This post is meant to re-enforce (re-explain) and add-on to the arguments I began to develop in the post about using the Trinity as an argument against Judaism and Islam. Some of the following material is a re-hashing of those points with additional rigor. Some is meant to simplify that post. The truly new material comes near the bottom of the post where I go into the Incarnation as an argument against other monotheistic faiths based on a double-bind present in God's approach to evil.
Frequently, in discussing the faith with members of other monotheistic religions (Judaism and Islam, in particular) the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are treated as embarassments for the Christian. These two teachings - the two most distinct teachings of Orthodox Christianity - are viewed as compromising both the singularity of God (God's one-ness) and God's transcendence (God's un-changing-ness).
This need not be the case, though. Far from being something on which Christians should play "defense," we should critique other theists for denying them. How? Take a look after the jump.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On Institutional Loyalty and Bias
Short post today - just a personal gripe. One of the most common "popular" arguments against religion in general is to complain that no "free thinking" person would believe in it. The insinuation is that people of a religious bent are not free thinking, but are "indoctrinated" by institutions that "control" what they are allowed to say or believe.
In contrast, the "free thinker" is liberated from these institutional controls to pursue truth wherever reason or science or whatever truth-mechanism they follow would lead them.
This shows up in television (shows as different as House or Battlestar Galactica), and in real debates (it was forwarded as an argument against a Jesuit professor by an atheist scientist on "60 Minutes" just a few months ago). The implication is that institutional bias compromises religious thinkers and therefore makes their beliefs (including their religious ones) untenable, at best, if not laughable.
In contrast, the "free thinker" is liberated from these institutional controls to pursue truth wherever reason or science or whatever truth-mechanism they follow would lead them.
This shows up in television (shows as different as House or Battlestar Galactica), and in real debates (it was forwarded as an argument against a Jesuit professor by an atheist scientist on "60 Minutes" just a few months ago). The implication is that institutional bias compromises religious thinkers and therefore makes their beliefs (including their religious ones) untenable, at best, if not laughable.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Basic Arguments Against Sola Scriptura
The title says it all. If you're struggling with the basics of how to present Orthodox views on theology with a Protestant, here are a few of the basic ways to argue against Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura comes in a variety of forms, but ultimately teaches (in all its forms) that Scripture should form not only the core of how Christians "do" theology, but indeed should be the sole input into that theology. This gets presented in different ways, which I'll label "prima scriptura," "sola scriptura" and "solo scriptura"
Prima Scriptura: The scriptures should provide the highest norm against which theology is checked. They have a veto power over any theology, though other sources may produce theology. Things not explicitly forbidden in Scripture are probably ok provided they fit within the general theology of Christianity.
Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the sole content of theology when properly harmonized with itself. Theology that is not directly traceable to Scripture should be denied. It is ok for things that are direct implications of Scripture to be believed and practiced, and it is ok for non-theological practices (i.e. style of music) to change.
Solo Scriputura: Scripture is the sole content of theology and ONLY those practices specifically COMMANDED or permitted by Scripture ought to be practiced by the Church. Nothing else; nothing less.
Sola Scriptura comes in a variety of forms, but ultimately teaches (in all its forms) that Scripture should form not only the core of how Christians "do" theology, but indeed should be the sole input into that theology. This gets presented in different ways, which I'll label "prima scriptura," "sola scriptura" and "solo scriptura"
Prima Scriptura: The scriptures should provide the highest norm against which theology is checked. They have a veto power over any theology, though other sources may produce theology. Things not explicitly forbidden in Scripture are probably ok provided they fit within the general theology of Christianity.
Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the sole content of theology when properly harmonized with itself. Theology that is not directly traceable to Scripture should be denied. It is ok for things that are direct implications of Scripture to be believed and practiced, and it is ok for non-theological practices (i.e. style of music) to change.
Solo Scriputura: Scripture is the sole content of theology and ONLY those practices specifically COMMANDED or permitted by Scripture ought to be practiced by the Church. Nothing else; nothing less.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Theism Part Four: The Arguments from Design and Consciousness
This post continues the prior post concerning teleology. Having established that science, on its own, cannot be expected to answer the teleological question (why is there order in the universe?) or cosmological question (why is there something rather than nothing?) we are, by deduction, left with only two possible answers to these questions:
1) Things simply are the way they are. No explanation exists.
2) Something made things to be the way they are.
As established with the Kalam argument and argument from a finite past in an earlier post, we cannot accept an infinite chain of causes extending backwards into an infinite past. Rather, there must be a first or initial cause. In other words, the order we observe in the universe is either caused or it is an occurance of blind chance.
This is the essential starting point of the argument from design.
1) Things simply are the way they are. No explanation exists.
2) Something made things to be the way they are.
As established with the Kalam argument and argument from a finite past in an earlier post, we cannot accept an infinite chain of causes extending backwards into an infinite past. Rather, there must be a first or initial cause. In other words, the order we observe in the universe is either caused or it is an occurance of blind chance.
This is the essential starting point of the argument from design.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Theism Part Three: Teleological Arguments
This will be a brief post, mostly to present a framework for a series of small posts I intend to do defending and applying the argument from design. Despite the broad dismissal of this argument in pop-culture, it is alive and well. When people say that "science has disproven God" (it hasn't - how could it?) what they most often mean is "science can explain the order of the universe, so we don't need God." Indeed, gods have long been used as cop-out explanations for hard-to-explain phenomena (like lightning, earthquakes, or the rise and fall of empires).
Yet there are two critical things to observe at the outset when analyzing arguments from design. The first: what sort of question are we asking here? The second: Is it proper to think that science could answer it?
Yet there are two critical things to observe at the outset when analyzing arguments from design. The first: what sort of question are we asking here? The second: Is it proper to think that science could answer it?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Trinity as Argument Against Judaism and Islam
No, the above is not a typo. Typically, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is target number one for other monotheists seeking to refute Christianity. They accuse us of tri-theism or, at best, equivocation / ambiguous terms.
Simply put, tri-theism is a strawman (we don't teach that). Incidently, that creates an argument against Islam since the Koran makes this a cornerstone of its disagreement with Christianity. Since it seems logical to assume that God understands Christianity better than me, and I understand that Christians are monotheists, but the Koran does not grasp this fact, then the Koran is not from God (and Islam would be, correspondingly, false).
The accusation of equivocation or ambiguity is, from a philosophical point of view, stronger, but it is refutable through a strict rejection of pure philosophy in favor of the Orthodox apophatic approach (and indeed, the Cappadocian theologians who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity made a point to state it apophatically - that God is beyond number, beyond arithmatic, such that concepts like 3 and 1 can't fully apply).
Yet the doctrine of the Trinity can indeed form a core argument FOR Christianity. More after the jump:
Simply put, tri-theism is a strawman (we don't teach that). Incidently, that creates an argument against Islam since the Koran makes this a cornerstone of its disagreement with Christianity. Since it seems logical to assume that God understands Christianity better than me, and I understand that Christians are monotheists, but the Koran does not grasp this fact, then the Koran is not from God (and Islam would be, correspondingly, false).
The accusation of equivocation or ambiguity is, from a philosophical point of view, stronger, but it is refutable through a strict rejection of pure philosophy in favor of the Orthodox apophatic approach (and indeed, the Cappadocian theologians who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity made a point to state it apophatically - that God is beyond number, beyond arithmatic, such that concepts like 3 and 1 can't fully apply).
Yet the doctrine of the Trinity can indeed form a core argument FOR Christianity. More after the jump:
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Theism Part Two: The Kalam Argument and the Argument for a Finite Past
This continues the arguments in favor of theism. If you're interested in how these arguments proceed or why I'm providing them, take a look at the first post in this series (Theism Part One) where I explain that, or post in the comments and I can seek to justify why, in an Orthodox context that generally dislikes syllogistic argumentation, I'm providing a syllogistic argument.
The following two arguments work together as a sort of super-charged version of the argument for God as "first cause." The first, the Kalam argument, is most likely the one people are familiar with. Typically, people know it in its rhetorical (rather than philosophical) form: How do we know there's a God? Well, who else could have created the universe?
In other words, there is an implied rhetorical question (called the question of "cosmology"). It goes like this: "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Ultimately, people fall into one of two camps on this question. They either say "There just is" (sometimes called the "brute-force" or "materialist" viewpoint) or they say "Something willed that there be something rather than nothing."
Of course, if we answer the second way, people are rather proud to ask what they THINK is the nail in the coffin against belief in God: "Well, who made God then? Who willed that GOD should exist?" Put more philosophically, the theistic answer can appear to delay the question rather than answer it. The statement "Something willed that there be something rather than nothing" pre-supposes a "something" doing the creating. That just pushes the debate back one, doesn't it?
Not so. And I'll use the Kalam and Finite-Past arguments to present the reasons why after the jump:
The following two arguments work together as a sort of super-charged version of the argument for God as "first cause." The first, the Kalam argument, is most likely the one people are familiar with. Typically, people know it in its rhetorical (rather than philosophical) form: How do we know there's a God? Well, who else could have created the universe?
In other words, there is an implied rhetorical question (called the question of "cosmology"). It goes like this: "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Ultimately, people fall into one of two camps on this question. They either say "There just is" (sometimes called the "brute-force" or "materialist" viewpoint) or they say "Something willed that there be something rather than nothing."
Of course, if we answer the second way, people are rather proud to ask what they THINK is the nail in the coffin against belief in God: "Well, who made God then? Who willed that GOD should exist?" Put more philosophically, the theistic answer can appear to delay the question rather than answer it. The statement "Something willed that there be something rather than nothing" pre-supposes a "something" doing the creating. That just pushes the debate back one, doesn't it?
Not so. And I'll use the Kalam and Finite-Past arguments to present the reasons why after the jump:
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part Two
So, to recap, we have four "basic" understandings that we could take from those three passages:
- Eucharist is a command and the real flesh and blood of Christ.
- Communion is a command, but is metaphorical.
- Communion is not a command, but is real flesh and blood.
- Communion is not a command, and was just symbolic.
Number three seems the least likely to be forwarded, but remains plausible from a strictly textual standpoint.
I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them after the jump:
I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them after the jump:
Monday, May 2, 2011
On the Reality of the Eucharist: Part One
There are several approaches one can take to discussing / debating the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) with those who teach a “merely symbolic” view. Generally, those holding to a non-sacramental view believe in sola-scriptura, and this complicates the debate. Any argument you utilize (even from Scripture) may or may not be dismissed as mere adherence to tradition. As such, the debate on this issue typically falls back into a debate on sola-scriptura vs. not-sola-scriptura. One approach, then, is simply to argue against sola-scriptura.
A second approach is to refuse to engage in the sola-scriptura debate and to focus on deep exegetical debates over the relevant passages of Scripture. Ultimately, I do think this can succeed, but not in a short and casual debate. Additionally, though many won’t like what I’m about to say, the Scriptures have a lot of ambiguity. That makes debating over them rather difficult. It’s the same difficulty people have in debating over literature – there are “better” interpretations (more insightful, more honest to the text), but it is difficult to establish (on the basis of the text itself) a single, correct, interpretation. Indeed, even the literary theory (new historicist, formalist, phenomenological, etc.) can vary. In a certain sense, this is the real issue between sola-scriptura and more traditional systems. We agree (to a point) on the text, but have different theories of interpretation.
So a third approach, the one I prefer and will use in this post, is to utilize the debate over the meaning of the Eucharist to demonstrate WHY sola-scriptura produces more division and tradition works better to produce concrete answers. This works, in particular, because the earliest sources really do show a consensus on the meaning of communion. Why? Because the docetist heresy denied the Eucharist’s reality (along with denying that Christ ever had a body at all), and this gave occasion to orthodox writers to defend the reality of the Eucharist.
Continued below the jump.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Theism Part One: The Argument from Change
Just as I'm doing a series on the papacy, examining a complex and multifaceted issue in "smaller" chunks, so I'd like to compose a cumulative case for the existence of God. Note that, for the Orthodox, none of these are THE reason we believe in God. We believe (both in the sense of "believing in existence of" and "trusting") in God because of the revelation of Jesus Christ and our direct experience of God's presence in prayer and sacrament.
However, there ARE some DECENT arguments pointing towards God's existence, and in a world like ours where secularism is assumed (and religion viewed as mere personal choice), an apologetic argument or series of arguments in favor of God's existence can be helpful. In particular, it shows that belief in God is not mere mythology nor mere psychology, but ALSO intellectually probable and reasonible. This will matter more for some than for others, but its good to have these arguments in your toolbox if the right situation happens to arise.
This post assumes basic familiarity with syllogistic argumentation (two or more premises leading to a logically necessary conclusion). If someone doubts one of the two premises, then it becomes necessary to defend that premise with an additional syllogism or as an axiomatic necessity.
The argument from change comes after the jump:
However, there ARE some DECENT arguments pointing towards God's existence, and in a world like ours where secularism is assumed (and religion viewed as mere personal choice), an apologetic argument or series of arguments in favor of God's existence can be helpful. In particular, it shows that belief in God is not mere mythology nor mere psychology, but ALSO intellectually probable and reasonible. This will matter more for some than for others, but its good to have these arguments in your toolbox if the right situation happens to arise.
This post assumes basic familiarity with syllogistic argumentation (two or more premises leading to a logically necessary conclusion). If someone doubts one of the two premises, then it becomes necessary to defend that premise with an additional syllogism or as an axiomatic necessity.
The argument from change comes after the jump:
Friday, April 29, 2011
On the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness & the Atonement
This is one of the more difficult subjects to address, as there are significant differences between modern evangelical protestantism and orthodoxy on this exact point. To say that the doctrine of imputed righteousness formed a cornerstone for non-Anglican protestantism (starting with Luther) would be an understatement. Alongside sola-scriptura, it is one of the few things that virtually all protestants have in common (historically).
The doctrine, in essence, goes like this: we are born with a sinful nature (so that sinning is as unavoidable and natural to us as having eyes or feet). We cannot avoid this, and, due to sin, owe to God an unpayable debt. In Christ, through Christ's faithfulness, the ultimate and unpayable debt for our sins is absolved as, on the Cross, Christ accepted the punishment which was due to us for our sins. When we place our faith in Christ, then, God views us through "Christ-tinted-glasses" - He sees not our sinfulness, but rather imputes Christ's righteousness (including Christ's payment of our debt) to us.
More after the jump.
The doctrine, in essence, goes like this: we are born with a sinful nature (so that sinning is as unavoidable and natural to us as having eyes or feet). We cannot avoid this, and, due to sin, owe to God an unpayable debt. In Christ, through Christ's faithfulness, the ultimate and unpayable debt for our sins is absolved as, on the Cross, Christ accepted the punishment which was due to us for our sins. When we place our faith in Christ, then, God views us through "Christ-tinted-glasses" - He sees not our sinfulness, but rather imputes Christ's righteousness (including Christ's payment of our debt) to us.
More after the jump.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
On the Coptic-Armenian-Ethiopian Churches
Orthodox Christians frequently complain about the way that our popular culture categorizes Christians as either "Catholic" or "Protestant." We hasten to point out that a third category (Orthodox) also exists. Yet, in using three categories, we do a disservice to the fourth "branch" of Christianity: the non-Chalcedonian churhces. These are the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, which defined the Church's current language about the Incarnation.
I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council. In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts. The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion). The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian. Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes.
What is it that still separates us? Continue reading!
I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council. In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts. The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion). The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian. Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes.
What is it that still separates us? Continue reading!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
On the Importance of Missions
Christ is Risen!
I'm on the mailing list for St. Vladimir's Seminary, so every once in a while they send me a request for donations. Once a year, they include a small theological tract with the mailing. This year, that tract spoke to the missional vocation given to all Christians through baptism. I found it highly encouraging, and wanted to share a few thoughts from it with you all.
The pamphlet's author, Fr. Hatfield, has spent significant time in missions - first as a Protestant (in South Africa) and then with Orthodoxy (on the board of the Orthodox Christian Missions Center, and as a co-chair of the OCA Department of Evangelism). He's working on an expanding set of courses in missiology for St. Vlad's.
He opens with an audacious quote: "Christian initiation and its attendant rite of baptism is the proper and primary business of the Church."
Think about it for a minute. Yes - we would say the Eucharist holds center, but the early church tended to view the Eucharist as the continuation of the Baptismal regeneration. We are indeed commanded to eat the bread and drink the cup often, but Christ's final words to His community as His ascension were "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." After the Church had gained ascendency over the empire, Baptism became less of a focus and Eucharist (especially in the West in the 800's) rose dramatically in its centrality. This is not to say that either one has been dismissed by the Church at any time - both are vital. But, as Fr. Hatfield explains the quote, "The Orthodox Church is in the business of making converts." He quotes Archbishop Anastasios of Albania as saying: "A Church without mission is a contradiction in terms... Indifference to mission is a negation of Orthodoxy." Hatfield then makes the strongest claim in the text, expanding the idea to say: "A Christian not engaged in mission is simply not a Christian."
More after the jump
I'm on the mailing list for St. Vladimir's Seminary, so every once in a while they send me a request for donations. Once a year, they include a small theological tract with the mailing. This year, that tract spoke to the missional vocation given to all Christians through baptism. I found it highly encouraging, and wanted to share a few thoughts from it with you all.
The pamphlet's author, Fr. Hatfield, has spent significant time in missions - first as a Protestant (in South Africa) and then with Orthodoxy (on the board of the Orthodox Christian Missions Center, and as a co-chair of the OCA Department of Evangelism). He's working on an expanding set of courses in missiology for St. Vlad's.
He opens with an audacious quote: "Christian initiation and its attendant rite of baptism is the proper and primary business of the Church."
Think about it for a minute. Yes - we would say the Eucharist holds center, but the early church tended to view the Eucharist as the continuation of the Baptismal regeneration. We are indeed commanded to eat the bread and drink the cup often, but Christ's final words to His community as His ascension were "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." After the Church had gained ascendency over the empire, Baptism became less of a focus and Eucharist (especially in the West in the 800's) rose dramatically in its centrality. This is not to say that either one has been dismissed by the Church at any time - both are vital. But, as Fr. Hatfield explains the quote, "The Orthodox Church is in the business of making converts." He quotes Archbishop Anastasios of Albania as saying: "A Church without mission is a contradiction in terms... Indifference to mission is a negation of Orthodoxy." Hatfield then makes the strongest claim in the text, expanding the idea to say: "A Christian not engaged in mission is simply not a Christian."
More after the jump
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
On the Validity of the Papacy, Part II
This is a continuation of part I. You can read this post on its own, but some of the assumptions I make here (about what must be true for the papacy, as currently utilized by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a valid doctrine) are argued in that prior post.
In this post, I want to examine the tradition of the papacy in the earliest church (AD 33 - 180). Why this time period? Well, the number of sources are limited enough to examine in one post and, as the earliest time period of the church, we ought to expect the papacy (if it is Holy Tradition) to at least appear in seedling form during this time. In other words, based on the definition of catholicity given in part I, this is a critical time period to examine for the case for the papacy.
In this post, I want to examine the tradition of the papacy in the earliest church (AD 33 - 180). Why this time period? Well, the number of sources are limited enough to examine in one post and, as the earliest time period of the church, we ought to expect the papacy (if it is Holy Tradition) to at least appear in seedling form during this time. In other words, based on the definition of catholicity given in part I, this is a critical time period to examine for the case for the papacy.
Monday, April 25, 2011
On Food Laws
We, today, often neglect Leviticus. The book is regarded as a collection of esoteric cultic rules for Judaism, smattered with a few ethical laws that still have bearing for mainline Christians. The food laws, in particular, seem hard to understand from a Christian perspective. However, this need not be the case. The forbidding of certain foods fits very very nicely into a few typological understandings of Leviticus.
First, Jews were only allowed to eats "pure" animals - that is to say, animals which were the best example of their 'type.' They couldn't eat shellfish because a shellfish wasn't a "fishy fish" - it didn't have the backbone of a true fish. Similarly for animals which do and don't chew the cud or have hooves.
Why would such a thing matter? Only typologically! Jews were the 'type' of humanity - the truly 'human humans' thanks to the ethical law. The food laws symbolized that and gave a constant reminder to the Jews of who they were - God's chosen, those set apart by the revelation of the covenant to be His true humanity. The food laws were a sign of how Jews were separate and different from the Gentiles - they were a racial designation (like physical circumsition)
The second explanation is that not eating certain foods provides a consistent ascetic discipline that circumcizes the heart - that is to say, by learning to obey God in the eating of food one is reminded to obey God in all things and one is tutored to obey God in all things (as the law is a tutor). By denying our desire for a shrimp we die to our old self - the ancient Israelites however, not having baptism, did not have Christ's transformed human nature to provide a new self, so you see how the Law was merely a tutor and not salvation itself.
In short, the food laws are a form of ascetic fasting.
So why don't we follow those today? Well, how can we fast when the bridegroom is with us? And, since Christ has broken down the wall of enmity, how can we racially set ourselves apart? There is nothing WRONG with creation or certain animals - God has taken on matter and flesh to sanctify all matter and flesh. The physical world is GOOD, and refusing to eat foods once God has lifted the ban (as is evidenced in the NT) would be blasphemous.
Back to the fasting for a moment, because there's a really fantastic typological moment here. Before Christ, the bridegroom was not with Israel (racial Israel), and so they fasted constantly (with their food laws) and would fast more extensively for specific purposes. When Christ was on this earth during His ministry, the bridegroom was directly with Israel (racial and spiritual) and so there was no fasting for His disciples (this is noted in Matthew and Mark). Now, after Christ's glorious resurrection and ascension, the bridegroom is not with us (so we fast) and yet IS with us (in particular in the Eucharist, but also in His Church in in the union we have with Him by His activity and grace), therefore we don't fast.
So now, we fast and we don't fast. How do we do that? If you look at the Orthodox Church's calander, exactly half of the year (including the W/F fast) is fasting, and the other half feasting. Right now, the Kingdom is already but not yet here, so we feast for Christ's salvation and fast for our repentance and to die to our old self.
This also forshadows the second coming, when the bridegroom will reside in the New Jerusalem and give light to all the world, and then there will be no need for fasting at all.
So that is why we don't follow Jewish food laws. To do so would be to blaspheme the commands of God through His apostles (in the NT) and would be tantamount to saying that Christ is NEVER with us in this life - in short to denying that Christ accomplished anything on this earth. Since we, as Christians, can say neither of those things, we fast ascetically (though from different foods from the Jews) and only off and on throughout the year, feasting to celebrate Christ's salvation.
Happy feasting! CHRIST IS RISEN!
In the hope of the feast of the resurrected Christ,
Macarius
First, Jews were only allowed to eats "pure" animals - that is to say, animals which were the best example of their 'type.' They couldn't eat shellfish because a shellfish wasn't a "fishy fish" - it didn't have the backbone of a true fish. Similarly for animals which do and don't chew the cud or have hooves.
Why would such a thing matter? Only typologically! Jews were the 'type' of humanity - the truly 'human humans' thanks to the ethical law. The food laws symbolized that and gave a constant reminder to the Jews of who they were - God's chosen, those set apart by the revelation of the covenant to be His true humanity. The food laws were a sign of how Jews were separate and different from the Gentiles - they were a racial designation (like physical circumsition)
The second explanation is that not eating certain foods provides a consistent ascetic discipline that circumcizes the heart - that is to say, by learning to obey God in the eating of food one is reminded to obey God in all things and one is tutored to obey God in all things (as the law is a tutor). By denying our desire for a shrimp we die to our old self - the ancient Israelites however, not having baptism, did not have Christ's transformed human nature to provide a new self, so you see how the Law was merely a tutor and not salvation itself.
In short, the food laws are a form of ascetic fasting.
So why don't we follow those today? Well, how can we fast when the bridegroom is with us? And, since Christ has broken down the wall of enmity, how can we racially set ourselves apart? There is nothing WRONG with creation or certain animals - God has taken on matter and flesh to sanctify all matter and flesh. The physical world is GOOD, and refusing to eat foods once God has lifted the ban (as is evidenced in the NT) would be blasphemous.
Back to the fasting for a moment, because there's a really fantastic typological moment here. Before Christ, the bridegroom was not with Israel (racial Israel), and so they fasted constantly (with their food laws) and would fast more extensively for specific purposes. When Christ was on this earth during His ministry, the bridegroom was directly with Israel (racial and spiritual) and so there was no fasting for His disciples (this is noted in Matthew and Mark). Now, after Christ's glorious resurrection and ascension, the bridegroom is not with us (so we fast) and yet IS with us (in particular in the Eucharist, but also in His Church in in the union we have with Him by His activity and grace), therefore we don't fast.
So now, we fast and we don't fast. How do we do that? If you look at the Orthodox Church's calander, exactly half of the year (including the W/F fast) is fasting, and the other half feasting. Right now, the Kingdom is already but not yet here, so we feast for Christ's salvation and fast for our repentance and to die to our old self.
This also forshadows the second coming, when the bridegroom will reside in the New Jerusalem and give light to all the world, and then there will be no need for fasting at all.
So that is why we don't follow Jewish food laws. To do so would be to blaspheme the commands of God through His apostles (in the NT) and would be tantamount to saying that Christ is NEVER with us in this life - in short to denying that Christ accomplished anything on this earth. Since we, as Christians, can say neither of those things, we fast ascetically (though from different foods from the Jews) and only off and on throughout the year, feasting to celebrate Christ's salvation.
Happy feasting! CHRIST IS RISEN!
In the hope of the feast of the resurrected Christ,
Macarius
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Word of the Cross: God's Answer to Evil
This is, far and away, the best answer I've ever heard to the problem of evil. Fr. Hopko doesn't set out to answer that problem (his purpose is just to meditate on what God is saying through the cross), but the impact is marvelous.
It is a bit long (2 hours), but can be found for free on Ancient Faith Radio.
Here are the links:
You can also purchase it online from SVS Press (as the lecture was delivered at the seminary).
May you have a blessed Good and Holy Friday, and a wonderful Pascha. I'll be taking a break from posting over the weekend.
In Christ,
Macarius
It is a bit long (2 hours), but can be found for free on Ancient Faith Radio.
Here are the links:
You can also purchase it online from SVS Press (as the lecture was delivered at the seminary).
May you have a blessed Good and Holy Friday, and a wonderful Pascha. I'll be taking a break from posting over the weekend.
In Christ,
Macarius
Thursday, April 21, 2011
An Analogy on the Value of Traditional, Organized Religion
Pop spirituality loves to reject organized religion - that way, it can avoid the new atheists' attacks on the "evils" of organized faiths (read: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) without having to answer them, while still maintaining a self-created spirituality that borrows more from existentialist self-discovery underpinings mixed with a mild dose of pseudo-mysticism.
In reality, though, this approach to the spiritual life makes no sense. In fact, despite its alarming popularity (how many times has someone said to you: "Oh, I'm spiritual, just not religious. I don't want a church telling me how to go about my spirituality), this position holds virtually no intellectual merit.
More after the jump:
In reality, though, this approach to the spiritual life makes no sense. In fact, despite its alarming popularity (how many times has someone said to you: "Oh, I'm spiritual, just not religious. I don't want a church telling me how to go about my spirituality), this position holds virtually no intellectual merit.
More after the jump:
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Presenting the Faith to Non-Christians
Orthodox Christianity in the Americas has grown significantly in the last few decades. We have, however, seemingly done so by primarily recruiting mature or near-mature Christians from other traditions. Ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants abound in parishes today (alongside cradle Orthodox), but the ex-Pagans, ex-Muslims, ex-Atheists, etc. are a bit harder to find. They ARE there, but are fewer in number than we would like.
In particular, Orthodox Christianity seems to have found a niche recruiting theological conservatives who have become disillusioned with liberalizedWestern mainline churches - in particular, we do well recruiting intellectuals who are willing (and capable) of questioning the normative terminology of the faith around them. Given that we use a lot of the same words in slightly different ways (even with just slightly different connotations), this can be an intellectually demanding conversion process. Those of us who are converts may then struggle to present the faith effectively to, as my spiritual father calls them, "Joe Lunchbox." Given the intellectual gymnastics we had to undergo in our own conversion process, phrasing this stuff in ways accessible to someone who doesn't have the time or desire for that sort of thing becomes increasingly difficult. It remains, however, necessary.
The ether of our society brims with ready-made cliches and simple language suited to presenting the Evangelical perspective on the Gospel. We're saturated in it (to the point that even non-Christians in America will tend towards symbolic views of the Eucharist, iconoclasm, and assumptions that Christianity is about God forgiving our sins because we prayed a sinner's prayer). Roman Catholics run into difficulty with explaining the nuanced differences between Catholicism and Evangelicalism - Orthodox even more so.
So when someone who is untrained in Christianity (i.e. casually secular agnostic) says to you, "So... tell me about this Orthodoxy thing," what do you say?
In particular, Orthodox Christianity seems to have found a niche recruiting theological conservatives who have become disillusioned with liberalizedWestern mainline churches - in particular, we do well recruiting intellectuals who are willing (and capable) of questioning the normative terminology of the faith around them. Given that we use a lot of the same words in slightly different ways (even with just slightly different connotations), this can be an intellectually demanding conversion process. Those of us who are converts may then struggle to present the faith effectively to, as my spiritual father calls them, "Joe Lunchbox." Given the intellectual gymnastics we had to undergo in our own conversion process, phrasing this stuff in ways accessible to someone who doesn't have the time or desire for that sort of thing becomes increasingly difficult. It remains, however, necessary.
The ether of our society brims with ready-made cliches and simple language suited to presenting the Evangelical perspective on the Gospel. We're saturated in it (to the point that even non-Christians in America will tend towards symbolic views of the Eucharist, iconoclasm, and assumptions that Christianity is about God forgiving our sins because we prayed a sinner's prayer). Roman Catholics run into difficulty with explaining the nuanced differences between Catholicism and Evangelicalism - Orthodox even more so.
So when someone who is untrained in Christianity (i.e. casually secular agnostic) says to you, "So... tell me about this Orthodoxy thing," what do you say?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
On the Validity of the Papacy, Part I
This is the first of a series of posts I'd like to do about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. To me, this doctrine represents the principle separation between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity; these being the two largest Christian traditions on the planet, this issue has a high degree of relevance for our common pursuit of Christian unity.
Protestants, too, look on this debate with great interest. Not only do they (like the Orthodox) disagree with the Roman Catholic perspective on the papacy, but they tend to view Roman Catholic and Orthodox disagreement over this issue as evidence that tradition in general ought to be rejected. Answering this issue, then, becomes important for the general unity of all Christians (with about half of Christianity accepting the papacy as articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and the other half rejecting it).
The papacy, though, for all of its centrality, is a multi-layered and complex doctrine. The doctrine is also unique within Christianity because not only is the effective doctrine itself a Holy Tradition, but the very warrant given FOR that doctrine is ALSO Holy Tradition. It is not sufficient to accept the papacy as the center of unity within the college of bishops (or even that, because of this centrality, the pope possesses limited infallibility). This practical outworking of the doctrine of the papacy certainly IS Holy Tradition to the Roman Catholic, but the reasons behind that practical outworking must also be accepted. This means the unique Petrine succession of the Roman bishop must be the reason for the Pope's unique authority (and no other reason - such as the centrality of Rome as the capitol of the empire in the early church - is acceptable).
In this first post, I just want to lay out the range of what it is that Roman Catholics must demonstrate in order for the papacy to be considered Holy Tradition. In subsequent posts I'll work through each layer of the doctrine and examine it on historical, as well as theological, grounds.
To the jump...
Protestants, too, look on this debate with great interest. Not only do they (like the Orthodox) disagree with the Roman Catholic perspective on the papacy, but they tend to view Roman Catholic and Orthodox disagreement over this issue as evidence that tradition in general ought to be rejected. Answering this issue, then, becomes important for the general unity of all Christians (with about half of Christianity accepting the papacy as articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and the other half rejecting it).
The papacy, though, for all of its centrality, is a multi-layered and complex doctrine. The doctrine is also unique within Christianity because not only is the effective doctrine itself a Holy Tradition, but the very warrant given FOR that doctrine is ALSO Holy Tradition. It is not sufficient to accept the papacy as the center of unity within the college of bishops (or even that, because of this centrality, the pope possesses limited infallibility). This practical outworking of the doctrine of the papacy certainly IS Holy Tradition to the Roman Catholic, but the reasons behind that practical outworking must also be accepted. This means the unique Petrine succession of the Roman bishop must be the reason for the Pope's unique authority (and no other reason - such as the centrality of Rome as the capitol of the empire in the early church - is acceptable).
In this first post, I just want to lay out the range of what it is that Roman Catholics must demonstrate in order for the papacy to be considered Holy Tradition. In subsequent posts I'll work through each layer of the doctrine and examine it on historical, as well as theological, grounds.
To the jump...
Monday, April 18, 2011
Scriptural Evidence for the Incarnation
In posting on Christianforums.com I've run into some interesting perspectives on the Incarnation of Christ. When I taught church history, I liked to tell my students that there was "no new heresy." That isn't entirely true, but it IS true that many of the non-Orthodox teachings floating about in our society today are complete re-hashings of old heresies. In particular, ebionism (the idea that Christ was a mere man) and arianism (that the Son of God is a created being, less than God the Father) have stormed back. They've become so ubiquitous that I've begun seeing them appear casually even among traditional Christians who just don't know any better.
For the secular humanist who likes Christ's teachings, ebionism is an attractive option. Asserting Christ's pure humanity, and denying His divinity, leaves one able to affirm His ethical teachings without all that messy supernatural stuff. Most people of this sort that I know really like the Gospel of Matthew. Aside from the fact that it contains the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the single best summary of Christ's ethical teahcings), it also has a reputation for focusing heavily on Christ's fulfillment of the role of Messiah - that is, on Christ's humanity (this in contrast to the Gospel of John, which focuses more on His divinity).
I don't think that's accurate, though. Matthew may not be as direct (to us) about the divinity of Christ, but there is plenty of evidence throughout Matthew which implies that Matthew intended his reader to see Christ as above and beyond all the prophets - indeed, as God Himself.
A bulleted list of references after the jump! Yay!
For the secular humanist who likes Christ's teachings, ebionism is an attractive option. Asserting Christ's pure humanity, and denying His divinity, leaves one able to affirm His ethical teachings without all that messy supernatural stuff. Most people of this sort that I know really like the Gospel of Matthew. Aside from the fact that it contains the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the single best summary of Christ's ethical teahcings), it also has a reputation for focusing heavily on Christ's fulfillment of the role of Messiah - that is, on Christ's humanity (this in contrast to the Gospel of John, which focuses more on His divinity).
I don't think that's accurate, though. Matthew may not be as direct (to us) about the divinity of Christ, but there is plenty of evidence throughout Matthew which implies that Matthew intended his reader to see Christ as above and beyond all the prophets - indeed, as God Himself.
A bulleted list of references after the jump! Yay!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Scriptures and Early Church on Confession
There is a frequent assertion that the sacrament of confession developed quite late in the pre-Nicene church. Generally, casual observers of church history believe it to have begun around the time of the Novatian schism (mid-3rd c.), as a means of restoring apostate Christians who wished to return to the Church.
I do not believe this is so. The systematic use of confession as a means of rehabilitating Christians may have become universal practice at that time, but the practice itself appears much, much earlier (as early as St. John the Forerunner) and with remarkable consistency in the available sources.
What follows is a brief list of those sources / references:
I do not believe this is so. The systematic use of confession as a means of rehabilitating Christians may have become universal practice at that time, but the practice itself appears much, much earlier (as early as St. John the Forerunner) and with remarkable consistency in the available sources.
What follows is a brief list of those sources / references:
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Against the Problem of Silence
One of the most common arguments forwarded casually by new atheists is called the "problem of silence." It will be phrased in the form of a question, like "Why should I believe in a God who is so difficult to see?" In essence, they are asking a rhetorical question that implies a syllogism:
P1: God is not manifestly evident to me.
P2: The Christian God, if true, wants me to know Him.
P3: A God who wants me to know Him would make Himself manifestly evident to me.
C: The Christian God is not true (does not exist).
There are several responses:
P1: God is not manifestly evident to me.
P2: The Christian God, if true, wants me to know Him.
P3: A God who wants me to know Him would make Himself manifestly evident to me.
C: The Christian God is not true (does not exist).
There are several responses:
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Historicity of the Canonical Gospels
It is no mystery that non-theists frequently attack the historicity of the canonical gospel accounts. Why? Because probabilistic argumentation for Christ's divinity and resurrection hinge on the basic historicity of the New Testament texts. When arguing that the Christian explanation of the claims of Christ and the events surrounding His resurrection are the most rational, non-theists have to reply with an alternative explanation for those claims and events. The problem for them, however, is that any reply they make is (in essence) pure speculation since they have no available counter-sources from which to draw. In order to forward their alternative explanation as even remotely plausible (rather than mere wishful thinking) they have to debunk the historicity of the Gospel narrative.
In order to forward the generic arguments in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection, Christians need historical evidence for the following: Christ claimed divinity; Christ was thought to be an historically real human being; Christ died; There was an empty tomb / a missing body; and the Apostles, broadly speaking, believed these things to be true
In order to forward the generic arguments in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection, Christians need historical evidence for the following: Christ claimed divinity; Christ was thought to be an historically real human being; Christ died; There was an empty tomb / a missing body; and the Apostles, broadly speaking, believed these things to be true
If these things are true, then the probabilistic argumentation in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection hold. IE) the alternative explanations are probabilistically less likely because they are speculative whereas the Christian explanations fit with the earliest sources. Non-theists typically argue against these texts in the following ways:
- They contradict each other
- They show signs of literary craftsmanship
- They are late in developing / composition
- They are all from one side of the issue
Counter-arguments after the jump!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Responding to Symbolic Views of Communion
A long time ago, a question was asked on Christianforums.com (a site I frequently visit) asking Orthodox Christians about their view of the Eucharist. The question went as follows:
"Another question: What is the church's teaching on communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist? Does the church believe the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ?
I have a hard time with most denominations because of my beliefs about this. One, I feel it is symbolic, and two, in light of the scripture where Christ says He will be with us when two or more are gathered, I believe anytime a group of believers come together for fellowship, even in a home or restaurant, if they are celebrating the sacrifice on Cross, then they are in communion with Him."
I have a hard time with most denominations because of my beliefs about this. One, I feel it is symbolic, and two, in light of the scripture where Christ says He will be with us when two or more are gathered, I believe anytime a group of believers come together for fellowship, even in a home or restaurant, if they are celebrating the sacrifice on Cross, then they are in communion with Him."
I wrote the following reply, and like it as a reference:
On Orthodox Apologetics
Welcome!
This blog is dedicated to compiling, archiving, refining, and developing a full range of apologetic arguments in defense of Orthodox Christianity. I chose that phrasing carefully - Orthodox Christianity is NOT a rationalist world view. I do not in any way believe that it is necessary to "start from scratch" and build a world view up from there. I do, however, believe it necessary for us, as Orthodox Christians, to advocate more directly for our perspective. Our faith holds no room for quietism or passivity. Just as in the early church, so it is today: we are surrounded by a sea of syncretism, decadence, and competing ideologies. If we remain quiet, we will fail in our task to "make disciples of all nations." How can we make disciples if we don't give people a reason to question their current world view? How can we effect change in the culture around us if we do not speak up?
Some, I think rightly, will point out that the evidence of a life transformed by faith forms the core of a true evangelism. Yet some, in particular those captivated by the intellectual promises of the modern age, have particular intellectual barriers to faith - Orthodox Christians need to answer these intellectual barriers. Why? An intellectual predisposition against a particular world view robs a person of "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." Furthermore, falsehood - in any form - threatens to overwhelm the truth if those who are of the truth remain silent. Many of us are unstable in our faith; a rigorous attack on the faith may push us away from it and damage our spiritual life. An equally rigorous defense of the faith can re-orient us to the hope of the Church and, thereby, to Christ (who IS the Truth).
That is the purpose of this blog: to compile, archive, refine, and develop a full range of apologetic arguments in defense of Orthodox Christianity.
Welcome, and I hope you'll find it valuable.
This blog is dedicated to compiling, archiving, refining, and developing a full range of apologetic arguments in defense of Orthodox Christianity. I chose that phrasing carefully - Orthodox Christianity is NOT a rationalist world view. I do not in any way believe that it is necessary to "start from scratch" and build a world view up from there. I do, however, believe it necessary for us, as Orthodox Christians, to advocate more directly for our perspective. Our faith holds no room for quietism or passivity. Just as in the early church, so it is today: we are surrounded by a sea of syncretism, decadence, and competing ideologies. If we remain quiet, we will fail in our task to "make disciples of all nations." How can we make disciples if we don't give people a reason to question their current world view? How can we effect change in the culture around us if we do not speak up?
Some, I think rightly, will point out that the evidence of a life transformed by faith forms the core of a true evangelism. Yet some, in particular those captivated by the intellectual promises of the modern age, have particular intellectual barriers to faith - Orthodox Christians need to answer these intellectual barriers. Why? An intellectual predisposition against a particular world view robs a person of "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." Furthermore, falsehood - in any form - threatens to overwhelm the truth if those who are of the truth remain silent. Many of us are unstable in our faith; a rigorous attack on the faith may push us away from it and damage our spiritual life. An equally rigorous defense of the faith can re-orient us to the hope of the Church and, thereby, to Christ (who IS the Truth).
That is the purpose of this blog: to compile, archive, refine, and develop a full range of apologetic arguments in defense of Orthodox Christianity.
Welcome, and I hope you'll find it valuable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)