Essay. Eastern Orthodoxy, part 3
When encountering adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, the issue of authority is pivotal. Orthodoxy and Rome agree, at least formally, with Protestants on at least this much: God is the final authority and only he is in a position reveal himself to mankind. Thus if we are to know anything about him –– or, indeed, anything about ourselves and the world around us –– he must reveal himself to us. The doctrine of divine revelation necessarily plays a central role in all Christian traditions. But where is this revelation to be found? The Protestant answer is summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”
While God reveals himself through his creation (general or natural revelation) and this revelation leaves men without excuse, the corruption of sin has made men unable to interpret this revelation correctly. Consequently, God gave special revelation through many means to his people to declare to them the way of salvation. And though this revelation previously came by many means (theophanies, prophets, signs, miracles), it culminated in Jesus Christ. With the accomplishment of redemption through Christ and the (speaking through his authoritative apostles) God reveals no more to mankind. In order to ensure that he previous revelation would not be lost, God inscripturated it in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. This now is our only source of special revelation. This recognition of Scripture’s supreme authority was the battle cry of the Reformation. The reformers taught and defended the view of sola scriptura; Scripture alone is the final authority for the church. The reformers contended that this view of Scripture is taught by Scripture itself. And if they are correct, the debate between Protestantism and Rome (and so also Eastern Orthodoxy) is effectively over since each of these traditions recognizes Biblical authority. That is, if this recognized authority teaches its own sole authority, all other purported authorities are thereby invalidated.
But proponents of Orthodoxy do not concede this point. They dispute the Protestant interpretation of Scripture and insist that there are other ways God reveals himself. The nature of this dispute is the very heart of the issue that divides Protestantism and Orthodoxy.
Authority and Tradition in Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthodoxy agrees with Basil of Caesarea in affirming that there is authoritative tradition outside of Scripture: “We do not content ourselves with what was reported in Acts and in the Epistles and the Gospels; but, both before and after reading them, we add other doctrines, received from oral teaching and carrying much weight in the mystery of the faith.”
This is confirmed by all Orthodox theologians. Panagiotis Bratsiotis, professor of theology at Athens University, is representative. “In Orthodoxy the sources of Christian doctrine are the Bible and Tradition. Together they form the treasure-house of supernatural revelation.”
The problem with oral tradition, however, is that it is notoriously unreliable. There is always the possibility, indeed likelihood, that such tradition will distorted in transmission. The further one is from the source of the oral tradition, the less reliable that tradition is. This problem of passing information on orally is well attested by our common experience. How often have we heard a story or rumor that, when we track down its source, turns out to be completely different from the original?
Indeed, Scripture itself provides an example of the distortion of an oral tradition. At the end of his Gospel, the Apostle John felt it necessary to clear up a misunderstanding regarding a statement Jesus made concerning him (John). Speaking about John, Jesus said to Peter, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” (John 21:22) The other disciples misunderstood Jesus to mean that John would not die, but John takes the opportunity to correct this error (John 21:23).
In a similar vein, Paul praises the Corinthians for holding fast to the traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2), but then goes on to correct them for departing from tradition (see 11:3, 17; 12:1-3). What is remarkable is that while Paul ministered in Corinth for over a year he still needed to send at least three letters to correct their errors. Thus even in the apostolic age, oral tradition is shown to be unreliable.
Not only is oral tradition easily distorted because of human frailty, but men often have a motivation for misunderstanding what was said. Parents know this very well. When Mommy chastises little Johnny for not cleaning his room, Johnny’s excuse is predictable, “I thought you wanted me to clean it tomorrow.” Johnny is motivated to intentionally distort the clear instructions of his parents in order to escape culpability. How much more do wicked men (and the evil one) wish to corrupt and suppress God’’s clear revelation in order to escape divine judgment.
More sophisticated Orthodox theologians recognize this inherent problem of oral tradition (though not nearly to the extent that they should) and understand that there needs to be a way to test such tradition for authenticity. Bishop Timothy Ware concedes: “Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true… There is a difference between ‘‘Tradition’’ and ‘‘traditions’’. [The Orthodox Church has had to] distinguish more carefully between Tradition and traditions. The task of discrimination is never easy.’’
To help in the task of discrimination, Ware asserts that the Orthodox Church recognizes a hierarchy of Traditions. At the top is Scripture and the doctrinal definitions of the ecumenical councils. These traditions are used to test lesser traditions for authenticity and value. Let us concentrate on the authority of ecumenical councils for the moment.
The Authority of Church Councils
According to Bishop Ware, “The doctrinal definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible.” Recall that Orthodoxy recognizes seven councils as ecumenical. Rome, however, recognizes twenty-one. Given this disagreement, there must be some criterion to distinguish ecumenical councils from other councils. This criterion is typically said to be that the council is representative of all the church, having bishops from all, or at the least, the vast majority of patriarchates and dioceses. The first six councils have relatively strong credentials in this regard since they were attended by bishops from all over Christendom. Nevertheless, this criterion of ecumenicity and thus authority is shown to be faulty for at least two reasons.
First, since both Rome and Orthodoxy endorse this principle, and since they come up with a different number of councils, this criterion is in itself insufficient. Because Rome and Orthodoxy each claim to be the true apostolic Church, their application of this criterion is quite different. Rome, of course, deems a council ecumenical when it is represented by bishops from diocese under the Pope’s authority, for Orthodoxy, the bishops must be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Second, there have been church councils that satisfy the criterion of being ecumenical, but are rejected as such because their pronouncements were heretical. The most notorious of these is the Council of Ephesus in 449, the so-called Robber Council. At this council the monophysite heresy (Christ has only one nature) was endorsed. Two years later at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 this heresy was repudiated. Nevertheless, on the basis of the ecumenical criterion alone, the pronouncement of the former council should have just as much authority as the latter. Indeed, five eastern churches (the Syrian Church of Antioch, the Syrian Church of India, the Coptic Church, the Armenian Church and the Ethiopian Church) sided with Ephesus over Chalcedon to accept the pronouncements of Ephesus and reject the Symbol of Chalcedon.
Another embarrassing example of this criterion of ecumenicity being met is the second reunion council of Florence between Rome and the East (1438-9). At this council the East, in order to obtain aid in fending off vicious attacks from the Turks, acknowledged papal authority, the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Roman doctrine of purgatory. Dogmas which Orthodoxy has before and after rejected as heretical.
These examples clearly illustrate that the criterion of ecumenicity, by itself, is insufficient in establishing a council as authoritative.
Ultimate Authority of the Church
At this point the obvious recourse is to fall back on another criterion to establish a council as authoritative. Protestants, of course, maintain that the authority of a council’s pronouncement must be based upon the superior authority of Scripture. Orthodoxy offers a different defense of conciliar authority. According to the Eastern Church, the authority of a council is established when its ecumenicity is recognized by the Church itself. Thus the ecumenicity of a council can only be established by the Church. Indeed, not only councils, but Scripture itself derives its authority from the Church’s
According to the Orthodox theologian George Florovsky, “The church is ecclesia, an assembly which is never adjourned. In other words, the ultimate authority –– and the ability to discern the truth in faith –– is vested in the church …… The teaching authority of the ecumenical councils is grounded in the infallibility of the church. The ultimate authority is vested in the church, which is forever the pillar and the foundation of truth.” Thus, the domain of the Church’s authority does not range merely over the councils and other traditions, but over Scripture as well. According to Ware, “It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority.”
Putting the remarkable nature of its claim that it is the church that establishes Scripture rather than vice versa aside, how does Orthodoxy defend this contention that it, and it alone, is the one true catholic and apostolic church?
The Orthodox Church as the one true church
The initial problem with its assertion that it alone is the true church is that many other churches make the same claim. The Churches of the East, Rome, and many cults say the same thing. And so the question is not whether Eastern Orthodoxy views itself as the apostolic church, the question is whether it is the apostolic church. What proof does it offer? While the Protestant church appeals to Scripture at this point, Orthodoxy cannot make such defense since it is the church that is the basis of Scripture’s authority. Thus the Orthodox Church must appeal to itself, the mystical body of Christ, as establishing its own claim to supreme authority.
Thus, we have come at last to Orthodoxy’s ultimate self-attesting authority. And in order to analyze this claim we must engage in transcendental reasoning. We must offer an internal critique in order to discover whether its ultimate authority avoids inconsistency and arbitrariness and whether it provides the necessary preconditions of human experience. In my next (and final) installment on this study of Eastern Orthodoxy, I shall offer such a critique and try to demonstrate that it fails, on its own terms, to make good its claim to be the one true church.
This has been informative. Thank you.
Comment by JonathanB — September 18, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Dear in Christ Mike,
I will again attempt ot explain.
1- Authority and Tradition in Orthodoxy: The Tradition of the Church is not oral but written. Holy Scripture is part of it, and so are the writings of the Church Fathers, including the ecumenical Councils. Of course there is a hierarchy of authority, primacy being given to Scripture. Similarly there is a primacy of authority within the Bible itself, more weight being given to the 4 Gospels.
2- The Authority of Church Councils: A council is ecumenical only if it confesses the truth and is accepted by the conscience of the Church in future generations. There is absolutely no legalistic, external, or human criterion that makes a council ecumenical. Only its conformity with previously revealed and established truth makes it valid, which should be discerned in the Holy Spirit. Since Rome fell away from the church in the 11th century, all its subsequent councils cannot be ecumenical or be part of the true Church.
3- Ultimate Authority of the Church: It is the Church which decided which writings to be included in the Bible, and which others to be excluded. The Scriptures derive their authority from the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. This has its precedent in the first Church council in Jerusalem, which took place to decide what part of Moses’ Law had to be kept by the gentiles. “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28). Ultimate authority in the Church belongs to God, who established it through the Holy Tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers. Any new decision has to be consonnant with all the previously established Holy Tradition of the Church, which includes the Bible. A Patriarch, Pope, the see of Constantinople, or any majority of any bishops, clergy, or laity, cannot change the truth. If they depart from the boundaries of Orthodoxy, they FALL AWAY from the Church and are cut off. A very important canon of Orthodoxy enjoins the clergy AND laity to separate themselves from any bishop teaching heresy BEFORE he is condemend officially by any synod. By doing so, the canon says that the faithful have not created a schism, but have rather prevented it by separating from a false shepherd. This has to be doen through discernment and is the responsibility of every Orthodox Christian, laity or clergy. To the degree that each orthodox christian is in the truth, he can defend the truth against false bishops who may appear externally orthodox, but are inwardly wolves in sheep’s skin.
4- The Orthodox Church as the one true church: Any church can claim that is is the true church, but this of course does not make it so. Two criteria are needed to make this assertion:
- organic continuity with the early church, which is apostolic succession
- spiritual continuity with the early church, which is the unchanged teaching of the original faith.
Ultimately, a seeker will not perceive the true Church unless he has purified himself to some degree of his passions through God’s grace, and is seeking the truth with a pure heart. The truth is perceived spiritually, rationally, and supra-rationally. “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt.16:17)
In Christ Yahweh Who unites us,
Jerjis
Comment by Jerjis Alajaji — October 30, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
I appreciate your posts on the subject. Did I miss it, or have you yet posted your next installment? For various reasons, I would actually appreciate an even more in-depth look at Eastern Orthodoxy if you have the time to do it. I would also appreciate if you were able to address Western Rite Orthodoxy in a post, since that seems to be the way many who entertained some Reformed notions end up sliding away from them.
Thanks, this has been a valuable service. You also couldn’t have asked for a better opportunity to demonstrate the problems of Eastern Orthodoxy than with Jerjis’ own statements in defense. He demonstrates amply why it should be rejected “from the horse’s mouth,” so to speak.
M.A.B.
Comment by Matthew — December 11, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Dear M.A.B.
I am sorry to see that you have missed most of what I have taken the time to explain. Hopefully some good seeds have been implanted there for the future.
“Well spake the Holy Spirit by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Acts 18:15-27)
Comment by Jerjis T. Alajaji — December 14, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Jerjis,
I have not missed what you have said, but rather I have comprehended it, I believe, pretty much completely.
In discussions and debates it is my experience that often someone will exclaim “You just don’t understand!” when in fact that is not the case. There is understanding, and that understanding leads to a rejection of the position.
I don’t disagree with you because I do not understand you, but precisely because I do, and I believe what you are saying is false.
That’s a good quote from Acts, and I wonder that you don’t see the irony in your using it. I wish you Godspeed in your journey, and hope in God’s providence it will lead you to a faithful church in time.
M.A.B.
Comment by Matthew — December 14, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
“In order to ensure that he previous revelation would not be lost, God inscripturated it in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. This now is our only source of special revelation. ”
No, it is not. There is a ‘HOLY Tradition,’ which is ALSO mentioned in Scripture. [”Therefore, brethren, HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS which you were taught- wther by word (ORAL) or our epistle (WRITTEN).”- IIThess. 2:15. So, either you must admit that there existed a TRADITION different from that of the apostate jews [Mk. 7:3], or you lump it with the false tradition, to ease your conscience. If you are honest, you DO admit that TRADITION that St. Paul commends, but then you have to admit that you DON’T FOLLOW it, for, if you did, you’d have to also admit you cannot follow it, simply because your group (whether Baptists, Methodists, calvinist, or other) DID NOT EXIST until 1500 years AFTER the Formation of the ONE, Holy, Catholic Church!
Of course, this the Protestants will not admit to (as they are a-historical, and cannot claim a linear descent from the Apostles, thus, no one can, and therefore, Orthodoxy is ‘just as good as we are,’ which is a false construct, built on a false foundation, dommed to error..
“They dispute the Protestant interpretation of Scripture and insist that there are other ways God reveals himself. ”
You confuse heretical romanism, and her filioquist theology (which you all share, as bastard children of Rome) with Patristic, Orthodox theology. Orthodox do NOT consider there to be ‘other ways’, she considers only ONE way to be valid, as opposed to the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Originists, etc. ALL OF WHICH she defended the Apostolic Faith from, before you were even ‘born’ !! ONLY the Orthodox manner of interpreting Scripture is valid, because it is the ONLY one continuously handed down from the Apostles! You cannot claim that, so you make a ‘paper pope’ out of only 4/5ths of Scripture, to avoid the Apocryphal books, which make a mockery of your ’sola scriptura’ mentality. Luther wanted to exclude james and Revelation. IMAGINE if he had succeeded! YET, YOU accept them. So much for your ’sola scriptura’ leader. Bah.
“And so the question is not whether Eastern Orthodoxy views itself as the apostolic church, the question is whether it is the apostolic church. What proof does it offer? While the Protestant church appeals to Scripture at this point, Orthodoxy cannot make such defense since it is the church that is the basis of Scripture’s authority. ”
your filioquist rationalism sickens me more and more, as I deal with the self-sufficient of Calvinism. You avoid the first question you ask, because you KNOW you cannot claim it for yourself. You therefore posit a ‘break’ between the witness of Holy Writ, and the witness (which Scripture makes of it, cf. above!) for a TRADITION handed down. YOU rupture the space-time continuum for your balderdash attempts at legitimacy, because the Scripture confirms the Church, just as much as the Church confirms the Scripture! You Calvinists do the same, but pretend the 1500 years of COMPLETE ABSENCE of your ‘communion’ is NOT IMPORTANT.
It is, and you are without grace, without sacraments, without elders, presbyters, or intelliegence. Anathema sit to such views.
Comment by Fr John — December 18, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Fr. John– just to address one of your points, viz., that Protestantism “started” in 1500 or thereabouts.
This is only plausible if church reform is excluded. The German, Swiss, and Scottish reformation was not a matter of starting new churches, but of cleaning out the superstitions, casting out unbelieving prelates, and continuing in a more pure form. Likewise, the church I am a member of has direct continuity from the Scottish reformed church.
We grant presbyterial succession and deny the right to auto-bootstrap a new “church.” Thus, we would join you in criticising bogus autonomy-churches such as the CREC and a hundred thousand “evangelical” churches in America, but we don’t believe it applies to us.
I’d be curious how you could refute our claim in principle. It would seem that you would either have to deny that reform is ever possible, or say that a thorough-going reform within a nation is not legitimate unless ratified by the church in all the other nations. But the latter would be tantamount to denying that reform is possible.
Comment by Tim H — December 18, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Tim,
To quickly answer your question, I would say, that yes, reform is possible, when an individual, group, or nation, abandons the heretical dry wells of catholicism, protestantism, nestorianism, or monophysitism, and seeks baptism in the One Orthodox Catholic Church. Reform “from within” a heretical denomination is impossible, because the grace of the Holy Spirit has to be aquired from the True Church. One has to leave his father’s house, and be grafted into the True Israel of the Church, like Rahab and Ruth of old.
In Christ Yahweh,
Comment by Jerjis T. Alajaji — December 20, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
John and JTA,
Ephesians 4 defines the only kind of true ecumenicism there is. As the fifth and sixth verses point out, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in us all.
Your false accusations of heresy are a source of grief, but not of worry. We have the Word of God. Our Lord is Christ. Our Faith is in Him. We are baptized in the Triune name. And our God is the one-week Creator of the World.
The one who calls himself “the WORD,” the logos.
If you have another baptism to offer than that - or another faith - then we must believe you have another lord.
If the same baptism, the same faith, and the same lord, then you already one with us, not politically, but by membership in the one body of Christ.
Tangentially, as someone who understands Orthodox theology, I have to express a degree of amusement at theological dogmatism from apophatics and mystics, and accusations of heresy or tradition-breaking from followers of the council, so called, of 783. The words of the Psalmist, Psalm 97:7, or the Beloved Apostle, Revelation 9:20, should at least produce some small pause before accusations of departure from the HOLY tradition are hurled against baptized, faithful, trinitarian saints. Instead, join us in praise the one Lord of All:
O sing a new song to the Lord,
for wonders he hath done:
His right hand and his holy arm
him victory hath won.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — December 21, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Well, JTA, from the standpoint of argument, that is simply question-begging. The point I want to drive home is, do you see that it is missing the point to claim that “protestantism didn´t start until 1517″?
Comment by Tim H — December 25, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Turretinfan anf Tim,
All the Orthodox Holy Fathers teach that the Triune God has created the heavens and the earth in 6 litteral days, each 24 hours. We have no differences there. Evolution or “theistic” evolution are great deceptions by the devil and his minions.
However we orthodox, the true Israelites, believe that protestant baptism is not grace-filled, because it is not done by tripple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity, and it is not performed by a canonical successor of the Apostles.
In addition, all protestants do not believe that the bread and wine are truely transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the very Holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore we do not have the one Lord, One Faith and One Baptism, sad to say. All the Early Church Fathers teach the true presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. So this begs the question, who has deviated from the Truth and from Holy Tradition???
Comment by Jerjis T. Alajaji — December 27, 2006 @ 11:57 am
JAT,
On Baptism:
With respect, you seem to be unable to separate the essential from the non-essential aspects of baptism. While triple-immersion by an ordained priest (arch-priest, bishop, etc.) is certainly the preferred method of baptism, you would be hard-pressed to establish on patristic or similar authority any of the principles:
[*] the number of wettings being three (as opposed, for example, to one or seven);
[*] the mode of wetting being dunking (as opposed, for example, to sprinkling, or pouring); or
[*]the moderator of the dunkings being an Apostolic successor (as opposed, for example, to a so-called “layman”).
Certainly, you will not find Scriptural authority for making any of those necessary as opposed to accidental traditions.
Indeed, the so-called Orthodox permit laity to baptize by sprinkling with water in the Triune name in emergency situations, as most so-called Orthodox are well aware, and - as I understand - agree the Papists.
The permission by the so-called Orthodox tradition of emergency baptisms requires that the grace-conferring power is not in the man who dunks, in the act of dunking, or in the three-ness of the dunking. For if such power resides in those things, what would be the use of an emergency baptism, except to pass the time of the baptizer?
Therefore, we can reject, with all the Orthodox, your claim that the Protestant baptisms are not grace-filled because they do not accord with the preferred manner of administration set forth in the traditions of the so-called Orthodox.
Furthermore, of course, we recognize that it is God who gives grace, not the rites we perform. Thus, grace is properly primarily ascribed to the Giver of grace, not to an outward sign of its application and bestowal.
On the one True God:
It is good to acknowledge the Creator as Creator, and to acknolwedge also His Most Wise Providence for His creation. Sadly, while most of the so-called Othodox acknowledge the former (and you are indeed correct in acknowledge the absurd notion of evolutionism as being Satanic), many of the so-called Orthodox have failed to acknowledge the latter (and in doing so, have departed from the Tradition).
On the Mystery of the Eucharist:
The so-called Orthodox declare this sacrament (as both we and the Papists call it) to be a mystery. It would interesting to see what Othodox authority you believe you can find that teaches that “the bread and wine are truely transformed … into the very Holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ” while explaining that “true transformation” is not a matter of iconography. That is to say, it will be hard to find any Orthodox writer (and here I clearly exclude the post-schism papists) prior to the 1680’s who denied that the elements of the Lord’s Supper were transformed into the very body and blood of Christ in a non-iconic manner.
Even the heterodox council of the late 700’s (frequently refered to as the “seventh ecumenical council), which sinfully promoted the making and using of supposed images of Christ for the purpose of worship (acts of allegedly representational iconography), did not deny what the previous council of thirty years prior had stated, which is that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are a divinely appointed icon of Christ.
Indeed, Reformed Christians do believe that the elements are the body and blood of Christ, as can be seen from an examination of, for example, the Westminster standards.
On the “True Presence”
All of the Early Fathers who spoke on the subject spoke of the elements after the blessing as bread and cup while acknowledging the presence of God in the sacrament. Be careful to distinguish between the Orthodox mystery, and the papist heresy of physical transformation. The Reformed doctrine is an explanation of the mystery that is not inconsistent with the traditions of the so-called Orthodox. It simply goes beyond what the so-called Orthodox explain. Certainly there are Protestants who depart from both the Reformed and so-called Orthodox explanation.
As for raising the question of departure from Tradition:
The Reformed view that the elements of the sacrament are an icon of Christ, not Christ’s genetic material, is confirmed by earlier Christian writings than the heresy of physical transformation. So also is the Reformed rejection of representational iconography confirmed by an earlier council than its affirmation.
Thus, the burden of establishing consistency with “tradition” should be placed on the apparent innovators.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the Reformed position depends on the Scriptures, and claims the authority of the Scriptures. Taking the Reformed claims at face value, the question is not who has departed from tradition (for Scripture is certainly the highest of Traditions, if there are Traditions) but whether the non-Scripture traditions are truly apostolic.
In other words, outside of Scripture, which are truly the Apostolic Traditions?
It’s not a trivial question, since not only the so-called Orthodox, but also the Armenians, the Ethopics, the Coptics, and the papists (not to mention many others) all allegedly follow apostolic tradition, and yet differ in many points.
Furthermore, the traditions of the so-called Orthodox churches have changed over the years, and it is increasingly rare in the United States, for example, to see women observing the tradition of head-covering (both in Reformed and so-called Orthodox churches - we are both guilty of deviation from that tradition), and it is exceedingly rare that the so-called Orthodox tradition of separating the sexes is maintained.
So, what is the point? The point is that TJH’s comment that your claims of adherence to apostolic tradition beg the question in the logical sense. They engage in “petitio principis,” if my memory of the Latin serves me well. They assume the point to be proved.
Furthermore, since we, Reformed Christians, know that we serve the God revealed in the Bible, and you claim that you are not at oneness with our Lord, Faith, and Baptism, we urge you to reconsider your position.
For we preach the same one-in-four gospel as Irenaeus, and exhort examination of the same inspired Word of God as did Justin Martyr. Likewise, we encourage, with Jesus, men to Search the Scriptures.
Therefore, do not separate yourselves spiritually from us, but come near and sing the praises of Scripture:
Moreover, they thy servant warn
how he his life should frame:
A great reward provided is
for them that keep the same.
Who can his errors understand?
O cleanse thou me within
From secret faults. Thy servant keep
from all presumptuous sin:
And do not suffer them to have
dominion over me:
Then, righteous and innocent,
I from much sin shall be.
The words which from my mouth proceed,
the thoughts sent from my heart,
Accept, O Lord, for thou my strength
and my Redeemer art.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — December 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm