Questions from an old Church of Christ Friend to an Orthodox Convert

In July of 2012, I received an email from a dear friend from the first church we were in when we first became Christians. It was a church of Christ and this man was someone I respected very highly and I still do. I do not want to post the content of the email because most of it was personal and it would not be proper for me to post the content without his permission, but I do want to say that the content was of sincere concern that we had left the church of Christ and had gone to the Orthodox Church. He sent me a list of questions and I gave a response to those questions. Unfortunately, I have not heard from him since. I was hoping for a friendly dialogue and some open discussion. I thought I would post the questions and then the answers here because it seems pertinent to this blog and I hope it helps other better understand Orthodoxy, whether in or outside of it.

What evidences have you found to be reliable and convincing that:

a.     The Holy Spirit endorsed and provided for an unbroken apostolic succession of inspired bishops, in abrogation of His earlier practice of a plurality of elders in each congregation

b.    The Holy Spirit has abrogated the priesthood of all believers and rather retained a designated order of priesthood separated from laity

c.     The Holy Spirit has abrogated the words of Jesus that no man may be called a spiritual father

d.    The Holy Spirit worked in some but not all the ecumenical councils since the passing of the apostles

e.     The Holy Spirit endorsed the Eastern council but condemned the Western church

f.     The Holy Spirit abrogated 1 Tim. 2:5 endorsing the intercessory prayer and requests to the departed saints

g.    The Holy Spirit subjugated the canon to councils

Here is my response to the questions:

There is no need to be distressed over this! We feel very much at home and our entrance into the Church has been blessing upon blessing!
I feel, though, that the reactions we get that are negative or that concern people have more to do with a misunderstanding of what the Orthodox Church is...
I appreciate your openness to this subject. Our decision was not a flippant decision and took years for us to come to this conclusion. It was a result of diligent study, prayer, and God’s intercession...
To address your first series of questions, I want to first say two things. One, my answers to these questions will be completely pointless unless you can understand the Orthodox Church with an open mind. I completely rejected Orthodoxy because I was not open to hear why the Orthodox do what they do and thought it was too "Catholic". Second, all of these questions presuppose a doctrine (which I held religiously) namely Sola Scriptura, which was developed during the Reformation in response to medieval Roman Catholic abuses. A close look at church history (which I know you know very well) will show that Christianity had never held to Sola Scriptura. Scripture and Tradition together have always been the norm for the church from the beginning. In my response, it would be necessary to pretend for a short time that this is true, and I will explain why I think this is true and convincing in my answers below:

a.     The Holy Spirit endorsed and provided for an unbroken apostolic succession of inspired bishops, in abrogation of His earlier practice of a plurality of elders in each congregation

+ Plurality of Elders vs. Bishop Jurisdiction: As for bishops, it is clear that the early church had bishops.  Unfortunately, many translations like to translate the work of the bishop as "overseeing" since there is usually a predisposition against the office.  But one cannot read I Timothy or Titus without recognizing the office of bishop.  And the bishops were set up over churches by the Apostles.  That is clear from early church history. (see Ignatius’ work Magnesians, 6-7; As you know, Ignatius is writing in the time of the Apostles, 50 to 107. Also may want to check out his epistle to Trallians) The problem is, most anti-Catholic sentiment resulted in rewriting early church history to meet presuppositions/prejudices. In addition, I don’t think the word “inspired” is the best word because it indicates that you mean “infallible” which the bishops certainly are not and would admit otherwise. In fact, they are all accountable to each other and to the diocese they are shepherds over. It is possible for a lay person to depose a bishop if there is consensus among all others concerning the bishop. 

From the beginning (from the time of the Apostles until they laid hands on future bishops), there were three offices: Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. This is clear in church history and organized before the canon of Scripture was officially collected and canonized! Not all churches even had the pastoral epistles to refer to for chapter and verse! Presbyter simply became the word "priest" due to word evolution through time. On the other hand, the model of the Church of Christ as inherited from the restoration era is from Presbyterian and Baptist models whom had misinterpreted Scripture and were attempts to look as non-catholic as possible.

b.    The Holy Spirit has abrogated the priesthood of all believers and rather retained a designated order of priesthood separated from laity

+ Priesthood of All Believers vs. Clergy/Laity Distinction: The Holy Spirit has not abrogated the priesthood of all believers. I believe this thought is from a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church believes in the “Priesthood of all believers” but also recognizes that some are called to different roles in the church (much like there are ministers, elders, and deacons in the Church of Christ). However, the model for these roles are much more closer to the Apostolic/ biblical model of Bishop, presbyter, and deacon as opposed to the Elder, deacon, and minister (not a biblical office! Much less a pulpit minister or youth minister or outreach minister).

c.     The Holy Spirit has abrogated the words of Jesus that no man may be called a spiritual father

+ Calling a Priest Father: I want to ask an honest question. Was Jesus and the writer of the gospel thinking of Catholics when they wrote this passage? Was Catholicism and Orthodoxy being talked about here? Or did Jesus say not to call men “Teacher” and “Father” and "Rabbi"? Why do we just focus on the Father part, but ignore the Teacher part? I think a good look at the context would help with this one. This passage is from Matthew’s 23rd chapter (one of my favorites). He is speaking to the Pharisees who love to put heavy burdens on people and love to get the greatest seats and show how religious they are with their phylacteries and tassels. Jesus is making a point that these people love to be given great titles such as “Rabbi” “Father” and “Teacher”. But I believe my son has called me father and you call your dad father. And we call teachers “teacher”. If Jesus was saying what you think he is saying, then St Paul would be breaking Christ’s command (Rom. 4:11, Phil 2:22, 1 Thess. 2:11, 1 Tim 5:1). The term "father" is simply an endearment term and a way for us laity to show respect for the office. Jesus is the head of the Church.

d.    The Holy Spirit worked in some but not all the ecumenical councils since the passing of the apostles

+ The Validity of the Ecumenical Councils: The Seven Ecumenical Councils were the ones that clarified the already understood doctrines of the Trinity, the person and natures of Christ, and the canon of Scripture due to heretical teachings that were cropping up. These councils are acknowledged and believed by all Christians (maybe not the seventh entirely) as valid, and if not, they are considered heretics. Can you tell me the Holy Spirit was not at work in these councils?

e.     The Holy Spirit endorsed the Eastern council but condemned the Western church

+ Eastern Church vs. Western Church: Two issues split the East and West primarily when discussing doctrine. 1 – The declaration that the Pope has jurisdiction over all Christians and 2- The addition of the filioque clause (of which I like to say “what the filioque?!”). There were already divisions between the two culturally, but I believe we are concerned here with doctrine and theology. The East prides itself in keeping the Tradition untainted with little to no innovations. They are the true “primitive” church, which is why it may seem a bit strange to us middle class Americans living in the 21st century. But as a friend pointed out, after studying church history, Protestants and Restorationist look a little strange. The line was drawn when the West decided they were in charge (an example of councilor agreement of all the churches except Rome and the attempt to depose this bishop and resulted in excommunications). Additionally, the Roman church innovated and added that the Spirit proceeeded from the Father “and the Son” (filioque) from the already established and councilor agreement that it was complete. Since then, the West has continued to fall into heresy with doctrines like original sin, indulgences, the infallibility of the Pope, and the immaculate conception of Mary. With the Roman Catholic innovations came abuses which spawned the Reformation and led churches down yet another dark path (Calvinism, double predestination, Liberal Theology, TULIP and the list goes on). Not to mention, Sola Scriptura was supposed to be the key that brought everyone together, but now something like 30,000 (maybe more) denominations later, and here we are, wondering which one is right. When all along, the ancient church has preserved the fullness of the church. My decision was either to follow a form of Christianity that made everyone the pope (everyone interprets Scripture for themselves) or a form that made one man the pope (the infallibility of the pope). I can now only say what is the right church, not what is not the right church – but saying that, I will continue to grow in this richness and fullness we call the Orthodox church and which so many are deprived in modern attempts of Christianity.

f.     The Holy Spirit abrogated 1 Tim. 2:5 endorsing the intercessory prayer and requests to the departed saints

+ Intercessory Prayer: If you reject intercessory prayer, you would need to reject that 1- people who die in the Lord are not with the Lord and 2- we are not to intercede  for one another. Let me address the Scripture first. 1 Timothy 2:5 – The key term here is mediator. We do believe that Jesus is the one true mediator between God and man and NO ONE ELSE. A mediator is someone who brings two parties together in reconciliation. Now, to intercede is yet another word and not found in the passage of 1 Tim 2:5. If intercessory prayer is not something we should do, then you will need to cease praying on behalf of another person. When I “pray” (or a better, less confusing word “inquire”) to/of a saint (living or dead), I am simply requesting that they pray for me on my behalf as I would ask you to continue to pray for me. The only difference is, we believe that the saints are with God and that Mary is very close to Jesus. I simply ask the saints to pray for me and I don’t expect any communication from them (which is prohibited, the conjuring up of spirits and the like). So, the key difference in the use of that passage in this context is the word mediate and intercede.

g.    The Holy Spirit subjugated the canon to councils

+ Scripture and its development: Hmm, is this a trick question? J Anyway. As you know, the NT did not drop out of the sky on the day of Penticost and land in the Apostle’s hands. It was a work in progress that took at least a generation and a couple of generations to establish the final canon. There were so many different writings out there, but there was a consensus among the churches and bishops as to what was good for edification and that which was not of Apostolic origin. Many books were considered from the Shepherd of Hermas to the writings of Ignatius and other books (which found their way into our canon) almost didn’t make it, such as Revelation. In general, it was agreed, but there were people out there trying to get their particular theologies elevated and tried pushing for non-Apostolic books. This is when the Church and Tradition will need to step in. See, it was actually Tradition that helped form the canon, because, without it, we would be lost in knowing how to determine which book stays and which goes. This is clear in church history. Again, the councils did not “decide” what they wanted to put in the New Testament any more than they decided to “make up” the doctrine of the Trinity (which was also a result of Holy Tradition, btw). The Councils simply reaffirmed what the church knew all along in order to scale off the heretics.