Jay Dyer is the man behind Jay's Analysis, a website and podcast dedicated to geopolitics, conspiracies, film, and theology. Recently he has posted a response to Fr Stephen Freeman regarding his very low and higher critical view of scripture. The impetus for his response is that Fr Freeman deleted comments Jay posted on his blog thereby indicating his refusal to even deal with the issues Jay raised. (It should be noted that Fr Freeman has restored that comment.)
This is all very ironic because the impetus for this article is that I posted a question on Jay's twitter feed and instead of answering it he insulted me and then blocked me.
This is all very ironic because the impetus for this article is that I posted a question on Jay's twitter feed and instead of answering it he insulted me and then blocked me.
 |
| That's not an argument, Jay. |
Philippinefails is my other blog which deals with life here in the Philippines. I had been sending Jay updates about martial law in the Philippines and the slow march to a dictatorship as well as engaging him on other topics.
Another twitter user who was part of that thread said I was misinformed but did not respond to my questions about what it was of which I was misinformed.
Another twitter user who was part of that thread said I was misinformed but did not respond to my questions about what it was of which I was misinformed.
 |
| More questions regarding the Orthodox low view of scripture |
Using the twitter account associated with this blog, Orthodoxbridge, I contacted Jay and voiced my disappointment that he would toss an ad hominem my way and then block me for asking a question. After several messages he finally replied and said I was writing heresy and that I was harassing him with easily answered objections. Rather than explain how a question is heresy or answer what he calls an easily answered objection he blocked me again.
There is absolutely nothing objectionable in Jay's response to Fr Freeman. It is a rousing defence of the literal truth of scripture against the school of higher critics. Likewise his quotations from various church fathers regarding scripture bolster his claims as being fundamentally Orthodox and Christian.
However, Jay laments that when he speaks so highly of scripture he is labeled a Protestant despite his high view of scripture being in agreement with the views of the Church Fathers. He even claims that Fr Freeman says he "sounds Protestant."
There is absolutely nothing objectionable in Jay's response to Fr Freeman. It is a rousing defence of the literal truth of scripture against the school of higher critics. Likewise his quotations from various church fathers regarding scripture bolster his claims as being fundamentally Orthodox and Christian.
However, Jay laments that when he speaks so highly of scripture he is labeled a Protestant despite his high view of scripture being in agreement with the views of the Church Fathers. He even claims that Fr Freeman says he "sounds Protestant."
 |
| Where are the proofs Fr Freeman believes Jay "sounds Protestant?" |
This is where my question comes in.
Why would Orthodox opinions be labelled Protestant teaching?
What follows are a few lines of thought I had on the subject which Jay refused to engage with.
Why would Orthodox opinions be labelled Protestant teaching?
What follows are a few lines of thought I had on the subject which Jay refused to engage with.
The Confession of Dositheos states in no uncertain terms that only the initiated are to read the scripture.
Question 1
Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
Question 2
Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search them; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.
Certainly, those that are regenerated [in Baptism] must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.
This confession even goes so far as to say that especially the Old Testament is forbidden to be read. But the Old Testament is the Bible of the early church. The Old Testament contains the promises in the New Testament. The Old Testament is essential to understanding the New.
The Confession of Dositheos is the end result of the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem. This synod was convened to refute Protestant errors. It is highly likely that Questions 1 and 2 are directed against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To safeguard the faith a prohibition is placed on just anyone reading the scriptures. Only the learned are allowed to read and even then they are only to read as long as they have "the mind of the Church."
Might it be that the result of this prohibition has been a culture suspicious of Bible reading?
One objection Jay might raise to this is that despite this confession Bible reading is not actually prohibited by the Orthodox. In fact there is an Orthodox Study Bible. But really there is no such thing. There is no official church sanctioned Orthodox Study Bible. The OSB is born out of the numerous conversions of Evangelicals to Orthodoxy and bears in its DNA the Protestantism of its initial publisher, Thomas Nelson.
Jay might want to read these critical reviews if he has not already:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx
http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/04/orthodox-study-bible-my-turn-ii.html
If the Orthodox are reading the Bible now, it has not always been that way. Fr Seraphim Rose noted that the Russian Orthodox were highly ignorant of the scriptures because they did not read them.
The Confession of Dositheos is the end result of the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem. This synod was convened to refute Protestant errors. It is highly likely that Questions 1 and 2 are directed against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To safeguard the faith a prohibition is placed on just anyone reading the scriptures. Only the learned are allowed to read and even then they are only to read as long as they have "the mind of the Church."
Might it be that the result of this prohibition has been a culture suspicious of Bible reading?
One objection Jay might raise to this is that despite this confession Bible reading is not actually prohibited by the Orthodox. In fact there is an Orthodox Study Bible. But really there is no such thing. There is no official church sanctioned Orthodox Study Bible. The OSB is born out of the numerous conversions of Evangelicals to Orthodoxy and bears in its DNA the Protestantism of its initial publisher, Thomas Nelson.
Jay might want to read these critical reviews if he has not already:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx
http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/04/orthodox-study-bible-my-turn-ii.html
If the Orthodox are reading the Bible now, it has not always been that way. Fr Seraphim Rose noted that the Russian Orthodox were highly ignorant of the scriptures because they did not read them.
 |
| Father Seraphim Rose, pg. 277 |
What accounts for this change in Bible reading habits among the Orthodox if not the influx of Protestant converts?
Aside from the Confession of Dositheos I think another reason why the Orthodox would call Jay a Protestant is because so many who have converted from Protestantism are reactionary. They go from Sola Scriptura to the extremes of submitting to Church tradition. They know and have experienced how fractured Protestantism is and wish to extricate themselves from it completely. So they put down the Bible and pick up the Schaff edition of the ECF or the SVS Pocket Patristics and attempt to get into the mind of the Church before they get back into reading the Bible.
But there is a huge problem. The Bible is a book you can easily read from cover to cover and then stick in your pocket. The amount of books you would have to read to get the mind of the Church is endless. And who has that time? Time to ferret out the meaning or reconcile the many contradictions. Yes there are contradictions in the Fathers.
Aside from the Confession of Dositheos I think another reason why the Orthodox would call Jay a Protestant is because so many who have converted from Protestantism are reactionary. They go from Sola Scriptura to the extremes of submitting to Church tradition. They know and have experienced how fractured Protestantism is and wish to extricate themselves from it completely. So they put down the Bible and pick up the Schaff edition of the ECF or the SVS Pocket Patristics and attempt to get into the mind of the Church before they get back into reading the Bible.
But there is a huge problem. The Bible is a book you can easily read from cover to cover and then stick in your pocket. The amount of books you would have to read to get the mind of the Church is endless. And who has that time? Time to ferret out the meaning or reconcile the many contradictions. Yes there are contradictions in the Fathers.
 |
| This book is full of contradictions in the Fathers and how to reconcile them |
This is not to say, "It's too hard." Rather it's to say that it is too ridiculous to expect anyone to be familiar with the Fathers before he reads or can even understand the scriptures. Jay may have spent 15 years immersed in his library but he is also a single man with much time on his hands who has had professional theological training as he tells us he went to seminary for a few years.
Then there's the issue of prooftexting which Jay specifically cites as being labelled Protestant. Let's take one verse. If I want to tell a person how to be saved I would quote John 3:16. Simple right? No. What does kosmos mean in this verse? The whole world or only a particular few in the world? What does love mean? What about works? Monergistic or synergistic believing? Too many divisive theological issues in just that one verse!
Instead of quoting the plain words of Christ the Orthodox would have one tell a seeker of salvation what the "mind of the Church is" because the words of Christ are not so plain after all. Take the following verse: "This is my body." Pretty plain and clear right! If you said yes then you should read up on the Colloquy of Marburg and the Western disputes on the eucharist during the middle ages.
Is it any wonder that the Orthodox, especially Protestant converts, would shun prooftexting? Prooftexting is a wholly Protestant endeavour so it should be no surprise to Jay that he is called a Protestant when he prooftexts.
There are a lot of issues here involved with the questions I have raised. None of which I wish to get into because they are side roads to my main question which is: Why do some Orthodox think Jay's Orthodox view of scripture is not Orthodox? If we can solve that mystery or at least propose valid hypotheses which research would support I think we will be on the right track.
Then there's the issue of prooftexting which Jay specifically cites as being labelled Protestant. Let's take one verse. If I want to tell a person how to be saved I would quote John 3:16. Simple right? No. What does kosmos mean in this verse? The whole world or only a particular few in the world? What does love mean? What about works? Monergistic or synergistic believing? Too many divisive theological issues in just that one verse!
Instead of quoting the plain words of Christ the Orthodox would have one tell a seeker of salvation what the "mind of the Church is" because the words of Christ are not so plain after all. Take the following verse: "This is my body." Pretty plain and clear right! If you said yes then you should read up on the Colloquy of Marburg and the Western disputes on the eucharist during the middle ages.
Is it any wonder that the Orthodox, especially Protestant converts, would shun prooftexting? Prooftexting is a wholly Protestant endeavour so it should be no surprise to Jay that he is called a Protestant when he prooftexts.
There are a lot of issues here involved with the questions I have raised. None of which I wish to get into because they are side roads to my main question which is: Why do some Orthodox think Jay's Orthodox view of scripture is not Orthodox? If we can solve that mystery or at least propose valid hypotheses which research would support I think we will be on the right track.
To really get into the meat of this subject and prove any hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt it would be helpful to trace the development of the doctrine and use of scripture from the Church Fathers to the Synod of Jerusalem and then from the Synod of Jerusalem to today. Such a survey is beyond my ken.
No comments:
Post a Comment