Yesterday,
I received in the mail Chalcedon's magazine, Faith For All of Life (May/June
2014). The first article was "From the President", Mark R. Rushdoony,
with the title: "Defenders of the Faith" (pp. 2,3, 25). This opening article is
essentially a defense of "ecumenical" creeds and councils of
"the first seven centuries of the church". The article begins with
the following:
In
its rejection of the Roman Catholic Church, modern Protestantism has sometimes
erred by steering to the opposite extreme of an anarchistic repudiation of all
the church accomplished before the Reformation...
There
is a modern hostility to councils and creeds. Many wrongly suspect the creeds
of Christendom came out of the ecclesiastical equivalent of the political
"smoke-filled room," where a tiny cabal of churchmen decided to mold
Christianity to their own preference...
The
councils and creeds of the church were a very practical response to the need to
clarify doctrines that were being challenged...
The
focus of the controversies for the first seven centuries of the church was the
incarnation of Christ. The reason this was a source of controversy was that in
order to "fit" prevailing thought into Scripture, the Biblical
teachings on the incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity had to be rewritten.
This
changed the gospel, of course, and was resisted. Far from an attempt to mold
Christianity, the councils and creeds were a defense of what was often called
the "apostolic tradition," by which was meant Biblical faith as
understood and taught by the apostles.
(Page 2)
Aside
from the somewhat annoying use of capitals when using the terms
"Biblical" and "Scripture" while neglecting to do so for
the term "church" (except with reference to the RCC), and an
incorrect/narrow understanding of what "apostolic tradition" entailed
in the early Church, we have a solid affirmation of the ecumenical creeds and
councils of "the first seven centuries of the church". Though not
stated, I would argue that this affirmation implicitly points to the work of
the Holy Spirit in those ecumenical creeds and councils.
Mr.
Rushdoony then goes on to contrast what he believes to be the most important
distinction between the 'true' faith of Christianity with that of Greek
philosophy: "the Creator-creature distinction" vs. "a continuity
of being, where all being was seen as one, so that the difference between
men and gods was only one of degree, not substance." (Pages 2,3)
Now,
"a continuity of being, where all being was seen as one", is a
description of monism. But, in the very next sentance, Mr. Rushdoony writes:
The
Greek thought which dominated was dualistic. It held to at least two
metaphysical realms, material and spirit.
This
is quite confusing to me on two important points: first, most Christians embrace, "two metaphysical realms, material and spirit." And second,
if Greek thought is predominately "dualistic", then how can it
also be seen as, "a continuity of being, where all being was seen
as one" ??? What am I missing here...
I
would also like to mention that Mr. Rushdoony seems to be ignorant of the fact
that the Bible and early Church Fathers held to a doctrine termed deification.
This fact/issue further complicates stark metaphysical distinction that he
attempts to affirm in his article. [See the threads at AF which delve
into this doctrine, especially the last two: LINK.]
So
in ending, I would like to ask yet once again: what have I missed ???
Grace
and peace,
