Carlton, The Way
Canon
Canon is nothing more or less than a form of the Latin word canon, and the
Greek word κανών, our English cane, which
means rod or stick, particularly such a rod or stick used to measure: hence, a
measurement, rule, or standard. Everyone
operates by measurements, rules, and standards.
A list of the books in the Bible is such a canon. So also are the motions passed at assemblies,
councils, or meetings of churches.
Although this latter use is a little archaic, some churches still use
the term in this way[2], and the
study of such legislation is still known as canon law. When such canons or rules take the form, “I
or we believe” they may also be known as creeds.
“Protestants have consistently
exhibited a rather cavalier attitude toward the canon of Scripture.”[3] This statement is simply in error: for
example, both English and German Bibles still contain the Deuterocanon. While not every Protestant realizes the
importance of this fact many Protestants do.
The continual tarring of Luther is
of no benefit: it does not conform to the facts. Nor is the tarring of Calvinists
profitable. Calvin and Luther wrote
commentaries on nearly every book in the Bible.
If there is a cavalier attitude
being expressed here, it is the cavalier attitude of Orthodox investigation of
western scholarship and its numerous contributions. Were the studies and publications of Philip Schaff[4]
ever destroyed, Orthodox studies in the west would simply cease to exist. Since all English-language-Orthodox worship
is dependent on such scholarship, it is absurd to maintain that Protestants are
cavalier about the canon of Scripture.
Protestants, if anything, have heightened the serious discussion of
canonicity. Protestants may have made
errors of judgment,[5] but they can hardly be
dismissed with the pejorative, “cavalier”.[6]
Creeds
Creed is nothing more or less than a form of the Latin word, credo, which
means, I believe. Every time expressions,
like I or we believe, are used a creed is formed. Since such expressions are household words,
parts of normal everyday conversation, it is a bit naïve to seriously contend
for “no creed but the Bible”[7]. The statement “no creed but the Bible” is
merely a slogan that does not mean what it seems to say at face value.[8] The slogan “no creed but the Bible” is itself
a creed. Everyone has creeds, many of
them. The slogan simply means that some
issues in some creeds are contested. If
a creedal statement is directly contradicted by the Bible, or unsupported by
the Bible it is improperly designated as an article of Christian faith. There are many creeds, which ought to be
believed, outside of Scripture, which have no bearing whatsoever as articles of
Christian faith.[9]
“There was no mention of being
changed into the same image [of Christ]….”[10] They should have read Luther. Although this report offers interesting
insights into the Southern Baptist faith and message, as well as a partial
review of recent Southern Baptist history, these perspectives are virtually
worthless for the evaluation of other church bodies. Even the partial review of the SBC is
disrespectful in that it fails to give credit where credit for fullness is due:
especially in the work of Billy Graham and the missions efforts related to Lottie
Moon. There can be no serious discussion
of the fullness of The Church, without at least recognizing the Graham evangelism
contributions and mission efforts named in honor of Moon. It is indeed unfortunate that mention of
being changed into the image of Christ went unheard or unheeded: I am sure many
such lessons abounded elsewhere within the SBC.
“The text of the Nicene Creed was
altered by the Roman Catholic Church in the eleventh century. This is one of the reasons why the Orthodox
Church is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”[11] This statement is just so much historical
ignorance. The filioque discussion is
known at least from the sixth century, after which it became entangled with the
“Ecthesis” and “Typos” controversies.
The testimony of Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662), Letter to
Marinus - on the Filioque is revealing.
“They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin
Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel
of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not
made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the
only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by
procession – but that they have manifested the procession through him and have
thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore
been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse
them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it
has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].”[12]
Hence, the
Orthodox have done as much as anybody to defile The Creed. Particularly repugnant is the substitution of
“I” for “we” which appears to be a concession to European modernism. In any case recent Catholic publications have
made it clear that ‘Filioque is no longer a “Church-dividing” issue.’[13] Thus if St. Maximus and current
Catholic documents are to be believed, filioque never was and is not now an
issue. The two cultures continued in
fellowship until the Council of Florence (1449), when the Greeks left feeling
betrayed.
Not to pour salt in old wounds, but
when the Lutherans appealed to Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople the
principal reason cited for the rejection of the Lutherans was the filioque clause.
It should be clear that either Saint
Maximus the Confessor is correct or Jeremiah II is correct; but both cannot be
correct for they hold opposing views.
Because Saint Maximus is such a shining light in The Church, I’m
inclined to prefer his testimony over that of Jeremiah, who is otherwise
unknown. If this reasoning is allowed to
stand, it appears that the real reason that the Lutherans were not received
into Orthodoxy is that they were turned away without sufficient grounds.[14]
Ancestry
The pivotal creed of all time might
be, “Honor your father and your mother.”[15] In seeking to rightly honor their ancestral
heritage, the Orthodox write statements like the following.
“We preserve the Doctrine of the Lord uncorrupted, and firmly adhere to the
Faith he delivered to us, and keep it free from blemish and diminution, as a Royal
Treasure, and a monument of great price, neither adding anything, nor taking
anything from it.”[16]
We do not have the context of this
letter. As an aim or goal of Orthodoxy,
the letter is worthy of note. As a
statement rightly honoring theological ancestry, it can hardly be
excelled. As a claim of excellence in
fullness, the letter cannot be sustained, the lapses within Orthodoxy are too
numerous to make such a claim credible.
As an instrument intended to invite gullible Protestants to dishonor
their own theological ancestral heritage it is self-contradictory: it cannot
both honor and dishonor at the same time.
If we are to honor all of our
fathers and mothers in the Lord we may not insist that particular ethnic fathers
and mothers be honored while other ethnic fathers and mothers are discredited
and despised. The theological ancestral
heritage of all people must be honored to complete the promises to Abraham and
accomplish the fullness of The Church. This
means, at the very least, emphasis should be placed on what various peoples
bring to the table: as with the Baptists, Graham[17]
and Moon[18]; Schaff[19],
the Calvinist; Brock[20],
the Oxford Scholar; Lewis[21],
the Anglican; St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic; Calvin and Luther, the
Reformers, and even to some extent Zwingli; just to cite a few. This is the legitimacy of Catholicism; this
is the fullness of Orthodoxy: to honor the works of all done in the faithful
service of Christ, forgetting and forgiving the shortcomings of all as time
allows old wounds to heal. This is not,
however, blanket approval of every vile heresy, and everything that Christ
forbids. It is not even a request for
painting over of any differences. Yet, Christ
is the judge of all such matters: let Him find in us open hearts of forgiveness
and peace.
[1]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), 221 pages
[2]
The Canons of Dort, for example
[3]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 29,
note 13 See also:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm.
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
[5]
Who is there in The Church who has not erred, save Christ? Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant history
and historical documents are filled with errors, some of these errors are
downright blunders. Few come to the
table with the wisdom of Apostles, or even a Gregory, an Augustine, or an
Aquinas. The Holy Ghost’s protection of
The Church comes as it speaks the things of Christ from the Bible with One
Voice.
[6]
The simple command of the Bible is to honor both father and mother, which
Christ accomplishes perfectly; which, by the power of the Holy Ghost, we are
empowered to also do, albeit somewhat less perfectly. The Way’s line of argumentation
invites us to disrespect and dishonor our ancestral heritage in defiance of
God’s Word.
[7]
“This “creed-buster” emblem sums up free church Protestantism perfectly….” This statement ignores the fact that many
Protestant denominations do embrace the Nicene Creed. I have even seen a tapestry of the Nicene
Creed prominently displayed on the walls of an SBC church. My first lessons in the value of the Nicene
Creed, came from my mentor, Dr. Estep, at SWBTS. Baptists were decidedly creedal at the end of
the nineteenth century when Spurgeon held sway.
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997),
page 64
[8]
No one means that they have no faith, or that they don’t believe anything
unless it is written in the Bible.
Everyone believes that they have a house, a car, a family, a particular
church: none of which are in the Bible.
[9]
1 + 1 = 2; cars generally have six wheels: four for support, one for steering,
and at least one spare; cooked carrots are a good source of beta carotene,
which the human body converts into vitamin A as part of the normal digestion
process.
[10]
As defective as this sermon illustration is, it does not establish the
defectiveness of SBC faith or creeds in general. Carlton, Clark, The Way,
(Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 59
[11]
Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 71,
note 8
[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy
[13]
ibid
[14]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/jeremiah.aspx
[15]
This verse appears to be the cardinal center of the Decalogue, when we begin to
understand that Jesus Christ is the Son who perfectly honors the Father God, as
well as His mother, The Church. The
Church is in turn typified in both Eve, the mother of creation, and in Mary,
the mother of God. Exodus 20:12;
Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Ephesians
6:2
[16]
Carlton quotes Ware, who quotes Williams, who quotes a letter of the Eastern
Patriarchs, Carlton, Clark, The
Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 72, note 9
[17]
Billy Graham, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham
[18]
Lottie Moon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottie_Moon
[19]
Philip Schaff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schaff
[20]
Sebastian Brock, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Brock, and
http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/ec/sbrock.html
[21]
C. S. Lewis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
[22]
If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment