I don’t see the text from Acts or the text from Galations being at odds, in terms of the point I was trying to make, that Paul was a visible and concrete member of a visible and concrete church, connected to the apostles and their doctrine. Despite how many in the West tend to view him, St Paul was not a lone ranger.

The text from Acts makes clear that St Paul was a missionary under the authority of the elders at Jerusalem. After his conversion, he began immediately to preach Christ in the synagogues, but he also sought to join the disciples in Jerusalem and later was brought to the apostles by Barnabas. His “gospel” and the apostles’ “gospel” was squared (Acts 9) and approved by them. Later, when there was an issue (circumcision) “the apostles and elders (in Jerusalem) came together to consider this matter.” This was really the first “church council”. One of their “decrees” was that circumcision was not necessary, and the faithful were not to eat food offered to idols.

As Protestants we were formed (spiritually speaking) to reject Roman Church authority and to relocate spiritual authority to the private reading and interpretation of the scriptures. But as I think we both agree, some of the fruit of such a relocation (not all – many good things have come from the West) have produced the “Babel” of denominations, sects, cults and doctrines that we see in Christemdom. Many of them doctrinally (or by way of praxis) look nothing at all like the ‘rule of faith’ of the first or second century Christian church (this we know from history) and, I suspect, from the faith of the apostolic age itself.

Since there is no longer a consensus on what or who the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” is, there can be no Ecumenical Councils to decide what is truth and what is not, that would be accepted by those outside the apostolic age historic churches (Rome and Constantinople).

I would argue that Sola Scriptura cannot be a “baseline” from which to judge, because of the epistemological, philosophical and cultural influences you wrote about.

Where else? I would argue all roads point either to Rome or Constaninople.

I’m very interested in learning more about the early Fathers, and what elements of tradition were handed down. I know some of the basics, but not enough. The NT is very quiet on a number of issues, such as what the “decrees” mentioned in Acts were.

Kevin, I appreciate your input- I hope you’ll pop in again as I look at various elements of Orthodoxy and Tradition.

It’s one thing to read the Bible in an historical vacuum, and another to look to the collective wisdom of the church (even some Orthodox – such as Kallistos Ware and Bradley Nassif – have suggested that the Eastern church is missing out on what it could be learning from the West). I am trying to take the latter approach, but yes, I am taking full responsibility for my conclusions. Even if I would assume that the Orthodox Church is the only true church, I am making that decision. So, either way, it seems that the buck stops here.

My goodness, gentlemen. How your wagons are circled! I retreat to the hills with Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, Calvin (not Luther, of course), Wesley, Kierkegaard, Barth, and all the other miscreants who, it seems, have completely missed the boat. Thank goodness we have the East (and you guys, of course) to set us right.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it just seemed appropriate in this case. Must be another piece of Western baggage I carry around.

Plato gave Christians a conceptual framework, not a theology.

Agreed. However, as I tried to bring out in my post, there is a marked difference as to how it was appropriated by Augustine and other Western thinkers than in the East.

The Eastern approach is to use it as you state: a model, imagery, or a concept that can express what is already believed. John’s use of “Logos” does that. Augustine, however, actually believed in neo-Platonism, believed in the eternal forms, already believed in a Manichaean dualism, and applied Christianity to these beliefs. Later, of course, Christianity was conformed to other worldly philosophies, including rationalism and existentialism. While the Enlightenment may have been spearheaded by deism, the Church sucked it up quickly. Remember, the RCC was the channel for Plato and Aristotle in the west, and Descartes was himself a Christian. As Luther’s encounter with the RCC shows, the Roman church was “progressive” in the sense that it was quick to forget its own origins, ignoring earlier beliefs in favor of whatever was in vogue at the time.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself.

And yes, I have admitted that I do have a thesis, although one that is subject to change.

As one professor of history (early church) and theology at Fuller Theological Seminar acknowledged to me, the real question is not has Western Christianity been changed since the ante-Nicene fathers (because any serious study reveals it has); the question he posed, rather, was “does it matter?”

Had I been literate enough at the time, I would have quoted Irenaeus to the good professor: “Since, then, the conserver of our salvation is faith, it is necessary to take great care of it, that we may have a true comprehension of what is.”

I took it as my responsibility (then) to find out what the true, apostolic faith was and began with the ante Nicene fathers, as you undoubtedly have. I discovered a stark contrast – in theology, worldview (pre-modern of course), language and praxis – between what the “early church” viewed as Christian life and faith, and what Western Christianity became. Even Luther – as you correctly point out – held a more “patristic” view of salvation (theosis) than his successors. Luther wrote: “For it is true that a man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him [man] “God” and God’s son”. (Sermon on the day of St. Peter and St. Paul (1519). Where would you hear that — and many other things Luther wrote of — from a Lutheran pulpit today?

So I had to ask myself: “DOES it matter?” Does discovering and holding to the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” matter?

For me it did and still does!

As to Fred’s comment and rhetorical questions: “A ‘pure expression’ of Christianity? Good luck with that. But if you do find one, will they let you in the door?”

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a “pure expression” by your (and any) definition; and if they let me in the door (and they did, thankfully 15 years ago) I have no doubt they will let you in, too!

May God grant you courage and peace in your journey!

Plato gave Christians a conceptual framework, not a theology. There are, for example, very strong Platonic elements in Gospel of John. Would you say that John’s gospel has been compromised because of it? In the same way, Aristotle gave to theology a logical method of inquiry, not a theology itself. Why would you reject our of hand tools that help the mind engage faith? The project of Medieval Christian thinkers was faith seeking understanding (not understanding seeking faith, which is how you seem to characterize it).

The Enlightenment project as most understand it was primarily driven by deism, not Christianity. However, during the Enlightenment there were genuine Christian thinkers who did not accept deism’s propositions. Yet the Enlightenment thinkers’ insistence that faith claims at least acknowledge what science was discovering of the natural world is not only “reasonable,” I think it is spiritually responsible. The current battle over evolution is not some distortion of Christian doctrine; it is a real deal, one which Enlightenment Christians and deists alike would recognize. Yet to assume that the “triumph” of the Enlightenment was a triumph over historical Christianity would be a big mistake.

Again, I take issue, not with asking questions but with begging them. I simply do not accept the assumption that Christianity would be better off without Plato, Aristotle, Augustine or the Enlightenment. A “pure expression” of Christianity? Good luck with that. But if you do find one, will they let you in the door?