Ancient Christian Witness

"While browsing Hank Hanegraaf's website, I decided to
do a search for the Orthodox Church and see what the site had to say about it.
Initially it was rather respectful of the Church...then I came across this
article by Paul Negrut, entitled Searching for the True Apostolic Church: What
Evangelicals Should Know about Eastern Orthodoxy and originally printed in
Hanegraaf's publication Christian Research Journal. What I read shocked me.

Negrut opens his article by citing the famous event where Peter
Gillquist, along with 2,000 followers from 17 different churches, embraced
Orthodoxy. It was proclaimed by many of them as a "coming home" to the apostolic
church. Taking a right turn, Negrut says to us that "one cannot avoid asking if
such statements are based on solid historical and theological arguments or if
this movement is yet another religious diversion."

I am curious as to
what this "religious diversion" is. Diversion from what? Is the Orthodox Church
comparable to Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, who are drawing people away from
the true meaning of Christ? Perhaps Joel Kalvesmaki, editor of Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and who wrote a response to the article, is right when he
asserts that the "growing number of converts to Orthodox Christianity from their
own ranks, Evangelicals have begun to publish to stave off the growing success
of a Christian tradition that, until recently, has generally been unknown."
However, I'm not particularly fond of conspiracy theories, and I don't think
this one article is proof of Protestant plan to turn people away from Orthodoxy
- I think it is simply an example of someone ignoring the real facts due to
stubborn thinking. I'm also not particularly fond of those with a "martyr's
complex" and don't want to make those reading this blog for the first time think
the Orthodox population has such an attitude.

In any case, Negrut's
article is full of misunderstandings and fallacies, which I'd like to go into in
detail by following his arguments point by point.


ORTHODOX FAITH OR
FAITHS?


Negrut begins his critique of Orthodoxy by saying that,
contrary to popular belief, "Orthodoxy is not a monolithic bloc that shares a
unified tradition and church life." The term "Eastern Orthodoxy," Negrut
explains, "comprises all the Christian churches that separated at an early age
from the Western tradition (Rome) in order to follow one of the ancient
patriarchies (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople)."


The problem here is that Negrut has his history completely reversed:
Eastern Christianity did not split from Rome - Rome split from the East! I spoke
about this in greater detail in this entry, but I will summarize it
here.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome felt
isolated due to political separation between east and west, and gradually more
and more power was granted to the Roman Pope, who began to act more independent
of the other Churches. After conflicts of interest in the Balkans and Latin
versus Greek services, a Roman delegation excommunicated the entire Eastern
Church in the 11th century, thereby splitting west from east. The sacking of
Constantinople by Crusaders fulfilled the schism.This made me wonder if Negrut
had really read Gillquist's book, rather than glanced through a few pages or
read a couple of reviews for it. All of what I've just said is discussed from
pages 47-53 of Becoming Orthodox, with two pages dedicated to a map showing the
splits Christianity experienced from the crucifixion of Christ to the Anglican
churches."

"In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among
dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation
controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges and Charles
Ryrie who taught a reductionistic doctrine of sola fide which absolutized the
word "alone" in the phrase "justification by faith alone" and removed it from
its overall theologicalcontext. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to
the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification,
submission to Christ's Lordship, Love, and perseverance were all said to be
unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the
classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Clavin. On the
other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were
clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. In
addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants,
numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this
alteration of the doctrine of sola fide. A heated theological controversy began
which continues in some circles even to this day.

Ironically, a similar
drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has
occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the
theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any
threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time
and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any
perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical
and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is
virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substitude an entirely
different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to
this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura. Mordern Evangelicalism has
done the same thing to solo scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to sola fide.
But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura
today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when
the topic is raised. Contradictory not only among broadly Evangical authors but
among Reformed authors as well. In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant
modern Evangelical concept of solo Scriptura and explain why it is imperative
that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted
concepts of sola fide that are prevalent in the Church today.

Evangelical Individualism

The modern
Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of
tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the
Bible is said to be the "sole basis of authoruty." Tradition is not allowed in
any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is
denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern
Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or
Eastern Orthodox doctrine of authority. But despite the very differences, the
modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic
and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in
final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the
Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which
invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position
inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer.

We have
already seen that there is a major difference between the concept of Scripture
and tradition taught by the Classical Reformers and the concept taught by the
Anabaptists and their heirs. The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as
Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The
Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but
the only authority whatsoever. The Enlightenment added the philosophical
framework in which to comprehend this individualism. The individual reason was
elevated to the position of final authority. Appeals to antiquity and tradition
of any kind were ridiculed. In the early years of the United States, democratic
populism swept the people along in its fervor. The result is a modern American
Evangelicalism which has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular
Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism.

Perhaps
the best way to explain the fundamental problems with the modern Evangelical
version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which
believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with
theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations
of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he
teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, "Because the Bibleteaches
premillennialism." If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the
street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will
likely be, "Because that is what the Bible teaches." Each man will claim that
the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make
such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgement on the
authority of the Bible, but since each man's interpretation is mutually
exclusive of the other's, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we
discern which interpretation is correct?

The typical modern Evangelical
solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on
both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He
is told that this is what sola scriptura means-to individualy evaluate all
doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all
that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpreations of
other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation.
Rather than placing the final authority in scripture as it intends to do, this
concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgement of
each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and
theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.
A fundamental
and self-evident truth that seems to be unconsciously overlooked by proponents
of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is that no one is infallible
in his interpretation of Scripture. Each of us comes to the Scripture with
different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most
importantly, sinfulness. Because of this we each read things into Scripture that
are not there and miss things in Scripture that are there. Unfortunately, a
large number of modern Evangelicals have followed in the footsteps of Alexander
Campbell (1788-1866), founder of the Disciples of Christ, who naively believed
he could come to Scripture with absolute no preconceived notions or biases. We
have already mentioned no preconceived notions or biases. We have already
mentioned Campbell's naive statement, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures
as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against
reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago,
as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system
whatever."
The same ideas were expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer, the
extremely influential founder and first president of Dallas Theological
Seminary. Chafer believed that his lack of any theological training gave him the
ability to approach scriptural interpretation without bias. He said, "the very
fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for
me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only
with what the Bible actually teaches." This, however, is simply impossible.
Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning,
one cannot read the Scripture without some bias and blind spots. This is a given
of the post-Fall human condition.

This naive belief in the ability to
escape one' own noetic and spiritual limitations led Cambell and his modern
Evangelical heirs to discount any use of secondary authorities. The Church, the
creeds, and the teachings of the early fathers were all considered quaint at
best. The discarding of the creeds is a common feature of the modern Evangelical
notion of solo scriptura. It is so pervasive that one may find it even in the
writings of prominent Reformed theologians. For example, in a recently published
and well-received Reformed systematic theology text, Robert Reymond laments the
fact that most Reformed Christians adhere to the Triniterian orthodoxy expressed
in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. He openly calls for an abandonment of
the Nicen Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept. One
cannot help but wonder how this is any different than the Unitarians rejection
of creedal orthodoxy. They call for the rejection of one aspect of Nicene
Trinitarianism while Reymond calls for the rejection of another. Why is one
considered heretical and the other published by a major Evangelical publishing
house?

An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the
Great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the
most zealous oppnents of creeds "have been those who held corrupt opinions."
This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published
defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch
advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant
rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. the first goal
of these authors is to convince the reader that sola scriptura means solo
scriptura. In other words, their first goal is to convince readers that there
are no binding doctrinal boundaries within Christianity.

In his defense
of annihilationism, for example, Edward Fudge states that Scripture, "is the
only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject." He
adds that the individual should weigh the scriptural interpretations of other
uninspired and fallible Christians against Scripture. He does not explain how
the Christian is to escape his own uninspired fallibility. The doctrinal
boundaries of Christians orthodoxy are cast aside as being historically
conditioned and relative. Of course, Fudge fails to note that his interpretation
is as historically conditioned and relative as any that he criticizes.

Another heresy that has been widely promoted with assistance of the
modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper preterism or pantelism.
While there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates
of this doctrine insist that JEsus Christ returned in A.D. 70 at the destruction
of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic
curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general
resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain
were done away with, and the eternal state began. The proponents of Pantelism
are even more vocal in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrinal
boundaries than Fudge. Ed Stevens, for example, writes,

"Even if the
creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which
they don't), it would not be an overwhelming problem since they have no real
authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today,
but they are valued because of their antiquity."

This is a hallmark of
the doctrine of solo scriptura, and it is a position that the classical
Reformers adamently rejected. Stevens continues elsewhere,

"We must not
take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men
like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminister Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or
C.S. Lewis."


Here we see the clear rejection of scriptural based
structures of authority. The authority of those who rule in the Church is
rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the
same level as the words of any individual. This is certainly the democratic way
of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. If
what Mr. Stevens writes is true, then Christians should not take theNicene
doctrine of the Trinity any more seriously than we take some idiosyncratic
doctrine of Alexander Campbell or C.S. Lewis. If this doctrine of solo scriptura
and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority
to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to
authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy
would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination. Another
Pantelist, John Noe, claims that this rejection of the authority of the
ecumenical creeds "is what the doctrine of sola scriptura is all about." As we
have demonstrated, this is manifestly untrue of the classical Reformed doctrine
of sola scriptura." The doctrine of Scripture being espoused by these men is a
doctrine of Scripture that is based upon anabaptist individualism, Enlightenment
rationalism, and democratic populism. It is a doctrine of Scripture divorced
from its Christian context." [3]

Quote
"Different views of Greek Philosophy, Particularly
Plato. The New Testament writers, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Reformers
rejected pagan philosophy, while Orthodoxy embraced it."
[4] page 31

Quote
"Different epistemologies on how we know if
something is true or false. Orthodoxy's negative Natural theology versus the
revealed theology of the Bible."
[5] page 31

Quote
"Different hermeneutics in the way we should
interprete the Bible. Orthodoxy is mystical and intuitive in its understanding
of the Bible, while biblical Christianity follows the principles of historical,
grammatical exegesis"
[6] page 31

Quote
"Different views on the origin, nature,
inspiration, canon, and authority of the Bible. The Orthodox do not have the
same books in their Bible as found in the Catholic or Protestant Bibles."
[7] page 32

Quote
"Different views on the origin, nature, and
inspiration of "the Greek Septuagint." The Orthodox claim tht it is more
inspired than the original Hebrew text!"
[8] page 32

Quote
"Different views on the authority of the church,
its "Fathers", councils, creeds, and leaders. The Orthodox use circular
reasoning. Something is true because the Church says so. There is no higher
authority than the Church. This is true because the church says so."
[9]
page 32

Quote
"different views on the nature, attributes,
existence, and knowledge of God."
[10] page 32

Quote
"Different views on the nature, attributes, person
and work of Jesus Christ."
[11] page 32

Quote
"Different views of the nature, power, work, and
veneration of angels, Mary, the Apostles, the saints, and the "Father."
[12]
page 32

Quote
"Different views on the veneration of icons and
relics."
[13] page 32

Quote
"Different views on the nature of man, original
sin, free will, and human potential."
[14] page 32

Quote
"Different views of the nature of sin and what is
needed to correct it."
[15] page 33

Quote
"Different views of salvation, grace, works,
faith, and the nature,number and role of the sacraments"
[16] page 33

Quote
"Different views of the heart of the gospel
message. The Bible teaches that justification is the heart of the gospel, while
Orthodoxy teaches deification."
[17] page 33

Quote
"Different views on the nature of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper"
[18] page 33

"In Chapter "Origins of Coptic Christianity", Aziz S.
Atiya (A History of Eastern Christianity, pp. 25-28) tells of the very detailed
and firm tradition in Egypt among the Coptic churches regarding St. Mark: "St.
Mark brought his Gospel with him to Alexandria; and though the Greek version
could have fulfilled his purpose in that city, the suggestion is made that
another version in the Egyptian language was prepared for the benefit of native
converts who were "Mark's real labor lay in Africa. First, he crossed the
Mediterranean to Cyrenaica-the Pentapolis which had been his parents' residence
in bygone days. This country was colonized by Greeks and many Jews who offered
his zeal a ripe and hopeful harvest. After performing many miracles and sowing
the seeds of his faith, he went to Alexandria by a circuitous route through the
oases and Babylon, or Old Cairo. Alexandria was the Eastern counterpart of Rome,
both in importance and in being a stronghold of paganism, and it was imperative
that Christianity should win the two. The task was as worthy as it was
hazardous. "Here we face the important problem of dates. The History of the
Patriarchs mentions explicitly that the revelation to Peter and Mark, that they
should advance on Rome and Alexandria, came in the fifteenth year after the
Ascension of Christ, that is, 48 A.D. Other sources put his entry into
Alexandria in 55, 58 and 61 A.D. Whatever the right date of Mark's appearence in
the city, the consensus is that he was martyred in 68 A.D. Between those two
dates he was able to fulfill his mission and to win many converts.

"The story runs that on entering the city by the eastern
gate, he broke the strap of his shoe. So he went to a cobbler to mend it. When
the cobbler took an awl to work on it, he accidentally pierced his hand and
cried aloud: 'Heis ho Theos' (God is one). Mark rejoiced at this utterance and,
after miraculously healing the man's wound, took courage and gave the lesson to
the hubgry ears of his first convert. This happened to be Anianus, Mark's
successor as the second patriarch of Alexandria. The spark was fired, and the
cobbler took the Apostle home with him. He and his family were baptized, and
many others followed. So successful was the movement that the word spread that a
Galilean was in the city preparing to overthrow the idols. Popular feeling began
to rise, and men sought him everywhere. Scenting danger, the Apostle ordained
Anianus bishop, with three priests and seven deacons to watch over the
congregation in case anything befell him. Afterwards, he seems to have
undertaken two voyages. First he sallied into Rome where he met Peter and Paul,
and he left the capital only after their martyrdom in 64 A.D. He then stayed at
Aquilea, near Venice, before his return to Alexandria. On finding his flock firm
in the faith, he decided to visit the Pentapolis, where he spent two years
performing miracles, ordaining bishops and priests, and winning more converts.
When at last he reached Alexandria, he was overjoyed to find that the brethren
had so multiplied that they were able to build a considerable church in the
suburban district of Baucalis, where cattle grazed by the seashore.

"Spreading rumers that the Christians threatened to
overthrow the pagan deities infuriated the idolatrous populace. The end was
approaching, and the saint was unremittingly hunted by the enemy. In the year 68
A.D., Easter fell on the same day as the Serapis festival. The furious mob had
gathered in the Serapion and then descended on the Christians while they were
celebrating Easter at Baucalis. St. Mark was seized, dragged with a rope around
his neck in the streets, and then incarcerated for the night. In the following
morning the same ordeal was repeated until he gave up the ghost. His flesh was
torn and bloddy, and it was their intent to cremate his remains. But the wind
blew and the rain fell in torrents, and the populace dispersed. Thus the
Christians stealthily carried off his body and secretly buried it in a grave
which they had carved in the rock under the alter of the church."(A History of
Eastern Christianity, Aziz S. Atiya, pp. 22-28) [1]

Quote
"Can you give me a concise definition of what
constitute a "Holy tradition?"
[4] page 25

Quote
quote from page 26
"Is the issue authority,
i.e. was it believed by all "the Fathers" or all great theologians in the past?"
[7]