I try not to keep interacting with Orthodox Bridge. I certainly can’t comment over there, given their commitment to triumphalist rhetoric. However, as bad and insulting as some of their articles are, they can be helpful to Protestants. If you are a Protestant looking at Orthodoxy, yet you also really know what you believe as a Protestant (an increasing rarity), and you see Orthodox guys reading your beliefs as such, you will be insulted. Similarly, I am doing the Orthodox a favor. If they will take my comments seriously, they will be better able to help honest seekers who know that the smarter Reformed, even if they are wrong, probably aren’t this intellectually stupid.
I am not going to interact with the whole article. It is somewhat self-feeding and you get the idea after a while. It is about a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy who detoured through low church evangelicalism.
The bad news is that often I would decide for myself what the Scriptures meant.
This is ambiguous. If he is saying “my mental faculties were functioning correctly and I was able to use syntax to figure out what the sentence said” then there is no problem. This is simply how language works. If he is saying, “I found out the meaning apart from any interpretive community,” then it is naive. But no Confessional Reformed church believes that.
I mean, I took sola scriptura (“only the Bible”) seriously!
No, you didn’t. That is not what sola scriptura means. It means the Bible is the norm that norms our norms. If you don’t understand that sentence then you need to quit apologetics for a while and study some more.
Let me hasten to say that the Bible is all God intends it to be. No problem with the Bible. The problem lay in the way I individualized it, subjecting it to my own personal interpretations-some not so bad, others not so good
Every evangelical leans this in the first 5 minutes of hermeneutics 101.
In fact, it seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became.
My tradition, the Westminster Confession, explicitly condemns the above statement.
Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity.
This isn’t exactly true. Paul’s statement that the Jews received the oracles of God would be meaningless if those silly Jews couldn’t identify the oracles of God.
Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.
After Beckwith’s book on the Old Testament, few scholars seriously hold the above line. Granted, if it falls much of Anchorite apologetics crashes to the ground, so they have a vested interest.
The rest of the article is too painful to continue. If Orthodox Bridge wants to operate with childish notions of Evangelical scholarship, that is their prerogative. I know they think that converts by the dozen are fleeing the Evangelical world, but I suspect those numbers are inflated. I will leave them with some key evangelical works on hermeneutics:
Kevin Vanhoozer, First Theology.
Michael Horton, Covenant and Eschatology
James K. A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation
Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation?
If you are even remotely familiar with the arguments in the above texts, then you can’t keep with silly posts like above. If you choose to ignore these above arguments, then you’ve essentially conceded the game.