Showing posts with label Eastern Orthodoxy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eastern Orthodoxy. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

The Anselm Myth

It is a common argument among modern Eastern Orthodox, laymen and apologists alike, to argue that there was no concept of an atonement (specifically the substitutionary atonement) for sins until the time of the Church Father Anselm, or (as some put it) at least by the tenth or eleventh century (around the time that Anselm lived). I covered this extensively in my podcast episode where I reviewed an audio of Eastern Orthodox apologist Frederica Mathewes-Green, who often repeats this contention in her writings and lectures.

However, the idea that the atonement was a foreign concept within Patristics is patently false. Below are some quotes from Church Fathers regarding this topic. I will most likely be adding to this list as research continues.
"Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us..." [Clement of Rome; First Epistle, Ch. 21]

"On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls." [ibid; Ch. 49]

“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [Methetes; Epistle to Diognetus, Ch. 9]

“But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: ‘For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.’” [Irenaeus; Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 16, Section 9]

“We were enemies of God by means of Sin; and God ordained that the sinner should die. Of two things, then, one must needs have happened; either that God should adhere to His word, and destroy all men, or that by giving scope to His benignity He should annul His sentence. But see the wisdom of God. He secured, at once, reality for His sentence, and active operation for His benignity. Christ 'took on Himself our sins in His body, on the Tree, that we, being dead to sins' through His death, 'should live unto righteousness.' He that died for our sakes was not of small account. He was not a literal sheep, He was not a mere man, He was not simply an Angel, but He was God Incarnate. The iniquity of the sinners was not so great as was the righteousness of Him that died for them. Our sins did not equal the amount of His righteousness, who laid down His life for us, who laid it down when He pleased, and when He pleased resumed it.” [Cyril of Jerusalem; Lecture 13, 53]

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Podcast: Eastern Orthodoxy and the Atonement

In this episode, we review a message by Frederica Mathewes-Green from her podcast on Ancient Faith Radio. She speaks on the Eastern Orthodox view of Christ's sacrifice, why the western view of substitutionary atonement is wrong, and all in response to an email...from me!



This link takes you to a copy of the email conversation between Mrs. Mathewes-Green and myself.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Podcast: Does John 6 Teach the Eucharist?

In this episode, we go through John 6 and discern whether or not it teaches the Eucharist, let alone the real presence of Christ in the communion elements.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 3

Here is the final part in our review of Eastern Orthodox author and speaker Matthew Gallatin's series on whether or not Ephesians 1 teaches predestination.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 2

In this episode, we continue our examination of Eastern Orthodox author and speaker Matthew Gallatin's explanation of whether or not the Bible teaches predestination.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 1

This episode begins our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of whether or not Ephesians 1 really teaches predestination.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part V

Here is the final part in our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part IV

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of Matthew Gallatin handling the question of whether or not Romans 9 teaches predestination and election.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part III

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of a review of Romans 9 by Matthew Gallatin, Eastern Orthodox author and podcaster.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part II

Here's this week's podcast episode, where we continue our examination of Matthew Gallatin's series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part I

Here is the latest podcast, where we begin an examination of Matthew Gallatin's well known series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Podcast: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy

In this episode, I do some "house cleaning" and explain why I left the Eastern Orthodox church after being a convert into it. Apologies for the way I sound - I was getting over a cold when I recorded this.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Podcast: Re: Are You Saved?

Ever heard someone say to you "I was saved, I'm being saved, and I hope to be saved"? We  review that sort of response in the latest podcast, in which we review an Eastern Orthodox response by Molly Sabourin to the question, "Are you saved?"

Friday, May 3, 2013

Comparison of the Canon

This is something I dug up from the archives in my old blog. It's a comparison between the canon as recognized by the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here's the link.

Friday, February 15, 2013

The False Dichotomy of Romanism versus Protestantism

Oftentimes, either when I read Roman Catholic apologetics or I interact with Roman Catholics, I notice that there is a recurrence of an assumption, and that assumption is actually, when one gets right down to it, a logical fallacy. Permit me to explain...

In the world of logical fallacies, there is a particular fallacy known as a false dichotomy, also known as a false dilemma. This belief teaches that there are a limited number of options (most popularly two), when in fact more options exist or can exist. For example, it would be a false dichotomy to say "In American politics, you're either a Republican or you're a Democrat" when a person could also be a member of a major third party, such as the Libertarians.

It should be quickly noted that there are indeed times when the options are limited, and in such a case a false dichotomy does not automatically exist. For example, if you go to a restaurant and the waiter asks "Soup or salad?", you can't immediately say "That's a false dichotomy!" simply because there are two options - the restaurant does indeed only have two options there.

However, in the case of churches and forms of what calls itself Christianity worldwide, many within the realm of Roman Catholic apologetics appear to believe that there are either two options: Roman Catholicism (or at the very least, loyalty to the Roman bishop) or one of the Protestant sects. This is a false dichotomy because this is not the only option available. In addition to Roman Catholicism, one can likewise choose Eastern Orthodoxy, the Coptic Church, or even the Church of the East (traditionally labeled "Nestorians" although they have denied believing in the historical definition). This is but a sample of other groups who make similar claims as the Roman Catholic Church, such as apostolic succession or a form of holy tradition. If one wants to go to the "church of the apostles," then, certainly on a surface level, there are a number of churches to choose from.

Now, I am not writing this post to necessarily support one side over and against another, however this factor is something that often gets ignored in Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogues, especially since the Roman Catholic side often attempts to woo the Protestant side towards a single church. This often happens under the rationale of the false dichotomy mentioned in this post - in fact, oftentimes it appears as if the Roman Catholic apologist is either completely unaware of the other "apostolic" churches, or is intentionally avoiding them. This especially comes out when said other churches are brought into the equation, and the responses I have encountered vary, depending on the maturity of the individual Roman Catholic: some ultimately stumble, because all the prize arguments ("we're the church of the apostles," "we're the church founded by God," etc.) suddenly come under scrutiny and there is no other defense; some attempt to shrug it off or be dismissive, which, when pressed with the differences between the churches, causes them to likewise stumble; some will try to find similarities between the churches to minimize the differences (for example, comparing Purgatory to Aerial Toll Houses), not realizing that these similarities are superficial at best and, when reviewing the worldview of the two churches, prove to be completely incompatible; those who are intellectually honest will have to confess that those churches likewise are in error, and will then have to defend themselves over and against the other "apostolic" options.

In the end, Protestants can probably take joy in the thoughts of someone I was once speaking with over this very issue: "It's refreshing to know Rome isn't the only One True Church I'm missing out on."

Monday, February 4, 2013

Madden Theology

I was joking last night with some people regarding John Madden and how he would interpret various branches of Christian theology in his usual football rhetoric, and...well, it escalated...

So imagine, if you will, if John Madden was a...

Monergist

Synergist

Charismatic

Roman Catholic

Eastern Orthodox

Liberal Christian

Emergent

Dispensationalist

Monday, August 15, 2011

The "Traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Those who support the notion of an infallible or apostolic tradition passed down through the ages, or believe that church tradition should be elevated near scripture in importance, often have the following as their prooftext.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15]
Let's take a moment to examine what Paul is discussing.

First, let's talk simply about the logic behind the use of this passage - namely, that the word "traditions" here is used to support traditions known by some churches as they know those traditions today. It is ironic that many will argue 2 Timothy 3:16, when it says "all scripture," does not refer to Paul's epistle or any other New Testament work, yet they will argue here that Paul's use of the word "traditions" refers to all tradition in toto. Yet many traditions today in most "apostolic" churches can be proven to either have developed over time or to have come at a much, much later date, so that Paul would have had absolutely no idea of them at the time. Many will argue that these traditions are keeping in line with the mentality or spirit Paul would have had, but the problem is that Paul specifies who received these traditions and from whom they came: these are the traditions "which you were taught," and were taught "by word of mouth or by letter from us." These were traditions given to the Thessalonians, and received directly from the apostles. Any traditions outside of this context could not be relevant and, by extension, could not be "apostolic."

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to extend the "you" to the universal church, the context of "traditions" would still be limited to that which the apostles themselves gave directly, and any traditions not given directly by the apostles would be irrelevant to the passage. To use the verse to support post-apostolic traditions or traditions that came hundreds of years later - be it the bodily assumption of Mary or the various liturgies - would be erroneous. One cannot logically expand "traditions" to all traditions after the life of the apostles the way one can expand "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 to the New Testament - God continued writing scripture even after Paul died; Paul did not continue giving traditions after he died.

Second, let's look at the full context within scripture. Paul has just begun a request regarding "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 1), that the Thessalonians should "not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us" (v. 2). After a lengthy discussion of the false teaching that Christ's return is coming soon, the apostle writes:
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:13-15]
The "traditions," within their proper context, have a two-fold definition: they are referring to eschatology specifically, and the Gospel generally. Paul is warning the Thessalonians about false teachings regarding the coming of Christ, hence they are to keep the "traditions" (or "teachings" as the NIV translates) that the apostles gave regarding it, and they are to hold fast to the Gospel, in which those traditions are part. The Gospel the apostles preached was one of repentance and coming to Christ who, through saving faith, would restore us body and soul on the day of resurrection. The latter part was what troubled the Thessalonians, as they were beginning to argue and worry over when the second coming and resurrection would happen. These are the "traditions" which they are told to stand fast in - not a liturgy, not extra-biblical stories, not prayer to the saints - but the Gospel of Christ and the expected day of resurrection and judgment.

In fact, this section has an indirect relation to Paul's words in the first epistle he sent them:
We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. [1 Thess 1:2-7]
Note, again, the focus of this section of scripture: the Gospel. It was the Gospel which was delivered "not...in word only" but also "by word of mouth," the Thessalonians receiving "the Holy Spirit with full conviction." These are the "traditions" which the apostles gave the Thessalonians - and indeed, the universal church - by word of mouth and by letter. There was nothing new or hidden that was given to the Thessalonians - what was given to them was exactly what was given to Paul by Christ, and which Paul proclaimed throughout all of Asia Minor.

To read into the word "traditions" here as any unwritten tradition is not only erroneous (as previously established), but likewise comes close to robbing the Gospel of its glory. It is reading the modern context of a word backwards into an older use, and a use which refers not to the practices of man but the teachings of God. When we are told to "stand firm" in strong language denoting hope and inspiration (not mere remembrance and repetition), what other context could it mean but the Gospel, in which we "may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ"? It was against an attack of these traditions - the Gospel and all it entailed - that Paul warned the Thessalonians to guard against. This is why he warned them not to be shaken in their faith "by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us," just as he warned the Galatians to hold anyone who preaches a Gospel contrary to that which they were likewise taught "by word of mouth or by letter" to be accursed (cf. Gal 1:8-9).

Let us, therefore, follow the command of Paul and "stand firm and hold to the traditions" of the apostles - not empty ritualistic traditions, but rather the great tradition that Christ died to redeem us from our sins and in us is the hope of the coming resurrection. Of that day no man knows, but one thing is certain: those whom are God's sheep will never be lost, for no man can snatch them out of His hand. Who is greater than God? In these traditions, let us all stand firm. Amen.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Biblical Definition of Sainthood

Many times, because of the influence of some older churches, I think many people have misconceptions regarding who or what is a "saint." Many think that a church has to go through a complicated list of preconditions before a person can be considered a saint, whereas others may think that you have to wait until a person is dead and be sure they died a faithful and honorable believer before you call them a saint. The mindset becomes one where there are essentially two classes of Christian: the saints, who are "super-Christians," and then the "normal Christians" on earth who are striving to meet the saints as a standard, although most are reserved to believe they never will. Although many will say that the specific saints are simply those an individual church chooses to honor and set up as an example and that all believers who have gone on to be with the Lord are considered saints, it is undeniable that separation occurs both in everyday language and application. The connotation of the word "saint" has been skewed since it's use in the early church.

Let's take a moment to briefly examine what scripture teaches regarding sainthood:

Firstly, the term "saints" always refers to Christians in toto. Paul begins his epistle to the Romans by addressing it "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints" (Rom 1:7). He addresses his first epistle to Corinth "to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). Again: "to the saints who are at Ephesus" (Eph 1:1). Again: "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi" (Phi 1:1). And again: "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae" (Col 1:2). The saints were not a special group of Christians, nor even an exemplary group of Christians - if you are a Christian, you are a saint by default.

Secondly, we are saints by our calling from God - not by our deeds. We have already looked at Paul's definition of saints as being those who are "beloved of God" and are "called" (Rom 1:7), and that saints are those "who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" and are such "by calling" (1 Cor 1:2). God likewise blessed the saints in Christ and "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" (Eph 1:4). Our state of being a saint comes from God's effectual calling unto salvation, not because we did x amount of good deeds or performed y amount of miracles.

The very Greek term translated as "saint" - hagios - means "holy" or "consecrated," and refers to something that is separated specifically for God. The idea is that while most that is in the world is made for the service of the word, that which is hagios is set apart for God. It referred not only to people, but, in a Jewish context, to vestments, ornaments, etc. The saints were those who were called by God to be holy and chosen by God to be taken out of this world (cf. John 15:19).

In many ways - within the context of the New Testament - this was God's antithesis to the Pharisees. The Hebrew root word from which the Pharisees derived their name (perushim) meant "one who is separated," and the Pharisees believed that their traditions and way of life essentially "separated" them from the society at large, leading them into a concentrated spiritual life. In a similar way, God has separated, is separating, and will separate His saints from the world and into true spiritual life. However, whereas the Pharisees separated themselves on their own accord and justified their separation by their deeds, the saints are separated by the effectual calling of God and are justified not by their deeds but by the atoning blood of Christ.

All Christians, by biblical definition, are saints, and are so by the blessing they have received from God in their salvation. We should not be afraid to use this term for brothers and sisters, and neither should we be afraid to use it for the church. It has beautiful theological implications when used in the way scripture defines it. The one thing it should teach us, above all, is that God alone deserves any glory we may possess or pretend to have. All glory comes from Him, and so all glory returns to Him. Soli Deo Gloria.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Prima Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia

Does the belief in prima scriptura inevitably lead one to believe either in sola scriptura or sola ecclesia?
First, let's define some terms:

Prima Scriptura is the name given by many as a counter for sola scriptura. The idea is that while scripture is not the sole rule of faith in the church, it is the primary authority. It refers to the primacy of scripture, or that scripture is primary among traditions and ecclesiastical decisions, although those also carry some authority alongside scripture. This teaching stems from the idea that when the apostles founded the church, they left a conglomerate of teachings, both written and unwritten, and the written portion became scripture. Therefore, while there are traditions and extra-biblical beliefs, scripture is still held the highest among them. However, because it is believed that scripture, traditions and church authority all come from the same source (that is, Christ and the apostles), they all carry varying degrees of importance.

One perspective on this, from the Eastern Orthodox church, writes:
The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition. To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. [pg. 135-136. Carlton, Clark. The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997.]
Sola Ecclesia is a nickname roughly translated as "church alone." It refers to a doctrine that teaches the church is the sole authority and rule of faith, and all is decided through the ecclesiastical body. One can see the more extreme and blatant versions of it in cults such as Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses, where the teachings of the group itself trump whatever scripture might have to say. So much so, in fact, that in some situations new scripture is added (as in Mormonism) or the very words of scripture are changed to suit the group's theology (as in the Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation).

Sola Scriptura is the Reformation-era name for the doctrine of "scripture alone." We must immediately point out here that the most common straw man presented of sola scriptura is of an Evangelical pastor beating his Bible and saying, "This is all you need!" This is not the case, however. Scripture alone does not mean scripture isolated or scripture by itself, which some scholars (such as Keith Mathison in his work The Spirit of Sola Scriptura) have referred to jestingly as "solo scriptura." Sola scriptura acknowledges the presence and permits the use of history, language, contextual study, patristics and scholars. However, what it does teach is that all of this is held to the standard of scripture and scripture alone. The writings of godly theologians, the decisions of councils, and traditions claimed to have been passed down through the ages - while not necessarily useless in and of themselves - do not get to trump the writings of scripture. God's word has the final say.

Now that we have established these terms, we return to our question: does prima scriptura inevitably lead one to follow sola scriptura or sola ecclesia? Long ago I made this chart to try to explain this further:
The line of thinking is this: you start out with the presupposition of Prima Scriptura. So far so good. Now let's say you bring in a tradition, doctrine or belief. Do we have a question regarding its validity? If no, there is nothing to worry about. Some things, such as the existence of a historical Christ or how many disciples there were, may not have any need to be questioned.

Let us say, however, that we have something worth asking a question about. We'll take, as an example, the teaching of the repose and later bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary (which I've touched on in greater detail here). The next question we must ask: is it able to be proven by scripture? In the case of the bodily assumption of Mary, the quick answer is no, it cannot be. The next question must be: is this an issue? If one answers No, for the church has spoken and thus it is so, then they are followers of sola ecclesia, for they are following church authority over scriptural authority. If they answer Yes, and so it cannot be part of our infallible rule of worship or faith, then they are following sola scriptura, for they are appealing to the authority of scripture.

Many might protest this example, because scripture is only silent about the bodily assumption of Mary and not exactly (though somewhat) contrary to it. Therefore, I will move on to another example: the celibacy of the clergy. In Roman Catholicism, priests and bishops are celibate in toto, whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy (and some other forms of Eastern Christianity) priests may be married provided they were married before ordination (after which they must be celibate) while all bishops must be celibate.

Now let us apply this same flow of thinking as before: is this mode of clerical celibacy affirmed by scripture? The answer, again, is no: Paul writes in Titus 1:5-6 that elders (or priests) can be married and have children; Paul likewise writes in 1 Timothy 3:2 that overseers (or bishops) can be married, and even says in verses 4-5 that one sign they are fit for their post is that their family household is in good order. He even records in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that James, Peter and other apostles, most of them considered to be bishops in "apostolic" churches, had wives. Now we must ask how we respond to this in light of the church tradition. If we say This is of no concern, the church has chosen in her prudence to instill this form of celibacy, then we are falling into sola ecclesia. If, however, we say This is of concern, for it contradicts the words of Paul, therefore this tradition must be thrown out, then we are following sola scriptura.

In both these situations, the tradition, belief or doctrine actually overrides the authority of scripture. Though many might protest this and assure us that the church is merely "interpreting" scripture, or that they are just enacting something in the prudence of time, the fact remains that the authority to change this is coming only from the church, and is bypassing the word of God. Even if one were to argue that the church is sourced to God as well, this only invites the problem of God contradicting Himself - first through the infallible words of scripture, then through the infallible council of the church. Infallible sources cannot be contradictory to one another.

This is why when one argues that elevating church authority or the authority of tradition does not negate the primary authority of scripture, they are merely not following this doctrine through to its logical conclusion. If in the end church authority has the final say, even in contradiction to the teachings of scripture, then who has the true authority? I write this not only with Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox in mind, but likewise Protestants and even groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. If your church believes something, and yet you can find nothing in scripture to verify it - in fact it contradicts scripture - and yet you defend it with The church declares it to be, therefore it must be so, how much weight are you then placing upon the scriptures? At this point it is revealed that your church's authority has the true power, and scripture is simply given a ceremonial nod. Note that I am not arguing for a kind of "ecclesiastical anarchy" here - church authority in and of itself is not bad. However, if we place authority upon the church that supersedes scripture and permits it to contradict scripture, then we have usurped the authority of God's word. It would be no different than permitting Congress the ability to contradict the Constitution for some superficial reason similar to "both Congress and the Constitution are sourced to the Founding Fathers."

I exhort any one reading this post to understand the importance of the authority of God's word. Christ Himself responded to all exhortations from the Pharisees, scribes, lawyers - even the devil himself - by going to the word of God. Evil was met every time with "it is written." As God said through the prophet Isaiah: "If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). If you encounter anyone or any group which works against the word of God - whether intentional or unintentional - seek to correct them, or, if this proves impossible, depart from them, just as the apostle Paul warned the Roman Christians to turn away from those teaching doctrines contrary to the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:17). Paul was so adamant about preserving the word of God, in fact, that he stated even an apostle or angel of God could be considered anathema for preaching a contrary gospel (Gal 1:8-9). Scripture is our highest authority because it comes from God, and with God we can find no other higher authority.

I write this post not as an immediate call for repentance, but as a chance to ponder on these things. God bless.

Monday, June 27, 2011

When you borrow (bad) Protestant hermeneutics

Often Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will attempt to assert the equality of church authority with scripture by using the argument that in the early church not everyone had all of what we know today as the Bible. That is, when Paul wrote to the Romans, the Romans did not have a leather-bound Bible like most Christians attending church today do. While this is somewhat true, the inferred rationale here is that scripture cannot be the final authority since not everyone within the early church had all of scripture yet, and therefore had to have another authority. I recognize this is only one such argument made, but nonetheless many make it.

And yet, often in my dialogue with both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, whenever a scriptural topic comes up, one of the most common tactics is to commit scriptural acrobatics and jump to another verse, disregarding the original passage entirely (one example: jumping to James 2:24 in response to Romans 4:1-5 when talking about justification). When I ask them why they are doing so, the most common answer is something along the lines of: "The Bible has to be understood in its entirety."

Wait a minute - isn't that precisely how some Protestants argue?

I might ask, for the sake of consistency, which is it? For if you argue that the Bible must be understood in its entirety, then you inadvertently argue that the original readers of scripture would have been able to read scripture in its entirety. To refer back to the previous example, you argue, by jumping from Romans to James, that the original readers of Romans would have been able to jump to James and do a cross-reference study. And yet, your apologetics regarding scripture and church authority is also based on the assumption that they would not have been able to do so.

The simple reason as to why many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox commit such scriptural acrobatics is the same reason many Protestants commit scriptural acrobatics: they can't deal with the text given them. They have to jump from the text put before them, jump to something else that they believe will help their case, disregarding how irrelevant the other passage might be. It's no different than synergist Protestants who jump from John 6:44 to John 12:32 (as I touched on here).

The problem is, of course, while a Protestant can commit this error and at least pretend consistency under the guise of scriptural authority, a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox committing this error is simply falling into an inconsistency. It is also a double standard. When scriptural authority undermines the authority of an individual church, we must demand that scripture was, at one point, incomplete, and logically scriptural acrobatics would be impossible. However, if scripture can be twisted to suit an individual church's theology, then scriptural acrobatics may be employed.

Of course, neither Protestants nor non-Protestants should be using scriptural acrobatics. When a text of scripture is reviewed, it should be reviewed within its immediate context and with regards to its author, audience and purpose. While it's true that the original readers of Romans would not have been able to jump to many other books of the New Testament, we stay in Romans for the same reason we stay in John 6 when explaining what Jesus meant rather than jumping nearly a year in the narrative to John 12, leaping out of the immediate context. If you have to jump context and try to grab onto something else, completely abandoning what you were given, then you are not being honest with the text, the other person, nor yourself.

I might ask any Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox reader who comes across this post not to immediately give a knee-jerk reaction and simply accuse me of being wrong. Rather, review your own method of responding to verses of scripture - are you guilty of this? If so, why is this? Or perhaps you yourself are not, but you know others - maybe even those whom you respect - of doing this. If so, are they truly being honest? If they are not, why is that? Again, this is all simply a call both for honesty in discussion and a call for discernment.