A Question Answered and Replied

Thank you so much for commenting. Your opinion is insightful and greatly appreciated. I presume that you are of the Orthodox Christian tradition. Very good! I’m afraid my experience and understanding of that tradition is woefully limited and ignorant. I do have a few friends (while not Orthodox themselves) have a great respect for the Orthodox Church and its contributions to the faith. Nevertheless, I will comment on your comments.

The problem with evangelical Protestant theologies is that they are impractical, UNPRACTICED, abstract speculations and rationalizations.

First, I disagree that evangelical Protestant theologies are impractical. In fact, I have always argued that they are TOO practical. Second, I disagree that they are unpracticed. Rather, they are so practiced that they only become theology when they are experienced as practice and practical. Third, I definitely disagree that they are abstract speculations. In fact, one of the main problems with evangelical Protestant theologies is that it rejects any notion of the abstract. This goes back to points 1 and 2. However, I do see how someone outside evangelical Protestantism can think so. Now in terms of the theologies being rationalizations; here I must agree with you. Evangelical Protestant theologies (especially the more conservative strands) spend much more time than ever needed rationalizing their assented and inherited theological traditions. This is one reason why I have a strong reaction against most contemporary forms of evangelical apologetics.

The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical or speculative science, but as a positive science in all respects. This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspiration is similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of the positive sciences.

I must disagree with you here. I think the Fathers were way too concerned with such speculation. I think this is a tendency sourced in their Greco-Roman philosophical background. Way too much speculation for speculation’s sake. It seems all the Fathers did was write apologies. However, coming from a conservative background in which the established religious traditions are being questioned and in which many of that tradition’s religious leaders spend all their time and resources reacting against modernity, post-modernity and any unconformity, I do have a biased reaction against such apologetic speculation.

In terms of the similarities between the Father’s writings and inspired Scriptures and the positive sciences:

1) The religious Scriptures are not positive science documents in any sense of the phrase. One of the biggest problems we have in evangelical Protestant theologies is the equating of the religious and spiritual content of the Scriptures as scientific observations and theory.

2) But you do raise a good point: the patristic writings are very similar to “scientific” writings of the patristic period. The reason for this is that the “scientific” writings were philosophical in approach as were many of the patristic writings. It is not until the time of Copernicus that science separates itself from philosophy/religion and begins to focus solely upon the phenomenal. Only later will philosophy and religion have a similar separation.

3) So I can understand why the Fathers understood Scripture as they understood philosophy and science. This is why they got so much of each of the three disciplines wrong. Now that we are living on the other side of the Renaissance, Reformation, and the Enlightenment Age of the modern world, we can disregard much of their thought as ill-informed presumptions. Now if we can only teach my friends in Christian conservatism this we may have some intellectual evangelical Protestant theological growth.


Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations of specialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observes by means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of his training in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by the heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. The same is true of all the positive sciences. However, books about science can never replace scientific observations. These writings are not the observations themselves, but about these observations. This holds true even when photographic and acoustical equipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations, but simply aids in the observations and their recordings. Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by the instruments they invent and use.

My conservative friends that lean towards the Fundamentalist extreme of Christian “orthodoxy” (little “o”) have a similar view but coming from the opposite position. They believe that the Bible teaches science, history, diet, law, psychological counseling, and sociology in the same way textbooks teach science, history, diet, law, psychological counseling and sociology. However, they would say that observations can never replace the book about these subjects (i.e., the Bible). I suppose Fundamentalists are quite like the Fathers in that way.

The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor the writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They are about the revelation and about the word of God.

I agree. But I would differ in saying that the Bible is an infallible vehicle of that revelation of God’s Word while the writings of the Fathers are not.

Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are about these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This is why it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and not those who simply read about their experiences of glorification. It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who reads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, or saint who has the experience of glorification.

I agree. But see directly above for my one caveat.

The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of interpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by training and experience, know what their colleagues mean by the language used, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is in the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who have the same experience of glorification as their prophetic, apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what the Biblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification and the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reached glorification know how they were guided there, as well as how to guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of this same tradition.

Scientific interpretation is a far more precise means of interpreting that the religious venture. Sure, I can repeat the interpretive processes of Justin Martyr, Origen and Augustine of Hippo and arrive at their conclusion and often do. However, many of their methods of interpreting are today suspect and wisely avoided.

I see your point, but I must strongly disagree for several reasons.

1) Again, much of the hermeneutical methods of our religious ancestors are incredible.

2) Our patristic predecessors contradicted each other and were never unanimous in their interpretations.

3) None of the successors of the Fathers are unanimous in their interpretations of the patristic period. Opinions on what the Father’s opinions were is debated, conflicting, and biased.

4) Hermeneutics is both a science and an art. Therefore, as partly an art, it will never be as precise as repeated tests in a laboratory and will never gain general consensus of the scholarly community.

5) The Fathers were often wrong.

6) How do we know when someone has reached “glorification”? When they interpret the Bible as we prefer? Then the measure of “glorification” would be doctrinal assent and not Christ-likeness and the bearing of fruit. Absolute rubbish! If salvation is based upon the accuracy of our dogma and not on our relationship with God then no one can be saved.

This is one of the main reasons Luther split from the Church in Roman. Also, this is the main problem with evangelical Protestant theologies.

When we begin to equate the meaning of Scripture with our interpretations of the meaning of Scripture, then we run the prideful and arrogant risk of absorbing heresy into our beliefs, of rejecting all correctives, of dominating the interpretation of Scripture, and punishing all non-conformers with whom we disagree.


This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of tradition and apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin and Protestant traditions...

I’m afraid that you will find that ALL Christian traditions have these tendencies. Both the Latin and Protestant Church (especially the Fundamentalists) have these problems. Usually these problems become extremely noticeable when the leadership becomes fearful and attempts to control all that they can control to protect themselves. They decide to assume the role of God on earth and establish themselves as the arbiters of Truth.

But no need for us to fear; as a wise man once said: “If you let them do it to you you’ve got yourself to blame.”

I am free.