Orthodox Bridge has put me on the perpetual probation list. There are about four comments that probably won’t get approved (and about half a dozen from other sources refuting their Hellenism that will never see the light of day). While we are at it, I will put the spotlight on EO apologetics:
- Be loud on your “tradition.” Notice how they will quote the apostles on tradition, but they never demonstrate that what the apostles mean by tradition is what they mean by tradition, especially relating to content? Where did the Apostle Paul say you need to avoid food before Eucharist (contrary to 1 Corinthians 11:34)? If one cannot show that what the apostles mean by tradition is what you mean by tradition, that is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
- Ignore specific exegesis on Genesis 1-2. This isn’t uniquely an EO problem. All moderns are embarrassed by what the bible says on creation. A friend and I debate an Eastern Catholic who ridiculed creation theology. We then backed the truck up and unloaded dozens of Fathers who affirmed–gasp–six day creation. This is one area where Seraphim Rose cleaned house in debate.
- Apropos (2): Creation theology teaches a firmament is placed between heaven and earth. Later biblical theology identifies Jesus as the firmament between heaven and earth. If Jesus is the firmament between heaven and earth, how then can saints intercede for those on earth when they are separated by the firmament?
- Ignore the 5 fold covenant model. More and more I am impressed with Sutton’s fivefold covenant exegesis. Henceforth I will no longer debate TULIP. If anyone wants to attack Reformed theology, deal with the Covenants. Judicial Calvinism is all over the Old Testament.
- Does not the vaunted realism actually entail a chain of being ontology? Isn’t this fundamentally the same thing as magic religion? I agree that death is the main problem facing us, but the apostle Paul did not separate death from the judicial consequences of sin?
The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus 