Conservative Reformation ~ Answering Rome, the East, and Radicals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video, I reflect upon the following from Charles Porterfield Krauth:
The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history, moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative, which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past; the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles. Corresponding with Conservatism, Reformation, and Progress are three generic types of Christianity; and under these genera all the species are but shades, modifications, or combinations, as all hues arise from three primary colors. Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type of the Church. Progress without Conservatism runs into Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution as a mode of relieving wrong. Conservatism is opposed to Radicalism both in the estimate of wrong and the more of getting rid of it. Radicalism errs in two respects: in its precipitance it often mistakes wheat for wheat for tares, and its eradication is so hasty and violent that even when it plucks up tares it brings the wheat with them. Sober judgment and sober means characterizes Conservatism. Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other. That which claims to be Reformatory, yet is not Conservative is Sectarian; that which claims to be Conservative, and is not Reformatory, is Stagnation and Corruption. True Catholicity is Conservatism, but Protestantism is Reformatory; and these two are complementary, not antagonistic. The Church problem is to attain a Protestant Catholicity or Catholic Protestantism. This is the end and aim of Conservative Reformation," (xl).
Truth Unites: / @truthunites
Dr. Jordan B. Cooper: / @drjordanbcooper
Joshua Schooping: / @pastorjoshuaschooping...
The Other Paul: / @theotherpaul
Truth Unto Godliness: / @truthuntogodliness
Anglican Aesthetics: / @anglicanaesthetics
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
For the record: This video had *nearly* nothing to do with an explicit critique of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, except to commend other channels who have done so in formidable ways and some other minor observations. The content of this video concerns to a greater degree a commendation to disparate Confessional Protestants to deal more directly with their own disagreements, as opposed to referring to something like Classical Protestantism.
Mr. Williams, interesting presentation with food for thought.
A few questions: somewhere around the 7-minute mark, you asserted that the difference between Christianity and the then contemporary gnostics, was that the gnostics believed that you had to have a tradition to properly interpret the scriptures. Wouldn't it be more adequate to say that the issue with the gnostics is not that they were asserting you needed a tradition, but that the tradition they were asserting was counter to the "tradition" that the apostles had taught the fledgling churches, a fact I believe that even Irenaeus appeals to somewhere? In a sense, they were asserting a different tradition, one that was completely counter to the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in light of Christ as the Messiah, and in fact, counter to what even Judeans in the first and second centuries who hadn't accepted Jesus as the Messiah believed and taught.
Second question: around the 8 minute mark you said that Athanasius is asserting that his recipient of his letter has something even better in the Word of God. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sort of sounded like you were conflating the Word of God with the scriptures and not with Christ the "God-Word" and "Word of God," as Athanasius calls Christ in his treatise. Is that a valid conflation to make, given the immediate context of what Athanasius is writing?
I'm also curious what your perspective is on Athanasius' closing chapter to "On the Incarnation." Sanctification often gets neglected in the lcms, and I have never heard a Lutheran pastor preach on "that in addition to the study and true knowledge of the scriptures, there is needed a good life and a pure soul and the virtue which is according to Christ.... without a pure mind and a life modeled on the saints, no one can comprehend the words of the saints." His closing seemed to go against your statement that Athanasius said that "the Word of God is sufficient for the truth" (not sure what translation you are using, or if you're going directly from the Greek, but I can't find that direct quote). The closest quote I can find in my copy of on the incarnation, if that's where that quote was taken from, isn't talking about the scriptures when it talks about the sufficiency of the Word, but it's talking about the grace of being made in the image of the Word and that makes it possible to know the person of Christ Himself.
Thanks!
Hi Victor. I'll respond to your remarks as best I can, time allowing:
(1) The first comment re: the Gnostics and Tradition. St. Irenaeus writes the following in Book III, Chapter II:
"When, however, they (i.e., the Gnostics) are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce."
To be sure, they were appealing to other Traditions that they claimed they received from the Apostles, which seems to have been the impetus behind St. Irenaeus mentioning the succession of Bishops pertaining to the Roman Church; a detail, by the way, that the Roman Catholic Church cites as evidence for the Universal Jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, an assertion you and I both deny, as I'm aware that you're also an Orthodox Christian.
In any event, I don't see this at odds with the Luther tradition, inasmuch as Martin Chemnitz appeals to 7 types of tradition accepted by us, rejecting only the 8th type which he defines as traditions that cannot be proved with *any* testimony of Scripture, but which the Synod of Trent commanded to be received with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture itself.
(2) No, St. Athanasius does not signify God the Word when writing to Macarius as to what he has sufficiently in the Scriptures. I suppose looking at the original text would be helpful, but here is one citation:
"Although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth..." He continues by saying that we receive "other works of our blessed teachers" which aid in the interpretation of Scripture---a thing also confessed and believed by the Lutheran tradition. In Chapter 45 of Against the Heathen he refers to the Scripture as possessing "more authority" and being of "higher authority" to confirm the truth.
(3) If I could do the video over again, I would have said "Against the Heathen." I misspoke, although the two treatises are really part of one work. In any case, the remark is from chapter 1. As to the question about Sanctification in relation to the Sacred Scripture, I'm not sure what the exact question is. I don't have any issue with the statement, and I don't see it in conflict with the view of Scripture set forth by Lutheran dogmaticians. It is something like the Lutheran position on the right use of the Sacrament; that is, there must be a right intention with the use. As far as reading the Scripture with the saints, it would be hard to finish a work of Gerhard or Chemnitz and assume they are against such a proposition. You can see the quote I provided to Jacob from Chemnitz re: Scriptural interpretation and see that he believes the Scriptures should be read with the Church, but he does not set them side by side. I think this approximates the view of the earliest witnesses of the Church. I would direct you to Chemnitz's section on Scriptural Interpretation in His Examination of Trent and the citations of the Fathers re: how the Scriptures should be interpreted.
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I should've referred to you as Rev. Williams and not Mr. (Apologies).
I currently don't have a copy of Against the Heathen--so I see where my confusion arose there (strange that so many editions of a two volume work get split out into two separate works when they both are so short).
My third question was more of me riding the Athanasius train after I tried to find the source of your quote. But now that I think about it, it might be relevant to your invitation to other protestants to closely examine what they believe and why. I'd venture that while there is nothing necessarily pervasive to confessional Lutheranism in that quote from the end of In the Incarnation, I was more lamenting the fact that preaching sanctification nearly always takes a backseat to the preaching of justification in the Synod--if it's even in the car for the ride in the first place. Anecdotally, this fact was readily noticed by the non-lutheran pre-sem students of various protestant persuasions back in the day at CUAA, and perhaps would be an obstacle to non-magisterial protestants of a more evangelical Protestant leaning.
I'll have to see if I can dig up Chemnitz' work--I don't think I've ever owned a copy of his examination of Trent, but I suppose in this day and age it should probably be easy enough to find on the Internet.
@@victordomin9057 I don't disagree that the attention given to the necessity of a Holy Life is lamentable among particular types of Lutheran preachers. It isn't characteristic of Lutheran orthodoxy, or, even, the Lutheran Confessions, but seems to have come forth from a caricature of what C. F. W. Walther meant in his evening lectures, now titled Law and Gospel.
Finally, I think it is better to consider what the formal positions are in whichever Church one belongs, albeit important that formal positions actually manifest themselves in congregations. A Creed, Confession or Canons of an Ecumenical Council are only as good as the integrity of men to hold them.
Pastor @marcuswilliams7448, thank you for these videos! I am currently in the process of leaving the EOC for Confessional Lutheranism and I would highly recommend Joshua Schooping's book "Disillusioned". Very well researched (and experienced) and very eye opening, particularly pertaining to EO Mariology (gross over veneration) Iconodulism (not sure if that's even a word), and the preposterous claims that they are the only true church along with the so-called infallibility of the EOC. I was EO for 15 years and everything in the book is 100% legitimate and truthful....unfortunately.
Shout out to Gimli!
I don't get it... who is this Gimli you and Rev. Williams speak of? I don't recall hearing his name in the BoC. 🤔
You really triggered a lot of people with this video.
I am not sure how much of this video is intentionally disingenuous and how much is simply the general lack of self awareness that those who hold indefensible positions tend to develop. Here are my main concerns:
1. Protestants have always had the problem of trying to explain why heretics and radicals born from their ranks have gone "too far". Why? Because Protestantism by definition is anchorless. You cannot complain that someone has no anchor, no depth and no richness when you yourself have given up the same. Who is to say to which degree the separation from tradition is correct? Should we give up 25% of our Christian heritage or 30%... why not 70% or 90%? It's a bummer Scripture isn't more clear on this...
2. Yes, you can rightly assert that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches do not have unity. I can also assure you that Confessional Lutheranism has just as much venom and animosity within it as any of these. The difference is that the aforementioned churches do not pretend that Scripture is inherently clear to all people and that we somehow have all the answers by virtue of being literate people. Rather, there is humility in knowing our own limitations. Protestants have no humility, either theologically or generationally. You quote Scripture saying "the faith once delivered to all the saints" and then immediately contradict the Scripture by asserting that somehow, you have a need to continually reform the faith, as if it was not delivered in its completeness. You join the Darwinists by believing that your intelligence and piety supersedes that of the apostles and their immediate successors.
3. You accuse the Catholics and Orthodox of not being able to sit down and have coffee with you and consider you as a brother Christian. I am not sure if this is intentional slander or if you are simply greatly confused. In fact, you are much more cultish in your exclusion of your Catholic and Orthodox siblings than they would probably ever be with you. (And this is not unique to you. This is a quite Protestant phenomenon to exclude the oldest churches and claim that they are not Christian at all.) But it is certainly not how the Orthodox or Catholic Church views you. You are making a video appealing to others you consider heretics, hoping they come to the table in discussion in order to defeat these more sinister heretics. If you would like to stand for your confession of faith, that's fine. But don't pretend that you are more altruistic than a group you are trampling underfoot for no particular reason.
4. Lumping the Catholic and Orthodox Churches into one as if they were interchangeable shows either that you are sloppy in your theology, that you are quite ignorant of the two churches, or that you are purposefully misleading people.
5. Claiming that "most" converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy come from the progressive and shallow churches is a blatant falsehood. As a confessional Lutheran you know full well that confessional and traditional Protestantism is a breeding ground for converts to Rome and the East. Why? Because once people get a small taste of a fuller experience of the Truth, it becomes insatiable. People are jumping ship from classical and confessional Protestantism because after watching you try to build a make-shift anchor out of scrap metal, they catch a glimpse of the Ark with its fully intact anchor and eagerly hasten to it.
When it comes down to it, classical protestantism is only slightly deeper a puddle than progressive protestantism. The ocean is the True Church.
Dalas,
Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I can address your points as you've laid them out:
(1) I did not aim to be disingenuous and I'm curious what you mean when you refer to "Indefensible positions."
(2) Do you imagine that heretics have not been born from the ranks of the East or West? I would remind you of just one instance, following Nicaea I, that a large majority of the Church was led into Arianism, which, of course, was introduced by an priest in the East. In fact, many of the earliest heresies came out of the East. So, by the logic of your first concern, the East is also anchorless. Or, it could just be that, as a consequence of sin, some "go out from us, but were never truly of us." As to the matter of tradition, the standard is fairly simply; i.e., that the Sacred Scripture is the sole infallible rule and norm for Doctrine and Life. Traditions that have no basis in the Scripture are judged by the Scripture. Some remain; that is, those that can be kept without sin. I wouldn't venture to put a percentage on it.
(3) As to the Perspicuity of Scripture: The plainness and sufficiency of the Word of God to establish the Truth is a Patristic Principle, believed by the Lutheran Reformers, and, sadly, abandoned by Rome and the East, in as much as there is an implicit suggestion that the Scripture is obscure. The obscurity of the Scripture and the inability to understand it sans tradition was an argument used by the Gnostics against whom St. Irenaeus contended. You can find this in Book III of Against Heresies. He argues that the Scripture is plain. As to the faith once for all delivered to the saints: Do you not think that, at various times, the deposit of faith that was to be guarded didn't get corrupted in some way? Is Athanasius named Athanasius Against the World because accretion and error does not come into the Church? To reform is not to say that the faith changes, but is, rather, a call back to the faith revealed in the Word of God. I think it is impossible to read the Bible and come away thinking, "There is never need for reformation."
(4) Didn't the Orthodox Church just celebrate The Triumph of Orthodoxy? And, aren't Orthodox parishes to read out the anathemas; anathemas which are declarations of separation from God? Also, read the Canons of the Council of Trent. You're simply incorrect in what you've said. Joshua Schooping details these anathemas in his book Disillusioned. It is to say, if Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians were consistent to their formal statements, they would not associate with those outside their respective institutions. The Book of Concord is actually quite charitable to those Christians in errant Churches.
(5) Yes, well this is the Roman/Orthodox Apologetic: "Protestants have no unity whatsoever." Also, "Protestants reject X proposition." I mention them together, not because I think they are the same in every way. In fact, I don't think I said that. But, formally, they are the same in their exclusivism.
(6) I said I see/hear of "a lot" of Christians going out of radical churches. This doesn't preclude the possibility of Christians from Confessional Protestant churches going Rome or the East. This does, of course, happen. I didn't suggest to the contrary.
Thanks again.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Thank you for responding! I appreciate the willingness to dialogue. Here are my follow-up thoughts.
(1) By indefensible positions I mean those positions that are illogical or cannot be taken to their logical conclusion without undesirable conclusions. Many people hold such positions in varying sectors of life whether religious, political or personal. And a typical defense mechanism when one has committed to such a belief is to (unintentionally, as with most of our brain's defense mechanisms) dull the perception of self awareness in order to maintain their position without noticing obvious contradictions or errors.
(2A) Let me clarify my statement on heretics a bit. The East has born many heretics, and even entire generations predisposed to heresy. (What a great comfort to us in this age, as we grapple with many travesties that God has always preserved His Church in the midst of such upheaval!)The difference between the relationship of the Orthodox Church and her heretics and the Protestant Church and her admitted heretics, is the ability to defend against them. Orthodoxy always has the moral and theological high ground, so to speak, to reject heretical views. Protestantism struggles to give any firm answer to her schismatics, because they are simply following the great tradition of reformation and progress. My critique is not in the number or type of heretic, but rather in the Protestant inability to answer those who secede. There is a lot to be said on this, but we don't have space for a book. :)
(2B) As for tradition, your attitude toward it, that it is somehow open for dismantling, or that it is in some way lesser than the written Word of God... have you not read the Scriptures for yourself? "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15(3A) The East (I cannot speak for Rome) does not believe that the Word of God is clouded or obscure. Rather we approach it with humility, recognizing the need for the Spirit of God to speak in order to give us understanding. Just as a science textbook might be clear and sufficient to explain the wonders of the natural world to a professor, but a student would need assistance and a "guided tour" of sorts, in order to fully comprehend the contents.
How much more so when we are dealing with the Mysteries of the Divine? It is obvious that a small child cannot read the text and understand it all, or we would not have Sunday School or even seminaries. But as a spiritual text, intellect is not the only thing necessary for understanding, we must also (and more importantly) possess wisdom and the Spirit of God, or we will never understand. Scripture is perfectly clear and fully sufficient, as it says. It is our own frailty we reference. (It's interesting you bring up gnosticism. Protestantism is akin to gnosticism with its idea that salvation is having specific pieces of knowledge. Salvation has, actually, little to do with our intellectual assent. That is also another interesting conversation.)
(3B) "Do you not think that, at various times, the deposit of faith that was to be guarded didn't get corrupted in some way?" Of course I do not believe that! Christ Himself said in the Gospels that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church! What reason do we have to believe it has ever been corrupted? Are there attempts to overtake and corrupt the Church? Of course! And what happens? The Church is always preserved by courageous saints and the miraculous intervention of God.
We don't need reformation, or a turning away from established Tradition that "has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to be made a part of the Church. We need vigilance against innovation, against the spirit of the age, that seeks to distort and to change what has been given. Sometimes new concepts or traditions are added, but it is these that need to be scrutinized and tested. Throwing out what has been handed down from the Apostles and their disciples is not defensible by Scripture.
(4) You do not understand how the Orthodox Church works. It's fundamentally different from the legalism of the West. You cannot look at its dogmatic statements, completely stripped from any context, and distill from it the essence of our doctrine and life. The Book of Concord may be charitable to those in errant churches, but that does not address my concern - that you are being uncharitable to those Christians in Rome and in the East, while accusing them of rejecting you. This is a systemic problem of Protestant eschatology and soteriology. There is little mercy or charity in it at all. (Also another book for another day...)
(5) Again, Rome and the East have very different understandings of their exclusive claim to be the True Church. We both do claim this, over and against denominations like the LCMS, where I came from (which admits to not being a church at all). But even this is not unique to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. You even talk in your video about how you hope that all your protestant brothers believe as firmly in their creeds and confessions as you do yourself. Truth is exclusive by nature. Either you believe you have it or you believe it is relative and non-existent. I am confused why you champion exclusive claims to Truth in a Protestant context, but not from Rome or the East. Why is it a virtue for you and a vice for us?
(6) You may have not suggested the contrary, but it was conveniently left out. An uniformed lay person watching your video would come away with the idea that it is progressive and radical Protestantism which causes people to flee to Rome or to the East. In fact, it is much more likely that the confessional and classical Protestantism (which you are holding up as a remedy) will lead people in that direction. Your version of Protestantism doesn't actually solve the problem you say that it does. Rather, it inflames the issue. It is an intractable problem for Protestantism. People want the True Church which has been promised to them by their Lord through the Scriptures, and they will continue to seek it.
Thank you again for the discussion. It is rare to see true dialogue online. I pray you are having a blessed Lent.
@@dalasmueller2603 Hi again. Such things like this can go on and on, especially as there are multiple topics in every response. I'm interested in a further dialogue. You can contact me via email through the website of my parish, Blessed Sacrament and I'm glad to continue, though, perhaps, one thing at a time...lol.