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".

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.

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 7^th 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.

TurretinFan - Answers to List Three

Answers to List Number 3

1. Dead Men Hold No Debates

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

Godith makes an excellent point, and this verse should have been included in the original post. While heresy is itself a bad thing, it is a fact of life for true churches that they will have to deal with heresy from time to time.

2. Is Basil the Great Your Father?

Lucian asserted: “Yes, he is.” One wonders whether Lucian would have agreed with Basil about the procedure of not resting on tradition alone.

3. Is Athenasius [sic – as originally posted] your Father?

Lucian corrected the present author’s spelling of Athanasius’ name. Thanks Lucian.

4. No Strength in Numbers

Lucian provided the following list of alleged membership numbers:
Catholics are 1.2 Billion.
Protestants are 600 Million.
Orthodox are 250 Million.
Monophysites are 60 Million.

I don’t think that those numbers significantly affect the point of the post.

5. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
One anonymous commenter asserted that “this is a very disorganized debate”
Sadly, this is somewhat true. There is a roadmap post that tries to organize things, as well as a “sorting it out” sidebar. The ultimate solution would be to customize blogger a lot more than it currently is designed to be customized.

6. Moderator Note: Audience Comments

EgoMakarios wrote:

Basically, tradition lead to spiritual dyslexia, whereby the person reading the Scriptures is unable to see the text as it actually is. The Catholic reading in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph didn't know Mary "till she brought forth her firstborn son" reads in place of that "ever." The Protestant reading Colossians 2:12 that you are buried with Christ in baptism "in which you are also raised with Him" sees instead "in which is a mere symbol or prior spiritual resurrection." The paedobaptist reading the next portion of that same verse, that it is "by faith in the operation of God" reads instead "without faith in the operation of God." Their traditions blind them to what Scripture really says. Tradition causes spiritual dyslexia whereby they do not any longer see the words that appear in Scripture but rather see the words that would appear if their tradition were not a lie from Satan.

Actually, as much as I disagree with EM about some of the examples he provided, his basic point is correct. Our traditions (whether we make them a binding authority, as “Orthodox” does and as the RCC does; or whether we simply make them a assistant authority, as most of the rest of us do) can sometimes blind us, particularly if we are unaware that something is part of our tradition. You’d be surprised, perhaps, how many people are shocked to discover that there is no apple mentioned in the account of the fall of man.

7. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
Rhology commented: “Audience questions - good call.”

Thanks, Rhology!

8. Moderator Note: Audience Questions Closing
Manuel Culwell wrote: “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? By the way,would we be wrong in doing so?”

a) No, we should not revise our Bibles to include creeds, heretical or not.
b) Majority is not the way to determine the truth, but the only time that kind of assertion has been made more or less explicit in this debate was in “Orthodox”’s discussion of the Great Schism: even Vincent’s near unanimity is not just a simple majority rule. As a practical matter, it seems that “Orthodox” and the commenter “Lucian” want to make acceptance of representations of God in worship a matter of majority rule, but Scripture stands in opposition.
c) Of course we would be wrong in doing so, because we are not divinely inspired to write Scripture.

TurretinFan - Answers to List One

Answers to List One - Questions for TurretinFan

1. Tradition and Basil

Jeff asked: “If you had the chance to respond to the Basil citations, what would you say? Or, what is the Protestant understanding here?”

Quotation 1:
"The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

Response:
Reformed Christians would side procedurally with Basil’s opponents here, and agree with them that the Christian practice is to provide written proof, since anyone can wave their hands and claim “unwritten tradition” as the support for their position. Basil makes fun of them by comparing them to debtors who come to court demanding that their creditors produce proof that the money is owed. We’ll see later whether Basil considers these folks Christians or not.

Quotation 2:
"In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity." Chapter XXVII, ibid

Response:
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.

b) Furthermore, Scripture clearly contradicts Basil here, for Scripture clearly indicates that the apostles’ doctrines were preached openly. John’s writings are particularly strong as an antidote to Gnosticism. Or simply consider:

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

Acts 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

c) We would also note with a wry smile that if Basil were right, it would be impossible to use Vincent’s canon, unless the Apostles and Fathers simply did not do a very good job of keeping these secrets.

Quotation 3
"Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?" ibid

We Reformed Christians would note that it is interesting that Basil takes for granted that his opponents the alleged “whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine” (from quotation 1 above) would agree with the confession of faith. In other words, these are not outsiders, but Christians with whom Basil is battling. Basil seems to think that his opponents’ resistance to the use of one particular preposition rather than another is senseless, to paraphrase: “Can’t they just accept that the different preposition has been used everywhere throughout Christendom (even in churches that have generally remained faithful) even if it is not from Scripture? But if the insist on using the exact words of Scripture, where will they find the whole confession of faith, or the details of various items of liturgy?” In other words, Basil is accusing his opponents of stretching the matter beyond its breaking point. If you are going to deny Basil the use of a preposition because a different preposition is used in Scripture, will you deny yourself words like Trinity, which are also not found ippisimus verbis in Scripture?

We would also note that it is interesting that the writings of Basil’s opponents have not been preserved, except in this way, by Basil’s own writings being preserved. It’s one of the problems of trying to make an historical investigation: sometimes only one half a controversy has been preserved.

Finally, we would note that this controversy between Basil and the other Christians of his day is something like the filioque controversy with respect to which the Greeks and Romans officially split. Of course, by that time, the parties were much further removed from the apostles, and so both sides could easily wave their hands and assert unbroken tradition going back to the fathers and apostles, while accusing the other side of improperly innovating or rejecting the apostolic tradition.

Quotation 4:
"Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of today — because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently, — at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned." - Chapter XXIX ibid

Notice the camel’s nose argument: if this is the only unwritten thing that we accept as apostolic, throw it out: but if there are a host of such things, then you cannot kick this one out.

More relevantly to the topic, however, here Basil starts to point toward something similar to what Vincent is getting at, though clearly it is not quite the same thing. Basil says he surveyed all his spiritual predecessors and found that some used the preposition and some used the conjunction. He argues that he did not invent the preposition, and he claims that the preposition had apostolic authority. It’s Basil’s claim that in earlier generations both forms were used, and no one accused those using the preposition of heresy, so it must be ok, and not cause a loss of sense. It’s an intuitive argument, even if it lacks binding authority.

Basil makes reference to the court of law, but Basil’s analogy is a bit off. Yes, oral testimony is permitted in many things: but not as to the content of the law itself. That is to say, the law is written and speaks for itself. Witnesses are called as to factual matters: did the man kill the other? or is that Mr. Smith’s horse? Witnesses are not called as to legal matters.

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.

Quotation 5:
"Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day." Chapter XXX ibid

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. If, perhaps, all Christians everywhere held to something we could say that it cannot be that we all have got it wrong, but Basil’s opponents’ easy answer is: then why is not in our memories? If the answer is that they are not part of elite initiated spiritual class, the “Gnostic” shoe fits Basil on this point.

But recall “Orthodox”’s solution: just deny the full Christianity of those outside your group.

2. Is Athanasius your Father?
Lucian had two comments which amounted to the same thing: Lucian questioned that the Gnostics alleged an unwritten Apostolic tradition (based on the dozens of Gnostic Apocryphal works).

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. Much of what we know about Gnostic writings comes from recovery of secret stashes of Gnostic writings, and the writings of a few early fathers against Gnosticism.

In some (perhaps most) cases, the Gnostics invented these writings (such as the apocryphal gospels and epistles) long after the Apostles had died. They tried to answer Christian objections to the sudden appearance of these works by alleging that they had been transmitted orally in secret.


3. Chained to a Wall
Lucian quoted my words: “the historic Christian approach, as evidenced by the Bereans in Scripture.”

Lucian responded: “YET, according to Your own belief, You perpetually deny what You just now affirmed (You rather think that the historic Christian consensus, "unfortunately", didn't follow the example and teachings of Scripture). -- Why are You self-conflicting here?”

I answer: The problem here is an inability on Lucian’s part to read carefully. For some reason when Lucian hears the words “historic Christian” he starts imagining the propaganda put forth by Rome and others about Christianity having a single homogeneous view of doctrine through all the ages.

In fact, the historic Christian approach is to compare doctrine to Scripture. Do Christians always get it right? Of course we do not. We are human, after all. What do we see when we turn to most of the Fathers and early Christian writers? We seem the immersed in Scripture, and we see them developing their doctrines and correcting the doctrines of others from there. We see Christians challenging other Christians to prove things from Scripture. Sometimes we see misinterpretations, but that is to be expected because humans are involved.

We don’t accept Lucian’s imagined “historic Christian consensus.” There always have been and always will be fighting and divisions among Christians, until we are glorified in heaven.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that not all Christians have consistently followed the practice of according Scripture primacy. Because we do not imagine a fairytale castle of “historic Christian consensus” we can comfortably admit that a few “fathers” or even many “fathers” disagreed.

4. Mockery of Spirit’s Testimony a Red Herring
Lucian quoted my words: “It feels like persuasion, conviction of fact.”

Lucian asked: “Have You been reading much of Malcolm X lately, ... or ?”

I answer: I’ve never read the man and from the reviews I’ve seen I have no plans to do so. It was a silly question, and it got an appropriate answer.

5. The Council of 754
Lucian commented: “Anyone can call himself anything: that's not a problem, believe me. The problem is if there're also people to bear witness to the truth of those sayings, for anyone who testifies of himself is a liar. The Fathers are (by definition) the masculine element of the equation: they "give" of themselves the "seed" of God's Word (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8). The Church is the feminine element: she "receives". -- have their [rejected] teachings been "received" by the people of God, the pillar and foundation of all truth?”

I answer: Your metaphor is contra-Scriptural. The Scriptural metaphor is that Christ is the groom and the church (all Christians) is the bride. He is the vine, we are the branches. He is the shepherd we are the sheep. There is a sense in which the elders (all elders, not just those of yesteryear) are shepherds as well. Like Peter, they are under-shepherds of Christ and feed the flock on His behalf. But they do not offer themselves, but Christ to the people. They do not give of themselves, and their gospel is not their own.

The truth is objective, not subjective. Whether the truth is received or rejected is important only to the status of the subject. The stone that the builders rejected has become the head cornerstone. The Jewish nation was the church of God until Pentecost, and yet clearly the truth of Gospel was in now way dependent on the acceptance of the truth by the people of Israel. The nation of Israel was condemned for its unbelief, and such is the fate of all bodies of men who reject the truth, whether they call themselves Christian or not. As Lucian correctly noted, “anyone can call himself anything.” Indeed, Jesus Himself cautioned that there will be many who will say “Lord, Lord,” but will not enter into heaven.

Lucian continued: “Apropos corruption of dogma via foreign, pagan influences: guess what foreign, pagan religion appeared on the face of the earth about the time the iconoclasts had their way with the Orthodox?”

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. Furthermore, the original iconophiles (who persecuted the iconoclasts and burnt the historical documentation against icons) tended to accuse the iconoclasts of being Judaizers, not Muslims. Historical revisionism, it seems, is favored not only by the iconophiles but their spiritual descendents.

Lucian quoted my words: “We've already established the relative paucity of early priests and doctors affirming the use of icons in worship”

Lucian responded: “Why? ... has anyone by any chance denied icons? ONE example?”

I answer: It’s vain to look for rejection of the practice before the practice existed, except among the works of the prophets. You will find it there in John’s epistles.

Lucian also quoted my words: “(you could only identify a small handful of alleged teachers of the doctrine, while you acknowledge that there were dozens of doctors and thousands upon thousands of priests).”

Lucian asked: “So? Name at least ONE that said anything to the contrary.”

I answer: Lucian seems to miss the point. Let’s be clear. Vincent’s canon does not call for acceptance of doctrines that simply lacked debate in the early church. Vincent’s canon calls for acceptance of doctrines that were believed by all or nearly all of the folks in the early church.

Let me illustrate with a reduction to absurdity:

Suppose we dug up the library of an obscure and long-perished monastery in some desert region and found 100 witnesses (apparently from various writers – some bearing the names of “fathers” of the church – collected in a small library) testifying to a view that Mary’s mother was immaculately conceived and bodily assumed, and also testifying that when Jesus spoke he frequently lisped. We cannot find any early fathers who contradict either of those views.

Do we therefore automatically accept those writings as presenting the correct view? Of course we would not. Would such documents pass Vincent’s test? Of course they would not. Vincent’s test is not about finding uncontradicted views, but about finding the unanimous or nearly unanimous views. Twenty-five (even if that number were accurate, which it is not – and even if we could be sure of the authenticity of the writings, which we cannot) is not nearly unanimous.

Lucian continued: “Christ Himself said: if these will shut up, the stones will speak for them: name to me at least ONE un-decorated, un-icon-clad Church building found among the ruins of ancient Christian cities. -- doesn't common-semse tell You that all these "thousands upon thousands" of priests had to serve SOMEWHERE (I mean, they're priests, right?) -- so why weren't they shocked and horrified by the presence of "all za colours" on the Church-walls?”

I answer:

a) It’s pretty well known that church buildings were a later development of Christianity. You cannot very conveniently have church buildings when you are under intense persecution. The Jewish synagogues where the very early church would have met were not – from the historical records we have – icon-clad. The pagan temples, however, were.

b) It’s fairly obvious that only the temple-like buildings are going to survive in ruins for extended periods of time. In other words, an undecorated wooden hall is not going to be a recognizable church after 100 years of lying in ruins. Thus, the analysis employs the statistical fallacy of filtering.

c) There are not a particularly large number of ruined ancient churches to analyze.

d) The ruined ancient churches we can analyze are mostly post 7th EC anyhow.

Lucian concluded: “P.S.: passages from works directed against paganism don't particularilly impress us. Try something else for a change... OK?”

I answer: You engage in the practice of pagans, worshipping idols, so you should expect to hear from the passages of works that are directed to your pagan practices.

Audience Questions - List Three for Both or Neither Debater

General questions addressed to no one in particular or to both debaters equally (in the moderator’s judgment)

1. Dead Men Hold No Debates

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.

--Godith

2. Is Basil the Great Your Father?
(from Lucian)
Yes, he is.

3. Is Athenasius your Father?
(from Lucian)
Dear friend, neither Athenasius, nor Athnasius are our fathers.

ATHANASIUS, however, is.

4. No Strength in Numbers
(from Lucian)
Catholics are 1.2 Billion.

Protestants are 600 Million.

Orthodox are 250 Million.

Monophysites are 60 Million.

5. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
(from Anonymous)
this is a very disorganized debate

6. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
(from EgoMakarios)
Basically, tradition lead to spiritual dyslexia, whereby the person reading the Scriptures is unable to see the text as it actually is. The Catholic reading in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph didn't know Mary "till she brought forth her firstborn son" reads in place of that "ever." The Protestant reading Colossians 2:12 that you are buried with Christ in baptism "in which you are also raised with Him" sees instead "in which is a mere symbol or prior spiritual resurrection." The paedobaptist reading the next portion of that same verse, that it is "by faith in the operation of God" reads instead "without faith in the operation of God." Their traditions blind them to what Scripture really says. Tradition causes spiritual dyslexia whereby they do not any longer see the words that appear in Scripture but rather see the words that would appear if their tradition were not a lie from Satan.

7. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
(from Rhology)
Audience questions - good call.

8. Moderator Note: Audience Questions Closing
(from Manuel Culwell)

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

Audience Questions - List Two for "Orthodox"

Questions for the Negative writer, “Orthodox”

1. Tradition and Basil
Ortho:

Truly Francis has a dislike of icons. You may find it interesting that many reformed churches are going over to images and using them in various ways, but would you have God lessen the commandments simply because people break them?

--Godith

2. From Wittenberg to Antioch
Orthodox,

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?

Thanks,

Jeff

3. How Much Heresy can you stomach
(from EgoMakarios)
After listing infant baptism on your list, you state "if your list does contain most of the above items, that means you would have advocated leaving the established church in the early 2nd century."

You just admitted that the church practiced beleiver's baptism up to the second century. You might as well be admitting that your church is the result of an apostacy that took place in the third century when infant baptism was brought in from Paganism, since that is what your church is. Interesting also that this admission shows both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the vaunted Reformed Church to be in error. A return to Sola Scriptura is shown to be needed by both sides of this discussion, therefore.

4. The Protestant Revision of History
(from Rhology)
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. I'd like to know which psgs and where I can find their discussions thereof.

And if they did not, I'd like to know why a lover of the Word of God would take the decision of the 7th Council as serious and/or authoritative.

5. The Protestant Revision of History
(from Saint and Sinner)
Even the Roman Catholic, Ludwig Ott, wrote:

“Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).”

-Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974), p. 320.

“Why have they [i.e. the Christians] no altars, no temples, no acknowledged images?”

-Caecilius, as found in Minucius Felix’s The Octavius of Minucius Felix 10

Origen:

“As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they arc afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;” and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God…we may reply that it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; *but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images*.”

-Origen, Against Celsus 7.64-65

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-62.htm#P11182_3031247

Epiphanius of Salamis:

“Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort-opposed as they are to our religion-shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.”

-Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, The Letters of St. Jerome 51.9

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P1778_425555

6. Show us the Canon
(from Saint and Sinner)
Orthodox,

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-Tremper-Longman/dp/0310263417/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9945172-2093417?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192239825&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-9945172-2093417

OR, if you want a smaller, more popular-level book which focuses on the NT canon:

http://www.amazon.com/Books-Church-Suppressed-Fiction-Truth/dp/0825460964/ref=sr_1_1/103-9945172-2093417?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192240904&sr=1-1

7. Tradition Self-Correcting
(from L P Cruz)
Tradition is self correcting and thus fallible, if it is fallible it is not inspired.

LPC

8. Show us the Canon
(from Benjamin P. Glaser)
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.

9. Seek no farther
(from Albert)
"Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken."

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