The Bible

JM said:

It seems you missunderstood what I wrote. This is the forum of the. Eastern Orthodox denomination so I can't argue but I will clarify.

The Reformed confessions state very clearly the Bible was "kept pure in all ages...." I pointed to Luther, Calvin, etc. who held to the idea called common faith today called the logic of faith to keep often doubted passages in scripture. This is what I meant by "traditionally and confessionally." It is clear from the 16th century until the 19th century invasion of Liberalism Prots held to the Textus Receptus.

Click to expand...

Right, but what you are labeling as liberalism was actually a Protestant movement (that is, a movement within Protestantism and supported by Protestant sects). The fight between Biblical Criticism and its opponents was, for the most part, largely a fight within Protestantism about how best to approach Sola Scriptura. It doesn't really make a lot of sense outside that context.

The whole point of Source Criticism was, and still is, to locate the "original" historical context of the documents and narratives of the various Biblical texts and, thereby, to arrive at the pristine or pure truth of God's revelation. Wellhausen was 100% Protestant (as was Von Rad, for that matter).

All of this stemmed from the desire to interpret the Scriptures according to the plain or literal sense. One could not deduce that plain or literal sense apart from a reconstruction of the cultural-linguistic context of the original document, and hence one had to engage in Biblical Criticism.

In contexts, like Orthodoxy and Catholicism, where the plain or literal sense is not the determinant of Doctrine - but rather the reception of the Biblical text in the Ecclesial community over time is the determinant of Doctrine - the historical and even philological context of the Biblical texts is not only not of critical importance but is simultaneously not a threat (in the way that it was to older Protestant doctrinal systems).

Textual criticism began with Liberalism which rejects Christianity by reinterpreting the faith as myths and fables useful for a moral story but that's it.

Click to expand...

But they didn't reject Christianity, unless you've predetermined what qualifies as Christianity so that the definition excludes those you've here labeled as liberals. Again, giants like Welhausen and Von Rad were quite thoroughly Protestant. The Documentary Hypothesis was forwarded as a way of reconstructing the composition of the Pentateuch precisely so that it conformed to the "works / faith" dichotomy of the Reformation, with the older and more pure (original) religion being free from Levitical legalism that came in rather late (since Wellhausen had the P source as the latest).

At the very least the German Liberal movement denied the "traditional and confessionally" view of the Bible. Muller wrote set on Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics where he outlines the Prot view of scripture and it exactly as I stated.

Click to expand...

Except you've already defined Protestantism so as to exclude those from Protestantism who hold a view of Protestantism which contrasts with your own. The mainline Protestant denominations have (for a long time) included and housed precisely the sort of Christian liberal critic that you're opposing.

Anyhow, my original point wasn't to say "haha, look you caused your own problem..." or to score cheap points. I'm actually quite favorable to Biblical Criticism, though I'm also quite critical of it (as are a lot of Biblical scholars). My point was to indicate that the FERVOR with which these issues matter to Protestants is in part due to the fact that these divisions occurred, historically, WITHIN Protestantism and as part of the broad thrust of the Protestant project to eliminate the accrual of tradition from off of the Biblical text and get back to its pure root. The only difference is the degree and quantity of removal.

For those (Catholics, Orthodox) for whom that accrual of tradition is in fact an inspired process, the efforts of Biblical Criticism aren't really problematic. They are, at worst, mere curiosities and, at best, new angles from which to engage with and dialogue with the text and, therefore, to encounter God's Word.

This is your denominational forum so I won't go anything further. Since I can't respond further I would like to recommend you are welcome to come to the Semper forum to continue this discussion, we have an Ask A Calvinist section.

Click to expand...

Eh, I probably won't. I'm not that interested in debating the matter. Again, I'd refer you to Levenson's book on The Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, and Historical Criticism. I think you'd find him an unusually potent ally (most conservative thinkers do) against the prevailing academic climate.

Hope that helps...

In Christ,
Macarius

JM said:

Besides a few keyboard warriors that has never been my experience with RCs or EO. When I attended St Nektarios for over a year it was probably the worst example of lack of biblical knowledge which caused me to move on.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I said RCC's. I'd agree (by and large) about the lack of Biblical literacy among Orthodox Christians.

That brings me to my next question about the Filioque. Clark Carleton argues the EO agree with the West claiming the temporal sending of the Spirit of Christ was orthodox but the eternal sending was not. How was this foreseen when the creed was written? How does this affect the believer? It don't believe it does.

Click to expand...

For the record, I dislike Clark Carlton's general polemical approach, but on to the actual question:

The simplest answer, which is valid at the time of the development of the Creedal doctrine of the Holy Spirit (e.g. Nazianzus and Nyssa, primarily), is that the Scriptures do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

They say that God is the Father, which implies the Son who is described as the Begotten of the Father and therefore True God from True God - the Son of God. And they say that the Spirit Proceeds from the Father. If you examine the Scriptures carefully, you will see that the word for procession is the ONLY word exclusively applied to the relationship of Father to Spirit and not, in some other verse, also applied to the relationship of Spirit to Son or Son to Father.

So if we want to say what is "distinctive" of the Spirit and the Son, it is procession for the one and begottenness for the other. And for God, His distinctiveness is being Father, the unbegotten.

Just as an experiment I asked RCs and EOs if the Father sends the Son eternally or temporally based on the creed and thy both thought it was crazy because they never considered the question before.

Click to expand...

The Creed actually does say that the Son is born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary and becomes man. So the Spirit temporally "begets" the Son-as-Jesus in Mary, and this is in the Creed.

However, all of this chronological language for God doesn't sit right with me. There is no chronology in God. There is only chronology from our perspective, bound by time.

Why is this important if EO believe Christ sends the Spirit on temporal missions but not eternal...since the creed that does not differentiate.

Thanks jm

Click to expand...

It is important if it confuses the Hypostases of the Trinity and, thereby, moulds a new sort of quasi-modalism wherein the Three each express some abstract "Divinity" that is somehow distinct from them and possessed by them. It makes Father, Son and Spirit expressions of the one Divinity but then the one Divinity is somehow abstracted from them or shared as a substance between them (as something distinct and, in that way, almost a fourth hypostasis).

Preserving the Scripture terminology for the distinctiveness of each (God as Father, Son as Begotten, Spirit as Proceeding) roots monotheism in the One God, the Father (as the Creed actually states). It isn't abstract. It is all God's Divinity which the Son has by virtue of being begotten and the Spirit by virtue of proceeding from that one fountainhead and source.

Ultimately, though, the issue was how the Creed was changed (Papal fiat), not the doctrine itself which, though problematic, was in communion with Orthodoxy for several centuries among the Germanic churches.

That brings me to my next question about the Filioque. Clark Carleton argues the EO agree with the West claiming the temporal sending of the Spirit of Christ was orthodox but the eternal sending was not. How was this foreseen when the creed was written?

Click to expand...

it was. that is why after Chalcedon (I think) they said all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit was full and complete.

How does this affect the believer?

Click to expand...

because it is not based on revelation

St. John of Damascus upheld the veneration of icons while under Moslem rule & was considered a heretic by then iconoclast Constaninople. During his life, Christians & Moslems even shared the same buildings for their respective days of worship in some areas. Later on, Islamic rule became moe harsh towards Christians although their devotion to icons was uninterrupted under Islam & later Constantinople reverted to icon veneration amidst political intrigue. I do not know the full analysis of this but what I have said is factually true so there appears to be an inspired current of veneration that persisted & suffered alongside natural variations of human conduct from toleration to cruelty.

JM said:

Thanks Lukaris. I only have access to books that are written by Prots or secular historians. Could you recommend a title on the issue from an Eastern perspective? Perhaps I could use interlibrary loan to find it.

Thank you.

jm

Click to expand...

JM,

I am recalling from a book titled: Byzantine Christianity:Emperor Church & the West by Harry J. Magoulias see: Amazon.com: Harry J. Magoulias: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

I am also recalling the fact re sharing of churches with mosque worship during the early part of Islamic rule in Syria from a booklet from our Antiochian Orthodox (USA) Archdiocese (ca. 1950). I will to remember to type an exact quote from it since it is long out of print.

JM said:

Lukaris, have you heard of the title, "Orthodox Christian Theology" by Cunningham & Theokritoff?

Click to expand...

No, I have not; it appears to be a decent book from what little I have skimmed online about it. Will try to return here later.

Just wanted to mention my source of Churches doubling as mosques:

Re: Feast day of St. Peter of Damascus (February 9):

"When the Moslems took the city of Damascus in 635 AD, they taxed the inhabitants who refused to forsake Christianity & adopt Islam. Half the churches were turned into mosques; the great Cathedral of St. John Baptist was divided, and for 80 years served both Christian & Moslem worshippers. This tolerant state of affairs worsened about a century after the conquest, and the Moslems began to treat the Christians with more severity. St. Peter was a priest of the city whose zeal brought him the disfavor of the rulers, and he was martyred by the sword about 740 AD."


From: Orthodox Christian Year (3rd ed.) Very Reverend Stephen H. R. Upson, Syrian (now Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese of N. America c. 1953 imprimatur of (late) Metr. Antony Bashir.

I think in this case it was less that Christians were graciously allowing Muslims to worship with them as Muslims were "graciously" allowing Christians to still use the temple they were stealing for their own use as a mosque. But this is my non-expert opinion and more info could certainly displace it.

Knee V said:

They are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. They are the records of those who encountered God's revelation directly. We would say that God's revelation is not the book, but the Person-to-person encounter that the book describes. God's revelation is the act of him showing Himself to man. Revelation is a direct personal encounter. God's full and ultimate revelation of Himself is the Person of Christ, where He became one of us (and still is) and walked among us and spoke to us directly. The books that came after describe that revelation, but they themselves are not that revelation.

They are the only books in the world that tell the story of God's people encountering God's revelation, and they're written from the perspective of those same people.


(This post should not be understood as attempting to give an exhaustive answer.)

Click to expand...

Oh my! exactly the way my parish priest explains it. I've been trying to explain this to my fundamentalist parents without success. I'll simply let them read your post.

Knee V said:

They are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. They are the records of those who encountered God's revelation directly. We would say that God's revelation is not the book, but the Person-to-person encounter that the book describes. God's revelation is the act of him showing Himself to man. Revelation is a direct personal encounter. God's full and ultimate revelation of Himself is the Person of Christ, where He became one of us (and still is) and walked among us and spoke to us directly. The books that came after describe that revelation, but they themselves are not that revelation.

They are the only books in the world that tell the story of God's people encountering God's revelation, and they're written from the perspective of those same people.

(This post should not be understood as attempting to give an exhaustive answer.)

Click to expand...

Been following this thread. It's quite interesting. The response above I found very enlightening.