"The Church doesn't err. Never has and never will. Bishops may err. Priests may err. Christian people may err. Whole dioceses may err. But the Church never can err."
Hold that thought.
"The problem with you Lutherans is that you have a Platonic notion of what the Church is."
Um. Houston...?
Let's see: can anyone point to this "visible" church that cannot err? Oh, not that bishop! Oh, not his diocese! Oh, not this parish or that priest and certainly not that layperson!
I'm beginning to see that one cannot see.
It was a huge a-ha to me when I saw that Walther's true visible church was, well, invisible. It was just about as big of an a-ha when I realized that Orthodoxy's true visible church is invisible as well and in the exact same way.
What about Rome's? They sort of put all their "church cannot err" eggs into the papal basket, though they try to make it clear that it's not about the pope per se, but about the whole church, the infallibility given to the whole. But there sits Honorarius... Granted he didn't make his monothelite leanings an infallible pronouncement ex cathedra, but then again Rome didn't TALK that way then. But, wait a minute? Oh, never mind.
Luther's solution was rather simple. Worth reading too. You can find in AE 41:214 and following. His take? "Therefore the holy church cannot and may not lie or suffer false doctrine, but must teach nothing except what is holy and true, that is, God's Word alone; and where it teaches a lie it is idolatrous and the whore-church of the devil."
In other words, the Church by very definition is she who has and speaks the Word of God and it is that Word that *does not err, lie, or deceive.* When "church" presumes to speak what is NOT God's Word alongside God's Word, well, to the extent she does, she forfeits her claim of infallibility, because alongside of the inerrant Word she's mixed in stuff than can be quite fallible indeed.
All of which points us away from the sense of sight, to that of hearing, as Dr. Korby indicated long ago. Luther again: "The church must teach God's Word and truth alone, and not error or falsehood. How could it be otherwise? For God's mouth is the mouth of the church, and vice versa. God cannot lie, nor can the church." (AE 41:216) Find the Church in whose mouth is the infallible, inerrant Words of the living God and you have found the true Church. Oh, and as a bonus, she will be visible because she speaks through human mouths to human beings. But just remember her infallibility is not from this or that group that is speaking, but from what is spoken: the living oracles of the living God.
57 comments:
It's always been a puzzlement to me to notice how people who are hankering after Eastern Orthodox see nothing but sweetness and light there, but are eager to find fault with every possible thing they think is wrong in the Lutheran Church, real or imagined. And then when they get translated over into Eastern Orthodoxy suddenly the very things they found such fault with in Lutheranism, are things that they have to work so hard to explain away in Eastern Orthodoxy. Odd that.
William, If I could find your email, I would have emailed this instead of posting it.
For a while I had stopped reading blogs. I deleted mine and gave it up because all I saw on Lutheran blogs were attacks on Eastern Orthodox Christians. I didn't want to be part of all of it; I don't get it. Today I read Paul McCain's blog and now this one, both containing pieces explicity meant to thumb one's nose at the Orthodox Church. I don't get it, especially when other bloggers keep asking the Orthodox bloggers, "Why do you keep coming on here and posting? This is a Lutheran blog site." I think their answer should rightly be, "Because you are attacking us!"
You, and others, can tell me all day long that there is a lot of history behind this. He said...she said...etc. But this, and Paul's post, while attempting to contain substance and arguments, are truly veiled, vitriolic attacks. You can disagree with me, but this is my perception and I doubt that I am really the only one perceiving them as such.
I don't know what else to say other than I am vowing to stop posting on these blogs and making an earnest effort to stop checking them in the hopes to contribute nothing to this kind of exchange. These kinds of posts both anger and sadden me at the same time. I am sure you will get some EO response to this and then I am sure a Lutheran will ask the EO Christian to please leave and stop posting. I have one remedy to all of this: please, stop the attacks and instead build up the body of Christ.
I remember well Fr. Korby (who was a true father in the faith for me, and one of the very few whom I will call "Father") who said that the time of our Lord's Ascension is when we must "stick our eyes in our ears and see by hearing."
Herein lies the genius of the Reformers who were well acquainted with what could be seen of the Church but confessed that the only infallible recognition marks of the Church's presence were the various forms of the Word in action, namely the preached Gospel and the administered Sacraments. These divine actions of the Triune God held over and against any other claim to be "church."
I must quibble a bit with your interpretation of Walther. He held that the visible church is Church only because of the true and essential invisible Church contained therein with its true believers. This is precisely the Augustinian ecclesiology of which had the visible "assembly of the called" and the invisible "assembly of the elect" as its subset. The Augsburg Confession is much more accurate when it describes the Church as essentially hidden yet revealed by her divine marks of recognition.
Once you buy into the notion of a "true, visible Church" (which one is obligated to search out and join, according to Walther), then you are set on a quest for that which is visibly pure and perfect, instead of dealing with what actually is.
As a sidenote, much of the intramural competition over who is more entitled to be called the "true visible church" can only take place in America, the Hometown Buffet of religions. In many parts of the world, there is only one show in town, whether it be Roman or Orthodox, often as a state enforced monopoly.
Thank you for your cogent comments on the Church as we approach the Feast of Pentecost.
Bryce,
Was it an attack upon the Orthodox Church? Or even Rome? I did not intend it to be so, and if it was heard so, I ask forgiveness.
It was an attempt to address a frequently used criticism about our churches (a platonic church - an old charge documented even in the Apology) which I don't think holds water.
It showed up in Fr. Gregory's comments on the blog (which are from his very long paper on the topic, a paper which every Lutheran should read): "There is no Lutheran Church" or "the Lutheran Church is dead." Fr. Gregory honestly and with all his heart believes this to be so.
But the measure used for viability is visibility (and this seems to be what constitutes the non-platonic reality) and one that --it seems to me, at any rate--doesn't hold water.
His words about the infallibility of the Church, of course, are TRUE. But, when he grants, not necessarily true of this particular bishop, or jurisdiction, or parish, then he seems to be in the same boat that we Lutherans find ourselves in as well.
I believe quite simply that Orthodoxy is truly church, but not solely church. I believe that about Rome also. In both jurisdictions it seems to me that "the foundation is not overthrown" (Ap IV:20-21) but is imperiled by "certain harmful opinions." But for the truth that is enshrined in either and upheld and proclaimed through all the world, how could I not rejoice?
Orthodoxy is truly Church, but only to the extent it teaches and preaches the Gospel according to a pure understanding of it, but to the extent that it does not, it is not Church. The Gospel subsists within the Orthodox Church, not because it is the "Orthodox" Church, but often quite in spite of the "Orthodox" Church.
And, er, of course the exact same is true for Rome and also for us. No one can claim an institutional infallibility.
Somewhere I seem to remember Pelikan commenting on the flip: Because she held to the old faith without philosophical embroidery, Rome was always right. But the sad day came when, the reason for being right was located not in holding the old faith, but in the fact that Rome said it. "Because I said so" is a far cry from "Peter has spoken through Leo!"
So with us: because the Lutherans held to the old faith, they spoke the truth. It does not follow that Lutherans, then, always speak what is true. Only insofar as we are holding to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith as founded in the Sacred Scriptures and witnessed in the ecumenical Creeds and explicated in the particular Lutheran confessions may we claim to be speaking the truth also. "Test all things; hold fast what is good."
Pr McCain,
You wrote:
Orthodoxy is truly Church ...
I am surprised (but not unappreciative) that you would write such a thing, no matter how many qualifications you put on the statement.
You do, of course, go on to qualify your statement:
... but only to the extent it teaches and preaches the Gospel according to a pure understanding of it, but to the extent that it does not, it is not Church.
But this is a qualification which I believe no Orthodox would quarrel with. As a friend of Orthodoxy, I certainly have no quarrel with it.
And even your concluding sentence:
The Gospel subsists within the Orthodox Church, not because it is the "Orthodox" Church, but often quite in spite of the "Orthodox" Church.
... is something I think many respected Orthodox theologians would agree with. (I'm thinking in particular of Fr Schmemann, whose critiques of Orthodox pietism were often more trenchant than any Westerner's critique.)
Orthodox and Lutherans will disagree, of course, as to what qualifies as "according to a pure understanding". But no particular Church has an a priori guarantee of orthodoxy. On that cardinal point Orthodox and Lutherans are agreed; only Rome disagrees.
"Orthodoxy" as a confession of the Christian faith is an erring confession. Lutheranism is the pure and true confession of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. We name this confession "Lutheranism" to hold it in contradistinction from every other confession, but Lutheranism is nothing more, nor anything less, than the one true faith. And all those confessions that, to whatever extent, also contain or exhibit this same one true faith, to that extent, are Church, in spite of their particular confession's error.
Bryce,
I did not perceive Pr. Weedon's comments to be an attack at all. To discuss and make a strong case for Lutheran theology is not an attack. It is a confession.
One must make every effort to honestly understand and accurately express the theology of those hwo disagree with Lutheran theology. But one must also honestly and forthrightly say where the differences are. Those differences are, in the end, in what we say the truth is and they are divisive and serious. I expect the EO to speak just as forthrightly. We must not be embarassed of our Lutheranism.
Well, even though I promised to make no more comments, posts are addressed to me and so I will simply state this...If it was not an attack, then at least it was condescending. To preface an argument with a comment like, "Ummm, Houston..." is condescending. Or, when Mr. Jones posts comments like he did, comments aimed at saying, "Look. Here we can agree", the post is responded to with the comment, in so many words, "Great. You think we agree on this minor point. But your confession of the Christian faith is erring; it is wrong." Once again, condescending. Not dialogue.
Now, you may argue that the other side has been condescending (or whatever else) as well. Hence, you may justify your condescension by their acts of condescension. And while I am surely not trying to be holier than thou, these types of posts (which Lutheran blogs are rife with) are not dialogue; they are not even really good confessions. Instead they amount to something like...well, condescension. I can understand being condescending in the heat, of a person to person, face to face discussion. But shouldn't cooler and more level heads prevail as we sit down to type? (For instance, I am now done with this post (and I pray, down with posting) and I shall now scroll back to make sure that I haven't said anything that I wished I hadn't).
Bill,
Thanks so much for your reflections.
Reading and re-reading your post, I wonder how the lessons for Pentecost Day relate to your comments about Church. Both the account of Babel (community destroyed and scattered by confusion of language--yes---"speech") and the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2---a new community--church-- created and constitued by a common language---yes--"speech") each have to do with both church and Word/words. I don't know exactly what I'm trying to say, but these texts seem to me to confirm the thesis of your original post.
FWIW.
Tom Fast
PS---I hope I am making some kind of sense here.
I just have two questions.
One -- where are the Tiber swimmers? How come they don't hang around Lutheran blogs, ready to defend their new faith and church from the misguided representations of their old one? Having swum the Tiber out, that interests me.
Two -- I never hear those who swam East mention Lutheran church bodies in the Eastern tradition, yet they exist. (I linked to the liturgy of one of them, Ukrainian, on my own blog, and I grant you it is in the CELC, oder KELK, rather than the ILF, but there are similar bodies.) Did the Lutheran churches within the Eastern rather than the Western Rite enter in their considerations?
Pr. Weedon, you wrote:
"It showed up in Fr. Gregory's comments on the blog (which are from his very long paper on the topic, a paper which every Lutheran should read): "There is no Lutheran Church" or "the Lutheran Church is dead." Fr. Gregory honestly and with all his heart believes this to be so."
Rx: The "There is no Lutheran Church" is actually quite short; it's a series of theses. I wrote a longer paper called, "What shall we do?"
On the main point of this thread, whether the church can err:
Infallibility pertains to a communication: we say this or that word is infallible. Now all communications involve three terms: the speaker, the message, and the audience. So then, infallibility must also involve three terms. If the speaker speaks infallibly, and the message he speaks is infallible, but the message is not infallibly heard and understood, then for all intents and purposes there is no infallibility.
More and more it seems to me that Lutheranism agrees with the Church that
-God, the speaker is infallible; and
- the Scripture, the message, is infallible.
Where we differ is over the third term.
Since Gerhard, certainly, Lutherans think that the hearer is infallible, and therefore can judge whether and where he hears Gospel in the Church. (Before Gerhard, the evidence is somewhat ambiguous.)
Now if the hearer is infallible, then the Church is a conglomeration of like-believing individuals. Infallible hearer Weedon judges that (let's try something other than lay absolution here) grape juice in the Sacrament violates Christ's institution and must not be practiced. Infallible hearer Church-growth-LCMS-down-the-block judges that grape juice is acceptable in the Sacrament and may be permitted as an option. How can these two co-exist in the same body? Because they agree, formally, that the hearer is infallible and they are like-enough minded on most doctrinal issues (cp. President Kieschnik's list of things that are agreed on) to live together (however uneasily).
The Orthodox Christian considers the Church to be infallible, and therefore does not trust his own insights, thoughts and ideas but tests them against the Church's. He views himself not as like-minded, but of one and the same mind with all other Orthodox Christians. If there is a dispute, he questions himself first, and weighs all things against the consensus of the Church.
So, if someone holds that the Church is not infallible, he must either (overtly or covertly) affirm that the hearer is infallible--or he must deny infallibility altogether. For if an infallible God speaks an infallible Word to a fallible audience, the Word will not have its effect.
As to the notion that the Church can only be infallibly recognized in the preached gospel and administered Sacraments--this, in the first place, is sacramental Barthianism. In the second place, because it so stresses function, to the exclusion of ontology and structure, it is vulnerable to lay celebration, divorced and remarried clergy and ultimately, the ordination of women. When function rules, ontological considerations don't matter. This is the Cheshire-cat doctrine of Church and Ministry: now you see it, now you don't.
And just as Barth made such use of the Scriptures, so functionalists use the fathers. In both cases (Barth with the Scriptures and functionalism with the fathers), references are "cherry-picked" and made to fit into a mosaic they were not intended to occupy. But this has been pointed out eloquently in other places by Christopher Orr, among others.
The unworthy priest, fool, and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
But Father Gregory, who speaks for this Church that is infallible if it is granted that bishops can err, councils can err (ecumenical councils are recognized afterwards by their reception, no?), and whole jurisdictions can err?
Pr. Weedon,
The way you pose your question, if you find Lutheranism intolerable some day you'll be right at home in Rome. Yet I will try to answer.
Sometimes bishops do; sometimes monastics do; sometimes otherwise unknown laity do. Orthodoxy isn't about fundamentals, but about fullness.
The way you pose your question is like asking, "Which part of the body gives me an infallible sense of the head's intention?" The answer is that the body taken as a whole--not this part here or that part there--does.
The unworthy priest, hypocrite and fool,
Fr. Gregory
The Church is the infallible recipient of the infallible Word from the Infallible God. That's a pretty tightly-locked ship. Yet there is a problem within this for the average Christian: when one needs to consult the "Church," how in the world can you do that? That's an honest question! One's experience of the Church always comes mediated - through Eucharistic Liturgy and catechesis and one's priest(s) and other laity and so on, both in their faithfulness and (excuse the term) unfaithfulness, and without ever taking in everything the Church has said/received throughout history. I cannot help but ask, is the mediated experience of the Church today hearing this Infallible Church in its universality? Based on all this talk about fallible bishops, councils, laity and so forth, the answer seems like a definite MAYBE. Lutheranism tries to be honest about this fallibility of the mediation through time; thus we point to that infallible mediation in the living Word and Sacraments. Rome side-stepped the question by locating its universal infallibility in the Pope. Orthodoxy (as far as I can tell, and I mean no disrespect) dances around the question by pointing always to its unbroken, living historicity and experience. It's the Church because it always has been. That dances around the real question: has the Orthodox Church inherited a Pharisee error, where the traditions of men have mixed in and overtaken the commandments of God? I know that sounds pretty ugly, and I wish it sounded better, but I think it's the real question for (at least this) Lutheran.
For you sensitive types out there, don't go accusing me of being hateful or unfair. This is my real question for those willing to take it up. I, for one, don't like any of that hand-holding, tree-hugging stuff. We should be fair and as kind as possible, but we should also be able to ask tough questions.
It's kind of simple, really.
The Church is visible.
Her perfections are not always.
That's because her only perfect Member is Christ, her Head.
And God writes straight with crooked lines: teaches truth through His Church full of imperfect people.
Anastasia
not a former Lutheran
Dear Pr. Harju,
In Orthodoxy, what we consider infallible is only the consensus of the Church over the course of her history.
And no, we really, truly, do not do the Pharisee thing, which is to try to earn ones own salvation. In this respect, we are even more radical than Lutherans. For us, salvation is something that *by its very nature* cannot be earned. That is, the fact that it can't be earned is not a matter of decree by God, or simply the rules He has set, but instead, that unearnability is *inherent*. That means not even Christ could earn it for us.
I realize such an assertion will raise a lot of eyebrows, but it ought at least to settle the Pharisaism issue, I suppose.
I agree with you that it's a good question, though.
Anastasia
Pr. Harju wrote:
The Church is the infallible recipient of the infallible Word from the Infallible God. That's a pretty tightly-locked ship. Yet there is a problem within this for the average Christian: when one needs to consult the "Church," how in the world can you do that? That's an honest question! One's experience of the Church always comes mediated - through Eucharistic Liturgy and catechesis and one's priest(s) and other laity and so on, both in their faithfulness and (excuse the term) unfaithfulness, and without ever taking in everything the Church has said/received throughout history. I cannot help but ask, is the mediated experience of the Church today hearing this Infallible Church in its universality? Based on all this talk about fallible bishops, councils, laity and so forth, the answer seems like a definite MAYBE.
Rx: The average Christian encounters the Church in her worship. And in that worship, all things speak with one voice: the texts, the iconography, even the layout of the Temple. The texts of the liturgy are so rich in theology that even if one had a goofy priest, he would still hear the Gospel in its truth and purity. Consider one little verse we sing each Sunday: "Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man. Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit-save us."
Over two millenia, the Church has developed a rhythm of preparation and celebration, of fasting and feasting, which aids the individual Christian in the way of salvation. These things are not up for negotiation; priests or bishops can't decide "Let's bring in grape juice" or "Let's have a designated layman do Eucharist."
That the infallible Church comes to us mediated through fallible men is no scandal. She has a way--or rather, God does--of preserving her purity. Have there been priests and bishops who have lived in a scandalous way? Of course--I'm sure that Pr. McCain could provide the documentation needed. But those scandals do not affect the heart of the Church's life, the liturgy; nor do they hinder the Church's ongoing work of prayer and love.
Since being Orthodox, I have never gone to church wondering, "Will there be a praise band today? Will we be using grape juice?" or even, "What's the guy in the next state, or on the other coast, doing this morning?" Go anywhere in the world, in the Orthodox Church, and you will find one worship--as my son has learned when he went to Central America and Ukraine last summer.
PH:
Lutheranism tries to be honest about this fallibility of the mediation through time; thus we point to that infallible mediation in the living Word and Sacraments.
Rx: Forgive me, but this is precisely the problem. Is that mediation infallible when a layman does it, or a laywoman (see the last paragraph of Pr. Weedon's citation from Prof. Marquart's dogmatics text) does it? How about when grape juice is used, or when the only liturgical text used is the Verba and the Our Father? Or how about when you are in communion fellowship with those who do these things? These questions are not theoretical--they are drawn from actual, weekly occurrences within Lutheranism.
PH:
Rome side-stepped the question by locating its universal infallibility in the Pope. Orthodoxy (as far as I can tell, and I mean no disrespect) dances around the question by pointing always to its unbroken, living historicity and experience. It's the Church because it always has been. That dances around the real question: has the Orthodox Church inherited a Pharisee error, where the traditions of men have mixed in and overtaken the commandments of God? I know that sounds pretty ugly, and I wish it sounded better, but I think it's the real question for (at least this) Lutheran.
Rx: Rome locates infallibility in its magesterium, headed by the Pope. Protestants (those who still believe in it) locate that infallibility in the individual interpreter (Here "I" stand). The Orthodox locate that infallibility in the Church.
Your question doesn't sound ugly at all, to me; it's a good one. There is only one answer to that sort of question: "Come and see."
The unworthy priest, hypocrite and fool,
Fr. Gregory
Pr. Weedon,
I would encourage you to not apologize for the perception that it was an attack on the Orthodox church.
The Orthodox church habitually and regularly perverts the Gospel and robs sinners of true comfort by encouraging them to ultimately found their trust somewhere other than Christ crucified.
Granted they try to use their ecclesiology to get to some sort of Christology (as flawed as it is), but where you start matters, and they start in entirely the wrong place.
It's okay to attack a confession that perverts the Gospel for doing so.
Fr. Gregory and Anastasia, I appreciate your take on the issue.
With regard to Anastasia's comments:
The aspect of the Pharisee issue I referred to was only the admixture of man's traditions at the level, and even in the place of, God's commands. I did not mean to suggest that the Orthodox try to earn salvation. I remember our (still unfinished) conversation on my wife's blog. It is very clear the Orthodox take issue with the idea of "merits."
With regard to Fr. Gregory's comments:
You point to the clear problems experienced among Lutherans. Even on Lutheran terms our Church-ness comes into question over these issues, because they make us ask whether we Lutherans actually hear our Shepherd's voice. I can only speak to the American scene, though. I have no knowledge of other Lutheran communions across the world.
However, if we did not have all these problems, from an Orthodox view Lutherans would still not be the visible Church. Only if we came into eucharistic fellowship with the Orthodox Church, placed ourselves under the jurisdiction of their bishops, and accepted the Eastern Orthodox gospel, invocation of the saints & the hyperdoulia of the Theotokos (among other things) could we then be considered members of the visible Church. That's because being the true visible Church for the Orthodox is about more than just right liturgy.
Going with Dr. Luther's quote (see Weedon's originating post) the Church cannot lie and must always speak the Truth. Going with your post, the Church is the infallible recipient and repository of the Truth. Anastasia says that the Church's perfection lies with Christ. The end of Weedon's original post says that the Church's infallibilty lies with Christ's Word. The quote he uses from Luther speaks of an ontological connection, a definite unity between the mouth of God and of the Church. There's a lot of overlap with this.
What ruins the visibility argument for Lutherans is Rome. Our experience of Church is that the hierarchy went renegade, leaving the flock to wander the dangerous countryside. Thus you get quaint ideas like Walther's Kirche und Amt, where the real Church is the invisible sheep, and thus any visible-ness is just a result of the invisible believers' presence. Looking in on the Orthodox communion, then, there is necessarily suspicion. Not that the Orthodox are enemies of the Gospel as Rome became, but that this so-called organic, ontological reality of the infallible visible Church is the same delusion of Rome, though not yet as far gone.
Ultimately the consensus argument might have the greatest weight for an informed Lutheran. But the Orthodox Church does not maintain an infallible consensus. It maintains it's own regional, theo-cultural consensus, but not a universal consensus. The only way to arrive at the conclusion of consensus is to write-off Western Christianity (not entirely, but mostly). And this issue is enough to suggest that the Orthodox Church is not the one, true visible Church on earth, but in fact a facet of Christians in the world who do the best they can with what they've got. What saves the day is Christ, His Word, His Baptismal covenant, His Sacramental union, and the gift of His Spirit through these means. I suppose this leaves the Church a hidden reality that is also visible, like Pr. Weedon said at the end of his first post.
A word of caution. Do not assume that remarks made by converts to Orthodoxy actually reflect the reality that is Orthodoxy. A friend of mine recently made the very good point that anyone who is getting starry-eyed about Orthodoxy really needs to spend time in Russia and Greece, in Orthodox monasteries and churches, to find out what Orthodoxy is really like.
Pastor McCain,
I would say the same thing about anyone who would make criticisms and claims that American Orthodoxy is not reflective of Orthodoxy around the world.
I, for one, have spent considerable time in Eastern Europe, attending Church at an average Russian parish, as well as spending some time in monasteries in Russia, the Ukraine, Guatemala, and the United States. I have read theological publications put out originally in Russian, in the original Russian.
In two months' time, I'll be leaving for an indefinite period of time doing mission work in Eastern Ukraine.
In my experience, Orthodoxy there is remarkably the same as Orthodoxy here in America. I have felt at home wherever I went, and I found the theology to be the same no matter what the origin of the publications was.
I can understand your wanting to imply a distinction, but honesty and fairness make it advisable to inform yourself if you are going to make criticisms.
Also, a word about something you said in a previous post: You discussed abortion rates in Russia and claimed that the Church in Russia didn't say anything about it, just viewing it as a private matter, pointing this out as a defect in Orthodoxy. I'm sure you were misinformed, and not deliberately spreading falsehoods, but as one who has been over there, and as one who majored in Russian language, literature, and cultural studies, I can correct this mistake.
It is true that abortion rates in Russia are incredibly high. Abortion was legalized at the beginning of Communism, and actively promoted as a form of birth control. Abortions were not only legal, but free and encouraged. That was the case for almost 75 years, during which time also millions of Orthodox believers were martyred for their faith.
Now that Communism has falled, the Church is indeed active in speaking out against abortion. While I was in Russia, I saw monks standing on street corners passing out informational pro-life literature. In all the Churches that I went to that had bookstores, they also had a stand of pro-life pamphlets with a sign telling people that these were free. Also, the Church is trying to get permission from the government to go into the schools to teach the pro-life position to children in school.
Now I'm sure that you didn't mean to spread falsehoods on these subjects intentionally. However, now that you know the truth, I do hope that you will not repeat what you now know to be false. You believe what you believe strongly, but lying can only ever be in the service of the devil.
Christ is among us,
John Hogg
Chaz,\
First of all, congratulations on your engagement!
It simply isn't true that we encourage anybody to put his trust anywhere but in Christ. That was exactly my point in the debate about whether to put it in the Bible or the Church. I said put it in Christ. (And TWO Lutherans wrote back saying they didn't understand what I meant.)
Christ crucified, yes, and Christ risen, and Christ ascended. Everything is centered upon that, everything flows from that, and that alone. Orthodoxy theology and praxis begins and ends with Christ and is all about Christ. Period.
Anastasia
not a former Lutheran
Dear Pr. Harju,
Hard to answer your question re traditions of men without more specifics. I mean, bviously the answer is going to be "no" but one can't very well explain that not knowing to what you refer.
It took me a long time to arrive at that "no".
Anastasia
My problem with the idea put forth by Fr. Gregory et. al. about Christians not trusting themselves to have the right opinions and thus trusting the Church's consensus over time is this: the Church here on earth, should it over time head on the wrong doctrinal course, is incapable of being turned back to the Truth by an individual Christian teacher or teachers. It seem that it would be impossible for an Orthodox priest to conclude through his studies of Church history and Christian doctrine that...lo and behold, it appears the Church has been teaching this or that wrongly and actually reform the erring Church. It sounds like: "The Church must be right, because it has been teaching this for so long." But what if, what if it were actually wrong?
David Jay Webber tells an interesting story that touches on this very question - it's about an Orthodox seminarian in Ukraine who began by defending a friend who had and read a Lutheran book, and was expelled from seminary. Soon the defender was expelled. They wanted to know what Luther had said that was so explosive. The defender is now a pastor in the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, which uses a revision of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but is wholly committed to the Lutheran Symbols and in fellowship with ELS.
You can find a link to that Eastern Lutheran liturgy on the Liturgy element on the side of my blog.
One thing I find curiously absent from the EO conversion stories is the various Eastern Lutheran churches, such as the one mentioned, in their stories.
Pr. Beisel said:
My problem with the idea put forth by Fr. Gregory et. al. about Christians not trusting themselves to have the right opinions and thus trusting the Church's consensus over time is this: the Church here on earth, should it over time head on the wrong doctrinal course, is incapable of being turned back to the Truth by an individual Christian teacher or teachers. It seem that it would be impossible for an Orthodox priest to conclude through his studies of Church history and Christian doctrine that...lo and behold, it appears the Church has been teaching this or that wrongly and actually reform the erring Church. It sounds like: "The Church must be right, because it has been teaching this for so long." But what if, what if it were actually wrong?
Rx:
If it were actually wrong, then Christ would have lied when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. If it were actually wrong, then St. Paul would have lied when he said that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
Neither Christ's promise, nor St. Paul's, is addressed to the individual believer.
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
Why is the Ukrainian Lutheran Church not in communion with the LCMS?
Dear Anon,
I believe they are not primarily ecause they disagree with the LCMS including women in what a friend likes to call "the deliberative and conciliar processes" of the Church. The Ukrainians, like the ELS, believe that women voting in the Church, for example, violates the order God established at creation.
Okay Fr. Hogg, let's forget about the church for a minute and just talk about bishops and teachers. You admit that it is possible for bishops and individuals to err. And I would think that you would say it is even possible for Orthodox bishops/teachers to err in their teaching. So, let's say that a handful of Orthodox bishops or perhaps just one lowly priest began to protest some of the liturgical practices or teachings of his fellow bishops, saying that they were contrary to Holy Scripture. And let's say, for the sake of the hypothetical, that this lowly priest was actually right! The bishops and teachers for centuries had been teaching something incorrectly, and this teaching had just gradually crept in over time, so gradually in fact, that no one really even noticed it until now. Is it possible for Orthodox Christians to question the teachings of their Church on the basis of Holy Scripture?
The Ukrainian Lutheran Church is a member of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, a 20 member international body whose American affiliates are the ELS and WELS.
The CELC is similar to the ILF, but with some differences. You can read about their understanding of what confessional is on their site:
http://www.celc.info/
The ULC will host their next meeting, in fact.
Women voters are held by WELS too to be a violation of the order of creation taught in the Bible and upheld in the Confessions, and is another addition to the list of reasons why WELS is not in fellowship with LCMS (anymore) either.
Pr. Beisel,
If you're asking me to suppose that the bishops, clergy, monks and laity of the Church could all admit and teach error, and that this could go on for centuries, you're asking me to suppose that the Church could err.
Priests have gone astray--Arius is an example; but they were dealt with by bishops and monks. Bishops could go astray--Nestorius is an example; but they were dealt with by clergy, fellow bishops and monks. Monks might go astray--some sided with Barlaam against Gregory Palamas; but they were dealt with by bishops and councils. Councils might go astray--the Robber Synod of 449 is an example; but it was immediately rejected by the people, and corrected by the 4th ecumenical council.
Theology does not concern itself with hypotheticals, but with realities. And the history of the Orthodox Church is the working-out of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
The unworthy priest, fool, and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory
"Is it possible for Orthodox Christians to question the teachings of their Church on the basis of Holy Scripture?"
Well, first you postulate "a handful" of people in error and then ask if we can question the Church, as if that Church were to be equated with that handful of mistaken members.
We're using "Church" differently. The Church, for the Orthodox, is Christ, is "the fullness of Him Who fills all in all."
Certainly we can question the teaching of our bishop, our pastor, our diocese. And not only on the basis of Scripture, but also by saying such things as, "It's unOrthodox! It is not the teaching of the Fathers, it is not in accord with the prayers and worship of the Church, it subverts the apostolic relationship with Christ in which we live."
Not only that, but **provided we do so in humility**, we may question even the most sacrosanct, undoubted doctrines of the whole Church. (Humility here means recognizing in advance that somehow, in a way I don't yet see, my questions are going to end up proving me wrong and the Church right.) We may even question Christ's own sayings. We may question with much more freedom than most, in fact, because we don't have to stop at the point where the pope intervenes, or at the point where, say, the Book of Concord settles the issue. We SHOULD question, in fact, because that's how we learn. That's how we come to understand; that's how we are corrected. We are not expected or encouraged to believe blindly, but with understanding.
Anastasia
[ULC]...uses a revision of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but is wholly committed to the Lutheran Symbols and in fellowship with ELS.
According to their liturgical materials and a speech the former presiding bishop gave at one of the Confessions Symposia in Ft Wayne, the fullness of commitment does not apply to the filioque, which may or may not be omitted in the liturgy at the discretion of the local pastor.
As it was explained to me by David Jay Webber, this "option" is based on the inclusion of the Greek text in the critical edition of the Bekenntnisschriften. However, this assumption is fundamentally flawed since the Greek text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was never included in any of original editions of the 1579/1580 Book of Concord; and even if it was, the official version to which Lutheran pastors subscribe themselves is the Latin and German texts which clearly include the filioque.
While this "option" of omitting or including the filioque might seem reasonable, pastoral or even laudable, it suggests that both the liturgy and the confessional standard are pliant in at least the ULC on at least this significant issue.
Father John,
I believe that what you describe was how it started, but I believe that the Latin form has been made normative for them now. But you know who to ask about that - and I hear he's up your way (or will be).
Another thought, Fr. John:
Was not the filioque confessed in the Creed by a number of the Western saints you venerate in the Western rite?
"Was not the filioque confessed in the Creed by a number of the Western saints you venerate in the Western rite?"
This is an ancient canard. St. Photios the Great dealt with it at great length in his "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit". The topic occupies 24 whole paragraphs (numbers 64 through 88).
The whole treatise, long but worth the read, can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/mystagogy.html
Here (in his own stinging language) are some small excerpts:
You bring forth Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome as well as certain other men as witnesses against the dogma of the Church, because you say they hold the opinion that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
. . .
Read through Ambrose or Augustine or whatever Father you may choose: which of them wished to affirm anything contrary to the Master's word? . . . But, you retort, they have written so, and the words the Spirit proceeds from the Son are to be found in their writings. What of it? If those fathers, having been instructed, did not alter or change their opinion, if after just rebukes they were not persuaded — again, this is another slander against your Fathers — then you who teach your word [Filioque] as a dogma introduce your own stubbornness of opinion into the teachings of those men. Although in other things they are the equals of the best [Fathers], what does this have to do with you? If they slipped and fell into error, therefore, by some negligence or oversight — for such is the human condition — when they were corrected, they neither contradicted nor were they obstinately disobedient.
. . .
But I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by those blessed men. Even so, if any among them has fallen into something unseemly — for they were all men and human, and no one composed of dust and ephemeral nature can avoid some trace of defilement — I would then imitate the sons of Noah and cover my father's shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. I would not have followed Ham as you do. Indeed, you follow him with even more shamelessness and impudence than he himself, because you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers.
In the later paragraphs he goes on to enumerate in detail many examples of Western Fathers who did NOT teach the filioque. (Lest the West be smeared, he says.)
love,
Anastasia
"In the later paragraphs he goes on to enumerate in detail many examples of Western Fathers who did NOT teach the filioque."
St Maximos the Confessor: On the Romans and the Filioque
Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession — but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].
In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
–St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus
Yes, I know; St. Maxiomos hoped it was a mere semantic difference. And if it had been, then of course his suggestion should have resolved the issue: Rome could have simply revised her semantics in such a way as to avoid all the difficulties.
I frequently tell Catholics the same thing: if both ways of putting it mean the same thing, then for heaven's sake say it the Orthodox way and we'll be done with the controversy!
But of course that doesn't happen, because it is NOT just a semantic difference. St. Maximos was proven too optimistic.
And of course it will not happen, because the filioque, subordinating the Spirit to the Son, is a major prop of the papal claims. It is the SON, after all, Whose vicar on earth the pope claims to be.
It means that on earth, the pope has the Spirit in his custody. Mustn't ask him to give up that!
Anastasia
Anastasia said...
"It is the SON, after all, Whose vicar on earth the pope claims to be.
It means that on earth, the pope has the Spirit in his custody. Mustn't ask him to give up that!"
The Bishop of Rome claims to be the Son of God Himself and the Holy Spirit flows only from the Pope on earth??
Is this what youre saying the RCC teaches? Can you provide references for this?
"The Bishop of Rome claims to be the Son of God Himself and the Holy Spirit flows only from the Pope on earth??"
No.
The pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ. That means, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
Or, this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis mine:
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock **in His own place**, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
Christ is safely ascended into heaven, leaving whatever interests us, namely earthly matters, to His vicar, the pope.
The EFFECT, therefore, of the filioque (an effect not explictly stated but of which you cannot imagine any pope unaware!) is that nowadays, on earth, the Holy Spirit, together with all grace, is sent through Christ's plenary representative, the pope.
Anastasia
For crying out loud, Rome teaches enough error without imputing to them things they do not teach!
What I'm saying is, this is what it ends up being when you combine the filioque , which they certainly do teach, with "Vicar of Christ", which they also certainly do teach. This is the *effect*, and nobody ought to be so gullible, IMO, as to suppose the effect is not intentional.
Anastasia
Um, Anastasia, I have thought Photius' arguments were rather much in the spirit of Cardinal Manning's: "We will triumph over history with dogma." They have never convinced me. The Western Church sang in the Quinqunque Vult in the Divine Office for how many centuries? The procession of the Spirit from the Son was no accidental intrusion in their thought. Don't most Orthodox scholars insist that there is a different triadology at work in St. Augustine vs. the Cappadocians? It seems to me that there are three options:
1. The East is right and the West was wrong.
2. The West is right and the East was wrong.
3. There are two distinct ways that the Church can approach and so confess the sublime mystery of the Trinity, both of which the ancient church considered Orthodox (at least till the Franks tried to stir up trouble on the question and Photius dug in his heels).
I'd vote for option three.
And for how many centuries did the pope in Rome resist this addition to the Creed? As In Pope Leo III, Pope Benedict who came after him, Pope John VIII and his successor, Pope Hadrian.
The to say that the Holy Spirit is "of the Father and the Son" as the Athanasian Creed does, is technically correct when it means "consubstantial with the Father and the Son," but not when it means "has His origin in the Father and the Son."
Yup, St. Augustine had a different triadology alright. I remember while reading de Trinitatis underlining all the places that made me wonder whether he had not heard of the Council of Nicea. His triadology was based not upon revelation but upon philosophy.
We should all adopt Nicene triadology.
You say you aren't convinced by St. Photios' arguments; let's see you refute some of them. The first 15 paragraphs or so contain mostly exercises in logic. They have to do with the fact that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished only and precisely by being, respectively, Unoriginate Origin, begotten, and He Who Proceeds. Without these distinctions, we have no threeness. Any more distinctions than these give us polytheism. Start messing with these distinctions and you play havoc with the Holy Trinity in all the various ways St. Photios mentions.
love,
Anastasia
I think Pastor Webber's paper does the job so that I don't need to write it all over again here. It's on his Lutheran Theology website, but I think it's been posted on O-L dialog more than once.
Note, please, though, that I am NOT defending adding the filioque to the Creed itself - that was a mistake and it should never have been done. But undoing it is not an individual's decision. The notion, however, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son does not state that He proceeds in the identical way from both.
This is probably way too simplistic, but this is how I showed it to my son: You can hold your hands apart and make the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the left hand and the right hand. THAT would be false. You could hold the one hand in front of the other and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the right hand AND the left hand and it would be true - from the right hand as source of being and through the left hand as he is manifested eternally. In other words, the ONLY Spirit we know is the Spirit who comes from the FATHER, but what a FATHER without a SON???
Pr. Webber does not even attempt to refute a single one of St. Photios' arguments.
So far as I know, nobody has.
love,
Anastasia
Fr. Hogg, Anastasia, et al:
Busy-ness kept me from answering the thread immediately, and when I came back, lo and behold someone opened the Pandora's Box of the filioque controversy. (Anyone want to really commit sepuku and throw in the Semper Virgo debate?!)
Seriously, though, I'd like to begin to answer Anastasia's question about traditions and add some more to the conversation about the infallible visible Church. This is an official hijacking attempt. My post is located on my blog: http://paredwka.blogspot.com/ .
Fr. John Fenton wrote:
As it was explained to me by David Jay Webber, this "option" is based on the inclusion of the Greek text in the critical edition of the Bekenntnisschriften. However, this assumption is fundamentally flawed since the Greek text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was never included in any of original editions of the 1579/1580 Book of Concord; and even if it was, the official version to which Lutheran pastors subscribe themselves is the Latin and German texts which clearly include the filioque.
I'm quite certain that my friend John is mistaken about my having said this. I have never thought this (for all the reasons that John gives), and therefore I doubt very much that I ever said it.
I have, however, said this:
The Latin version of the Creed is present in the Book of Concord as a Scripturally-based doctrinal standard for the church, in which certain ancient heresies “are clearly and solidly refuted.” Its presence in the Book of Concord is not a liturgical rubric, implying that this version of this Creed must be chanted or recited in Lutheran worship services. If Greek-Rite Lutherans are in doctrinal agreement with the Lutheran Confessions, and in doctrinal unity with Confessional Lutheranism, then there should be no objection if they wish to continue to use the more ancient, and to them the more familiar, version of the Creed in their Liturgy. The members of such a church would not be removing the Filioque clause from the Nicene Creed, but in Christian freedom they would simply be declining to insert the Filioque clause.
This is from my essay on the Lutheran view of the Filioque to which Pr. Weedon has referred:
http://tinyurl.com/lb4cp
Anastasia has also stated that in my paper I do not attempt to refute any of Photius's arguments. This is true, because my paper is not a general treatment of the history of the Filioque controversy, but is a summary of the 16th-century Lutheran perspective on the Filioque. And in that respect I would add that the Reformers and Concordists had a greater sensitivity to the theological issues that concern our Eastern Orthodox friends regarding the order of the Divine Persons, etc., than would be the case with many Lutherans of later generations, who (unfortunately) tend to be more superficial in their treatment of these matters.
In my opinion one of the best modern discussions of the Filioque dispute in general is the "Clarification" that was issued by the Vatican several years ago. It can be found online here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041102133548/praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/
Jay Webber
Anastasia Theodoridis said:
Pr. Webber does not even attempt to refute a single one of St. Photios' arguments. So far as I know, nobody has.
A Roman Catholic apologist who identifies himself on the Internet as "Padro" takes a stab at it here:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a52.htm
Thanks, Pastor Webber. An excellent little piece.
The part of Photius that I find silly is this:
"Even so, if any among them has fallen into something unseemly — for they were all men and human, and no one composed of dust and ephemeral nature can avoid some trace of defilement — I would then imitate the sons of Noah and cover my father's shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. I would not have followed Ham as you do. Indeed, you follow him with even more shamelessness and impudence than he himself, because you publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your Fathers."
This approach basically GRANTS that the Western Fathers taught the Filioque in the undivided Church, but a priori rules out considering giving serious attention to their witness. I think it's rather silly.
... "Padro" takes a stab at it ...
Yes, he takes a stab at it, but it cannot be said that he causes any damage at all to St Photios's position. The article is rather superficial. It's more of a laundry list of concepts out of which a serious argument might be made, than itself being a serious argument.
In the very first paragraph he contradicts himself:
none of the Greeks taught "from the Father alone" ... Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Martin and the Latins from the charge of teaching that there were two causes of the Holy Spirit.
But the Orthodox teaching "from the Father alone" means nothing more than that there is one sole cause of the divine hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and it is the Father. So St Maximos is said to be defending the same doctrine which "Padro" has just denied that the Greek Fathers taught!
He then proceeds to target St Photios with a not very subtle ad hominem, in the paragraph beginning When we look at the Photius's career ... We are informed that St Photios, being originally a layman involved in politics, could not possibly have had an authentic spirituality. It is certainly remarkable that "Padro" could read the heart of a saint of the Church, twelve centuries on, and find it lacking in spirituality!
Then there is the superficial treatment of the fact that the Greek Fathers usually start their triadology with the diversity of the hypostases rather than the unity of substance (itself a useful observation, if not pressed too far). "Padro" says that this leaves the Greeks with a problem in accounting for the divine unity, which they are forced to solve by reference to the Father as absolute origin -- as if the consubstantiality of the Persons were not sufficient to "solve" the apparent problem of the divine unity. The Greeks do, of course, confess that the Father is the sole source of the other hypostases, but not because they are forced to do so in order to "solve" a non-problem, but simply because it is the truth, witnessed to by the Scriptures and the rest of the Church's tradition.
Then of course there is, in the same sentence, the insinuation of Origenism (borrowed from Origen), as if Triadology was what Origen had been condemned for.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that St Photios has nothing to fear from this particular apologist.
Now Chris, I think the fellow had several points very worth considering. And chief among them is that this teaching was indeed freely taught and confessed throughout the West precisely during those centuries when the Orthodox will claim that the West WAS Orthodox. I don't disagree with them on that, but I don't see how it can be claimed that the West was truly Orthodox AND that saying the filioque in the Creed is the non-Orthodox.
Something that I think Photius seems to miss is that in the West, while being no more able to tell you what the difference is between "being begotten" and "proceeding" is (remember Melancthon's delightful: Quid sit nasci, quid processus, me nescari, sum professus), one way that that person of the Holy Spirit was marked as different from the person of the Son was that He He stood in a relationship of origin connected with both the other persons. As the Athanasian put it: Of the Father and of the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. When Florence grants that He proceeds from the person of the Father principally and that there He comes from Father and Son but not as from two sources, the only way to conceptualize that (at least it seems to me) is the confession that He comes from the Father through the Son and that this He does eternally. But looked at from OUR persepctive, you could certainly describe it as a procession from both, with an originating procession that took place through the Second Person.
Even talking this way gives me the heebi-jeebies. For surely the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is not revealed to us to dissect, but to fall down in worship before. Does anyone really, I mean really, think that the God before whom the Western Christians fall down and confess, beginning from the Unity and acknowledged in three Persons, is any different from the God whom the Eastern Christians fall down and confess, beginning from the three Persons and finding in the Person of the Father source of unity? I for one do not believe that Augustine worshipped another God than Nyssa or Nazianzus or Basil.
Does anyone really, I mean really, think that the God before whom the Western Christians fall down and confess, beginning from the Unity and acknowledged in three Persons, is any different from the God whom the Eastern Christians fall down and confess, beginning from the three Persons and finding in the Person of the Father source of unity? I for one do not believe that Augustine worshipped another God than Nyssa or Nazianzus or Basil.
Neither do I, especially since Augustine fully acknowledged the Person of the Father to be the Principle or Source of the Godhead. I agree with Kallistos Ware that the distinction to be made is not really between the East (represented by the Cappadocians) and the West (represented by Augustine), but rather between the Fathers as a whole (western and eastern) and the later Scholastics. Here is the pertinent comment by him:
http://tinyurl.com/y6yrwd
Also, the Lutheran Reformers of the 16th century - especially Andreae and his colleagues at Tuebingen - moved away from some of the Scholastic conventions they had inherited, and reappropriated important elements of the earlier patristic tradition:
http://tinyurl.com/372ple
I repeat: It is inaccurate to say that an emphasis on the Father as "source" and as the unifying principle in the Godhead is a distinctly eastern emphasis. It is, rather, a general patristic emphasis, a Reformational emphasis, and my own emphasis. I explicitly preached it on Sunday, in fact!
Jay Webber wrote:
I'm quite certain that my friend John is mistaken about my having said this. I have never thought this (for all the reasons that John gives), and therefore I doubt very much that I ever said it.
Thanks, Pr Webber, for the gentle correction of my faulty memory, and for clarifying what you have said/written.
Post a Comment