christian Tradition. The early Church and its Councils are accepted provisionally—so long as they are in agreement with the Protestant reading of Scripture. When the early Church clashes with a Protestant’s individual reading of Scripture, e.g., the veneration of icons, then the authority of the Bible is invoked and the early Church is dismissed out of hand.

Baptistry – Dura-Europos Church

To summarize, the element of continuity can be seen in the early Church having images in places of worship as did the Jewish synagogues. Archaeologists have found images on the walls of both the church and synagogue in Dura Europos. These have been dated to as early as 250. The element of development can be seen in the gradual acceptance of the direct representation of Christ’s face after 400. It was this that apparently sparked the iconoclast controversy that would be resolved in the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 and reaffirmed by the subsequent council of 843. The theological debates over icons should not be viewed as being about church decoration but rather the continuation of earlier Christological and Trinitarian debates. The iconoclasts’ conservatism represents a failure to appreciate the implications of the Incarnation. Tragically, Reformed hostility to icons, which takes the form of four bare walls, does not hearken a return to the early iconoclasts who were tolerant of visual representations in churches, but to the more radical iconoclasm and the anti-Incarnation theology of Islam.

Finding Safe Haven — [Source: Sunrise at Storm Bay, Kiama – Kieran O’Connor]

IFF–Identify Friend or Foe?

Using the analogy of the radar, I would like to suggest that the negative findings of the URCNA report are mistaken identification. It would be like a radar technician mistaking the long, lost home port for an unknown threat. Whether or not Orthodoxy is really an enemy to true Christianity or a misidentified friend depends on the following questions: (1) Is Orthodoxy biblical?; (2) Is Orthodoxy consistent with early Christianity?; and (3) Is Orthodoxy Christ-centered?

The intent of the Reformation has been the recovery of the true Church. Thus, Protestants have long been on a quest for the true Gospel and the true Church. The Reformers believed that guided by the principles of sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola scriptura (Scripture alone), they would be able to recover the apostolic Church lost as a result of the corruptions of Roman Catholicism. Despite centuries of sincere application of Protestantism’s two guiding principles, Protestant Christianity has come nowhere near to recovering the unity of early Church. Indeed, they have contributed more to weak doctrine and fragmentation. This can be seen in the URCNA’s own history, its splitting off from the CRCNA in reaction to theological liberalism in the CRCNA. Many Protestants and Evangelicals are distressed by the current state of affairs in their churches and denominations. This has led many to become open to Orthodoxy.

Many leaders of the Protestant churches upon learning of their parishioners’ interest in Orthodoxy have opened an investigation into Orthodoxy. Oftentimes what they find disturbs them, because it is at odds with Protestantism and with their understanding of early Christianity. They assume that early Christianity was originally Protestant in belief and practice. This is the core assumption of Protestant historiography. Protestant church history and Protestant theology stands or falls on the validity of this premise. The URCNA report represents a sincere attempt to defend the sixteenth century European theology of the Reformation against the ancient Church which exists in its present form in Orthodoxy. In this article I have sought to point out where the Report is mistaken in its critique of Orthodoxy and to point out that Orthodoxy is indeed the home port that Protestants have been yearning for over the centuries.

Quiet inquiry

The final section of the Report suggests ways for Reformed churches to deal with members drawn to Orthodoxy. One positive aspect of the final section is the latitude given to Reformed Christians quietly exploring Orthodoxy. The policy here is to allow with patient tolerance members exploring Orthodoxy.

While the person remains a member of one of our local churches, if they are exploring EO [Eastern Orthodoxy], reading, even attending an occasional service, patience on our part is an excellent virtue to exercise. As long as a person is not given over to promoting beliefs and practices inconsistent with their Reformed profession, let us seek to extend as much latitude as possible.

Article “Crossing the Bosphorus“

The advice that one not debate Orthodoxy with fellow Reformed Christians is a sound one, and one that I would give to inquirers. Quiet inquiry can take the form of visiting a Vespers service on Saturday evenings rather than Sunday mornings when one’s absence might be noticed. It could also take the form of visiting Orthodox Sunday services while traveling out of town. Or, one could arrange to meet with an Orthodox priest one-on-one in private. There are private Facebook groups that provide a safe place where Reformed inquirers can give voice to their questions and concerns without fear of reprisals. If one develops the conviction that Orthodoxy may be right in its claim to be the true Church founded by the Apostles, then attending Sunday services at a nearby Orthodox parish would be a logical next step. Inquiry into Orthodoxy should be done quietly, cautiously, and in a spirit of humility. Transitioning from the Reformed tradition to Orthodoxy is a radical step that should be done with care and much prayer. See my article “Crossing the Bosphorus.”

There is much that is commendable in the Reformed tradition. Many of us who converted to Orthodoxy do not regret our time in the Reformed tradition. We learned much that is valuable. Nonetheless, the Faith taught by the Apostles, kept by the Church Fathers, defined by the Ecumenical Councils, and celebrated in the Eucharist is far richer, profound, and healing.

Robert Arakaki

Further Reading

Report of the Committee Appointed by URCNA Classis SWUS to Study Eastern Orthodoxy.
“Confession of Dositheus.” The Voice: Christian Resource Institute.
Robert Arakaki. “Crossing the Bosphorus.” OrthodoxBridge.
Robert Arakaki. “Calvin Versus the Icon: Was John Calvin Wrong?” Liturgica.com
Robert Arakaki. “Christian Images Before Constantine.” OrthodoxBridge.
Fr. Wilbur Elsworth. “The Reformed Road to Orthodoxy.” Journey to Orthodoxy.
Keith Mathison. “Princeton vs. Mercersburg: Some Primary Sources.” Ligonier Ministries.
JKS Reid. “Confession of Faith concerning the Eucharist.” In Calvin: Theological Treatises, pp. 168-169.
David Rockett. “So-Baptist Jock, Then Happy Reformed-Calvinst 34 Yrs Finds The Orthodox Church!” Journey to Orthodoxy.
Jeremy Weber. 2018. “Christian, What Do You Believe? Probably a Heresy About Jesus Says Survey.” Christianity Today (October 16).

A Frank and Friendly Conversation

September 1, 2018 / Robert Arakaki / 6 Comments

A Friendly Conversation

A reader wrote the following:

Dear Sir,

I really appreciate this article. I come from a Reformed background. I am one who laments that Protestantism has made so many sects. Yet, I want to ask a very simple question and its not out of spite, I am really curious to know more about how Eastern Orthodoxy holds things together theologically, what happens when the Church Fathers conflict with the Scriptures? The Fathers themselves had different ideas and were not all of the same mind on every issue. The Roman Catholic Church has its Magisterium. The trouble with their position is that they claim their teaching does not err. As much as I have sympathy for your position related to the severe weaknesses of Protestantism in regard of creating sects (which didn’t have to happen), as a Protestant Sola Scriptura seems to be a necessary conclusion even if it is messy.

Ethan

My Response

Thank you for your blunt questions and your willingness to engage us here! I have broken down your questions into three points with my response following.

1) How does Orthodoxy holds things together theologically?

What unites Orthodoxy is Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition consists of written Tradition (Scripture) and unwritten Tradition (the oral teachings and praxis of the Apostles) (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 1:13-14). Unlike Protestantism which insists on the “Bible alone” (sola scriptura), Orthodoxy teaches that Scripture is to be understood within the context of the Church, primarily in the matrix of its Liturgy, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.

Fractio Panis — 3rd century Roman catacomb painting

One good example of how oral Tradition complements written Tradition can be seen in the Eucharist. All early Christian worship services had the Eucharist and all early Christians believed in the real presence — that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist. This was an implicit understanding shared by the early Christians. According to Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) it was the Gnostic heretics who denied the real presence in the Eucharist viewing it as symbolic (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7.1).

Zwingli vs. Luther at the Marburg Colloquy – 1529

This belief in the real presence was transformed into a precise formula in the West during the Middle Ages resulting in the distinctive Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In the East, the Orthodox position was that the real presence was a mystery. When the Protestant Reformers sought to reform Christian worship on the basis of sola scriptura, they ran into the problem of how to interpret Jesus’ words: “This is my body.” Were the words to be understood literally or symbolically? Not having oral Tradition to fall back on, Luther and Zwingli reached an impasse and parted ways. One has to wonder whether sola scriptura was the underlying cause of Protestantism’s earliest church split. One also has to wonder whether sola scriptura is the reason why Protestantism never had a shared common worship.

Orthodox Liturgy in Russia

Oral Tradition can also be seen in the understanding that Christian worship was to take place on Sunday, was to have the Eucharist, and follow a liturgical order (see Justin Martyr’s First Apology 65-67). There is no explicit Scripture passage that mandates a liturgy with the Eucharist every Sunday. These are all part of oral Tradition that emerged alongside the Bible. It is important to keep in mind that the biblical canon and the Liturgy emerged simultaneously within the early Church, both are the result of the Church being led by the Holy Spirit. Thus, oral Tradition plays an important part in the unity of the Faith as Scripture.

All Orthodox parishes today follow the same Liturgy. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom provides a rich hermeneutical context for understanding the Bible. I strongly recommend you attend the Liturgy for several Sundays—at least 6 to 8—taking note of Scripture being expressed in the prayers and hymns in the Liturgy. The Liturgy is beautifully complex, multi-layered and multi-sensory, involving whole person, body and soul with the goal of drawing the worshiper closer to God.

The Liturgy with the church calendar provides another commonality among Orthodox parishes across the world today as well as providing a historical link to the early Church. This calendar is not a piece of paper hanging on the wall, but rather a schedule of services, prayers, and hymns to be used on designated days. Through the feast day services Orthodox parishes around the world remember the lives of the saints and important historical events. When I was a Protestant I learned church history through reading books but as an Orthodox Christian I learn church history through attending services. In Protestantism, church history tends to be specialized knowledge, not shared knowledge as in Orthodoxy. This shared understanding of church history and the saints is another factor to Orthodox unity. Without knowledge of family history, we become susceptible to becoming isolated individuals intent on developing our own identities.

First Ecumenical Council – Nicea AD 325

Another source of unity is Orthodoxy’s adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. At these Councils major heresies were refuted by the Church Catholic. There have been other later councils that while not considered Ecumenical have been universally received by Orthodox churches, for example, the 1623 Council of Jerusalem which rejected Calvinism. Another unifying factor is the Nicene Creed which we recite every Sunday. The Nicene Creed, while it does not define every point of theology, nonetheless provides the parameters of what all Christians are obliged to believe. When Orthodox Christians recite the Nicene Creed we are affirming the teaching authority (magisterium) of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the first two. Orthodoxy’s objection to the unilateral insertion of the Filioque is indicative of Orthodoxy’s adherence to the conciliar approach to doing theology. The conciliar approach underlying the Nicene Creed is radically at odds with the Protestant theological method which is based on sola scriptura.

Then there is the episcopacy which consists of a living, historical chain of bishops who trace their spiritual lineage back to the original Apostles. The bishop as the recipient and guardian of Apostolic Tradition also oversees the local liturgical celebrations. No priest can validly celebrate the Eucharist apart from the bishop’s authorization (Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8). Keep in mind that this authority is a covenantal authority. When Christ said: “This is the blood of the New Covenant,” he was implying that Christianity would be a covenant community with a covenant-based leadership. In many ways the authority of the Orthodox Church traces back to the Last Supper, whereas Protestantism’s authority traces to the Reformers in the 1500s taking the Bible as their starting point for their theologizing. However, the problem with the Protestant approach is that the Reformers took into their hands a covenant document (the Bible) without a validly conferred covenant authority to interpret it. Protestants lack this covenant authority because they rejected the historic episcopacy. Lacking the historic episcopacy, the magisterium (teaching authority) in Protestantism shifted to either the university which in the nineteenth century became captive to the European Enlightenment Project or to untethered religious entrepreneurs beholden to nobody except themselves. Theological fragmentation and denominational disarray were the inevitable consequences. This is a sign of Protestantism’s lack of covenantal basis. Because Protestantism rejects apostolic succession, it lacks not only covenantal authority to interpret Scripture but also covenantal unity essential to being part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. The local bishop through right teaching and right worship ensures the Orthodox Church’s covenantal unity.

2) What happens when the Church Fathers conflict with the Scriptures?

The first thing to note is that just because a Christian thinker lived long ago does not make him a Church Father. Only a select group of men recognized for their teachings and their holy lives have been honored by the Orthodox Church as “Church Fathers.” This recognition is expressed principally through the church calendar in a feast day honoring their service to Christ. There are some early Christians who had brilliant minds but were not regarded as Church Fathers, for example, Tertullian and Origen.

When you say “conflict with the Scriptures” you would need to be more specific. It might be you are thinking of some early Christians who held eccentric views. Or it might be that you, as a Reformed Protestant, might be siding with the minority viewpoint. For example, if you believe that Scriptures affirm the iconoclast position, then you are favoring the minority position. It might also be that you have not critically considered the problematic aspects of the iconoclast position. When I was a Protestant, I assumed that the icon was the weakest point of Orthodoxy until I took a fresh look at Scripture and read carefully the early Christians’ defense of icons. See my article: “The Biblical Basis for Icons” in which I found that icons do not necessarily conflict with Scripture. In any event, it is a matter of record that the pro-icon position was ratified at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II 787) and iconoclasm was condemned as heretical. Also, you need to consider that iconoclasm is not universal across Protestantism and that it represents only an extreme end of the Protestant spectrum. Where Orthodoxy is united on the issue of icons, Protestantism is not.

3) The Church Fathers themselves “had different ideas and were not all of the same mind on every issue.”

Your observation is quite accurate that there was quite a bit of diversity among the Church Fathers. Nonetheless, what they had in common was striking when compared to Protestantism. Early Christian theology was essentially liturgical theology. It was not so much written down on paper as it was sung out loud during the Liturgy. The early Church viewed the Eucharist as the central feature of Sunday worship and all affirm the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops. The episcopacy was the norm in early Christianity. Protestant forms of church government like congregationalism and presbyterianism were not the norm. Among the early Christians there was some disagreement as to how to reconcile Jesus being the Son of God with Jewish monotheism. This question became a major crisis with the emergence of the Arian heresy. This heresy was refuted at the Council of Nicea (325). It was for his articulate defense of Jesus’ divinity that Athanasius was recognized as a Church Father. Cyril of Alexandria would be recognized as a Church Father for his defense of Mary as the Theotokos (God-Bearer). It was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553) that Nestorianism was condemned as heretical and recognition of Mary as Theotokos be made part of the Liturgy. The iconoclast controversy was precipitated by Emperor Leo III’s edict against icons. For his defense of icons John of Damascus would be recognized as a Church Father. It was at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787) that iconoclasm would be formally condemned as heretical. The early Church encountered numerous heresies and dealt with them through councils–local, regional, and ecumenical—with the assistance of bishops who would later be recognized as Church Fathers. It is not as if conflicts emerged the Church Fathers and were resolved at Ecumenical Councils; but rather heresies surfaced and the bishops came together to deal with these heresies and in the process certain men who played a key role in the upholding of the Apostolic Faith would come to be recognized as a “Church Father” just as an “ordinary” Christian who suffered martyrdom would be recognized as a capital “s” Saint.

Another important aspect of Orthodox unity is the patristic consensus. This “consensus of the Fathers” is usually a reference to the bishops of the Church speaking collectively via an Ecumenical Council. Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council so likewise he guided later Councils into the truth (cf. Acts 15:28; John 16:13). Please keep in mind that while there have been many church councils, only a few have been recognized as “Ecumenical Councils.” Individually the Church Fathers may err but collectively they bear witness to the Apostolic Faith. Orthodox theology does not seek to neatly and systematically answer every theological question possible in a comprehensive manner similar to the Westminster Confession. of Faith While we remain steadfast on matters of dogma like the Trinity and Christology, there is diversity in other matters like soteriology and eschatology. As an Evangelical in a liberal mainline denomination it distressed me to see pastors and theologians calling into question the dogmas of Christology and the Trinity, and fundamental assumptions of human nature, the Fall, and our salvation in Christ. Since becoming Orthodox, it is a tremendous relief to find myself on the same page on the core dogmas of the Faith as the Orthodox priests I meet. I did not have that certainty when I was Protestant. Whenever I met a UCC minister for the first time, I first needed to feel out their theological orientation: Was he or she a Liberal, an Evangelical, or a liberal Evangelical? The parameter of Orthodox’s Holy Tradition gave me a safe harbor and a sense of integrity that I felt was missing during my time as a Protestant.

What I appreciate about Orthodoxy is how the Church Fathers are very much among us today. The Church Fathers influence how we understand our Faith. When I make reference to Church Fathers like Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, or John Chrysostom, Orthodox Christians understand who I’m referring to. The Church Fathers are not remote figures in the past but our companions of faith. Recently my priest concluded his sermon with quotes from two Church Fathers and then closed with ”Holy John Chrysostom pray for us! Holy Basil pray for us!” For my priest Father Alexander, the Church Fathers are part of great cloud of witnesses who surround us right now.

Orthodox Liturgy in Overland Park, Kansas – YouTube video

Closing Thought

I’ll leave you with this thought. In comparison to meticulous neatness of the Reformed confessions, Orthodox theology is messy and at times fuzzy. However, when it comes to the fundamental core dogmas and worship practices of historic Christianity, Orthodoxy is coherent and stable, while Protestantism is becoming increasingly theologically incoherent, liturgically anarchic, and bereft of historical memory. I suspect that you have had little direct experience with real, live Orthodoxy. I would urge you to spend time getting to know living Orthodox Church and come back again for further engagement. In other words, let keep talking to each other!

Robert Arakaki

Category: Tradition (Page 1 of 17)

Reconsidering 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Sola Scriptura

Orthodoxy on Your Radar Screen

A Frank and Friendly Conversation

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives