Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Authority

[mark_a]

It is true that there were spurious books being circulated at the same time as the apostolic books.

Were all non-canonical books spurious?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Were all non-canonical books spurious?

No, but how many were not? The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

 

[mark_a]

No, but how many were not? The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

I don’t know.

 

[simspt]

No, but how many were not? The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

hi TU

do you think the whole of Scripture or just part of it affirms the authority of the canon?
I know Barth had the view that the whole of the Bible and that the NT writing force themselves on the Church by its own inspiration. Wasnt Luthers view somewhat different?
Didnt Luther use internal criteria based on only a part of the Scriptures? He stated “all the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ”
I guess my question to you is do you believe as Barth that the whole of scripture is the norm or that the final norm is not scripture but the proclamation of Christ found in scripture?

 

[simspt]

No, but how many were not? The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Clement’s letter to the Corinthians?

In relation to searching for a norm to validate the authority of Scripture whatever conclusion you come to eg authority confirmed by internal criteria (whole or part), external criteria or both the next question is what norm do you think guided the Church’s objectification of itself in the canon?

 

[TriuneUnity]

hi TU

do you think the whole of Scripture or just part of it affirms the authority of the canon?
I know Barth had the view that the whole of the Bible and that the NT writing force themselves on the Church by its own inspiration. Wasnt Luthers view somewhat different?
Didnt Luther use internal criteria based on only a part of the Scriptures? He stated “all the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ”
I guess my question to you is do you believe as Barth that the whole of scripture is the norm or that the final norm is not scripture but the proclamation of Christ found in scripture?

Interesting question, simspt. I’ll have to think that one over. In a preliminary sense, I don’t know if I would agree that the standard for determining the authority of a particular biblical book is that it preaches Christ. All of the canonical books preach Christ because they are inspired but I don’t know if it would make sense to say they are inspired because they preach Christ. Many non-canonical books preach Christ as well. It was a part of the process of textual criticism used by the early church to determine the canon of the New Testament based on whether a book agreed with the other writings about the gospel, the person of Christ, etc. But clearly the Old Testament Scriptures were considered divine in origin long before the first advent. It is true that all of the OT is about Christ, but in many ways this was not plain until He appeared on the scene.

 

[simspt]

Welcome, Unworthy, good to have you participating.

I am a bit distressed by your choice of Irenaeus’ quote here. For it is severely truncated and has no context at all to it. Upon further examination of what Irenaeus is saying, it becomes clear what his main point is. Let me provide you with the full statement around which the above quote is made. When examined fully, you will find that it does not provide the case for tradition as you are using it:

“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, **believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. **Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.”

Irenaeus identifies that both inspired apostolic oral and written tradition are carefully preserved by the churches. It is obvious from the passage that scripture is included in this category of the “ancient tradition of the apostles”. To say it excludes scripture, as many Roman Catholics and Orthodox say it does, and then say the text only discusses oral tradition apart from scriptural revelation, is as unwarranted as it is silly. The oral tradition that is identified in the text is in fact a creed (in bold) that is identical to the scriptures. Had this oral tradition contained a key doctrine not found in scripture, then you would have a supporting point for how you’re intending to use the quote. What this passage is talking about happens all the time today when we spontaneously and unexpectedly teach a sinner the gospel in a city park when we have no Bible in hand. We rely on “oral tradition” in the absence of written documents. Had Irenaeus’ creed (in bold) included any extra biblical doctrines like, the assumption of Mary, purgatory, papal infallibility, indulgences etc., then you would have somewhat of an argument. But since there are no extra biblical doctrines, it actually supports our view that all “inspired apostolic tradition” was also contained in scripture. We are not denying “oral apostolic tradition”, we merely say it is identical with scripture.

Again, you provide this quote with absolutely no context. Athanasius and other Bishops in Libya and Egypt wrote this letter searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/pos/athanasius/view.cgi?file=npnf2-04-69.htm to Bishops in Africa. The reason the letter was written is because the Arians were attempting to reassert their dominance by holding local councils and synods that were disagreeing with the Council of Nicea. Athanasius is writing to state that the Council of Nicea was sufficient to settle the matter once and for all.

Can you please provide an example drawn from 2 Thess. 2 which states that Paul here is referring to extra scriptural doctrines such as the papacy, the assumption of Mary, purgatory etc?

If not, then please note that the oral tradition to which Paul refers to is his preaching the gospel in the city of Thessalonica as recorded in the book of Acts. The letter that he refers to is, of course, 1 Thessalonians. There is no indication here by Paul that the tradition to which he refers is a second body of knowledge which has not been inscripturated and is completely distinct from the doctrine of the gospel as recorded in Scripture.

I agree with you it seems most of the NT was known by 150. How did the 2nd century Christians defend the written NT writings that the Gnostics used as well? The Gnostics took their own cosmological principles as the right norms for interpreting scriptures. They (Irenaeus, Justin Tertu)realized that Scripture alone was not sufficient for refuting heresy, the gnostics could just as easy appeal to the Bible just as readily as Irenaeus or others could.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I agree with you it seems most of the NT was known by 150. How did the 2nd century Christians defend the written NT writings that the Gnostics used as well? The Gnostics took their own cosmological principles as the right norms for interpreting scriptures. They (Irenaeus, Justin Tertu)realized that Scripture alone was not sufficient for refuting heresy, the gnostics could just as easy appeal to the Bible just as readily as Irenaeus or others could.

They didn’t defend the faith against the Gnostics by appealing to sacred tradition as modern Catholics and Orthodox use the term. The quotes that are provided where the fathers do mention apostolic tradition is used anachronistically in apologetic circles. I fail to see how tradition being appealed to has anything to do with the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and other extra biblical teachings. You see, I believe that modern people read those doctrines into the fathers when the fathers mention tradition. It is historical eisegesis.

The fathers did appeal to the Scriptures when debating the Gnostics and the Arians (see especially Athanasius on this). The Gnostics could quote Scripture, but the fathers could quote it better; i.e. they could make their biblical arguments fit into overall Biblical theology. It was also consistent with all of Scripture. The Gnostics and Arians could do the same, but their theology was so outside of the entirety of the Bible that it became plain that their views were foreign to the apostolic consensus. It is the same as the Satan quoting Scripture principle; Jesus did not refute Satan’s misapplication of Scripture by appealing to anything but Scripture.

 

[a_priori]

After four decades in evangelicalism I did a twelve -year stint in EO. For the sake of full disclosure I am now RC. The EO theologians and priests I rubbed shoulders with were very energetic in their assertion that RC and Protestantism (in all it’s variegations) are more similar to each other than either of them are to EO. They held that the Scholastic Movement and Western Rationalism, that began as a defect in the west, resulted in the half of Christendom jumping the tracks. They feel strongly that apophatism in the East trumps cataphatism in the West.

 

[TriuneUnity]

After four decades in evangelicalism I did a twelve -year stint in EO. For the sake of full disclosure I am now RC. The EO theologians and priests I rubbed shoulders with were very energetic in their assertion that RC and Protestantism (in all it’s variegations) are more similar to each other than either of them are to EO. They held that the Scholastic Movement and Western Rationalism, that began as a defect in the west, resulted in the half of Christendom jumping the tracks. They feel strongly that apophatism in the East trumps cataphatism in the West.

Being you’ve been in both places now, a priori, would you agree with that idea that Protestantism is closer to Catholicism than Orthodoxy is? I can certainly see how Rome is similar on original sin, the substitutionary atonement, etc.

 

[a_priori]

Being you’ve been in both places now, a priori, would you agree with that idea that Protestantism is closer to Catholicism than Orthodoxy is? I can certainly see how Rome is similar on original sin, the substitutionary atonement, etc.

I would lead with the caveat that I am not a theologian of any kind and don’t even play one on TV. But I have to say that my layperson impressions would support the assertions of the EO. Evangelicals are quite comfortable telling you what God “thinks” about this or that. They’ll comment on what makes God “happy” and what makes Him “angry”. The RC tend in this directions as well.

The EO think in different categories and many questions just don’t get asked, hence their apophatism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi a priori, I notice on your profile that your location is in the California public schools

I would lead with the caveat that I am not a theologian of any kind and don’t even play one on TV. But I have to say that my layperson impressions would support the assertions of the EO. Evangelicals are quite comfortable telling you what God “thinks” about this or that. They’ll comment on what makes God “happy” and what makes Him “angry”. The RC tend in this directions as well.

The EO think in different categories and many questions just don’t get asked, hence their apophatism.

 

[a_priori]

Hi a priori, I notice on your profile that your location is in the California public schools

Good point. Since the percentage of asylums being run by their inmates is rising exponentially, I should probably be a little more specific. That was a very good guess though!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The people actually running the schools, sadly, is the parents…you can see the results!

Good point. Since the percentage of asylums being run by their inmates is rising exponentially, I should probably be a little more specific. That was a very good guess though!

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I mentioned earlier how Irenaeus teaches Aposolic succesion is the measuring stick of truth. To say that Ireneuas’s tradition was contained in scripture alone one would have to assert these three principles.

1. Deny that St. Irenaeus teaches this (hardly possible).
2. Deny that it is a biblical doctrine – in which case the Father is teaching as authoritative something not in the Bible at all, thus neatly, decisively putting the lie both to King’s assertion above, and to the claim that Irenaeus believes in sola Scriptura.
3. Assert that it is a biblical doctrine. This, too, contradicts sola Scriptura, because that view holds that only the Bible is infallible, whereas apostolic succession is the view that this historical, institutional, episcopal succession is as infallible in preserving truth as the word of Scripture. And, of course, if King admits that it is a biblical doctrine, then he has to explain why he rejects it?

*excerpt of Dave Armstrong debate

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or a believer could feel that Irenaeus is just one man and not the entirety of truth. I’m not saying I feel that way but many Protestants don’t look to the early fathers as the be-all, end-all of ecclesiastical polity and theological truth. Over the years in CAF I have seen the ECF’s quoted for all sorts of proofs of certain theological points but when an opponent, we’ll call poster B makes a different point than that of poster A, poster A can just say, ‘yeah, well, the ECF’s aren’t infallible, that was just Ignatius of Antioch’s opinion.’ But if poster A wants to prove later the Real Presence, he plucks a statement from Ignatius about the Eucharist and sees it as all the evidence he needs. But if poster B reads, let’s pretend, a statement that sounds like all bishops were equal and the pope wasn’t the supreme head of the bishops, poster B again says, ‘yeah well, that’s just his opinion.’

I mentioned earlier how Irenaeus teaches Aposolic succesion is the measuring stick of truth. To say that Ireneuas’s tradition was contained in scripture alone one would have to assert these three principles.

1. Deny that St. Irenaeus teaches this (hardly possible).
2. Deny that it is a biblical doctrine – in which case the Father is teaching as authoritative something not in the Bible at all, thus neatly, decisively putting the lie both to King’s assertion above, and to the claim that Irenaeus believes in sola Scriptura.
3. Assert that it is a biblical doctrine. This, too, contradicts sola Scriptura, because that view holds that only the Bible is infallible, whereas apostolic succession is the view that this historical, institutional, episcopal succession is as infallible in preserving truth as the word of Scripture. And, of course, if King admits that it is a biblical doctrine, then he has to explain why he rejects it?

*excerpt of Dave Armstrong debate

 

[simspt]

They didn’t defend the faith against the Gnostics by appealing to sacred tradition as modern Catholics and Orthodox use the term. The quotes that are provided where the fathers do mention apostolic tradition is used anachronistically in apologetic circles. I fail to see how tradition being appealed to has anything to do with the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, purgatory, and other extra biblical teachings. You see, I believe that modern people read those doctrines into the fathers when the fathers mention tradition. It is historical eisegesis.

The fathers did appeal to the Scriptures when debating the Gnostics and the Arians (see especially Athanasius on this). The Gnostics could quote Scripture, but the fathers could quote it better; i.e. they could make their biblical arguments fit into overall Biblical theology. It was also consistent with all of Scripture. The Gnostics and Arians could do the same, but their theology was so outside of the entirety of the Bible that it became plain that their views were foreign to the apostolic consensus. It is the same as the Satan quoting Scripture principle; Jesus did not refute Satan’s misapplication of Scripture by appealing to anything but Scripture.

The 2nd century Catholics for sure used the NT and OT writings to defend against heresy but it seems that like you mention so did the gnostics. Marcion published the first known canon of the NT and the first commentary was written by Heracleon around 170 on the book of John before it was canonized. With Irenaeus the last of primitive Christianity had passed by. Irenaeus had a clear solution for the gnostics. He had a Guide to the right interpretation of Scriptures. That guide was the rule of faith. This was a central theme. This was the norm Irenaeus used to prove the gnostics wrong. The rule is adequate for faith even without written documents, as Irenaeus writes " For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" Irenaeus shows the relationship the NT stands in relation to God, Church, the Bible, and Apostolic tradition. Without the rule of faith anyone could do as the gnostics did to the writings. Tertullian states that “this Rule, taught by Christ, allows of no questions among us, except those which heresies introduce and which make heretics. Provided the essence of the Rule is not disturbed, you may seek and discuss as much as you like… Faith is established in the Rule. There it has its law, and it wins salvation by keeping the law…To know nothing against the Rule is to know everything.” This one rule proves all heretics wrong for Irenaeus also. The “rule of faith” is not identical with the creeds or with Scripture but it could never contradict scripture. It seems it was a guide for the authentic interpretation of Scripture. The rule of faith is tradition in its most original sense, the faith that has been handed down from the beginning. Historically it was the rule of faith or orthodox tradition that guided the formation of the NT canon. For a century and half the Church had no NT but rather scattered books but it confessed its faith and once the NT was established the rule of faith fucntioned as the norm for its right interpretation. The rule of faith was the Church’s guide from the beginning.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The 2nd century Catholics for sure used the NT and OT writings to defend against heresy but it seems that like you mention so did the gnostics. Marcion published the first known canon of the NT and the first commentary was written by Heracleon around 170 on the book of John before it was canonized. With Irenaeus the last of primitive Christianity had passed by. Irenaeus had a clear solution for the gnostics. He had a Guide to the right interpretation of Scriptures. That guide was the rule of faith. This was a central theme. This was the norm Irenaeus used to prove the gnostics wrong. The rule is adequate for faith even without written documents, as Irenaeus writes " For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" Irenaeus shows the relationship the NT stands in relation to God, Church, the Bible, and Apostolic tradition. Without the rule of faith anyone could do as the gnostics did to the writings. Tertullian states that “this Rule, taught by Christ, allows of no questions among us, except those which heresies introduce and which make heretics. Provided the essence of the Rule is not disturbed, you may seek and discuss as much as you like… Faith is established in the Rule. There it has its law, and it wins salvation by keeping the law…To know nothing against the Rule is to know everything.” This one rule proves all heretics wrong for Irenaeus also. The “rule of faith” is not identical with the creeds or with Scripture but it could never contradict scripture. It seems it was a guide for the authentic interpretation of Scripture. The rule of faith is tradition in its most original sense, the faith that has been handed down from the beginning. Historically it was the rule of faith or orthodox tradition that guided the formation of the NT canon. For a century and half the Church had no NT but rather scattered books but it confessed its faith and once the NT was established the rule of faith fucntioned as the norm for its right interpretation. The rule of faith was the Church’s guide from the beginning.

There is nothing wrong with any of the above, simpst, at least, not from a traditional Protestant view. The rule of faith was the creeds, in the sense that the rule of faith was a summary of biblical and apostolic teaching. That is far removed from the modern Roman Catholic concept of Sacred Tradition, in which you have teachings not contained in the apostolic witness OR the rule of faith as a separate form of revelation. Remember that the Council of Trent canonized the partim-partim view of Scripture and Tradition. This idea was the farthest thing from Irenaeus’ mind. Again, it is Catholics anachronistically reading into those fathers the modern concept of tradition

 

[simspt]

There is nothing wrong with any of the above, simpst, at least, not from a traditional Protestant view. The rule of faith was the creeds, in the sense that the rule of faith was a summary of biblical and apostolic teaching. That is far removed from the modern Roman Catholic concept of Sacred Tradition, in which you have teachings not contained in the apostolic witness OR the rule of faith as a separate form of revelation. Remember that the Council of Trent canonized the partim-partim view of Scripture and Tradition. This idea was the farthest thing from Irenaeus’ mind. Again, it is Catholics anachronistically reading into those fathers the modern concept of tradition

We all search for a norm to account for or validate the authority of Scripture but
what norm do you think guided the Church’s objectification of itself in the canon?

 

[TriuneUnity]

We all search for a norm to account for or validate the authority of Scripture but
what norm do you think guided the Church’s objectification of itself in the canon?

Can you clarify what you mean by its objectification of itself? I just want to make sure I rightly understand what you’re asking.