An Interesting Reversal

I was talking to a Protestant a couple of days ago (very nice fellow, and pretty sharp, too), and he asked me what I was looking for that I left the Baptist world and became Orthodox.

I said I was looking for the living continuation of the Church of the Apostles, although I'm not quite sure I could have articulated it quite so cleanly then.

Somehow he misunderstood me to be saying I was looking for a church that did all the things the exact way the Apostles did, based on having figured that out from Scripture — which of course is not what I meant at all, and I said so.

What I meant, I explained, was that I was looking for the living community of faith that had maintained the fullness of the Apostolic life in the Holy Spirit from generation to generation from then until now, having received it from them in the first place.

I mentioned that, "Yes, I'm sure there are practices in our Church that the Apostles didn't do." (This is a common objection, and I was simply preemptively ceding the point, thereby emphasizing the difference mentioned above in my meaning.)

Much to my surprise, he asked, "Can you give me a couple of examples?" Now, he wasn't being rhetorical. He was asking for real, because he is not familiar with what we do at all.

Silly me. I couldn't name even one! I said, "Well gosh ... gimme a sec." I thought through all the things we do, and for each one an abundance of Scriptural and early patristic evidence flooded my mind. So I had to say, "Well doesn't that just beat all! I can't find a single thing we do that the Apostles didn't!"

It was just utterly strange, because I'm usually in the position of proving that the Apostles DID x, y, or z, but this time I was asked to prove the opposite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Hi! Feel free to comment. However, I was getting posts from different Anonymous people, and it's difficult to know who is who so I can keep the conversation straight in my head. So I'm requesting that you please bear with my weakness, and identify yourself. Even if you want to use a different name than your real name -- that's fine. But give yourself a handle for me, please. :) Thanks...

Popular posts from this blog

Non-Intervention In the Real World

I received a list of excellent questions from an Anonymous commenter on my last post, summarized by the first one: "How does non-intervention work in the real world?"  There are several followup questions, so I'll answer them here. You write: "If we maintain a standing army, we keep it at home to secure our own borders" So there is some discussion amongst non-interventionists as to whether or not the U.S. would keep a standing army?  This is more a dispute between Libertarians in general.  Most non-interventionists (including myself) would not go as far as to completely disband the military.  However, we would significantly reduce it's size when not in times of declared war.  The details of the reduction (which branches get cut the most, what we do with the hardware in the meanwhile, how we keep people trained in it, etc.) would be up for serious discussion. Would I be correct in assuming that “standing army” is a metaphor for all branches of the
Read more

Complementarianism...Why?

I just finished reading this post, entitled "Why women cannot be head pastors", by C. Michael Patton, whose insights I usually find spot on. However, I must disagree with his argument on this one, for the simple reason that it's not rooted in anything but a generalization, as several of the egalitarians, and a couple of the complementarians even, have pointed out in the comments (to his post, not this one — as of the time of writing at least). I am a complementarian as well, and as such it pains me to see this kind of argument being offered, because of it's weakness. Since it comes from someone who normally offers great insights, my fear is that people will get the impression, as one commenter did, that this is the best complementarians have to offer. EDIT 2/16/2010 10:33PM PST: Mr. Patton has clarified that he was not making an argument for complementarianism, but rather speculating on God's reason for the design, assuming it's true. However, I believe t
Read more

That Jesus Was In Fact Crucified On a Friday, According to the Scriptures

Introduction There are some who madly fight against the Tradition which the Church has received throughout the whole world, that our Lord was crucified on a Friday, and attempt to overthrow this taking as their key the sign given to that wicked and adulterous generation, that the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth , which is found in Matthew 12:40 . It is our purpose with what follows to show that they thus introduce an irreconcilable contradiction with ALL of the other Scriptures. Preparation To aid us in this task, we begin with the God-inspired Scriptures, which, as the beloved Paul says, are profitable for such reproof and correction and instruction. Here follows an exhaustive list of those sayings on this matter recorded in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles — that is, the New Testament. (NB: All Scriptures quoted from the King James.) Matthew For as Jonas was three da
Read more