Category: Mercersburg Theology (Page 3 of 5)

Calvin and the “Fall of the Church”

January 29, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 97 Comments

Did John Calvin believe in the “Fall of the Church”? That is, did he believe that the early Church apostatized from Apostolic doctrine and worship, and that true Christianity was not restored until the Protestant Reformation? The “Fall of the Church” is widely held among Protestants but some of our readers deny that Calvin held this view calling it a “canard.”

Part I. The BOBO Theory

Fuller Seminary professor and missiologist Ralph D. Winter noticed that many Evangelicals are under the impression that Christianity “Blinked-Out” after the Apostles and then “Blinked-On” with the Protestant Reformers.

. . . “BOBO” theory—that the Christian faith somehow “Blinked Out” after the Apostles and “Blinked On” again in our time, or whenever our modern “prophets” arose, be they Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Joseph Smith, Ellen White or John Wimber. The result of this kind of BOBO approach is that you have “early” saints and “latter-day” saints, but no saints in the middle.

Winter noted that this view has resulted in Protestants having little interest in the one thousand years of church history before the Reformation because nothing spiritually important was happening between the New Testament church and the 1500s. Winter wrote about the negative effect this had on Protestants:

But this only really means that these children do not get exposed to all the incredible things God did with that Bible between the times of the Apostles and the Reformers, a period which is staggering proof of the unique power of the Bible! To many people, it is as if there were “no saints in the middle.”

The BOBO theory is crucial to Protestantism’s self understanding. Protestants believe that after the calamitous “Fall of the Church,” the Reformation marked a return to the early Church – the way it was meant to be. Without this justification, the Reformation would be a schismatic deviation. Sometimes one is presented with a more subtly nuanced version that allows for a small continuing “Remnant Church” present throughout church history that held on to the True Faith – of course assumed to be more or less Protestant. The problem with this view, aside from the lack of historical evidence, is that this supposed historic “Remnant” existed independently of any historically recognized Church be it Orthodox or even Roman Catholic.

Did Calvin Hold to the BOBO Theory?

In “Necessity of Reforming the Church” Calvin made reference to the “primitive and purer Church” (p. 215). In his Institutes Calvin saw icons, altars, vestments, ritual gestures, and other decorations as signs of the early Church’s decline and degeneration.

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations. Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. (Institutes 1.11.13, p. 113; emphasis added)

Calvin also traced the fall of the church to the emergence of liturgical worship, something that commenced soon after the original Apostles passed on. Calvin wrote in the Institutes:

Under the apostles the Lord’s Supper was administered with great simplicity. Their immediate successors added something to enhance the dignity of the mystery which was not to be condemned. But afterward they were replaced by those foolish imitators, who, by patching pieces from time to time, contrived for us these priestly vestments that we see in the Mass, these altar ornaments, these gesticulations, and the whole apparatus of useless things. (Institutes 4.10.19, p. 1198; emphasis added)

In this passage we find a succession of: (1) “the Apostles,” (2) their second generation “immediate successors,” and (3) the subsequent generations of “foolish imitators.” What Calvin is asserting here is that the Eucharist underwent considerable change shortly after the passing of the Apostles resulting in the “Fall of the Church.” That all this happened within a few decades or in the first century after the Apostles’ repose raises serious questions about Calvin’s understanding of post-Apostolic Christianity. Calvin here is implying that the Apostles’ disciples disregarded Paul’s exhortations to “preserve” and “guard” the Faith “with the help of the Holy Spirit” (see 2 Timothy 1:14). This alleged “Fall” raises serious questions about the sincerity of the Apostles’ disciples and about the Holy Spirit’s presence in the early Church. This is not a small claim but very serious accusations!

We have here two different versions of the “Fall of the Church”: (1) an immediate Fall right after the passing of the original Apostles (Institutes 4.10.19) and (2) a later Fall after the first five centuries (Institutes 1.11.13). This inconsistency makes it hard for a church history major like me to ascertain when the “Fall” took place, who instigated the “Fall,” and what was the driving force behind the “Fall.”

The Blinked-Out, Blinked-On trope is especially evident in Calvin’s essay “The Necessity of Reforming the Church”:

This much certainly must be clear alike to just and unjust, that the Reformers have done no small service to the Church in stirring up the world as from the deep darkness of ignorance to read the Scriptures, in labouring diligently to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on certain points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. (“Necessity” pp. 186-187, cf. p. 191; emphasis added)

We maintain to start with that, when God raised up Luther and others, who held forth a torch to light us into the way of salvation, and on whose ministry our churches are founded and built, those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship of God, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in a great measure obsolete. (“Necessity” pp. 185-186; emphasis added)

Therefore, from the evidences above it is clear that Calvin did in fact hold to the BOBO theory of church history. Orthodox theologians and historians can in many ways agree with Calvin about the Roman Church’s decline. However, where many Orthodox view Rome’s decline as having occurred after the Great Schism of 1054, Calvin viewed the “Fall of the Church” as having occurred during the time of the Ecumenical Councils when Rome was in communion with the other patriarchates. This is something Orthodox Christians would find problematic. Orthodoxy believes that it has faithfully kept and preserved Apostolic Tradition for the past two thousand years and because it never suffered a “Fall” is the same Church as the early Church.

Calvin’s Dispensationalism

Calvin’s understanding of church history as discontinuous marked by ruptures is not all that anomalous. One sees a similar understanding in Calvin’s view of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. He wrote:

For if we are not to throw everything into confusion, we must always bear in mind the distinction between the old and new dispensations, and the fact that ceremonies, whose observance was useful under the law, are now not only superfluous but absurd and wicked. When Christ was absent and not yet manifested, ceremonies by shadowing him forth nourished the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers; but now they only obscure his present and conspicuous glory. We see what God himself has done. For those ceremonies which he had commanded for a time he has now abrogated forever. (“Necessity” p. 192; emphasis added)

The problem with this statement is that it is unbiblical. It contradicts Matthew 5:17 where Christ taught that he did not come to abolish (abrogate) the Law but to fulfill it. With the New Covenant came a new priesthood based on Christ’s priesthood and a new form of worship based on Christ’s sacrificial death on the Cross. Here It seems is the root cause of Calvin’s mistake – he tragically transposed the Protestants’ controversy with Roman Catholicism onto the early Church.

Part II. The Historical Evidence

Calvin’s belief that the early church fell away from the Apostles’ teachings can be tested by examining the earliest Christian writings with respect to: (1) the Eucharist, (2) the use of icons in worship, (3) the Gospel Message, and (4) church government (the episcopacy). We will be using the following writings: (1) the Didache (c. 90-110), (2) the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 98-117), (3) Justin Martyr’s Apology (d. 165), and (4) Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies (d. 202). These comprise the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament and thus give us valuable insights into the faith and practices of the post-Apostolic Church and allow us to ascertain the degree of continuity in faith and practice.

Eucharistic meal – 3rd century Roman catacomb

The Eucharist

One way of testing Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” theory is by examining early Christian worship. One feature that immediately stands out is the importance of the Eucharist for the early Christians and their sacramental understanding of the Eucharist.

When I was a Protestant one thing I always heard at the monthly Holy Communion service was the pastor emphasizing that the bread and the grape juice were just symbols. So when I read the early church fathers I was struck by the fact that none of the church fathers taught that the bread and the wine were just symbols. As a matter of fact, they taught something quite different. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality (Letter to the Ephesians 20:2). His belief in the real presence can be found in another letter.

I desire the “bread of God,” which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was “of the seed of David,” and for drink I desire his blood, which is incorruptible love. (Letter to the Romans 7.3; emphasis added)

Belief in the real presence can also be found in Justin Martyr.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (The First Apology 66; emphasis added)

Another early witness to the real presence in the Eucharist is Irenaeus.

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal . . . . (Against Heresies 5.2.3; emphasis added)

The Eucharist was central to early Christian worship and theology. In the early church to deny the real presence in the Eucharist was to commit heresy. Ignatius of Antioch wrote regarding the heretics:

They abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ who suffered for our sins, which the Father raised by his goodness. (Letter to the Smyrneans 7.1; emphasis added)

As an Evangelical I was struck by the fact that it was the heretics who denied the real presence in the Eucharist. Just as significant is Ignatius’ insistence that the Eucharistic celebration is integrally linked to the office of the bishop. In other words, early church government was episcopal, not congregational!

Be careful therefore to use one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do you may do it according to God. (Letter to the Philadelphians 4.1)

As an Evangelical in a congregationalist denomination I was unsettled by the fact that modern Evangelicalism was much closer to the early heretics than they realize. This started me thinking: Was it the early Christians who fell away or the modern Evangelicals? Why is Evangelicalism so different from the early Church?

Thus, the evidence shows that the Eucharist was at the center of early Christian worship – not the sermon. By subtly displacing the Eucharist and putting the sermon at the center of Christian worship, Calvin detached the heart and focus of worship from its Eucharistic moorings. Those who came after Calvin would go even further and strip Christian worship of its sacramental character. One only need witness today’s Protestant worship to see the absence of the Eucharist most every Sunday – much less the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist! This has resulted in the recent move among Protestants to restore liturgical worship, but even then the sermon still overshadows the Eucharist.

Altar, Vestments, and Ceremonies

Calvin taught that the early church celebrated the Eucharist with “great simplicity” (Institutes 4.10.19). But he is arguing from silence. He seems to be assuming that because the New Testament writings had little to say about how the early Christians worshiped that their worship was devoid of liturgical rites and ceremonies.

When we read the Old Testament we find biblical support for the use of altars, vestments, and ceremonies in worship. The Tabernacle had two altars: one for burnt offering (Exodus 27:1-8) and another for incense (Exodus 30:1-10). The priests were dressed in ornate vestments of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet in accordance with God’s directions to Moses (Exodus 28:1-5). Thus, Old Testament worship was an elaborate affair with processions, music, and ceremonies – nothing at all like the stark austere Reformed worship!

When we come to the New Testament we find no evidence of Old Testament worship being abolished and the instituting of minimalist worship with bare walls. We do, however, find hints of Old Testament worship being carried over into Christianity. In Hebrews 13:10 is a cryptic statement: “We have an altar . . . .” This was a reference to the Eucharistic celebration. The Christians saw themselves as the New Israel of Christ and in that light viewed the Eucharist as the continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system. So we shouldn’t be surprised by Ignatius’ references to a Christian altar.

Be careful therefore to use one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with his blood, one altar . . . . (Letter to the Philadelphians 4.1; emphasis added)

And,

Hasten all to come together as to one temple of God as to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, and is with one, and departed to one. (Letter to the Magnesians 7.2; emphasis added)

If the early Christians understood the Church as the Temple of the New Covenant then it is no surprise that they would view the clergy as the priests of the New Covenant (see Isaiah 66:19-21). All this makes sense in light of the fact that the Eucharist was central to early Christian worship. Thus, the wooden table or box (ark) where the priest celebrated the Eucharist would be considered an altar.

Orant gesture in background, Prophet Jonah in foreground – Roman catacomb painting

Icons

Calvin believed that the early churches were “completely free from visible representations” (Institutes 1.11.13). His assumption seems to be that because the New Testament had little to say about religious pictures in church buildings that icons were not part of early Christian worship.

But Calvin’s iconoclasm is weakened when we take into account the Old Testament passages about the images of the cherubim in the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31) and in the Temple (1 Kings 6:29-32).

Thus, the Old Testament places of worship were filled with visual representations: cherubim, palm trees, and flowers. Images of the cherubim were depicted on the curtain for the entrance to the Holy of Holies as well on the walls of the inner and outer rooms of the Temple. See my article: “The Biblical Basis for Icons.” In light of an absence of any New Testament passages mandating the removal of icons or the abolition of Old Testament worship we can assume some continuity between Jewish worship and early Christian worship.

Recent archaeological research found that Jewish synagogues around the time of Christ were not bare rooms devoid of images but embellished with religious decorations. See my article “Early Jewish Attitudes toward Images.” Especially damaging to Calvin’s argument are the recent archaeological findings of images in the Jewish synagogue and Christian church in the town of Dura Europos which was buried circa 250. Taken together the biblical and archaeological evidences present a strong refutation of Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” theory.

Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

Defending the Gospel Message

A study of early church history shows that the church faced numerous theological challenges: Ebionitism which affirmed Jesus as Messiah but not as divine, Docetism and Gnosticism which denied that Jesus was truly human, Marcionism which saw the Old and New Testaments as representing two different religions and deities, and Montanism a prophetic movement which held that Apostolic tradition was superseded by the new prophecies. One thing that is striking is the absence of any controversy during this period over the issues mentioned by Calvin: liturgical worship, vestments, incense, or icons. Surely if the early Church had drifted away from the Apostles’ teachings as Calvin alleged someone would have spoken up?

The Apostle Paul was not unaware that the Church would come under attack by heretics so he took steps to ensure the safeguarding of the Gospel. At Timothy’s ordination to the office of bishop he admonished:

What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Jesus Christ. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (2 Timothy 1:13-14; NIV; emphasis added)

The phrases “pattern of sound words” and “good deposit” referred to a set of core doctrines to be held by all Christians. This was the basis for the theological unity of the early Church, to deviate from this doctrinal core was to fall into heresy. The early Christians were diligent in defending the orthodoxy of the Church. Ignatius warned Polycarp against tolerating those who taught “strange doctrine.” (Ignatius to Polycarp 3) A similar warning against “another doctrine” is found in Didache 11.1 and in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (7.2).

In Against Heresies 1.22.1 Irenaeus referred to the “rule of faith (truth)” by which one could determine someone adhered to the Apostolic teachings or not. In Against Heresies 2.9.1 Irenaeus remarked how the entire Christian Church received the Apostles’ Tradition. Polycarp in Letter to the Philippians 7.2 made reference to the traditioning process as well.

The early church preserved the Apostles’ teachings by means of the bishop having received a body of teaching from his predecessor, the bishop as the primary teacher of the local church, and the congregation united with the bishop at the weekly Eucharistic celebration. For Irenaeus theological orthodoxy was linked to the bishop’s role in the traditioning process.

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the whole world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; . . . . (Against Heresies 4.33.8; emphasis added; see also 3.3.1)

Irenaeus described his mentor Polycarp’s efforts to remember accurately the teaching and example of his mentor the Apostle John.

And as he [Polycarp] remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. (in Eusebius’ Church History 5.20.7, NPNF p. 371; emphasis added)

In other words, the early Christians did not play fast and loose with the Apostles’ teachings as one might infer from the “Fall of the Church” theory. Rather, they sought to preserve and transmit faithfully the Apostles’ teachings to later generations. If anyone dared to stray from the regula fidei they would have been excluded from the Eucharist. That is why the episcopacy and the Eucharist were so critical to the theological integrity of the early Church.

Priests and Bishops

Just as the Jewish temple had a priesthood so too did the early church have a priesthood (clergy). Under the New Covenant the Eucharist was based on Christ’s once and for all sacrifice on the Cross. The bishop along with the priests (presbyters) presided over the Eucharistic assembly. Ignatius was an early witness to the three orders: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Be zealous to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ . . . . (Letter to the Magnesians 6.1; emphasis added)

He viewed this threefold hierarchy, not as optional, but as necessary.

Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles. Without these the name of “Church” is not given. (Letter to the Trallians 3.1; emphasis added)

In his Letter to the Smyrneans 8 Ignatius stressed that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were not valid unless done with the consent of the bishop. Irenaeus made a similar point as well:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, — those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. (Against Heresies 4.26.2,)

An examination of church history shows that the episcopacy was the universal form of church governance. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that we see the emergence of novel polities: congregationalism, presbyterianism, and independent non-denominationalism.

Assessing Calvin’s “Fall of the Church” Theory

While insightful, Ralph Winter’s essay seems to have overlooked some of the startling theological implications of the BOBO theory. One implication is that the Holy Spirit was active in the early days of the church then disappeared for the next thousand years or more then reappeared with the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s! Also, Winter did not discuss Christ’s promise in John 14:26: “but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” This has profound implications for the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in history. For Reformed Christians this gap in church history also has troubling implications for God’s ability to keep his covenant promises. How can a Reformed Christian square his belief in the sovereignty of God and covenant theology with the “Fall of the Church” theory proposed by Calvin?

For me as a church history major the “Fall of the Church” theory stems from a foundational flaw. The “Fall of the Church” theory makes sense if one reads church history with the assumption that the early Christians were Calvinists. Any hints of liturgical worship among early Christians, i.e., anything unlike Reformed worship, can be attributed to their “falling away.” But this approach is like taking a meat cleaver and hacking church history into pieces! It utterly disregards the notion of historical continuity and development. A more reasonable approach is to view early Christian worship of the second century described in the post-apostolic writings as flowing from the Christian worship of the first century described in the New Testament. In light of the evidences one can then decide whether or not early Christian worship was liturgical, simple or elaborate, with or without icons. And whether or not there was continuity or significant departures in practice or doctrine. The second century writings are more useful for understanding first century Christian worship than those from the 1500s, the time of rhe Reformers.

Calvin’s BOBO theory of church history was influential in the Reformed tradition until Philip Schaff gave his “Principle of Protestantism” address in 1844. In it Schaff proposed that the Protestant Reformation represented the flowering of medieval Catholicism. Where Calvin saw discontinuity and rupture, Schaff saw continuity and evolution. Thanks to Schaff church history became an academic discipline that stood on its own independent of theology. This allowed for the emergence of historical theology. Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition is probably one of the finest works of historical theology in the twentieth century and extremely useful for understanding commonalities and divergences in the different theological traditions. [Note: This eminent Yale historian and long time Lutheran pastor to the surprise of many converted to Orthodoxy!]

Calvin’s theological system is complex and contains contradictions. These contradictions offer points of contact between the Reformed tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy. Despite his view that early Christianity had deteriorated over time, Calvin at times held some of the early church fathers in high regard. Calvin was not averse to quoting the church fathers against his Roman Catholic opponents. In his “Reply to Sadolet” Calvin affirmed the antiquity principle asserting “our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours” (p. 231). Calvin’s arguments against the medieval church may be valid but does it likewise apply to the Orthodox Church? It has been noted that the Latin Church under the influence of medieval Scholasticism and the rise of the legal schools drifted away from its patristic roots. This suggests Calvin may have been a victim of historical circumstances. Calvin’s openness to the church fathers and the early Church laid the foundation of Mercersburg Theology in the 1800s and the attempt by Nevin and Schaff to bring back the catholic dimension to the Reformed tradition.

So while Calvin’s BOBO theory of church history is seriously flawed, he is to be commended for his willingness on occasion to draw on the early church fathers. This gives Reformed Christians an advantage over their Evangelical counterparts when it comes to engaging Eastern Orthodoxy. I found in Mercersburg Theology and the Reformed tradition a point of contact leading me to the early church and ultimately into the Orthodox Church. I am deeply indebted to Mercersburg Theology for the intellectual tools that enabled me to critically examine Reformed theology even though it had unintended consequences like my eventually converting to Orthodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

Source

Calvin, John. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ford Lewis Battles, translator. The Library of Christian Classics. Volume XX. John T. McNeill, editor. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Calvin, John. 1964. “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, pp. 184-216. Editor: J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Calvin, John. 1964. “Reply to Sadolet” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, pp. 221-256. Editor: J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Eusebius. 1890. “The Church History of Eusebius” in Eusebius. Translator: Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Vol. I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ignatius. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Volume I. Loeb Classical Library. Editor: Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Irenaeus. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Justin Martyr. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Editors: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Polycarp. 1985. The Apostolic Fathers. Volume I. Loeb Classical Library. Editor: Kirsopp Lake. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Winter, Ralph D. 1992. “The Kingdom Strikes Back: Ten Epochs of Redemptive History.”

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation

December 1, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 51 Comments

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation: A Response to Prof. Daniel Wallace

Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (perhaps the leading dispensational seminary in the world), wrote a thoughtful blog posting: “The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology.”

He starts off by unabashedly proclaiming his Protestant convictions. Then, amazingly, he points out what he sees as Protestantism’s weakness, its ecclesiology.

Prof. Wallace notes that: (1) there is a lack of consistency in Protestant worship services,(2) many Protestant congregations are ill prepared to deal with a pastor who forsakes the historic Christian faith, and (3) recent scholarship is drawing attention to the fact that canonicity – which books belong to the Bible – cannot be understood apart from the authority of the church. Orthodox Christians have made similar criticisms, but these are stunning admissions and observations coming from within the Protestant camp. Protestants, whether of dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or more mainstream persuasion, should give attention to what Prof. Wallace has to say.

He closes with the suggestion that Protestants be open to learning from the more ancient branches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. He also recommends that Protestants listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the early church fathers and embrace the ancient historic forms of worship.

This blog posting has three parts: (1) my personal reactions to Prof. Wallace’s posting, (2) a discussion of the evidence that point to the role of the traditioning process in canon formation, and (3) a discussion of an Orthodox approach to canon formation.

1. My Reactions

As I read through Prof. Wallace’s blog posting I had a sense of déjà vu. It reminded me of the time I had graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with an M.A. in Church History and was committed to helping to bring the United Church of Christ back to its biblical roots. Yet unbeknownst to me at the time were the tiny cracks in my Protestant theology that would in time become major fissures that would result in a theological crisis. The concerns voiced by Prof. Wallace are quite similar that I and others were asking when we embarked on our journey to Orthodoxy. I was just a seminary graduate then, here we have similar critical questions being voiced by a seminary professor at a major Protestant seminary!

My studies in church history made me keenly aware of Protestantism’s theological anarchy. My involvement in the evangelical renewal movement put me squarely in the middle of the Cold War hostilities between Evangelicals and Liberals who belonged to the same denomination. Prof. Wallace recounted the struggle of one Protestant congregation with an apostate pastor; I had to struggle with the question of a denomination that had gone apostate. Could I as an Evangelical belong to a denomination with historic roots in Puritan New England and yet had many pastors and theologians who had become de facto Arians?

As I wrestled with the doctrinal controversies of modern Protestantism I was at the same time haunted by voices from the early church. It took the form of quotes from two church fathers. Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century church father, wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

This quote by Irenaeus described the organic connection between church unity and doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church. What I longed for was not an impossible ideal but had existed in fact in the early church. It caused me wonder: How did Protestant Christianity get into such a mess and how could we recover the church unity and orthodoxy of the early Church?

The other quote came from Augustine of Hippo, the towering giant of Western theology. He is reputed to have said:

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

This quote by Augustine shone a spotlight on the egocentric core of the Protestant approach to doing theology. I realized that my evangelical theology was at its core my personal interpretation of the Bible and my church identity the result of which denomination I chose to affiliate with.

Even the Reformed tradition with confessional statements like the Westminster Confession suffered from this egocentric flaw. There were not one but a variety of confessions one could choose from. Moreover, the authority of these confessions was contingent and provisional at best. These confessions had no authority in themselves but were dependent on their faithfully reflecting Scripture. Absent from the Reformed creeds were any claim to a universal binding authority on all Christians. Among Presbyterians the conservatives view the confessions as prescriptive and binding while the liberals understand them to be historic witnesses and no longer binding. I had no objective guarantee that this was the true Christian faith. As a Protestant I had no external authority like the Church to fall back on.

As Prof. Wallace suggested, I started listening to what the Holy Spirit had to say through the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies. This led me to follow in the paths of the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevins and Philip Schaff, who advocated a catholic and Reformed Christianity. This took me to the Seven Ecumenical Councils that claimed to make decisions binding on all Christians. But the weakness of Mercersburg theology was that the early church fathers for the most part were books on my bookshelf and most people in my former home church couldn’t care less about patristics and ancient liturgies. Ultimately I found myself caught between a Protestantism that suffered from extensive historical amnesia and the Orthodox Church which claimed to have unbroken historic continuity going back to the original Apostles.

2. The Importance of the Traditioning Process to Canon Formation

Manuscript from St. Katherine at Mt. Sinai

The unexpected surprise in Prof. Wallace’s blog posting was his discussion of what Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, had to say about the formation of the biblical canon. Unlike today’s bibles that have neatly printed table of contents in the front, the early church had no clear cut listing. Even by the fourth century there were still some debate as to what books belonged to the canon, that is, were divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture. So Eusebius needed to distinguish between homolegoumena (that which everyone agreed was Scripture), antilegomena (that which was in question or disputed), apocrypha (that which was rejected by many but accepted by some), and pseudepigrapha (that which was rejected by all) (Church History 3.3.6). Prof. Wallace paraphrasing David Dungan observes:

What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church.

This observation points to a tension embedded in the Protestant view of Scripture; despite Protestantism’s assigning supreme authority to Scripture, Scripture itself is unavoidably a product of the Church. It did not come into existence independently of the Church. Moreover, the early bishops played a key role in determining which books would comprise Scripture. One cannot understand the formation of the biblical canon without taking into account the early bishops. To ignore the bishops is to create an artificial mental construct that has no historical basis.

For modern Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, to grasp the nature of canon formation they must beware of inadvertently imposing their modern assumptions on the early church. They should research the early church and try to imagine themselves in the early church service when there were no electric guitars, PowerPoint overheads, worship bulletins, or leather bound gold leaf Bibles. Early Christians did not have personal Bibles. Scripture in the early church consisted of a limited number of copied scrolls or codices in the safekeeping of one of the clergy. This was especially critical in times of persecution. Back then Christians would painstakingly copy by hand whatever Scripture they could borrow from another church. There were no denominational publishing houses back then! Early Christians experienced the Bible in the context of the Sunday worship. A reader would stand in the front of the assembly and read out loud the Scripture. The bishop was responsible for deciding what would be read in the Sunday Liturgy. This meant that he needed to identify spurious books be excluded from the Sunday worship.

What is fascinating about Book 3 of Eusebius’ Church History is his juxtaposing of accounts of canon formation with accounts of apostolic succession. Church History 3.4 describes the immediate successors to the Apostles: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete. Linus who was mentioned in II Timothy was Peter’s successor to the episcopacy in Rome. We learn that the third bishop of Rome was Clement. Church History 3.22 describes Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch. Thus, Eusebius provides a valuable external witness to some of the early post-apostolic writings.

In Church History 3.9-10 Eusebius draws on Josephus for a description of the Old Testament canon. In Church History 3.25 Eusebius describes the undisputed and disputed books of the New Testament writings.

What is striking about Eusebius’ discussion of the biblical canon are his references to the traditioning process. In Church History 3.26.6 Eusebius wrote:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers…. (Emphasis added)

In Church History 6.12, Eusebius quotes from a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, concerning a question about a so-called Gospel of Peter. Serapion wrote:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. (Emphasis added)

Bishop Serapion’s principal criterion for determining canonicity was apostolic tradition. The way the early Christians approached canonicity is at variance with the more recent discussion about canon formation which asume a tension between the authority of the writings and the authority of the church. The issue of Scripture versus the Church was not a concern of the early Christians. Instead they were more concerned about the traditioning process: Could a bishopric, a liturgical practice, or an alleged apostolic writing be shown to have apostolic origins?

Many Protestants and Evangelicals admire Athanasius the Great for his staunch defense of Christ’s divinity. But many are not aware of his role as a bishop in the early church. Athanasius’ Letter 39 which provides one of the earliest listing of canonical books also affirmed the traditioning process as critical to canon formation. He wrote:

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand, to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scriptures, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine…. (Emphasis added)

Letter 39 was not an ordinary correspondence. It was the custom for the Patriarch of Alexandria to send a letter to the churches in the diocese every Easter. In other words this was an authoritative letter by the bishop to all those under his care. There was a practical aspect to the letter. Apparently there was some confusion as to which books ought to be read out loud in the Sunday Liturgy. As bishop Athanasius sought to bring order and regularity to the congregations under his care. What is striking here is that Athanasius did not invoke the institutional power of the church but rather he referenced the traditioning process that he was part of. As a bishop of the early church he was obligated to safeguard the sacred deposit of Faith which included the writings of the Apostles.

Eusebius and Athanasius were bishops who lived in the fourth century. When we look for earlier evidence we find similar evidence in the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons. In his defense of the four Gospels, Irenaeus made reference to the traditioning process. He wrote:

For if what they [the heretics] had published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth. (Against the Heretics 3.11.9, p. 429; Emphasis added)

Going back even earlier to the New Testament period we find evidence of the traditioning process. The Apostle Paul exhorted the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (NKJV; emphasis added)

What is striking in this verse is Paul’s use of the word “whether.” This means that oral tradition is just as authoritative as written tradition. We also find Paul exhorting Timothy to pass on the deposit of faith to other faithful men when ordaining the future generation of clergy (II Timothy 2:2).

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)

The word “commit” used by Paul is similar to: “delivered,” “pass on,” and “hand down” terms used by the church fathers; they are all refer to the traditioning process.

When we consider that I and II Thessalonians were among Paul’s earliest letters and that the two letters to Timothy were written just before his death we find that the traditioning process was an integral to the Apostle Paul’s ministry. So I was shocked when I read Eusebius’ Church History and discovered that II Timothy 2:2 did not disappear into the foggy mists of church history but continued like a strong iron chain in the form detailed listings of bishops. Eusebius’ Church History gives us long detailed lists of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles! Thus, the traditioning of Scripture was a widely known practice endorsed by both Scripture and the early church fathers. (See my article on Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Basis for the Tradition.)

3. An Orthodox Approach to Canon Formation

The significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of debate. The tension between an authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue. This is because both have a common source, the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.

The dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect. This tension apparently stem from the Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s. Defining the canon as an authoritative listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is authoritative because it has the backing of the Church. Defining the canon as a listing of authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is independent of the church.

The Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative listing of authoritative books. The apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors and the guardian of Scripture. For Orthodoxy, Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic whole.

Brinks Guards

This makes for some troubling practical consequences for Protestants. Scripture can no longer be viewed as existing independently of the Church. The Bible is the property of the Church, much like the bags of money stored in Brinks armored trucks. The money does not belong to the guards, but are nonetheless the guards’ responsibility. Similarly, Scripture is the word of God left in the care of the bishops.

The significance of the traditioning process is that it assumes that one belongs to a historic chain that goes back to the Apostles. With the advent of the printing press many Protestants have come to view the Bible as their personal property but such an understanding is a radical departure from historic Christianity which understood Scripture to be the sacred deposit entrusted to the Church. Where an Orthodox Christian is part of a historic chain of tradition that goes back to the original Apostles a Protestant Christian is not. They believe in a Bible that stands independently of the church. Professor Wallace rightly noted that the divorcing of Scripture from church has resulted in Protestantism’s weak ecclesiology. One can even question whether all the disparities in doctrine, worship, and church governance render “Protestant ecclesiology” an oxymoron – a self-contradictory statement.

Thomas Jefferson’s Bible

There are problems with the Protestant approach to the biblical canon as just a list. How should a Protestant respond to Martin Luther wanting to exclude the book of James from the New Testament or Thomas Jefferson excising passages from the Bible based upon his well informed judgment? And how should a Protestant respond to a “prophet” like Joseph Smith who wants expand the canonical collection? Or a university scholar who discovered a “lost gospel”? Without being able to appeal to an authoritative listing, a Protestant will be forced to fall back on reason, scholarship, or inner conscience. But would one have confidence in a round table of scholars like the Jesus Seminar voting by means of colored slips? An Orthodox Christian can simply reply that to tamper with the biblical canon is to break with the historic Christian faith that goes back to the Apostles. This is because the Church as the recipient and guardian of Scripture has the authority to draw up an authoritative listing of biblical books.

The Jurassic Park Experience

330px-Jurassic_Park_First_Brachiosaurus_Reveal

Movie: Jurassic Park

Professor Daniel Wallace is perceptive when he recognizes that Protestantism’s ecclesiology is its weakness. This leaves him yearning for a church unified in worship and doctrine but he dismisses that as just a dream. My response is that the true church is not wishful thinking but a living reality. Professor Wallace wrote positively about his visits to the Orthodox Church. He may not know it but every time he visits an Orthodox Liturgy he is seeing a living walking dinosaur straight from the ancient church. The Orthodox Church today is the same church as the church described by Irenaeus of Lyons. This is because it has not suffered a break in the traditioning process like Protestantism. Orthodoxy’s strong ecclesiology has enabled it to maintain unity in worship and doctrinal orthodoxy for the past two millennia.

Robert Arakaki

Why I Did Not Become Roman Catholic — A Sort of Response to Jason Stellman

July 28, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 157 Comments

Hagia Sophia – Church of Holy Wisdom

I recently read Jason Stellman’s explanation for why he decided to head towards Rome. As I read through his “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won” I was struck by the absence of any mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is as if he had no awareness of the other major non-Protestant option – the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Rather than critique Stellman’s reasons for becoming Catholic, I will be describing a side story of my journey to Orthodoxy. I did not default to Roman Catholicism simply because it was convenient, or because it was a readily accessible option, or because of the persuasive arguments presented by a brilliant convert to Catholicism. By God’s patience and gentle mercies, I slowly and carefully explored both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox possibilities. I took my time – 7 years — to really understand them both, before committing myself to the Orthodox Church.

Early Encounters with Catholicism

Early on as an Evangelical I found myself caught up in the controversy over the baptism in the Spirit and the charismatic gifts. I was uncomfortable with the extremes of Pentecostalism, but found much of the Evangelical anti-charismatic arguments unconvincing. But when I read the literature from the Catholic charismatic renewal I found there a spiritual balance and theological sophistication lacking among Protestants.

As a curious and voracious reader I read spiritual classics like John of the Cross’ Ascent on Mt. Carmel, Augustine’s Confession, and St. Francis’ Little Flowers. As my interest in Catholicism grew I began to look into the official teachings of the church, e.g., Documents of the Vatican II edited by Walter Abbott and John Hardon S.J.’s The Catholic Catechism. While I found the literature interesting, I also found them alien and exotic. It was like looking over a high wall and looking into a strange house next door. I continued to be happy to remain an Evangelical.

The 70s and 80s were a time when divisions between Protestantism and Catholicism began to soften. I found myself subscribing to both Christianity Today, the leading magazine for Evangelicals, and New Covenant, the flagship magazine for the Catholic charismatic renewal. In New Covenant I found articles about personal conversion to Christ, life in the Spirit, and faithfulness to the church. I found much to admire in the newly elected Pope John Paul II. I thoroughly enjoyed reading his encyclical Dives in Misericordia Dei (Rich in Mercy) which I thought could have been written by an Evangelical theologian.

The 80s was also a time when John Michael Talbot, a former Evangelical musician turned Franciscan friar, released several albums that spanned the musical worlds of Evangelicalism and Catholicism. These included his Light Eternal, The Lord’s Supper, and Troubadour of the Lord. The Lord’s Supper was the Catholic Mass set to contemporary folk music. It highlighted the beauty and dignity of liturgical worship, something I rarely experienced as an Evangelical. This was before the ancient-future worship movement emerged within Evangelical circles.

So why didn’t I become a Roman Catholic? One reason was that I didn’t want to abandon friends in the Evangelical circles. Another reason was my study of Mercersburg Theology which turned me into a Catholic and Reformed Evangelical. I innocently and sincerely believed I could be rooted in the Reformed tradition while exploring the riches of the early Church and ancient liturgies. With Mercersburg Theology I could enjoy the best of both worlds on my own terms. This was a time of childlike innocence before I came to grips with the radical and costly discipleship taught by the early Church.

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

When I came to Gordon-Conwell in the early 1990s, the theological and spiritual currents running through Protestant Evangelicalism were already shifting in subtle and surprising ways. In my first week at seminary I was surprised to see an icon of Christ hanging on a student’s door in Main Dorm. Later I met a fellow seminarian who converted to Catholicism while at Gordon-Conwell! Gary and I met for coffee to discuss his conversion. When I asked him for his reasons for the supremacy and infallibility of Pope I found his answers less than compelling.

While at Gordon-Conwell I was deeply involved in the Evangelical renewal movement in the United Church of Christ. Soon after I arrived at seminary I was invited to a meeting of UCC pastors. I remember standing with the pastors and being slightly bewildered by the dark mutterings about some guy named Scott Hahn, apparently he did something terrible like becoming a Roman Catholic. I have never met Scott Hahn but I am deeply indebted to him. Once when I was wrestling with the doctrine sola scriptura, the question popped into my head: Did the Bible ever teach sola scriptura? I couldn’t come up with a convincing answer which led to the question: So how did the leading Evangelical theologians deal with this? A few days later I bought a tape by Scott Hahn and got my answer; none of the leading Evangelical theologians have been able to answer this question! [See my blog posting on the biblical basis for Holy Tradition.]

Catholicism in Liberal Berkeley

UC Berkeley

After Gordon-Conwell, I headed to Berkeley to do doctoral studies in history of religions at the Graduate Theological Union.

I came to Berkeley a post-Evangelical open to change. By then I had become weary of the fluidity and superficiality in Evangelical theology. During my first year, I found myself drawn to the rich liturgical tradition of Roman Catholicism. This attraction to Roman Catholicism held my attention for a short while until I was providentially introduced to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Taize style worship

In my first year, the candlelight Mass at the Newman Center was my regular place of worship. It was a moving sight seeing the church filled with UC Berkeley students singing songs of worship in the soft glow of candles around the room. It was also profoundly edifying to be at a church where the center of Sunday worship was the Lord’s Supper.

But I also found it a jarring and sometimes disturbing experience. After becoming familiar with the pattern of worship, I noticed priests would drop parts of the Mass like the Nicene Creed and the Confiteor (the Prayer of Confession) which according to the official rubrics is not supposed to happen. Keep in mind that the Mass is not just a Sunday ritual but a powerful means of shaping the faith and spirituality of the Catholic masses. According to the theological principle of lex orans, lex credens (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith), the Mass forms the church in its faith and worship of God. But here it seemed that the Mass had become a flexible tool that reflected the individual whims of priests. In other words a have-it-your-way mentality among the Catholic clergy will eventually trickle down to the Catholics in the pews with devastating results. And when the service was over, I was often surprised to hear announcements for upcoming meetings for the Gay-Lesbian fellowship. I was coming face to face with the fact that real Catholicism was quite different from the official Catholicism I had been reading about. Cafeteria style Catholicism was a very real and uncomfortable reality I had to face up to in Berkeley.

In my third year, I rented a room at a Benedictine retreat house near the university. The monks there frequently talked about the need to unite Protestants with Catholics, and how they offered Holy Communion to Protestants as a gesture of unity. Once when I attended their service they gave me the opportunity to receive the Host but I declined. The reason I declined was because I had read an article by Fr. Edward O’Connor who explained that receiving Holy Communion in the Mass meant two things: (1) that one accepted the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation and (2) that one accepted the teaching authority of the Pope, that is, one was willing to come under the Pope. My Catholic friends thought church unity easy to pull off, but I was very conscious of the big price tag attached to the Communion wafer. [See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2^nd edition) §1354, §1369, and §1374.]

In my second year in Berkeley, I discovered a tiny Bulgarian Orthodox Church that met across the street from the university. For nearly two years I attended the Orthodox Liturgy. It was good that the Liturgy was all in English. Up till then I had found mixed language liturgies to be off putting and incomprehensible. At Saints Kyril and Methodios I found myself drawn by the Liturgy. After a long hard week of intense studying, I found it soothing and healing to stand during the Liturgy and let the ancient prayers flow over my soul. It was a formative time for me spiritually. I became immersed in the flow of the Liturgy and after a while became familiar with the pattern of the Liturgy. There were no surprises like at the Newman Center. I came away with two powerful impressions: (1) what I saw at this tiny Orthodox parish matched what I was reading and (2) Orthodoxy was capable of withstanding the liberal ethos of Berkeley.

From Post-Evangelical to Orthodoxy

I very much appreciate my time at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Having studied there I can say that I know firsthand the best of Evangelical scholarship. However, my time there was when fine hairline cracks began to appear in my Evangelical theology. In time the tiny cracks became major fissures leading to a theological crisis especially over sola scriptura then sola fide. Yet as my Protestant theology began to fall apart I found myself increasingly drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy instead of Roman Catholicism. Below are some of my reasons:

There is no evidence of the Bishop of Rome as the supreme head and infallible magisterium in the early Church. The current form of a supreme and infallible Pontiff is a recent innovation!
The Papacy’s autonomy from the ancient Pentarchy violates early Christian unity. The Rome versus Constantinople frame falls flat in light of the fact that the other major patriarchates sided with Constantinople.
For all the elaborate rationales advanced by Catholics to justify the Filioque, it is an indisputable fact that the Papacy’s unilateral insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed runs contrary to the conciliarity intrinsic to the seven Ecumenical Councils. Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus instructs:

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. (Source)

What we understand to be the Catholic Church is really the Medieval Catholic Church, a product of the Middle Ages and the Scholastic movement. The doctrines of purgatory and indulgences are medieval innovations that have no basis in patristic theology. This helped explain the gap between the Roman Catholic Church and the early Church. It also helped me to view with sympathy Protestants as innocent victims of Rome’s willful aberrations.
The dogma of Transubstantiation is a doctrinal aberration that is at odds with the patristic consensus.
The Novus Ordo Mass (the Vatican II Mass) marks a major break in the Catholic Church’s liturgical continuity with the early Church.

In addition to the above theological issues were the practical issues based on what I mentioned earlier. The liberal Catholicism in Berkeley was not a fluke but part of larger struggle taking place in Catholicism. Ralph Martin’s A Crisis of Truth describes in some detail the attempt by priests, theologians, and laity to redefine the Catholic faith. As an Evangelical in a liberal Protestant denomination, I did not want to go through that painful experience again. I was also struck by the fact that while Catholicism claims to be one church, what I had seen pointed to a church that operated on two quite different parallel realities.

Protestants at the Crossroads

An Evangelical who finds himself in the midst of the rubble of a shattered Protestant theology needs to consider carefully what his options are. There exist not one but two options. The Church of Rome may claim to have been founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, but the same claim can be made by the Church of Antioch (see Acts 13:1 for Paul and Galatians 2:11 for Peter and Paul). So while the Church of Rome may seem to be most obvious option there is another option. But there is another historically and biblically sound option: the Church of Antioch, that is, the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church of Antioch can claim a chain of apostolic succession that is equally valid and older than Rome’s. The early Councils did not assign the Bishop of Rome an authority greater than the other bishops. Rome’s claim to supremacy over the other bishops and patriarchates is a later development and is at odds with the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Two Peas in a Pod?

As the crisis in Evangelicalism intensifies, many Evangelicals will find themselves in a state of vertigo and confusion. They must not make the mistake of thinking that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are two peas in a pod. The two may look superficially similar but under the surface are profound differences. One crucial difference is the way they do theology. The Roman Catholic Church bases its theology on the infallible Pope. The Pope is the monarch of the Catholic Church. According to Catholic theology the Pope can unilaterally amend the Nicene Creed, order sweeping changes in the Sunday Mass, and issue dogmas — essential and non-negotiable doctrines binding on all members of the Catholic Church.

The theological method of Eastern Orthodoxy is based on Apostolic Tradition. Both clergy and laity have been entrusted with guarding and passing on Holy Tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15, II Timothy 2:2). The Orthodox theological method is based on Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). Unlike Catholicism which rests on one man (the Pope), Orthodoxy does theology collegially, that is, as a body working in unity. In Acts 15 we read how the early Church came together and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit resolved a major theological crisis. There was no evidence of a unilateral papal decree here! Acts 15 provides the biblical basis for the Seven Ecumenical Councils, a key component of Orthodoxy. It is important for Evangelicals to remember that they owe their core Christological and Trinitarian doctrines to the Ecumenical Councils. The Bishop of Rome collaborated and supported these Councils. He exercised authority with the Ecumenical Councils, not over them. The theological unity of the early Church was conciliar, not papal.

One thing that struck me about Orthodoxy was the continuing relevance of the Seven Ecumenical Councils to current debates within Orthodoxy. One example is Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon and the role of Patriarch of Constantinople with respect to the modern Orthodox diaspora. When I read Roman Catholic literature the overall sense I got was that the Ecumenical Councils belonged to an earlier stage of development and that the Catholic Church had evolved to another level. I sensed a subtle disconnect between the Catholic Church and the early Church.

Advice for the Lost — Retrace Your Steps

My advice to Protestants standing at the crossroads looking at the Catholic and Orthodox options is to do what people often do when they realize they are lost – retrace your steps. Read the book of Acts, then the Apostolic Fathers and Eusebius’ Church History. Study how Irenaeus of Lyons combated the heresy of Gnosticism. Also study the Arian controversy and the making of the Nicene Creed. Become familiar with the early Church before the Schism of 1054. I also recommend they read the fourth century Catechetical Lectures by Patriarch Cyril of J erusalem which describe the Holy Week services in Jerusalem. When I read Cyril’s lectures I was struck by how much they can be used to describe the Holy Week services of Orthodoxy today. I don’t think the contemporary Roman Catholic approach to Lent and Easter much resembles the liturgical celebrations of the early Church.

My advice to Protestants in the middle of a theological crisis is this: Don’t rush, take your time. Carefully study the Church Fathers, learn the ancient liturgies, and unlearn the modern habits of thought which have entangled the minds so many Protestants and Evangelicals. Then ask yourself which church today bears a closer resemblance to the early Church.

You Must Give Up Your Catholicism

A Protestant ran up eagerly to an Orthodox priest and asked: “Father, what must I do to become Orthodox?” The priest answered: “You must give up your Roman Catholicism.” That anecdote made a powerful impression on me for it illustrated how much Protestantism has in common with the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has its origins as a reaction to medieval Catholicism. This probably explains why modern day Protestants who seek to recover a historic and sacramental theology have started wearing Roman Catholic collars and white robes. Many will incorporate the “ancient” Nicene Creed into their church services, not realizing that they are using the version that has been tampered with by the Pope. The Nicene Creed endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils did not have the Filioque clause (“…and the Son”). These small “c” catholic Protestants have unwittingly biased themselves towards Roman Catholicism.

If one wants to go beyond medieval Catholicism to the early Church Fathers one must study the Church prior to the Schism of 1054. A Protestant who lays aside not only their Protestant innovations but also the accretions from medieval Catholicism will be able to accept Holy Tradition as given by Christ to his Apostles and which has been faithfully safeguarded by Eastern Orthodoxy for the past two millennia. This is the Pearl of Great Price. It is recommended that the reader read Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan’s excellent The Vindication of Tradition which explores the value of tradition for the Christian faith and his five-volume The Christian Tradition which is likely the best work on historical theology today.

The Tragedy of the Best Kept Secret in America

Ethnic Festival

So, why did Jason Stellman make no mention of Orthodoxy? Sadly, I believe that he has not taken the time needed to become acquainted with the Orthodox Church by attending her Liturgy (Sunday worship services), sitting down with her priests, talking things over with former Protestants who became Orthodox finding out from them how the wisdom of the ancient Church can be found in Orthodoxy today.

It is also a sad fact that many Americans have no awareness of Orthodoxy’s presence in America. Much of this ignorance can be attributed to Orthodox Christians themselves. We need to increase Orthodoxy’s public profile. We need to go beyond ethnic festivals and ethnic parishes with Sunday services in incomprehensible languages. We need Orthodox priests who like John Wesley have an evangelistic outlook:

I look on all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that, in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty, to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation.

Orthodoxy in America needs to take our candle out from under the bowl and put it on a lamp stand for all to see.

You – the Orthodox Church – are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. (Matthew 6:14-15 paraphrased).

Metropolitan Philip

We need bold visionary Orthodox hierarchs like Metropolitan Philip who proclaimed: Come home America! His Eminence also rebuked the Orthodox for making “Orthodoxy the best kept secret in America” because of their laziness and their being “busy taking care of their hidden ethnic ghettoes.”

It is time for Orthodoxy to stop being the hidden option for inquiring seekers. People need to see the light of our Faith and to find a welcoming hand of greeting at the doorsteps of our churches.

Robert Arakaki

See also:

Michael Whelton’s journey from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox Christian Information Center’s page “Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: For Roman Catholic.”

Category: Mercersburg Theology (Page 3 of 5)

Calvin and the “Fall of the Church”

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation

Why I Did Not Become Roman Catholic — A Sort of Response to Jason Stellman

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives