David Patrick Harry, known as Church of the Eternal Logos, recently had a guest on his show named Benjamin Langlois, also known as Orthodox Luigi, to talk about Orthodoxy. The conversation compared Catholicism and Protestantism to Orthodoxy which led Benjamin to say something interesting.
1:26:30 It's like in my debate with Redeemed Zoomer right when he would quote St Irenaeus or St Athanathius or whoever. It's like all I have to do is go to this other quote, right, where they obviously, like, he tried to quote St Basil right and I'm so glad he did because I had that quote that explicitly says that there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture.
What's interesting about this is that it's not true. St. Basil does write about tradition but never says "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in Scripture." Here is the full quote from St. Basil's work On the Holy Spirit.
66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to usin a mysteryby the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?
Basil says if we reject the customs handed down to us "we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals." He then explains himself by saying "or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." St. Basil is not saying "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture." These traditions and customs are not part of the Gospel they are part of public worship.
These traditions include making the sign of the cross, facing East while praying, the words of invocation over the Eucharist, words of blessing for oil and baptismal water, and triple immersion. None of those things is part of the Gospel. They are expression of worship.
Paul defined the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Notice how Paul says the Gospel is written in the Scriptures. He does not appeal to "silent and mystical tradition" to define the Gospel but to the Scriptures. Jesus does the same thing in Luke 24.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
The Gospel, ALL of the Gospel, is contained in the Scriptures.
What is interesting about Benjamin's comment is that it says a lot about him. He converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism and posted the following comments on Instagram.
When Jesus Christ ascended unto heaven, He didn't leave a Bible, He left a Church.What about the Scriptures? The Scriptures themselves were given to us through the Church. For the first several hundred years of Church History, there was no closed canon of Scripture. Scripture, which is the ultimate form of Apostolic Tradition, was preserved in the Church.
Both of those statements are misleading and wrong. Jesus Christ certainly did leave a Bible when he ascended. In fact when he was born the Bible already existed. It is He who inspired it's words and it He who is it's subject. The entirety of the Old Testament proclaims Jesus Christ as He Himself proved in Luke 24 when "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."
The second comment is a non sequitur. There was no closed canon of scripture therefore...what? Sola Scriptura is wrong? That is the implication yet that is certainly not the reality. Sola Scriptura is:
affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice
Echoing that sentiment Irenaeus, writing in the second century, says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith."
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1
Likewise Ben's claim that there was no canon of Scripture for several hundred years means nothing. He should read Lee McDonald's "The Biblical Canon." In this book are various canonical lists which do not all agree. McDonald on pages 216 and 217 writes the following:
There is little doubt that the core of the biblical collection of authoritative books is essentially the same collection that we no have int he Protestant OT collection. What is in question in canonical studies are book on the fringe. These fringe books included both canonical and apocryphal books, were disputed among Jews and Christians for centuries, even though many leaders in the church and synagogue freely quoted these writings in an authoritative manner, sometimes even using the designations Scripture or as it is written to refer to them. Remarkably, these disputes took place for centuries after decisions were supposedly made about its canonicity. Yet in neither group - those who accepted and those who rejected the authority of this literature - was there any noticeable change in theology.
“The decision whether to accept or reject the deuterocanonical literature is not at the core of what Christianity is all about. As the Law of Moses formed the core of the OT, so also the Gospels and Paul have been at the heart of the NT biblical canon since the second century, even though there was a great deal of dispute over the deutero-Pauline epistles (especially the Pastorals), Hebrews, the Catholic (or General) Epistles, and Revelation. The Jews and later the Christians fully accepted the Law of Moses as the core of their sacred Scriptures. Soon thereafter, most if not all of the traditional Prophets and many of the Writings were accepted as canonical, but at a secondary level of scriptural authority among the Jews. Not everyone agreed on the contents of the Writings, especially not before the time of Jesus, but the division of opinion was not over the core, but over the fringe.”
The issue, writes McDonald, is fringe books and not the core. There has always been a core of canonical scripture for both Christians and Jews. At first the Christians adopted the Septuagint. Later they held the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be central to their doctrines. The very fact that there are lists at all indicates that Scripture was being appealed to as an authoritative source of doctrine.
Contrary to Protestants and even Catholics the Orthodox actually forbid the laity from reading the Scriptures. This prohibition is found in The Confession of Dositheus.
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, tt 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.
Benjamin is simply wrong about the Scriptures and about St. Basil.
Towards the end of the video David Patrick Harry says:
2:48:26 So, this is something I, I've done with one-on-ones, with young guys who, you know, go down the Ortho rabbit hole. They know all the theology, Church history, and I'm like well, ok, what parish do you go to? Oh, I haven't gone to a Church yet. It's like, why you tell, you're telling me you're Orthodox, what are you talking about? This isn't a belief system. This isn't an ideology this is a lived experience and so it's like, bro, that I'm really happy you've read all these books, um, but, go to a damn parish dude. Like, what are you doing?
Now, David did not mean to call the Orthodox Church damned but how is any Church which denies the right of the laity to read the Scriptures not damned?
The Gospel is a tradition stretching back to Adam
ReplyDelete