Pages

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Unity, Apostolic Succession, And Determining Truth By Popularity

The following is a reply I wrote to Orthodox in another thread. I thought that some of you might find it, or portions of it, helpful, so I'm putting it in a new post here.

Orthodox writes:

"There is no scripture saying which things are essential to the faith as a basis for a standard."

Passages like 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 and Galatians 1:6-9 tell us that some beliefs are essential. Protestants have a standard for unity from such passages.

You write:

"Yes, there was an odd group here, and a group there, who in a limited geographical area for a limited time broke unity, usually over one or two points of contention. I did originally say 'basically' one church. Why you think a few exceptions that prove the rule help you much I don't know."

No, your "basically" qualifier was added later. You originally said that there was only one denomination. See my documentation of what you said at the beginning of this thread. When you claimed that there was only one denomination, you surrounded that claim with criticism of "thousands" of Protestant denominations, and you went on to use the example of a church celebrating communion only once a year. As I explained to you earlier, you can't count "thousands" of Protestant denominations unless you include some relatively minor differences in the count. And how often communion is celebrated is relatively minor. Thus, to be consistent, you ought to include relatively minor differences among Christians of the first millennium as examples of significant disunity among them. And if you do that, then there were many divisions among Christians of the first millennium.

You write:

"And the church is capable of keeping Spain in the family if it so chooses despite a disagreement. The church decides what disagreement is tolerated and what isn't."

If you can "tolerate disagreement", then why can't Protestants? Earlier, you criticized the existence of disagreements. Now you're saying that disagreements are acceptable for Eastern Orthodoxy, as long as Eastern Orthodoxy is willing to tolerate them.

You write:

"Who would have thought someone claiming to be knowledgeable would want such a thing documented?"

You then cite men like Irenaeus and Tertullian referring to successions of bishops. That's not enough. For one thing, you claimed to be addressing what ancient Christianity as a whole believed, not just what was believed by some men from the late second century onward. Furthermore, you're assuming that your quotes mean what you were arguing for earlier. But that's a dubious assumption. There were multiple concepts of apostolic succession among the ancient Christians:

"Succession lists of kings, periodically appointed magistrates, and heads of philosophical schools were kept in the Hellenistic world. The Jews had lists of prophets and rabbis, but most importantly of high priests. Although early Christians had an interest in the succession of their own prophets and teachers (particularly in the catechetical school in Alexandria), special attention attached to the succession of bishops, who by the end of the second century incorporated much of the authority and function of prophets and teachers into their office. 1 Clement 42-44 taught the apostolic institution of the offices of bishop and deacon in the church. After the appointment of the first bishops and deacons, the apostles provided for the continuation of these offices in the church. This was not the same as the later doctrine of apostolic succession, and it is to be noted that Clement included deacons as well as bishops in his statement. Ignatius, the first witness to only one bishop in a church, did not base his understanding of the ministry on succession. The one bishop was a representative of God the Father, and the presbyters had their model in the college of apostles (Trall. 3). The first claim to a succession from the apostles in support of particular doctrines was made in the second century by the Gnostics. They claimed that the apostles had imparted certain secret teachings to some of their disciples and that these teachings had been passed down, thus having apostolic authority, even if different from what was proclaimed in the churches (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.2.1; cf. Ptolemy in Epiphanius, Haer. 33.7.9). Hegesippus, an opponent of Gnosticism, compiled a list of the bishops in Rome (Eusebius, H.E. 4.22.5f.). Irenaeus of Lyons drew on the idea of the succession of bishops to formulate an orthodox response to the Gnostic claim of a secret tradition going back to the apostles. Irenaeus argued that if the apostles had had any secrets to teach, they would have delivered them to those men to whom they committed the leadership of the churches. A person could go to the churches founded by apostles, Irenaeus contended, and determine what was taught in those churches by the succession of teachers since the days of the apostles. The constancy of this teaching was guaranteed by its public nature; any change could have been detected, since the teaching was open. The accuracy of the teaching in each church was confirmed by its agreement with what was taught in other churches. One and the same faith had been taught in all the churches since the time of the apostles. Irenaeus's succession was collective rather than individual. He spoke of the succession of the presbyters (Haer. 3.2.2), or of the presbyters and bishops (4.26.2), as well as of the bishops (3.3.1). To be in the succession was not itself sufficient to guarantee correct doctrine. The succession functioned negatively to mark off the heretics who withdrew from the church. A holy life and sound teaching were also required of true leaders (4.26.5). The succession pertained to faith and life rather than to the transmission of special gifts. The "gift of truth" (charisma veritatis) received with the office of teaching (4.26.2) was not a gift guaranteeing that what was taught would be true, but was the truth itself as a gift. Each holder of the teaching chair in the church received the apostolic doctrine as a deposit to be faithfully transmitted to the church. Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became....[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles. Apostolic succession arose in a polemical situation as an effective argument for the truth of Catholic tradition against Gnostic teachings. As so often happens to successful arguments, it came to be regarded as an article of faith, not just a defense of the truth but a part of truth itself. Hippolytus is apparently the first for whom the bishops were not simply in the succession from the apostles but were themselves successors of the apostles (Haer., praef.). When Eusebius of Caesarea used the lists of bishops as the framework for his Church History, he did not count the apostles in the episcopal lists. Cyprian, however, made an identification of the episcopate and the apostolate (Ep. 64.3; 66.4; cf. Sent. epp. 79 and Socrates, H.E. 6.8)....The sacramental understanding of ordination that grew up in the fourth and fifth centuries shifted the emphasis to a succession from ordainer to ordained, but the earlier historical type of succession was preserved in the lists of local bishops." (Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], pp. 94-95)

Furthermore, there were multiple forms of church government, with church leaders being chosen in different ways in different places, with different standards. For example, sometimes an apostle or his associate appoints a church worker (sometimes specified as a bishop, elder, etc.) in the New Testament or in post-apostolic references, but sometimes the appointment is referred to the church in general (2 Corinthians 8:19; First Clement 44; The Didache, 15; Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 7). As Ferguson notes, "[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles. Apostolic succession arose in a polemical situation as an effective argument for the truth of Catholic tradition against Gnostic teachings....Election by the people was one of the methods of appointment known to Origen (Hom. 13 in Num. 4)....The will of the populace could prevail over clerical opposition (Sulpicius Severus, V. Mart. 9)." (Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], pp. 95, 366-367)

You write:

"If someone goes out of your congregation to that one in the Philippines you'd have to spend 6 months interviewing the pastors before you could make even a person judgement on whether your friend had 'gone out', and even then it would be just your individual belief and not 'standard'."

Why should we accept your unargued assertion about how long it would take to discern whether a person has left the faith? And where does 1 John 2:19 give us a time limit on such a process? As I told you before, 1 John was written in a particular historical context. Do you know what it was? As I told you earlier, the heretics John was referring to held highly unusual beliefs. He wasn't referring to people who had left one denomination for another, like going from a Baptist to a Presbyterian church. He was referring to people who adopted beliefs that undermined essentials of the Christian faith. You still haven't justified your interpretation of 1 John 2:19. You just keep asserting it.

You write:

"What I am pointing out is that John is assuming one 'denomination' if we want to use that term, because he is assuming that it is always clear when you 'go out' so that you 'may KNOW' they are not in the church."

Where does John say that it's "always clear"? Where does he say that he has denominations in view? You're reading things into the text that aren't there.

You write:

"We don't have unity with Roman Catholics. We do have unity with the other Orthodox churches. What is not clear?"

But you go on to say, concerning whether 1 John 2:19 applies to Roman Catholicism:

"this is not the time and place to get into the more difficult cases when the protestant case is oh so clear."

How can the case of Roman Catholicism be "difficult" and not "oh so clear" if 1 John 2:19 is teaching that it's "clear" who is and isn't part of the faith? You aren't being consistent.

You write, concerning Roman Catholicism:

"That's like asking how you can be a Christian under a tree in no church. The answer is, you will be in a severely impaired spiritual state."

But 1 John 2:19 doesn't refer to "being a Christian" who is "severely impaired". John is addressing heretics who he later refers to as "antichrists". He's not addressing "impaired" Christians. You're badly distorting 1 John. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that 1 John 2:19 is about making easy judgments concerning non-Eastern-Orthodox denominations, then turn around and refer to how it's difficult to judge how Roman Catholicism relates to 1 John 2 and refer to Roman Catholics as "Christians" who are just "severely impaired".

You write:

"But again, the church is not obligated to negotiate with schismatic groups."

If you can choose not to negotiate with some groups, then why can't Protestants do the same? And you refer to divisions you've had with some groups that have lasted for several hundred years. If you can take several hundred years to "negotiate" and remain divided, then why is the smaller amount of time for which Protestants have done the same unacceptable?

You write:

"But again, we're under no obligation to make unity work. You are under obligation to join The Church."

And we're under no obligation to make unity work. You are under obligation to join those who obey scripture.

You write:

"Sure there was, it was called the Jewish nation, which Moses brought out from Egypt. You didn't get out of Egypt in some schismatic group. Earlier on it was Noah's ark, and you didn't survive the flood if you were in a right believing group not in the Ark."

Nobody has denied that there was some unity and some organization in Old Testament times. What I said was that the unity and organizations took different forms. There was no one denomination throughout Old Testament history. And how do you know that men like Abel, Enoch, and Abraham were part of one organization comparable to a denomination, and that every other godly person on earth was a member of that same denomination? You don't.

You write:

"Israel was a denomination. From your point of view, a Jew could leave Israel, move to Australia, and still be part of Israel with all the promises and so on."

Israel was a physical nation for a while, but not throughout the Old Testament. Men like Abel and Enoch weren't part of the physical nation, and there were times when the organizational structure of the nation fell, like under the Babylonian captivity. As I said before, God worked in a variety of ways and through a variety of individuals and institutions in the Old Testament era. He didn't work the way you keep assuming He should in this New Testament era.

You write:

"So you look to a time in history that there is unambiguous agreement."

You still haven't proven your assertion that widespread agreement proves that a belief is correct. And you ignored the Old Testament examples I cited against your interpretation of Matthew 16. God also said that Israel wouldn't be destroyed (Jeremiah 31:35-37), yet Israel sometimes lost its organizational structure, went into captivity, engaged in widespread neglect of God's revelation (2 Kings 22:8-13, Nehemiah 8:13-17), misinterpreted Messianic prophecy, etc. If God could promise that Israel would never be destroyed, yet there could be widespread disunity and error and Israel could take a variety of organizational forms, then how do you supposedly know that the church must have the attributes that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have in order for the church not to be destroyed?

You write:

"We understand there were some people who differed from the current standard, but without clear unambiguous proof that this is the catholic faith, believed everywhere, that is a nothing argument."

I've given you examples of people disagreeing with Eastern Orthodox belief in the early centuries, including widespread disagreement with Eastern Orthodox belief. Your doctrines weren't "believed everywhere" early on. In some cases, you can't document that a single person held your beliefs in the earliest generations. Why should we think that what allegedly was "believed everywhere" later on must be true? Was the general disobedience of the people of Israel described in 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17 proof that such disobedience was correct? Are you going to add further qualifiers to your argument, without evidence, in an attempt to arrive at your desired conclusion?

You write:

"I am in contact with my priest who is in contact with the bishop who is in contact with the other bishops."

And how do you know that each person in that chain of contact is correct in his judgments? Are they all infallible in telling you who has unity and who doesn't? And does your local priest give you regular updates about who is and isn't part of your Eastern Orthodox unity worldwide? When's the last time he did that? What if some people or churches have joined Eastern Orthodoxy since then, and you don't know about it? When discussing 1 John 2, you suggested that we must be able to "easily" tell who is part of the unity and who isn't. So, how do you "easily" know who's part of the unity worldwide and who isn't from day to day? Do you get daily updates from your priest?

You write:

"I said that the kind of modern analysis that protestants do would have been unworkable before the modern age. That can't be said for evaluating the competing claims of Rome and Orthodoxy."

The same sort of historical analysis that Protestants apply to scripture and other historical documents is also applied by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic scholars to the patristic documents and other relevant literature that you use in "evaluating the competing claims of Rome and Orthodoxy".

9 comments:

  1. Look at the underlying assumption we've got here. The apostles went around the world setting up churches and setting order in the churches by appointment of leaders, but according to Jason's presupposition here it was perfectly legitimate for a Christian, if you had a disagreement on a point of doctrine, to go set up your own church. Where is the scripture that unambiguously teaches this?

    However, the church has always understood that there is to be an orderly succession to officially appointed positions. Right from Acts when it was said "let another take his bishopric" and Matthias was appointed to Judas' bishopric, to Clement of Rome saying in 80AD "the apostles.... added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry", then to Hegesippus and then Irenaeus around 180AD whom Jason has quoted above. Irenaeus wrote: "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere".

    Again, Jason assumes that which has been understood for 2000 years is wrong. He tries to peer deep back into the darkness of the 1st century and claims to know better than Irenaeus what was believed in this time. He claims to know better than 2000 years of Christian history what Clement meant by approved successors and what the apostles meant in that another must take the bishopric of Judas. But he doesn't know. He's speculating in order to defend his own personal tradition.

    And since his own tradition is incompatible with the belief of the early church, he is not free to go where the historical data takes him. So he has to downplay, equivocate, obfuscate and generally try and make us believe that the earliest church was already in apostasy.

    >If you can "tolerate
    >disagreement", then why can't
    >Protestants?

    Because when we tolerate disagreement, we do so in unity. Spain is either in or out, it isn't half in depending on the whim of every individual member. That is chaos in the church, not order.

    >Irenaeus's succession was
    >collective rather than individual.
    >He spoke of the succession of the
    >presbyters (Haer. 3.2.2), or of
    >the presbyters and bishops >(4.26.2), as well as of the
    >bishops (3.3.1).

    What is "collective" supposed to mean? Yes, presbyters have succession via the bishops. Just idle raving and speculation again.

    >Ignatius, the first witness to
    >only one bishop in a church, did
    >not base his understanding of the
    >ministry on succession.

    More false claims. Ignatius simply didn't address the issue of succession. To claim to know that Ignatius thought on an issue he didn't write about is pure hubris.

    >There was no one denomination
    >throughout Old Testament history.
    >And how do you know that men like
    >Abel, Enoch, and Abraham were part
    >of one organization comparable to
    >a denomination, and that every
    >other godly person on earth was a
    >member of that same denomination?
    >You don't.

    How do you know they weren't part of one "denomination"? You don't. The existance of multiple organizations does not prove your case. You brought up the OT situation, but it hasn't worked for you. By the command of God there was one Temple of God, not a temple for every denomination.

    >You still haven't proven your
    >assertion that widespread
    >agreement proves that a belief is
    >correct.

    Then you have no canon. If you think it is right to prove everything, then you ought to prove to every new member in your church what the canon is before you go on to "prove" your teachings from scripture.

    >God also said that Israel wouldn't
    >be destroyed (Jeremiah 31:35-37),
    >yet Israel sometimes lost its
    >organizational structure, went
    >into captivity, engaged in
    >widespread neglect of God's
    >revelation.

    But they lacked the "helper" that God promised the Church to guide it into all truth. Unless you think the helper has gone again.

    Plus, despite Israel's problems with disobedience they were still the guardians of revelation, such that Jesus said to "do what they say, not what they do".

    And Israel always had the succession of their priests. If you're going to start talking about Israel, then you have to be very selective in ignoring the clear parallels to the Church.

    >I've given you examples of people
    >disagreeing with Eastern Orthodox
    >belief in the early centuries,
    >including widespread disagreement
    >with Eastern Orthodox belief. Your
    >doctrines weren't "believed
    >everywhere" early on.

    Never claimed they were. Just like not every ECF writing approved of 2 Peter. And some positively rejected it. Of course you claim to be more sure of who wrote 2 Peter than even the ECFs writing in the earliest evidence. How you can gain certaintly over time without a belief in the church being led into truth, beggars belief and defies reason.

    >>"I am in contact with my priest
    >>who is in contact with the bishop
    >>who is in contact with the other
    >bishops."
    >
    >And how do you know that each
    >person in that chain of contact is
    >correct in his judgments? Are they
    >all infallible in telling you who
    >has unity and who doesn't?

    Who is in unity is the decision of the bishops. Your question is about as sensible as asking if your pastor is infallible when he kicks someone out.

    >And does your local priest give
    >you regular updates about who is
    >and isn't part of your Eastern
    >Orthodox unity worldwide?

    I don't need a push model of obtaining this data. The data is available should I need it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Orthodox doesn't seem to have much interest in honestly and thoughtfully interacting with what other people have said, but I'll post some responses for the potential benefit of other people. Readers should note that I documented the existence of multiple forms of church government and multiple definitions of "apostolic succession" in the patristic era. Orthodox doesn't reconcile such data with his belief system, but instead continues to act as if the patristic sources defined their terms as he defines them and as if the patristic sources who agree with him are the only ones who existed.

    Orthodox writes:

    "The apostles went around the world setting up churches and setting order in the churches by appointment of leaders, but according to Jason's presupposition here it was perfectly legitimate for a Christian, if you had a disagreement on a point of doctrine, to go set up your own church. Where is the scripture that unambiguously teaches this?"

    As has been explained to Orthodox repeatedly by multiple people, there's no need for something "unambiguous" or for "certainty", as he later puts it. The issue is probability. And if the apostles left us with freedom on an issue, then the fact that some people, like Orthodox, would like to take away that freedom for their own purposes doesn't mean that we should act as if later traditions are apostolic commands.

    Scripture tells us that church leaders must meet particular moral and doctrinal requirements (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9). Paul repeatedly tells Christians to discipline the immoral (1 Corinthians 5:7-13) and to not associate with them (Romans 16:17-18, 2 Thessalonians 3:6). Even an angel from Heaven is to be held accountable for being faithful to apostolic teaching (Galatians 1:8). Paul repeatedly tells his readers that apostles are the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20). To follow leaders who deny apostolic teaching, on the basis of obeying what the apostles taught about submitting to leaders, would be nonsensical. (No leaders are equal to or above the apostles.) Similarly, the fact that the apostles taught children to submit to parents doesn't mean that children should steal items from a store if their parents tell them to. The apostolic command to submit to government authorities doesn't mean that women should get an abortion if the government commands it. Thus, as I've documented, the patristic sources often refer to the need for the people of a congregation to separate from corrupt church leaders. A document like The Didache will tell Christians to separate from corrupt church leaders without explaining all of the specifics of what ought to be done afterward. If new leaders can be chosen by the same congregation, or if there are other healthy churches in the area, then proceeding in one of those two contexts might make sense. In other cases, forming a new church may be the only option or the preferable one. It would vary from case to case. In an early period like the second century, there probably were many healthy churches still in existence, though we don't know how geographically widespread they would have been. Again, judgments would have to be made case-by-case.

    Orthodox continues:

    "However, the church has always understood that there is to be an orderly succession to officially appointed positions."

    Everything in the church is to be done in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:40). If Protestant churches sometimes don't handle such situations properly, it doesn't therefore follow that all Protestant churches are wrong in the matter or that it's a problem inherent in being Protestant.

    What Orthodox seems to have in mind is the concept that no new churches can be formed without being able to trace themselves to some other church that has a succession from the apostles, a church with which the new church has good relations. In other words, it's not enough that Protestantism comes out of Roman Catholicism, the Church of England, or some other group that claims apostolic succession. Since Protestants aren't in good relations with the group they came from, or the group they came from supposedly didn't set up the Protestant church's leadership in the manner in which that leadership is supposed to be appointed, then the Protestant leaders are illegitimate. If Orthodox has such a concept in mind, then he needs to justify it. The fact that a patristic source like Clement of Rome believed that one church leader is to succeed another doesn't logically lead us to the conclusion that he held all of the other concepts that Orthodox is assuming.

    Clement was part of the Roman church, an apostolic church, and he was writing to another apostolic church, the church of Corinth. Both churches were, in Clement's judgment, healthy enough to continue on (in contrast to a situation such as we see anticipated in Revelation 2:5 and 3:16, for example). It doesn't therefore follow that Clement would be opposed to anybody leaving a church for another church or forming a new church under other circumstances. Orthodox keeps reading into these patristic sources assumptions that he hasn't justified.

    He writes:

    "Right from Acts when it was said 'let another take his bishopric' and Matthias was appointed to Judas' bishopric"

    You've repeatedly taken scripture out of context, and this is another example of it. The replacing of Judas was seen as a curse upon Judas, not a blessing. Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He's replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. The requirements that Judas' replacement had to meet cannot possibly be met by people alive today (Acts 1:21-22). And when people like James, Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 are not repeated. People are told to remember what Jesus and the apostles had taught (Acts 20:28-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2), not to expect all apostolic teaching to be infallibly maintained in unbroken succession throughout church history. To try to turn Acts 1 into some sort of proof of your concept of apostolic succession is a ridiculous distortion of scripture.

    You write:

    "Again, Jason assumes that which has been understood for 2000 years is wrong."

    No, I gave you examples of the patristic sources holding a variety of views of church government and apostolic succession. You've ignored a large portion of what I cited.

    Irenaeus was discussing the evidential significance of the succession of church leaders in his day. He was citing the testimony of such church leaders against the claims of heretics who didn't have such a succession, or at least didn't have it to the same degree. Irenaeus also said that all churches must agree with the church of Rome. And he said that the church of Ephesus was a faithful representative of apostolic teaching. One of the reasons he gave for accepting the testimony of the Roman church was that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome as the capital of the empire. Thus, the Roman church was in contact with a large number of other Christians and therefore could be viewed as representative of traditions from around the world. Was Irenaeus' argument valid for his day? Yes, the argument had a significant amount of merit for the timeframe in which Irenaeus lived. But if you take it out of that historical context, and act as though it can be applied to our day, you end up with some absurd results. Are we today required to agree with the church of Rome, just because the Roman church of the second century was a faithful witness to apostolic teaching? No. Do Christians today travel to Rome regularly, since it's the capital of the empire? No. Does the faithfulness of the church of Ephesus in the second century assure us that there's a faithful church of Ephesus today? No, it doesn't. Read Revelation 2:5. If the first century Ephesian church was in danger of losing its place, then surely the second century Ephesian church could fall away after nearly two thousand more years have passed. Irenaeus was writing less than a century after the death of the apostles. Historical successions had far more evidential weight then than they have now. Irenaeus' argument was one that, by its nature, loses its effectiveness with the passing of time. To apply it today, as if it has all of the force now that it had then, is nonsensical.

    Yes, all other factors being equal, we should proceed with an orderly succession of church leaders in a continuous succession, without any divisions. But not every other factor is equal. History has gone on. Churches have changed. (Again, read Revelation 2-3. Every one of those churches was an apostolic church, in contact with the apostle John, and every one of them had the potential of falling away.) Irenaeus didn't know that the Arian lapse would occur, and that the bishops of Rome would be among the supporters of the Arians (whether under pressure or willingly). Irenaeus didn't know about more than a millennium of gradual moral and doctrinal corruptions that would occur later in church history among some of the churches or regions he was addressing. As I've documented, and as Everett Ferguson mentioned in my citation of him, Irenaeus made provisions for separating from corrupt church leaders. He didn't have to address that problem as much in his day as people in later generations would have to, but he did anticipate it enough to mention it as a possibility.

    You write:

    "Because when we tolerate disagreement, we do so in unity."

    You're assuming your own standard of unity. Why do such things need to be explained to you? Why don't you see the faults in your own arguments, even after they're pointed out to you repeatedly, by multiple people? Just as you claim to still have some type of unity with people, despite your disagreements with them, the same claim can be made by Protestants. I disagree with Presbyterians about infant baptism, but we still consider ourselves united on the basis of more foundational issues (faith in Christ, Christian love, belief in the resurrection, etc.). You're assuming that disagreements are acceptable only if the people who disagree have denominational unity. But that's a standard you haven't justified. Why should we think that denominational unity is the standard?

    You write:

    "How do you know they weren't part of one 'denomination'?"

    You go on to mention "one Temple". Are you saying that men like Abel and Enoch were physically Jewish, that they were members of the Jewish nation? Are you saying that there was "one Temple" in their day? What about the Babylonian captivity, when the temple and much of the organizational structure of the nation of Israel was removed? The idea that there was something comparable to one denomination throughout Old Testament history, with the sort of attributes you claim for Eastern Orthodoxy, is absurd. And I noticed that you've repeatedly ignored what I cited from 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17. God's promise to Israel, that it wouldn't be destroyed, didn't require anything like what you're assuming His promise to the church would require.

    You write:

    "By the command of God there was one Temple of God, not a temple for every denomination."

    And there's one Christ, one atonement, etc. for every denomination. You keep suggesting that there's no standard for unity other than belonging to one denomination, but we've repeatedly given you examples of other standards of unity (1 Corinthians 15:1-19, etc.).

    You write:

    "If you're going to start talking about Israel, then you have to be very selective in ignoring the clear parallels to the Church."

    Again, the nation of Israel didn't exist throughout Old Testament history. And I don't deny that there are some parallels between Israel and the church. There are some differences as well. One of the similarities is God's promises of preservation. And he didn't preserve His people in the Old Testament by means of having one denomination with attributes like those that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have. If you want us to believe that Eastern Orthodoxy has such attributes, you need to do more than just citing passages like Matthew 16 and John 16. As I've demonstrated, these passages don't lead to your conclusions. You have to read multiple dubious assumptions into the text.

    You write:

    "I don't need a push model of obtaining this data. The data is available should I need it."

    I'm asking you to be consistent with your own professed standards. You've suggested that Protestants should know who they are and aren't in unity with around the world, even in distant countries. I'm asking you whether you, as an Eastern Orthodox, know which individuals and churches you're in fellowship with around the world on an ongoing basis. You don't.

    I also noticed that you ignored what I said about 1 John 2:19 and Roman Catholicism. You've said that Roman Catholics are Christians. You've also said that 1 John 2:19 is addressing those who leave the true church, supposedly Eastern Orthodoxy, for another denomination. You've also said that you don't have unity with Roman Catholics. They aren't part of your denomination. How, then, can you consider them Christians? 1 John 2:19 is about people John calls "antichrists" (1 John 2:18). So, are Roman Catholics antichrist Christians? How can they be Christians, despite not being part of your denomination, if Christian unity is determined by denomination? Where does 1 John 2:19 say that "going out" is equivalent to leaving a denomination?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ORTHODOX SAID:

    "Look at the underlying assumption we've got here. The apostles went around the world setting up churches and setting order in the churches by appointment of leaders."

    Actually, we have very little info in the NT on what all 12 apostles did in this regard. Most of what we have, which isn't very much, comes from one apostle who wasn't even one of the 12—St. Paul.

    And, as scholars like John Meier and Luke Timothy Johnson point out (whom I quote in my reply to Blosser), what Paul actually describes is a very informal, minimalistic, low-church ecclesiology.

    "If you had a disagreement on a point of doctrine, to go set up your own church. Where is the scripture that unambiguously teaches this?"

    Jason doesn't have to prove that Scripture unambiguously teaches this. Rather, this would only be wrong if it were unambiguously forbidden by Scripture.

    If Scripture doesn't say much one way or the other, then that's a point of liberty.

    Orthodox also seems to be assuming that, according to sola Scriptura, a Protestant needs specific Scriptural authorization for whatever he believes or does—as if whatever is not prescribed in Scripture is therefore proscribed.

    Yet, as I think Gene has pointed out in the past, this falsely equates the Protestant rule of faith with the Puritan rule of worship.

    According to sola Scriptura, if there is no explicit or implicit Biblical teaching on a subject, then we are at liberty to do whatever is reasonable, and more than one course of action may be reasonable.

    It never occurs to high churchmen that there might be more than one morally licit way of doing things. For them, there's only one right way to do anything.

    In addition, it looks like this is exactly how house-churches were set up. A wealthy Christian patron simply opens his doors to the local Christians. See the arguments in Peter Lampe.

    "However, the church has always understood that there is to be an orderly succession to officially appointed positions. Right from Acts when it was said "let another take his bishopric" and Matthias was appointed to Judas' bishopric."

    This confuses the apostolate with the pastorate. It also trades on an anachronistic meaning of the key term ("bishopric").

    "Again, Jason assumes that which has been understood for 2000 years is wrong."

    There has been no consensus view on church polity over the past 2000 years.

    "And since his own tradition is incompatible with the belief of the early church, he is not free to go where the historical data takes him."

    To the contrary, Jason can follow the evidence of 1C house-church arrangements, their relation to Diaspora Judaism, synagogues, &c., in a wide range of contemporary scholarship (e.g., Bradley Blue ["Acts and the House Church], Roger Beckwith, Peter Lampe, Joseph Fitzmyer [Rom 16], Meier, Johnson, &c.

    "Ignatius simply didn't address the issue of succession. To claim to know that Ignatius thought on an issue he didn't write about is pure hubris."

    In that event, Orthodox cannot claim that Ignatius' ecclesiology coincides with the ecclesiology of the apostles unless he (Ignatius) specifically attributed his ecclesiology to the Apostles.

    "By the command of God there was one Temple of God, not a temple for every denomination."

    This conveniently overlooks the synagogue system as well as the diversity of Jewish outlooks in 2nd Temple Judaism.

    "Plus, despite Israel's problems with disobedience they were still the guardians of revelation, such that Jesus said to 'do what they say, not what they do'."

    In that event, Orthodox has no right to repudiate the OT canon of the Pharisees.

    "And Israel always had the succession of their priests."

    But Israel did not have a succession of prophets. And the main duty of the prophets was to oppose a corrupt religious establishment.

    "Amazing. So the truth keeps changing according to the latest scholarship. Two possibilities: either we know we have the truth now because of a living tradition, or you just have a tentative truth that will be overturned as soon as we find a better argument or a new manuscript or a better analysis."

    Of course, Jason never said the *truth* keeps changing.

    But according to Orthodox's own position, the patristic age and the conciliar age are not over and done with. There might be another church father on the horizon or another ecumenical council on the horizon. That's because he believes in "living" tradition.

    So, by his own definition, truth is open to continuous revision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just a small reading of your discussion, Orthodox's use of the word Church is ambigous or loaded. I see the same in RC apologetic talk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >The issue is probability. And if the apostles left us with freedom on an
    >issue, then the fact that some people, like Orthodox, would like to take
    >away that freedom for their own purposes doesn't mean that we should act
    >as if later traditions are apostolic commands.

    The apostles said to obey their appointed leaders. Now how do you go off and set up your own denomination whilst obeying your leaders? According to you, 5 minutes after the apostles leave for the next town, you can demand what you like from the leaders, then go off and set up your own church if you don't get it.

    >To follow leaders who deny apostolic teaching, on the basis of obeying
    >what the apostles taught about submitting to leaders, would be
    >nonsensical.

    You mean to deny your own interpretation of the apostles teaching, you and your bible under a tree. Judging by the churches out there, this doesn't rule anything out.

    >Thus, as I've documented, the patristic sources often refer to the need
    >for the people of a congregation to separate from corrupt church leaders.

    Then kick out a corrupt leader. Nothing wrong with that. Orthodox do it from time to time. But it doesn't give you the right to set up a new church.

    >Since Protestants aren't in good relations with the group they came from,
    >or the group they came from supposedly didn't set up the Protestant
    >church's leadership in the manner in which that leadership is supposed to
    >be appointed, then the Protestant leaders are illegitimate. If Orthodox
    >has such a concept in mind, then he needs to justify it.

    The point is, the apostolic proclamation is to join the one church, not to start a new religion, making themselves self-appointed rulers of new churches. What verse says you can appoint yourself a leader and start up a church?

    >No, I gave you examples of the patristic sources holding a variety of
    >views of church government and apostolic succession.

    Nonsense. Nothing has been presented here that contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology. You seem to have a habit of claiming you proved a bunch of stuff some time in the ether of your mind, but you don't tell us about it.

    >Thus, the Roman church was in contact with a large number of other
    >Christians and therefore could be viewed as representative of traditions
    >from around the world. Was Irenaeus' argument valid for his day? Yes, the
    >argument had a significant amount of merit for the timeframe in which
    >Irenaeus lived.

    LOL, how does following a widespread tradition make a valid argument from your point of view? Firstly, I thought your BIG CUTOVER had happened by then. Secondly, you DON'T BELIEVE EARLY CHURCH TRADITIONS! So pooling lots of error is hardly a valid argument in your world view.

    And whilst some aspects of what Irenaeus wrote are particularly applicable to his situation, he does make a theological statement about the importance of apostolic succession, that can't merely be brushed off that easily:

    "It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

    And there a lots more quotes along those lines. And Tertullian was taught the same thing as he writes:

    "[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

    and Cyprian:

    Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

    So if they took Irenaeus' advice that you conceed is "valid" and gathered the tradition from all over the world, the evidence is that they would have believed apostolic tradition. So on the one hand you think the advice is valid, on the other hand you reject the results of following it.

    >But if you take it out of that historical context, and act as though it
    >can be applied to our day, you end up with some absurd results. Are we
    >today required to agree with the church of Rome, just because the Roman
    >church of the second century was a faithful witness to apostolic teaching?
    >No.

    Ah huh! So you reject the advice, not because it was refutable *IN* its historical context, but because you don't like the results with what you feel is 20:20 hindsight 20 centuries later. But this is not a valid method for deciding truth, just because a glitch arises 10 centuries after the fact in the split of Rome. The thing to do for someone who respects truth is to try and apply the truth that was truth back then to the current situation.

    >Does the faithfulness of the church of Ephesus in the second century
    >assure us that there's a faithful church of Ephesus today?

    Did it back then? Apparently not since they were all teaching apostolic succession, not just Irenaeus. Instead of equivocating, why not just side with the Mormons and declare the early church apostate?

    >No, it doesn't. Read Revelation 2:5. If the first century Ephesian church
    >was in danger of losing its place

    You think Irenaeus didn't read Revelation? But despite the ability of congregations to fall away, Irenaeus pointed us to the large bulk of the churches with apostolic succession and which could name the successors back to the apostles, and he says for brevity he lists those in Rome.

    >then surely the second century Ephesian church could fall away after
    >nearly two thousand more years have passed.

    If it was 2000 years, you'd have something to talk about. But you believe they were totally apostate by about 250 years after the apostles died, and probably half apostate in Irenaeus' time.

    >Historical successions had far more evidential weight then than they have
    >now.

    Apparently what was truth then, is not now.

    >To apply it today, as if it has all of the force now that it had then, is
    >nonsensical.

    But it wasn't a historical argument, it was a theological argument. He said that by succession they receive a "charism". That is not a mere hope or probability that it passed on the truth.

    And notice again how Orthodoxy is faithful to the 2nd century church. Yes, we still believe that presbyters receive a charism. To be a protestant is to leave history.

    >Irenaeus didn't know that the Arian lapse would occur, and that the
    >bishops of Rome would be among the supporters of the Arians

    Neither did the apostles I guess, but that is not a valid argument to abandon apostolic teaching. For someone who cares about the truth, they would investigate all the churches that Irenaeus refers to, and find who kept to the charism in Faith.

    >Just as you claim to still have some type of unity with people, despite
    >your disagreements with them, the same claim can be made by Protestants.

    But you have no visible unity. If you're going to claim you have unity, at least be honest and admit that its an airy fairy unity that nobody can point to and only exists in the theory of your mind.

    >I disagree with Presbyterians about infant baptism, but we still consider
    >ourselves united on the basis of more foundational issues (faith in
    >Christ, Christian love, belief in the resurrection, etc.).

    No, YOU consider yourself united. You can't speak for Presbyterians, and many may not consider themselves united with you.

    >And I don't deny that there are some parallels between Israel and the
    >church. There are some differences as well.

    And apparently you are about to arbitrarily decide for yourself what is similar and what is different. This then will not be an argument, just an assertion.

    >One of the similarities is God's promises of preservation. And he didn't
    >preserve His people in the Old Testament by means of having one
    >denomination with attributes like those that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to
    >have.

    Apparently you will arbitrarily decide what "attributes" of the situation that are significant, and which aren't. But I didn't see people outside Israel setting up a new Israel and declaring the original Israel apostate.

    >You've suggested that Protestants should know who they are and aren't in
    >unity with around the world, even in distant countries. I'm asking you
    >whether you, as an Eastern Orthodox, know which individuals and churches
    >you're in fellowship with around the world on an ongoing basis. You don't.

    More reductum ad absurdum. I can go to any country in the world and know with certainty which churches I have unity with. Just like Irenaeus could in the early church.

    >I also noticed that you ignored what I said about 1 John 2:19 and Roman
    >Catholicism. You've said that Roman Catholics are Christians. You've also
    >said that 1 John 2:19 is addressing those who leave the true church,
    >supposedly Eastern Orthodoxy, for another denomination. You've also said
    >that you don't have unity with Roman Catholics. They aren't part of your
    >denomination. How, then, can you consider them Christians? 1 John 2:19 is
    >about people John calls "antichrists" (1 John 2:18). So, are Roman
    >Catholics antichrist Christians? How can they be Christians, despite not
    >being part of your denomination, if Christian unity is determined by
    >denomination? Where does 1 John 2:19 say that "going out" is equivalent to
    >leaving a denomination?

    Firstly, it doesn't say that only anti-christs are "not of us", when they go out. Decide what it means to you to "go out". Do you think it means you can "go out" in John's sense and still be "of us" because you don't think you are an anti-christ? Hardly.

    Secondly, it's not for me to say what Roman Catholics are or aren't. What goes on outside the church is not directly the church's affair.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>"Look at the underlying assumption we've got here. The apostles went
    >>around the world setting up churches and setting order in the churches by
    >>appointment of leaders."
    >

    >Actually, we have very little info in the NT on what all 12 apostles did
    >in this regard. Most of what we have, which isn't very much, comes from
    >one apostle who wasn't even one of the 12—St. Paul.


    Which means what? That Steve doesn't believe the Tradition that the apostles went around setting up churches?

    >And, as scholars like John Meier and Luke Timothy Johnson point out (whom
    >I quote in my reply to Blosser), what Paul actually describes is a very
    >informal, minimalistic, low-church ecclesiology.


    Yeah, from what I can see in your reply to Blosser you (yet again) appeal to the authority of whatever scholars agree with you on the point at hand. Just as well, because you wouldn't be able to defend them in open debate.

    >"If you had a disagreement on a point of doctrine, to go set up your own >church. Where is the scripture that unambiguously teaches this?"
    >

    >Jason doesn't have to prove that Scripture unambiguously teaches this.
    >Rather, this would only be wrong if it were unambiguously forbidden by
    >Scripture.


    I guess icons are ok then, as well as all the other "high church" things that you continually disparage.

    >If Scripture doesn't say much one way or the other, then that's a point of
    >liberty.


    You say it, but why don't you believe it?

    >Orthodox also seems to be assuming that, according to sola Scriptura, a
    >Protestant needs specific Scriptural authorization for whatever he
    >believes or does—as if whatever is not prescribed in Scripture is
    >therefore proscribed.


    Great, so incense, icons, candles, vestments it's all fine right? But my bet is you and your kind really look down on it. Be honest now.

    >This confuses the apostolate with the pastorate. It also trades on an
    >anachronistic meaning of the key term ("bishopric").


    More bare assertions. Can it be that you are so wrapped up in your own traditions that you can't defend them?


    >There has been no consensus view on church polity over the past 2000
    >years.


    Well of course, there isn't agreement if you count baptists. But for the first thousand years there was agreement.


    >To the contrary, Jason can follow the evidence of 1C house-church
    >arrangements, their relation to Diaspora Judaism, synagogues, &c., in a
    >wide range of contemporary scholarship (e.g., Bradley Blue ["Acts and the
    >House Church], Roger Beckwith, Peter Lampe, Joseph Fitzmyer [Rom 16],
    >Meier, Johnson, &c.


    Scholarship again. I think the position around here should be "sola scholarship".

    >In that event, Orthodox has no right to repudiate the OT canon of the
    >Pharisees.


    LOL.

    YOU CAN'T PROVE THE PHARISAIC CANON!

    >>"And Israel always had the succession of their priests."
    >

    >But Israel did not have a succession of prophets. And the main duty of the
    >prophets was to oppose a corrupt religious establishment.


    Which proves what? The equivalent would be saints who call leaders to task.

    >>"Amazing. So the truth keeps changing according to the latest
    >>scholarship. Two possibilities: either we know we have the truth now
    >>because of a living tradition, or you just have a tentative truth that
    >>will be overturned as soon as we find a better argument or a new
    >>manuscript or a better analysis."
    >

    >Of course, Jason never said the *truth* keeps changing.


    Ahh, I guess only our perception of the truth changes. "The truth is out there somewhere". Maybe in some yet to be written scholarship.

    >But according to Orthodox's own position, the patristic age and the
    >conciliar age are not over and done with. There might be another church
    >father on the horizon or another ecumenical council on the horizon. That's
    >because he believes in "living" tradition.

    >

    >So, by his own definition, truth is open to continuous revision.

    ????

    So do you think the Nicean creed was a revision of the apostolic teaching

    ???

    ReplyDelete
  7. Orthodox writes:

    "The apostles said to obey their appointed leaders."

    They also said to obey God and to obey them (the apostles), parents, and government officials. Just as the general principle of obedience to government officials has some exceptions (Acts 4:19), so does the general principle of obedience to church leaders. Church leaders are under the authority of the apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20). To take a general principle about obedience to church leaders, transform it into an absolute principle, then use it as a justification for submitting to sub-apostolic leaders when they contradict the apostles, is perverse.

    You write:

    "According to you, 5 minutes after the apostles leave for the next town, you can demand what you like from the leaders, then go off and set up your own church if you don't get it."

    If you have to distort an argument in order to give the impression of refuting it, then that suggests that you're having difficulty refuting the argument in its undistorted form. I don't have to agree with every disobedience to church leaders in order to think that some disobedience is justified. I never argued that people can "demand what they like" from church leaders. If you think that a woman can refuse the state's command to get an abortion, would it be appropriate for me to assess your position in this manner:

    "According to you, 5 minutes after the apostles leave for the next town after telling you to obey the governing officials, you can demand what you like from the local government leaders, then go off and disobey the government."

    You write:

    "You mean to deny your own interpretation of the apostles teaching, you and your bible under a tree."

    If it's wrong for me to follow my interpretation of scripture, then is it wrong for you to follow your interpretation of passages like Matthew 16 and John 16, patristic documents, ecumenical councils, etc.? Is it wrong for you to follow your interpretation of what Eastern Orthodox officials tell you? Don't you need an interpreter to tell you what they mean? And wouldn't your interpreter need an interpreter, etc. on and on without end? If we must avoid personal interpretation, then how does a person go about doing that? Or are you saying that you somehow know that it's unacceptable for us to interpret scripture, whereas it's acceptable for you to interpret it if it leads you to Eastern Orthodoxy, and it's acceptable for you to interpret Eastern Orthodox Tradition? Is personal interpretation unacceptable only if it leads to conclusions other than your own?

    You write:

    "Judging by the churches out there, this doesn't rule anything out."

    Judging by the churches out there, personal interpretation of the church fathers doesn't rule anything out. Look at all of the many interpretations of the church fathers that different individuals and groups advocate. Judging by the churches out there, personal interpretation of tradition doesn't rule anything out. Look at all of the inconsistent claims about tradition made by Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, etc.

    You write:

    "Then kick out a corrupt leader. Nothing wrong with that. Orthodox do it from time to time. But it doesn't give you the right to set up a new church."

    If there's "nothing wrong" with removing a church leader, then how do you avoid leaving a church if the problem is with a majority or all of the leadership, and those who are wrong refuse to change their position? As I said before, sometimes a situation can be resolved by removing one leader, but not always. You're assuming that removing one leader will be sufficient, but it isn't always sufficient.

    You write:

    "The point is, the apostolic proclamation is to join the one church, not to start a new religion, making themselves self-appointed rulers of new churches. What verse says you can appoint yourself a leader and start up a church?"

    You ignored what I asked you and what I documented earlier. Instead of showing that the early sources you cited support your view, you're asking me to document sources supporting my view. As we've told you repeatedly, if scripture allows us freedom on an issue, then we have freedom. As I've documented, there were multiple forms of church government among the early churches. I cited examples of patristic churches having congregations choose their leaders. We have to obey what the apostles commanded us regarding church leadership, such as in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, but if other elements of church leadership are left to our judgment, then we use our own judgment. Just as you tell us that Eastern Orthodoxy can "tolerate" differences among Eastern Orthodox on some issues, so also scripture tolerates differences on some matters of church government. You're the one asserting that we don't have freedom on such issues. You're the one who carries the burden of proof.

    You write:

    "Nothing has been presented here that contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology. You seem to have a habit of claiming you proved a bunch of stuff some time in the ether of your mind, but you don't tell us about it."

    I don't know what you have in mind as your personal interpretation of "Orthodox ecclesiology". But I cited Everett Ferguson discussing multiple forms of church government that existed early on, and I cited some patristic passages on the subject. If your personal interpretation of "Orthodox ecclesiology" allows for such differing views of church government, then what's your objection to the variety of views that exist among Protestants? Are you saying that you agree with the acceptability of what Everett Ferguson cited from Tertullian and Origen, for example?

    You write:

    "LOL, how does following a widespread tradition make a valid argument from your point of view? Firstly, I thought your BIG CUTOVER had happened by then. Secondly, you DON'T BELIEVE EARLY CHURCH TRADITIONS!"

    Apparently, you haven't read much of Irenaeus. I've read everything he wrote, so I think I know his context better than you do. When Irenaeus appealed to the traditions of the churches, he wasn't referring to every one of their beliefs on every subject. Rather, he was referring to a general consensus on the most foundational issues. Here's how he summarized the traditions in question:

    "To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent." (Against Heresies, 3:4:2)

    What Irenaeus is describing is a set of doctrines that Protestants accept. He isn't referring to veneration of images, prayers to the deceased, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.

    But even if Irenaeus had included some doctrines I disagree with, his general principle would still have some merit. It makes sense to expect churches that had been in contact with the apostles in recent history to be closer to apostolic teaching than heretics who were further removed from the apostles. It doesn't therefore follow, however, that a claim of apostolic succession is just as significant in churches of the twenty-first century. As I said before, Irenaeus' argument is one that, by its nature, loses effectiveness with the passing of time.

    You write:

    "And whilst some aspects of what Irenaeus wrote are particularly applicable to his situation, he does make a theological statement about the importance of apostolic succession, that can't merely be brushed off that easily"

    Remarkably, you go on to quote Against Heresies 4:26:2, which comes right before the section I cited earlier about rejecting unsound church leaders. You stopped your quote after Irenaeus referred to the general principle of obeying church leaders. But here are some qualifiers he goes on to add just after what you quoted:

    "Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart. Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay.' Of whom also did the Lord say: 'But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood, display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others....Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, namely, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech." (Against Heresies, 4:26:3-5)

    As I've been saying all along, and as you keep ignoring, Irenaeus believed that church leaders had to meet moral and doctrinal requirements. You go on to quote Tertullian, but ignore what Ferguson mentions about him in my citation above. Tertullian believed that all churches historically came from the apostles, but it doesn't therefore follow that he believed that every church must have a succession of bishops from the apostles. Tertullian did believe in the general trustworthiness of the apostolic churches of his day. But he, like Irenaeus, held church leaders to doctrinal and moral requirements. Later in the same document you cited, Tertullian goes on to add some qualifiers. He asks what we should think if heretics were to produce a list of their own successors from the apostles. He writes:

    "Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them to attempt? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 32)

    By the way, I want to mention, again, that I've read the entirety of this work by Tertullian, as I've read the entirety of Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Has Orthodox read either work? Readers should compare Orthodox's quotes to what's found in the following Catholic Answers tract:

    http://catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

    It looks like Orthodox is relying on Catholic Answers for his quotes.

    He writes:

    "But this is not a valid method for deciding truth, just because a glitch arises 10 centuries after the fact in the split of Rome. The thing to do for someone who respects truth is to try and apply the truth that was truth back then to the current situation."

    Irenaeus, when explaining why the Roman church was so significant, said that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome as the capital of the empire. That was true in Irenaeus' day. It wasn't true ten centuries later. As I explained before, not everything Irenaeus said can be applied to later contexts.

    But if you want to claim to be agreeing with Irenaeus, then why don't you agree with the Roman church?

    You write:

    "Apparently not since they were all teaching apostolic succession, not just Irenaeus."

    Again, most of the earliest writers say nothing about apostolic succession. Among those who do, they define it in different ways, add qualifiers that you aren't adding, and appeal to contexts of their day that aren't applicable to our day.

    You write:

    "But despite the ability of congregations to fall away, Irenaeus pointed us to the large bulk of the churches with apostolic succession and which could name the successors back to the apostles, and he says for brevity he lists those in Rome."

    Again, the fact that churches hadn't fallen away by the time of Irenaeus wouldn't prove that they couldn't fall away later.

    You write:

    "If it was 2000 years, you'd have something to talk about. But you believe they were totally apostate by about 250 years after the apostles died, and probably half apostate in Irenaeus' time."

    No, that's not what I believe. Again, the degree to which you distort your opponents' views before responding to them reflects how poorly prepared you are to interact with their actual views.

    You write:

    "Apparently what was truth then, is not now."

    Are you saying that the city of Rome is still the capital of a still-existing Roman empire? Are you saying that the church of Smyrna's recent contact with Polycarp in the second century is still true of a church in Smyrna today? There's still a church in Smyrna that has just recently been in contact with Polycarp?

    You write:

    "For someone who cares about the truth, they would investigate all the churches that Irenaeus refers to, and find who kept to the charism in Faith."

    So, now you're suggesting that only some of Irenaeus' evaluations of the churches of his day are still applicable today. We have to "investigate" to determine what's still applicable. How does that "investigation" avoid the sort of historical study, personal interpretation, etc. that you've so often criticized? And why can you differentiate between which of Irenaeus' comments are applicable today and which aren't? If the Roman church, for example, could be unfaithful, despite claiming an apostolic succession, then why couldn't the same be true of Eastern Orthodox churches?

    You write:

    "But you have no visible unity. If you're going to claim you have unity, at least be honest and admit that its an airy fairy unity that nobody can point to and only exists in the theory of your mind."

    So, the doctrines of 1 Corinthians 15, then, were "airy fairy" and "only exist in the theory of your mind"?

    You write:

    "And apparently you are about to arbitrarily decide for yourself what is similar and what is different. This then will not be an argument, just an assertion."

    And people who disagree with your view of tradition can say that your view is "just an assertion".

    You write:

    "More reductum ad absurdum. I can go to any country in the world and know with certainty which churches I have unity with."

    Again, I didn't just ask about churches. I also asked about individuals. Where's your list? And since you've said that Roman Catholics are Christians, how do you know which Roman Catholic churches and individuals you have unity with? Individuals and churches leave communions or join them from time to time. How do you know what the latest status is of each individual and church? If Protestants need to know who all they have unity with, then so do you.

    You write:

    "Firstly, it doesn't say that only anti-christs are 'not of us', when they go out. Decide what it means to you to 'go out'. Do you think it means you can 'go out' in John's sense and still be 'of us' because you don't think you are an anti-christ? Hardly."

    You still aren't justifying your assertions about 1 John 2:19. Instead, you're trying to avoid doing it. Asking me what I think of the phrase "go out" (I've already told you, repeatedly) doesn't justify your assertion about what it means. 1 John 2:18 refers to antichrists. If you want us to think that John had people who leave Eastern Orthodoxy for another denomination in mind also, then you carry the burden of proof. I've documented that antichrists are in mind from verse 18. If you want us to think that some other category is in mind also, then produce your evidence.

    You write:

    "Secondly, it's not for me to say what Roman Catholics are or aren't. What goes on outside the church is not directly the church's affair."

    You've already said that Roman Catholics are Christians. If they can be Christians without being part of your denomination, then what does that say for your denominational concept of unity?

    And I'm still noticing that you continue to ignore 2 Kings 22:8-13 and Nehemiah 8:13-17.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >To take a general principle about obedience to church leaders, transform
    >it into an absolute principle, then use it as a justification for
    >submitting to sub-apostolic leaders when they contradict the apostles, is
    >perverse.

    If you want to overturn the principle by claiming it is not absolute, you would have to prove according to the same standard - i.e. absolutely, that the leaders were teaching contrary to whatever other authority you appeal to (scripture). The trouble is 2000 years of Christians haven't seen the alleged contradiction.

    >Don't you need an interpreter to tell you what they mean? And wouldn't
    >your interpreter need an interpreter, etc. on and on without end?

    More reductio ad absurdum. Just because I interpret within the context of the historic Christian faith, does not mean I am in some endless loop of interpretation. According to you I can't interpret Ephesians within the wider Pauline corpus because that would involve some kind of endless loop.

    >If there's "nothing wrong" with removing a church leader, then how do you
    >avoid leaving a church if the problem is with a majority or all of the
    >leadership, and those who are wrong refuse to change their position?

    You join yourself with those leaders who are keeping the Faith.

    >>"The point is, the apostolic proclamation is to join the one church, not
    >>to start a new religion, making themselves self-appointed rulers of new
    >>churches. What verse says you can appoint yourself a leader and start up
    >>a church?"

    >As we've told you repeatedly, if scripture allows us freedom on an issue,
    >then we have freedom. As I've documented, there were multiple forms of
    >church government among the early churches. I cited examples of patristic
    >churches having congregations choose their leaders.

    I think in certain Orthodox churches today the congregation chooses the leader. Certainly the method the church uses to choose is not important. The issue is that the choosing is done according to the proper authority, not by someone deciding that they are a leader and starting a new church. And none of this proves a fundamentally different ecclesiology in the early church.

    >But I cited Everett Ferguson discussing multiple forms of church
    >government that existed early on, and I cited some patristic passages on
    >the subject.

    I see nothing in here that is any different to Orthodoxy today.

    >If your personal interpretation of "Orthodox ecclesiology" allows for such
    >differing views of church government, then what's your objection to the
    >variety of views that exist among Protestants?

    Focusing on some minor details does not mean open slather for every possible view. And again, whatever the church in its authority to bind and loose decides, cannot be compared to every crack pot group doing what it wants.

    >When Irenaeus appealed to the traditions of the churches, he wasn't
    >referring to every one of their beliefs on every subject. Rather, he was
    >referring to a general consensus on the most foundational issues. Here's
    >how he summarized the traditions in question:

    If you have actually read Against Heresies, you would know that he was battling all manner of beliefs, not merely a lack of belief in Jesus, one God, etc.

    >What Irenaeus is describing is a set of doctrines that Protestants accept.

    Just because he wasn't battling your heresies, doesn't invalidate the methodology he uses to discern the truth from the heresies he was battling. And if everything he wrote is so darned "foundational", that means apostolic succession is foundational too.

    >It doesn't therefore follow, however, that a claim of apostolic succession
    >is just as significant in churches of the twenty-first century.

    You like to try and make it look like much must have changed in those 20 centuries. But even you should admit that nothing has changed since those icon using, saint praying churches of the mid-300s.

    >As I said before, Irenaeus' argument is one that, by its nature, loses
    >effectiveness with the passing of time.

    Why not admit your real position which is that it has no effectiveness in the mid 300s? Why talk nonsense about the 21st century as if Orthodoxy is changing all the time?

    And again, his argument is not historical, it is THEOLOGICAL. He says that the succession of the bishops gives a CHARISM. It isn't a balance of probabilities type thing that you are trying to make it.

    >Remarkably, you go on to quote Against Heresies 4:26:2, which comes right
    >before the section I cited earlier about rejecting unsound church leaders.

    So Irenaeus believes in apostolic succession AND kicking out unsound church leaders. So he is 100% Orthodox in ecclesiology. And this helps you how?

    >Tertullian did believe in the general trustworthiness of the apostolic
    >churches of his day. But he, like Irenaeus, held church leaders to
    >doctrinal and moral requirements.

    So Tertullian was Orthodox too. A pattern is emerging here.

    >Tertullian goes on to add some qualifiers. He asks what we should think if
    >heretics were to produce a list of their own successors from the apostles.

    The addition of even FURTHER qualifiers, does not help your case because you don't even meet his first prima facie qualifier:

    "Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that their bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men" - Tertullian ibid

    And again, there is not a thing in Orthodoxy that is contradictory to the teaching of the apostles, as Tertullian states his secondary qualifier.

    >But if you want to claim to be agreeing with Irenaeus, then why don't you
    >agree with the Roman church?

    As I said before, not everything in Irenaeus is obviously applicable today. But his foundational claim, that those deriving from the apostles receive a special charism, clearly is not a claim particular to his circumstances. As for Rome, he starts off by discussing all the churches with apostolic succession which it would be "tedious" to list them all, and he then speaks of Rome as an example.

    >Again, most of the earliest writers say nothing about apostolic
    >succession. Among those who do, they define it in different ways, add
    >qualifiers that you aren't adding, and appeal to contexts of their day
    >that aren't applicable to our day.

    More empty claims.

    >Again, the fact that churches hadn't fallen away by the time of Irenaeus
    >wouldn't prove that they couldn't fall away later.

    Non sequitur.

    >"If it was 2000 years, you'd have something to talk about. But you believe
    >they were totally apostate by about 250 years after the apostles died, and
    >probably half apostate in Irenaeus' time."
    >
    >No, that's not what I believe. Again, the degree to which you distort your >opponents' views before responding to them reflects how poorly prepared
    >you are to interact with their actual views.

    So the churches 250 years after John died were fine and dandy? Despite the bishops all over the world talking matter-of-factly about prayer to saints?

    >So, now you're suggesting that only some of Irenaeus' evaluations of the
    >churches of his day are still applicable today. We have to "investigate"
    >to determine what's still applicable. How does that "investigation" avoid
    >the sort of historical study, personal interpretation, etc. that you've so
    >often criticized?

    More distortion of what I wrote. Just because I acknowledge that one can't prove historically that 3 John is scripture, doesn't mean one can't find more than adequate information about the overall faith of the church.

    >And why can you differentiate between which of Irenaeus' comments are
    >applicable today and which aren't? If the Roman church, for example, could
    >be unfaithful, despite claiming an apostolic succession, then why couldn't
    >the same be true of Eastern Orthodox churches?

    You've got to pick one or the other, or else say that the church of Irenaeus' day was apostate, being as it was teaching the charism of apostolic succession. For goodness sake, take a consistent position.

    >>"But you have no visible unity. If you're going to claim you have unity, >>at least be honest and admit that its an airy fairy unity that nobody can
    >>point to and only exists in the theory of your mind."
    >
    >So, the doctrines of 1 Corinthians 15, then, were "airy fairy" and "only >exist in the theory of your mind"?

    But even you as an individual don't claim unity with everyone believing 1 Cor 15, and neither would your church.

    >You've already said that Roman Catholics are Christians. If they can be
    >Christians without being part of your denomination, then what does that
    >say for your denominational concept of unity?

    It says that some Christians have a problem keeping unity? What is your point?

    >Engaged in widespread neglect of God's revelation (2 Kings 22:8-13,
    >Nehemiah 8:13-17), misinterpreted Messianic prophecy, etc. If God could
    >promise that Israel would never be destroyed, yet there could be
    >widespread disunity and error and Israel could take a variety of
    >organizational forms, then how do you supposedly know that the church must
    >have the attributes that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to have in order for the
    >church not to be destroyed?

    So let me see. In Nehemiah, the people weren't following the exact prescriptions specified in the Law. Let me see. What would be the equivilent in the NT? Maybe Malachi 1:11:

    "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."

    So is your church offering incense in God's name as the scriptures specify? If not, why not? You've been waffling on about your interpretation of passages in Deuteronomy about prayer to saints, please tell us why you aren't obeying Malachi.

    Now why is the church different to Israel, not leaving the truth? Because God said he would change God's people so that they would no longer fall into these problems.

    Ezekiel 11:19 "I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Orthodox wrote:

    "If you want to overturn the principle by claiming it is not absolute, you would have to prove according to the same standard - i.e. absolutely, that the leaders were teaching contrary to whatever other authority you appeal to (scripture)."

    You're not making sense. How does the fact that standard X isn't absolute prove that the evidence that justifies an exception to that standard must be absolute?

    You write:

    "The trouble is 2000 years of Christians haven't seen the alleged contradiction."

    Which "contradiction"? Many Christians have said that they don't have to submit to church leaders who don't meet moral and doctrinal requirements. I've given you examples.

    You write:

    "Just because I interpret within the context of the historic Christian faith, does not mean I am in some endless loop of interpretation. According to you I can't interpret Ephesians within the wider Pauline corpus because that would involve some kind of endless loop."

    You're changing the subject, as you often do. I didn't criticize you for interpreting in a context. I criticized you for being critical of personal interpretation. How do you know what "the historic Christian faith" is without personally interpreting the data? If personal interpretation is acceptable for you, then why isn't it acceptable for others? Stay on subject. Don't try to change the subject again, such as by telling us that your interpretations are correct, whereas Protestants' interpretations aren't. We realize that you (incorrectly) think that your interpretations are correct. I'm asking you about the concept of personal interpretation itself, not the alleged correctness of various interpretations.

    You write:

    "You join yourself with those leaders who are keeping the Faith."

    And if those leaders are in another church, then you're leaving one church for another. As I said before, not all situations can be resolved by replacing one leader within a church. Sometimes something else has to be done.

    You write:

    "I think in certain Orthodox churches today the congregation chooses the leader. Certainly the method the church uses to choose is not important. The issue is that the choosing is done according to the proper authority, not by someone deciding that they are a leader and starting a new church. And none of this proves a fundamentally different ecclesiology in the early church."

    You "think" something comparable to what I documented occurs in "certain" Orthodox churches? It's acceptable for people to have an ecclesiology different from yours, as long as it isn't "fundamentally" so? What is "proper authority"? For somebody who criticizes the variety of views that exist among Protestants, and for somebody who has claimed to be so sure of what type of church government we should have, you're adding a lot of qualifiers and including a lot of ambiguities. If the congregation can remove or appoint leaders as they see fit, and there can be a variety of forms of church government, then what's your objection to such things occurring among Protestants? If you're going to claim that such things are acceptable if they're accompanied by other standards, then you're going to need to tell us what those other standards are, how you know that they're correct, and how you know that all of the patristic practices I documented in my first post were accompanied by those standards you advocate. I don't expect you to do it. I expect you to post another misleading response that deliberately tries to avoid addressing the relevant issues.

    You write:

    "I see nothing in here that is any different to Orthodoxy today."

    You said the above after I mentioned my original citations of Everett Ferguson. Here, again, are portions of Ferguson's comments. Notice that he refers to different patristic sources holding different views. Tell us where we see this variety of views and this variety of practices in Eastern Orthodoxy:

    "Although early Christians had an interest in the succession of their own prophets and teachers (particularly in the catechetical school in Alexandria), special attention attached to the succession of bishops, who by the end of the second century incorporated much of the authority and function of prophets and teachers into their office. 1 Clement 42-44 taught the apostolic institution of the offices of bishop and deacon in the church. After the appointment of the first bishops and deacons, the apostles provided for the continuation of these offices in the church. This was not the same as the later doctrine of apostolic succession, and it is to be noted that Clement included deacons as well as bishops in his statement. Ignatius, the first witness to only one bishop in a church, did not base his understanding of the ministry on succession. The one bishop was a representative of God the Father, and the presbyters had their model in the college of apostles (Trall. 3). The first claim to a succession from the apostles in support of particular doctrines was made in the second century by the Gnostics."

    You agree with Ferguson that Ignatius is "the first witness to only one bishop in a church"? You agree with him about how the concepts involved in apostolic succession were gradual developments, not held by all of the fathers? If you agree with Ferguson on such points, then why did you argue earlier that your view of bishops and apostolic succession was held by all of the early Christians?

    Ferguson goes on:

    "Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became."

    You agree with Ferguson that Irenaeus' view differed from the later view he refers to?

    Ferguson continues:

    "[In Tertullian] Churches were apostolic that agreed in the same faith, even if not founded by apostles."

    You agree with Tertullian that a succession of bishops isn't needed, as long as the church has the apostolic faith?

    Ferguson writes:

    "Hippolytus is apparently the first for whom the bishops were not simply in the succession from the apostles but were themselves successors of the apostles (Haer., praef.)."

    You agree?

    Ferguson writes:

    "The will of the populace could prevail over clerical opposition (Sulpicius Severus, V. Mart. 9)."

    You agree with "the will of the populace prevailing over clerical opposition" in choosing church leadership? The same thing occurs in Eastern Orthodoxy today?

    All of these comments of Ferguson were cited by me in my first post in this thread. I also cited other passages from the fathers, apart from my citations of Ferguson. Your claim that you agree with all of these patristic sources is ridiculous. You can't agree with all of them. They sometimes held contradictory views or a view that you had previously said that you reject.

    You write:

    "If you have actually read Against Heresies, you would know that he was battling all manner of beliefs, not merely a lack of belief in Jesus, one God, etc."

    If you had read Against Heresies, I doubt that you would be going to Catholic Answers to get your quotes. I gave you a citation of Irenaeus' description of the church tradition he was referring to. The doctrines he mentions are accepted by Protestants. You've ignored what I cited from Irenaeus, and your comment above doesn't refute anything I said.

    You write:

    "Just because he wasn't battling your heresies, doesn't invalidate the methodology he uses to discern the truth from the heresies he was battling."

    As I explained before, Irenaeus' methodology is only partially applicable today. What he said about churches like the Roman church and the church of Smyrna in his day isn't true of our day. To act as if historical successions are just as significant in the twenty-first century as they were in the second century is absurd. And for you to claim that you're following Irenaeus by limiting your consultation of churches to the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, using them to justify doctrines Irenaeus never advocated, is likewise absurd. To go from Irenaeus' comments about second century successions to a modern system of deriving your beliefs from Eastern Orthodoxy, while rejecting what more than one-and-a-half billion other professing Christians believe, is so radical a transformation as to make any claim to be following Irenaeus implausible.

    You write:

    "And if everything he wrote is so darned 'foundational', that means apostolic succession is foundational too."

    I didn't say that "everything he wrote" is foundational.

    You write:

    "And again, his argument is not historical, it is THEOLOGICAL. He says that the succession of the bishops gives a CHARISM. It isn't a balance of probabilities type thing that you are trying to make it."

    See Ferguson's comments on that subject above, which you've ignored. As I've documented, Irenaeus believed (as did other patristic sources) that church leaders were to be followed only if they met particular moral and doctrinal requirements. If they departed from those, then the leaders were no longer to be followed. The leaders didn't have any charism that assured them of always being doctrinally correct. If they did, then how did the Roman church and other Western churches ever become, by your standards, corrupt?

    You write:

    "So Irenaeus believes in apostolic succession AND kicking out unsound church leaders. So he is 100% Orthodox in ecclesiology."

    Eastern Orthodoxy has been highly selective in "kicking out" corrupt leaders. Many corrupt leaders have been allowed to remain.

    And if you agree with Irenaeus "100%", are you saying that you agree with him that everybody must agree with the Roman church? Do you agree with him that Christians from around the world travel to Rome as the capital of the empire, to this day? Or do you agree with me that some of Irenaeus' standards can't be applied today? If you can reject the Roman church that became corrupt after Irenaeus wrote, then why can't I reject the Eastern churches that became corrupt later or the Eastern churches that didn't yet exist when Irenaeus wrote?

    You write:

    "The addition of even FURTHER qualifiers, does not help your case because you don't even meet his first prima facie qualifier"

    You then go on to quote only one portion of what Tertullian wrote, ignoring what he said just afterward, regarding the fact that a church doesn't need a succession of bishops from the apostles if it agrees with apostolic teaching. Why did you quote a portion of what I cited from Tertullian while ignoring the remainder?

    You write:

    "And again, there is not a thing in Orthodoxy that is contradictory to the teaching of the apostles, as Tertullian states his secondary qualifier."

    See what I've already documented regarding prayers to the deceased and other issues. Much of what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches was unknown to or contradicted by the apostles and the early fathers. Tertullian, one of the sources you quoted and the one we're now discussing, repeatedly wrote against your view of images, for example, and his treatise on prayer says nothing of praying to the deceased, instead suggesting that God is to be the only recipient of our prayers.

    You write:

    "As for Rome, he starts off by discussing all the churches with apostolic succession which it would be 'tedious' to list them all, and he then speaks of Rome as an example."

    You're still not answering my question. Do you agree with Irenaeus that all churches must agree with the Roman church?

    You write:

    "So the churches 250 years after John died were fine and dandy? Despite the bishops all over the world talking matter-of-factly about prayer to saints?"

    Churches don't have to be "fine and dandy" in order for me to reject your claim that I consider those churches "totally apostate". You keep presenting us with false options, and you keep putting words in our mouths while ignoring what we've actually said. You disagree with much of what was believed by Epiphanius, Augustine, and other later fathers. Should we conclude, then, that you consider those men and all churches of their era "totally apostate"?

    You write:

    "Just because I acknowledge that one can't prove historically that 3 John is scripture, doesn't mean one can't find more than adequate information about the overall faith of the church."

    You've been highly inconsistent on these issues. You make assertions about church history and claim to have studied church history, yet you repeatedly refuse to document claims when asked for documentation, and you repeatedly criticize personal interpretation and going beyond "child-like faith". You claim to have historical evidence when you think it would benefit you, but you distance yourself from the process of historical investigation when you think it wouldn't benefit you. The variety of positions you've taken during these discussions is incoherent and untenable.

    You write:

    "You've got to pick one or the other, or else say that the church of Irenaeus' day was apostate, being as it was teaching the charism of apostolic succession. For goodness sake, take a consistent position."

    I'm being inconsistent by agreeing with only some portions of Irenaeus? How so? You also only agree with some portions of Irenaeus. And Tertullian. And Origen. And Epiphanius. And Augustine. Etc.

    You write:

    "But even you as an individual don't claim unity with everyone believing 1 Cor 15, and neither would your church."

    You're mistaken. I do claim unity with everybody who holds to the Biblical doctrines I cited, such as the ones in 1 Corinthians 15. I don't claim denominational unity with them, but, as I've explained to you before, I reject your denominational standard of unity.

    You write:

    "It says that some Christians have a problem keeping unity? What is your point?"

    Again, if Roman Catholics are Christians, then you're claiming to have a relationship with them, since you consider Eastern Orthodox to be Christians as well. If Roman Catholics aren't part of your denomination, yet you have such a relationship with them, then why should we think that being part of the same denomination is the only standard one can have for unity? You may claim (without evidence) that denominational unity should be added to that non-denominational unity, but your previous claim that there is no other standard of unity is refuted by your own relationship with Roman Catholics.

    You write:

    "So let me see. In Nehemiah, the people weren't following the exact prescriptions specified in the Law. Let me see. What would be the equivilent in the NT? Maybe Malachi 1:11...So is your church offering incense in God's name as the scriptures specify?"

    Malachi 1:11 also refers to a "grain offering", as the Updated New American Standard Bible renders it. Different translations render the terms in different ways. But all of the terminology was used in the context of ancient Judaism. Eastern Orthodox churches don't have such offerings as the Old Testament defines them. You would have to suggest some generally comparable Eastern Orthodox entities to fulfill the passage, since no exact fulfillment could be found in the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. And if we're to accept such an inexact fulfillment, then there are many possibilities outside of Eastern Orthodoxy as well, including in Protestant churches or, as some have held, in a future eschatological fulfillment. (Other passages refer to future sacrifices as well, with different accompanying details, such as Isaiah 19:19-25 and 66:19-21. All of these passages seem to be concerned with the general theme of faithful service to God more than the offering of these exact items that were significant in the context of ancient Judaism.) Justin Martyr, one of the first Christians to comment on the passage in the extant literature, refers to prayers and thanksgiving as the Christian's only sacrifices, along the lines of Hebrews 13:15 (Dialogue With Trypho, 117). Some have seen the eucharist as a fulfillment of the passage, whether in the sense of Hebrews 13:15 or in the sense of a re-presentation of Calvary in Roman Catholic circles, for example. Justin Martyr, in the passage cited above, takes the former view, apparently seeing Christian prayers and thanksgiving of all types as the fulfillment of Malachi 1, with the eucharist as one sub-category of fulfillment within that broader category of Hebrews 13. For a discussion of the passage and some examples of the wide variety of interpretations among ancient and modern sources, see Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), pp. 312-316. Nothing in Malachi 1 excludes Protestantism or singles out Eastern Orthodoxy.

    You write:

    "Now why is the church different to Israel, not leaving the truth? Because God said he would change God's people so that they would no longer fall into these problems. Ezekiel 11:19"

    We spent several days discussing this issue, and it wasn't until just now that you cited Ezekiel 11. The reason why you're turning to another passage is because the passages you cited earlier didn't lead to the conclusion you were trying to force into the text. Your citation of Ezekiel 11 doesn't work either, and you might have known that if you had given more attention to the surrounding context and other plausible interpretations of the one verse you quoted.

    Prior to verse 19, we're told that God is addressing "your brothers, your relatives, your fellow exiles and the whole house of Israel" (verse 15). All of the people are in view, not just a religious hierarchy. And the passage says nothing about their being correct only when they reach what you consider to be a general consensus, nor does it suggest anything about ecumenical councils or the like. The passage is about the same sort of theme we see in Jeremiah 31, which is, in turn, taken up in Hebrews 8. And in Hebrews 8, we once again see all of God's people addressed (Hebrews 8:1), not just some hierarchy, ecumenical councils, or a general consensus. All of these passages (Ezekiel 11, Jeremiah 31, and Hebrews 8) are addressing the new covenant that involves being born again (as Jesus and Peter put it in John 3 and 1 Peter 1). The only way that a reader could see your concept of the church in Ezekiel 11 is if he went to the passage seeking a justification for a system he already accepts on other grounds. Since the most natural reading of the text, the one that has God's people fulfilling it without the involvement of some Eastern Orthodox system of church infallibility, sufficiently explains these passages, why should we look for some secondary fulfillment in Eastern Orthodoxy?

    ReplyDelete