Last Rites

Jay Dyer has posted another reply to Josh Brisby:

http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/03/debate-orthodox.html#more

I’ll confine my comments to those parts of Dyer’s reply that are central to the debate between the Protestant rule of faith and its Orthodox counterpart:

“I didn’t say that the Church was in ‘disagreement’ as to the canon, I said that there are different traditions and levels of reception within the Church.”

And what makes different traditions differ? That they disagree, perchance? If they all agree, then how do they differ?

Same thing with “different levels of reception” in the church. What makes the different levels differ—if not on points of disagreement regarding what level of reception that ought to be accorded to prospective books of the canon?

Mind you, it’s possible for two people to differ simply because they don’t have access to the same information. And they might agree if they did have access to the same information.

But that can’t very well be the explanation at this juncture. The Orthodox church is conversant with all of the canonical candidates by now. Has been for many centuries.

“Strictly speaking, there is no definite canon in Orthodoxy, in the sense that the historic Protestant wants.”

Which means what, exactly? That Orthodoxy doesn’t know when God has spoken? Doesn’t know where the word of God begins and ends?

An indefinite canon might be indefinite in two respects: excluding inspired books while including uninspired books. In which sense is the Orthodox canon indefinite? Or is it indefinite in each respect?

“I have focused on the canon throughout the extent of this debate because it is the core of Protestantism...But this is not a ‘problem’ for Orthodoxy as you imagine, but a fact of the Early Church.”

Three related problems:

i) This would not be a problem for Orthodoxy if it had a fallback position. But Dyer hasn’t begun to establish a fallback position. He spends a lot of time *asserting* the Orthodox alternative, but he never gets beyond his bare assertion.

ii) And, even in theory, what would constitute an adequate alternative? Is Orthodox theology grounded in revelation or not?

If, on the one hand, it’s underdetermined by revelation, then, to that extent, it lacks divine authority. How is that not a problem for Orthodoxy?

Or is Dyer appealing to continuous revelation? That would be the equivalent of an open canon. Like Montanism. How is that not a problem for Orthodoxy? Why would continuous revelation be confined to the Orthodox communion?

iii) To say that something is a “fact of the early” church doesn’t mean it can’t also be a problem. It can be a problematic fact (or factual problem, if you prefer) for the early church—and a problematic fact for Orthodoxy inasmuch as Orthodoxy claims to be the rightful heir to the early church.

“First, everyone has this problem, including Roman Catholics, as I will show below.”

And, indeed, he spends a lot of time showing that Catholicism has the same problem. That would all be very pertinent were he debating a Roman Catholic. But to say that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have the same problem is irrelevant in a debate with a Protestant opponent.

It didn’t take Dyer very long to run out of material against Evangelicalism. So now he must pad his case with irrelevant material about how Catholicism and Orthodoxy are passengers in the same sinking lifeboat.

“The Quinisext Council, which, for us, functions with all the weight and authority of the previous councils due to its wide acceptance and confirmation of previous synods.”

Why would the fact that a later council confirms an earlier council be a reason to treat it as authoritative? Is he claiming that an earlier council requires the confirmation of a later council to authorize the earlier council? But it that event, what authorizes the later council?

“I think we agree that there is no human way to set up an external criterion which would satisfy all interested parties as to what automatically constitutes de facto legitimacy…So, really, the question becomes what makes something ‘infallible’? It is simply and uniquely the presence of the Holy Spirit leading and guiding, and I think we both agree that there is no external, created authority which may be erected to signify when and where the Holy Spirit has acted (such as the pope).”

That’s a little too slick. An external criterion may not a sufficient condition, but it is still a necessary condition. If I’m blind, I can’t use a map—but eyesight is not a substitute for a map. I need both: (i) a standard, and (ii) the ability to use it.

“Therefore, the fact that said council is lawfully assembled, gives a true definition, and its theology accurately expresses God’s Revelation in Christ, is enough to make the council simply true, and because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore protected from error.”

i) How does Dyer verify that a council (a) is lawfully assembled, (b) gives a true definition, (c) and accurately expresses divine revelation?

ii) Dyer offers no argument to justify his claim that the church is inerrant.

“All of this, of course, presupposes a certain view of the Church, which I freely admit is a bit circular. But ultimately all arguments are circular, especially when we get to the foundations of our worldview.”

True, but deceptive. You can appeal to circularity if you worldview has, in fact, hit rock bottom.

For example, one doesn’t need a linear justification for logic, memory, testimony, or sensory perception precisely because they are both inescapable and indispensable. Therein lies their justification. You can’t go any deeper, and you can’t do without them.

But Dyer hasn’t begun to establish that his ecclesiology is fundamental in that epistemic respect. Hence, his circular argument for Orthodoxy moves in a vicious circle rather than a virtuous circle.

“But again, I agree that we cannot set up subordinate, created categories (e.g., a pope) to be themselves ‘proofs’ of something superior (the action of the Holy Spirit). Only the Spirit of God can prove His own work. And thus His Spirit testifies with our spirit, as St. Paul says. For us, the meaning of Chrismation is every Christian believer receiving the Holy Spirit, and as St. John says, we ‘know all things’ and are able to ‘test the Spirits’ (1 John 4)…The actions of the Spirit are not monopolized by the hierarchy.”

i) It’s quite debatable that John says, “We know all things” (1 Jn 2:20). It’s at least as likely that he says, “all of you know.”

ii) More to the point, how does the democratic cast of Dyer’s pneumatic epistemology count as any sort of argument for the identity of the Orthodox church as the true church? Why wouldn’t the very existence of Christians who belong to other communions not undercut Dyer’s case for the Orthodox church? By his own admission, every Christian enjoys the spiritual discernment to distinguish truth from error—yet every Christian is not an Orthodox believer. Not by a long shot.

“The recognition of a true, ecumenical council, or more properly, an infallibly true council, would have to depend on the work of the Holy Spirit both in the council and in the hearts of the people, and would result in the eventual reception of the council by the people and Bishops: the true Church at large. What else could it be? In other words, I agree with Josh that the recognition of the Apostolic Faith and the proper interpretation of that Faith can only come by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not ultimately from any exterior, created entity or courtroom, although we believe that God has ordained councils and Bishops to be authorities.”

But many Christians who, according to Dyer, enjoy spiritual illumination, do not believe that God “has ordained councils and Bishops to be authorities.” Once again, Dyer’s pneumatology is at odds with his ecclesiology.

“One might as well ask, ‘when do you know to follow the Bishop or to reject his teaching?’ Simply put, when he keeps or departs from the Faith.”

In that case, who needs the bishops? In what sense are they “authorities.”

“The Church has ‘the mind of Christ,’ as St. Paul says, and the mind of Christ is present in all His Body-the mind of the Church.”

i) Where does Paul say that “the Church” has “the mind of Christ”? This is typical high-church spooftexting, Take a text that doesn’t even mention the church, then annex it to “the Church,” in a classic bait-and-switch scam.

ii) And this isn’t just a question of whether the word (“church,” ecclesia) is present or absent. High churchmen also import their concept of the church into their prooftexts.

“This recognition of the “infallibly-trueness” of any council or Creed may, in fact, take decades, as is evident from the councils and their history in the Church, but we Orthodox see no problem here. These are just the facts.”

Once more we see Dyer’s false dichotomy between “facts” and “problems.” If the murder weapon has the fingerprints of the suspect, if he has gunpowder residue on his hand, and if there’s a bloody shirt in his hamper, these “facts” are also “problems” for the suspect.

“So, the goal of the council itself is to preserve tradition, not set up an exterior, epistemic category by which truth may be recognized, since this alone is not sufficient to convince anyone of a religious truth and is impossible.”

An insufficient condition may still be a sufficient condition. If I’m blind, a flashlight won’t help me see in the dark—but if I’m sighted, I can’t see in the dark without a flashlight.

“One can only recognize an infallibly true council from within the Church, having been integrated into His Body.”

That’s a question-begging assertion. And it’s not tangential to the issue at hand. This is the big casino.

“God has, we believe, determined councils and the episcopate to be the proper form of government in His Church. We see it done in Acts.”

Notice the fatal equivocation of terms. We see elders appointed in Acts. This doesn’t mean that Lucan eldership is synonymous with the Orthodox prelacy. Likewise, there are a number of basic differences between the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and an ecumenical council.

“And there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit left the Church in terms of this leading and guidance.”

This is sophistical. In fact, the appointment of elders signals a transitional stage as the Apostles are phased out while elders are phased in. So, yes, there is a discontinuity between the apostolic age and the subapostolic age.

“In fact, Christ says He will dwell in the Church by His Spirit until the end (Matt. 28:20), and lead her into all truth (John 14:26).”

i) Back to the spooftextual, bait-and-switch scam. Where do these verses ever mention “the Church”?

ii) And even if they did, it hardly follows that NT ecclesiology is isomorphic with Orthodox ecclesiology. So there are two crucial gaps in Dyer’s appeal.

“Only the heretics strive to divorce the work of the Holy Spirit from the Church of History, inventing ‘invisible churches’ and unknown, imaginary associations of proto-Protestants prior to Luther and Calvin. They do this even more ferociously when they realize that all the Fathers held to things they think are heretical. Simply put, there are none of these proto-Protestants (except in short-lived, completely heretical groups).”

Personally, I don’t think this is even relevant to the case for sola Scriptura, but assuming that it was, Dyer is opining rather than arguing for his position.

“And on top of that, it’s all the more absurd for Protestants to try to criticize us on the grounds of ‘ecumenical councils,’ since they have absolutely none.”

There’s nothing absurd about critiquing the other side on its own grounds. An internal critique is a valid move.

“Yet Orthodoxy is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

It is? But didn’t he say, just a few paragraphs earlier, that “[Nicea] eventually achieved an empire-wide acceptance…The recognition of a true, ecumenical council, or more properly, an infallibly true council, would have to depend on the work of the Holy Spirit both in the council and in the hearts of the people, and would result in the eventual reception of the council by the people and Bishops: the true Church at large…This recognition of the ‘infallibly-trueness’ of any council or Creed may, in fact, take decades, as is evident from the councils and their history in the Church.”

“Decades.” “Eventual reception.” And this is decades after each successive council. So we’re dealing with a long, drawn-out process.

i) Thus, by his very own admission, Orthodoxy is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. Rather, it had to pass through a gradual process of recognition to finally achieve consensus.

ii) And not only is it not the same in time, but it’s also not the same in space. Dyer has also admitted as much when he talks about the way in which regional differences on the canon persist in the Orthodox church.

Throughout his reply to Brisby, Dyer spends his time *describing* the Orthodoxy alternative instead of *demonstrating* the Orthodox alternative. Dyer is like a boy on a rocking horse: we see a lot of motion without any locomotion.