Category: Uncategorized (Page 11 of 14)

Pastor Doug Wilson 13 June 2011

Today’s posting is by “Nicodemus.”  Welcome Nicodemus!

Doug Wilson is Pastor at Christ Church and instructor at New St. Andrews College, in Moscow, ID. He is a leader in the Reformed community that is carefully re-thinking, to our delight, the Church’s history and worship. Though Pastor Wilson is very capable, his short YouTube video (June 13, 2011) ad-lib comments simply got the better of him. In this video he makes several blunders that are quite frankly, embarrassing. The question posed to him is whether Orthodoxy has a valid claim to a continuous history linking them with the early Church Bishops, that neither Roman Catholicism nor Protestantism have?

Pastor Wilson first blunders saying point blank: “The idea that the Eastern Orthodox Church goes back before the Roman Catholic Church is just laughable.” He partly salvages the blooper by saying the Church was “all together” before the split. What he fails to portray is a lucid understanding of Church history. The One, Holy Apostolic, Catholic Church did exist in unity for over a thousand years. No, it was not a perfect or an absolute unity as if there were no disputes. In solid, unified marriages, husbands and wives have disputes, minor and major, that are worked out over time. So did the Church. There were big disputes with Gnostic and Arian heretics over the nature of Christ’s Incarnate body and deity, the Trinity, establishing the New Testament Scriptures, and later on with Icon. These were resolved over the early centuries by Church Councils. Historic Creeds were formulated and the Church embraced a unity under five Patriarchs. This history is not obscure, rather it is well documented. Protestantism’s assumptions, and a studied ambiguity about the early Church, have led it to grossly neglect a historicity overwhelmingly embraced by Patristic Church scholars. Even the book Pastor Wilson recommends (unread) later in the video Through Western Eyes, by Robert Letham confirms this history against him. (See Mr. Arakaki’s Blog review of Letham’s book below)

Pastor Wilson tells a story about of a letter from Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis to Jerome about tearing down an Icon of Christ in a Church. Does Pastor Wilson seriously believe this Bishop’s disapproval of Icons speaks for the entire early Church?  Conclusions made from anecdotal evidence are unreliable because they do not follow from the evidence and might easily be incorrect. This story proves about as much as a letter from Anabaptist leader Thomas Muentzer, proving how blasphemous it is to baptize infants after the Reformation. Or, perhaps a letter from Martin Luther establishing how outrageous it is that James, Revelation and Hebrews were included in the New Testament Cannon of Holy Scripture!  Such issues were resolved over time, by the collective wisdom of the Bishops, via the active guidance of the Holy Spirit in Church Counsels, against all the above authors. (more on Icons latter)

It is a historic fact that Roman Catholicism separated itself from the established Church. The causes of the rift are not disputed. Rome’s Bishop asserted supremacy over all other Patriarchs, Bishops, and Churches, and unilaterally inserted the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. This initiated the Great Schism around 1054. The other Patriarchs refused, arguing that Rome never had, and does not possess any right to such new and novel usurpation of authority and doctrine. So, Rome went her own way, splitting off from the One, Historic, Apostolic and Catholic Church that had existed for over a thousand years. The diagram below accurately depicts how the Orthodox Church pre-dates a later distinctively Roman Catholicism. Rome continued its evolution after the Great Schism – ultamately falling into a corruption from which the Protestant Reformers themselves found cause to separate. (This is why some Orthodox scholars consider Roman Catholics, to be  the first Protestants!)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqRHoC9v-94

Time Line of Church History

Most embarrassing is Pastor Wilson’s misunderstanding of the Icon issue. This is surprising as his friend and colleague Wes Callahan wrote an article on Icons for Credenda Agenda (the magazine Wilson edits and also contributes to) years ago. Mr. Callahan later publicly apologized to Patrick Barnes, who had taken him to task for his article. The letter is printed below (link publicly available via google search) because it is such an excellent, instructive example of how to respond humbly when you have been publicly careless. Mr. Callahan’s gracious letter also contains a link to Patrick Barnes’ excellent refutation article for your reading. Sadly, Pastor Wilson seems to have learned little from this exchange.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/presumptuous2.aspx  http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/presumptuous.aspx

Nor, has Pastor Wilson learned from Mr. Arakaki’s irenic interaction with John Calvin’s Institutes, on Icons in this Blog below. The fact is, the Seventh Ecumenical Counsel dealt meticulously with the issues surrounding the use of Icons in Christian worship. (Yes, these Bishops actually had heard of the second commandment!) In fact, they even studied how the Jews historically understood the 2^nd commandment, especially in light of abundant “physical imagery” used in both the Tabernacle and Temple. Following the Apostles and early Church Fathers, they meditated also over how the monumental nature of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ in the flesh had import, and how the Apostles and early Fathers understood Icons in the light of the New Covenant. You can read all about it here in highly honored Patristic scholar, Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine Vol 2: the Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). (Doctor Pelikan, a life-long Lutheran, converted to Orthodox in 1998 at age 74, only to repose eight years later in 2006.)

Contrary to Pastor Wilson, the issue is not so simple as kissing women other than his wife. Even here I suspect Pastor Wilson affectionately kissed his late Mother, and rightly kisses any sisters, grown daughters, and on occasion, other non-relative women, in a very different way and context than he kisses his wife (yet without worshiping any of them)! Which partly makes the point about Icons! What is disappointing is, though certainly able, Pastor Wilson has refused thus far to do the reading and study easily available to him needed to understand the issue of Icons before making specious public declarations. After doing so, we pray Pastor Wilson will display a similar courage and humility as his friend Mr. Callahan (who likely would help him compose his own letter of apology) and become more carefully studied in future public remarks.

Nicodemus

Check Out  Pastor Doug Wilson’s Response To “Nicodemus”!

 Reply to Robin Phillips 24-Aug-2011 Comments (2 of 2)

On August 24, 2011, Robin Phillips sent five lengthy responses to my blog posting: “Response To Robin Phillips’ ‘Questions About Sola Scriptura’” (August 1, 2011).  Rather than burying the dialogue between Robin and me in the comment section, I decided to use Robin’s responses as a basis for two postings.

Robin’s comments are first presented in italics.  I propose to present the issues raised by Robin in the form of a question to which I will give an answer.  Due to the length of the disucssion I plan to post Robin’s response in two postings: August 28 and September 1.  Today’s posting is the second of the two part response.

Robin Phillips — Reply #3

Robert wrote, “Protestantism also believes in apostolicity but in a quite different manner. It believes that after the apostles died the apostolic witness continued solely in an inscripturated form and that the authority of Scripture is independent of the church. Where Orthodoxy assumes an essential continuity between the apostles and the post-apostolic church, the Protestant model interposes a series of ruptures or discontinuities. It assumes that the post-apostolic church quickly fell into heresy and apostasy, and that the Gospel was rediscovered with the Protestant Reformation.” Is that essential to Protestantism or accidental? I mean, couldn’t a Protestant just correct that aspect of Protestantism and still remain a Protestant? But doesn’t this all hinge on a bit of a false dilemma anyway? If our only options are between (A) the Orthodox view of apostolic succession, with the consequence that the church has and always has had genuine God-appointed authority, and that such authority is located in the EO church; and (B) the common Protestant view that the true church fell off the board, maybe flaming up once in a while with people like Hus or a small ‘remnant’ from time to time, but basically not existing until the reformation “rediscovered” it, then A is clearly the more Biblical, given the strong statements that the apostles themselves made about the church (“pillar and ground of the truth” etc). But isn’t there a third option, namely that the true church did exist throughout all of the Middle Ages in the institution of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church, and that the true church still exists today in all three of the main branches of Christendom? Since the visible church, within this schema, does not imply perfection or apostolic succession, the Protestant who adopts this position can affirm both that the Western church of the Middle Ages acquired significant defects without denying that it ever stopped being the true church. So basically, the Orthodox are and have always been the true church, the Catholics have and always have been the true church, and the Protestants are and always have been the true church (excluding the Protestant sects like Mormonism, obviously). One could then say, as Philip Schaff did in The Principle of Protestantism, that the Reformation was the greatest act of the catholic church since the apostles, that Luther was simply unfolding the best of the historical church’s theology, and further sharpening it with his additional exegetical insights. The Protestant reformation was a purifying and reposition of what was already there. This position preserves the basic Protestant emphasis that the church can go wrong (even grossly so) without lapsing into option B above where the church dropped off the board to be rediscovered.

Robert Arakaki’s Response

Question #3.1 – Is it essential to Protestantism that the church fell into error and that the Reformation played a key role in the recovery Gospel?  Can we not affirm that the church existed all through the Middle Ages in the Roman Catholic Church and that “the Reformation was the greatest act of the catholic church since the apostles”?

Philip Schaff’s argument that the Reformation constitutes a fruit of the Catholic Church rests upon a Hegelian approach to church history.  This is a view I am very familiar with.  I once identified my theology as Mercersburg Theology.  However, I came to the conclusion that Schaff’s model is untenable.  One is that his The Principle of Protestantism speaks to Western Christianity.  He sets up his dialectics between the English Oxford Movement and the American frontier revivalism, and between the Reformation and Catholicism.  Nowhere did Schaff address the split between East and West and the Filioque clause.  Furthermore, Orthodoxy’s staunch rejection of innovation makes Schaff’s Hegelian methodology problematic.  In addition, I would note that Schaff’s approach to church unity resulted in the Ecumenical Movement which is based upon the understanding that doctrine and worship are negotiable items.  The Orthodox churches may have participated in the World Council of Churches but it has not put her dogmas or liturgies on the table so to speak.  Furthermore, Schaff’s partner, John Nevin, considered historical continuity in the form of adherence to the Nicene Creed and the sacraments.  Using these two criteria much of Protestantism today must be excluded on the grounds that they do not formally hold to the Nicene Creed, nor do they hold to the Reformed understanding of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper.

Robin Phillips — Reply #4

I appreciated Robert rooting EO in history the way he did, and this echoes what other Eastern Orthodox brothers have told me about the claims of the EO church standing or falling on history. As Robert wrote, “The advantage of Orthodoxy’s stress on historicity is that it lends itself to external verification.” However, I don’t think approach comes without any problems of its own. Apart from the point that Tim made about historical truths not being necessary truths (which I do not feel has been properly answered yet), my only question would be: how do we avoid the problem of each person being his own individual pope when interpreting history? Don’t think I am succumbing to sophistry in asking this question; it is actually quite practical because I often feel (when assessing the arguments presented by EO apologists) that one would almost have to have a PhD in history to adequately adjudicate between their claims and those of Protestant historians. I’ve given myself a headache on more than one occasion just trying to adjudicate between EO historiography and RC historiography. Therefore, it is by not means certain that the Eastern Orthodox have not replaced the problem of private interpretation of scripture with the equally difficult problem of private interpretation of history. Thus, to echo a point that Tim has already made, (and which has not yet been adequately addressed) if the individual cannot be trusted to interpret scripture for himself, how can he be trusted to interpret history for himself?

Robert Arakaki’s Response

My Response #4

My grounding of my apologetics in history is partly due to my empirical bent; but more importantly it stems from the historical reality of the Incarnation, the basis for Christian Good News.  The Incarnation of the Eternal Word, that is, the entrance of the divine Logos into human history means that the life of Jesus Christ cannot be considered mere contingent historical events but charged with universal relevance.  Jesus Christ is not another man, but the Second Adam.  This is not a scientific finding but a faith stance of a Christian; it is foundational to being a Christian.

I would also like to note that much of the Bible’s teachings are presented in the form of historical narrative.  Jesus Christ likewise appealed to the miracles he did as sufficient grounds for his messianic claims (John 10:37-38)

Question #4.1: How do I respond to Tim’s point that historical truths are not necessary truths?

I suspect that Tim here is reiterating Gotthold Lessing’s famous axiom: “Contingent truths of history can never be proof of the necessary truths of reason.”  I am not a philosopher by training so I will just make a few comments and invite others who are better trained in philosophy to provide their insights.  The first thing I noticed about this axiom is that it assumes that the necessary truths of reason are superior to concrete historical facts.  This seems to slice reality into two disparate domains.  G.W. Bromiley noted that that Lessing’s axiom is basically a denial of the Incarnation; Jesus is viewed as a man among men, and lasting value is to be found in his teachings, not in what he did or who he was.  The Orthodox faith, actually the Christian religion, is grounded in the historicity of the Incarnation, Christ’s death and his third day resurrection.  The Christian faith was originally cast in the form of a narrative as evidenced by the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.  Protestant creeds, organized along the lines of abstract syllogistic logic reflect a novel epistemology.

A quick read of Philosophos.com’s article “Liebniz” states that for Liebniz God is pure being, the Primary Monad, and that by definition monads do not interact.  If that is an accurate description of Liebniz’s metaphysics and if one can surmise that his metaphysics underly his eptistemology, then Liebniz’s philosophical system is hostile to the Christian doctrine of the Incaration.

My difficulty with the notion of “necessary truths of reason” is that it assumes the superiority of abstract concepts.  This view entails a disembodied notion of truth whereas Orthodoxy is based upon the understanding of truth as real, concreted, historical, and embodied.  To put it another way, the Orthodox understanding of truth is social and ecclesial.  I found George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine in which he put forward the “cultural-linguistic alternative” rather helpful.  To give an example of the socially constructed nature of Orthodox doctrine, honoring Mary is not just an idea but a doctrine expressed in practice whenever we sing the “Axios Estin” (It is truly right to bless you….) in every Sunday Liturgy.  In Orthodoxy right doctrine is expressed in its worship.  Either one consents to the teachings of the Orthodox Church or one can leave for another church; remaining in the Orthodox Church while disagreeing with its fundamental teachings is to be a hypocrite.

See G.W. Bromiley’s article “History and Truth: A Study of the Axiom of Lessing.” The Evangelical Quarterly (July 1946).

See George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age.

“Liebniz”  in Philosophos.com

Question #4.2: How do we avoid the problem of each person being his own individual pope when interpreting history?  

I once began an article with the statement: “Tell me the history of Christianity and I can tell you your theology.”  The point I was making was that history is more than facts and chronology, history entails narrative, i.e., a unifying and organizing theme that frames the persons and events.  There cannot be an impartial objective history because the narrator has to situate himself somewhere before he can tell the story.  Human history is part of a social process; it is different from the chronology of events constructed by natural scientists.

I suspect Robin suffered massive headaches in adjudicating between Eastern Orthodox historiography and Roman Catholic historiography largely because he was seeking some impartial middle ground.  It can’t be done.  It’s like a divorce where either the husband leaves the wife, or the wife leaves the husband.  There are two issues by which one can assess the claims of the two parties: (1) Rome’s unilateral insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed and (2) Rome’s claim to papal supremacy over all Christians.  Using the preponderance of evidence approach one can then determine whether or not the biblical evidence, the patristic consensus and Ecumenical Councils support the claims of the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church.  It was by using this approach that I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t much evidence to support the Catholic understanding of the papacy.  When I was at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I had a meeting with a fellow student who had just converted to Catholicism.  When I asked him about the biblical basis for papal supremacy he couldn’t give me a satisfactory answer.  I read through several books by converts to Catholicism and was disappointed with the evidence they presented.  Thus, using the preponderance of evidence approach I determined that the Roman Catholic claims fell short on one particularly important test case.  I am very interested to learn from Robin what he has learned and/or concluded from his research on these two crucial make or break issues: (1) the Filioque clause and (2) papal supremacy.  It is important to keep in mind that there are two ways of approaching the issue.  One way is to examine the Roman Catholic arguments for the reasonableness and logic in support of the double procession theory.  The other way is to follow the Orthodox approach which looks for conciliarity and patristic consensus.  Where the first stresses abstract reasoning, the latter gives more weight to historical continuity and ecclesial unity.

One doesn’t have to have a Ph.D. in history to make that determination.  God guides each person according to the gifts he has given them.  I have a good friend who has an undergraduate degree in Architecture.  He struggled through his understanding of Evangelicalism and became Orthodox before I did.  Because of my extensive reading in theology and my seminary background, I needed more time to think through the issue before I was ready to become Orthodox.  If anything my educational background slowed me up but because I had to think through several critical issues (not all the issues) before I was able to convert to Orthodoxy with a clear conscience.  My advice to Robin and others in his situation is to thank God for the gifts and talents He has given you and use them the best you can, and always ask God for his guidance.  If you have a high school education, do your reading, visit the local Orthodox, talk it over with your spouse, pray about it and follow God’s leading in your life.  The same thing applies to a seminary professor or church pastor.  It may be that they will have to do a lot more reading and soul searching but in matters of spiritual discernment, their advance degrees do not necessarily give them the edge over their less educated brethren.  Robin and other highly educated Christians should guard against giving reason more priority than is necessary.  George Lindbeck in The Nature of Doctrine notes:

In the early days of the Christian church, for example, it was the gnostics, not the catholics, who were most inclined to redescribe the faith in a new interpretive framework.  Pagan converts to the catholic mainstream did not, for the most part, first understand the faith and then decide to become Christians; rather, the process was reversed: they first decided and then they understood.  More precisely, they were first attracted by the Chrstian community and form of life (p. 132; emphasis added).  

He continues,

The reasons for attraction ranged from the noble to the ignoble and were as diverse as the individuals involved; but for whatever motives they submitted themselves to prolonged catechetical instruction in which they practiced new modes of behavior and learned the stories of Israel and their fulfillment in Christ.  Only after they had acquired proficiency in the alien Christian language and form of life were they deemed able intelligently and responsibly to profess the faith, to be baptized.  (p. 132; emphasis added)

I suspect that Robin’s preoccupation with an adequate intellectual grasp of Orthodoxy may reflect his modern Western cultural orientation, and possibly the influence of medieval scholastic theology.

One last point about being an “individual pope,” the term “individual pope” can only happen in Protestantism where there is no external magisterium as each individual is bound to their own conscience and the word of God.  With Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy there can be no “individual pope”; this is because both traditions expect their members to submit to the authority of the church.  In the case Roman Catholicism one submits to the Pope through the local bishop.  In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy one submits to the local bishop the guardian and recipient of Tradition.  In the case of a potential convert one has the freedom to investigate the claims of the Orthodox Church and disagree and even disregard her teachings and practices, but to be received into the Orthodox Church one relinquishes one’s autonomy and accepts the teachings and practices of the Church.  To become Orthodox entails more than intellectual assent to her doctrines but also the promise to live by her spiritual disciplines and to submit to the authority of her priests (cf. Hebrews 13:17).

Robin Phillips — Reply #5

Robert wrote, “An Orthodox bishop cannot disregard the Ecumenical Councils. He cannot disregard the church calendar with its feasts and holy days. That would be like a politician dismissing the US Constitution as a piece of paper….What does one do if the bishop becomes heterodox? The first thing is to make sure one has the facts right. If one acts in haste then the peace and harmony of the church gets disrupted. Let’s say that a bishop does go off the rails, then one can raise the issue with one’s priest and with other laity. One can appeal to other bishops in America and abroad.”

But doesn’t this assume that the majority are still trustworthy? But how do we know that? How do we know that a priest is going to stay as loyal to the Ecumenical Councils as a politician should stay loyal to the US Constitution? (I haven’t yet read Robert’s’ post about Apostolic Succession, again in response to an article of mine, so forgive me if these questions are answered there) Given that the East teaches that the entire Western church fell off the board, we surely cannot rule out a priori that the bishops cannot disregard the Ecumenical Councils. When we factor in verses like Acts 20:25, together with the fact that the bishops in the West who are (by EO standards) heterodox were also claimants of Apostolic Succession, it seems problematic to maintain a priori that the true church cannot error institutionally.

Robert cited II Timothy 2:2 as a proof text for Apostolic Succession, but according to my own private interpretation of the passage, the blessed brother Paul is issuing a command rather than a promise. We could say that because Apostolic Succession is true it follows that my private interpretation is flawed by virtue of being my private interpretation, but then wouldn’t that be begging the question?

Robert Arakaki’s Response

Question #5.1: Given that the “entire Western church fell off the board” does that mean we cannot rule out bishops disregarding the Ecumenical Councils?

From an Orthodox standpoint Robin’s question here is a non sequitur.  For all its criticism of the Church of Rome, the Orthodox Church never claimed that Rome disregarded the Ecumenical Councils.  If I am wrong here, please show me the evidence.  The Orthodox Church did in fact accuse the Church of Rome of breaking from Tradition through innovative teachings like the Filioque clause, papal supremacy, papal infallibility, etc.  Officially speaking, the Church of Rome has not disregarded the Ecumenical Councils; if anything the same cannot be said of Protestantism, especially the mainline Protestant denominations including the Anglican tradition.

Question #5.2:  Are the majority of today’s Orthodox bishops still trustworthy?  And how do we know a priest is going to stay loyal to the Ecumenical Councils?  

My response is: What grounds do you have for being suspicious of the Orthodox bishops?  Are there any reasonable grounds or is this just blind prejudice?  If there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, please show us the evidence.

My apologia here is based upon the concept of catholicity as taught by Irenaeus of Lyons, not majority rule as understood in modern democratic theory.  Evidence for orthodoxy corroborated by catholicity was cited by Irenaeus as proof of the veracity of the early orthodox Christians.  A comparison of today’s Orthodox bishops with the teachings of the early bishops and the Ecumenical Councils shows remarkable congruence.  I recommend Robin read up on the church fathers and meet with an Orthodox priest for a one-on-one conversation.

Ironically, the catholicity of the Orthodox faith can be seen in the multiple Orthodox jurisdictions here in America.  One can visit a Greek Orthodox parish, an OCA parish, an Antiochian Orthodox parish, a Serbian Orthodox parish, a Russian Orthodox Church Outisde of Russia parish, an Ukranian Orthodox parish, or a Bulgarian Orthodox parish and come away with knowing that they share in the same faith.  If a particular bishop or country had gone their own way and develope their own theology it would soon become evident in this multiple jurisdictional situation.  My initial encounters with Eastern Orthodoxy were with the Greek Orthodox parishes, then with former Evangelical converts in the Antiochian Orthodox Church.  My first in depth encounter with Orthodoxy was at a Bulgarian Orthodox parish in Berkeley.  More recently in Hawaii, I find myself in frequent contact with priests from the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and the Orthodox Church in America.  I can bear witness that all these priests share the same faith and Liturgy, this despite their different jurisdictional backgrounds.

If one wants to create a scenario in which bishops abandoned Tradition, I would refer them to William Ledwich’s The Durham Affair which describes the installation of David Jenkins, who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ, as Bishop of Durham.  In addition, there is John Robinson, bishop of Woolwich, who wrote the controversial Honest to God, and John Shelby Spong, bishop of Newark, who questioned many of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.  I would note that there is nothing remotely like that happening in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.  If there is, I would appreciate Robin bringing it to my attention.

As far as an Orthodox priest remaining loyal to the Ecumenical Councils, I would note that the local priest does not have the wherewithal to innovate with the Divine Liturgy.  I have seen Roman Catholic priests omit the Nicene Creed and other components from the Mass; I have never seen anything like this in Orthodoxy.  Furthermore, the teachings of all seven Ecumenical Councils are integrated into the Sunday Liturgy.  The teachings of Orthodox Church are also remembered and celebrated in the feast days in the church calendar.  Priests are expected to celebrate the Liturgy on these days and say the appointed prayers and hymns for the day, and laity are expected to be present at the major feast days.  Soon after I became Orthodox I discovered that even if I didn’t do any further readings I would learn a lot of the teachings of the Orthodox Church just by listening to the feast day services.  In light of this there is no room for an Orthodox priest to introduce innovations into the Liturgy.  If he tried both the cradle Orthodox and the converts would question him about it.  If he persists then the bishop will hear from the laity.  To answer Robin’s question, there are enough safeguards to ensure that the priest will adhere to the teachings of the Church.

Question #5.3:  Given Acts 20:25 (actually verse 28) and the fact that the heterodox Catholics in the West can claim apostolic succession can we maintain that the true church cannot err institutionally?  

Irenaeus of Lyons taught that it is not enough to claim apostolic succession; the bishop must also have safeguarded the apostolic faith.  This is one major test of doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church.  By the fourth century there emerged another test of doctrinal orthodoxy, adherence to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.  The five ancient patriarchates – Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem – all accepted the findings of the Councils.  When the Pope unilaterally inserted the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed he was acting contrary to the conciliar principle underlying the Ecumenical Councils and independently of the other patriarchates.  Eventually, Eucharistic unity between Rome and the other patriarchates was broken.  For the Orthodox to be denied the Eucharist is to be outside the true Church; this is because the Church is a Eucharistic community.

How does one understand the break between Rome and the other ancient patriarchates?  In light of the fact that Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory of the church, it means that the Church of Rome, even with its venerable history, is now outside the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

For the Orthodox there can only be one Church, not two.  Similarly, there is only one Bride of Christ, not two.  Nor can the Orthodox affirm that the one Church, the body of Christ, is now torn into two halves.  If we granted that with respect to the Church of Rome, what will we have to say about Protestantism with its plethora of denominations?  If we did want to include Protestantism in the “one Church” we will need to abandon the notion of a visible Church and the Eucharist as the unifying center for some vague intangible invisible church.

Question #5.4:  Is Robin’s interpretation of II Timothy 2:2 necessarily wrong because it is his private interpretation?

I would say that a private interpretation is not necssarily wrong.  I view private reading of Scripture as but a first step in the broader hermeneutical process.  The next step is to consider the weight of evidence.  What is the preponderant understanding of the meaning of the passage?  If the preponderance of the evidence is against you, then one needs to consider revising one’s opinion.  If the preponderance of the evidence supports your opinion then your private interpretation is no longer strictly private but in harmony with a broader hermeneutical community.  Even then, one’s reading of Scripture may be in agreement with the local church one attends or one’s denomination, but are they in agreement with the church of the Ecumenical Councils?

Robin and others may view the notion of “Seven Ecumenical Councils” with skepticism in light of the fact that there were numerous councils in the early church.  If one took the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’ volume on the Ecumenical Councils and seek to determine which councils deserve to be honored as “Ecumenical” using rational, objective criteria one will end up in frustration.  That there are Seven Ecumenical Councils reflects the settled consensus of the Orthodox Church.  This Church recognizes these Seven as Ecumenical and binding.  There was a time when certain councils were questioned but in time the entire church, clergy and laity, recognized them as ecumenical.  This settled consensus cannot be revisited today.  It is now part of the social reality of the Orthodox Church.  This is binding on all Orthodox Christians, clergy and laity.  If one is not a member of the Orthodox Church, i.e., outside the Orthodox communion, the number of councils is a matter of one’s own choosing, but they can serve as useful resources.  Truth for Orthodoxy is embodied truth; it is ecclesial and liturgical; it is not abstract and scholastic.

I try to understand a biblical passage in light of modern biblical scholarship but also in light of the early church fathers.  Thus, my approach to the reading of the Scripture is both individual and ecclesial.  Since I’ve become Orthodox my reading of Scripture has been further influenced by the Liturgy and church hymns.  Private interpretation is flawed only if one resists listening to the broader community out there.  I don’t think Robin intends that his reading is strictly private, autonomous, and isolationist; I believe that he has much broader and ecclesial approach to the reading of Scripture.  If that is the case, I would like him to identify the hermeneutical community that he belongs to and why he prefers membership in that community.

Robert Arakaki

Return to Top.     Home.

Reply to Robin Phillips 24-Aug-2011 Comments  (1 of 2)

On August 24, 2011, Robin Phillips sent five lengthy responses to my blog posting:  Response To Robin Phillips’ ‘Questions About Sola Scriptura’  (August 1, 2011).  Rather than burying the dialogue between Robin and me in the comment section, I decided to use Robin’s responses as a basis for this posting.  I propose to present the issues raised by Robin in the form of a question to which I will give an answer.  Due to the length of the disucssion I plan to post Robin’s response in two postings.

Robin Phillips — Reply #1

I want to thank Robert for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to my questions and also for the fair summary of where I was coming from. Despite some of the ad hominems thrown at Robert in the discussion, I think he is doing a great job here with this site in opening up discussion (and through it, hopefully increased mutual understanding) between the reformed and the Orthodox. It is within that spirit that I wish to throw some more questions onto the table for discussion.

The alternative Robert provided to the model I found problematic is much more satisfying and avoids most of the practical problems associated both with Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Branch Theory (I will respond in a moment to Kevin’s contention that Robert’s ‘solution’ hinged on a false caricature of Protestantism). However, I do wonder sometimes if the architecture of Robert’s argumentation often implicitly hinges on making the non sequitur leap from (A) the EO model is more pragmatically satisfying; that is, it works better, to (B) therefore the EO model is true. He never made this progression explicitly but I did detect it implicitly a number of times. But Robert, how would you respond to someone who said that maybe the truth just is unsatisfying? As human beings we want things to make sense, and it would be nice to be able to say that the ecumenical councils cannot error or to make the type of claims about Mother Church that EO makes. But merely because a position is pragmatically superior doesn’t mean it is true. Or if it does mean that, we would have to first establish that through priori argumentation.

Consider, it may be pragmatically superior and satisfying for a man to believe that his wife is faithful when she is not, but he’s better off believing the cold truth about her than not. In a similar way, one could argue that Protestantism is realistic (painfully and uncomfortably realistic) to the reality of human sin and the types of potential for corruption that we find suggested in verses such as Acts 20:25 and elsewhere.

Taking this and applying it to some of the epistemological problems behind the discussion (which I want to look at more closely momentarily) what would you say, Robert, to someone who claimed that the best we can do is a probabilistic approach to theological knowledge which recognises that the finitude (and therefore partial relativity) of the knowing human subject makes indubitable certitude not only impossible but unrealistic (and maybe even idolatrous). We note the way that we trust and love and operate without certainty; we note the bankruptcy of the alternatives; we delight in the stronger certainties (but never indubitable) of the cross and resurrection; we anticipate greater clarity with the passage of time; and we “get on with it.”

Robert wrote, “This is why apostolic succession matters so much for the Orthodox. Continuity in episcopal succession and continuity in teaching are two important means for safeguarding the proper reading of the Scripture. Continuity in teaching can be verified through reading the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. This means of verification guards us from the secret knowledge of the Gnostics and heretical innovations. Formal apostolic succession is not enough; there must also be continuity in teaching — fidelity. The Church of Rome can claim formal episcopal succession but after the Schism of 1054 its theological system became increasingly removed from its patristic base.”

OK, but again, just because something is essential to guard us from error doesn’t mean it’s true. Israel didn’t have apostolic succession but they were still the people of God or the ‘true church’ if you will, so we would have to first establish that the New Testament promises to guide the church into all truth actually mean successfully safeguarding the proper reading of scripture in the way claimed by EO. But that would have to be an exegetical argument and not an appeal to church teaching or else the EO apologist is begging the question.

Robert Arakaki’s Response

Question #1.1 — Did I structure my argument along pragmatic lines?

I am not familiar with William James’ pragmatic theory of truth so I would not claim that I structured my argument along those lines.  I do not endorse James’ pragmatic theory of truth, nor do I reject it.  Any resemblance to William James’ theory is unintended.

Much of my arguments: catholicity, apostolic succession, and biblical exegesis, can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against the Heretics.  Keep in mind that what Irenaeus attempted to do was to construct a framework for determining theological truths for Christians.  It is an approach not suited for the natural sciences, nor for social sciences.  To invalidate the approach I took entails invalidating one of the key church fathers.

In addition, I took an empirical approach.  Irenaeus’ theological approach can be subjected to empirical verification, e.g., his claims about apostolic succession and canon formation.  Apostolic succession in the form of faithful transmission of the apostolic teaching has an equivalent expression in the criminal justice system’s “chain of custody” in which a paper trail relating to evidence seized to be used for a court trial is expected and required.  I doubt these form part of the Jamesian pragmatic approach.

In short, I dispute Robin’s claim that I am making a Jamesian pragmatic argument. If anything, I would say that I am making an argument based upon Irenaeus of Lyons and other church fathers like Augustine of Hippo and Vincent of Lerins.  It should be noted that the observations about the benefits I experienced in being Orthodox was made in the last paragraph, not in the body of the posting as would be the case if I were pursuing a Jamesian pragmatic argument.

Question #1.2 — How would I respond to someone who says that “the truth just is unsatisfying?’

My first response would be: Are you a skeptical post-modernist who assert an “epistemological impossibilism”?  If you are, then further discussion would be a waste of time.

If you are asserting that church history is not as clear cut as I assumed it to be or that the evidence do not support the claims made by the Eastern Orthodox Church, then my response is: “Good!  Present the historical evidence and let’s have a reasoned and rigorous debate.”

For a discussion of “epistemological impossibilism” see Pauline Marie Rosenau’s  Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences, p. 109 ff.

Question #1.3 — How would I respond to someone who says that the best we can do is a probabilistic approach to theological knowledge and that finitude and partial relativity makes indubitable certitude impossible, unrealistic, and possibly idolatrous?

There are two major approaches to doing theology: Orthodoxy views theology as a received fixed apostolic tradition; the Protestant way is to view theology as part of a scientific enterprise based upon experimentation and hypothesis testing of the data found in Scripture.  That is why apostolic succession to doing theology in the Orthodox approach to doing theology.  If apostolic succession no longer exists then we are left with the Protestant approach.  These differences emerge in the social process that underly the two theological systems.  Where the Orthodox approach is authoritarian, the Protestant approach is based upon mutual contestation of theories, which makes the Protestant model inherently conflictual.  It should also be noted that the Protestant approach is a modern innovation and anyone who takes this approach must recognize that if one is a Protestant one does not stand in direct continuity with the historic church.

Your question about a “probabilistic aproach to theological knowledge” makes sense in the context of the Protestant approach to theology but is at odds with the Orthodox approach.  The dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils reflect the mind of the Church catholic and are absolute.  One cannot challenge these findings without risking being cut off from communion with the one Church.  This does not rule theological reflection and exploration in Orthodoxy but the Church has set the parameters for what is Christian theology.

Implicit in a “probabilistic approach to theological knowledge” is the assumption that theological is developmental, progressive, and even evolutionary in nature.  This is evident in your statement: …we anticipate greater clarity with the passage of time; and we “get on with it.”  I believe that Brad Littlejohn has something similar in mind when he wrote on August 27:

There is, in short, an objective truth to the Christian faith.  But it is an object so great, so large, so multi-faceted that each of us can only see certain parts of it at any given time, so we must always be ready to compare what we have grasped of it with others have grasped, seeking to gradually put together a mosaic that will capture more and more of the whole picture (emphasis added).

This developmental understanding of theology provides the basis for Protestant Liberalism.  Keith Mathison has made a good point when he notes that solo scriptura is not what the original Reformers believed but in sola scriptura which allowed for extra biblical sources while Scripture was primary.  This openness to extra biblical sources opened the way for Christian theology to be shaped by modern science, the Enlightenment Project, and cultural modernity.  I have seen these results first hand as a member of the liberal mainline denomination, the United Church of Christ.

Brad in his August 27 comment conceded that I may be right in that his tentative and humble understanding of theological truths “seems to give no simple, straightforward basis for combatting ‘liberalism’” but also noted that the search for some kind of “magic weapon” that would defeat all forms of liberalism was a “fool’s errand.”  I have to admit to being amused by his brandishing of the colorful phrase twice in his comment.  I was also amused by his protecting his position through the insertion of extreme conditions like “will level all forms of liberalism with one well-placed blow.”  I’d like to know where he thinks I was looking for the perfect cure that would treat all forms of spiritual ills.  What he should have done was say: “Here is an effective approach for combatting and possibly even reversing the trend towards theological liberalism in mainline denominations like your UCC.  It won’t be easy but it has a good chance of working.” It bothers me that none of my Reformed interlocutors has taken seriously my experience in the UCC.  It was these practical concerns that led to theoretical questions about Protestantism that precipitated my theological crisis.  If I read Brad’s response correctly, the result of a developmental approach to theology is a denomination in which theological conservatives and liberals intermingle in tension, if the situation deteriorates the only response for the conservative is to withdraw and start a new denomination, but that is the way of schism, retreating in the wake of suffering a major defeat in war.

The magisterium of the Seven Ecumenical Councils is not a magic wand for the Orthodox Church.  It is like a court ruling on a litigated issue.  Once a formal decision is rendered by the court it is binding on all parties involved.  If one belongs to another jurisdiction or a foreign country then the rulings of the court are instructive but not necessarily binding.  It is important to understand that the Orthodox Church is fundamentally a concrete social reality, if you like a commonwealth; it is not a theory one is free to embrace or discard according to one’s opinion.  Either one agrees with the Church and lives in her, or one rejects her teachings and lives independently of her.  One could counter: But how can the Orthodox Church be so certain about the truthfulness of her dogmas?  The answer is that the teachings of the Church is based upon divine revelation, that the Son of God came down from heaven, taught his disciples, authorized them to be his ambassadors to all the nations passing on his teachings till the end of time.  The certitude of the Church rests upon a faith response to divine initiative, not autonomous human reason.

I’ll close this response with a question to Robin: “You speak about incertititude and tentativeness in Protestant theology.  But surely you don’t intend that for all doctrines?  What about certitude and confidence?  If so, then what for you constitute the essential non-negotiable dogmas of Protestantism and how would you respond to a fellow Protestant who deny these dogmas?”

Second, the fact that in this reality we live in is marked by finitude and partial relativity means that we operate on the basis of trust in much of our social relations.  Robin seems to imply that I view the church councils through rose colored glasses when I hold the Orthodox Church to be infallible.  I would note that infallibility is a property that belongs to the Holy Spirit and that the Church is infallible only because of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.  As a church history major I am painfully aware of the notorious actions that marred the later Councils but I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the final outcome of the council decisions.  In the Nicene Creed is the line: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.”  This is the fourth of the four articles or sections of the creed.  In the Nicene Creed the early Christians confessed their faith in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, and in the Church.  The Greek word for “believe” can also have the sense “to trust in.”  As I reflected on the fourth article of the Nicene Creed I was forced to abandon my Protestant reading in which I acknowledged the existence of the church to taking the stance that I was trusting or relying on her as a Mother (cf. Calvin’s Institute 4.1.2).

Three, Robin claims that Protestantism is realistic when it comes to the reality of human sin.  I would say that the Orthodox Church is also realistic when it comes to human sin.  We don’t deny the ugly things that went on in church councils.  We admit that we have had patriarchs who lapsed into heresy and thus were deposed.  Robin seems to be alluding to the Protestant belief that the early Church fell into apostasy early on in his analogy about the unfaithful wife.  Ironically, he uses it to refute the Jamesian pragmatic theory of truth which I disavowed.  My response to him is: “Let’s be empirical about this.  Present the historical evidence that shows that the early Church broke from the teachings of the original apostles and fell into apostasy.  On what doctrine did they apostatize?  Who led the apostasy?  Give us the sources.”

As far as Robin’ mention of Acts 20:25 (actually verse 28) is concerned, just throwing out chapter and verse is not enough.  He has to exegete the passage and show how it applies to the matter at hand.  I have no problem agreeing with the point that evil men, even bad leaders, will arise and inflict harm on the church.  Does Robin mean to imply that Orthodox Christians deny that such a thing happened?  But if he wants to assert that a major break took place in doctrine or worship early on with the result that the early church fell into apostasy then the Orthodox Church would have a problem, a major problem.  If Robin want to assert the latter, my response is: “Show me the evidence.”

Question #1.4 — Did the nation of Israel have apostolic succession or anything resembling apostolic succession?

I think Robin’s implied answer here is too glib, i.e., that ancient Israel had nothing like apostolic succession.  It had the Aaronic priesthood.  To be part of the Jewish priesthood required that one was able to provide proof of descent from Aaron (cf. Exodus 29:29-30).  That is why genealogical records were so important for the Jews and especially the priests.  Genealogical descent in the Aaronic priesthood is an Old Testament type of the New Testament apostolic succession.

Another marker of orthodoxy in ancient Israel was the designation of one place for worship of Yahweh and the offering of sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:4-7).  Ancient Israel was united by a common sacrificial center and a unified priesthood.  That is why the construction of an alternative place of worship was such a grievous sin.  This act of schism by the northern tribes eventually led to heterodoxy then to outright apostasy.  This trajectory is analogous to what we see in modern Protestantism, especially in the mainline denominations.  Similarly, Orthodoxy is united by a shared liturgy which stands in contrast to the liturgical chaos of Protestantism.

Question #1.5 — Did the New Testament promise of the church being led into all truth mean the safeguarding of the proper reading of scripture as claimed by Orthodoxy?

This questions calls for two kinds of response: (1) a biblical reference and (2) a reasonable explanation of the meaning of that passage.  I offer three biblical references:

(1) I Timothy 3:15 — …which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Calvin wrote: “By these words Paul means that the church is the faithful keeper of God’s truth in order that it may not perish in the world.” (Institutes 4.1.10; emphasis added)

(2) Matthew 16:18 — …on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The second part of the quote has been understood to refer to the superior power of the Good News of Christ’s resurrection against death, the promise of the forgiveness of sins in the Gospel as greater than the power of our sins, and I would add it can also be taken to mean that Christ’s church which is based upon the truth of the Gospel cannot be vanquished the powers of Hell.

(3) Ephesians 2:20 — …built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

This verse is part of a larger passage in Ephesians 2:19-22.  Here Paul draws a picture of Jesus Christ as the master builder and the church as a house he builds upon a firm foundation.  This is the true Temple of God united in truth, not the Tower of Babel that collapsed into a confused cacophony.  To put it another way, did Paul ever teach that the church would eventually decay and crumble into confusion?

Please keep in mind that “indefectability” is a Roman Catholic term, so far as I know the Orthodox Church does not use this term.  Rather we stress apostolic continuity and faithfulness in safeguarding the apostolic teaching.  I believe this the intent behind the Nicene Creed’s: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”  If you want to test a church claim to apostolic continuity, I suggest you read Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against the Heretics and compare Irenaeus’ ecclesiology against that of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism.

Robin Phillips — Reply #2

Robert wrote,

“I found sola scriptura to be a heavy burden because I was compelled to assess the latest theological fads against my study of Scripture. I gave up on sola scriptura when I concluded that it was incapable of producing a coherent theology capable of uniting Protestantism. I found the branch theory espoused by Keith Mathison of very little practical value. I often felt like I was standing under a leaking umbrella in the pouring rain wishing that I was safe and dry in a house. I found a roof over my head and a spiritual banquet — the Eucharist — laid out every Sunday when I became Orthodox. To become Orthodox I had to renounce sola scriptura but in its place I gained the true Church founded by the apostles. Orthodoxy’s theological system has a stability and coherence unmatched by the best Protestantism has to offer.”

I can relate to everything Robert wrote above (I will respond in a moment to the contention that this is a caricature of Protestantism) and I can see that Orthodoxy’s theological system has a stability and coherence unmatched by the best Protestantism has to offer. But where does that actually get us? To establish that the EO church has theological stability and coherence is not necessarily to establish that it is true. It might, for example, possess the stability of stagnation and the coherence of heterodoxy, so we would need argumentation to show that this wasn’t the case.

It has been suggested in the preceding discussion that these alleged problems in Protstantism which create this sense of psychological uncertainty which Kevin has so scorned arise because of a half-hearted gnostic caricature of Protestantism which is quite distinct from classical Protestantism. Properly understood, the argument goes, Protestantism is not a leaky umbrella in which rain can come in, but a safe house since it does actually preserve a high Ecclesiology. However, as I pointed out in the original post that Robert was interacting with, if you carry the axioms of Protestantism far enough you end up exactly with the type of leaky-umbrella situation that Robert described experiencing when he was a Protestant. A reformed Presbyterian Bible teacher and author once told me that if I privately concluded that Jesus isn’t God, then as a good Protestant I would be bound to also infer that the Arians truly represented the apostolic tradition and that all the early councils were heretical gatherings. Apart from the problem of circularity, it is hard to see what is the practical cash value for contending, as Sola Scriptura apparently does, that we must interpret scripture through the lens of the subordinate authority of historic tradition if our interpretation of scripture is what defines the boundaries of that tradition in the first place. If we extrapolate the implications far enough, how can we keep Sola Scriptura from collapsing into the Anabaptist doctrine of Solo Scriptura? This throws us back to the question of whose understanding of the Word of God ought to be normative in measuring the traditions that are meant to serve as subordinate guides beneath the authority of scripture? Is my own personal understanding of God’s Word meant to be the yardstick? In that case, we are back to the radical individualism of the Anabaptists and the modern evangelical movements. Or is the reformed church’s understanding of God’s Word meant to be the yardstick by which traditions are measured? If yes, then I have either reached that position by studying scripture, in which case it is self-contradictory, or I have merely assumed it, in which case I am question-begging. Of course, everyone, must exercise private judgment in satisfying the conditions of knowledge (after all, the choice to follow the Pope or embrace EO tradition is itself a judgment that must be made by the private individual), just as every mathematician exercises individual judgment when answering math problems. However, in math there are normative standards that can guide individual judgment and determine whether my personal judgment is correct or not. Sola Scriptura doesn’t seem to provide any such normatives since even the subordinate authority of church tradition has boundaries that are up for grabs should my interpretation of scripture change. Putting the problem another way, since all traditions on the Protestant view must conform to our personal understanding of the Word of God in order to be legit, then saying that we interpret the Bible through the lens of a legitimate subordinate tradition (i.e., the apostolic faith) is simply another way of saying we interpret the Bible through the lens of our interpretation of the Bible. And again, the Arian might use that argument with equal consistency. Nor would it be easy to know how to answer the Arian if he went on to parody Luther’s famous appeal to individual conscience: “I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God…it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.” Of course, Luther believed that his convictions had continuity with the historic teaching of the church. But ultimately, it was his interpretation of scripture that enabled him to identify what was in fact the historic teaching of the church. Ergo, the only reason a Protestant doesn’t feel the type of leaky umbrella syndrome that Robert describes is because the Protestant isn’t being completely consistent. The fact that Protestants like Kevin exist which do not feel the same problem does not mean that the problem is not objectively inherent to the axioms of Protestantism, only that some Protestants exist which are not 100% consistent with their Protestant presuppositions.

But why should we even be expected to be completely consistent, given Robert’s criticisms of Western “syllogistic reasoning and the insistence on logical consistency”? There are many areas of life where we have to hold competing truths in tension without carrying such truths to their logical conclusion, as Chesterton showed in chapter two of Orthodoxy. Real life is often fuzzy and messy, and this seems to echo the perilous dialectic at the heart of classical Protestantism.

Robert Arakaki’s Response

Question #2.1 – How do we determine whose understanding of Scripture is normative?  How do we avoid the circular argument that all interpretations are really just individual interpretations?

My response is that there really is no such thing as individual interpretation of Scripture; every one of us belongs to a particular circle of friends.  We are influenced by what we read and where we worship.  As individuals with inquiring minds and free will we can also act independently of our social circle but if we hold to beliefs at odds with the group then tension arise which must eventually be resolved through exit, expulsion, adjustment, or jettisoning the belief from the group ideological system.  I recommend that you read:

(1) Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality,

(2) Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and

(3) George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine.

What sets Orthodoxy apart from Protestantism is that belonging to the Orthodox Church entails submission to her teaching authority.  That is why potential converts must carefully examine the claims of the Orthodox Church and count the cost of converting to Orthodoxy.  To become Orthodox is to promise to obey her teachings and her disciplines; it is not a cerebral act done in the privacy of one’s intellect but a commitment that involves one’s beliefs, one’s worship, and one’s lifestyle.  I struggle with the Orthodox Church’s teachings on fasting but I accept it because this is the teaching of the Church.

The point I am trying to make is that doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be confined to logical consistency but must also be assessed against its social consequences.  As Christians we are faced with three basic theological systems and their resultant ecclesial realities: (1) Eastern Orthodoxy with its adherence to Tradition, (2) Roman Catholicism with its monarchical Papacy, and (3) Protestantism with its theological pluralism and many denominations to choose from.

Let me present an analogy.  Being a Protestant is much like being at a food court at a shopping mall.  One hangs out with one’s friends and one has the freedom to eat Southern fried chicken while another friend opts for hamburgers and other goes for Thai vegetarian.  Being Orthodox is like belonging to a family and coming home to dinner and eating what mom puts on the table.  At the family dinner table you are certanly not going to ask mom for the menu!

Question #2.2 – But what about the claim that Protestantism like the field of mathematics is comprised of individual mathematicians who follow normative standards?

Even mathematicians belong to a math department in a university.  Robin’s use of individual reasoning brings to mind the picture of an eccentric genius who lives by himself cut off from the outside world in a house filled with math books and a blackboard covered with arcane symbols.  Would you want to study under the eccentric isolated math genius or would you rather enroll at a local university and register for class?

But to address the issue more directly, given that Protestantism is comprised of many individual theologians what are the “normative standards” that guide them?  Also, assuming that there are “normative standards” in place, are the actual results consistent, inconsistent, or do we see heated arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong?  Let’s bring up a very recent example.  In 2011, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) dropped its prohibition on gay clergy.  Were there “normative standards” in place that led to this significant decision?  Can one claim that the major shift was the result of “normative standards”?  In short, Robin’s asserts that there are “normative standards” in place in Protestantism, but in light of the recent developments in the UCC, the PC (USA), and Lutheran ELCA, I would give a skeptical: I don’t think soooo.

Return to Top.    Home.