"The early Christians said.." argument.

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
321
Dayton, OH
✟22,008.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sigh. The point I was making is that the EO have no basis for telling someone that they are interpreting scripture wrongly. If it doesn't match EO's traditions, it must be wrong.

Sigh, back at ya :)

I think you're still missing the point I keep hammering, which is that you likewise have no other basis for challenging someone's interpretation of Scripture except to compare it (a) to your own, or (b) to that of some group's larger tradition that you accept as more right than someone else's. You interpret a set of books (canon = tradition) according to a set of hermeneutical principles (tradition), in the mold of "sola scriptura" (tradition), seeking a literal exegesis but generally ruling out allegorical or spiritual exegesis (tradition). Occasionally you will guide yourself by some larger tradition of the ancient church, such as an Augustinian view of humanity and sin, because your tradition also determines how much tradition you use to interpret your tradition's canon.

That is why I challenged him to show me how (and I was just using regeneration as an example) regeneration could be translated as being anything other than monergistic, per the statements Christ made in John 3.

You're beginning with some presupposition of what "regeneration" even means. So as long as this example has been put forward, we can do some exegesis. If we take "regeneration" and "rebirth" to be synonymous...which they roughly are, although "recreation" may be a better fit...we have NT statements about this new birth/creation.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3)


So this new birth is a spiritual birth, without which one cannot see or enter the kingdom of heaven. The early church's interpretation, as Knee-V pointed out, was that "born of water and the Spirit" was a reference to baptism. It's in ancient hymns and baptismal rites, many of which are still used in Eastern churches (and others) to this very day. I believe it's preferable to stick with their understanding and practice, which indeed predates the final form of the NT canon, to what can only be called a novel view of the 16th century that divorced baptism (a "sign") from some spiritual "reality" that it "signifies."

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.


Why are we dead to sin and alive to Christ? Because we died with Christ. How did we die with Christ? In baptism. I don't see how it could be much clearer, and this understanding of Romans 6 squares with the ancient church's view of things too. We are dead to sin, and now walking in newness of life, because we died with Christ in baptism. But literal water baptism is not the only way to share in death to this world. Christ referred to his own crucifixion and death as his "baptism" and told his disciples they, too, would share in it.

38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (Mark 10)

This is why, in my response in the "Salvation in EO" thread I referred to the significance of martyrdom for the early Church. Christ referred to his own passion and death as his baptism. He promised his disciples they would share in it. Thus the early church followed his teaching, seeing that martyrs often died as martyrs even before receiving water baptism, yet they still died with Christ, and therefore would be raised again with him. There really is one "baptism" which is death with Christ...with two ways in which one can participate. Both are really and truly death with Christ, and union with him in newness of life (regeneration!), which is also called "putting on Christ" as in Galatians:

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3)

As many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Notice this is inseparably related to justification by faith in this very text. Thus the ancient church likewise referred to baptism as "justification" at times, and saw it as our entry into the covenant of promise as given to Abraham (and there was the link with circumcision):

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Col. 2)


Again, we were buried with him in baptism, and then made alive (you who were dead in trespasses and uncircumcision, i.e. you gentiles...note the almost exact parallel to Ephesians 2's passage about our being dead in trespasses and sin, saved by faith as the gift of God and not of ourselves...therefore note well the inseparability of "saved by faith" and baptism, and also that "dead in sin" is referring not to spiritual total depravity but to an exclusion from the Old Covenant, as shown in Col. 2's reference to "dead...in uncircumcision of your flesh...").

Having been baptized...we are regenerated...

4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3)

"Washing of regeneration" matches word-for-word the ancient phrasing about baptism. There is no disagreement that this is how the text was understood prior to the Reformation. Note again the juxtaposition of baptism, renewal (rebirth) in the Holy Spirit, and justification by grace. All facets of the same gem, so to speak. As again here:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6)


You were washed...as in Titus, regenerated, i.e. baptized, which is here equated to both justification and sanctification...that is, set right with God and set apart for God. Both justification and sanctification, in the mind of the early church, had both "already" and "not yet" aspects, and frequently were used almost interchangeably to represent either aspects of salvation, or the whole of salvation.

So in the thinking of Paul, baptism is: death with Christ, union with Christ, the start of a reborn/recreated/regenerated life in Christ, justification, sanctification, death to the law, freedom from sin, and resurrection unto life. Not to mention a true circumcision and true ingrafting into the true people of God.

So is it "monergistic?" In a sense, maybe yes. Peter says God has "caused us to be born again to a living hope." Paul says our salvation is of faith, and this faith is the gift of God. And yet, at least for the earliest church, all this was linked to baptism at a time when almost all Christians were adult converts who heard the gospel and chose to be baptized. This, for me, is the mystery. Regeneration is all the work of God, and all the work of man, because it is all of Christ who is both God and man.

In other words, when we ask how and why it's wrong, you never actually try to provide an exegetical argument or response (even if that response is driven by your EO tradition, that's fine! as long as you at least attempt a response).

Just did. And yes, I fully admit that my guiding principles are that those closest to the Apostles in time and culture have a more reliable understanding of those who came later, and their authority to interpret Scripture came not only through education (in some cases, many were not well educated) but from their close union with Christ, their holiness, and their martyrdom whether in life or in death. Any interpretation of Scripture that conflicts with the theology of the ecumenical councils will necessarily lead to errant Christology.

But as it stands, no scriptural arguments are made. Our assertions are simply dismissed as "it does not match the EO tradition, therefore it is wrong". You say "you're interpreting it according to western thought (whatever that means??) and "according to reformed tradition" (ok fair enough, but the words on the Bible's pages have to mean something! so what in fact, do they mean?!)

It should be clear by now that our approach to exegesis is not the same as yours. The words on the Bible's pages were written by men who were in the church, were written to others who were in the church, were preserved by the church, transmitted and taught by the church, canonized by the church and lived out within the church.

So far, it is extremely difficult to talk doctrine and scripture with an EO person. It seems like the mindset is that nobody can really know, absolutely, what a passage of the Bible is talking about. If it doesn't match the EO, it's wrong. If it matches the reformed tradition, it's wrong.

Yeah, I had a heck of a time getting past that when I first looked into EO. Turns out they're all about doctrine and scripture, once you're able to accept that your familiar categories are not theirs, and in fact are fairly recent historical developments. I fully believe and will always believe that a majority of Reformed categories are simply a rejection of Rome. And remain so.

In other words, apparently, to be EO you have to somehow adopt this entire new mindset and worldview. And then and only then can you properly understand scripture, theology, salvation, etc.

Same is true in reverse. In order to be Protestant, you ahve to adopt that mindset and worldview also. The difference is, for you and me, we were raised in that mindset, it was the air we breathed. A really jaw-dropping experience for me, was trying to explain Protestantism to some lifelong Orthodox who'd grown up in Romania. Much like you feel talking to me right now, they also felt from the other direction.

Right now, I'm so confused.

I'll mail you some incense. It actually helps... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzaousios
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why don't you provide an interpretation that isn't tainted by tradition. You haven't yet. You think you have, so how about first explaining why your traditions don't count as traditions, while everyone else's do.

Often the Reformed like to point out that, as opposed to those evangelicals who disregard tradition entirely (itself a tradition), they "utilize the best of tradition."

Which means you even have traditions about how to use traditions.

Does anyone else see this?

Amen...your speaking truth! I liked it when you said "Your phrasing assumes that anyone who doesn't utilize Scripture as Protestants do, necessarily does not consider the scriptures to be authoritative. This thread is becoming a machine...I pull the lever, out pops a fallacy" Because it has been pointed out and many quotations have been given, that the early church most certainly DID consider the scriptures the final authority and used them extensively to prove and support all their doctrinal understandings. In light of that fact I would change the word "Protestants" in the first line to "the Reformed camp" or some other such thing (of course you do not have to, but the point is obvious)...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Skala...I may be missing something here, but I do not see anywhere in EO doctrine where the act of regeneration (the changing of a persons nature) is anything but an act of God. I have never seen anywhere where it is not ONLY by God in there writings...the difference only is when the regeneration occurs and how the process works (whether only a one moment in time experience or beginning at one time and then a process over one's life)...

Maybe one or the other is confusing regeneration with sanctification (also totally of God, as only He makes or declares something "Holy", yet requiring man's yielding to the move of the Holy Spirit in conforming...you know as Paul says we must put off and put on, etc.,)

The EOs definitely understand ONLY GOD can change the nature of a man...it is part of the basis upon which they disagree with the Augustinian view of original sin...

Are you aware of the differences (though I know you will disagree, at least knowing the differences is pertinent to the development of doctrine throughout history)...

In His love

Paul
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
321
Dayton, OH
✟22,008.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Amen...your speaking truth! I liked it when you said "Your phrasing assumes that anyone who doesn't utilize Scripture as Protestants do, necessarily does not consider the scriptures to be authoritative. This thread is becoming a machine...I pull the lever, out pops a fallacy" Because it has been pointed out and many quotations have been given, that the early church most certainly DID consider the scriptures the final authority and used them extensively to prove and support all their doctrinal understandings. In light of that fact I would change the word "Protestants" in the first line to "the Reformed camp" or some other such thing (of course you do not have to, but the point is obvious)...

I believe the issue isn't really so much about Scripture, its authority or its use, but rather about how one understands the Church...what it is, where it is, who it is. Huge volumes have been produced by Reformed writers, marshaling endless quotes by Church Fathers citing Scripture as authoritative, God-breathed, the norm for all doctrine and faith, etc. What isn't cited, though, is the truth that those very same Fathers were all members of a Church that already existed and had a visible structure of authority. Scripture is authoritative and normative within the Church. Even at the time of the Reformation, the initial desire was not to split or remake the Catholic Church, but rather to reform doctrine and worship within the Catholic Church. Luther, of course, was a monk and a priest. His view of sola scriptura (I don't know whether he ever actually used that term...anyone know? Who coined that?) assumed a way in which Scripture would be used within the Church to settle matters of doctrine. It was after the split from Rome, and then the many splits from one another, that "sola scriptura" became removed from any visible structure with any historical basis.

In the majority of cases today, a given denomination, even one that is very "traditional" in a Protestant sense, one can only trace the roots of the church structure back to some guy, holding a Bible and maybe a lot of seminary degrees, who has either been kicked out of another church, or has simply created his own, who is asking us to take his word that his understanding of Scripture is reliable, and more reliable than everyone else's.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
321
Dayton, OH
✟22,008.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The EOs definitely understand ONLY GOD can change the nature of a man...it is part of the basis upon which they disagree with the Augustinian view of original sin...

Only God can change the heart of a person. The nature of man was assumed by Christ and united to the life of the Godhead, and restored to its status as ruling over creation. Sin and death corrupt and change the hearts of persons. :)
 
Upvote 0

Charis kai Dunamis

χάρις καὶ δύναμις
Dec 4, 2006
3,766
260
Chicago, Illinois
✟12,654.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I think you're still missing the point I keep hammering, which is that you likewise have no other basis for challenging someone's interpretation of Scripture except to compare it (a) to your own, or (b) to that of some group's larger tradition that you accept as more right than someone else's. You interpret a set of books (canon = tradition) according to a set of hermeneutical principles (tradition), in the mold of "sola scriptura" (tradition), seeking a literal exegesis but generally ruling out allegorical or spiritual exegesis (tradition). Occasionally you will guide yourself by some larger tradition of the ancient church, such as an Augustinian view of humanity and sin, because your tradition also determines how much tradition you use to interpret your tradition's canon.

I think this really misses the mark. You are branding certain views and beliefs as "tradition" which really aren't tradition [in the Protestant/Reformed view, that is]. We don't hold to the canon of Scripture based on tradition. We hold to it because we recognize it, just as those who recognized it from the beginning had done. As J.I. Packer says, Sir Isaac Newton did not invent the law of gravity, he simply recognized it was already there. Such is the canon of Scripture; God inspired the writings of men, and men recognized that same inspiration by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hermeneutical principle again is not by tradition [in the Protestant/Reformed view], it by a historical/grammatical reading of the text which puts it into its original context. This is not by tradition, but by rational and explainable reasoning. Sola Scriptura is again not simply a tradition, but has rational cause and is explainable. It is not simply assumed without explanation because of those who have gone before us.

Tradition speaks of something that is done simply because that is the way it has always been done, passed on from generation to generation. That actually goes against the very idea the Reformation and semper reformanda. I can personally say that even though I was raised in a Protestant home, the majority of what I have learned was from questioning and working through the teachings of the Protestant church, at first denying, and then assuming, based on reasoning and cohesiveness. This seems to be the opposite way of working in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which dictate orthodoxy and orthopraxy so as there can be no reforming, no correction, no reproving, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius21

Can somebody please pass the incense?
May 21, 2009
2,237
321
Dayton, OH
✟22,008.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think this really misses the mark. You are branding certain views and beliefs as "tradition" which really aren't tradition [in the Protestant/Reformed view, that is].

I would rephrase what you just said as, "You are branding certain views and beliefs as "tradition" which really aren't tradition [in the Protestant/Reformed tradition, that is]."

We don't hold to the canon of Scripture based on tradition. We hold to it because we recognize it, just as those who recognized it from the beginning had done. As J.I. Packer says, Sir Isaac Newton did not invent the law of gravity, he simply recognized it was already there.

It is also objectively recognizable and repeatable. Don't believe gravity is real? Drop something. Don't believe it has a certain constant value? Time how long something takes to fall.

Don't believe 2 Peter belongs in the canon? Drop it and see how fast it falls. Wait... ;)

Such is the canon of Scripture; God inspired the writings of men, and men recognized that same inspiration by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and those men were all part of a church with a visible structure and a method for resolving differences within that church, including differences in the canon, which persisted for at least 300+ years, and in the case of Revelation, even longer in some places. Eventually it settled out within the Church. And as such, the formally recognized canon became a tradition within the Church.

Yes, I stand by the word. The canon is a tradition because it represents the broad consensus of thousands of Christians over thousands of years, in worship, piety and practice. And a tradition doesn't exist in the abstract, it exists within an identifiable community of people. In the case of the men you seem to be referring to, they were either bishops, or Christians who were in communion with bishops. Break out from that structure, and take the book with you, and you're carrying someone else's tradition along with you.

Hermeneutical principle again is not by tradition [in the Protestant/Reformed view], it by a historical/grammatical reading of the text which puts it into its original context. This is not by tradition, but by rational and explainable reasoning.

There have been differing (sometimes competing, sometimes complementary) traditions of hermeneutics within the historic church throughout the ages. The broad sketch has, for example, Alexandria being more philosophical and allegorical, while Byzantium was a bit more literal and practical, etc. Where those traditions overlapped and intersected, broad consensus appeared as to the meaning (or meanings) of certain texts, and how they fit together.

Where did the Protestant hermeneutical principles come from? Mainly, they came from the emerging tradition of scholastic methods in Western Europe in the middle ages, the rise of textual criticism as applied both to sacred and secular writings. It also involved a near total rejection of allegorical or spiritual interpretive methods that had been used for so many centuries before. On what basis were these rejected? Who got to decide? And with what authority? The WCF flatly states that any given text has but one meaning, not more. The historic Church often saw many shades of meaning in texts. Why accept the tradition represented by the Westminster Assembly, over the tradition used by the saints and theologians who formulated the core doctrines of Christianity?

Sola Scriptura is again not simply a tradition, but has rational cause and is explainable. It is not simply assumed without explanation because of those who have gone before us.

Tradition speaks of something that is done simply because that is the way it has always been done, passed on from generation to generation.

Where are you getting that definition? You are labeling "tradition" things which I don't consider tradition, and you are labeling "not tradition" those things that I believe clearly are traditions. I'm not sure your source for definitions.

That actually goes against the very idea the Reformation and semper reformanda. I can personally say that even though I was raised in a Protestant home, the majority of what I have learned was from questioning and working through the teachings of the Protestant church, at first denying, and then assuming, based on reasoning and cohesiveness. This seems to be the opposite way of working in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which dictate orthodoxy and orthopraxy so as there can be no reforming, no correction, no reproving, etc.

Can you cite a specific example of Eastern orthodoxy/orthopraxy that is simply dictated without any explanation or basis, expected to be received only because the last generation didn't question it? Anyone can blindly carry forward what they've learned from others. Orthodoxy is not about blind acceptance. But it is about willing submission to that which is far larger than the self, and the willingness to accept that if I've reached a different conclusion than the thousands of years of Christians who've come before me, it's quite likely me who is in need of correction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0