Page 26 of 93

Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled

June 21, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 8 Comments

Icon of Pentecost

This article is a reposting of an article published on 29 May 2012.

The Orthodox Church celebrates Pentecost as the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that the Father would send the Holy Spirit to His Church to lead Her into all Truth.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

This abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church is foundational to Orthodox Christianity. The Holy Spirit is God with us, who leads the Church through the Liturgy, gave supernatural courage to the early martyrs, and guided the Ecumenical Councils to defeat the various heresies. The Holy Spirit led the bishops in the formulation of the Nicene Creed and in defining the canon of Holy Scripture. Indeed when we look at church history we see the work of the Holy Spirit. The power of the Holy Spirit preserves the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

What sets Orthodoxy apart from the Protestant understanding of Pentecost is Orthodoxy’s strong corporate sense of the Holy Spirit. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is given to the Church corporately, through the Apostles to their disciples in the laying on of hands, to ensure the preservation of Tradition. This corporate and historic view of Pentecost and its implications offer a sharp contrast to Protestant views and practices in which the role of the Church is minimized or neglected.

In Protestantism the Holy Spirit is understood to be given to individual believers separately, privately and independently of the Church (which is assumed to be flawed and weak). In this blog I will be comparing the two traditions’ understanding of Pentecost.

The River of God Flowing into History

The prophet Ezekiel had a vision of the eschatological temple. In chapter 47, he tells of a stream of water issuing from the altar in the New Temple. As this stream of water gets longer, it grows deeper and wider. It then branches out in various directions and wherever it goes it brings renewal and healing.

This prophetic vision was fulfilled on Pentecost. The Apostle Peter in his Pentecost sermon opens by quoting the prophet Joel: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17; OSB; emphasis added). Pentecost also fulfills a prophecy made by Christ. In John’s Gospel Jesus announced:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 37-40; OSB)

We enter into Ezekiel’s prophetic vision in our conversion to Christ. In the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 47:3 we read that the river was the “water of remission.” This is fulfilled in our baptism when we are baptized into Christ and receive forgiveness for our sins. The word “poured out” is also found in Romans 5:4 which talks about “the love of God being poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” (OSB; emphasis added.)

Ezekiel’s prophecy presents a vivid picture of trees lining the side of the great river:

Along the bank of the river on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food. Their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing. (Ezekiel 47:12; OSB; emphasis added.)

This verse is a picture of a spirituality rooted in divine grace. It echoes Psalm 1 which describes a life grounded in the reading and meditation of God’s Law. This verse also echoes Genesis 2:10-14 which describes how the Garden of Eden had a river that flowed in four different directions. The trees bearing fruit year round in Ezekiel’s prophecy can be understood as the restoration of the access to the Tree of Life forfeited by Adam and Eve. The river lined with fruit bearing trees can be understood as the Church as the river of God. It can also be understood as the Church as a tree offering the healing life-giving fruits of the Cross (Christ’s body and blood that we receive for life everlasting). Ezekiel’s vision of the river of life is recapitulated in the book of Revelation 22:1-5 with a slight twist, a Christocentric reference is made to the Lamb of God slain for the salvation of the world.

Church History as the River of God

The book of Acts is fundamentally a theological book. Luke structured his narrative along the lines of a particular trajectory framed by the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:47-49). Acts 1:8 sketches the three phases of the book: Jerusalem (the Jews), Samaria (the half-Jews), and the Gentiles (the ends of the earth or the non-Jews). Acts begins with Jesus’ original followers in Jerusalem and the Gospel being preached primarily to the Jews (Acts 1-11). This is the Jerusalem phase. Then we see Gospel preached to the Samaritans (Acts 8). It is not until we come to Acts 13 that we read of the Church engaged in intentional missions when the Church at Antioch sends out Paul and Barnabas to evangelize. Acts closes with Paul reaching Rome, the political capital of the Roman Empire and preaching the Gospel freely for two years. What we see is the river of God flowing into history from Jerusalem into the various parts of the Roman Empire as foretold by Ezekiel.

Protestant Version of Church History — Disruption

What happened afterwards? Did the river of God that began on Pentecost in Acts 2 run dry? One would think so given the widespread belief among Protestants that a general apostasy occurred soon after the original Apostles passed on. Many believed that Christianity remained largely in spiritual darkness (with the exception of a “faithful secret remnant”) for the next thousand years or more until Martin Luther rediscovered the true Gospel. Another trope used by Protestants hold that the early church valiantly bore witness to the Gospel but was captured by Emperor Constantine and transformed into an institutionalized church barely recognizable to the original Christians. This historical trope is important for Protestant theology because it needs some kind of disjuncture (apostasy or compromise) to justify its claim that the Protestant Reformation was necessary for the restoration of Gospel and Church of the New Testament. If there was no such break then there would be no need for a Reformed Church separated from the Church of Rome.

Ralph Winter, a prominent Protestant missiologist, called this the BOBO theory — that the Christian faith Blinked Off after the apostles, then Blinked On in our time or whenever our church began (1517 for Protestants, 1823 for Mormons). But there is no hint whatsoever in Scripture that Blinked Off-Blinked On would happen to Christ’s Church especially in light of Christ’s promise that he would not leave them orphans but would send the Holy Spirit to guide them and protect them! Nor is there historical evidence that the Christian faith went AWOL for almost fifteen hundred years! The uncompromising witness of the martyrs in the face of persecution and the early church’s memorializing the martyrs contradict the notion of a widespread early apostasy. Ralph Winter’s article described how the Gospel advanced among the barbarian tribes even during the so-called Dark Ages.

While Rome and Western Europe saw the collapse of civilization and the onset of the Dark Ages, it must be kept in mind that in the Byzantine East culture, commerce, and learning continued to thrive for almost the next thousand years. Thus, the Protestant paradigm of church history has two major problems: (1) it cannot be supported by historical evidence and (2) it contradicts the promises given by Christ to his followers. Ultimately, the BOBO view of church history is a denial of Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit to be in and with the Church throughout history.

In their approach to church history many Protestants make two mistakes: (1) they assume that the church in the New Testament was Protestant in structure and practice, and (2) they ignore the historical continuity between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of the first millennium. The Protestant dismissal of the Orthodox understanding of church history with a wave of the hand is astounding. They assume this without looking at the evidence! But, the fact is that the pre and post Nicean Church simply did not look anything like a Protestant Church. Very early on Christians crossed themselves frequently. Early Christian worship was focused on the Eucharist, not the sermon, and all Christians held to the real presence in the Eucharist. Christian initiation was done via the sacrament of baptism after a lengthy process of instruction in which one had to commit to memory a creed. The early church was episcopal in structure (ruled by bishops) and conciliar (major decisions made by gatherings of bishops).

That the early Christians followed these practices is supported by leading scholars with no axe to grind. Highly recommended are: Jaroslav Pelikan’s magisterial The Christian Tradition, J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines,Oscar Cullmann’s Early Christian Worship, W.H.C. Frend’s The Rise of Christianity. For primary sources highly recommended are: The Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics, and Eusebius’ Church History.

This unfounded assumption resulted in Protestants misreading the New Testament and the early church fathers. There is in the Reformed tradition a growing appreciation of the fact that original Reformers like Calvin had a high regard for the church fathers. But even here, the Reformers’ appreciation of the church fathers was limited and selective. When the fathers’ writings seem to support Protestant ideas, Calvin and the Reformers freely quoted Athanasius and Augustine. But these same Fathers were ignored when they spoke on the rule of bishops, the Eucharist, church unity, the place of Holy Tradition, and a theosis union with God.

Orthodox Version of Church History – Continuity

The trope of church history as the river of God is useful for understanding Orthodoxy. The trope of the river of God assumes a fulfillment in history of Christ’s promises that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that it would be stronger than the powers of Hell (Matthew 16:18). The Orthodox Church believes that we can expect to see these Scriptural promises fulfilled throughout the age of the church. It believes that what began on Pentecost continues to the present day.

The Orthodox Church is the river of God flowing in the book of Acts into the two millennia continuously and without break to the present day. This trope assumes a fundamental continuity in terms of doctrine, liturgy, and spirituality from Pentecost to the present day. If Orthodoxy can support its claim to historical continuity then Protestants will need to reexamine their assumption of a fundamental break occurring in church history and with that the need for a Reformation.

Worship. The Eucharist has been integral to Christian worship from the beginning. The Orthodox Church uses the Liturgy of St. James which dates to the first century in Jerusalem, the Liturgy of St. Basil which dates to the fourth century and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which dates to the fifth century. Without exception, the Eucharist has been a part of the Sunday worship in Orthodoxy. The same cannot be said of Protestant worship. Most Protestant churches celebrate the Eucharist infrequently. While many Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran Christians claim to practice weekly communion, their claim rings hollow in light of the fact that they reject the historic understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist.

Leadership. Pastoral authority in Orthodoxy is grounded in apostolic succession. The five ancient patriarchates can all trace their spiritual lineage back to the original Apostles. Protestantism, due to its being a schismatic break off from the Papacy, cannot lay claim to apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is more than formal authorization but a sharing in the Holy Spirit across the generations that goes back to the original Pentecost in Acts. Critical to apostolic succession is faithfulness to the “pattern of sound words” (II Timothy 1:13). Thus, while Anglicanism can claim to possess apostolic succession, the fact that many of its current bishops hold blatantly heretical views undermines this claim. In short, in no way can Protestants claim continuity in leadership.

Doctrine. An important means of maintaining doctrinal unity in the early Church are the Ecumenical Councils. The entire Church of the first millennium accepted the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Protestantism has abandoned them in several ways: (1) it passively accepted the Papacy’s insertion of the Filioque clause and (2) it downgraded the binding authority of the Nicene Creed with its novel doctrine of sola scriptura. Having rejected the binding authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils Protestant churches underwent a bewildering number of doctrinal permutations that would be unrecognizable and unacceptable to the early church fathers.

Spirituality. There is a rich stream of spirituality running through the history of the Orthodox Church. One of the best examples is the lives of the saints. The Orthodox Church considers them heroes of the faith whose lives exemplify the power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives throughout the history of the church. Orthodoxy can point to Saint Polycarp who boldly confessed Christ even when the Roman governor threatened to burn him alive, Saint Mary of Egypt a prostitute who spent decades in the desert in order to cleanse her soul, Saint Athanasius who defended the divine nature of Christ against the heresies of Arius, Saint Gregory Palamas who expounded on the uncreated light of Mount Tabor, the Chinese Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion, Peter the Aleut martyred in San Francisco in the early 1800s, Father Arseny who suffered in the Soviet gulags. The river of God flows on!

When one looks for the heroes of the faith in Protestantism, especially in popular Evangelicalism, what one is likely to find are popular radio preachers, well respected seminary professors, and celebrity athletes. Many of these Protestant celebrities will be forgotten in time. It would be hard for a Protestant to claim a rich and unbroken history of spiritual formation.

When one compares Orthodox with Protestant spirituality, we find a marked sobriety and stillness in Orthodoxy not often found in Evangelical and Pentecostal circles where emotional fervor and free expression typically dominate. All too often the charismatic quest for a continuous spiritual high has led to burn outs and spiritual collapse. Christians in Reformed and mainstream Protestantism struggle with a spirituality grounded in cerebral propositional reasoning rather than that inner stillness nourished by the liturgical worship found in historic Orthodoxy.

Synergy: God provides the water, we receive it.

Come and Drink!

Come and Drink!

On Pentecost Sunday Orthodoxy celebrates Pentecost in a special service that comprises three long kneeling prayers. Aside from this annual service, Pentecost is an ongoing reality in Orthodoxy. It is experienced in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church. It is experienced vividly in the monastic communities.

In Protestantism the individual reception of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the understanding of the Holy Spirit being given to the Church. There has been much debate between Evangelicals and Pentecostals over whether the baptism in the Spirit occurs when one has a born again experience or as a separate event accompanied by speaking in tongues. What the two sides have in common is their silence on the role of the Church. However, historically one receives the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of chrismation which follows the sacrament of baptism. This sacramental approach to Christian conversion avoids Protestantism’s subjectivism. To those who deny the efficacy of sacraments I would respond that the sacraments are no mere rituals anymore than wedding vows are just words. For the Orthodox, Pentecost is not so much something I experience by myself, but through life in the Church. Life in the Church is like the River of God in which we are immersed into its water of life (the sacrament of baptism) and eat of the fruit of the tree (partake of the Eucharist). To the Protestants and Evangelicals who are spiritually thirsty, the Orthodox Church says: Come and Drink!

Robert Arakaki

Getting to Know Your Church Fathers

June 19, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 11 Comments

First Ecumenical Council – Nicea AD 325

One reason why many Protestants today bought the notion that the early Church Fathers were theological infants is their ignorance of church history. The best remedy for that is getting to know the Church Fathers by actually reading their writings. The early Church Fathers are the heritage of all Christians, regardless of denomination. One way Reformed Christians, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians can deepen fellowship with each other is by exploring their common roots in the Fathers of the early Church. The ministry of the Church Fathers was based on the charismatic gift of teaching (Ephesians 4:11-13) and together as a collective witness they have ensured the doctrinal stability of the Church and preserved the Faith which was passed on to them as a sacred Trust (Ephesians 4:14-16, 2 Timothy 1:14).

Getting to know the early Church Fathers will not be an easy task for many Protestants. For many reading the early Christian writings will be like stumbling into a foreign land where the customs and landmarks are either unfamiliar or entirely absent. I remember struggling to make sense of the early Church Fathers when I was at seminary. Looking back, one important lesson I learned was the need to hold in suspension the assumption that the early Church was Protestant and to pay attention to the issues, vocabulary, and the methods employed by the early Christians, only then could I make headway in comprehending the early Church Fathers.

This article presents a quick sketch of Church Fathers with whom all Reformed Christians and Evangelicals should become acquainted with. I also included an early handbook and an early Liturgy widely used in the early Church; these were included because they are important for understanding early Christianity. The list of these ten sources starts with the earliest writings around the end of the first century and ends in the eighth century. The article is intended to be like a travel guide for first-time visitors who want to be ready to take in the sights and sounds of a new culture.

1. Ignatius of Antioch – The city of Antioch was the Apostle Paul’s home church (see Acts 13-14). As the third bishop of the church of Antioch Ignatius was heir to the same Apostolic Tradition as Apostle Paul. It is believed that Ignatius was the child that Jesus used as an acted out parable in Matthew 18:1-4. Ignatius was arrested by Roman authorities during the reign of Trajan (AD 98/117) and sent to Rome to be executed. On his way to Rome he composed seven letters to the churches he visited; all seven of them are available to us today.

Present day Protestants may find surprising the importance Ignatius placed on the Eucharist and the office of the bishop. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans Ignatius stressed that a Sunday gathering could only be valid if it was done in unity with the Bishop (Smyrnaeans chapter 8).

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Smyrnaeans chapter 8)

Another surprise for Evangelicals who hold to a memorialist understanding of the Lord’s Supper is Ignatius’ affirming that the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist (Smyrnaeans chapter 7). He writes of the Gnostic heretics:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . . (Smyrnaeans chapter 7)

Ignatius’ Letters

2. The Didache — In the late 1800s a church handbook with instructions about Christian living and worship was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople. Scholars generally date the Didache to AD 100, some even date it as early as AD 70! Christians who debate about baptism by total immersion versus baptism by sprinkling will find it informative that the early Church gave preference to baptism by immersion but allowed for baptism by pouring under certain circumstances (Didache VII). The Didache also records one of the earliest known Eucharistic prayers (Didache IX). Early documents like the Didache brings clarity to certain ambiguities in Scripture. For example, the Eucharist as a normal part of Christian worship and early Christians worshiped on Sunday, not Saturday.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache VII)

Didache

3. Irenaeus of Lyons – Considered the leading theologian of the second century, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the Apostle John. The Apostle John in his three epistles combated the heresy of Gnosticism. A century later Gnosticism was still a problem for the early Church leading Irenaeus to write Against Heresies (AH), a comprehensive refutation of Gnosticism. The Gnostics did not deny the bishops’ claim to authority but insinuated: (1) that within the outward Church was a secret tradition that offered “deeper” insights into the Gospel and (2) that the bishops only gave the external meaning of the Gospel. Irenaeus refuted Gnosticism by expounding on Scripture and the Rule of Faith (Tradition).

Against Heresies is a lengthy work comprised of five books. The bulk of the book is a detailed description and refutation of Gnosticism but here and there like golden nuggets are passages of outstanding theological wisdom. Protestants would be surprised to learn that Irenaeus knew about a creed much like today’s Nicene Creed (AH 1.10.1). Irenaeus taught that in the Eucharist the bread and the wine became the body and blood of Christ (AH 4.18.4-5). Christians troubled by Protestantism’s many denominations and church splits will be daunted by Irenaeus’ claim that across the Roman Empire Christians confessed the same Faith (AH 1.10.4).

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. (AH 1.10.2)

We find Irenaeus refuting an argument that resembles today’s “church fathers = infant” argument:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles . . . . (AH 3.2.2; emphasis added)

Against Heresies

4. Athanasius the Great – Many Protestants appreciate Athanasius’ staunch defense of Christ’s divinity. His book On the Incarnation is a theological classic, in which one finds an explanation of how the uniting of Christ’s divine and human natures were needed to bring about our salvation. Many Protestants will be surprised to find that Athanasius did not follow the forensic paradigm which saw death as punishment meted out by the divine Judge but as the consequence of our loss of union with Christ (§5).

. . .to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. (§9)

Athanasius understood salvation as the uniting of created mortal flesh with the infinite immortality of the uncreated Word (§9). He understood the goal of our salvation as theosis, a doctrine known to Orthodox Christians but largely unknown among Protestants.

For He was made man that we might be made God. (§5)

On the Incarnation

5. Basil the Great – Where Athanasius defended the divinity of Christ, Basil defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Arian heresy was at root anti-Trinitarian. Consistent Arianism denied not just the divinity of Christ but also that of the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants will find it confusing that Basil opens the book by parsing the doxologies to the Trinity used in early Christian worship. Basil’s parsing of the doxologies reflects the fact that theology in the early Church was liturgical theology. What the early Christians believed was found in the Sunday Liturgy, not in thick tomes of systematic theology. Another challenge to the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura can be found in §66 where Basil affirms that unwritten tradition has equal authority to written tradition, Scripture. Protestants will be surprised to learn how many of the unwritten traditions enumerated by Basil are still kept in the Orthodox Church today.

If we attacked the unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions. . . . (§66)

On the Holy Spirit

6. John Chrysostom – Many Protestants know him as “Golden Mouth” — one of the greatest preachers in Christianity. His giftedness as a preacher was such that the sermon was moved from its usual place – immediately following the Gospel reading – to the end of Liturgy so that people would stay to receive Holy Communion. Otherwise they would leave as soon as the sermon was over! His sermons were typically straightforward and didactic; many are still available today. One particular sermon, the Easter or Paschal sermon, has become part of Orthodox Tradition. This sermon is read in Orthodox churches everywhere on Easter Sunday. In this famous Easter sermon is the Christus Victor motif – Christ’s conquering death by his death.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. Source

Homilies on the Gospel of John

7. Liturgy St. John Chrysostom – On most Sundays Orthodox worship services will be the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. In the prayers are eloquent affirmations of faith and devotion. Through faithful Sunday attendance people will find their minds and hearts shaped by the prayers of the Church. Before the Gospel reading, the priest will say this eloquent prayer:

Shine in our hearts, loving Master, the pure light of Your divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our minds that we may comprehend the message of your Gospel.

Christians who struggle with Calvin’s harsh doctrine of double predestination will find it comforting that every Liturgy closes with: . . . for He is good and He loves mankind.

Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

8. Cyril of Jerusalem – It was the practice of the early Church to have prospective converts undergo a lengthy course of instruction (catechumenate). It was expected that catechumens would attend the Sunday services and afterwards listen to lectures on the Christian Faith. Cyril was the patriarch or bishop of Jerusalem in the 300s. Many people undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to visit the places mentioned in the Gospels, to learn about the Christian Faith from a bishop who could claim to be a successor to James the Lord’s brother and first patriarch of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12-21).

The Catechetical Lectures provide a valuable window into the theology of the early Church as articulated by one of its prominent leaders. Cyril stressed the fact that the Faith they were about to learn was part of a chain of tradition.

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. (Lecture 5.12.22; NPNF Vol. VII p. 32)

Cyril expected the catechumens to memorize the Nicene Creed:

This summary [creed] I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing out of paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the thing which have been delivered to you. (Lecture 5.12.23; NPNF Vol. VII p. 32; emphasis added)

The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

9. Vincent of Lerins – Vincent lived in the 400s in Gaul (France) during a time when theological questions and opinions were proliferating. This led to theological confusion as people began to think that the Bible could be interpreted in various ways. In his Commonitory Vincent argued that Scripture was to be interpreted in light of the catholic tradition. This principle was summed up in a Latin phrase known as the Vincentian Canon.

Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.) (Commonitory 2.6)

Although more a short treatise than a full length book, the Commonitory gives the reader a concise and cogent explanation of how the teachings of the Church is based on Scripture interpreted in light of sacred Tradition.

Commonitory

10. John of Damascus – He was born in AD 676 under Muslim rule and is reported to have worked for the caliph of Damascus. John is known for his eloquent defense of icons, On the Divine Images, and for one of the earliest systematic theologies, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Like other Church Fathers John of Damascus affirmed human free will (See Exposition 3.14; NPNF vol. IX, p. 58). By John’s time much of the Christological and Trinitarian controversies had been settled. The more recent debates were about energies and free-will, issues crucial to refuting the monothelite heresy which denied that Christ had two wills, human and divine. From these debates came a nuanced understanding of the Trinity in the form of the doctrine of perichoresis – the three Persons of the Trinity mutually indwelling or interpenetrating one another.

For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. (Exposition 1.14; NPNF vol. IX p. 17)

His eloquent defense of icons helped lay the groundwork for the repudiation of iconoclasm at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II).

In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake. . . . (On the Divine Images)

Exposition on the Orthodox Faith

On the Divine Images

Closing Observations

When we speak of the Church Fathers we are talking about a diverse group of great Christians, some of whom lived in the first century on the western edge of the Roman Empire, and others who lived in the eighth century in Damascus under Muslim rule. Despite vast distances in space and time between them, they shared in a common Faith and worship. For Protestants it is important not to assume that the Church Fathers are like them. For me a major breakthrough came when I realized I had been assuming that the early Church Fathers were Protestants when clearly they were not. Another breakthrough came when I began to notice strong similarities between present day Orthodoxy and the early Church. There is no getting around the fact that early Christian worship was liturgical and its church polity episcopal. In terms of theological method the early Church Fathers did theology using the paradigm of Scripture in Tradition, rather than the Protestant paradigm of Scripture alone (sola scriptura). As a church history major I was struck by the fact that in contrast to Protestantism’s many denominations, the early Church maintained theological unity for a thousand years until the Great Schism of 1054 when Rome parted ways with the other four patriarchates.

For those interested in learning more about the Church Fathers, it is useful to know that there are collections of these writings easily accessible. One of the better known collections is the one initiated by Philip Schaff and still being published today, the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. See the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL). A convenient one-volume work is James Payton’s A Patristic Treasury. It should be noted that not all early Christian writers are regarded by the Orthodox Church to be “church fathers.” This title or honor is given to those notable for the orthodoxy of their teachings and the sanctity of their lives. The Orthodox Church does not have an official listing but commemorates them in its Liturgy.

Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox should get to know the Church Fathers of the first millennium. The Church Fathers represent a shared heritage among us. As we learn from the Fathers, we will be able to talk to each other using a shared vocabulary and theological paradigm. To disavow the Church Fathers is to become unmoored from historic Christianity. To embrace the Church Fathers is to be grounded in the historic Christian Faith “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).

Robert Arakaki

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.

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 26 of 93

Pentecost and the Promise of God Fulfilled

Getting to Know Your Church Fathers

The Early Church Fathers: Babies or Giants?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives