Category: Tradition (Page 5 of 18)

The Early Church Fathers: Babies or Giants?

June 10, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 17 Comments

I recently received an inquiry from someone with a Reformed background. He brought to my attention that a certain Protestant pastor is said to have claimed that the early Church Fathers were “church babies.” I have not been able to verify whether or not this pastor actually made that remark but I felt that the question deserved a good answer. This reader has also been in conversation with friends who are interested in Mercersburg Theology. One of them brought up the “fallacy of infallibility” objection against Orthodoxy. That is, “locally an Orthodox or Catholic bishop would have authority over his denomination but since the Church has been immature for the last 2000 years (being resurrected again in the 16^th century) she is in no way infallible.” What follows is an attempt to answer that particular conversation but also in a way others can benefit.

My Response

Holy Tradition as the Basis for a Bishop’s Authority

Apostolic succession is key to understanding the office of the bishop. And, key to understanding apostolic succession is the traditioning process, i.e., the receiving, preserving, and transmitting of Apostolic Tradition. The office of the bishop is more than an institutional rank; it is a sacred trust. The bishop has been entrusted with what the apostle Paul referred to as the “good deposit.” (2 Timothy 1:14) A bishop has authority so long as he is faithful to the Tradition that Christ entrusted to his apostles. A heretical bishop loses his authority once he abandons Holy Tradition. Orthodoxy’s approach to the episcopacy focuses on the inner content, i.e., fidelity to Holy Tradition. In the West the focus is more on the outer form of the episcopal office, i.e., ritual succession (a matter of proper genealogy). This explains why they consider the Roman papacy valid despite innovations like the Filioque clause, purgatory, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, etc. It also explains why Anglicans consider themselves to have valid bishops despite their bishops’ failure to uphold the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and worse yet abandon traditional Christian morality. What counts for them is the proper rite being carried out when consecrating their bishops.

Vertical and Horizontal Accountability

Holy Tradition provides both vertical and horizontal accountability. Vertical accountability refers to the present day bishop being able to trace his lineage back to the original apostles. Horizontal accountability refers to the present day bishop holding doctrines and celebrating a liturgy similar to other bishops around the world who can trace their lineage back to the apostles.

Martial Arts as Tradition

In the martial arts, each school is run by a sensei or sifu (master teacher) who can trace his style to past master teachers. The sensei is one who earned the right to bear the name of a particular style of martial arts, to open his own dojo (school), and have his own students. The sensei is also one who has inherited from his teacher the authority to bestow belts (ranks) on his students, the highest rank being the black belt. This means that a student can verify his sensei’s claims by visiting other dojos, watching the other students, and talking with their teachers. Anyone can set up their own school of martial arts and give out black belts but for all of this to be meaningful one must be part of a living tradition. The point of this analogy is that in Protestantism anyone can set up his own “church” and claim “apostolic succession” just by holding a Bible in his hand. In Orthodoxy a congregation cannot be considered a valid church unless it is a Eucharistic community under the authority of the bishop (Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrneans chapter 8). The Eucharist is the constitutive act of the local Christian community and access to the Eucharist is a sign that one belongs to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Jesus Christ: The Great High Priest

The Eucharist Makes the Church

The Eucharist as a constitutive act can best be understood from the standpoint of covenant theology. Every covenant required a sacrifice for its ratification and Christ’s one-time death on the Cross was foundational for the New Covenant. When Jesus the Lamb of God died on the Cross the Old Covenant sacrificial system came to a close, and the New Covenant was put into effect. The sacrificial system of Leviticus instituted by Moses was superseded by the Eucharist instituted by Jesus Christ in the upper room with the twelve disciples. The implications of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist are enormous. It is best understood not so much as a reenactment or a repetition of Christ’s one-time death on the Cross but rather an extension of Christ’s death on the Cross across space and time via the Divine Liturgy. The weekly Eucharist can be understood as an act of covenant renewal in which the vassal (the Christian) renews his commitment to the suzerain (Christ). It can also be understood as a covenant meal in which the suzerain (Christ) and his vassals (the Christian believers) come together as a sign of peace and friendship between two former enemies and as a sign of their common life together. Like the ancient Near Eastern covenant treaties the Gospels recall and re-enact the suzerain’s great deeds on behalf of the vassals. The New Testament records the terms of the covenant by which the vassal (the Christian) remains in good standing with the suzerain (Christ). So long as the vassal remains in a covenant relationship via the covenant meal (the Eucharist) he enjoys the benefits promised in the covenant document (the Bible). Skipping the meal with the suzerain raises questions about one’s relationship with the suzerain. An example of this would be David’s avoiding a meal with King Saul (1 Samuel 20:5, 24-29).

The Eucharist as a constitutive act explains why exclusion from the Eucharist is so consequential for Christian identity and one’s salvation. The fact that Roman Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion at Orthodox churches is a sign of the break between the two traditions. And this is why it is such a big deal for an Orthodox mission to transition from Reader Services to the Divine Liturgy; this marks the congregation becoming a proper church when the bishop assigns a priest to the mission who will be celebrating the Liturgy on a regular basis.

Evolutionary Paradigm of Church History Source

Paradigms of Church History

The concept of Holy Tradition has implications for how one understands church history. It implies the priority given to the preservation of Holy Tradition from generation to generation. That is why Orthodoxy looks askance at innovation. When I was a Protestant I was bewildered as to why Orthodoxy would want to hold on to a fossilized or ossified faith. However, I came to see the Christian Faith as something shared by the community, not as an expression of individual creative thought. Moreover, I came to appreciate that in the deepest sense Holy Tradition is living and dynamic in the way that a skillful conductor and a well-trained orchestra can infuse meaning and nuance into a music scored by Mozart or Bach. In the hands of a lackluster orchestra a musical classic can become lifeless and dull. What makes capital “T” Tradition a living tradition is the Church abiding in the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox paradigm values doctrinal and liturgical stability. The opposite approach would be an evolutionary or progressive understanding of church history. This is the understanding that theology over time expands and improves upon what has come before, i.e., the present is superior to the past. I can sympathize with the progressive approach to church history. If one delights in thick tomes of systematic theologies and detailed doctrinal formulas, extensive commentaries like those produced by medieval Scholastics, the Reformers, and modern Protestants, plus modern-day seminaries with their erudite faculty members with Ph.D.s from world-renowned universities then the early Church Fathers would seem like small potatoes so to speak. But speaking as one who has studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, I can attest that there is greater wisdom to be found in the early Church Fathers and in the classic liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. For a humorous yet searing indictment of modern theology in comparison to the Church Fathers I recommend Thomas Oden’s After Modernity … What? The heart of the Christian Faith is not a detailed theological understanding of God but rather a trajectory that leads to union with Christ and life in the Trinity.

Left: Orthodox paradigm of theology; Right: Protestant paradigm of theology

Honoring Our Fathers

There are other problems with the paradigm that denigrate the Church Fathers as “babies.” It is very disrespectful to look down one’s nose at the men who suffered martyrdom to preserve the Christian Faith against pagan Rome and who struggled to preserve the Gospel against the heretics. Furthermore, can one call their Christology and their doctrines of the Trinity immature? By what benchmark would your friend measure the early Church Fathers against modern day Protestants? By sola fide? By sola scriptura? This fixation on the progressive understanding of the Christian Faith is characteristic of Western Christianity. One sees it as the rationale for the elaborate theological systems of medieval Scholasticism. It serves as the justifying basis for Protestantism’s novel doctrines. Even more recently, it has been used to justify the new prophetic revelations in Pentecostal Christianity and the Liberal Christianity’s revisionist theologies and its new morality. The result has been the unceasing fracturing of Protestantism and an ever-intensifying theological chaos, leading to a religion unrecognizable to early Christians.

New Testament Teaching on Spiritual Maturity

We learn from Scripture that the apostles were acutely aware of the need for maturity in the Faith. The apostle Paul’s description in Ephesians 4:14 of “infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of doctrine” describes well the predicament of modern day Protestants. In contrast to Protestantism’s stormy seas, Orthodoxy’s historic Faith resembles an unmoving rock that offers shelter and stability. The author of Hebrews expected spiritual maturity of his readers and rebuked those who “by now ought to be teachers, but have need someone teach them the elementary principles all over again.” (Hebrews 5:11) Paul’s exhortation to second generation Bishop Timothy to seek out “faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” shows the high value the early Church placed on maturity. (2 Timothy 2:2) There is not a hint whatsoever in Scripture that the apostles were inclined to entrust the Faith once for all delivered to the saints, to “spiritual babies.” Indeed the very opposite can be seen clear in the New Testament Scriptures along with the writings of the designated successors to the apostles (bishops) immediately afterwards.

We should consider another often neglected historic fact. Much has been made of the timing of the Incarnation and the spread of the Gospel during the era of Pax Romana. The intellectual acumen of the early Fathers is a matter greatly neglected, especially by Protestants. This blind spot can be attributed in part to: (1) unfamiliarity with early Christianity, (2) the assumption that there is no significant difference between early Christianity and Roman Catholicism, and (3) the attitude of chronological snobbery, i.e., the thinking that Protestants are more advanced in their theologizing. But many if not most of the early bishops were brilliant intellectual giants fluent in several ancient languages and conversant in the best of Greek philosophy. Consider for example Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and John of Damascus. They are far more likely to be intellectual giants and scholars of exceptional maturity — marked by a ascetic piety that should shame most modern Christians and theologians of our present today.

The Question of Infallibility

Your friend’s remark about the fallacy of infallibility begs the question as to where infallibility is to be found. Within Christianity there are three choices: infallibility resides in the Bible – the Protestant paradigm, infallibility resides in the Pope, the supreme bishop over all Christianity – the Roman Catholic paradigm, and infallibility resides in the Church, the Body of Christ – the Orthodox paradigm. For Orthodoxy infallibility is not intrinsic to the Church but rather a grace conferred by the Holy Spirit. Infallibility is an intrinsic property of the Spirit of Truth whom Christ sent to guide the Church (John 16:13). Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit guided the Ecumenical Councils in their deliberations about the two natures of Christ and the Trinity. The proof of the pudding lies in the unity of the faith shared by the Orthodox throughout space and time; and in the doctrinal stability that Western Christians so often deride as static, ossified, fossilized, archaic, or more recently, “infantile.”

BOBO Theory: Blink Off, then Blink On

One of the greatest witnesses to Truth is the Divine Liturgy. This is because Scripture is primarily a liturgical document. The proper social context for Scripture is the Sunday Liturgy; private personal devotion in the home or the theologian’s study is secondary. That is why I invite inquirers to the Divine Liturgy and I ask them to consider that the Liturgy has been essentially unchanged for over a thousand years. This constancy in worship belies the widespread Protestant belief that the Church was in spiritual darkness until the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. If your friend likes Mercersburg Theology then he would know that Nevin and Schaff rejected the “Blink On/Blink Off” (BOBO) paradigm of church history. This was the main point of Philip Schaff’s inaugural lecture which was later published in book form as The Principle of Protestantism. As a matter of fact it was those who held to the BOBO theory of church history that initiated a heresy trial against Schaff! What I appreciate about Mercersburg Theology is the attempt to show that Protestantism is not a novelty, but rooted in church history, and the attempt to show that Calvin’s understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is rooted in the early Church Fathers. However, as I noted in my essay “An Eastern Orthodox Critique of Mercersburg Theology” – It can’t get you there. If your friend wants to hold to the BOBO theory, he must first show what benchmark he uses for determining doctrinal orthodoxy and give historical evidence of where and when the early Church went off the rails. If for example, he wants to use sola fide as a benchmark he has to first define the term then show that there were early Church Fathers who taught this doctrine. Furthermore, he must be able to give specific citations, not vague allusions or broad characterizations. And, I would note that the paradigm of early Church Fathers = spiritual babies and Protestant Reformers = spiritual adults is nothing more than a rephrasing of the BOBO theory.

Covenant Theology Leads to Holy Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy fits covenant theology much better than Protestantism. If the Bible is a covenant document, then the Eucharist is a covenant meal. At each Eucharist the covenant community renews its covenant commitment to the Suzerain (Christ). Thus, the infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper characteristic of Protestantism belies its covenant identity. Implicit to the covenant framework is the notion of covenant authority. Just as the Old Testament priests were authorized to offer sacrifices and teach the Torah (Malachi 2:7), so too the New Covenant has a priesthood. This is implied by the author of Hebrews claim: “We have an altar” (13:10) and Isaiah’s prophecy that God would take some of the Gentiles to be priests (66:20-21). Liturgical worship with an ordained priesthood was the standard format of Christian worship until the Protestant Reformation. The Reformed tradition’s disavowal of the episcopacy is rooted in its rejection of apostolic succession. This means that Protestantism has no historical link to the early Church. That link has been broken. The Protestant Reformation is much like the Northern Kingdom’s schismatic break from the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kings 12:25-33); the religious schism was more catastrophic than the political. Separation from the Levitical priesthood and the Temple in Jerusalem resulted in the eventual demise of the Northern Kingdom. Israel’s identity as a covenant community was grounded in fidelity to the Torah given by Moses at Mt. Sinai and in fidelity to the order of worship given in the latter half of the book of Exodus. One thing I admire about Protestant biblical scholarship is the great amount of effort given to textual criticism in the attempt to recover the original manuscripts. It is unfortunate that Protestantism has neglected the search for a priestly lineage that goes back to the apostles. Having the Bible is not enough for establishing a covenant identity. One needs a duly authorized priesthood, as well. Orthodoxy’s claim to a legitimate priesthood (the episcopacy) can be verified through an examination of its claim to apostolic succession.

In closing, holding a Bible in one’s hand does not make one a Christian any more than preaching from the Bible makes a gathering a church. This is because holding in one’s hands the covenant document (the Bible) does not make one a proper member of the covenant community. Participation in the covenant community requires covenant initiation (circumcision in the Old Covenant, baptism in the New Covenant) and participation in the covenant meal (Passover in the Old Covenant, the Eucharist in the New Covenant. Being part of the covenant community assumes that one is living under the authority of the covenant leadership. And just as important is fidelity to the terms of the covenant, i.e., living a life of love and justice to God and one another. I very much appreciate the Reformed tradition’s insight into the importance of the covenant, because it has helped me to identify the Orthodox Church as the true covenant community founded by the Suzerain Jesus Christ who came to restore us to the kingdom of God.

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Readings

Robert Arakaki. 2011. “The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.” OrthodoxBridge.com

Robert Arakaki. 2012. “An Eastern Orthodox Critique of Mercersburg Theology.” OrthodoxBridge.com

Robert Arakaki. 2014. “John Calvin and the ‘Fall of the Church.'” OthodoxBridge.com

Robert Arakaki. 2014. “Déjà Vu All Over Again.” OrthodoxBridge.com

Thomas Oden. 1990. After Modernity … What? Zondervan Publishing House.

Jaroslav Pelikan. 1976. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). The Christian Tradition. Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press.

Jaroslav Pelikan. 1986. The Vindication of Tradition. Yale University Press.

J.A. Thompson. 1964. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. The Tyndale Press.

Ralph D. Winter. 2013. “The Kingdom Strikes Back: Ten Epochs of Redemptive History.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds. William Carey Library Publishers.

Corpus Formation versus Canon Formation

March 18, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 20 Comments

Corpus Formation – Apostle John on Patmos Writing the Book of Revelation

A Response to Pastor Toby Sumpter

On 3 March 2016, Pastor Toby Sumpter posted on Reformation21 “An Apostolic Case for Sola Scriptura.” In this article he argues that canon formation of the New Testament proves the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. He writes:

In fact, there is a strong case to be made that the apostles and first Christians knew what books would form the New Testament canon very early on. The reason they knew was because the task of writing the New Testament Scriptures was one of the central purposes of the office of apostles. (Emphases added)

And,

The center of the evidence for a largely completed canon by the death of the apostles is grounded in understanding the office of apostle itself. (Emphasis added)

Toby Sumpter’s attempt to prove a very early New Testament canon (before AD 100 or even during the lifetime of the Apostles) makes sense in light of recent Reformed and Orthodox apologetics debate over sola scriptura. One major criticism of sola scriptura is the argument that if it took several centuries for the New Testament canon to emerge then that means the early Church functioned quite well without sola scriptura. This in turn raises the question whether sola scriptura is necessary.

All too often Protestant attempts to defend sola scriptura confuse the writing of the New Testament texts (corpus formation) with that writing being recognized as uniquely inspired (canon formation). While closely related, the two are not the same. Among conservative Christians there is little debate about the New Testament texts having been written in the latter half of the first century. The difference lies more with the Church’s recognizing the texts as divinely inspired, that is, as Scripture.

Where did this list come from? Who made it? Source

There are two competing theories of how canon formation took place. A prolonged canonization process would suggest the Church functioned under oral Apostolic tradition for the first few centuries and without sola scriptura. (Remember, John Mark did not write his synoptic gospel first for at least twenty years.) A compressed canonization process would leave little room for oral Apostolic Tradition. A very early completion to the canonization process would give rise to a listing of authoritative New Testament (canon) to guide the early Church in matters of faith and practice. If one takes the extreme position – as does Toby Sumpter – that the New Testament canon was completed while the Apostles were still living then there was zero room for oral Apostolic tradition to guide the early Church. This is because the early Church had a complete list of Scripture from the get go (as argued by Toby Sumpter).

Chart showing the mainstream understanding of canon formation – Source

The New Testament Project?

Pastor Sumpter puts forward the interesting theory that in light of the Great Commission the Apostles devoted themselves to the production of canonical Scriptures for the Church.

Here, I argue that the apostles were quite conscious of this goal. Jesus had entrusted to them the “testimony” not merely for a small band of Jews in Jerusalem, but they were to be witnesses throughout Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. How would that testimony reach the ends of the earth intact without devolving into an elaborate telephone game? The apostles and their assistants almost immediately began writing. This is because the apostles knew that their office was responsible for preserving and passing down the authoritative testimony of the gospel of Jesus. This is why every New Testament book was written or sponsored by an apostle. (Emphases added)

From the above excerpt we find Pastor Sumpter making at least three claims: (1) that the Apostles were conscious of their responsibility to write canonical Scripture, (2) that Jesus made writing part of the Great Commission, and (3) that the Apostles in obedience to this mandate began writing canonical Scripture right away. But does Scripture support any of these claims?

First, if the Apostles were “quite conscious of this goal,” then we would expect to find them discussing their responsibility to produce an authoritative collection of writings that testify to Jesus Christ. Where’s the evidence? A careful search of the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters by Paul and other Apostles leaves us empty handed. We find is that the Apostles did write but wrote when the occasion called for it (Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 4:14, 5:9-11; 2 Corinthians 2:3-4, 13:10; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 3:1; 2 Thessalonians 4:9, 5:1; 1 Timothy 3:14; Philemon 19-21; 1 Peter 5:12; 2 Peter 3:1; 1 John 1:4, 2:1; Jude 3).

Second, there is no evidence that Jesus made writing part of their apostolic calling. When we look at the Great Commission passage in Matthew 28, and other similar passages: Mark 16:15-20, Luke 24:45-49, John 20:21, and Acts 1:1-8, we find not a single shred of evidence indicating that Jesus ever did so. As a matter of fact, in the longer ending to Mark’s Gospel Jesus commands the Apostles: “Go into all the world and preach (κηρυξατε) the good news to all creation.” Likewise, in Luke 24:47 we read: “repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached (κηρυχθηναι) in his name to all nations.” The Greek κηρυσσω has the sense of public proclamation by voice; it would be a stretch to say that it means writing. According to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament one of key qualifications of a herald (κηρυξ) was a good voice (vol. III p. 686). The sole exception is the book of Revelation where Christ tells John: “Write (γραψον), therefore, what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later.” (Revelation 1:7, cf. 21:5) However, this command applies only to the book of Revelation. If Toby Sumpter’s argument did hold up, we would have seen other earlier commands for the other New Testament texts but no such evidence for this can be found. 

Third, there is the fact that none of the New Testament texts have been dated back to the 30s or 40s. The earliest New Testament texts are either Paul’s letter to the Galatians or 1 Thessalonians. Scholars estimate that Galatians was likely written after AD 52 and that 1 Thessalonians has likewise been estimated to have been written in the early 50s. Mark’s Gospel is believed to have been written around the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Matthew’s Gospel and Luke’s Gospel have been estimated to have been written circa AD 80. Furthermore, much of Paul’s letters were written in response to pastoral emergencies. The evidence here point to a gradual and sporadic production of New Testament texts. This would fit in with a theory that writing was a secondary aspect of apostolic ministry. If Pastor Sumpter’s theory is valid then one has to ask: Why did the Apostles wait twenty to forty years to begin writing canonical texts?

Another problem with Sumpter’s theory is that so few of the Twelve wrote canonical materials. Where are the writings of Apostle Thomas? I would love to read his account of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Where is the writing of Apostle Peter’s younger brother Andrew? And where are the writings of Thaddeus, Nathaniel, Philip, and the others? Why is it that we don’t have their written testimony to the Good News of Christ?

We need to take into consideration the small number of New Testament authors. From the Apostle Peter we have Mark’s Gospel and Peter’s two letters. We have from the Apostle John the Gospel that bears his name, three letters, and Revelation. We have Matthew’s Gospel and nothing else from him. Then we have the Gospel authored by Paul’s companion, Luke, who also authored the book of Acts. From the Apostle Paul we have a collection of a dozen letters. Hebrews has been traditionally attributed to Apostle Paul. This comes to a total of four apostolic composers of the New Testament corpus. Why so few? Where are the others? That is a question that raises doubts about Toby Sumpter’s theory.

For an Orthodox Christian the small number of composers of the New Testament corpus is not a problem. The Apostles were busy proclaiming the Good News of Christ, leading the early liturgies, and ordaining elders (Acts 6:2, 13:1-3, 14:23). From time to time they would write a letter if the occasion called for a written response but writing was not a core function of an Apostle, preaching was.

An Exaggerated Problem

Like a Pillow Fight?

Pastor Sumpter sketches what he purports to be a “popular theory” that he will refute.

A popular caricature of the process of canonization (a somewhat problematic phrase in its own right) is that tons of early Christians wrote tons of stuff and that it was only after the deaths of the first generation of Christians or so) when the subsequent generation of Christians suddenly woke up and began scrambling to collect as many meaningful looking scraps as they could find, like grabbing flecks of confetti blowing around in the wind. And the Holy Spirit led the Church to find all the right pieces and paste them all together just right (Emphasis added).

And,

. . . which I summarize as: The complete canon of Scripture was not determined until centuries after the apostles, and the Church (led by the Holy Spirit) determined what the canon of Scripture was. Therefore, the Scriptures derive their authority from the Church.

While a fascinating theory, it’s one I never heard of. It would help if Pastor Sumpter had referenced his sources for this theory. Perhaps Pastor Sumpter’s “caricature” is really only “popular” in certain select small Protestant splinter groups? Should we not favor the more widely accepted understanding that there was widespread reception of Paul’s letters and the four Gospels early on followed by a more gradual and contested reception of James, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation, combined with the eventual exclusion of disputed but popular texts like the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement. This understanding of canon formation is similar to F.F. Bruce’s explanation which reflects the overwhelming mainstream of New Testament scholarship. (See link.)

Just as important is the mechanism by which canon formation took place. F.F. Bruce points out that it was not by means of a formal list that canon formation happened. He writes:

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect.

He notes that the canon list created in the North African synods, Hippo Regius (393) and Carthage (397), did not impose something new on the churches but rather codified what had already been a general longstanding practice.

A Very Interesting Theory

Pastor Sumpter draws on E. Randolph Richards’ theory of how the New Testament canon came about. Richards notes that it was a widespread practice for ancient writers to keep on hand copies of their correspondence. Then he speculates that the New Testament canon was completed when Peter and Paul ended up in Rome before their martyrdom. Sumpter summarized Richards’ theory as follows:

Given the fact that Peter ended up in Rome at around the same time as Paul, and Luke is there already with Paul, and Mark is on his way (2 Tim. 4:11), we have all the indications that one of the first apostolic New Testament canon committees was holding session there in Rome in the mid 60s A.D. And if all that weren’t enough, don’t forget the fact that Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture right around the same time (2 Pet. 3:15-16). In other words, the apostles knew what they were doing.

Add in John’s gospel, letters, and apocalypse, and we’re there. (Emphasis added.)

I don’t know what Toby Sumpter means by “we’re there” but I can tell you that it does not mean that he has proven his case! All he has done is sketch out an internally consistent hypothesis that awaits supporting evidence. What evidence is there that Peter and Paul were in Rome at the exact time in the mid 60s? And that Peter and Paul actually collaborated on finalizing the New Testament canon? And if he wants to really make his case, show how Hebrews and James came to be included in the New Testament canon in Rome in the mid 60s. What we have here is an interesting – if not a self-serving speculation? – theory that awaits solid evidence. This is far removed from the accepted mainstream of biblical scholarship.

Is the Muratorian Canon a List?

When we look closely at the Muratorian Canon (dated back to AD 170), what we find is not so much an authoritative listing of apostolic writings (which is what we would expect according to Pastor Sumpter’s theory) but an attempt to describe the books accepted by the early Church. What is striking about the Muratorian Canon is evidence that point to a traditioning process. In line 71 reference is made to the apocalypses of John and Peter being received:

We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in the church. (tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nostris legi in eclesia; lines 71-72) (Emphasis added.)

The rather puzzling phrase that “some of us” were reluctant to have Peter’s apocalypse being read in church point to the autonomy of the local bishop and their liturgical authority. And in line 81 we read that nothing from heretical writers like Arsinous, Valentinus, or Miltiades ought to be received by the churches.

… which cannot be received into the catholic Church – for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (arsinoi autem seu valentini vel mitiadis nihil in totum recipemus; line 81). (Emphasis added.)

If Pastor Sumpter’s theory of canon formation held up, we would not be reading a lengthy description of books read out loud in the early Church. Rather, we would be reading a short succinct listing of titles and the assertion that this is a copy of an authoritative codex listing the Apostles Peter and Paul’s writings as proposed by Randolph Richards.

Did Irenaeus Use a Canonical List?

One of the earliest witnesses to the New Testament canon is Irenaeus of Lyons (d. circa AD 195). To combat the heretics Irenaeus defends the four-fold Gospel in Against Heresies 3.11.8-9 (ANF Vol. 1 pp. 428-429). He writes:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars. . . .

The first thing to note is that Irenaeus takes the four-fold Gospel as an undisputed given. This points to an early development in canon formation with respect to the Gospel. Upon closer examination we find that Irenaeus gives us a lengthy description of the four Gospels. This is significant because he does not appeal to an official list of canonical Scripture which is what we would expect if Toby Sumpter’s theory held up. The formal listing represents a later stage of canon formation. In the early days of the Church the transmission of Scripture was part of a traditioning process. Irenaeus writes:

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

[Note: the Latin original has “ab Apostolis nobis tradita sunt” and “ab Apostolis traditum est veritatis Evangelium.” (Bold added) Source]

One important element in Pastor Sumpter’s argument is the notion that the production of written apostolic texts lay at the core of the Great Commission project. This implies that missionizing without written Scripture would be gravely deficient but this is not what we find in Irenaeus.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition . . . .

Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed . . . . (AH 3.4.2; ANF p. 417; emphases added)

It is important for Protestant readers to recognize that Irenaeus was not denigrating the importance of written Scripture but that his emphasis was on Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms. Irenaeus did not assume a tension between written and oral Apostolic tradition; nor did he assume a hierarchical ordering in which written tradition was superior to oral traditions. Rather he assumed written and oral Apostolic traditions to be complementary to each other.

Athanasius the Great

Athanasius’ Festal Letter

In AD 367, almost two centuries after the Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great issued his annual Paschal (Easter) letter to the Diocese of Alexandria. It is here that we see the formal listing of canonical Scripture (NPNF Vol. IV, pp. 551-552). That Athanasius needed to distinguish between canonical and apocryphal books shows how much the early Church relied on the process of reception. This would not be the case if there had been a precise list from the start as would be the case in Pastor Sumpter’s theory. Evidence for the traditioning process can be seen in the way Athanasius described the reception of Scripture texts:

. . . . as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers o the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine. (Letter 39, NPNF Vol. IV pp. 551-552; emphases added).

When we compare Athanasius’ approach to the biblical canon with early approaches we find a gradual transition from informal reception of Apostolic writings by local bishops to formal definition by the Church Catholic. Contrary to what Pastor Sumpter assumed, the early Church did not confer apostolic authority onto the New Testament texts; rather the early Church through its bishops recognized the New Testament texts as apostolic and rejected all others as spurious.

This raises serious concerns about Pastor Sumpter’s own theory and the purported problem that he seeks to address. Sumpter’s theory assumes a static listing of canonical scripture right from the time the Apostles Peter and Paul were alive. One, there is no evidence of such a hard and fast listing early on. What we do see is an early general consensus over the core of the New Testament with a few writings over which a general consensus would emerge centuries later. Two, there is no evidence for the “rival theory” that there was a blizzard of competing texts that forced church authorities to arbitrarily define as Scripture. Pastor Sumpter is welcome to defend his theory of canon formation by showing us the historical evidence that support his theory. What I have done is give an alternative theory of canon formation which is more in keeping with the general scholarship and is supported by evidence from the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies, and Athanasius the Great’s Festal Letter of AD 367.

Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers

Where’s the Bishop?

One missing element from Prof. Richards and Pastor Sumpter’s model of canon formation is the role played by early bishops. There’s no mention of the bishops at all in Sumpter’s article. This is a serious flaw given the importance of the bishop in early Christianity. Early bishops were ordained by the Apostles to lead the church and to preserve and pass on the Apostles’ teachings. They were tasked with preserving the Apostolic teaching whether in written or oral form. In the early days, the bishop had the authority to determine what would be read as Scriptures in the Sunday liturgy.

The apostolic basis of the early episcopacy explains the quick acceptance of the Petrine and Pauline corpus of the New Testament. As disciples of the Apostles the bishops were able to distinguish genuine apostolic teachings from heretical counterfeits. The need for synods where bishops gathered to decide on Hebrews, James and 3 John point to the importance of the early Church being guided by the Holy Spirit in the reception of these texts. What we do not find in the early sources is a top-down imposition of a canonical list. What we find are bishops gathered in synods seeking to reach a consensus as to what was apostolic.

Conclusion

This lengthy response is warranted by Toby Sumpter’s theological agenda – to prove that sola scriptura was part of early Christianity and not a late sixteenth century Protestant invention. Pastor Sumpter’s article is regrettably rife with guesswork, inference, and surmise. What we have found in our review of his article is an elaborate theory lacking in evidence. Given the lack of supporting evidence, the best thing for Pastor Sumpter is to admit that sola scriptura is a sixteenth century Protestant innovation. It represents a new approach to doing Christian theology that breaks from historic Christianity.

In contrast to Toby Sumpter’s speculative approach, I have taken an evidence based approach showing that the formation of the New Testament canon cannot be understood apart from the traditioning process. Evidence have been presented from Scripture, the church fathers, and church history for the Orthodox understanding of the New Testament canon formation, that is, through the traditioning process. The Orthodox Church through its bishops can trace its lineage back to the original Apostles. Through the past two millennia the Orthodox Church has faithfully preserved the physical text of Scripture as well as the right interpretation of the Scripture.

The debate over canon formation is far from a trivial matter. Canon formation requires an apostolic Church, a Church where its leaders have been ordained by the Apostles and their successors, and have in their possession Scripture through the traditioning process. Protestants lacking this historical traditioning process end up bootlegging sacred Scriptures.

Robert Arakaki

References

Athanasius the Great. “Festal Letter XXXIX.” NPNF Vol. IV, pp. 551-552.

F.F. Bruce. “The Canon of the New Testament” in Bible-Researcher.com

Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. ANF Vol. I.

“The Muratorian Fragment.” Bible-Researcher.com

E. Randolph Richards. 1998. “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998) 151-166.

Was the Reformation Necessary?

October 31, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 25 Comments

This is a relaunch article. It marks the end of my blog vacation and the OrthodoxBridge moving to Ancient Faith Blogs.

Luther posting the 95 Theses

This Saturday will mark the 498^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church (Wittenberg, Germany) sparking a huge theological debate that would radically alter the religious landscape of Europe.Within a few decades the once unified European society was divided among competing Christian churches.

As we draw near to the 500^th anniversary of Protestantism it would be good for Christians – Protestants and non-Protestants — to reflect on its origins and its legacy. And to ask the question: Was the Reformation Necessary? To answer this question, we need to first understand what justification was given for the Reformation. One of the finest apologia was written by John Calvin.

Historical Context

In 1543, Calvin wrote “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in anticipation of Emperor Charles V’s convening the Diet of Spires (Speyer). Altogether there were four Diets (parliamentary assemblies) held at the town of Speyer situated on the river Rhine in Bavaria. During that period the Reformation was seen as a minor faction outlawed at the Diet of Worms (1521) and politically a nuisance. It is likely that the Reformation would have been quashed then and there if it were not for the fragile state of Europe’s political unity. The four Diets at Speyer trace the growth of the Reformation from a dissenting view into a separate church body independent of Rome.

At the first Diet of Speyer in 1526 in a moment of political and military weakness, Charles V was forced to accept the principle allowing each local ruler to rule as he wished: “every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty.” This decision in effect suspended the Diet of Worms and allowed the Lutherans to coexist with the Roman Catholics. (In 1526 the Turks were advancing in Hungary and later that year would lay siege to Vienna necessitating vigorous military action by the Emperor.) In 1529, Charles V was strong enough to seek the reversal of the 1526 resolution. While most complied, six rulers along with fourteen free cities objected. They drew up an appeal which would be known as the “Protest at Speyer”; the signatories would become known as “Protestants.” A third diet of Speyer was convened in 1542 for the purpose for rallying support against the Turks. The Protestant princes withheld support until the Emperor agreed to the Peace of Nuremberg (1532). A fourth Diet at Speyer was convened in 1544. This time Charles V needed support against two fronts, against Francis I of France and against the Turks. It was in this the context that Calvin composed “The Necessity of Reforming the Church.” By 1555 the Emperor would be forced to give legal recognition to the Lutherans in the Peace of Augsburg.

Source: James Jackson

Historically, Calvin’s “Necessity of Reforming the Church” was not a game changer. However, Theodore Beza (1519-1605) considered this essay one of the “most powerful” of the time (Beza, p. 12). This review seeks to be sensitive to the fact that Calvin’s essay was written in the context of a Protestant versus Roman Catholic debate while assessing Calvin’s apologia for the Reformation from the standpoint of the Orthodox Faith. References and page numbers are from J.K.S. Reid’s Calvin: Theological Treatises (1954).

Iconoclasm and True Worship

Calvin’s first justification is the use of images in churches which for him impedes “spiritual worship.”

When God is worshipped in images, when fictious worship is instituted in his name, when supplication is made to the images of saints, and divine honours paid to dead men’s bones, and other similar things, we call them abominations as they are. For this cause, those who hate our doctrine inveigh against us, and represent us as heretics who dare to abolish the worship of God as approved of old by the Church (p. 188).

The critique was directed against Roman Catholicism which at the time was heavily influenced by the Renaissance. While there may have been excesses in the churches of Calvin’s time, his remedy was drastic – the removal of all images from churches. This is something no Orthodox Christian could endorse especially in light of the fact that iconoclasm was condemned by an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787).

Strasbourg Cathedral – France Source

Calvin’s argument here is highly polemical with very little theological reasoning involved. Calvin’s failure to rebut John of Damascus’ classic defense of icons based on the Incarnation and the biblical basis for the use of image in Old Testament worship present a gaping hole in his argument for the necessity of the Reformation. See my critique of Calvin’s iconoclasm in “Calvin Versus the Icon.”

Spiritual Worship versus Liturgical Worship

Calvin’s next target is what he deemed “external worship” and “ceremonies” (p. 191). Calvin argues that there was a time when liturgical worship was useful (i.e., during the Old Testament) but that with the coming of Christ liturgical worship has been abrogated.

When Christ was absent and not yet manifested, ceremonies by shadowing him forth nourished the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers; but now they only obscure his present and conspicuous glory. We see what God himself has done. For those ceremonies which he had commanded for a time has now abrogated forever (p. 192; emphasis added).

This argument is a form of dispensationalism. While there are differences between Jewish and Christian worship, Calvin pushes it to the breaking point. Calvin’s dismissal of liturgical worship overlooks the fact that early Christian worship was liturgical. Evidence for this can be found in Volume VII of the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series p. 529 ff.

Calvin objects to external ceremonial worship on the grounds that it leads to the failure of people to give their hearts and minds to God (p. 193).

For while it is incumbent on true worshippers to give heart and mind, men always want to invent a mode of serving God quite different from this, their object being to perform for him certain bodily observances, and keep the mind to themselves. Moreover, they imagine that when they thrust external pomps upon him, they have by this artifice evaded the necessity of giving themselves (p. 193).

For Calvin true Christian worship consists of the preaching of Scripture and the inculcation of right understanding of the Gospel.

For the Orthodox Calvin’s derisive assessment of the Liturgy is hard to swallow. The Liturgy lies at the core of Orthodox life. On most Sundays we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which dates to the fifth century and on 10 Sundays we use the older Liturgy of St. Basil which dates to the fourth century. Calvin’s argument here rests on the assumption that early Christian worship was basically Protestant in form (Reformed). This is highly questionable in light of the church fathers and historical evidence. Most likely the theological motive for Calvin’s anti-liturgical stance is his spiritual versus physical dichotomy.

In short, as God requires us to worship him in a spiritual manner, so we with all zeal urge men to all the spiritual sacrifices which he commends (p. 187).

Protestantism’s emphasis on the sermon and its downplaying of the embodied aspects of worship: bowing, prostrations, processions, candles, incense, etc. can be seen as originating from this dichotomy. There is no evidence that the early Christian worship was informed by this mind/body dichotomy. Where Calvin takes an either/or approach, Orthodoxy takes a both/and approach holding that the symbolism and ritual actions that comprise the Liturgy help us better understand Scripture.

Reforming Prayer

Calvin strongly objects to the intercession of the saints and to the practice of praying in an unknown tongue (pp. 194-197). He notes that there was a Catholic Archbishop who threatened to throw in prison anyone who dared to pray the Lord’s Prayer in a language other than Latin (p. 197)! Calvin’s motive was to emphasize Christ as the sole mediator. For him the invocation of the saints is idolatrous (p. 190). Similarly, he condemns relics, religious processions, and miraculous icons.

Now it cannot without effrontery be denied, that when the Reformers appeared he world was more than ever afflicted with this blindness. It was therefore absolutely necessary to urge men with these prophetic rebukes, and divert them, as by force, from that infatuation lest they might any longer imagine that God was satisfied with bare ceremonies, as children are with shows (p. 191; emphasis added).

This leads Calvin to call for the reforming of worship and devotional practices so as to restore what he calls “spiritual worship.” In this particular passage Calvin seems to advocate church reform by preaching and if that did not work by force.

It is hard to know to what extent medieval Roman Catholic devotional practices had fallen into excesses during Calvin’s time but an Orthodox Christian would be taken aback by the sharpness of Calvin’s critique. Praying to the saints is an ancient Christian practice. The Rylands Papyrus 470 which dates to AD 250 contains a prayer to the Virgin Mary asking for her help. The ancient Christian practice of praying to the saints is based on Christ’s resurrection and the communion of saints. While certain bishops sought to temper the excesses in popular piety surrounding the commemoration of the departed the idea of worshipers here below – the church militant — being surrounded by the departed – the church triumphant – became part of the Christian Faith. Excess in popular piety is best held in check through faithful participation in the liturgical life of the Church and submitting to the pastoral care of the priesthood.

Also, in comparison to Roman Catholicism Orthodoxy has been more receptive to the use of the vernacular in the Liturgy. The Church of Rome’s inflexible stance on Latin as the language of worship changed with Vatican II. An Orthodox Christian would find it puzzling that the acceptance of the vernacular was accompanied with a new liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass. Why not retain the historic Mass but translate it into the local vernacular? This is what is done in many Orthodox parishes in the US. Many Orthodox parishes celebrate the ancient St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy in English or a mixture of English and non-English.

While not a prominent part of contemporary Reformed-Orthodox dialogue it should be noted that not only does Orthodoxy today continue to venerate icons, we also have relics and miraculous icons. While the danger of fraud exists, Orthodoxy has safeguards to discern the validity of these supernatural manifestations. What is concerning about Calvin’s critique is the way it rejects the sacramental understanding of reality so fundamental to Orthodoxy. Also, concerning is the secularizing effects of Calvin’s position. The Protestant Reformers did not deny the supernatural but confined it to Scripture. For example, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were efficacious because of the power of the “Word of God” (signaled by the capitalized form for the Bible) invoked during the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Another implication of Calvin’s emphasis on personal faith is the interiorizing and psychologizing effects on Protestant spirituality. The personal interior dimension of Christianity took priority over the collective ecclesial aspects of the Christian life. Thus, Calvin’s quest to reform prayer comes with a high cost that many Protestants may not be aware of.

The Ground of Salvation

It was justification by faith that sparked the Reformation. When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses he called into question the practice of selling indulgences. In the ensuing debates the focus shifted to the ground of salvation. The sale of indulgences was based on the Western medieval theory of the church as a treasury of merit and the power of the keys.

They say that by the keys the treasury of the Church is unlocked, so that what is wanting to ourselves is applied out of the merits of Christ and the saints. We on the contrary maintain that the sins of men are forgiven freely, and we acknowledge no other satisfaction than that which Christ accomplished, when, by the sacrifice of his death, he expiated our sins (p. 200).

Much of the debate surrounding justification by faith was framed and constrained by the judicial, forensic paradigm to the exclusion of other soteriological paradigms. While much of Calvin’s rebuttal of his opponents rested on the forensic theory of salvation, one can find a non-forensic understanding of salvation in his writings.

This consideration is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works what proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with the best consolation, lest they despond when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence, is pleased to pardon it (p. 202).

Calvin’s emphasis here on God’s paternal love for humanity is surprisingly close to what Orthodoxy affirms.

The issue of the ground of our salvation and the faith versus works tension was never a major issue in Orthodoxy. Unlike Western Christianity, Orthodoxy never went into detail about how we are saved and the means by which we appropriate salvation in Christ. Where Orthodox soteriology remains rooted in patristic theology, medieval Catholicism took a more legal and philosophical turn with unexpected innovations like the sale of indulgences and the understanding of the Church as a treasury of merits. The Orthodox understanding of salvation is informed by the Christus Victor (Christ the Conqueror) motif as is evidenced by the annual Pascha (Easter) service and by the understanding of salvation as union with Christ. The theme of union with Christ is much more intimate and relational than the idea of imputation of Christ’s merits which is more impersonal and transactional in nature. Unlike certain readings of sola fide (justification by faith alone), the Orthodox understanding of the relationship between faith in Christ and good works is more organic and synergistic. We read in Decree 13 of the Confession of Dositheus:

We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works.

Soteriology is one of the key justifications for the Reformation. In claiming to bring back the Gospel the Protestant Reformers introduced a much more narrow understanding of the Gospel. The debates over justification would be consequential for Protestantism. Justification by faith was elevated into dogma. Some Protestants insist that unless one holds fast to the distinction between imputed righteousness and infused righteousness one will not have a “proper” understanding of the Gospel and if one did not have a “proper” understanding of the Gospel one was not truly a Christian! The early Church on the other hand dogmatized on Christology but remained flexible and ambiguous on how we are saved by Christ. It was not until the medieval Scholasticism introduced these categorical precision that the Catholic versus Protestant debates over justification became a possibility. One unforeseen consequence of these debates is that personal faith in Christ soon became equated with intellectual assent to a particular forensic theory of salvation. Another consequence is that it erects walls between Protestantism and other traditions like Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy being rooted in the church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils would not view the Protestant Reformers’ “rediscovered” Gospel in sola fide (justification by faith alone) as sufficient justification for the Reformation but more as a theological innovation peculiar to the West.

Reforming the Sacraments

For Calvin the reform of the church entailed the reforming of the sacraments, removing man-made additions and returning to the simplicity of biblical worship. This is his justification for reducing the number of sacraments from seven to two. Calvin is reacting to several developments: (1) liturgical additions not found in the Bible, (2) the adoration of the Host, (3) withholding the communion chalice from the laity, and (4) the use of non-vernacular in worship. For Calvin the pastor medieval Catholic worship resulted in the laity being reduced to passive bystanders looking on with dumb incomprehension. Calvin seeks to replace this magical understanding of the sacraments with one based on an intelligent understanding of Scripture in combination with a lively faith in Christ.

Like Calvin modern day Evangelicals hold to two sacraments but many will be surprised by how Calvin understood the sacraments. Calvin did not do away with infant baptism, nor did he insist on total immersion. While Calvin rejected the medieval Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, he did not embrace a purely symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

Accordingly, in the first place he gives the command, by which he bids us take, eat and drink; and then in the next place he adds and annexes the promise, in which he testifies that what we eat is his body, and what we drink is his blood. . . . . For this promise of Christ, by which he offers his own body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine, belongs to those who receive them at his hand, to celebrate the mystery in the manner which he enjoins (p. 205; emphasis added).

Calvin adopts a view somewhere between the extremes of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the later Protestant Evangelical “just a symbol” understanding of the Lord’s Supper. However, his “under the symbols” seems to implicitly deny that the bread and the wine undergo a change in the Eucharist. It is at odds with the understanding of the early church fathers.

Assessing Calvin’s Apologia

There is a funny story about a Protestant who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. He runs up to an Orthodox priest and says: “I’m a Protestant, what must I do to become Orthodox?” The priest answered: “You must give up your Roman Catholicism!” The point here is that many of the problems in Protestant doctrine and worship reflect its origins in Roman Catholicism. It also reflects the fact that Western Christianity has broken from its patristic roots in the early Church. Another way of putting it is that Protestants are innocent victims of Rome’s errors and innovations.

To sum up, Calvin justifies the Reformation on three grounds: (1) doctrine, (2) the sacraments, and (3) church government, claiming that the goal was to restore the “old form” using Scripture (i.e., sola scriptura).

Therefore let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administering the sacraments, and our method of governing the Church; and in none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change in the old form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the Word of God. (p. 187; emphasis added)

Calvin and the other Reformers had no intention of dividing the Church or of creating a new religion. They desired to bring back the old forms using the Bible as their standard and guide. The results have been quite different from what the Reformers had expected. The next five centuries would see within Protestantism one church split over another, new doctrines, new forms of worship, and even new morality. One interesting statement in Calvin’s apologia is the sharp denunciation of “new worship” (p. 192).

. . . God in many passages forbids any new worship unsanctioned by his Word, declared that he is gravely offended by such audacity, and threatens it with severe punishment, it is clear that the reformation which we have introduced was demanded by a strong necessity” (p. 192; emphasis added).

In light of the fact modern day Protestant worship ranges from so-called traditional organ and hymnal worship that date to the 1700s, to exuberant Pentecostal worship, to seeker friendly services with rock-n-roll style praise bands, to the more liturgical ancient-future worship one has to wonder if the Protestant cure is worse than the disease the Reformers sought to cure!

It is encouraging to see a growing interest among Reformed Christians in the ancient liturgies and the early church fathers. This points to a convergence between two quite different traditions. However, they remain far apart on icons, praying to the saints, and the real presence in the Eucharist. These are not minor points. Calvin’s essay “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” makes clear these are part of the basic rationale for the Reformation.

As Protestantism’s five hundredth anniversary draws near it provides an opportunity for Reformed and Orthodox Christians to assess the Reformation and ask: Was the Reformation Necessary? My answer as an Orthodox Christian is that while the situation of medieval Catholicism in Luther and Calvin’s time may have warranted significant corrective action, the Protestant cure is worse than the disease. For all its adherence to Scripture the Reformed tradition as a whole has failed to recover the “old form” found in ancient Christianity. Its numerous church splits put it at odds with the catholicity and unity of the early Church. Orthodoxy being rooted in the early Church, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and in Apostolic Tradition has avoided many of the problems that have long plagued Western Christianity. Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation. It has had no need for the Reformation because it has remained rooted in the patristic consensus and because it has resisted the innovations of post-Schism medieval Roman Catholicism. The fact that Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation is something that a Protestant should give thought to.

Already a conversation about the necessity of the Reformation is underway. Three major Reformed leaders: Don Carson, John Piper, and Tim Keller did a videotaped conversation: “Why the Reformation Matters.” The Internet Monk published: “Reformation Week 2015: Another Look – God’s Righteousness.” The Reformed-OrthodoxBridge hopes to provide a space where the two traditions can meet and converse in an atmosphere of civility and charity.

Robert Arakaki

References

Theodore Beza. “Life of John Calvin.”

James Jackson. “The Reformation and Counter-Reformation.”

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. “Diets of Speyer.”

J.K.S. Reid, ed. 1954. Calvin: Theological Treatises. The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Additional Resources

Internet Monk (Chaplain Mike). 2015. “Reformation Week 2015: Another Look – God’s Righteousness.”

The Gospel Coalition. 2015. “Keller, Piper, and Carson on Why the Reformation Matters.”

Ligonier Ministries (Robert Rothwell). 2014. “What is Reformation Day All About?”

Category: Tradition (Page 5 of 18)

The Early Church Fathers: Babies or Giants?

Corpus Formation versus Canon Formation

Was the Reformation Necessary?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives