An Orthodox Deconstruction of Reformed Theology

Justin-H.S. said:

Here's an easy one: At some point in the first hour, Mr. Dyer says the NT wasn't even canonized until the late 4th century (and Revelation wasn't included for another couple hundred years after that), so how could the early Church have been a 'Sola Scriptura' church if some churches had A,B,C scriptures while others had X,Y,Z scriptures. It wasn't until several councils after the first Nicaea that scriptures A,B,C were deemed authentic along with X,Y,Z scriptures along with 21 other epistles. So, that essentially cancels out that the Ordo Theologae comes from the scriptures alone.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that argument assumes that the early church had everything right, (and that, without the whole Bible available).

To my mind, when we are told the early church is a pattern, it doesn't mean we shouldn't deviate from the pattern, where Scripture and use require it. The early church didn't get everything right, even for their day, I expect.

But if EO doesn't believe in the authority of scripture, what is the point of the thread? I don't mean to be talking out of turn --reprimands are welcom.

Justin-H.S. said:

For Roman Catholics; Theology derives from the Pope.
For Protestants; Theology derives from the scriptures.
For Othodox; Theology derives from the Holy Trinity.

Click to expand...

An EO told me authority derives from the church, not scriptures, certainly, but no mention of the Trinity in the statement. I suppose 'authority' and 'theology' are not the same, but to me they are necessarily very strongly related.

Mark Quayle said:

Seems to me that argument assumes that the early church had everything right, (and that, without the whole Bible available).

To my mind, when we are told the early church is a pattern, it doesn't mean we shouldn't deviate from the pattern, where Scripture and use require it. The early church didn't get everything right, even for their day, I expect.

But if EO doesn't believe in the authority of scripture, what is the point of the thread? I don't mean to be talking out of turn --reprimands are welcom.

Click to expand...

in Scripture Christ says the early Church got it right, and the Church existed nearly a generation before the first book of NT was written, and nearly 400 years before it was compiled into a single text.

and we absolutely believe in the authority of Scripture.

ArmyMatt said:

not only that, but Pentecost happened in 33AD and the earliest New Testament text wasn't written until about 50AD. so how can sola Scriptures be true, when for the first 17 years there was no New Testament?

Click to expand...

Speaking in tongues and prophecy became the NT scriptures when written down and circulated. They were incomplete and ceased when the written scriptures became complete with John's Revelation. Did everyone have access to them? No, the preached word recited what the scriptures said.

Dave L said:

Speaking in tongues and prophecy became the NT scriptures when written down and circulated. They were incomplete and ceased when the written scriptures became complete with John's Revelation. Did everyone have access to them? No, the preached word recited what the scriptures said.

Click to expand...

uh huh...evidence for this?

Justin-H.S. said:

TL;DR - It all boils down to what your Ordo Theologae (Order of Theology) is.

For Roman Catholics; Theology derives from the Pope.
For Protestants; Theology derives from the scriptures.
For Othodox; Theology derives from the Holy Trinity.

Click to expand...

I just looked at the OP again. For mainline Protestants, which include a big chunk of current Reformed, theology derives from Jesus, with Scripture, though a human work, the only primary source for that today. (During the first century, of course, that would not have been the case.)

Even for the 3 groups listed, that’s kind of a cheap shot. For everyone theology comes from the Trinity. The difference is how. Furthermore, Catholic theology doesn’t derive from the Pope. It derives from the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, with Tradition and Scripture being ways we know about it, The Pope is regarded as having the authority to make inerrant decisions based on that tradition on behalf of the Church.

ArmyMatt said:

well, that's not what we think. tradition isn't an interpretation, it's the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church. and the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church goes back before creation, so it is a direct pipeline.

Click to expand...

Ok. Then you think Tradition can include new revealed truth? My understanding of Tradition in Catholic thought is that they are a bit more limited in the idea of new public revelation. If there’s no new revelation, then it would seem to be interpretation and application of what was revealed to the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.

hedrick said:

Ok. Then you think Tradition can include new revealed truth? My understanding of Tradition in Catholic thought is that they are a bit more limited in the idea of new public revelation. If there’s no new revelation, then it would seem to be interpretation and application of what was revealed to the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

there is no new revelation. stuff might be clarified more clearly, but Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would lead them into all truth.

ArmyMatt said:

uh huh...evidence for this?

Click to expand...

Read Acts independently as a thinking believer and see for yourself.

Dave L said:

Read Acts independently as a thinking believer and see for yourself.

Click to expand...

that's an assertion, not evidence. at that assumes I don't or have not read Acts.

ArmyMatt said:

that's an assertion, not evidence. at that assumes I don't or have not read Acts.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with your position on tongues in the early church. But the Apostles laid hands on different groups giving them the gift so they could speak NT words before the NT became complete. It's far too involved unless we open a thread to discuss it. Are you familiar with the early use of tongues and prophecy?

ArmyMatt said:

there is no new revelation. stuff might be clarified more clearly, but Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would lead them into all truth.

Click to expand...

OK, then I think that's what I meant by interpretation. Obviously we confront new situations that weren't explicitly covered in Jesus' teachings or by the Apostles. So the Church has to make new decisions, guided by the Holy Spirit. But if that is within the confines of what was revealed once, then I'd call it interpretation and application.

plus, everything in Acts occurred prior to the book of Revelation which was when you said it ceased. so the evidence of it ceasing would have to be after Revelation, which would not include Acts.

Dave L said:

I'm not familiar with your position on tongues in the early church. But the Apostles laid hands on different groups giving them the gift so they could speak NT words before the NT became complete. It's far too involved unless we open a thread to discuss it. Are you familiar with the early use of tongues and prophecy?

Click to expand...

I am. I read early Christianity often. but you're still not answering the question or providing anything to support your claim.

ArmyMatt said:

plus, everything in Acts occurred prior to the book of Revelation which was when you said it ceased. so the evidence of it ceasing would have to be after Revelation, which would not include Acts.



I am. I read early Christianity often. but you're still not answering the question or providing anything to support your claim.

Click to expand...

Have you ever read Paul's description of the gifts in 1 Cor. 12 and the following? I'm not familiar with what your denomination believes.

hedrick said:

OK, then I think that's what I meant by interpretation. Obviously we confront new situations that weren't explicitly covered in Jesus' teachings or by the Apostles. So the Church has to make new decisions, guided by the Holy Spirit. But if that is within the confines of what was revealed once, then I'd call it interpretation and application.

Click to expand...

sure, I can see that. I think we'd say Rome hasn't done that.

Dave L said:

Have you ever read Paul's description of the gifts in 1 Cor. 12 and the following? I'm not familiar with what your denomination believes.

Click to expand...

yeah, I don't see where it says after Revelation tongues or prophecy ceases.

ArmyMatt said:

yeah, I don't see where it says after Revelation tongues or prophecy ceases.

Click to expand...

Do you speak in tongues? Or your denomination?

ArmyMatt said:

sure, I can see that. I think we'd say Rome hasn't done that.

Click to expand...

The Catholic tradition seems to have a bit of ambiguity about whether Tradition can include new revelation. The current position in the CCC seems to be no new public revelation. But Protestants think some developments in the tradition go beyond the bounds of interpreting and applying the Apostolic faith.

In my opinion, all forms of Christianity work the same way, despite claims to the contrary. They all start with an authoritative source, and interpret it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There are two differences, which aren't quite captured by "sola scriptura."

1) Protestants believe that the church can err and has erred. I think that's more important that sola scriptura, and in fact that sola scriptura follows from it. It has two consequences: (1) they are skeptical even of the early church, so rather than using both Scripture and the early church as a starting point, they use just Scripture. (2) they rejected significant parts of the tradition from which they came. But once they did that, the conservative parts are operating in the same way as Catholics and EO. The 16th Cent confessions (or for later groups, their founding beliefs) are treated as de facto inerrant, and so is the tradition coming from it. So further attempts at major change like the 16th Cent change get exactly the same reaction from conservative Protestants as the Reformation did from Catholics.

2) Mainline Protestants believe that our own tradition can err and has erred. So we are more willing to adjust beliefs and practices. We also believe that even the Biblical authors can err and have erred. That leads to treating them the same way that we would treat normal human witnesses, rather than as oracles.

Dave L said:

Do you speak in tongues? Or your denomination?

Click to expand...

yes, mine does. I haven't.

ArmyMatt said:

yes, mine does. I haven't.

Click to expand...

I've spent years proving tongues are not for today. We should go through it sometime.