Replies

I'll have to break down your paragraph to give you a better answer. :)

Is it a tenet of Protestantism that the hierarchs who determined most of the canon of scripture you study were merely performing a sort of automated housekeeping project, ...

In my view, God ALONE determined what would be, and would not be in scripture. He alone caused it to be correctly written, determined within early practicing churches, and finally assembled formally according to His exact specifications. All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?

Yes, there are squabbles about translations and the Apocrypha, and such, but those are squabbles among men. I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture. I would be fairly sure that none of us has a letter for letter copy of it. IMO, the vast majority of the problems come from interpretation, not translation.

... understanding little if anything of what they were reading, persisting as they did in their "unscriptural" liturgies and ecclesial structure, venerating icons, praying to saints, etc. ...

I have no idea how much the Fathers of that time understood, or didn't. I can't name a post, but I thought you had agreed earlier that in the first days the structure of the early Christian churches and the worship that was actually practiced was not at all under an "iron fist", as some would refer to it today. (Of course, this is much more so in Catholicism.) That would seem to leave open a lot of questions as to just how many actual Christians practiced the things you listed above.

In addition, the Bible is littered with examples of just how fast God's people turned against Him. The various experiences of Moses are one example. I make no comparison in degree, but merely point out that just because somebody does something "soon after" doesn't make it right by definition.

... so that, 1100+ years later, a few Western European guys angry at the medieval Papacy would finally and at long last sort of understand what was necessary for salvation and that from that "sort of" level of understanding arises the at long last harmonious theology of 21st century Protestantism?

Well, I think there is a debate on just when Reformed beliefs "started". Remember how many Patristic writings you have been so kind to show me I have found favor with? I figure there has to be a reason for that. I suppose it may go back to the interpretation of the interpreters. I do not at all think that my theology was "born" with the advent of the original Reformers. Those original Reformers were just the most famous ones to make a federal case out of it. :)

In my view, God ALONE determined what would be, and would not be in scripture. He alone caused it to be correctly written, determined within early practicing churches, and finally assembled formally according to His exact specifications. All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?

Indeed Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to accomplish just this! In fact there were 7 ecumenical councils where the representatives from EVERY CHURCH came together in the presence of the Holy Spirit to accomplish this. Not only were there hundreds of representatives there, there were thousands of priests, and lay folks there too!

Well, I think there is a debate on just when Reformed beliefs "started"

Well, the father of sola fide is Marcion. Some Baptist and reformed individuals see him as the start of the "alternative" church. In my opinion they couldn't have picked a better individual. :)

I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture.

Of course it touches on it. If one complete and perfect scripture existed, it would be perfect enough to exist forever in a literal form. It also would say so in the scripture itself.

God gave us the Church. She gives us the Holy Scripture, the holy Liturgy, the Holy Tradition and the living grace of God.

"All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?"

and later:

"I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture."

If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church. Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances). Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established (by the way, I say pretty much because there were issues about a couple of books of the NT until into the early Middle Ages in the East) by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.

Now:

"I have no idea how much the Fathers of that time understood, or didn't. I can't name a post, but I thought you had agreed earlier that in the first days the structure of the early Christian churches and the worship that was actually practiced was not at all under an "iron fist", as some would refer to it today. (Of course, this is much more so in Catholicism.) That would seem to leave open a lot of questions as to just how many actual Christians practiced the things you listed above."

But indeed you do have an idea of how The Church was working in the 4th century! You read +Athanasius on the Incarnation thoroughly. He was the Patriarch of Alexandria. You have read the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome. I wouldn't be surprised if you had read the Divine Liturgies of +James and +John Chrysostomos; we've posted many "snips" from them and links to them over the past couple of years. You recite The Creed. By the time of the late 4th century councils on the canon, the structure of The Church as you see it in the East today was already established. The liturgies were already being said in the same fashion and in virtually the same words they are to this very day. So here's the kicker, FK. The hierarchs, clergy and laity who determined (absent Luther's meddling) the canon you read today, believed the exact same things and expressed them in the exact same way that I do as an Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact, FK.

My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.