Today, Tim Kimberley and I had the privilege of meeting with an Eastern Orthodox priest here at the Credo House in Edmond, OK. The meeting was called because there is a young man who desires to work as an “under-monk” (barista) at the Credo House. While we are a Protestant Evangelical organization, we often call ourselves Evangelical “on the last notch of the belt.” In other words, in the spirit of Evangelicalism, we don’t want to unnecessarily divide over non-essential issues. While devoted to his Eastern Orthodox church, this prospective employee loves the Credo House and what we stand for. As discussions went on behind the scenes about whether or not I wanted to deal with the PR of explaining to everyone why we had an Eastern Orthodox employee (along with all the charges of postmodern doctrinal relativism, etc.), as well as the laborious discovery of whether this guy was truly an Eastern Orthodox or an Evangelical attending an Eastern Orthodox church, Carrie set up a meeting between this young man, his priest, Tim, and me.
The following took place at approx. 2:15 CST at the Credo House, 109 NW 142nd St. Suite B, Edmond, OK.
We made cordial introductions and exchanged some background information The priest was a former Evangelical who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy during college.
The Credo House doctrinal statement was the subject of dispute, as the priest sought to distinguish the Eastern Orthodox position from that which is represented by our doctrinal statement. The potential employee sought both the permission and wisdom of his priest to see if working for Credo House was acceptable. I had already determined that, barring some unforeseen (and potentially delightful) complications, Credo House would not be willing to offer employment to a committed Eastern Orthodox.
There were not really any surprises.
Below is a point by point account of the dispute using our doctrinal statement as an outline:
Bible and Revelation: We confess that the Scriptures are verbally inspired and true in every respect. We also confess that the rightly interpreted Scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation.
It may surprise many to know that the issue of sola Scriptura (rightly defined) is not a major point of departure between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. The subject of church tradition was brought up. We both agreed that tradition stands guard beside the interpretation of Scripture but does not stand in front of it. We also agreed that tradition does not add anything to the Scripture, but is a tradition in which the Scripture is to be interpreted. Tim called this the regula fide (common terminology here at Credo). I was amused when the priest said he did not use the Latin terminology (i.e., it was in western theological language). But we both agreed that there was no living infallible interpreter of Scripture. Scripture is the final source, yet we look toward history to aid in our understanding.
He did ask what we meant by “verbally” inspired. I informed him that this means that the Bible is inspired down to the very words, not just the concepts. However, this does not mean that we believe in “mechanical dictation.” He agreed. He just wanted to clarify that we did not hold to a view of inspiration like the Muslims.
God: We confess that there is one God, creator of all things, invisible and visible, who eternally exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal in power and dignity. We also confess that God is all-knowing and is sovereign over all the affairs of His creation.
This was an interesting (and unexpected) discussion. He thought our confession here about God bordered on modalism. It was hard for me to process what was being disputed. Historically, it is true, the eastern church has accused the western church (Protestants and Roman Catholics included) of emphasizing the oneness of God to the neglect of his threeness (modalism). The western church has accused the eastern church of emphasizing the threeness of God at the expense of his oneness (tritheism). However, I had thought we got past this quite some time ago. Nevertheless, he would have preferred that we said “We confess that there is one God, the Father . . . ” He said that, “You cannot separate the oneness from the person.” In the end, he said it was a “minor” point of wording. I did not have much of a problem with what he said (although I can see where the western church would think this sounds somewhat tritheistic).
Christ: We confess that Jesus Christ is God’s eternal Son, the second member of the Trinity, who exists as one person in two natures, being both fully God and fully man. We further confess that He lived a sinless life and willingly died on a cross as a substitution for the sins of man. We confess that He rose bodily from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father; from there He makes intercession for man.
“Substitution for the sins of man.” This was one of the two major points of departure. Every time I have discussed the issue of the atonement with an Eastern Orthodox, this is where deep emotions turn into deep wrinkles on their face. There is quite a bit of passion involved here. The Eastern Orthodox church completely rejects vicarious penal substitution. They do not believe that Christ bore the wrath of the Father. According to him, Christ is our substitute only in the sense that he was the “substitute man” who did what Adam could not. I explained that Evangelical Protestants believe that Christ did indeed become the “second Adam” and that we often, sadly, fail to do justice to his sinless life as part of the atonement. However, I explained that Christ’s life prepared him for the apex of the atonement that took place on the cross. There was a foresaking where He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf and it pleased the Father to crush him. Therefore, the “transaction” between the Father and the Son on the cross, while incredibly mysterious, was real and essential. He disagreed and we moved on.
Holy Spirit: We confess that the Holy Spirit is the third member of the Trinity, equal to the Father and the Son in power, authority, and dignity, deserving worship. We further confess that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to point to Christ by enabling and empowering all believers to serve God and to grow in Christ likeness.
There were no notes here. We were good.
Man and sin: We confess that man was created by God, for God, and in God’s image so that man can joyously live in communion with God. We believe that Adam and Eve, the father and mother of all mankind, disobeyed God in Eden thereby causing all people to become like them in guilt and nature. Therefore, we confess that all people are born separated from God and in their natural state are at enmity with God, unable to make any move toward God on their own. We confess that the image of God, while distorted, remains in all men. We confess that when a person dies, the immaterial part of that person consciously goes to either be with Christ or to a place to await judgment.
Here we encountered a second major point of departure. He made it clear that the Eastern Orthodox could not accept any idea of imputed guilt. While they believe that we have inherited corruption, we are not held guilty for the sin of another. He rightly pointed out that Protestants and Roman Catholics both believe that we are held guilty for the sin of another. His argument against inherited guilt was very practical. “How could God hold a baby guilty for a sin he did not take part in?” was his question. I told him that we may be two boats passing in the night here. I explained that all of humanity fell “in and with” Adam. Therefore, when Adam was condemned, the entire human race was condemned with him. God did not necessarily strike the gavel for every baby conceived individually, but he struck the gavel with Adam, our federal head. God could have chose not to redeem humanity and “walked away.” Had he done so, we would be “condemned” to a life without God.
Interestingly, he objected to the statement that man is “unable to make any move toward God on their own.” He said that humanity retains some ability to choose God even if we don’t use it. I informed him that his wording was not, in my opinion, in the best traditions of his own church. The idea that we can make moves on our own toward God without his initiation was either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. All the magisterial Christian traditions (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics) see the need for God to, motivated by his grace, initiate salvation. We ended up agreeing here.
Salvation: We confess that God had every right to leave man in his depraved and helpless condition, but, by His own gracious and loving volition, He chose to intercede on behalf of man. We further confess that salvation is only possible through faith alone in Christ alone because of God’s grace alone. We reject that any works of righteousness contribute in any way to man’s salvation. We confess that when a person places their faith in Christ they are at that instant declared righteous through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a gift of God.
He did not like the word “intercede,” instead preferring “intervene.” This came down to his distinction in the persons of the Trinity. I told him I did not have much of a problem with that.
“Through faith alone in Christ alone.” You may be interested to know there was not much dispute about this. He said that as long as we said that true faith would always produce works, he was good with the “faith alone” thing. But he did not like the wording of, “We reject that any works of righteousness contribute in any way to man’s salvation.” I did not like that he did not like this! He said that we cannot distinguish between faith and works. I said you can insofar as the works themselves do not “contribute” to our justification. I gave an illustration about a gift which we don’t pay for. Any attempt to pay for this gift (i.e., believing our works contribute to the acquisition of said gift) would not only be superfluous, but insulting to the gift-giver. We do good works because of a changed nature (rebirth, justification, adoption), not so that we can have a changed nature.
Last Things: We confess that Christ will come again to judge and reward all people. We confess the bodily resurrection of all believers. We confess the eternal blessedness of those who have trusted in Christ and the eternal damnation of all who have rejected God.
He wanted to make sure we did not believe only in the resurrection of all “believers.” He said unbelievers would be raised as well. I agreed.
It was a wonderful dispute. Again, no real surprises. I do appreciate the Eastern Orthodox church very much. In the end, however, we all determined that it would not be in the best interest of either party to continue to pursue employment at the Credo House. As Tim said, “We don’t want you to be untrue to yourself and we can’t be untrue to who we are.” The priest agreed, saying, “As an Eastern Orthodox priest, I could not sign this due to the two main issues: imputed guilt and substitutionary atonement.”
178 replies to "Credo House Dispute – Our Discussions Today with an Eastern Orthodox Priest"
So… What are you saying, that the first Eucharist was Zwinglian? Or are you saying that as he held up bread and said “this is my body”, he wasn’t talking about the bread? That would be a real misleading statement for him to make!
And btw, many of the Roman Catholic “categories” are simply Pauline and Greco-Roman, yes with some Aristotelian and Augustinian, with some Platonic ideas. We simply cannot escape this!
Note, here too the Jewish Hellenism!
*reconciliation
No John, the Eucharist is always also a “sign” as well as the seal, in its sacramental reality and fulfilled “presence”. Certainly the Eucharist has Jewish and Escatological reality! As the “passover” also has both!
Also btw John, you might want to read and check out Augustine’s own views on the Sacraments.
Note the statement of Peter Martyr Vermigli, who wrote: ‘We say with Augustine that the sacramental symbols are visible words.’
And as Calvin himself could write: ‘The whole (doctrine of Eucharist) was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.’ See btw, the classic book by Joseph McLelland: The Visible Words Of God, A Study In The Theology Of Peter Martyr, 1500-1562.
Fr Robert:
* You’re not answering the question. Was Christ’s body “above and around” the first Eucharist?
* I didn’t ask if the first Eucharist had “sacramental reality”. The issue is about it being or not being his body.
* I didn’t want to disparage all RC categories. I just suggested it may not be a profitable starting point here.
John…it bears to pay witness to the narrative story here. The last supper was the passover meal, in which there was much symbolism within the variety of elements which had much meaning.
The bread held much symbolic meaning and the was a tradition of hiding something in the pockets, which were to be discovered.
So when Jesus held up the bread at the last supper, he is saying that the bread of the passover meal, represented himself and making his sacrificial atonement the new meal…to eat of him – means to believe on him.
@John: The “Body” (Life) of Christ was the Living Sign of the first Eucharist, in Christ Himself! How could it be anything else? Since Christ had not yet died! But it would be the living sign, presence and memorial of His death & resurrection! Again we cannot escape the “sign” here!
Fr. Robert: sounds like you are saying that Christ was not “above and around” the bread at the first Eucharist, only subsequent ones.
But….
This completely destroys any argument for real presence. If the words of the first Eucharist weren’t literal at all, there’s no reason to make subsequent ones literal either.
This leaves you not far from Zwingly.
That is right. It is nearly impossible that the first Eucharist was anything other than symbolic as Christ was right there in presurrected. So the first “this is my body” was no doubt symbolic looking forward to the fulfillment of the sacrificial system. How much more so those that followed! Certainly not a sacradotal system there. This is a good example of the simplicity that a belief can be among the fathers.
@Craig, if you do not want to believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, that is your belief and I don’t think it is the point of the thread to convince you otherwise. However, you do realize that Christians have believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist for 2,000 years, right? Until the Protestants came along in the 16th century, there was never a question of the Real Presence. Would you like some quotes from church leaders and fathers throughout the 1st millennia?
@John, easy with the multiple question marks to CMP buddy! It’s his blog, and we’ve already got one snarky EO on this thread (me). 🙂 Besides, I really believe it when he says that he didn’t know about chrismation. It’s not like they spend 2 semesters on the sacraments at Southeastern Baptist U.
John: YOU are losing both the exegesis and the real symbol of the First Eucharist, which points to all the others throughout time, and to eternity! Indeed Christ is always present ‘in, above and around’ HIS own Paschal Meal! When we over press the literal here (as the logic of transubstantiation). WE really loose the deep spiritual and theological reality! How about “transignification” (Dutch)? Btw, you EO don’t use the word “transubstantiation”, though you believe the Real Presence! But I know, you have almost the same reality as Rome, with actual priesthood, etc.
It is here really, that I like Dr. Luther! And btw, what does the “real presence” mean, if we don’t have “spirit and truth”? Btw our brother Craig’s statement was very good!
@Pete: The so-called “Real Presence”, which as I have said, I believe and follow more closely with Luther, does not negate or diminish the spiritual or the reality of the Jewish Paschal place of the Christian Eucharist! (1 Cor. 5: 7-8) And btw, I think this was Craig’s point!
I believe in the real presence of Christ in the communion meal. But the early church never relegated the communion meal to a sip out of a cup and a measly bit of bread…
Communion to them was a love feast of eating together…and where two or three gather in his name, Christ promises to be amongst them. I strongly believe that Christ works in, through and over the communion sacraments, but those elements speak of Christ and in and through those elements the Spirit of God moves powerfully.
But, those elements themselves do not become the literal body of Christ…because its his people who are the new body of Christ, whom Christ works in, through and over.
@Craig:
Irenaeus of Lyon, a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John) “Against Heresies, 5:2:2-3”: He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established us as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life? The Word of God becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.
Athanasius of Alexandria, circa 350 A.D., from his “Sermon to the newly baptized”: So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine.
Jerome, “Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew”, 4-26, 398 A.D.: “After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.”
@Craig
Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lectures“, circa 355 A.D.: “Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, “we become partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
Augustine of Hippo, Sermons: What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood.
Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Mysteries.” 4; d. 444 A.D.: We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ. Draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.
Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Exodus 13,3, circa 225 A.D.: You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence.
@Craig
It was both. It was the Eucharist, and afterwards, it was also the Agape meal, because they had all fasted since the day before in anticipation of the sacrament. Just like the Orthodox still do every Sunday. No eggs or coffee.
CMP: Almost impossible??? You mean like… Oh say the resurrection?
Fr Robert: and here we stumble upon a difference with Orthodoxy. We don’t see the reality of the physical as subtracting anything from the spiritual. You do.
Still not really sure what you believe either. I think it’s a limitation of your position that it’s too subtle to gain wide acceptance.
Craig: nobody of any stripe denies the symbolism. The question is whether there is a reality that transcends symbolism. Painting blood on the door posts was symbolic at the original Passover. Do you claim it was purely symbolic?
@Craig: I would agree in the real “spiritual” bond of our Christian brotherhood! But I would also agree in the or a correct biblical & theological measure, that the Holy Supper or Eucharist, has some aspect of ritual (ceremonial rite) and nature. We will always have real mystery here! Indeed, “This is my body, this is my blood”, but of the covenant, is holy and Christ really IS present…body & blood, under bread & wine! It will always be a position and place of Faith! I’m seeking to simplify a grand mystery! And I can say myself, that being a celebrant at the Lord’s Table is always a great and precious time! I simply love it! Glory be to God! 🙂
@John: Your going to have to explain a little better, your points? Btw, I will always admit to some place of the mystical in my own beliefs here, i.e. I am always the Anglican eclectic, and theological mystic, to degree! Or should I say near Luther? (God forbid “Lutheran”! 😉 ) Love Luther, never have gotten close to Lutheranism, however! Though I love to preach to Lutherans as a visiting preacher! 🙂
Fr. Robert: well you seemed to start off saying the first Eucharist did not have Christ above and under the bread. When challenged on the consistency of that you replied that Christ is always above or under his meal. I don’t know if thats a retraction of your first position, or if not, how it is a response.
BTW, you say that the real presence needs a presbyter. What happens in other denominations where a presbyter does not preside?
John: Christ is always ‘in, above & around’ in the elements (bread & wine), since His death & resurrection! But HE WAS the First Eucharist Himself (Sign), before them and present before He died, etc. Btw, your Augustine quote on the Eucharist is close to where I am at… always a mystery! But many of the other statements by some of the Fathers, goes simply beyond the Holy Scripture!
Remember, I am an Anglican!…Always the Mystical Christ! This was the Christ of St. Paul! Btw, we would agree for the most part on the depth of the Incarnation! 🙂
Can’t speak really for other churches, but I am of the belief that the Eucharist should be central on every Lord’s Day! And ‘the Words of Institution’ are also central at the Table of the Lord! And I do like Anglican Liturgy!…BCP 😉
Thank you to everyone who has replied to my questions (Robert, Pete again, John, and Fred).
As one who believes in the crucified & risen Lord Jesus for the fogiveness of my sins unto eternal life and who submits to Jesus’ authority and serves him as my God, but as one who is not officially a member of the Orthodox church, how does the Orthodox church regard me? Am I a branch in the true vine, a member of the body of Christ? Would the Orthodox church call me a ‘brother’? What verdict will I be given by God on the day of judgement?
Do you (Pete again, John, or Fred) feel the Orthodox church could benefit in any way from the example of Protestant or evangelical churches … perhaps some distinctive emphasis that we have that the Orthodox church is weak on? What about worldwide evangelism, for example?
One more question, I have read of several cases in Russia, Romania, and Eritrea where the Orthodox church sided with the Communist/Marxist government to persecute evangelicals, even to the point of betraying them to the secret police and having them imprisoned or executed. Why such hostility?
Phil: we know what we are. It’s not our job to pronounce judgement on what you are.
Protestant churches do lots of things great. We’ve already seen here that their baristas are far in advance of ours.
It’s really hard to comment on what happened in communist times. The church was infiltrated by the state. Nobody can really judge what went on unless you lived through it.
@Phil these responses reflect my minimal understanding Orthodoxy (which is 2,000 years old and very deep):
“Am I a branch in the true vine?” Like John said, we would say “Yes” to Orthodox, and “Maybe, but I don’t know for sure” for Protestants. Can we really say with 100% certainty that a schismatic group of a schismatic group is part of the Church? Now, do we consider you a Christian? Of course.
“Would the Orthodox church call me a ‘brother’?” I would.
“What verdict will I be given by God on the day of judgment?” None of my business.
“Do you feel the Orthodox church could benefit from the example of Protestant churches?” Absolutely; we could use better evangelization. BUT…our #1 priority is to worship the Holy Trinity, primarily through our Divine Liturgies. Our worship services are very seeker UN-friendly. Stuff like fasting is very unpopular in 21st century America. But we cannot change what we have been handed down from the apostles.
“I have read of several cases where the Orthodox church sided with the Communist government to persecute evangelicals”. You must understand that more Christians died in the 20th century that in all other centuries COMBINED. And most of those Christians were ORTHODOX. In the Soviet Union alone, an estimated 50,000 bishops, priests and deacons were martyred. So whatever Christians were left…
Now today, is Russia unfriendly to Protestants? Well, imagine that the USA was 99% Protestant Christian for 1,000 years. Pretty cool. Then, tragically, atheists overtook your country, and wiped out Christianity and Christians. You lost ½ your family in death camps. 70 years later, you regained your freedom of religion. But now, tens of thousands of well-funded Jehovah’s Witnesses from China were streaming into the USA, using their JW “version” of the Bible, evangelizing to everyone, saying that Protestantism was wrong and that you would go to hell unless you converted to JW. In that case, how would you feel?
Well said John and Pete again.
To expand a bit on the state of the Russian Church under communism: after most priests, bishops, and monastics were murdered they were often replaced by KGB agents. The official Russian Orthodox Church was so heavily infiltrated and compromised that the Patriarch Tikhon authorized the formation of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) to allow the preservation of the Russian Church. It is only in very recent years that this split within the Russian Church has begun to heal.
As to the question of hostility: as an example, I will refer to a close friend of mine who does missionary work in Mexico. He does a lot of preaching to Roman Catholic parishes there, encouraging them to a personal relationship with Jesus and to baptism. He does not understand at all why he is encountering hostility there. I have tried to explain to him that, from the Roman Catholic viewpoint, they were all baptized as children and a second baptism is not acceptable. Thus, to be re-baptized as an adult amounts to rejecting their first baptism as invalid, and by extension rejecting Roman Catholicism and their family’s beliefs as invalid. My friend does not consider infant baptism as valid, and does not even consider Roman Catholics as being Christian. So, by implication, he is telling the people he is preaching to that they, and their entire families, are going to hell because they have not been baptized. So who is being hostile in this situation?
Would you appreciate an Orthodox or Roman Catholic missionary coming into your church telling everyone they are not Christians and have it all wrong, and in fact have had it wrong the whole time and are going to hell? Would you appreciate Orthodox missionaries that take the perspective that they are “bringing Christianity to America”, as though it hasn’t been here for a long time?
Being baptised & raised Irish Roman Catholic in the 1950’s and early 60’s, I was sort of taught most non-Catholics were on their way to hell! So now (after over 40 years of the true of grace of God and the experience of the ‘New Birth’ by faith) the whole idea that GOD has just one historical visible church, is just not true, and if pressed badly.. is repugnant to me! Yes, its the principle of the Reformation for me, the true Church is always “reforming” itself, by the Word of God! I am happy to see that many of the Orthodox (as too the best teaching of those in the RCC) know and believe salvation is of course bigger than any ecclesiastical aspect. Though historically I find the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles to be one of the best theological statements & documents!
Indeed in the end, “the Church” is like a “mother” perhaps to us as Christians, but she does not save us, in and of herself! As 1 Tim. 3: 15, the church is “the pillar and support of the truth.” And yet, even Calvin taught that ‘The True Church With which as Mother of All The Godly We Must Keep Unity.’ And yet Calvin can also call the Church the external means of grace, and herself ‘the Holy Catholic Church’, and the ‘visible church as mother of believers.’ (Calvin: Inst. Book Four: ‘The External Means Or Aids By Which God Invites Us Into The Society Of Christ And Holds Us Therein’).
@Fr. Robert,
Your feelings are valid. On the other hand, what has always been believed by the Church must be proclaimed:
http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2012/06/22/the-church-is-holy/
The truth is not subject to individual opinions. We have seen with the Anglican church what happens when leaders deviate from the Gospel.
@Pete: I would agree that the ‘Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic’ reality, but again in the end, it is just NOT the Redemption or the Redeemer itself! This will always be the Incarnate Son of God Himself, who is Himself the Savior and the Redeemer, alone sent by God the Father! (John 17:3)
Btw, we will always each of us alone, stand before God, “And in as much as it is destined for men to die-once, and after this comes Judgment!” (Heb. 9:27) THIS is certainly OUR day before the Lord, and very “individual”!
In the real biblical and theological sense, “Christ Jesus” alone is the Church and Body of Christ “Himself”, but the “Elect” believers are also part of the Redemptive Body. But alone known by God. (Eph. 2:16-22 ; 3: 21) Note, I believe in both the visible and invisible Church of God! The true “Elect” of God are in both, but only in the latter are the true redeemed!
And btw, just a point, the real difference between the church of a Luther and Calvin, verses Rome, etc. is the contrast of the idea of the “teaching office”, the view that Scripture is ultimately to be interpreted by the church itself and really alone! But ultimately Scripture and church cannot be played off against each other, since the church has preserved the Scripture and the individual receives it from the church, and Luther never advocated individualistic isolation in Scripture interpretation. In fact both belong together! But, we also cannot make the Church itself outside the bounds of or in the individual conscience, for God has given both! The Holy Scripture does always authenticate itself, with both Church and human conscience! And both Luther and Calvin were “churchmen”.
Fr Robert: Augustine said that he would not have believed the gospel except for the authority of the catholic church. If you don’t believe in one visible, identifiable church, the question becomes which gospel do you believe, and which bible will you believe. Whether it be the various gnostic and otherwise heretical bibles, Mormon bibles, etc. as repugnant as you might think it is, you are indebted to the early church’s unity in settling the faith, which couldn’t have happened if the church was run like the Anglican communion, let alone like Protestantism in general.
Please John, you can have you say, but don’t insult me! You can’t quote Augustine, in one place, without hearing him fully in another! Remember, I am an Augustinian also, both the man and his theology, somewhat!
And if you took the time to read the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, noting especially Articles VI-VIII (6.7.8.)
6. The Sufficientcy Of The Holy Scriptures For Salvation.
7. The Old Testament
8. The Three Creeds.
Here, you would see what I believe! Want to try again? 😉
John: Do you have a copy of the BCP? Inside, in the back are the Anglican Articles of Religion. Please read them before you dialogue further with me, at least on Anglicanism!
I bet I have read more about the EO, then you have of the Anglican? 😉
Here are the Anglican Articles (6,7,& 8). Here is what classic and historical Anglicans have always believed, in confession, faith and creed!
Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
Article VII: Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the…
7-8…
Article VII: Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
Article VIII: Of the Three Creeds
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.
Fr Robert, with respect, I used to be an Anglican, and your response is a non-sequitur for my objection.
@John: Sorry mate, but this is no “none-sequitur”, and you must be a very ignorant former Anglican! You have said simply “nothing” for a “Biblical” objection! 😉
*non
Btw, John, a non-sequitur (is Latin) and means an “argument” in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So what is your real point?
Fr Robert: well thats amusing. You quote an Anglican creed then accuse me of not making a biblical argument!
And even if there was something valid somewhere in there, quoting large swaths of the 39 articles, just doesn’t cut it. I cite Genesis through Revelation!!!!!! I win!!!!!
Anyway, the epistemological problem at hand precedes the bible. You cite the bible, but you are epistemologically dependent on the early church which resolved the canon question with the necessity of a completely different ecclesiology than what you subscribe to. Without that visible church, whose boundaries are reasonably well known, you have no basis to honor its decisions on what the faith is, including the bible itself. I don’t even envisage how your ideas would have worked in the 2nd century.
@John: I am always quite amazed when I run into former Anglicans, who are so ignorant of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles! So this is my somewhat looking anger, which is really more toward the ignorance of the Anglican Articles themselves. So this is not personal to you certainly!
But again, your statement of a non-sequitur, is itself kind of a smoke screen to me? Especially since it is a Latin term and philosophic, in the western sense.
Finally, I am always more of a Biblicist myself, though of course I love theology also.
@John: Let me look back, but I have really not seen much biblical argument from you, but just the EO is THE Apostolic Church! I remember the old Roman fever of her converts, and I see this in many EO converts also! Very sad to me, really!
And btw, the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles are very biblical to my mind. That’s way I am still an Evangelical Anglican!
I fail to see how you’ve proved I am ignorant of the 39 articles. I also fail to see how it would matter one whit if I was ignorant thereof. You are clearly ignorant of the Tridion. I win, I win, I win!
As for non-sequitur, I made specific objections. Your response was that you win because I am ignorant of the 39 articles, and proceeded to quote large swaths thereof. You should be able to see this is a non-sequitur.
@John: This is not about “winning”, for we are beggers to the grace of God! And I am not about winning against you at all either. No, I am an Anglican priest-presbyter, or simply a pastor & shepherd for the souls of God’s people! Yes, I am seeking truth, but again we are only beggers to such and the mercy and grace of God! So, if you want to be the “winner” you got it mate, but again that really is the non-sequitur, itself! (Doesn’t follow!) For again, GOD In Christ, and our Triune God is the Sovereign and the Lord, the Almighty! Indeed Jesus is Lord!
Let’s just move on now, and let this not be about who has the “true” Church, for truly Christ is the Church Himself!
Best In Christ!
Fr. Robert 🙂
Micheal: Well, I don’t personally see any problem about sharing it, since it is a pretty high level summary, and it is after all, just your interpretation of what took place.
Perhaps one thing you should understand is that priests are sometimes a bit edgy about anything they do being made public, for the reason that they only exist at the mercy of the bishop, and manys the priest who has got into some some three way tussle with a complaining member of a congregation, and the bishop. You know, church politics. That destroying force that all denominations struggle with. So by posting the discussion online, the danger is that sometime in the future, some pedant in his congregation will takes issue with something that isn’t precise or quite correct, and causes this priest some problem. There is an element in Orthodoxy, and probably in most denominations, of pedants who always want everything done just right. Since in Orthodoxy, most things are actually in theory pretty well specified as to the correct way to do it, priests are usually pretty careful about towing the line, and being seen to be towing the line.
I had an email discussion with a Greek Orthodox some years ago. His English was fine but when it came to the subject it was like he spoke a totally different language. There was no communication and only mutual incomprehension.
To be honest I do not see the point in discussing doctrine with the Eastern Orthodox. The gulf is immense. Protestants and Catholics have different answers to the same questions but the Orthodox have a different set of questions altogether. And some Orthodox will still bridle over the filioque, which to me is a total irrelevance
I am friends with the local Russian Orthodox community in my home town, but would not dream of bringing up the subject of doctrine.
If they have the Holy Spirit he will teach them. If not then no one can.
Our efforts are not essential