Join Our Newsletter!
Get the RSS Feed
Subscribe in a reader - Use any popular RSS reader to get Orthodox Biz news and content!
Get the Orthodox Biz Latest News by Email! New articles and content sent right to your email in-box as soon as they are published!
Featured Members
Recently Popular Articles
| Supporting Protestant Doctrines Using the Church Fathers |
|
|
|
| Written by Nicholas Chancy | |
| Monday, 24 May 2010 | |
|
Why? I think the reason will be the need for authority on which to base doctrine. The Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century gave us the concept of Sola Scriptura which can be defined as: only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. Growing up as a Pentecostal, the Bible alone was the all-sufficient rule of faith. If it wasn't in the Bible, then it wasn't Christian. That was the foundation of our criticism of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Episcopalian Church, and the Lutheran Church. These churches engaged in practices which were not explicitly in the Bible. This approach to using the Bible as the sole authority of Christian belief and practice has been so successful, that since the Reformation the Protestant world has splintered into over 38,000 Christian denominations. Many of these denominations teach opposing doctrines with all sides in each debate claiming Biblical support. The controversies seem endless. Which one is the Biblically correct doctrine?
I could go on and on with this list. Over 38,000 different organizations, all claiming to be Christian, and all using proof-texts culled from the Bible to show how their doctrines are true and correct. Given this situation, it doesn't take a particularly talented observer to figure out that, with enough effort, you can make the Bible support practically any Theological position. The word "Christian" has thus become a catch-all phrase that can at once be ascribed to both a belief (such as Election) and to its exact opposite (Free will). In fact, the situation is so dire that one leading Christian apologist named David Reagan has said, "The word evangelical has lost all meaning." The sola scriptura approach has singularly failed to maintain doctrinal consistency, not only within Protestantism as a whole, but even within individual denominations. To try and achieve some order, Protestant Theologians are now looking for a source of authority on which to lean in interpreting the Scriptures. This is leading many Theological writers to employ the Church Fathers to provide support for their doctrinal teachings. But this is a double-edged sword, as the Church Fathers say quite a bit that undermines Protestantism. Let's look at some real world examples. In the Five Marks of a Good Minister, an Assemblies of God preacher named Reverend John Lindell argues for the centrality of preaching and the teaching of Scripture, both in the work of a pastor and in the worship of the Church. To bolster his case, he quotes from Justin Martyr's description of a typical Sunday Church service in the 2nd Century A.D. Here is how Reverend Lindell leads into that quote from Justin Martyr's First Apology, and the quote itself (which I have bolded): There are certain things that are nonnegotiable. There are certain things where we cannot compromise. The student of Scripture understands that. A good minister knows that and gives his life to the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. It's only been in the last 100 years that the church has gotten away from this. For centuries the church always understood that the primary role of the minister was to be a student of the Word of God. Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, described the typical worship service of his day: "On the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country and the writings of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things." The quote above from the First Apology of Justin Martyr makes church services in the 2nd Century seem very Protestant, even Evangelical. Worship appears to be focused on the reading and teaching of scriptures, much the same as in most Protestant Churches today. As long as a person reads this article, and takes no further action, Rev. Lindell's argument is quite safe. The problem arises when some folks reading his online article decide to look up Justin Martyr and his apologies to read the source documents for themselves. This is a process which Google and other search engines make effortless. If Rev. Lindell's article inspired you to read Justin Martyr's writings for yourself, what would you find? First and foremost, you would find that the above quotation was lifted from a paragraph that actually continues with a discussion of the Eucharist. The full paragraph is below, with the part Rev. Lindell left out in bold: "On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." Whoa - hang on! Weekly communion? That doesn't sound very much like the Assemblies of God, which has communion once every three months or so at the most. The fact that the Church of the 2nd Century was having communion each Sunday should be an eye-opener for any Evangelical reading Justin Martyr. But that is only the beginning. The real shocker comes in a previous section entitled Of the Eucharist in which Justin Martyr talks about how the Church of the 2nd Century viewed communion: For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus For many Protestants, especially the Evangelicals, that paragraph is absolutely shocking. As described by Justin Martyr, the Christian Church of the 2nd Century believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the very body and blood of Jesus Christ! The Assemblies of God, like all Evangelicals and most Protestants in general, believes that the Bread and Wine are mere symbols. For them, Christ is not at all present in the Eucharist. In fact, were a pastor to start teaching such a thing, he would be run out of the Assemblies of God on a rail for being too "Catholic." So here is the crux of the matter. Rev. Lindell wanted very much to claim the authority of the Early Church in support of his view on the primacy of scriptural teaching and preaching. He wanted to so much that he quoted a part of Justin Martyr's description of a weekly Sunday service in the 2nd Century. Doing so, of course, inadvertently introduces Evangelical readers of his article to the fact that we have intact writings of a Christian author from the 2nd Century. This writing describes, in detail, how Church services were carried out. Any reader who then decides to research the topic just a little further is suddenly going to come face-to-face with the realization that the early Christian Church practiced weekly communion which was believed to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. To say such a shocking realization can have a serious effect on a Protestant believer is an understatement. In fact, I vividly remember the exact moment, now over ten years ago, when I first read Justin Martyr's First Apology in its entirety. I was inspired to research his writings specifically because of a reference to him on a Protestant Website. The author of that site did not intend to start a chain of events that eventually led to my embracing Orthodoxy. Rev. Lindell surely is not promoting Orthodoxy either. But by promoting the authority of Justin Martyr as a source of information, that is exactly what he is doing. Let's look at another example. One of the great debates in our society is over abortion. The Bible should be clear in this regard, correct? Well, not so much. You see, abortion is not really dealt with explicitly in the Bible, as both Christian and non-Christian supporters of abortion on-demand are quick to point out. Here is a typical argument from the Website of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: What does the Bible say about abortion? Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible! Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed... The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." After covering many different scriptural points to support the idea that the God of the Bible is neither pro-life, nor anti-abortion, nor even particularly pro-child, the article wraps up with a list of some Christian Churches that support abortion on-demand. One would assume that these Christian Churches have, at some point, crafted suitable Biblical foundations for their pro-abortion teachings. It has taken 30 years, but Protestants who oppose abortion have finally figured out that they need help in this debate that the Bible doesn't provide. One example of this is a piece entitled Legacy of life: Pro-life advocacy is as old as the gospel by James Hernando. In his defense of the pro-life position, Mr. Hernando relies extensively upon the Fathers of the Church. He is especially taken with St. Basil of Caesarea: Consequently, it is no surprise that the Christian protest against abortion, abandonment and infanticide is replete among the apostolic fathers of the Early Church. The first-century Didache is a treatise purporting to present the teachings of the apostles. In it we read of two ways, "the way of life" and "way of death." Thus, the writer enjoins, "Do not murder a child by abortion, or kill a newborn infant" Similarly, the Epistle of Barnabus (early second century) enjoins us to love our neighbors more than ourselves. Such love prohibits both the slaying of children through abortion, and killing a child that has just been born. Athenagoras (ca. 177), writing to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius declared, "The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care." Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) affirmed our whole life can only move toward God's perfect plan if we give Him dominion over every area of life. To illustrate the opposite he cites destroying human offspring "through perverse and pernicious arts," offspring "who are given birth by Divine Providence." He goes on to condemn those who hide their fornication through abortion, which he equates with murder and a crime against the human race. Similar and numerous sentiments and condemnations can be found among the Early Church fathers: Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. However, there was none more singularly impassioned to change his pro-death culture than Basil of Caesarea (ca. 330-379). Sometime during the middle of the fourth century he poured himself into ministry among the poor. Walking about the city brought him face to face with societal evil in its diverse forms and expressions. However, none burdened him more than abortion, infanticide, exposure and abandonment. There are a lot of Church Fathers mentioned above, but let us focus on St. Basil the Great of Caesarea. Mr. Hernando clearly has a great deal of respect for this Saint of the Church. The author not only embraces St. Basil's anti-abortion stance as authoritative, but he also seems to recommend the saint as a model for Christian action. If, impressed by the Author's praise of St. Basil, you decided to learn more about him - what would you find? Basil is remembered as one of the most influential figures in the development of Christian monasticism. Not only is Basil recognized as the father of Eastern monasticism; historians recognize that his legacy extends also to the Western church, largely due to his influence on Saint Benedict....One liturgy that can be attributed to him is The Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, a liturgy that is somewhat longer than the more commonly used Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The difference between the two is primarily in the silent prayers said by the priest, and in the use of the hymn to the Theotokos, All of Creation, instead of the Axion Estin of Saint John Chrysostom's Liturgy. Chrysostom's Liturgy has come to replace Saint Basil's on most days in the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic liturgical traditions...St. Basil defended the veneration of the remains of the martyrs
What has St. Basil the Great in common with the denomination to which Mr. Hernando belongs? Very little, actually. If St. Basil the Great showed up at Mr. Hernando's church on a Sunday morning to preach, the congregation would probably throw him out a few minutes into his sermon. The same applies to all the other Fathers of the Church referenced in this article. Not one of them could get a job as a pastor in the Assemblies of God. But, because of the Bible's lack of clear teaching on the subjection of abortion, Mr. Hernando has to put all that aside and employ these men in his defense of life. By doing so, he puts forward the teaching of the Fathers as authoritative. That is a dangerous thing for a Protestant to do. For how can the Church Fathers be right about abortion, for example, yet wrong about practically everything else? Some more quick examples:
To show how easy these examples are to come by, my entire list was put together in less than 30 minutes. And it isn't just the Assemblies of God whose Theologians are relying on Patristic sources. This is a trend throughout Protestantism, as the abject failure of "proof texting" from the Bible is apparent to anyone taking even a casual interest in matters Theological. I expect this trend to accelerate. I expect that more and more Protestants will do exactly what I did 10 years ago. They will get interested in historic Christianity and so go directly to the sources which their own Theologians are quoting as authoritative. The knowledge they find there about the Early Christian Church can easily lead them away from Protestantism. Once you figure out how far you are from the actual Church of the Apostles, it can be tough to wake up every day and face that isolation. I would now like to offer a closing word specifically concerning the Anglican and Lutheran Churches. While these two bodies are certainly much more aware of the Church Fathers than the Evangelicals have been, I don't think that will exempt them at all from this trend. The current practices of both churches are not only at odds with historic Christianity, they are, in fact, at odds with their own recorded history. The Anglican Communion in most areas of the world bears little resemblance to the Anglican Communion 100 years ago in both teaching and worship. The Lutheran Churches today hold very few of the doctrines which their forebears of the Augsburg Confession accepted. For Anglicans and Lutherans, I fear recovering the Patristic roots which they have lost is simply too great a task. Nor, in fact, is it even a necessary task. The Church of the Apostles is present on Earth already. Therefore, of what use is it to try and build it among the ruins of a communion fallen so low? Because Orthodoxy owns the past, I firmly believe that it also owns the future. Protestant Theologians simply cannot selectively borrow from the Fathers and expect no consequences from this. They cannot stand firm on the teachings of the Church Fathers in some matters, while dismissing them in all others. Protestants who attempt to selectively use the Fathers for their own aims are standing on a foundation of sand. It will be washed away by an Orthodox tide as more and more people discover the truth of what it really means to be a Christian.            
Comments (6)
...
written by Jonathan , July 24, 2010
Glen:
Great work! You are in very good company with your arguments, for I remember the Archbishop Dmitri making a similar case about 5 years ago. It is amazing to me that the writers of these articles do not see the very obvious disconnect between their own practice of the faith and that of the early church. Or perhaps not so amazing. Maybe they don't want to see it? I would love to be optimistic about the potential future growth of Orthodoxy, especially here in the West. There are some encouraging signs, but not the kind of growth I would have so far hoped for. Ironically, I feel that one of the ways the church might grow exponentially is via the looming economic catastrophe that is upon us. desperate people do desperate things. Why, they might even become Orthodox if the crisis is bad enough!
Wheaton
written by Sherry, July 27, 2010
Hey Karen, I'm a 1985 Wheaton grad and an Orthodox Christian (OCA) for 15 years now. Orthodoxy is the best kept secret on the planet. Never heard it mentioned once there or while at Princeton Seminary. Wonderful article. Essential way to ge the word out without being so "threatening" or whatever it is we are.
Orthodox Protestants
written by Roane, August 23, 2010
Nicholas, as an ordained Assemblies of God pastor and missionary, I appreciated your observations and comments; however, I think you would be a lot more persuasive if you refrained from attacking a particular denomination. We are all in this struggle together. And, I must point out that the Orthodox churches (Russian/Greek, etc) are not on the same page, either, as can also be said, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Roman Catholics. However, in my opinion, this does not ipso facto disqualify them as authentically Christian, as I demonstrate in my blog: http://beyondtheupperroom.blogspot.com/
and Roman Catholicism?
written by Jason, August 29, 2010
A well written apology. Some questions remains, however. One really needs no response so I won't ask a question but will just say we live in a fallen world. We should expect there will always be some division within the faith for the Great Divider, the Evil One, will continue to work against truth and the oneness of the Church.
Question, why wouldn't many Protestants turn to the Roman Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox Church, as many currently are? The RC view of scripture/tradition is quite similar to the Eastern Orthodox understanding. It is a sacramental church and has apostolic claims (and some of the Fathers you mentioned in your apology were within the Roman see in the united Church). Their theology, in particular, their soteriology, is closer to what many Protestants understand. Despite its recent abuses and PR problems, the current pope is a traditionalist and seems to be leading the church back to its more solemn liturgical roots (and he is surrounded by more and more traditional/conservative bishops, archbishops, and cardinals). Finally, the Roman Catholic leadership leads the way on moral issues that many Protestants follow such as abortion and euthanasia. My question doesn't pertain to differences in theology between the Eastern and Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but rather deals with the reason why Protestants wouldn't take what seems to be an easier and perhaps more appealing route in their minds. In Christ, Jason
May God save us - for we can not save ourselves written by Oliver, October 01, 2010
I think that even before the end of the 1st century the 'church' was already off the tracks and a train wreck - just examine the 7 letters to the churches in Asia Minor in Revelation (the 'other' holy land) the 'home of orthodoxy' and see just how far away from the Truth they were. This 'fact' obscures the 'authority' of the thinking and writing of the so called church fathers - one must use the fine toothed comb of the Spirit to glean what truth may be contained therein. Nevertheless, you may be right about the great apostasy from the ranks of the 'protestant' church - whither shall it go?
Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 27 May 2010 ) |
In an article on 
St. Basil was a bishop of the Orthodox Church and a monk. Worse, he was a monk who promoted monasticism very effectively. Even worse, he wrote liturgical prayers, including liturgical prayers that were directed to the Mother of God. And, horror of all horrors, he defended such practices as the veneration of relics.
[Supporting Protestant Doctrines Using the Church Fathers]
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I am a Wheaton College grad (from the 80s), now Orthodox by God's grace (and former A/G member in my young adult years). I now live in Wheaton, and one of the priests at my parish (which is adjacent to the college) mentioned recently that for the first time in its history, the college plans to add a course on the early Church Fathers to their curriculum. (When I attended Wheaton, learning about the Church Fathers was a little blip, whereby we were briefly introduced to these very "odd" and frequently "legalistic" Christians [removed]void(0); with certain very odd ideas about what Scripture meant, but who made certain significant contributions in the development of Christian thought, in my course on "Christ and Culture.") He, too, observed that usually it is only a matter of time once Evangelicals encounter the full teaching of the early Church Fathers before they become Orthodox, so this is an exciting development for me to observe as a Wheaton grad. I'm also convinced we can take nothing for granted, however. Evangelicals can convert to Orthodoxy based on the desire to be "doctrinally correct" without experiencing the kind of repentance we all need for true Communion with Christ, and nothing of true spiritual import happens without prayer. May God grant them and us true repentance by His grace.