This could have been an important question (if it were answered)

At OrthodoxBridge an EO guy wrote,

Outlaw Covenator wrote, “Fair enough, but how do I adjudicate between Romanist claims of tradition and Orthodox ones? I have to use something like my autonomous reason to judge between the two.”
The answer to your question is to follow the road of history. Orthodox claims to the “full” tradition goes back centuries and centuries, many of them to apostolic times. The R.C.s have many teachings that stop at the middle ages — thus “NOT” Apostolic.

The context is how do I determine which tradition is authentic?

To which I responded,

Would I use reason and historical investigation to find that out?

Does anyone see where this is going?  Earlier on my blog Canadian chastised Protestants for setting their reason above the church.  This puts me in a bind.  On one EO gloss I am supposed to just submit to the ancient wisdom of the church. On the other hand, I am to use that same reason in historical investigation.   It appears we cannot escape private judgment.

7 comments on “This could have been an important question (if it were answered)

  1. John says:

    The best answers don’t tell you to never use private judgement. If you’ve talked to Perry, I’m sure you’ve talked about this, right? If not, I’m wondering why that never would have come up. Pointing out their inconsistency is a fair move, though.

  2. olivianus says:

    One of the biggest reasons I am still a Protestant and an issue that Anchoretics simply cannot answer. This issue is a spear to the heart if any honest anchoretic christian.

    • I don’t see how Perry actually answered the question in that post. He concedes the point but seems to say, “Yeah, but they don’t really understand it,” which might be true but it seems know more special pleading than what the Nestorian, Armenian, Romanist, Copt, and EO can say.

      • As to questions of knowledge, historical investigation and such seem sufficient for one to come to know the truth in such cases, though they do take a fair amount of work.

        But private judgment is not a thesis about coming to know something per se. It is a thesis about what is or could be binding on a person and so is about normativity.

        Once one has identified a due authority with the first,. submission to their judgment comes in the second.

      • I don’t concede the tu quo que nor can it be drawn out from anything I wrote at that link.

        It isn’t special pleading in cases with rival claimaints if I judge in the realm of knowledge that their claims are false, because again, we are dealing with knowledge. I at least have to believe if not know that such and so is a due authority before I submit. So it isn’t special pleading because the standard re: epistemology is the same. We just disagree on the facts and arguments.

  3. The standard comprehensive examination of Orthodoxy from a biblical perspective: “Eastern Orthodoxy Illuminated by the Gospel” by Serbian author Ivica Stamenkovic has been translated into English and is currently in the editing phase and will be released shortly. Please visit for more information.

Comments are closed.