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.

Dordt and Ephsus II: A Tale of Two Robber Synods

My discussion of Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession begs the question of contrast between legitimate Church Councils such as Nicea 325 and Ephesus 431, and illegitmate Church Councils, also known as Robber Synods, such as Ephesus 449 and Dordt 1618. Nicea and Ephesus 431 were convened to settle issues as to what the correct Christain beliefs were, wheras Ephesus 449 and Dordt 1618 were to convened to overturn established doctrine and to conduct stealth trials of the foremost adherants of the established doctrines.

Following the mechanics of an illegitimate council, accounts of Ephesus 449 reads like a blow by blow description of a riot, and is incredibly difficult to follow. The OrthodoxWiki simplifies it :

"The Robber Council of Ephesus was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II on August 8, 449 for the purpose of adjudicating the findings of the council of November 448 chaired by Flavian of Constantinople that had deposed and excommunicated the Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit the two natures of Christ."

and

"The council was dominated by Theodosius, Dioscorus, and monophysitic supporters."

Histoians Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, in their book Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475 state on page 38 that: ". . . it was thinly attended and packed with Alexandrians", in other words, a Kangaroo Court. Suffice it to say that credentialed delegates that could have attended either didn't attend or were ran away. Ephesus 449's only redeeming feature was that it was convened by an Emperor. It was deemed sufficiently authoritative as to require its overruling by Charcedon 451.

Let's compare to Dordt. Attendance was limited to Germans, Dutch, Swiss, and English, making it at best a Local Council. The French boycotted it, already clouding its legitimacy. No Papal Legate attended; Ephesus II at least had the decency to run off some of their Papal Legates. No Greeks or Italians were invited. The credentialing of the delegates was a farce, as the Remonstrants arrived fully exepecting to be delegates, but were instead arrested upon arrival:

The Arminians did not arrive at Dort until early December 1618. When they did arrive, their appearance turned into a farce. They were treated from the outset as the accused; a position which they rejected. (on pages 16 & 17).

. . . another Kangaroo Court. Let us also not forget the dirty power-mad machinatons of Prince Maurice, who engineered this Robber Synod:

The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to succeed in his ambitious enterprises.

My position is that Local Synods may govern, but they may not overrule a General Church Council like Nicea, which actually did settle matters of Faith. Of the Church Councils surveyed, the least legitimate was Dordt, even less Legitimate that the Robber Synod of Ephesus, 449. Dordt was boycotted and ill-credentialed. Both Synods were packed for Kangaroo Court-style action. Ephesus II at least had some general representation and some Papal Legates. Of course, Ephesus II also had to be repealed with Chalcedon 451. Clearly, Dordt 1618 is even less binding than a Robber Synod.

Carthage 397 versus Later Day Revelation

In 1 Corinthians 13: 8-10 "Love never fails. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know [only] in part, and we prophesy [only] in part; but when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with." which I quote from the EOB on page 384, it is generally agreed that certain miracles will cease "when what is complete comes". Other translations read "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." [21st Century King James Version] and "But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded)." [Amplified Bible] . The "That which is perfect" clause is what is of interest here. What the Perfect thing is has been debated but I, as are many others, am of the opinion that it is the Bible itself.

Some scholars date the close of the Apostolic Age at 90 AD, with the death of St. John in order to acknowlege that his book completed the Cannon. Others date the end of the Apostlic Age at the birth of Origen in 185 AD to acknowledge the Hexapala. The latest possible date is 397 AD, the date of the Council of Carthage which selected the Cannon. For the sake of arguement, the other two dates are perfectly acceptable to me for the sake of the Closing of the Cannon. Though I actually prefer 90 AD, the most liberal 397 AD gets the job done for purposes of this post.

The point is that the Bible was definitively completed by 397 AD, and the Council of Carthage of 397 AD made it official. Any candidate scripture after this date is automatically disqualified, due to lack of timeliness. The Qur'an is dated at 633 AD, and is the first to fail this test. The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, also fails this test. In fact, if I equate the date of the Council of Carthage as the cutoff date for the date of writing all legitimate scripture, I abrogate Latter Day Revelation. As far as the period of time between 90-397 AD, I am willing to deem anything written during this period a candidate scripture, but I note that anything that did not pass inspection by the Council is not scripture.

Chapter XXXI of The Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse

Firstly, I wish to convey my Eternal Gratitude to Matt for giving the most damaging argument against, and the Final Nail in the Coffin of, Article XXXI of the Westminster Confession, the Doctrine of Illumination! While I was merely intending to debunk it, Illuminaton has given me the means to Totally Anihilate it! Thanks, Matt!!!

When I first read about Calvin's Institutions, I first thought he meant the most basic of all Church Institutions, the Church Council. Searching intently, I was gravely dissapointed. What I found was contained in Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession in Chapter IV :

IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.

What a dissapointment! Further research revealed that John Calvin was actually agiainst the Seven Church Councils, and the Westminster Confession delegitimized them with Chapter XXXI. In fact Chapter XXXI goes even further. ALL Church Councils are invalid because of Sin. Their pronouncements upon doctrine are meaningless. The Nicene Creed, a product of the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, has been voided. Other products of other Councils, in partcular Carthage 397 which selected the books of the Bible while discarding the Gnostic Scriptures, are void! Of course, there is also the paradox/logical conclusion that the Westminster Confession and the Council of Dordt are also void because of Chapter XXXI.

Let us examine the consequences of Chapter XXXI upon the Bible. Carthage 397 is invalid and can be overruled. This means that the Books of the Bible can be reselected from the candidate books, which include the Gnostic Gospels. The Gnostic Gospels, like any other set of scriptures, are self-authenticating. Clearly, Chapter XXXI is a Trojan Horse that permits the suplanting of the current books of the New Testament.

However, thanks to Matt who reminds us of the Doctrine of Illumination, the Church Fathers were indeed made competant to separate Wheat from Chaff, a point religiously ignored by Chapter XXXI. According to Matt: "God first and continually bestows holiness upon the sinner through justification and sanctification. Illumination is that process whereby the Holy Spirit overcomes the lingering sin of the redeemed so that he can correctly interpret Scripture. ", a point ignored by the Chapter XXXI. Yet he backpeddles with: "I am not claiming that Illumination conveys holiness. The Spirit does that legally in justification and experientially in sanctification." However, I will take Matt's first statement at face value and observe that his first argument effectively restores the Seven Church Councils and the Nicene Creed to their former credibility, no thanks to the Westminster Confession. Thanks again, Matt!

I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention what I would replace Article XXXI with. Since it is a Trojan Horse, I would delete it altogether. Since God's Word is Eternal, a Doctrine of Stairs Decisis is what would be called for.

By what Authority were the Books of the Bible selected?

Let us look at Chapter One of the Westminster Confession of 1646. The meat is in Article 2, where the books are enumerated, Article 3 which declares the Apocrypha illigitimate, and Article 4 which says:

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

The trouble with Article 4 is that it misses the point. By what authority does the Westminster Confession declare what the books of the Bible are? It doesn't say. We have only their word, the word of an uncredentialed authority. There isn't even the mention of a credentialed authority. If there is a credentialed authority, the Westminster Confession has certainly detracted from it in their very first Chapter.

Who would have credentials. The Jews had their own Cannonization Process for their Torah, our Old Testament, which is generally accepted by Christianity. Thus, restricting the question to the New Testament, all New Testament credentials and authority would derive from Christ. Since almost all of the New Testament books were not written until after the death of Christ, his authority must have flowed somewhere to make the New Testament valid. The Apostles are generally considered the recipients of this authority. Yet none of the Apostles, not even John, were alive when the collection of scripture which became the New Testament was finally agreed upon. The Apostles had successors, who inherited their authority and held the Office of Bishop, hence a Doctrine of Apostolic Succession is needed in order to maintain the Bible. Recapitulating, the Authority flowed from Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the Apostolic Successors to authenticate the Bible.

Historically, the Council of Carthage of 397 AD set the de facto standard for what qualified a book to be in the Bible. The one thing about a de facto standard is that even though it is not necessarily legally in force, it recieves acceptance because of necessity, and because no one else is able to come up with anything better. The Council of Carthage had plenty of necessity justification for what they did, as their purpose was to discard the Gnostic Gospels from the Cannon which were about to polute and overwhelm the Cannon, a situation which Bishop Irenaeus warned against in Against Heresies. One does not pick a Holy Book out of the gutter, from whence the Gnostic Gospels came. At issue was what a what books to keep, what books to discard, and by what authority. The solution, roughly described as the Smell Test of St. Irenaeus, was to requre that each accepted book have a demonstrable connection to an Apostle, a property of the Most Frequently Used Books by the Oldest Churches with the Closest Connection to an Apostle. Additionally, the Scriptures had to be consistent with each other. We note in passing that the Apocrypha contains valuable history which assists with the Cannonization Process, contrary to Chapter 1, Article 3.

The problem with deemphasizing the Council of Carthage of 397 as an unimportant council is that it delegitimizes their purpose of discarding the Gnostic Gospels from the Scriptures, thus opening the door for reinstating the Gospels of Judas, Thomas, and Philip, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, and various and sundry other Gnostic Gospels. There is no contemporary alternate authority from which to draw legitimacy.

Coming full circle, the Westminster Confession mindfully and arbitrarily skips the authentication of the Bible. It does not give any reason to discard any Gnostic Gospel, other than the fact that they were not mentioned. Hence, since the Gnostic Gospels were not explicitly excluded, the Westminster provides implicit grounds to include them in Scripture. This problem is in addition to the Westminster Confession's inability to qualify their own authority. Further, since the Westminster Confession some 1250 years after Carthage, the connection to the Apostles is at least three times as dilute, should the Apostolic Succession argument be attempted. As we continue our examination of the Westminster Confession, we will find that a foundation was laid to delegitimize any and all findings of Church Councils in Chapter XXXI, which in turn legally permits the eventual overruling of the Council of Carthage and the Reselection of the Books of the Bible.