This does not lead to skepticism, however. Truth is objective. When two people agree about what is historically true, it becomes easier to compare and evaluate their presuppositions at points of disagreement.
When I read church history, I don't expect to see pristine models of perfection. Why? Because I accept the doctrines of total depravity and progressive sanctification. Professing Christians can be nominal Christians, and true Christians battle sin (Romans 7-8, Galatians 2, 1 John 2). While we can commend the faith of those who've gone before us (Hebrews 11), Christ is our model of perfection, and it is in His image Christians are conformed. This presupposition dovetails with sola scriptura, for it is what Scripture itself teaches.
Contrast this to the presuppositions of those whose traditions align with solo ecclesia (link). Because adherents of this sort of tradition - e.g. Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism - tend to create lists of venerable "saints" from church history which are discordant with lists of other traditions, adherents are incentivized to be zealous for the sake of sinful men rather than God. Solo ecclesia entails a distorted anthropology.
One example of this can be seen in a recent dialogue I had with an Oriental Orthodox believer (link) who attempted to defend the actions of Dioscorus at the council of Ephesus II (otherwise known as Ephesus 449). Dioscorus is regarded as a saint in Oriental Orthodoxy.
I pointed out that on Oriental Orthodoxy's own presuppositions, Dioscorus seems to have acted wrongly at Ephesus II. In particular, Dioscorus did not follow Apostolic Canon 74 (link):
If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him. ] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.
Maria Constantinou's article, "The Threefold Summons at Late Antique Church Councils," details in what way Dioscorus, who presided over Ephesus II, subverted this canon (link):
It is fortunate that the details of the parallel ecclesiastical threefold summons procedure and the way it evolved can be deciphered from the copious pertinent evidence from conciliar acts of the fifth and sixth centuries. The fact that detailed accounts of threefold summonses are a substantial and extensive part of conciliar proceedings and the minutes thereof does not come as a surprise, since the validity of a trial in absence depended upon the attestation of the orderly conduct of the summons...
A trial in absentia without three summonses was considered illegal, since the accused had to be given the opportunity to defend himself. It is indicative that the condemnations at the Second Council at Ephesus 449, almost all of which were imposed on absentees and uninvited, were unanimously declared void at the first session of the Council of Chalcedon; see, for instance, the bishops’ request to annul the deposition of Ibas of Edessa at the tenth session of Chalcedon: κακῶς ἐποίησαν οἱ παρὰ τοὺς κανόνας κατακρίναντες αὐτόν. τὰ κατὰ ἀπόντος γενόμενα ἀργείτω. ταῦτα πάντες λέγομεν· οὐδεὶς ἀπόντα κατακρίνει: Those who condemned him contrary to the canons did so wrongly. The proceedings against an absentee should be annulled. We all say this: nobody condemns someone in his absence, ACO II.1.3 § 5 p. 17 lin. 16–18; cf. also the verdict regarding Ibas’ reinstatement pronounced by Francion of Philippopolis and Basil of Trajanopolis: τὸν ἐν τῆι κρίσει μὴ παρόντα, ἀλλὰ μήτε προσκληθέντα κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον βλάπτεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐξενεχθείσης κατ’ αὐτοῦ ψήφου δοκιμάζομεν: Since he was not present at the trial and was not even summoned, we decide that he should in no way be wronged by the sentence passed against him, ACO II.1.3 § 175 p. 41 lin. 31 to p. 42 lin. 2; cf. Steinwenter, Kirchlicher Rechtsgang (fn. 4) 66–67; Troianos (fn. 4) 78 with n. 49...
ACO II.1.2 § 5 p. 9 lin. 16–19. Eusebius emphasised that he and Flavian were deposed at Ephesus II without being summoned to defend themselves.
Likewise does Richard Price speak of Ephesus II and Dioscorus in his The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. I (pg. 34):
None of those accused and condemned was present to defend himself – a breach of due process that was one of several reasons why this council ultimately acquired its distasteful reputation…Theodoret had been barred from the council by imperial decree (Chalcedon, I. 24) and Ibas was actually imprisoned (Chalcedon, X. 1). Although Domnus was in town, pleading absence due to illness, the synod made no attempt to give him any notification that he was to be put on trial – let alone the canonical three summonses – before proceeding with his case. None of the other bishops dealt with at the second session appears to have been present.
In short, Dioscorus acted uncanonically and against his own presuppositions. This is a problem for Oriental Orthodoxy. The problem is not merely that someone who is regarded as a saint did something bad - rather, it's that also Oriental Orthodoxy holds Ephesus II rather than Chalcedon (the latter of which condemned Dioscorus and revoked decisions made at Ephesus II) to be "ecumenical." If decisions made at Ephesus II were uncanonical (which, the Oriental Orthodox must admit, entails immorality), that must in turn affect Oriental Orthodoxy's theology of "ecumenical" councils and jeopardize its underlying presupposition of solo ecclesia.
The Oriental Orthodox believer with whom I spoke attempted to undercut my argument in four different ways:
1) He argued that Chalcedon also acted uncanonically.
2) He argued that Ephesus II was accepted by the emperor at the time.
3) The Apostolic Canons only apply to Christians.
4) Ephesus II had good reasons for their charges against those they accused.
The first counter is a tu quoque fallacy. He appears to have assumed that I was an Eastern Orthodox believer. His reasoning was that if I take it that Oriental Orthodoxy has a problem in dealing with Ephesus II, I would similarly have a problem in dealing with Chalcedon. Firstly, that wouldn't discharge the burden he bears regarding Ephesus II; secondly, because I am not Eastern Orthodox, even if I did admit that Chalcedon acted uncanonically, there is no issue. On the contrary, errors and immorality in church history are to be expected (WCF 31.4). As an aside, though, Chalcedon did follow Apostolic Canon 74 before ratifying the deposition of Dioscorus (Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. II, pgs. 69ff.).
The second response is irrelevant. If churchmen can make mistakes, so can an emperor. Even Dioscorus tries to blame the emperor instead of owning his own mistakes (see below). It might also be pointed out that when the emperor who accepted Ephesus II (Theodosius II) died and the new emperor called and then accepted Chalcedon, does that therefore obligate Oriental Orthodoxy to accept Chalcedon? Obviously, Oriental Orthodox believers say no. Further, how does Oriental Orthodoxy view the decision of Theodosius II to depose Cyril of Alexandria for a time at Ephesus I (i.e. Ephesus 431)? Did that deposition put in question the ecumenicity of Ephesus I? From conversations I've had, this is not the perspective of the Oriental Orthodox. In fact, I've been told by notable Oriental Orthodox apologist Daniel Kakish that 1) Ephesus I "could have been been considered ecumenical" even during the time Theodosius II deposed Cyril and, therefore, 2) imperial policy is "irrelevant as a criterion for ecumenicity. Eventual imperial backing of the determinations of the Cyrillian council is a bonus rather than a necessary condition" (link).
The third assertion is absurd. Nowhere do the Apostolic Canons say that they only apply to those one regards as Christians. On the contrary: "If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops..." The idea that the Apostolic Canons only apply to those whom one regards as a Christian would undermine the very purpose of canon 74. Even Nestorius was summoned three times at Ephesus I. He ignored the summons and was deposed.
Like the second response, the last one is irrelevant. The question is whether Dioscorus and Ephesus II acted canonically, not whether they had good reasons for charging those they accused. Did not those accused have canonical rights which, in the case of Ephesus II, were prevented them? Why were the accused 1) barred from being able to defend themselves or 2) uninformed they were even on trial? When Eusebius confronted Dioscorus about this at Chalcedon, Dioscorus' response to to try to pass the blame:
187. During the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘When Eutyches, whom I had accused, presented his plaint to the holy council, he mentioned that I was his accuser. I demand an inquiry of how, when the judge Flavian of sacred memory demanded that I as the accuser should appear, as proper procedure and the canons required, I was prevented from doing so.’188. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘When Flavian of sacred memory requested the appearance of Eusebius as Eutyches’ accuser, why did you, to whom authority to act as judge had been committed, not give orders for this in accordance with the canons?’189. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I ask that the testimony of Helpidius be read. I would not have had the power to prevent it, had not Helpidius brought an instruction in which he certified that the emperor had ordered him [Eusebius] not to appear.’190. Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘It was the admirable count Helpidius who didn’t allow him to appear.’191. Thalassius the most devout bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea said: ‘I was not responsible.’192. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘When the faith is being decided, this is no excuse.’
Dioscorus tried to excuse his uncanonical action by blaming emperor Theodosius II for barring Eusebius from appearing at Ephesus II - yes, the same emperor that the Oriental Orthodox believer above appealed to regarding the ecumenicity of Ephesus II is the same emperor to whom Dioscorus attempts to shift blame. Dioscorus is justly reprimanded.
When his responses failed, the Oriental Orthodox believer turned to obscenities (link), at which point I ended the conversation.
There is an irony in having zeal for sinful men rather than God: a distorted elevation of sinful men will always lead to a distorted degradation of others. A distorted anthropology leads to a distorted understanding of history. Both of these follow from a distorted theology, such as when one fails to uphold solus Christus, sola scriptura, soli Deo gloria, sola fide, and sola gratia. Presuppositions matter, and history confirms the principle that we become like that which we worship (Psalm 115:8, Romans 8:29). Let us take care to avoid idolatry.
No comments:
Post a Comment