Last semester I had my first real exposure to Greek Orthodoxy. It was, interesting, to say the least. I had always thought of the Greek Orthodox as being Catholics without a Pope and, well, I was mostly right. There are distinctions, to be sure, but even after more direct study it’s easy to see how the average Protestant would simply lump the two faiths together. What really struck me was not so much their compelling doctrinal arguments (mostly because what I heard wasn’t so compelling), but how many of my protestant friends were being drawn to Greek Orthodoxy. They were practically flocking!
Lo and behold the December issue of Christianity Today has a story titled “Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century?” In it, the author (Bradley Nassif, an Evangelical who was raised Orthodox) describes how many protestants today are rediscovering the Great Tradition. According to Nassif, “Scholars define the Great Tradition as the theological consensus of the first 500 to 1,000 years of Christian history (there is some disagreement on exact dates).” Nassif feels that the Orthodox church is pretty much the only church in the world today that directly connects with the earliest Christian teachings and practices, and that as more and more evangelicals come to see this, they will more and more embrace Orthodoxy.
On the on other side of the coin, Nassif feels that Orthodoxy can and must learn a lot from Evangelicals. He writes,
More and more Orthodox, as they study the Great Tradition, are admitting that our leaders and laity don’t have a mature grasp of their own faith. They recognize that the church isn’t free from ethnocentrism or religious bigotry, that it hasn’t contextualized its faith and liturgy in the modern world, and that it hasn’t figured out how to relate to unchurched people in North America (its converts consist mostly of disillusioned believers from other Christian traditions). More and more Orthodox, as they explore the early church afresh, see that there are parts of its ancient liturgies that seem to have no biblical justification and that we cannot simply regard the Reformation and the last millennium in the West as nothing more than a sideshow.
What’s particularly interesting about this paragraph is that in one breath Nassif almost refutes the first half of his article. He claimed in an earlier paragraph that one of the draws of Orthodoxy was its multiculturalism, yet modern Orthodoxy is primarily ethnic in nature and he himself admits to a degree of Ethnocentrism and religious bigotry. He also realizes that some Orthodox liturgy has no Biblical foundation and that the Protestant Reformation must be taken more seriously than most Orthodox do. And lastly, he recognizes that the Orthodox church has failed to contextualize itself and reach the unchurched. My question is, once these things have been stripped away, what of Orthodoxy is left besides a loose belief in the infallibility of the church?
In the back of my mind as I read this article was the September issue of Christianity Today, the cover story of which was about the rebirth of Calvinism in modern Evangelical churches. Not only was far more attention given to the rebirth of Calvinism than to the rebirth of Orthodoxy, but the author of the former article wasn’t a Calvinist. As I read this article I couldn’t help but feel that Nassif was merely being hopeful because he wishes to see his Orthodox roots make a bigger impact in the modern Western world. I agree with Nassif on several points, namely that modern Evangelicals need to pay more attention to church tradition and take doctrine seriously. However, I think the more important message of his article is directed at the Orthodox community. He hits the nail on the head when he observes that the Orthodox can’t afford to simply treat the Protestant Reformation and the last 1,000 years in the West like a sideshow. Taking a step back and looking at those last 1,000 years will show that Christ has definitely been at work in the world, especially in the West, and He hasn’t been working (at least primarily) through the Orthodox church.
So, is this going to be the Orthodox century? I don’t think it will be, at least not Eastern Orthodoxy and not in its current form. But I don’t think it will be the Calvinist century either. These two Christianity Today articles, only 3 months apart, just prove that American Evangelicals are fickle. I do, however, sincerely hope that some of Nassif’s other predictions come true and that some of his advice to both sides is seriously heeded. In the end it doesn’t matter so much if this is the Orthodox century or the Calvinist century, as long as it’s the Christian century.
Read the full article here.
You asked what is left of Orthodox?
Try our blog. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/
Um…as far as this being the century of the Orthodox, there’s substantial evidence that would seem to suggest this. There was an article in the LA Times a few weeks ago that reported that 43% of American Orthodox seminarians were converts. Obviously, the vast majority of these being former Evangelicals. As far as ethnocentricism and religious bigotry, I don’t think that American protestants have a whole lot of room to criticize others. I think your biggest problem in this article is assuming that if they haven’t gotten it all figured out in America, than they must not be doing anything. America, is not in fact synonomous with the world. The Orthodox church has done a lot in other parts of the world, it just so happens that they are Eastern, and they are not as established in the West as of right now, but they are working on it. Finally, as far as unconvincing arguments, I would point out that your own champion R.C. Sproul has recently been argued into the very precarious position that “Scripture is inspirted/infallible but the Canon isn’t.” This is his response to the overwhelming Canon argument presented by Catholics and Orthodox apologists. So protestantism is in a place where they believe that God has spoken infallibly somewhere, but we can’t be sure where. Seems like a pretty problematic place to be in.
Nassif addressed in his article that most converts to Greek Orthodoxy are disillusioned Protestants, so the figure doesn’t really surprise me (although I’m obliged to point out that the figure is only a percentage and doesn’t reflect whether the total number of these converts is large or small).
As far as the bigotry, I was only quoting Nassif and pointing out what seemed to be an inconsistency in his article. I think what he was trying to say is that multiculturalism was a strong point of the EARLY Orthodox church and that, sadly, the modern Orthodox church has become primarily ethnocentric. I agree that Protestants have a similar problem (though not quite to the same extent), if we didn’t we wouldn’t be so obsessed with racial reconciliation!
Sproul’s position is basically that we can’t know that the cannon was infallibly formed simply by saying “the church did it.” There are a lot of good, rational reasons we can believe that the cannon is complete and infallible, but ultimately it comes down to having faith that the Holy Spirit guided the early church to give us the cannon, without making the leap that the church itself is infallible.
Thanks for the comment, Mark.
Having good reasons for thinking that such and so book is inspired and thus canonical aren’t sufficient to place it beyond future revision and hence exclusion or the canon as a whole from expansion/retraction.
A revisible canon seems to be inadequate to ground the kind of normativity to bind the conscience to the degree that something taught by God requires.
I can’t see how the appeal to the Spirit’s work isn’t ad hoc or is even helpful. It seems like it is postulated to shore up the theory. And even if it weren’t, the church included works in the canon that Protestants reject. Did the Spirit stop guiding the church for a significantly long while? And why think that the Spirit did guiding work there but not in other theological locations?
As I said there are other reasons to have faith in the authority of the cannon, namely that all the books were written by Apostles or someone under direct Apostolic supervision. That would also be the reason for there never being any further revisions, since we’re fresh out of Apostles! Thus we have a complete and binding set of scriptures, which are completely internally consistent, from which to garner our Christian truths and doctrines. On the other hand, placing the authority solely in the hands of the church leaves room for the danger you mentioned, as presumably the church could one day decide to add a new book if it so pleased. I also see parallels between this and the Jewish rabbis in Jesus’ day, who had added so many binding laws in order to “expound upon” and “clarify” the scriptures and placed so much emphasis on their traditions that they’d lost much of the true meaning entirely. And as for the Apocrypha, the Jews didn’t even consider those books to be scripture, so I see no justifiable reason for Christians to accept them.
Re: “More and more Orthodox, as they explore the early church afresh, see that there are parts of its ancient liturgies that seem to have no biblical justification and that we cannot simply regard the Reformation and the last millennium in the West as nothing more than a sideshow.”
This bit shows that Nassif (who teaches at an evangelical Protestant religious institution) has had more than a sip of the Kool-Aid served by his employer.
I’m sure that Nassif is sincere in his appeal to Christianity Today readers. He has baldly stated in this piece (and elsewhere) that he wants to serve as a bridge between the Orthodox Church and the myriad of Protestants sects that fall under the umbrella of “Evangelicals” but it is clear to this Orthodox Christian (I’m a former evangelical Protestant) that Nassif wants evangelical Protestant converts to come into the Church to join him in HIS little crusade to bring his version of the Protestant Reformation into the Orthodox Church.
In my little Orthodox circle (which also includes a former Southern Baptist pastor and Reformed Theological Seminary grad) we have been absolutely astounded by the “biblical” justifications for all parts of our liturgies! We all are very familiar with so-called “expository preaching” of the evangelical Protestants that surround us that consist of a verse or two as the reading soon to be buried by an hour or more of bromides from Pop Psychology and the market tested, ego stroking, self-help feel goodies borrowed and stolen from the secular sphere.
We Orthodox really need biblical justifications like evangelical Protestant biblical justification… NOT!
The Orthodox who are aware of this little plot see him more as a collaborator, more of a Trojan horse rather than a “bridge.”
Nassif’s “Orthodox Century?” piece represents his best effort to appeal to “ancient” leaning evangelical Protestants and was written in a style that would “play in Peoria” (or should that be Wheaton or Colorado Springs?). It may play very well there, but in the Orthodox Church it was dead on arrival.
As an ardent consumer of religious news items from around the world, I find it very sad that evangelical Protestants are unaware of the great revival of the Orthodox Church around the world. The Church of the New Martyrs rising up again after a costly yet victorious fight against the Enemy during this past Century. Given the predominance of the Protestant sects in America, I very much doubt whether the U.S. is going to experience an “Orthodox Century.”
Looking at the signs of the times, the U.S. is headed rapidly into a post-Christian era (a la Post-WWII Europe) with evangelical Protestants leading the way. Americans, particularly evangelical Protestants, tend to think in terms of “As goeth the U.S. so goeth the World”, but the Church is not dependent on fickle American spiritual trends –Thank God!
Re: “…we cannot simply regard the Reformation and the last millennium in the West as nothing more than a sideshow.”
Who is “we”? Just watch our “regard” or disregard of this sideshow!
The Reformation and the contortions of the evangelical Protestant sects have nothing to do with the Orthodox Church except for the times when we have to defend our children against the predations of well meaning, though misguided Protestant missionaries.
The Church has had dealings with Protestants of all sorts (from old time gnostics to modern day evangelicals) since the time of the New Testament and has withstood them all in fulfillment of the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). As a general guide, these passages from the Holy Scriptures are indispensable to us in our dealings with such people:
“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” – 1 Corinthians 11:19
“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” – 1 John 2:19
Re: “And as for the Apocrypha, the Jews didn’t even consider those books to be scripture, so I see no justifiable reason for Christians to accept them.”
In the 1st Century A.D. the Jews (who survived the sack of Jerusalem) certainly had a reason to reject the Deuterocanonicals (known to some Protestants as “Apocrypha) and it had everything to do with the Christian faith.
You see, the Deuterocanonicals were (and still are) part of the Old Testament used by the earliest Christians (including the Apostles): the Septuagint.
The Pharisees (predominant amongst the survivors of the sack of Jerusalem -bye bye to the Sadducees, Essenes, etc.) were basically tired of the Christians quoting from the Septuagint prophecies in order to show that the Lord Jesus Christ came indeed incarnate in fulfillment of said prophecies. For example, Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint: “Behold a Virgin (Greek: parthenos) shall conceive…” In the Hebrew: “Behold a young woman (Hebrew: almah) shall conceive…”
The Septuagint (the Old Testament of the earliest Jewish and Gentile Christians) was rejected at the Council of Jamnia (90 A.D.) for use by the Jews. In other words, the Jews formed their canon of Scriptures against the Old Testament canon of the Christians!
It boggles my mind how Protestants rely on a Pharasaical canon of OT scriptures( formed in reaction AFTER and AGAINST the Christian canon of the Old Testament!) as authoritative instead of the Christian canon (still in use by the Orthodox Church)! If the Pharasaical Council’s authority trumps Christian authority, why do they also not abide by Jamnia’s explicit rejection of the Gospels as scripture?
One of the coolest things for me as a convert to Orthodoxy: more Holy Scriptures! The Full Christian Canon!
But don’t take my word for it. Take the words of the Holy Scriptures:
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. Sirach 16:12
Great as his mercy is his punishment; he judges men, each according to his deeds.
1 Peter 1:17
Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
1 Macc. 2:52
Was not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was reputed to him as uprightness?
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.
Rom. 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Hebrews 11:35
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
2 Maccabees 7
It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God’s law… When he was completely maimed but still breathing, the king ordered them to carry him to the fire and fry him. As a cloud of smoke spread from the pan, the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die bravely, saying such words as these: “The Lord God is looking on, and he truly has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his canticle, when he protested openly with the words, ‘And he will have pity on his servants…’” Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with them.” Thus he too died undefiled, putting all his trust in the Lord. The mother was last to die, after her sons.
Sirach 44:19
ABRAHAM, father of many peoples, kept his glory without stain:
Rom. 4:17
As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”
Wis. 13:1-10
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him. For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. But again, not even these are pardonable. For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD? But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.
Rom 1:18-25
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
Wis. 5:17-20 He shall take his zeal for armor and he shall arm creation to requite the enemy; He shall don justice for a breastplate and shall wear sure judgment for a helmet; He shall take invincible rectitude as a shield and whet his sudden anger for a sword, And the universe shall war with him against the foolhardy.
Eph. 6:13-17
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Wis. 11:7
Instead of a spring, when the perennial river was troubled with impure blood as a rebuke to the decree for the slaying of infants, You gave them abundant water in an unhoped-for way, once you had shown by the thirst they then had how you punished their adversaries.
Matt. 2:16
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
Wisdom 7:7
Therefore I prayed, and prudence was given me; I pleaded and the spirit of Wisdom came to me.
Eph. 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[6] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
Sirach 29:11
Spend your money for your brother and friend, and hide it not under a stone to perish; Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold. Store up almsgiving in your treasure house, and it will save you from every evil;
Matt. 6:19-20
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike.
Matt. 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you
Sirach 27:6
The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had
Matt. 7:16,20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Judith 11:19
You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd,
Matt. 9:36
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
Tobit 7:18
“Be brave, my daughter. May the Lord of heaven grant you joy in place of your grief. Courage, my daughter.” Then she left.
Matt. 11:25
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
“The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.”
Wisdom 16:13
For you have dominion over life and death; you lead down to the gates of the nether world, and lead back. Matt. 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Tobit 3:8
For she had been married to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus killed them off before they could have intercourse with her, as it is prescribed for wives. So the maid said to her: “You are the one who strangles your husbands! Look at you! You have already been married seven times, but you have had no joy with any one of your husbands. I have given her in marriage to seven men, all of whom were kinsmen of ours, and all died on the very night they approached her. But now, son, eat and drink. I am sure the Lord will look after you both.” Tobiah answered, “I will eat or drink nothing until you set aside what belongs to me.” Raguel said to him: “I will do it. She is yours according to the decree of the Book of Moses. Your marriage to her has been decided in heaven! Take your kinswoman; from now on you are her love, and she is your beloved. She is yours today and ever after. And tonight, son, may the Lord of heaven prosper you both. May he grant you mercy and peace.”
Matt. 22:25
Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
1 Macc. 1:54
On the fifteenth day of the month Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-five, the king erected the horrible abomination upon the altar of holocausts, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars. Matt. 24:15
“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[2] spoken of through the prophet Daniel–let the reader understand–keeping before their eyes the lawless outrage perpetrated by the Gentiles against the holy Place and the affliction of the humiliated city, as well as the subversion of their ancestral way of life.
1 Macc. 2:28
Thereupon he fled to the mountains with his sons, leaving behind in the city all their possessions.
Matt. 24:16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Matt. 27:43
He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” Wisdom 2:18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
Sirach 40:15
The offshoot of violence will not flourish, for the root of the godless is on sheer rock;
Mark 4:5
Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
Judith 16:17
in the day of judgment he will punish them: He will send fire and worms into their flesh, and they shall burn and suffer forever.”
Mark 9:48
hell, where ” ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
Judith 13:1
Then Uzziah said to her: “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.
Luke 1:42
In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!
Sirach 10:14
The thrones of the arrogant God overturns and establishes the lowly in their stead.
Luke 1:52
He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.
Tobit 11:9
Then Anna ran up to her son, threw her arms around him, and said to him, “Now that I have seen you again, son, I am ready to die!” And she sobbed aloud.
Luke 2:29
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss[4] your servant in peace.
Baruch 4:37
Here come your sons whom you once let go, gathered in from the east and from the west By the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God.
Luke 13:29
People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.
Sirach 28:18
Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as by the tongue.
Luke 21:24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Wisdom 9:1
God of my fathers, LORD of mercy. you who have made all things by your word
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Baruch 3:29
Who has gone up to the heavens and taken her, or brought her down from the clouds? John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.
Wisdom 8:8
The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade.
John 4:48
“Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”
Wisdom 2:16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
John 5:18
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Sirach 24:21
He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more;
John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
1 Macc. 4:5
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.
John 10:22
Then came the Feast of Dedication[2] at Jerusalem. It was winter,
Wis. 4:5
Their twigs shall be broken off untimely, and their fruit be useless, unripe for eating, and fit for nothing.
John 15:6
If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Sirach 35:12
For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites.
Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism
Wisdom 13:10
But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.
Acts 17:29″Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone–an image made by man’s design and skill.
Wis. 13:1
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;
Rom. 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Wis. 11:15
And in return for their senseless, wicked thoughts, which misled them into worshiping dumb serpents and worthless insects, You sent upon them swarms of dumb creatures for vengeance;
Rom. 1:23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Wis. 14:12,24-27
They no longer safeguard either lives or pure wedlock; but each either waylays and kills his neighbor, or aggrieves him by adultery. 25 And all is confusion-blood and murder, theft and guile, corruption, faithlessness, turmoil, perjury, 26 Disturbance of good men, neglect of gratitude, besmirching of souls, unnatural lust, disorder in marriage, adultery and shamelessness. 27 For the worship of infamous idols is the reason and source and extremity of all evil.
Rom. 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Wisdom 2:24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Rom. 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
Wisdom 9:13
For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?
1 Cor. 2:16
“For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?”
Sirach 36:18 Be not drawn after every enjoyment, neither become a glutton for choice foods, 29 For sickness comes with overeating, and gluttony brings on biliousness. 30 Through lack of self-control many have died, but the abstemious man prolongs his life.
1 Cor. 6:12-13
“Everything is permissible for me”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”–but I will not be mastered by anything. 13″Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”–but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body
Wis. 13:3
Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.
1 Cor. 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God
Wisdom 19:7
The cloud overshadowed their camp; and out of what had before been water, dry land was seen emerging: Out of the Red Sea an unimpeded road, and a grassy plain out of the mighty flood.
1 Cor. 10:1
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
Baruch 4:7
For you provoked your Maker with sacrifices to demons, to no-gods;
1 Cor. 10:20
No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.
2 Macc. 12:43-45.
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
1 Cor. 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
Wis. 5:18
He shall don justice for a breastplate and shall wear sure judgment for a helmet;
Eph. 6:14
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,
2 Macc. 12:15But the King of kings aroused the anger of Antiochus against the scoundrel.
1 Timothy 6:15
15which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Wisdom 2:16
Therefore shall they receive the splendid crown, the beauteous diadem, from the hand of the LORD- For he shall shelter them with his right hand, and protect them with his arm.
2 Tim. 4:8
Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day–and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Wisdom 18:15
Your all-powerful word from heaven’s royal throne bounded, a fierce warrior, into the doomed land,
Heb. 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Sir 44:16
(ENOCH walked with the LORD and was taken up, that succeeding generations might learn by his example.)
Heb. 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
Sirach 25:22
Depressed mind, saddened face, broken heart–this from an evil wife. Feeble hands and quaking knees– from a wife who brings no happiness to her husband.
Heb. 12:12
Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.
Sirach 5:11
Be swift to hear, but slow to answer. 14 If you have the knowledge, answer your neighbor; if not, put your hand over your mouth. 15 Honor and dishonor through talking! A man’s tongue can be his downfall.
James 1:19
My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
Sirach 3:172 My son, conduct your affairs with humility, and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts.
James 3:13
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.
Sirach 29:10-11
Spend your money for your brother and friend, and hide it not under a stone to perish; 11 Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.
James 5:3
Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Wisdom 2:10-20
Let us oppress the needy just man; let us neither spare the widow nor revere the old man for his hair grown white with time. 11 But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless. 12 2 3 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
James 5:6
You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
Wisdom 3:5-6
Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. 6 2 As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself.
1 Peter 1:6-7
In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith–of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire–may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
Wisdom 10:6
She delivered the just man from among the wicked who were being destroyed, when he fled as fire descended upon Pentapolis–
2 Peter 2:7
and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
Wis. 16:13
For you have dominion over life and death; you lead down to the gates of the nether world, and lead back.
Rev. 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Wisdom 18:16
bearing the sharp sword of your inexorable decree. And as he alighted, he filled every place with death; he still reached to heaven, while he stood upon the earth.
Rev. 2:12
“To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.
Sirach 1:8
He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
Rev. 5:7
There is but one, wise and truly awe-inspiring, seated upon his throne: 7 It is the LORD;
David–
You should feel honored to have “Acolyte” post on your blog.
He’s a famous (on the internet, and soon to take over the world!) Orthodox philosopher. Check out some of his site, its compelling stuff.
As someone who is soon to start catechism, I can’t stop but think how compelling the biblical and historical case for Eastern Orthodoxy is. I’m not sure what arguments you’ve heard so far, but if you’re dismissing Orthodoxy as quickly as you seem to be doing, I’m not sure you’ve actually been presented with the reasons. I will be doing this a bit more on my blog, and hopefully we can start talking about it more in person (I realized that we haven’t had a theological discussion in person yet, which is unfortunate–sometime at the caf, eh?).
Now, I’m gonna defend a bit more the canon argument Mark gave.
“Sproul’s position is basically that we can’t know that the cannon was infallibly formed simply by saying “the church did it.” There are a lot of good, rational reasons we can believe that the cannon is complete and infallible, but ultimately it comes down to having faith that the Holy Spirit guided the early church to give us the cannon, without making the leap that the church itself is infallible.”
I think Mark is right to complain about Sproul. The problem is that this is fundamentally inconsistent. First you deny that the Church can be infallible when making a decision ecumenically, then you say “I’m gonna have faith the church got it right”. There’s no reason to think the church made an inerrant judgment on this matter if Protestantism is true. I will handle the alleged “good reasons” below. If Orthodoxy or Catholicism is true, however, then the ecumenical consensus of the majority of the church heirarchy around the decision of what books should be in the New and Old Testaments means something (namely there is a biblical canon). But for the Protestant it means nothing. Why think the church got it right? There’s no reason that I can see.
“As I said there are other reasons to have faith in the authority of the cannon, namely that all the books were written by Apostles or someone under direct Apostolic supervision.”
The problem with this is “who told you to think that this is a criteria for canonicity?” and “how do you know the Apostles wrote them?” I agree that this is a criteria and that the Apostles wrothe them. However, you as a Protestant can have varrying degrees of confidence in whether these criteria are accurate portrayls of the criteria for being the biblical canon. But if what you’re saying about the church is right, then you could be fundamentally in error and there’s no way to show this isn’t true (after all, the church can make mistakes–denial of Sola Fide for 1500 years, for example). As an Orthodox, I have an assumption (the infallibility of the church, in some sense) to ground a 100% degree of confidence that the biblical canon is accurately chosen and is indeed part of the Christian revelation. Your arguments are all reason-based. But people make mistakes, and you could be making a mistake about the canon. Who’s to say you’ve got the right criteria, or that you’re employing them correctly?
“That would also be the reason for there never being any further revisions, since we’re fresh out of Apostles! Thus we have a complete and binding set of scriptures, which are completely internally consistent, from which to garner our Christian truths and doctrines.”
As I said above, why think that apostolicity is even the correct criteria, much less that it is met by the actual books of the New Testament? And furthermore, there were books (we don’t have them anymore I guess) written by Paul and perhaps other apostles that aren’t in the canon; why think that they don’t belong in too?
“On the other hand, placing the authority solely in the hands of the church leaves room for the danger you mentioned, as presumably the church could one day decide to add a new book if it so pleased.”
This would not be true if revelation ended with the last apostle and the Church was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit to set the correct canon according to the criteria of apostolicity. I have reason to believe this, given my Orthodox framework; but I have trouble seeing how you could establish this from a Protestant framework.
“I also see parallels between this and the Jewish rabbis in Jesus’ day, who had added so many binding laws in order to “expound upon” and “clarify” the scriptures and placed so much emphasis on their traditions that they’d lost much of the true meaning entirely.”
I don’t understand what you mean by this. Why do you think this is true? Here are a few questions I have about this kind of reasoning:
1. How do you know there are too many extra-biblical traditions? What criteria are you using?
2. Why is it bad to have extra-biblical traditions?
3. Do you have any reason to think that the Protestant traditions of styles of worship, church government, biblical interpretation, etc. are correct?
4. If Christians understood Holy Tradition as constituting an authoritative source of doctrine and teaching for the first 1500 years of the Church, what makes you think that they were wrong?
“And as for the Apocrypha, the Jews didn’t even consider those books to be scripture, so I see no justifiable reason for Christians to accept them.”
As the commenter Joe pointed out above, the apocrypha is referenced in the New Testament a lot. A heck of a lot. And furthermore, there’s no reason to think the Jamnia council you’re mentioning is an auhtority. If you want to be consistent, you should support its rejection of the Gospels. The canonicity of the apocrypha is strongly rooted in Christian tradition, and the decision of the Church to accept the Septuigaint as an authority, though it has always been understood to have a lesser status than the rest of the OT (and rightly so–its probably not inerrant).
Furthermore, what you’re saying about “the Jews didn’t accept…” is not 100% correct. The Jerusalem Jews didn’t accept it, but the diaspora Jews did. Why favor Jerusalem over the diaspora?
Anyways, hopefully some of this makes sense. I eagerly await your responses. See ya around.
David,
What you propose per adding books would only rule out additions, but it would not rule out subtractions, such as the one offered at the Reformation and 19th century Presbyterian arguments for the elimination of 3rd John. Second, if the Apostles are fallible, being written by them won’t be sufficient for inclusion into the canon.
As for the Jews, the Sadduccess didn’t even consider the prophets to be Scripture. Is that sufficient ground for you to exclude them from the canon? The Jews were hardly monolithic in what they took to be canonical, either in contents, numbering or both.
Btw, I am not famous.
Acolyte (aka Perry)–
Well, if you insist on not being famous, that’s fine. I do find your blog enlightening and articulate, and many people I know speak highly of it as top notch Christian philosophy.
(again, David, I can’t stress this enough to you–go check out his stuff)
MG,
Thats very nice of you to say. But my blog is very informal and if I were to present much of what I write qua philosophical theology in a professional venue, I would need to clean it up a fair amount. While I disagree with the tradition in The Garden of Forking Paths, Certain Doubts, or Prosblogian, you can see some substantial philosophers at work.
Hopefully this year I will get some articles I have been working on published. In any case, I am glad people find the blog profitable. I have no way of knowing what people think of it other than the comments or who is actually looking at it. Until recently I didn’t even know how many people were looking at the site.
Yeah Perry, you’re a stud. Love the blog.
First of all, I apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments. I definitely appreciate them, but I haven’t had the time in the last week or so to sit down and actually write something substantive. It’s also never a bad idea to meditate on things for a while, rather than making hasty replies, but enough introduction.
In this response I’m only going to deal with the Apocrypha. Obviously the issue of the canonicity of the Apocrypha hangs on the issue of church authority, but I don’t have time to address both at the moment. Plus, if it can be shown that there are good reasons for NOT accepting the Apocrypha as canon, such reasons would automatically call into question the notion of infallible church authority. Now, seriously, enough introduction.
1) Though there may be a number of allusions or references to the apocryphal books, there are no quotes. Never once is anything contained in an apocryphal book given even a hint of being on par with the actual OT canon.
2) We don’t actually know with any degree of certainty that the LXX of the first century actually contained the apocrypha. As I understand it, the earliest manuscript (of the LXX) we have containing the apocrypha is from the fourth century. You’re right to point out that it probably isn’t inerrant, and I believe this is also the Protestant position. In any case, this still wouldn’t be a good argument even if the first century LXX did contain the apocrypha, because it is the LXX that the Apostles quoted from, thus the inclusion of the apocrypha would have made it easier for them to quote from it, and the absence of such quotes becomes all the more conspicuous.
3) Since we’ve brought up tradition and the authority of the early church fathers, Athanasius, Origen and Jerome, among others, all spoke out against the apocrypha. Moreover, no canonical list or church council accepted the apocrypha as scripture for over four centuries, and the first councils that did were only local councils that aren’t given any ecumenical “force.”
4) As for the Jews, the orthodox Jews were the “keepers” of the orthodox Hebrew Bible, which all evidence seems to suggest was the 39-book OT that the earliest church fathers and modern Protestants accept. Also noteworthy is Josephus, who explicitly excludes the apocrypha (he puts the number of books in the Hebrew canon at 22 I believe, because the Jews combined 1 & 2 Kings, the 12 minor prophets, etc). I didn’t actually mention the decision at Jamnia, nor I am using it to support my assertion about the orthodox Jewish position on the apocrypha.
5) Lastly, I’ve done some more research on the subject of criteria for canonicity, and it seems I was mostly off in saying that it’s “being written by an Apostle.” In fact, the one criterion for canonicity is the same for both the Old and New Testaments, propheticity. That is to say, canonical books were written by a prophet of God. The evidence strongly suggests that this recognizing of propheticity happened immediately, not centuries later by people “infallibly” deciding what was inspired by God. So, for example, Moses’ writings were immediately accepted by the Israelites as scripture (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s writings were also immediately accepted and added to Moses’ (Josh. 24:26). Daniel, it seem, already had a copy of the writings of his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9: 2, 11, 13). In the New Testament, Paul encourages the church to circulate his inspired epistles (Col. 4:16) and Peter had a collection of Paul’s writings, which he considered to be scripture along the OT (2 Pet. 3: 15-16).
In any case, this notion of propheticity is a big topic, which relates more specifically to the discussion of church authority (which is one reason I’m postponing that topic for now). Suffice it to say there are strong reasons for believing that the apocryphal books are not prophetic (as an example, 1 Macc. 9:27 specifically disclaims its being prophetic. Also, the majority of Jewish teaching held that their prophetic line ended in the fourth century B.C., prior to the writing of the apocryphal books).
Michael (MG),
I wanted to specifically address the first comment you made, being that it’s of a more personal nature.
I certainly haven’t dismissed Orthodoxy off-hand, all I meant to say was that I haven’t been compelled by any of the arguments I’ve heard thus far (especially those for icons and apostolic succession, as well as those against substitutionary atonement). This isn’t to suggest that I’m closed to hearing further arguments, or that I’m completely convinced that I’m right you’re wrong and there’s nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. I don’t think all Orthodox Christians are going to hell (even though I am anathema, haha). The point is, I’m certainly eager to continue the discussion, but at the moment I’m not utterly compelled in any way that would make me seriously consider Greek Orthodoxy to have the kind of claim it seems to think it has on being the “one” church. I’ve basically got a “point/counter-point” commentary running through my head; every time I hear what I think is a good argument for Eastern Orthodoxy, I soon come across an equally (if not more) compelling counter-argument. Anyway, that’s a little bit of explanation as to what I meant. I didn’t mean to sound totally dismissive or insulting. It’s not as though I consider your arguments on par with, say, the “health and wealth gospel” people, haha.
Thanks again to all of you for your comments.
-David
David–
Here’s a point-by-point response to your last comment that you made. (my numbers correspond to your numbers as usual)
Regarding your intro: I discuss these concerns in my response (below) to your last paragraph.
1. I agree that there are no direct quotes from the books comprising the present deuterocanon of the LXX. But is “being quoted in the NT” the criteria for OT canonicity? What about the book of Jude? It quotes from the (non-canonical by everyone’s standards) book of Enoch. Furthermore, there are several books in the Protestant OT that are not quoted anywhere in the NT. This can’t be a criteria that can be implemented and then used as a basis for rejecting the apocrypha.
2. What I said above brings this argument into question—why must the apostles quote from it? Given the non-quotation of other OT books and the quotation of Enoch, this is not at all suspicious. This would mean you have to throw out some of your own Bible if “being quoted in the NT” is the criteria for canonicity. And also: be careful in assuming that because the first LXX we have is from the 4th century that this calls into question the idea that it could have contained the apocrypha earlier. Firstly, there’s no evidence against the position that this is true. And second of all, there may be (and if I’m correct, there are) other ways to establish that the LXX being used had some apocryphal books in it. This is because there may be quotes from the Fathers or contemporary jews that match the Greek Old Testament. There also may be historical records indicating its contents and contrasting it with the other canons.
3. The vast majority of the fathers thought the apocrypha was in some sense canonical. A few dissenters doesn’t constitute a substantial objection to the idea that it should be canonical in some sense. Regarding the early councils about the canon, some of them were ratified by the 7th ecumenical council (but I won’t get into this here…)
4. Regarding Jewish acceptance or rejection on the apocrypha, this is not very relevant because what matters is Christian practice, not Jewish practice (which could contradict or oppose Christian practice and belief). And there is little reason to think these people are authorities. They certainly aren’t infallible.
5. Regarding what you say about “canonicity criteria for scripture”: The New Testament canon simply was not established immediately (hence the disagreements about its contents—was Hebrews or Revelation part of it?—in the early church). At least God never (so far as I know) designated to anyone what the contents were by directly revealing Himself and stating “this book is in, this book is out…” But lets assume the canon in some sense was established early on without direct divine discourse. Who recognized the contents of the canon? The church. Did the church make a decision that is infallible (inerrant and completely authoritative and binding) or not? If you say the church made an infallible decision you reject Protestantism because Protestantism says that only the Bible is the only infallible authority on the content and nature of Christian doctrine. If you say the church didn’t make an infallible decision, then why think we have the correct canon? There really isn’t any reason that would be guaranteed to be without error or that would establish the contents of Scripture in an unrevisable and binding manner. You can come up with rational arguments for such-and-such a book being written by an apostle. But this doesn’t establish a book’s canonicity because there are non-canonical books written by apostles, and because there’s no reason to think that apostolicity is a criteria (or the sole criteria) for canonicity. What if apostolicity and inerrancy are the two criteria? In that case fallible human reason would not be able to establish with sufficient certainty that this is true in a manner that is both authoritative and inerrant. And besides, if we are holding things up to the standard of human reason, Scripture has a lot of mysterious things in it, some of which (at face value) appear to conflict with common sense and human reason. So if we are employing human reason as the recognizer of the contents of the canon, then we will almost certainly not have the current Christian NT canon.
Regarding your last paragraph: The apocrypha may be canonical according to the Orthodox Church, but it isn’t necessarily divinely inspired. This is different from being canonical; they aren’t necessarily identical.
As for postponing this discussion somewhat, that sounds good. But we need to remember the importance of questions about the fundamental nature of doctrine and authority. If there’s a major problem in someone’s framework for how there can be a Bible or how it can be authoritative, then that framework should be rejected if it cannot be patched up. This seems to me to be the case with Sola Scriptura. I still think there is a fundamental question that needs to be answered for SS Protestantism to be a safe ship to sail on: other than “the Church has spoken”, how can we establish the canon of Scripture?
David—
In response to your more personal response: thank you for clarifying. I figured you meant something like that. Oftentimes I dismiss a position prematurely based on the weak arguments for it that I have heard as opposed to the strong arguments I have not heard. I suggest that the kind of dialogue that we are doing is a good way to counteract this. I think the case for Orthodoxy rests on fairly safe grounds that I will state so we can discuss them as time goes by. But I won’t elaborate on the content of the actual arguments right now, just give irresponsible and sloppy summaries of them
Arguments for Orthodoxy specifically:
1. Ecclesiology: The EO Church has greater continuity of aim and organization with the Christian Church started by Jesus that existed in beginning of Christianity than either Roman Catholicism or any Protestand denomination.
2. Authority: Protestantism fails to explain the existence of the Bible, and Catholicism is a deviation from the biblical and historical standard for how the Church should look. As a kind of series of disjunctive syllogisms,
p1 Either Protestantism is true or a non-Protestant form of Christianity.
p2 If not Protestantism, then either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
p3 Protestantism is probably false.
p4 Catholicism is probably false.
C Therefore Orthodoxy is probably true
Arguments for either Catholicism or Orthodoxy: (this is compatible with both, but not with Protestantism)
3. Justification: the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide seems to not fit with Scripture. Justification by faith alone (depending on how you define it) seems to be quite unbiblical. I can see little reason to stay Protestant if its understanding of salvation (the very reason it started) is wrong. This technically wouldn’t falsify “Sola Scriptura” as a framework for authority, but it would call into question the legitimacy and necessity of Protestantism as a whole.
Arguments for Orthodox theology compatible with other views (which may be shared with Protestants of various stripes, as well as Catholics; thus they constitute no evidence for Orthodoxy ALONE, but do strengthen the case for the legitimacy of whatever churches believe these things):
4. Sacraments: Scripture teaches Sacramental grace. Baptism and the Eucharist are instruments by which divine grace is conferred to us—a position also taught in early tradition.
5. Apostolic Succession and the Priesthood: an understanding not unlike that of Catholics and Orthodox (maybe throw in the Anglicans too) seems to be taught in the New Testament, and it fits best with tradition.
6. Synergism: Scripture presents us with a synergistic (roughly like that of Arminians, Molinist Catholics, and Orthodox) understanding of salvation, as opposed to a monergistic one (Augustinianism, Calvinism) and it fits best with the earliest Christian tradition.
Anyways, those are some of the things leading me toward being Orthodox. Now regarding arguments for icons, apostolic succession, and against penal substitution: I think that whether we can establish the necessity of icons or the falsity of penal substitution is peripheral to the question of the truth or falsity of Orthodoxy. Penal substitution is technically (in some forms) compatible with Orthodoxy. Some early fathers said penal-substitutionish things; and some Orthodox theologians are comfortable with this. And few people would be so bold as to argue that you can prove the necessity of icons from Scripture. The Orthodox simply don’t need to do that because they believe that it is part of both normative tradition (general church practice and patristic doctrine over the centuries) and infallible tradition (formally declared in an ecumenical council). All that has to be shown for Orthodoxy to remain intellectually acceptable is that icons are not in conflict with Christian teaching. As for Apostolic succession there are good reasons (I mentioned this above) from Scripture and tradition for affirming this, though not all of the arguments are perfectly compelling.
Michael,
(I’m continuing to keep the numbering of points consistent, but I’m only addressing the relevant ones, so there will be a couple numbers missing)
1) The fact that the OT scripture is most often quoted directly, while an apocryphal book is never directly quoted even once, is simply strong evidence that the NT writers did not consider the apocrypha to be on the same level as the rest of the OT. And I’m not merely talking about the use of quotation marks or something like that, because many times when the OT is being quoted it will be accompanied by phrases like, “the scriptures say” or “as it is written”, etc. This can’t be said of the apocryphal books. But I agree that we can’t use this as a criterion, or even an argument for or against the canonicity of the apocrypha, as the example of Jude quoting Enoch shows us. I do believe, however, that the quotation of Enoch hurts your case more than it helps. If we can agree that the NT writers quoted books that we know are not canonical, then we must also agree that frequent allusions or references to apocryphal books in the NT proves absolutely nothing about their canonical status.
3) I think it’s a bit misleading (or at least much too vague) to say the most of the church fathers thought the apocrypha was “in some sense canonical.” From my admittedly limited reading on the subject thus far, I get the feeling that most of the earliest church fathers merely found the apocryphal books to be efficacious for teaching, but not at all authoritative. I also don’t think it’s fair to suggest that Athanasius, Origen, Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem are nothing more than “a few dissenters.”
4) I still don’t see how the Jewish tradition regarding THEIR scriptures is irrelevant. The fact is that the Hebrew cannon was more or less closed by the return from exile (ending with Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles). This combined with the fact that the majority of Jews recognized that their prophetic period ended at this time gives us, in essence, an undisputed, orthodox Hebrew bible, or the Old Testament. I don’t believe it to be historically accurate to say that there was no one Hebrew bible, and that each sect had its own canon, etc. The majority of Jews considered the Law to be absolutely binding, and the other books to be of slightly lesser authority, which is where you get certain groups like the Sadducees starting to think that the prophets weren’t necessarily inspired and so on. But from a historical perspective it is certainly accurate to say that there was one Hebrew bible.
I also think it a bit misleading to talk of it not mattering what the Jews believe, only what the Christians believe. This way of thinking seems to forget that the Jews were, until Christ came, the people of God, entrusted with the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3: 2), and that all the books in question were written before the time of Christ when it was still up to the Jews to decide. Romans 3: 2-4 goes on to say that the unfaithfulness of Israel doesn’t affect the faithfulness and the truth of God and his word. So here’s my point, if the Jews had an established canon of inspired writings, all of which (so far as we know) were accepted immediately by the Jewish people and were not disputed by the majority of orthodox Jews in Jesus’ time, that’s pretty solid reason for accepting THAT cannon as scripture. (As a side note, I think your argument regarding Paul and predestination would fit here as well. Paul was an orthodox Pharisee, thus, unless we have significant reason to believe otherwise, it would be only logical to assume that his view of inspired scripture would coincide with that of orthodox Pharisees).
This response is plenty long, so I’ll leave it at this and let you respond before pressing forward. Thank you again for the comments and for the willingness to have this discussion with me. I hadn’t really delved very deep into the arguments for these topics before (it seems as though all I ever get to debate about is predestination and free will, haha), and it’s nice to be learning so much!
-David
Michael,
In response to your second post, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind elaborating more on point 1. In my opinion, many Orthodox are confusing “we still worship in exactly the same style as they did in the 3rd or 4th century” with “we are in every way exactly like the church as Jesus intended it to be.” You can’t deny that the modern EO church doesn’t resemble the 1st century church much at all, and while I realize that the circumstances were extremely different between the 1st and 4th centuries, that’s exactly my point. Not to mention that Christ Himself said very little about an institutional church. Anyway, before I criticize any more I’d like to hear your thoughts (or perhaps Perry’s) on this subject. Thanks again.
-David
1) I think we can agree that the argument from biblical quotations in no way establishes the actual content of the OT canon; it doesn’t seem to constitute evidence for or against the apocrypha strictly speaking.
3) I think you’re more or less right about the fathers saying the apocrypha is efficacious for teaching but not inspired per se. But this in no way eliminates the idea that it could be canon in some sense. This is compatible with saying it is not inspired. Canon just means set practices or doctrines; it doesn’t require that the contents of books be inspired.
4) It seems that no amount of arguing about Jews and their views on the OT will be able to establish with the relevent degree of certainty one way or the other whether the apocrypha should be part of the Christian canon. Seeing as how the NT constitutes an addition to the biblical canon, we shouldn’t assume the Jews got it right. And to be maximally consistent, David, it seems neither the decisions of Israel nor the Church should be relevent for determining the contents of the canon. Neither, so far as I can tell, should be considered ecumenically infallible or even likely to get things right on your view of things.
And of course what’s really important as I’ve been stressing is our view of authority and whether this can ground the authority of Scripture.
David–
1. In response to your point about “its not the church as it should be”:
I am not claiming that they are in every way like the church as Jesus intended it to be. The overall integrity of the Church’s structure is not dependent on all of its individual constituents functioning perfectly.
2. In response to the point about “the church not the same as in the 1st century”:
There’s no questioning the fact that the EO isn’t in every way like the church in its earliest years. But that’s not what Im arguing. What I mean by continuity of aim and organization is this:
1. Aim: the church still has the same purpose. This consists of:
a. Preaching the Gospel.
b. Recognizing and codifying God’s doctrine.
c. Administering the sacraments in liturgy.
d. Teaching apostolic doctrine.
e. Social action.
f. Sanctifying God’s people.
2. Organization: the church has the same organization. This consists of the following heirarchy:
a. Laypeople.
b. Deacons.
c. Priests.
d. Bishops.
e. Christ.
Because we can plausibly trace the continuity of this aim and organization across time beginning with the church in Acts, it is more probable in comparison with other groups that the Orthodox Church is numerically identical to the original church founded by Jesus. Also, could you explain the differences you are seeing between the churc in the 1st century and in the 4th?
3. In response to the idea that Jesus said little about the institutional church, I’m not so sure if you’re right. Here’s some points to consider:
Matt 16:18-19. Jesus says or implies the following about the church:
a. It is indestructible, permanent (gates of hell won’t prevail)
b. It is preserved in truth (gates of hell won’t prevail)
c. It is authoritative (keys of the kingdom of heaven; bind and loose)
d. Avenue of salvation (keys of the kingdom of heaven–kingdom of heaven being God’s sovereign salfivic reign/rule, thus the church is a uniquely important/powerful manifestation of God’s rule and saving power)
Matt 18:15-20. Jesus says or implies the following about the church:
a. There are disciplinary procedures.
b. The church has the power to excommunicate/banish.
Matt 28:18-20. Jesus says or implies:
a. The church as an organization is permanent, indestructible (I am with you always)
b. He continually indwells it (I am with you always)
c. His authority resides in it (All authority in heaven and on earth is His, and He dwells in the church)
John 14:16-21. Jesus says or implies:
a. The church is his mystical body (He is in the apostles, they are in Him)
b. The church is indwelt by the Spirit (in you)
c. The church is indestructible (Jesus is with it forever, the Spirit of God is with it forever)
d. The church is preserved in truth (The Spirit of Truth/Counselor will be with the church permanently)
John 16:12-13 Jesus says or implies:
a. The church is preserved in truth (Spirit of truth comes and guides)
b. The church is the receiver of doctrine (Spirit of truth comes and guides into all truth)
John 17:11-12. Jesus says or implies:
a. The divine name protects and preserves the church (protect by power of name)
b. The church is one, unified
John 17:20 Jesus says or implies:
a. The whole church will be indwelt by divine glory (given them the glory)
b. The unity of the church will vindicate Jesus’ authority and love (complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them)
c. The church is Christ’s mystical body (I in them)
It seems that Jesus indeed does say much about the Church. I don’t know what you mean by “institutional church”. But it does seem that there’s this body of believers that exists as a visible organization with certain roles, functions, and powers, has Christ and the Spirit indwelling them, is preserved in truth and doctrine, and is permanent.
I should really be doing homework right now, so I won’t respond in full, I just wanted to clarify what I meant about Jesus’ teaching. He does mention the church (relatively) often, but as you’ve shown by the examples you gave, what He says has nothing to do with the church’s organizational structure, specific practices (except, of course, for the sacraments), and/or styles and methods of worship. What he says is very general and would certainly apply to Protestants as well as Catholics and EO. As a quick side note, I think all the points you mentioned under the category “Aim” fit perfectly well with all three branches of Christianity, and I don’t think the EO can claim to be closer to the church of Acts in this regard. As far as “Organization”, where do you see the office of Priest in the NT?
Very briefly, the great difference I was thinking of between the 1st and 4th century churches would be, naturally, the difference between a growing but largely persecuted sub-division of Judaism and the national religion of a world empire. Christianity becoming Rome’s official religion had serious effects on the church, and some I don’t think were for the better. Some of these effects lead to the problems that Protestants now have with the EO and RC churches. I will attempt to elaborate on this from a mostly historical (but inevitably a somewhat theological) perspective as soon as I can. Sometime at the end of this week, I hope, when the homework is lighter…
…what am I saying?! The homework is never lighter!
Thanks again for dialogging, Mike (may I call you Mike?).
-David
David–
I’ve responded to paragraph (1) and (2) so here ya go:
(1)
i. “He does mention the church (relatively) often, but as you’ve shown by the examples you gave, what He says has nothing to do with the church’s organizational structure, specific practices (except, of course, for the sacraments), and/or styles and methods of worship.” Regarding the fact that Jesus didn’t enumerate very specific worship practices, I don’t know if this is supposed to be an argument for the legitimacy of a certain style of worship or not. If it is, then I doubt that it will work. Just because Jesus didn’t get into a lot of specifics, this doesn’t mean that He didn’t intend there to be a fairly specific way worship is done. And even if He didn’t, there may be evidence in the rest of the NT and early extra-biblical texts for a certain form of Christian worship. However, I would press you on one point. If my view of the Sacraments and baptism is right, then there are indeed at least 2 things Jesus commanded us to do that are formal teachings relating to worship. And if certain churches fail to believe and act out these practices, then that is problemmatic for them.
ii. “all the points you mentioned under the category ‘Aim’ fit perfectly well with all three branches of Christianity”. It may be true that there is a lot of this shared between the three branches of Christianity. But lets look over this really quick and see if we can call into question the compatibility of some forms of Protestantism with these aspects of “aim”:
a. Preaching the Gospel.
It looks like almost everyone can claim to fulfill this to a certain extent. Clearly some Protestant individuals and Orthodox individuals fail to do this; but that shouldn’t affect the church as a whole.
b. Recognizing and codifying God’s doctrine.
Here there seems to be a problem for Protestantism. Protestant confessions are not the doctrine of God. They claim to be faithful interpretations of Scripture. But it seems dubious to claim that a body as fallible as a Protestant church could teach with any kind of authority. No doctrines according to Protestantism should be considered beyond the possibility of revision, seeing as how all are arrived at by human exegesis of Scripture. Can Protestant groups really claim to do what the church did in Acts 15? I think there some ’splainin that needs to be done here.
c. Administering the sacraments in liturgy.
Clearly some Protestant groups don’t believe in Sacraments. Of course we don’t need to rabbit trail off into an argument that the bread and wine of the Christian Eucharist are Christ’s true body and blood, or that baptism confers regenerative grace. But if I’m correct in thinking this is a tradition of the early church and a teaching of Scripture, then surely many Protestant groups can’t fit this criteria.
d. Teaching apostolic doctrine.
I guess a lot of my arguments regarding the failure of Protestantism on this point would be, like my arguments for c., ones that presuppose a certain interpretation of Scripture and a certain belief of the early church. So I won’t get into it here.
e. Social action.
Everyone does this to some extent, some more than others, so this isn’t a decidign factor I suppose.
f. Sanctifying God’s people.
I suppose everyone does this too. Granted, I feel like God has purified my heart a lot more since I became Orthodox. But that isn’t representative of everyone’s experience. So I can’t do much arguing regarding this.
iii. “As far as “Organization”, where do you see the office of Priest in the NT?” I will make another comment soon arguing for a ministerial priesthood in the NT.
(2) I look forward to reading your arguments regarding the way that the church began to change and develop issues by the fourth century.
And yes, of course you may call me Mike
David–
iii. “As far as “Organization”, where do you see the office of Priest in the NT?” Here’s something to consider: everyone agrees that there is a distinction between laity and clergy in the NT. The real question is what the function and nature of the clergy is. First there needs to be a distinction made between 3 kinds of priests:
1. High Priesthood–the leader (OT Aaron etc., NT Jesus)
2. Ministerial Priesthood–those directly under him with subordination to his authority who have a unique, seperate role in the community of offering sacrifices and performing other priestly duties. (OT the Levites, NT–this is what Im arguing for)
3. Universal Priesthood–all the people of the covenant community (OT the Jews, NT all Christians)
What we’re discussing, then, is the ministerial priesthood. In order for us to get anywhere about this, we need a minimal definition of what constitutes a priest. I would define the most basic features of an Orthodox/RC/Anglican view of the priesthood as follows:
1. The priest must be a person with a vocation seperate from the laity. (borrowed from OT)
2. The priest must be appointed by other heirarchs.
3. The priest must administer sacraments.
4. The sacraments must include a sacrifice. (borrowed from OT)
5. The priest can be called “father”
There are many arguments from the NT for a ministerial priesthood. For now, let’s keep it simple with just one:
1. The word “priest”:
Its derived from the Greek presbuteros. This word is contracted to “priest” in English. That’s where we get the name from. So a priest is just a presbuteros from the NT.
Because “priest” is just the contraction of a biblical word that is used to describe a special ministering position in the church, it seems that whoever wants to go against the interpretation of “presbuteros” that was universal to the church for the first 1500 years needs to prove their case. The proximity of the church to the time of the NT and the continuity of tradition and praxis over the first couple centuries of Christianity creates a presumption in favor of whatever interpretation was given to the idea of a presbytership by the first Christians. Thus I will pass the “burden of prooof baton” to you in arguing that the person designated is not what ancient Christendom thought: a ministerial priest of the New Testament. More specifically it seems that the Protestant must argue that there are some features of the presbyter in the NT that don’t coincide with the priesthood understood by Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism.
(there are as I said a lot more arguments, but I’ll incorporate those into my responses)