Saturday, December 29, 2007

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #3

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

Well, before we begin, here is the passage from Bede's Ecclesiastical History where he reports that demons were cast out by holy water:
"Then they poured out the water in which they had washed the bones, in a corner of the cemetery. From that time, the very earth which received that holy water, had the power of saving grace in casting out devils from the bodies of persons possessed" (see here).

Now, to respond to your first point, it is true that those possessed by evil spirits were freed when said persons came in contact with the earth where the water was poured out. BUT, it was because of the holy water that the soil had that effect. Were it not for the water the soil would have done nothing. So, it appears to me that the water is the primary agent for the casting out of the evil spirits, not the soil.

As for your second point, how the water is made holy does seem to be as important as the fact that, at the end of the day, water is being used to expel demons. This shows that the use of water to achieve that purpose is far from superstitious ("superstition" of course being the attribution of magical effect to an object or practice that actually has no such effect).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Third C-X Question to PhatCatholic

Thanks. That greatly helps.

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

-Turretinfan

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #2

Your secondary source’s quotation from the “Apostolic Constitutions” seems to be a corruption of: “vouchsafe them the laver of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true life; and deliver them from all ungodliness, and give no place to the adversary against them; “and cleanse them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and dwell in them, and walk in them, by His Christ; bless their goings out and their comings in, and order their affairs for their good.” (source)

Can you provide any other citation to the Apostolic constitutions themselves?

Well, first off, here is the part in my opening statement where I quote from the Apostolic Constitutions:
For example, in the Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD), holy water is called, “a means of warding off diseases, frightening away evil spirits, a medicine for body and soul, and for purification from sins” (see here).

Now, I realize that I was using a secondary source and I apologize for that. But, I don't think that the quotation, as found in the secondary source, is a corruption like you describe it. You say it is from Book VIII, Section II. However, it appears to me that the quotation comes from Book VIII, Section IV, where we read:
XXIX. Concerning the water and the oil, I Matthias make a constitution. Let the bishop bless the water, or the oil. But if he be not there, let the presbyter bless it, the deacon standing by. But if the bishop be present, let the presbyter and deacon stand by, and let him say thus: O Lord of hosts, the God of powers, the creator of the waters, and the supplier of oil, who art compassionate, and a lover of mankind, who hast given water for drink and for cleansing, and oil to give man a cheerful and joyful countenance; do Thou now also sanctify this water and this oil through Thy Christ, in the name of him or her that has offered them, and grant them a power to restore health, to drive away diseases, to banish demons, and to disperse all snares through Christ our hope, with whom glory, honour, and worship be to Thee, and to the Holy Ghost, for ever. Amen.

I should have looked that up in the beginning, but I didn't have the time. At any rate, that is the most explicit statement I was able to find in the Apostolic Constitutions. There are two other passages (from Book VII, Section III) that I found interesting, but they aren't as important to me as the more explicit statement. They include the following:
  • "Let him be instructed why the world was made, and why man was appointed to be a citizen therein; let him also know his own nature, of what sort it is; let him be taught how God punished the wicked with water and fire, and did glorify the saints in every generation"
  • "Him, therefore, let the priest even now call upon in baptism, and let him say: Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin and live to righteousness."
I hope that answers your question.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Second C-X Question to PhatCatholic

Thanks for your reply.

Your secondary source’s quotation from the “Apostolic Constitutions” seems to be a corruption of: “vouchsafe them the laver of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true life; and deliver them from all ungodliness, and give no place to the adversary against them; “and cleanse them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and dwell in them, and walk in them, by His Christ; bless their goings out and their comings in, and order their affairs for their good.” (source)

Can you provide any other citation to the Apostolic constitutions themselves?

-Turretinfan

Friday, December 28, 2007

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?
I'd like to be able to give you more evidence from the Fathers but information on the internet is limited and the books I need won't be available to me until after the deadline for this answer. My local library at home is sorely inadequate when it comes to researching this question, but a few books are on the way.

At first I was trying to work with what little is available to me, which is why it has taken me so long to respond. But, I finally had to just accept the fact that more information on the use of holy water in the early Church will have to wait. Perhaps I can give you more information in response to a subsequent question, or in my rebuttal post.

That said, the witness of the Apostolic Constitutions shows that the practice is at least 1600 years old, and that's certainly nothing to scoff at. Also, note that, in the Catholic Church, the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d. 749 AD) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636 AD) in the West. So, my citation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England (which he wrote in 731 AD) falls within that timeframe as well. However, my point with the statement you quoted was not to record, down to the very year, exactly how long holy water has been in use. I was simply trying to show that such use is an ancient practice and that to dismiss it is to ignore the experience and witness of hundreds (thousands?) of individuals who have seen with their own eyes the power that holy water has had over demonic forces. Is that really something you are prepared to do?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

First C-X Question to PhatCatholic

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?

-Turretinfan

Sunday, December 23, 2007

PhatCatholic - Opening Statement

First I want to thank "tfan" for this opportunity to defend my use of holy water, as I describe it in this blog post. May our debate prove to be mutually edifying.

Now, before I begin I would like to anticipate two possible objections:

  1. "We're supposed to combat demonic forces, not by holy water, but by _____ "
  2. "There is no example in Scripture of someone using water against demonic forces"
Regarding the first objection, it is often asserted that, instead of using holy water to stop demonic forces, we should use faith, or our authority as Christians, or the name of Christ, or Scripture, or prayer. But, I agree with all of these approaches in one way or another. As such, there is no point in defending any of them. Instead, the task for anyone who objects to my use of holy water is to show that water has no effect against demonic activity (or perhaps more generally speaking, no spiritual effect).

As for the second objection, let me state that I agree with it as well. It is true that there is no explicit example in Scripture of someone using holy water against demonic forces, or commending its use. I am aware of that. BUT, there are no verses that speak directly against this practice either. In situations like this when there is no explicit Scriptural witness, we have to rely on the implicit witness, as well as the principles that inform the practice in question. If the principles are biblically sound, then the practice is sound.

That said, here are the principles that inform the practice of using holy water:
  1. God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives.
  2. In Scripture, water is used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings.
  3. Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.
Now, to elaborate on each point.

1. God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives

There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus and the apostles use created things to produce supernatural effects in the lives of human beings. Jesus’ garment healed the woman with the hemorrhage (cf. Mt 9:20-22), and his saliva mixed with dirt (along with water from the pool of Siloam) gave sight to the blind man (cf. Jn 9:6-7). Many were healed by being anointed with oil (cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15; Rev 3:18), and Paul’s handkerchiefs cured disease and expelled evil spirits (cf. Acts 19:11-12). Elijah’s mantle parted the Jordan (cf. 2 Ki 2:8,14), and the bones of his apprentice, Elisha, brought a man back to life (cf. 2 Ki 13:21). Of course, the Lord wrought innumerable miracles through the rods of Moses (cf. Exo 4:2-4; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:9-11; Num 20:11) and Aaron (cf. Exo 7:10-12,20; 8:5-6,17; Num 17:8) as well.

Many other examples could be provided. The point is, God is certainly not averse to accommodating our senses and using the objects of our material world in order to have a very real impact on our lives.

2. In Scripture, water is used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings

Believe it or not, there are examples of holy water in Scripture:
  • Exo 23:25 speaks of water that has been blessed
  • In Num 5:17, the priest uses “holy water” in the judgment of the woman
  • In Num 19:9,13-20, anyone who is unclean remains so until the “water for impurity” is sprinkled upon him
  • In 2 Ki 2:19-22, Elisha makes the water “healed” (KJV) or “purified” (NAS).
So, the idea of “holy water” and its use is not foreign to Scripture. Notice from the third passage that a person remained unclean until water was sprinkled upon him. This points to an important 3-fold purpose for water in Scripture. This is very significant, considering that demons were considered “unclean spirits” (cf. Mt 10:1; 12:43; Mk 1:23,26-27; 3:11,30; 5:2,8,13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:25; Lk 4:33,36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42; 11:24; Acts 5:16; 8:7) and any person was unclean if possessed by one. It only makes sense that something that cleanses, purifies, and heals can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.

3. Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace

Does this really need a defense? We’ve already seen how Paul’s handkerchiefs expelled evil spirits (cf. Acts 19:11-12). The holy name of Jesus causes them to flee (cf. Mk 9:38-41; Acts 16:18). Demons are simply repulsed by things that are holy. When water is blessed it becomes holy and thus an effective weapon against the devil.

If the biblical evidence were not enough, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Hundreds of saintly men and women throughout history have experienced for themselves the power of holy water against demonic forces. For example, in the Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD), holy water is called, “a means of warding off diseases, frightening away evil spirits, a medicine for body and soul, and for purification from sins” (see here). Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here). St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) was relieved of a demoniacal vision and temptation by the devil once holy water was brought to her (see here). St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) wrote, “From long experience I have learned that there is nothing like holy water to put devils to flight and prevent them from coming back again” (see here).

Many more examples could be provided, but you get the idea. Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Announcing the Holy Water Debate

PhatCatholic (profile) has agreed to debate TurretinFan on the resolution:

RESOLVED: That the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces.

PhatCatholic will take the affirmative position, and TurretinFan will take the negative position.

The agreed-upon format for the debate is:

Affirmative Constructive (1000 words)
Negative C-X (3 questions of 100 words for each question with Aff given 500 words to answer each question)
Negative Constructive (1000 words)
Affirmative C-X (3 questions of 100 words for each question with Neg given 500 words to answer each question)
Negative Rebuttal (500 words)
Affirmative Rebuttal (500 words)
Negative Conclusion (1000 words)
Affirmative Conclusion (1000 words)

No linking in arguments from elsewhere to avoid the word limit.

No comments from the audience until the conclusions are posted.

PhatCatholic can republish the debate on his own blog.

The rebuttal is a chance to briefly argue counterpoints - they could be counter-points to Answers from the Q&A or to the constructive argument.

The word count excludes quotations of Scripture. To avoid the canon argument, we'll include both the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and the additional books accepted by Trent.

The time limit for response is a week, though we will try to proceed more quickly.

We're negotiating the issue of the appropriate penalty for violating the rules.

If one of us needs to extend the word limit, the extension will be applicable to both sides.

May God give the debaters wisdom, so that the readers will be able to discern correctly whether the resolution should be affirmed or not.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Conclusion to the Sola Scriptura v. Eastern Orthodoxy Debate

Dear Readers, having read the debate, I trust you are ready to agree with the resolution that: Resolved: "It is a tradition, look no farther" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

As was established in the debate, “the Bible” is a relatively concrete, easily identifiable rule of faith, whereas “tradition” is a blurry, frequently equivocal concept. The only way to make “tradition” in the sense of a process work is by engaging in ultra-sectarianism – in which you deny the status as fully Christian, of those who disagree with you. After all, if what we should believe is only that which is received by all Christians, one has to have a way to determine who Christians are. The result is ultra-sectarian bare fideism, where one believes what he believes because he believes it. But let’s quickly hit the high points of the debate.

Scripture Beats Tradition on Ease of Identification
“Orthodox” tried to blur the edges of the Bible with some comments regarding the canonicity of Esther, the epistles of John, and the first epistle of Clement. This argument was self-defeating two ways. First, everyone knows that while the edges may be blurry, the Bible itself is a fairly stable, well-known and recognized quantity. Although some books may be more or less clearly authentic some core books (like the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy as well as at least some of Paul's epistles) are self-authenticating. Second, resort to “tradition” does not necessarily resolve the fuzziness. If one turns to “Orthodox” tradition, one gets a first list, to “Catholic” tradition – a second list, to “Ethiopic” tradition – a third list, and to “Protestant” tradition – a fourth list. Third, “the Bible says it” presumes we have a concept of what the Bible is. If we have a concept of what the Bible is, the question can readily be seen to be a red herring.

Scripture Beats Tradition on Stability
“Orthodox” did not even challenge the fact that corruption of Scripture is much more difficult than corruption of “tradition.” Furthermore, it should be clear that sectarian “tradition” is only going to be as stable as the sect is. “Orthodox” views the innovations of Rome as innovations, but fails to recognize that his own sect has innovations, such as the worship of icons. Scripture has been essentially unchanging since the final word was penned.

Oral Tradition is No Longer Necessary
“Orthodox” made a red herring from the obvious fact that while we had prophets (i.e. during the time when Scripture was being written) Scripture was not the only source of the infallible Word of God. However, “Orthodox” did not question the fact oral tradition is unnecessary. Once the Scripture has been published widely, the need to rely on oral reports of its content disappears.

Oral Tradition not Really What Orthodox Had in Mind
We discovered in the debate that oral traditions from the apostles is not really what “Orthodox” had in mind. He is not talking about the “by word” of Paul’s “by word or letter.” “Orthodox” was not talking about apostlic tradition at all, though that is what Chrysostom was talking about. Why not? Because, by now, it is impossible to identify with any certain “oral traditions” from the apostles. The only things we know they taught are those things found in the Scriptures. But in abandoning “oral tradition” in favor of a process of “sifting,” “Orthodox” failed to defend his side of the resolution.

Some Tradition is Opposed to the Bible

“Orthodox” really did not enjoy being forced to address the clear contradiction between “Orthodoxy”’s practice of worshipping icons of Christ, and the ten commandments’ prohibition on graphical purported likenesses of God. Again, “Orthodox” tried to make the issue fuzzy, but ended up contradicting himself.

Some Tradition is Opposed to Other Tradition

Finally, we found that Tradition, unlike the Bible, is not internally consistent. On the particular topic of making and worshipping icons of Christ, we discovered that before any so-called ecumenical council of Orthodoxy affirmed the use of icons of Christ, an ecumenical council of Orthodoxy rejected the use of icons of Christ. Furthermore, we learned that the historical record shows that the early Christians did not have icons of Christ, and that the use of such icons was a later development.

Tradition Actually Supports Sola Scriptura
If we consider the writings of the Fathers to be “tradition,” we found various of the writings of the fathers supporting the use of the rule that “The Bible says it … that settles it.” John Chrysostom’s own testimony in that regard went unchallenged throughout the debate.

Cross-Examination
Although he tries to spin things a bit differently, Orthodox is stuck with the fact that for as long as there have been Scriptures, they have been the standard of comparison. From the time of Moses onward, every prophet/apostle/etc. who claimed to have a word from God was judged by the written word of God. That is to say, it was not enough to claim that something was a “tradition,” but rather it was necessary to judge tradition by the Word of God, most particularly by the written word of God. The Bereans were commended for doing so.

Let’s examine the cross examination in detail.
First, Orthodox asked about the transition from more than Scripture to Scripture alone. As I pointed out, one cannot use what one doesn’t have. When prophecy ceased, the church had only Scripture to rely upon for authoritative revelation.

My first question to Orthodox was to question whether tradition was really self-correcting. Orthodox explained that “[tradition] can clarify what might seem otherwise ambiguous.” This kind of “tradition” is not apostolic, because it cannot be. It is a process of accretion, not a product handed down.

Second, Orthodox asked me whether I thought the tradition (now referring to the result of the process of accretion) was more or less clear than Scripture on various issues. His point was to assert that EOC was more clear than Scripture. My response demonstrated that trying to be certain about the EOC position on things was rather challenging. After all, they have dogmatically defined very few things.

My second question to Orthodox was to question his equivocation over the word “tradition” as a product (a body of knowledge handed down from the apostles) or a process (like the accretive process discussed above). Orthodox didn’t answer clearly.

Third, Orthodox asked about the canonicity of a few “close call” books. I explained why we accept them as canonical, namely by faith in their author, the Holy Spirit.

My third question to Orthodox was to question the sufficiency of the “it is tradition” maxim. Orthodox admitted that he had to add, “my church’s” to the maxim to make it work.

Fourth, Orthodox ironically questioned the “Semper Reformanda” (always reforming) maxim as being in conflict with church discipline. Aside from the obvious point that Semper Reformanda was not one of the watchwords of the Reformation, the answer was that the highest standard is Scripture, not the say-so of the church or of the individual member of the church.

My fourth question asked Orthodox to justify the use of icons in worship using the Canon of Vincent. Orthodox provided a variety of quotations, but virtually none were addressed to the use of icons in worship. We could easily see that there was no way for Orthodox to establish that the use of icons was the “universal” practice of the ancient church, and even trying was exhausting. Thus, clearly “it is tradition” with Vincent’s canon as to what constitutes tradition is unworkable.

Fifth, Orthodox asked – in essence – what doctrines should force someone to change churches. As I explained, it depends. The gospel cannot be compromised. That much is clear.
My fifth question to Orthodox asked Orthodox to tell who it was that the golden calf was alleged to represent. Orthodox tried to side-step the issue, because it was fairly clear from Aaron’s words that the calf was supposed to represent the Lord.

Sixth, Orthodox asked me to pass judgment on four churches that I never attended, and about which the historical records are incomplete. I respectfully declined for those churches for which I did not have enough information.

My sixth question addressed the unworkability of Vincent’s canon, by specifically asking how many fathers and priests of the ancient church there were, so as to better gauge the minimal number of quotations provided by Orthodox in support of icons. Orthodox’s answer was that there were dozens of fathers and probably thousands of priests.
Orthodox also asked what it felt like to be persuaded of the truth of something by the Holy Spirit. The answer, of course, is that is practically impossible to describe, but that it is a sense of firm conviction.

Next, I asked how Vincent’s canon could be applied to the council of 754, at which 300 bishops condemned icons, prior to the so-called 7th ecumenical council. Orthodox appealed to silence in the testimony of the early church, and then argued that the result that his whole church was in error from the 8th century to now was simply unacceptable.

Orthodox next asked whether Luther or Westminster was right on the issue of polygamy, and I answered him clearly from Scripture.

I asked Orthodox about his claim to strength in numbers, based on his earlier assertion that his church was right because it was the larger chunk of the Great Schism, and because of his assertion that 300 million people’s opinions were stronger than mine. Orthodox admitted that the number of people actually made no difference to him.

Orthodox next asked what alternatives there were to “the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.” The answer, which was blindingly obvious was Scripture itself.

Tired of Orthodox’s meandering evasive answers, I asked Orthodox a multiple choice question about how Athanasius used the word “tradition,” to see whether Athanasius used it to refer to a process or product (the correct answer, of course, being a product). Orthodox couldn’t give a straight answer, but ended up constructing his own four-part definition of Athanasius’ meaning based on his own personal opinion and at variance with that of the most noted patristic scholar.

Orthodox next asked a loaded question about what I could prove or not with respect to Jesus’ condemnation of the “traditions” of the Pharisees. I explained what Jesus meant, and pointed out that Athanasius said more or less the same thing as I did.

Still hopeful that Orthodox could answer a multiple choice question, I quoted Basil the Great and asked whether Basil adhered, on the particular issue in question, to the maxim “it is tradition, seek no farther” (the correct answer being “no, he did not.”). Orthodox was unable to give a straight answer.

Finally, Orthodox asked whether tradition gives stability and sola scriptura leads to debates and innovation. I negated Orthodox’s implicit assertion and gave historical and logical explanations for my negation.

Likewise, for my final question, I gave the multiple choice format one last shot. Orthodox still felt compelled to give a lengthy answer, but at least Orthodox admitted that: “All things are clear and open that are in divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.” This was really the final blow against Orthodox’s position, for it makes Scripture much more workable than even Vincent’s canon.

In short, and in conclusion, “the Bible says it” is the only workable way to avoid ultra-sectarianism. Ultra-sectarianism is what “Orthodox” practices, where he uses the “consent of the faithful” as a basis for doctrine, but then excludes from his count everyone who disagrees with him! And here’s where ultra-sectarianism will get you (link)

It will get you this type of unity (link 1) (link 2).

Finally, for additional reading, allow me to recommend:

A. A. Hodge

B. B. Warfield

Matatics vs. White Debate on Sola Scriptura

Steve Hays (warning, pdf file)

As well as the following, also from Hay: (First Half) and (Second Half) (plus another one)

James Swan

Thanks be to God, who has not left us with the tradition of men, but given us the unchanging Word of God,

-Turretinfan

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Orthodox - Conclusion

The Cross Examination


I think a careful reader of this debate would note that Francis has not provided much in the way of substantive answers to any of my questions.

In round 1, Francis acknowledged that early churches, lacking scripture to support uniquely Christian teachings, used the oral tradition as their rule of faith. The apostles neither practiced sola scriptura (since the full Christian teaching is not in the OT) nor did they teach it as they built the early church (lacking scripture to support the unique Christian teachings). So I asked Francis who authorised and orchestrated a cutover to sola scriptura. He didn't give any answer. He mentioned the Bereans from Acts 17, but of course that is a distraction. Nobody can seriously claim that the Bereans found the full Christian teaching in the OT. An OT-only sola scriptura community would not be Christian. Francis attempted to equivocate between scripture having "the highest place" with sola scriptura. The two are not interchangable. In fact, the church never cutover to sola scriptura, which is unsurprising since Francis acknowledged the apostles never taught it. About all Francis can say is that the Church supposedly ought to have cutover because extra-scriptural traditions are unreliable. However I showed that there are many extra-scriptural traditions dating from as early as the 1st century, which remain in Orthodoxy today.

In round 2 I asked Francis if tradition of the Orthodox Church was really less clear than scripture. Francis tried to make out that Orthodox tradition was not clear because (a) Orthodoxy does not have "dogmatic definitions" and (b) All you know is what your local priest teaches, you can't tell what Orthodoxy teaches. Of course, Francis is fudging because he knows full well the tradition of Orthodoxy is clear, as Orthodoxy defines its own terms. We don't have dogmatic definitions, and we do know what all the Orthodox churches teach. Nobody is wandering around in Orthodoxy confused about the teaching on infant baptism for example. Amusingly, a protestant wrote in to criticise Francis that his view on baptism was unscriptural. I think anyone who honestly looks at the situation can see that Orthodoxy's teachings on most of the issues protestants divide over, are clearer than the bible by itself. If it were not so, Presbyterians would not feel the need to clarify things with the Westminster Confession.

In round 3 I asked Francis to show me how to know what is scripture. His answer was that the "ultimate subjective epistemological basis is the persuasion of the Holy Spirit". It doesn't take much reflection to realise that a rule of faith can't work in the church, if the church has no way to resolve which of different people's "persuasions" are part of the rule of faith. And we found this is no theoretical problem when one of our Presbyterian listeners wrote in to tell us that his theological professor thinks 1 Clement is scripture. At least for Orthodox, 1 Clement is a venerable part of Holy Tradition. It's a valuable part of tradition, no matter its exact status. From Francis' point of view, it's either the perfect word of God, or worthless as as to being part of the rule of faith. You see, to be black and white about what is authoritative, requires a black and white list of what is authoritative. It's a bit like saying the Pope is infallible, without being able to infallibly say when. If I say that I feel the canons of the seven ecumenical councils are inspired by God, Francis really can't respond, because his epistemological basis provides no ability to do so. On the other hand, if I say that I don't have an inspired insight of what is scripture, again, Francis can't help me. He can just list the whole range of opinions throughout history and add his two cents to the pot.

Francis wants fudge and say that at least "everyone reading this has a pretty clear concept of the bible". From my point of view, testing what he calls the "fuzzy edges" is a good test for his entire system. But is it pretty clear? To say that everyone is pretty clear is in effect a statement about tradition! The only time Francis got a little bit of certainty was when he hopped out of his boat into mine and appealed in effect to the Vincentian canon.

In round 4 I asked how it could be that a few people in 1646 got it all right, where the church had always failed previously. Or alternatively, if they made mistakes in 1646, how the reformation is going to correct it. Francis tells us that it is God's will "for the churches to keep splitting, both sides seeking to glorify God in the truth." Francis seems to be having a bet each way. On the one hand he holds to a confession of faith made in 1646, and on the other hand is happy for churches to keep splitting looking for the truth. Either situation is odd on its face, either that a few men in 1646 got it right, where the church failed for 1600 years, or that God has no higher plan than for men to go from church to church like a boat tossed on the waves, looking for some people who believe their interpretation of the truth.

In round 5 I asked how the scriptures work as a rule of faith in the church, when unlike tradition, there is no principle of community agreement. When the community disagrees, should one leave? Should one start a new church? If so, on what issues? Well Francis ended up saying that only the "gospel" was a necessary reason for leaving, by which he seems to mean justification by faith. He also offered the opinion that he couldn't say that the Orthodox church was apostate. Logically then, if Francis found himself in the Orthodox Church, either by birth, or because his congregation decided to become Orthodox, he could make a valid decision to stay. Apparently then, valid churches don't necessarily use sola scriptura.

In round 6 Francis told us essentially, that he isn't really sure if the Fathers taught the gospel, and he isn't really sure if the Orthodox Church teaches the gospel. I suspect that Francis' idea of teaching the gospel is limited to a very narrow subset of the NT teaching, expressed in the distinctive protestant manner. I think if I asked Francis if the Gospel of Matthew teaches the gospel, he's have to double check himself to see if it was there. Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the Gospels, and Francis isn't sure if he taught the Gospel! Either the Gospels aren't a very good source for the gospel, or else the best minds of the early church were incredibly stupid, or else the protestant idea of "the gospel" is a very myopic one.

In round 7 I asked Francis about a very real issue facing the protestant church in Africa - polygamy, in light of the Anglican church's finding that polygamy is "approved" in the OT and "not forbidden" in the NT. Francis criticised the interpretation of those supporting polygamy. But did he supply the reader with a single verse against polygamy? No he did not. He failed to practice what he preaches in providing a scriptural commandment, clear or otherwise, against polygamy. I could have substituted many other issues for polygamy, but this example clearly shows how Francis has a tradition as a rule of faith.

In round 8 I wanted to get the discussion out of the world of theory, and into the world of reality. Since I haven't received any personal revelation of what list of books is scripture and since I am honest enough to admit my uncertainty about how I would interpret scripture if I was completely to ignore any and all traditions, what am I supposed to do? Francis gives me no reason or method to enter the world of protestantism. As far as I know, all protestants have (or at least may have) the wrong canon of scripture. All of them have or may have the wrong interpretation on one or many issues. And I don't claim to be able to resolve what millions of protestants have failed at: finding the correct interpretation of scripture apart from tradition. I don't claim there is a clear guideline in scripture for example on whether children ought be baptised. I could just as easily put together a good argument one way or the other. And of course, Francis, having failed to provide the scripture that teaches sola scriptura, doesn't give me the verse to support a move in any shape or form.

Francis claims I have exchanged truth for certainty. At worst I have traded uncertainty for false certainty, since I've been given no method to solve the uncertainties that his own system creates. Frankly, false certainty is more pleasurable than true uncertainty. True uncertainty is a commodity available everywhere.

Francis' argument is the equivilent of an agnostic asking me to exchange my faith in something supposedly uncertain, for his lack of certainty. No thanks. Offer me something tangible. Don't ask me to jump into the pool of ignorance with you where there is no sure scripture, no sure word of God, no sure understanding and no sure church. I'll stay up here on the dry land until you can do better than just claim your guidance of the Spirit is better than anyone elses.

In round 9 I made the observation that the Mt 15/ Mk 7 protestant hobby horse, doesn't comment on oral vs written (or oral vs scriptural) sources of authority. What it comments on is "the word of God" vs "traditions of men", never equating the former with scripture, nor equating the latter with non-scripture. I also showed, using scripture that the "Word of God" is usually oral tradition. Since Orthodox consider Holy Tradition to be "the word of God", and since we consider sola scriptura, and other protestant beliefs as "the traditions of men", I asked Francis to prove that an Orthodox interpretation was wrong. Namely that traditions not accepted by the people of God, but only by a small portion (e.g. "the traditions of the elders, Mt 15:2) are the "traditions of men", and the traditions accepted, e.g. the γραφή, the writings or oral traditions accepted by the people of God are, "the word of God", inspired by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Since the passage never mentions scripture, Francis was stumped, and could do nothing but repeat his own tradition concerning the episode, a tradition that ironically we consider to be a tradition of men.

In round 10 I wanted to again get away from theory and ask why sola scriptura doesn't seem to be working in the churches that ascribe to it. Remembering that the thesis is that sola scriptura is workable, as in practical and feasible. Anyone who wants to trace the path of the great reformation churches: Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Presbyterianism over 500 years and compare it to the Orthodox church would note that most of the former would be unrecognizable to their predecessors. Those who would be recognizable would be those in a minority who have an almost Orthodox mindset in keeping to traditions. Francis' response was that sola scriptura churches are stable in that they hold to the things that are "clear". But the one thing that isn't clear, is what the set of clear things are. Francis is on record saying that the bible is "clear" concerning icons depicting the Lord. But Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians aren't clear. Francis wants to label dissenters as modern liberals. To me it looks like just labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a liberal, since the oldest presbyterian churches that I've seen have stained glass icons of the Lord. If it's true that Presbyterians have changed on this, then I fail to see how it helps the cause that sola scriptura is a workable rule of faith.

Francis uncharitably suggested that the reason Orthodoxy doesn't change is because it is a "cemetery". It's pretty easy to think there is something fundamentally wrong with people who don't worship like you do. It's a part of human nature. But if Orthodoxy was a cemetary, then there wouldn't be orthodox debating with Francis to begin with. You wouldn't have had millions dying for the faith under communism. And you wouldn't have Francis himself praising the Christian stance taken by the Moscow Patriarch.

Icons


Too much of the debate was taken up discussing icons. Supposedly Orthodox are superstitious. From our point of view, protestants are superstitious, as evidenced by Francis' warning about viewing a web site with a picture of Christ. I mean, I've seen copies of Foxes' book of Martyrs from the 1800s that start with a nice big colour plate of Jesus on the opening page.

Francis claimed that it "is perfectly clear that representations of God were forbidden in the Old Testament". Just like many other issues, Francis confuses his own tradition with what is "perfectly clear". The only thing clear is that some images were forbidden, and other images were not only permitted, but commanded. Which is which, is certainly not clear at all. Certainly not on a sola scriptura basis. The golden calf was not permitted. The Cherubim were commanded. How it applies outside of these is not specified, which is the whole reason sola scriptura doesn't work. I can tell you that I think only pagan idols are banned, and images of heavenly beings are explicitly allowed in the example of the Cherubim. Francis has a different view. Francis argues that Dura-Europos is the exception not the rule. But he shows no evidence. Of course, since Dura-Europos is the only one surviving from the era, it's the only sample we have, and it comes up contrary to Francis' thesis. Scholars disagree with Francis' theory. How "clear" is scripture, if Jews, ancient and modern, Orthodox, Catholics, Non-Chacedonions, Ethiopians, Anglicans, Presbyterians (supposedly more recent ones), Lutherans, all can't see what Francis sees? He never did tell us if he would have taken a photo of Christ if he had the chance. There is superstition for you.

Do any icons exude holy oil, or cause miracles? Or are they a superstition as Francis contends? Let me guess. Francis has done nearly zero investigation of such things, but he assumes it is a superstition.

Yes, Christianity is a very "superstitious" religion:

2Kings 13:21 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.

Acts 19:11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

Acts 5:15 they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them.

Oddly, Francis would believe such things without question if its in the bible. But if it happens in real life, it's a superstition. Well Francis, if a-priori rejection of miracles is your style, may I suggest that Christianity is not the religion for you.

Lastly, Francis is shocked that I would call Chrysostom an iconodule. Many many things Chrysostom wrote, wouldn't make much sense apart from icons. e.g. "The image of what is invisible, were it also invisible, would cease to be an image. An image, as far as it is an image, should be kept inviolably by us, owing to the likeness it represents." But we have eyewitnesses. Chrysostom's biographer wrote: "Blessed John loved the epistles of St Paul exceedingly. . . . He had an image of the apostle in a place where he was wont to retire now and then on account of his physical weakness, for he outdid nature in watchings and vigils. As he read through St Paul's epistles, he had the image before him, and spoke to the apostle as if he had been present, praising him, and directing all his thoughts to him."

Conclusion



Sola Scriptura cannot tell you what scripture is. If you are unable to figure out what scripture means (which even Francis must admit applies to most people), sola scriptura cannot help you.

Sola scriptura in no way has unity as a goal, and thus surprise, surprise does not achieve it.

Scripture never says that sola scriptura is the rule of faith, thus it violates its own precept. All the early Fathers believed there was an extra-scriptural apostolic tradition, and they could discern what it was. Francis' attempt to make Basil into a sola scripturalist, failed.

The Sola Scriptura churches are in large part falling apart. As observed by an ex-Lutheran, ex-Presbyterian, the problem is genetic. Sola Scriptura is about individualism. Every man decides for himself what scripture is. Every man is free to ignore the world when deciding what scripture means. Every man decides for himself how to apply it to himself. If an elder directs you otherwise, church hopping is a legitimate search for the interpretation you agree with. Supposedly sola scriptura is the appropriate rule of faith for the church. But the very nature of the doctrine ignores the church, and therefore cannot work for the church. It can work for "me and my bible under a tree", but not much else.

Francis has not shown that the apostles taught sola scriptura, and in fact admitted that they didn't teach it, nor practice it. Nor could they have.

On the other side of the coin, Francis has done nothing to demonstrate that tradition is not "working" in the Orthodox Church. His main attempt to do otherwise, was to lecture us on his tradition concerning icons, and complain that nobody else, other than apparently a tiny sect within the tiny sect of Presbyterianism sees scripture with the clarity he supposedly does. That in itself shows what is "working".

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Moderator Notes: Time for Conclusions

The time for concluding statements has arrived. Thanks to Orthodox for participating in this debate, as well to our audience, whose comments and questions added a bonus round.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Orthodox - Rebuttal to List One

Reformed Christians would side procedurally with Basil’s opponents here, and agree with them that the Christian practice is to provide written proof

Francis lectures Basil that the "Christian practice" is to provide written proof. Okay Francis, provide us with the written proof of sola scriptura. Oh, but Francis already conceded that the apostles neither taught nor practiced sola scriptura. Thus Francis cannot practice what he preaches.

since anyone can wave their hands and claim “unwritten tradition” as the support for their position.

Anyone can claim something in writing as authoritative as well I guess.

But claiming it and having the church believe it are very different matters.

a) Reformed Christians would point out how Gnostic-sounding this is. Secret mysteries hidden from the multitude and not given to the commoners are standard Gnostic fare.

Francis has already been refuted on this. Basil's example of a "secret" is part of the baptism service - something that is no secret at all for those in the church.

From an Orthodox point of view, all of protestantism "sounds" gnostic, in its pure emphasis on head knowledge.

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints

Yes, to his saints.

Now, recall that Basil made analogy to debtors demanding written proof. It’s interesting that Basil should make this particular analogy. Perhaps in the time and place when Basil was writing, proof of debt was admitted based on oral testimony. In many places, however, that is no longer the case. Because it is so easy for creditors to fabricate oral testimony, many places have a “statute of frauds” that prevents the enforcement of debts contracted orally if the amount is large. And the same principle should be applied to these alleged traditions. Where there is no writing, there is abundant room for fabrication and mere allegations. Writings settle the matter.

Firstly, Francis' 21st century thoughts on what "settles the matter", is not a good argument for antiquity. Secondly, there is only room for fabrication where there are no witnesses. But where the witness is the whole church, this argument disappears. Thirdly, writings can be forged just as easily as oral stories. The only thing that stops written forgeries is the exact same thing that stops oral forgeries: the tradition and collective memory of the church. If you can't trust that, then you can't trust claims about who wrote scripture.

Every argument that works against oral tradition, works equally against written tradition. There is no escaping this fact.

We Reformed Christians would note that this “unbroken of sequence of memory” was a weak argument in Basil’s day (particularly considering that he himself noted a variety of practice). It’s much weaker today, so many more generations having elapsed. Human memories are fallible.

Again, if the unbroken sequence of memory is to be doubted, then so is the tradition about who wrote what book of scripture and whether it is authoritative or apostolic or not. There are no eyewitnesses to who wrote any of scripture. Even if you had the eyewitness, who are they that you should trust them? Maybe the eyewitness was the forger. All you have is the memory of those passing on an oral tradition much much later.

And just as Basil argues, if you're going to accept some things based on the oral tradition, why not the others? Basil's arguments are very cogent and applicable today.

I answer: The rebuttal is that Lucian simply does not understand Gnosticism. Certainly Gnosticism did produce writings. Those writings, however, were largely guarded from the outside world.

Francis has not answered Lucian's question and shown what the distinctive of gnosticism is
"Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. "

Gnosticism isn't merely knowing some secret someone else doesn't. It is about claiming a personal mystical experience. Kind of like how Francis claims that a personal experience of God is how we find out what the canon of scripture is. THAT is an experience that Gnosticism would relate to. Unless you have this personal mystical experience, you can't know what God's word is. From this launching pad of a personal revelation of what is from God, was launched all the other Gnostic writings. After all, if you yourself receive the revelation of what is from God, there is nothing in the way of adding all sorts of other writings.

There always have been and always will be fighting and divisions among Christians, until we are glorified in heaven.

And these divisions "Show who is approved" by God (1Cor. 11:19). So how has, oh say the dispute between baptists and presbyterians over baptism shown who is approved? It hasn't.

Lucian is referring to Islam which was founded around 150 years before the council of 754. That’s not “about the time” in any normal way of speaking.

But the Muslims icon smashing of churches started 3 years before the iconoclastic controversy.

The Jewish synagogues where the very early church would have met were not – from the historical records we have – icon-clad.

Umm, has Francis read Exodus lately?

Ex. 25:18 “You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat."

What is Francis' reference that the early synagogues had no icons?

Those who have done the research have concluded that "the early synagogues were embellished by paintings and mosaics".

TurretinFan - Rebuttals to List Two

Rebuttals to List Two

1. Godith’s comment regarding Presbyterians and images

Orthodox seems to be poorly versed in Presbyterian history. In any event, there is a world of difference between “Orthodoxy”’s use of icons and the modern (liberal) Presbyterians use of stained glass.

Orthodox follow up remark that the use of religious images is “all about interpretation” is rather facile. It’s perfectly clear that representations of God were forbidden in the Old Testament, and it is also perfectly clear that the prohibition was continued in the New Testament, despite the incarnation. The fact that people disagree is not a rebuttal to the clarity of the text, it's a testimony to the stubbornness of idolaters.

2. Jeff’s Question regarding the formal sufficiency of Scripture

Orthodox seems to have missed the question entirely on this one. Orthodox doesn’t address the question at all. Instead, Orthodox notes that Abraham had enough without Scripture. It’s too bad Orthodox didn’t take a crack at the actual question, which was a good one.

3. EM’s question regarding Orthodox’s alleged admission of a practice of believer’s baptism

I agree that EM misread Orthodox’s comment.

However, Orthodox also wrote: “Of course from my point of view, having two sola scripturalists fighting it out over infant baptism, is a help to my argument that it is ‘unworkable.’ Thanks for the help.” This is a rather untenable line of reasoning, since non-sola scripturalists fight things out among themselves as well. Indeed, Roman Catholics baptize infants differently than the Eastern Orthodox do.

4. Rhology’s question regarding the 7th EC and whether it interacted with the Scriptural prohibitions on veneration and prayer to images

Orthodox responded: “Of course, we don't pray to images, we pray to Christ represented in the image.”

This is the claim of the Eastern Orthodox – and yet all that is represented is Christ’s humanity (it’s impossible to represent God), which is why the council of 754 decried the iconophiles as incarnation-deniers. Furthermore, the icons are actually prayed to, and venerated with various forms of worship including kissing, elevation, and so forth. Abundant superstitions surround the icons, even to the point of claiming that there are icons that exude holy oil, that cure sickness, and so forth.

Orthodox added: “If you use one of those video phones, do you talk to the phone, or do you talk to the person shown?”

The analogy would hold if the icons were actually capable of transmitting messages to the pictured people. They cannot, of course, which is why video phones are cool gadgets, while icons are superstitious nonsense.

Orthodox wrote: “It should be noted again that the iconoclasts were not against prayer to saints, veneration of saints, or veneration of holy items. That was not a matter that anyone disputed.”

There are many claims about what they were for and/or against. On the other hand, the iconophiles destroyed as much of the iconoclasts writings as possible, so unless we find a cache of hidden iconoclastic writings (besides the Bible), we may have trouble accurately presenting their position. In any event, the iconoclasts were chiefly opposed to the use of icons of Christ, as are we.

Orthodox wrote: “The most famous discussion of the issues contemporary with the 7th council, is of course the apology of St John of Damascus. This is, as one would imagine, full of discussion of the Holy Scripture as it applies to the topic of icons.”

This is Orthodox’s long way of answering: “no, the Seventh Council did not interact with Scripture.”

Orthodox also wrote: “This debate came out of a comment of John Chrysostom. Nobody in antiquity was a bigger proponent of reading the scriptures than he. Nobody knew the scriptures better than he. And yet he was an iconodule.”

I’m tired of this slander against John Chrysostom. “Orthodox” had his chance to try to demonstrate that John Chrysostom was an iconodule, and he came up empty, go back to his post (“Protestant Revision of History”) and check for yourself. None of those quotations (even if they were authentic, which itself is an open question) have John Chrysostom offering dulia to an icon.

5. Saint and Sinner’s comments quoting various historical demonstrations of the absence of icons in the early church, even from sources that might be expected to assert the presence of such icons

Orthodox wrote: “The first epistemological principle is that the Church preserves the true faith. A couple of quotes can't sway one from this.”

This is a great example of why the epistemology doesn’t work. It claims to be supported by the evidence, and to be based in objective evidence, but when the evidence turns out to be against it, it reduces to bare fideism: faith in the church.

Orthodox wrote: “Even a protestant must hold this principle. Think of the alternative, if the faith isn't preserved. Maybe scripture isn't preserved, either in its text or in its canon.”

Non sequitur. One can hold to the providential preservation of Scripture, without holding to the maintenance of error free Orthodoxy or Orthopraxy, just as one can hold to the providential preservation of a nation’s constitution, without holding to a view in the maintenance of laws consistent with that constitution.

Orthodox wrote: “What if we take (a) skepticism in the Church preserving the true faith, and combine it with (b) an early church quotation and (c) some silence in the historical record and perhaps (d) some conspiracy theories? What do we get? You get exactly what Basil was talking about shaking down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground.”

Basil was fond of bolstering his arguments with swelling words, and “Orthodox” seems mistakenly to have bought into the rhetoric. Basil’s point, furthermore, was not about the four-part combination Orthodox presents, but simply about what Basil felt was an unreasonable demand for written proof in a particular case. Nevertheless, it was a demand that Basil conceded to, and a demand that Basil attempted to meet by presenting Scripture.

Orthodox wrote: “No rule of faith can stand this radical skepticism, whether it be the canonicity of 2 Peter, 1 John, Revelation or the Pauline epistles, or the originality of the trinitarian formula, or anything else. If lack of clear evidence in the earliest strata is a problem, what of 2 Peter which doesn't appear in the extent evidence until AD 200 ? On the other hand, we have hard archiological evidence of icons in Christian churches and baptistries from AD 240. Are we going to quibble over 40 years? And there are frescos in the catacombs from the mid 2nd century too.”

Strong historical evidence that icons were a development, not an original practice, from sources that would be expected to favor icons as original, if that were the case, is hardly “radical skepticism.” Orthodox’s “hard [archaeological] evidence” is laughable: the “Dura-Europos” series worth reading more about, but the town is the exception, not the rule (see here, for example, http://www.janus.umd.edu/May2001/Stephanos/01.html). Finally, of course, while the house-churches may have been highly decorated, one doesn’t find icons of Christ, the icon that really stirs controversy. See more below about the alleged “frescos” in the “catacombs.”

But that won’t faze “Orthodox.” After all, the historical investigation is all a pretext, for it does not matter in the least what historical investigation shows: if it differs from what his church currently teaches, it must be wrong.

Orthodox continued: “As to these specific quotes, Minucius Felix actually lays out the Orthodox doctrine of icons nicely. The doctrine about icons isn't purely about painted pieces of wood, it is much wider. Everything can be an icon. All sorts of things in every day life are considered to be physical reminders or representations of spiritual realities. A priest for example is an icon of Christ (which is one reason he wears a beard, as Christ did). Christ was an icon of God (Heb 1:3, 2Cor 4:4, Col 1:15). Man is an icon of God (Ge 1:26, 1Cor 11:7). Christians are icons of Christ (1 Cor 15:49, Ro 8:29).”

All of those points are really red herrings. The iconoclasts were quick to point out that there was a primary icon of Christ already in the church: the Eucharist! That’s why a painted image was redundant, unnecessary, and unauthorized, in contrast to the authorized icon of the bread and wine. Oh yes, they are physical reminders, but they are not likenesses, just as the pascal lamb was a physical reminder, but not a likeness.

Orthodox continued: “So Felix says: "Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched." So when Felix sees a cross, or when he sees a man with arms outstretched, what he really sees is a crucifix. Even if Felix doesn't have more sophisticated painted icons, he is looking at the world in an orthodox fashion. He sees the image of spiritual realities sanctified in ordinary symbols and images. Whether he has actually solidified the image into wood and paint, hardly makes any theological difference.”

Surely anyone will recognize that this claim is preposterous? Hardly makes any theological difference? The primary purpose of calling the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Council was to overthrow the ecumenical council of the previous generation, so that wood and paint could be reintroduced! Hardly any difference? Bah.

Orthodox continued: “Now if, per chance, Christians of that era didn't have images as we now know them, what of it? What if Christians in that particular place and time didn't have painted temples and altars and painted images either because of persecution, or some other reason. What of it. The Orthodox world view is still evident in Felix's thinking. He is venerating the crucifix he sees in everyday things, the Christ with his arms outstretched.”

What of it? “Orthodox” thinks that we can acknowledge that icons were an innovation, and that the legend of the icon-made-without-hands is a superstitious lie, and yet it makes no difference? Surely “Orthodox” should reconsider. After all, if icons were innovated, what else in the liturgy was innovated, and the sweater unravels until we see that “Orthodoxy” is wearing the Emporer’s clothes.

Orthodox wrote: “Still, I don't see the need to assume Felix's experience is standard for all Christians. That they lacked temples then due to the circumstances of persecution doesn't stop even baptists from having temples. And again, as we saw in the debate, Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them. Where is the controversy? Does Francis wish to excommunicate his fellow Westminster Confession following Presbyterians?”

The claim that “Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them,” is the sort of bogus historical claim that gets folks into trouble. Surely some liberal Presbyterians have abandoned the Westminster Standards view on representations of Christ, but it is abundantly clear that the historical Presbyterian churches all uniformly rejected visual representations of Christ for use in worship. While some theologically liberal Presbyterian churches may have incorporated representations of Christ in stained glass (mostly starting towards the beginning of the 20th century), even they did not incorporate those images into worship, venerate those images, or treat those images anything like the way that Catholicism and “Orthodoxy” treat icons.

Orthodox: “Concerning Epiphanius, the church has long felt this work to be spurious, at least since the time of the 7th council. (See John of Damascus' apology) How reasonable this is, I don't know. Long have debates raged about the authenticity of documents, both the canonical books, and others, both in antiquity and today. While nobody is completely off the hook from making their own assessment of such things, I personally want to give the church the benefit of the doubt when the authenticity has been questioned.”

See above. The issue, of course, is not whether the work is spurious (i.e. whether it has been ascribed to its true author), but whether it is ancient. It clearly is ancient. That has never been questioned, and given John of Damscus’ apology, how could it be questioned?

Orthodox wrote: “Concerning Origen, who comments on Christians AND Jews "avoiding images" and "not praying to them". Origen lived in Alexandria till the mid third century, 254 AD. On the other hand, as was mentioned in the debate, we have Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs from the mid third century depicting Mary with Christ child. And Dura-Europos, also from the mid third century, not too far from Origen, contained many images in both Jewish and Christian temples.”

This is an example of historical revisionism. A single image tentatively dated to the mid-third century in an underground catacomb (during a time when Christians were not persecuted), and whose identification with Mary depends on an inscription that is “Hagia Maria” not “Theotokos” or “Christokos” or the “Virgin Mary” or anything like that, becomes “Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs.” The painting is a straw that a desperate mind will grasp.

Orthodox wrote: “So the question is whether Origen draws the distinction that modern Orthodox do, between pagans, having images as deities, and praying TO blocks of wood, compared to the Jewish and Christians who also have images, but images of things real, the saviour, the saints. Well it seems reasonable to me that we should not try and make the fathers and archeology contradict each other. Obviously the Jews did NOT avoid images, as we see in both Exodus itself which commands images, or the factual evidence of Jewish synagogues from the period Origen was alive. As we know, Origen knew Hebrew better than anyone of the period. So do we assume Origen was completely ignorant of the Jews, or do we assume he distinguishes between the false deities in the images as used by pagans and images as used by Christians?”

Again, “Orthodox” revises the historical record. The “house-synagogue” at Dura-Europos is unique (not “synagogues”) and the fact that it contains any representations at all was unprecedented and was unexpected by archaeologists.

The better way of interpreting the evidence is that the town of Dura-Europos was an exception rather than the rule.

Orthodox wrote: “I know which way I want to go. And again, if real Christians "avoid images", as claimed, when is Francis going to disown Presbyterianism?”

Unlike “Orthodox” I don’t have to label everyone that errors in doctrine and practice (from my point of view) as not a “real Christian.” I have been clear that those Presbyterians that have strayed into the use of representations of Christ have strayed from Scripture and from the Westminster Standards.

6. Saint and Sinner noted that “Orthodox” in his “Show us the Canon” post had quoted from liberal and historical-critical writers.

Orthodox responded: “So a liberal or historical-critical scholar is basically someone who disagrees with you? So which of those was Jerome when he said that 2 John was not written by the apostle? Which of those was the Syrian church that didn't accept these books? Which of these was the Ethiopian church that had 1 Clement as scripture? Which of those was Athanasius who didn't have Esther as scripture?”

This abuse is unjustified. S&S provided an accurate characterization of the writers who were referenced, and probably a description that the writers themselves would not disagree with. The alleged mistakes of those that have gone before are a red herring, since they were not the ones cited.

Orthodox continued: “If one of these references can demonstrate that a book is God-breathed scripture, get back to me. In the mean time, I define liberals and historical-critical scholars are those who doubt the orthodox christian faith.”

That’s by no means a standard definition, or even a useful definition. Good scholarship has little to do with one’s religious beliefs.

7. L P Cruz noted that because tradition is self-correcting it is therefore fallible, and if fallible it is not inspired.

Orthodox’s response that tradition “is self-correcting in the sense that it can correct ambiguities,” is obviously a hasty retreat. The logical conclusion, though, is quite interesting: self-correcting tradition is really ever-growing tradition. You see, tradition in this generation can “correct” ambiguities from previous generations. Thus, tradition keeps building on itself. This is a totally different model from tradition that is handed down from the apostles.

So this hasty back-pedaling shows that the term “tradition” is being used equivocally. We can see that again when we look at the application of Vincent’s canon. How can the application of such a canon “correct ambiguities”? Of course, it cannot. In fact, any ambiguities in the generations of the fathers automatically prevent Vincent’s canon from being helpful. So we can see that the two (or more) kinds of tradition are not just equivocal, but they are at each other’s throats!

8. Benjamin asked to hear more about the three Johns and noted that one of his New Testament professors swears by 1 Clement’s canonical status.

Orthodox replied: “Benjamin, you are a presbyterian, and your professor says that 1 Clement is canonical scripture? All I can say is thanks for the help showing that sola scriptura doesn't work.”

This is a very odd statement, not only because many seminaries employ theological liberals, but because the Ethopians (who also swear by 1 Clement’s canonical status) are not Sola Scriptura folks.

9. Albert asked: “Can you tell us the doctrinal content of "traditions" in the context of Paul's Epistle? Thanks.

Unfortunately, Orthodox failed to answer this question meaningfully. Instead, Orthodox wrote: “Traditions for Paul is everything taught by Jesus and the apostles whether in writing or by word of mouth. If you want to know what the full content of the apostolic tradition is, come and see Orthodoxy.”

On the contrary, if Paul were to walk into a modern Orthodox church, he’d think he had found himself in a Greek temple: gold everywhere, incense burning, candles burning, highly vested priests muttering, and so forth. When he realized that it was supposed to be a church, he’d be scandalized, and would not hesitate to tell folks what he thought.

And, of course, the bottom line is that “Orthodox” cannot tell you what the doctrinal content of the “traditions” mentioned in Paul’s Epistle was, except for those actually mentioned in the epistle. Whatever they were, though, they were not the ambiguity-correcting sifting process that “Orthodox” also likes to call “tradition,” and they were not the churches of Paul’s day always getting things right and never straying from the truth.

Orthodox - Answers to List Three

I Cor. 11:19--For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

A fitting Reformation Day (almost) posting.


I can do no better than quote Barnes commentary on 1 Cor 11:19. Those who create disputes in the church where previously there was none, show themselves not approved by God.

"The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. "

Basically, tradition lead to spiritual dyslexia, whereby the person reading the Scriptures is unable to see the text as it actually is.

The text "as it actually is" can withstand a variety of interpretations, as Vincent explained.

should we revise our bibles so as to add the heretical creeds of men with the same unscriptual acceptance of unfounded traditions that should be accpted because a majority claims it is truth or should we stick to scripture alone?


A false dichotomy. Heretical creeds and unfounded traditions vs scripture alone. Scripture itself is a tradition whose knowledge is based on "majority claims" as you put it.


By the way,would we be wrong in doing so?

Well for a start, without the extra-scriptural traditions, you have no canon of scripture.

For another, as Vincent explained, everybody has a different interpretation of scripture.

Orthodox - Answers to List Two

You may find it interesting that many reformed churches are going over to images and using them in various ways

Going over? You make it sound like a new thing, but there are tons of old Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches with stained glass icons.

would you have God lessen the commandments simply because people break them?

The same book of Exodus that says to have no graven image also says to put images of the Cherubim in the temple. The same man who wrote the book carried around a staff with a snake's head. It's all about interpretation. In any case, when you start keeping the Saturday Sabbath as the law commands, get back to me.

Do you believe that Holy Scripture contains all the doctrines we must believe to be saved or do you believe we must know and believe other doctrines outside of and distinct from the bible to be saved?

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. And he didn't even have Holy Scripture.

I don't think that means we ought not follow Holy Scripture.

You just admitted that the church practiced beleiver's baptism up to the second century.

No I didn't. The point was that even protestants such as Francis would admit that many of these things were in place in the 2nd century.

Of course from my point of view, having two sola scripturalists fighting it out over infant baptism, is a help to my argument that it is "unworkable". Thanks for the help.

On this post, I'd like to know if Orthodox knows whether the 7th Council interacted with Scriptural psgs that would seem to proscribe the veneration of and prayer to images.

Of course, we don't pray to images, we pray to Christ represented in the image. If you use one of those video phones, do you talk to the phone, or do you talk to the person shown? It should be noted again that the iconoclasts were not against prayer to saints, veneration of saints, or veneration of holy items. That was not a matter that anyone disputed.

The most famous discussion of the issues contemporary with the 7th council, is of course the apology of St John of Damascus. This is, as one would imagine, full of discussion of the Holy Scripture as it applies to the topic of icons.

This debate came out of a comment of John Chrysostom. Nobody in antiquity was a bigger proponent of reading the scriptures than he. Nobody knew the scriptures better than he. And yet he was an iconodule.

Saint and Sinner quotes some apparently iconoclastic people from the early church

The first epistemological principle is that the Church preserves the true faith. A couple of quotes can't sway one from this.

Even a protestant must hold this principle. Think of the alternative, if the faith isn't preserved. Maybe scripture isn't preserved, either in its text or in its canon.

What if we take (a) skepticism in the Church preserving the true faith, and combine it with (b) an early church quotation and (c) some silence in the historical record and perhaps (d) some conspiracy theories? What do we get?

You get exactly what Basil was talking about shaking down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground.

No rule of faith can stand this radical skepticism, whether it be the canonicity of 2 Peter, 1 John, Revelation or the Pauline epistles, or the originality of the trinitarian formula, or anything else. If lack of clear evidence in the earliest strata is a problem, what of 2 Peter which doesn't appear in the extent evidence until AD 200 ? On the other hand, we have hard archiological evidence of icons in Christian churches and baptistries from AD 240. Are we going to quibble over 40 years? And there are frescos in the catacombs from the mid 2nd century too.

As to these specific quotes, Minucius Felix actually lays out the Orthodox doctrine of icons nicely. The doctrine about icons isn't purely about painted pieces of wood, it is much wider. Everything can be an icon. All sorts of things in every day life are considered to be physical reminders or representations of spiritual realities. A priest for example is an icon of Christ (which is one reason he wears a beard, as Christ did). Christ was an icon of God (Heb 1:3, 2Cor 4:4, Col 1:15). Man is an icon of God (Ge 1:26, 1Cor 11:7). Christians are icons of Christ (1 Cor 15:49, Ro 8:29).

So Felix says: "Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched."

So when Felix sees a cross, or when he sees a man with arms outstretched, what he really sees is a crucifix. Even if Felix doesn't have more sophisticated painted icons, he is looking at the world in an orthodox fashion. He sees the image of spiritual realities sanctified in ordinary symbols and images. Whether he has actually solidified the image into wood and paint, hardly makes any theological difference.

Now if, per chance, Christians of that era didn't have images as we now know them, what of it? What if Christians in that particular place and time didn't have painted temples and altars and painted images either because of persecution, or some other reason. What of it. The Orthodox world view is still evident in Felix's thinking. He is venerating the crucifix he sees in everyday things, the Christ with his arms outstretched.

Still, I don't see the need to assume Felix's experience is standard for all Christians. That they lacked temples then due to the circumstances of persecution doesn't stop even baptists from having temples. And again, as we saw in the debate, Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them. Where is the controversy? Does Francis wish to excommunicate his fellow Westminster Confession following Presbyterians?

Concerning Epiphanius, the church has long felt this work to be spurious, at least since the time of the 7th council. (See John of Damascus' apology) How reasonable this is, I don't know. Long have debates raged about the authenticity of documents, both the canonical books, and others, both in antiquity and today. While nobody is completely off the hook from making their own assessment of such things, I personally want to give the church the benefit of the doubt when the authenticity has been questioned.

Concerning Origen, who comments on Christians AND Jews "avoiding images" and "not praying to them". Origen lived in Alexandria till the mid third century, 254 AD. On the other hand, as was mentioned in the debate, we have Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs from the mid third century depicting Mary with Christ child. And Dura-Europos, also from the mid third century, not too far from Origen, contained many images in both Jewish and Christian temples.

So the question is whether Origen draws the distinction that modern Orthodox do, between pagans, having images as deities, and praying TO blocks of wood, compared to the Jewish and Christians who also have images, but images of things real, the saviour, the saints. Well it seems reasonable to me that we should not try and make the fathers and archeology contradict each other. Obviously the Jews did NOT avoid images, as we see in both Exodus itself which commands images, or the factual evidence of Jewish synagogues from the period Origen was alive. As we know, Origen knew Hebrew better than anyone of the period. So do we assume Origen was completely ignorant of the Jews, or do we assume he distinguishes between the false deities in the images as used by pagans and images as used by Christians?

I know which way I want to go. And again, if real Christians "avoid images", as claimed, when is Francis going to disown Presbyterianism?

You seem to only be reading commentaries written by liberals or other historical-critical scholars. Perhaps you should read conservative works as well to see how we address those problems.

So a liberal or historical-critical scholar is basically someone who disagrees with you? So which of those was Jerome when he said that 2 John was not written by the apostle? Which of those was the Syrian church that didn't accept these books? Which of these was the Ethiopian church that had 1 Clement as scripture? Which of those was Athanasius who didn't have Esther as scripture?

If one of these references can demonstrate that a book is God-breathed scripture, get back to me. In the mean time, I define liberals and historical-critical scholars are those who doubt the orthodox christian faith.

Tradition is self correcting and thus fallible, if it is fallible it is not inspired.

This was already addressed in a follow up to Francis. It is self-correcting in the sense that it can correct ambiguities.

Fascinating stuff. I would like to hear a more thorough examination of the the three Johns. One of my New Testament professors swears by 1 Clement's canonical status.

Benjamin, you are a presbyterian, and your professor says that 1 Clement is canonical scripture?

All I can say is thanks for the help showing that sola scriptura doesn't work.

Can you tell us the doctrinal content of "traditions" in the context of Paul's Epistle? Thanks.

Traditions for Paul is everything taught by Jesus and the apostles whether in writing or by word of mouth. If you want to know what the full content of the apostolic tradition is, come and see Orthodoxy.