Responding to Eastern Orthodoxy being Misrepresented & a Personal Attack against Carthage 397

I was considering posting on the consequences of ignoring Revelation 22:19 when I ran into something that REALLY OFFENDED me in another blog. I am SO OFFENDED that if that person ever posts here, I won't accept any of his posts unless or until he posts an appology and corrects his errors. This guy's bucking for an Anathema! His EXCREMENT is so bad that it shook my Cuss-O-Meter! [Fortunately, my Cuss-O-Meter still remains frozen at Absolute Zero.] I won't disgrace him any further than he has disgraced himself already by calling him out directly (though his initials are CMP), but I will quote him exactly:

3. Paleo-Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the Christian faith can be found in the early church—namely in the consensual beliefs of the early church. This is a form of “consensual orthodoxy” (consensus fidelium).
. . .

Primary Adherents:
Eastern Orthodoxy, some Evangelicals, and many Emerging Christians (not Emergent as I have defined it in my writings)

Strengths:

• Looks to the historic body of Christ for orthodoxy.
• Understands that God’s providential concern for the Church would have established the most important truths early.

I'll accept this provisionally.

Weaknesses:

• Can elevate the authority of the early church above that of Scripture.

Before the Council of Carthage 0f 397 AD, there was no Bible, only scattered fragments of Scripture. These fragments had to be cobbled together into a Cannon. This short-sighted comment ignores the very legitimacy of the Church Council that selected which books went into the New Testament. Denying this Authority only LEGITIMIZES the Gnostic Gospels!

• Hard to find justifiable reasons to believe that theology cannot develop or mature beyond the first five centuries.

This is the part that makes me sizzle!!! He's obviously never heard of St. Photius or St. Herman of Alaska, or in recent times, Francis Schaeffer, Jack Sparks, or Robert Royster. Timothy Ware's whole 330 page book - The Orthodox Church - is about how Orthodox Theology developed and matured to the current day. Only 30 pages of this 330 page book were devoted to the Church before the Fifth Century. Our "illustrious" scholar might also want to read These Truths We Hold from St. Tikhon's Seminary Press.

He compounds the INSULT with:

Eastern Church: Here, I primarily mean the Eastern Orthodox church. Notice that they are also orthodox. The further developments represented by the “TH” show the progress and maturing of certain doctrines (e.g. person of Christ and the Trinity). The lower case show an undeveloped doctrine (e.g. salvation) and the italics show a distorted understanding (e.g. atonement).

He's obviously never heard of the Nicene Creed. One look at Anthony Coniaris'es Orthodoxy: A Creed for Today, should put that Obvious Falsehood to rest. There is no better place to learn about the Trinity than through the Nicene Creed.

He doesn't stop there. In a section entitled Words That Don't Prove Your Point, he states:

• If this isn't true, then there is no basis to believe the Bible. If there's no basis to believe the Bible then we might as well be atheists.

This argument also shows up a different way. For example: God can't do that--if He did it would make him the author of Evil and I can't believe in that sort of God. Okay, that's a fine opinion but it doesn't disprove or prove any argument. The latter is a matter of wishing something was true and the former is a matter of setting up a very steep slope with your doctrine at the very tippity top. In both cases it doesn't make your position right or wrong: it's just a non-decider.

Just what was the Council of Carthage of 397 actually doing? Were they wishing that certain Books that they accepted into the Cannon were True, or were they Holier than the Gnostics? In either case, our Esteemed Scholar has just managed to Invalidate the Bible!

My problem with his "Theology" is that with this attack on the Council of Carthage, the Bible actually does go out the Window! Perhaps he's upset that his favorite gospel, The Gospel according to Judas Iscariot, was excluded? It's clear that I'm not going to blog with his group, as his so-called Cannons of Conduct, which excludes honest discussion of the issues I pose, are hypocritically biased towards Calvinism under color of Objectivity.

By Their Works You Shall Know Them

While it is impossible for a man to look into another man's heart, Matt. 7:16 in the EOB, page 49 states "You will recognize them by their fruits. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?". This verse was important to me in the evaluation of Theologians. If a man's hands had blood on them, his value as a Man of God is diminished. Saint Paul, the murderer of St. Stephen and many other early Christains is the only exception. While there can be no dobut as to the state of St. Paul's heart before his miraculous conversion, once he repented, he became legitimate Man of God.

However, this is not the case of a "Man of God" who slays because of his intent to enforce of his beliefs. Indeed, this is the heart of Paul before his conversion, an unrepentant unregenerate man who held religious office. As I look at John Calvin, I see Paul before his conversion. John Calvin was responsible for the deaths of Michael Servetus and Jacques Gruet. Servetus was a heretic, but at least a peaceful heretic who posed no threat to Calvin, yet Calvin betrayed him to Catholic magistrates in Vienna. In Calvin's "defense", he "begged" that Servetus merely be beheaded, but this intercession provided cause to burn Servetus. Gruet was a political opponent who left a critical letter for Calvin, whom Calvin had racked and/or beheaded, and/or burned, depending upon which scribe you read. Several accounts have John Calvin as the Theocratic Dictator of Geneva Switzerland.

Calvin stands uniquely alone from most Reformation Church Leaders - Luther, More, Erasmus, Zwingli - in that he was responsible for the executions of his opponents. He differs from St. Paul in that St. Paul repented of his murders, wheras Calvin committed his as a result of his "faith". As such, he should be treated with the most scepticism.

This post ends a weeklong series on Calvinism. I am on Christmas Break. I will be searching for new topics, but I shall keep the same methodology. I will be posting less as I am becoming more occupied. I greet two of my friends whom I shall refer to as Wilhelm of California and Wilhelm of North Carolina. You are requested not to reveal your identities, but you know who you are. You are both welcomed here. To both Wilhelms, I bid you Courage, and ask you to drop by once a week.