I have only delved briefly into his writings. But it is clear that he assumes (based on his view of God as absolutely simple) that there must be an absolutely simple head of the ministry. This is one area where he goes wrong, and goes against the teachings of the fifth council. I did not get a chance to look at his patristic arguments about the papacy but I intend to give his stuff a closer read eventually.

Is there something in particular about Soloviev’s writings that constitutes a significant challenge to the truth of Eastern Orthodoxy?

Sorry for taking a long time to get back to you. You wrote:

“Thanks to all in this discussion. I will add some ideas that you all may have not looked at. First, the variety is far higher than you suggest. While there may be some differences between Catholic practice in various countries, in theory all major doctrine is the same. This is far less true in Prot. groups, where some have no central authority. The growing trend in the USA is non-denominational mega churches with no visible authority above the congregation. If this trend continues, the religious variety, and individual choice will be enormous.”

Do you think this trend is consistent with the biblical picture of the Church?

You wrote:

“Second, if I read the NT correctly, I see no defined authority of the church except fellowship/disfellowship, and that only applies to a congregation. The pattern is each beleiver is a saint, priest, and a direct servant of the HIght Priest, Jesus Christ. Also each Christian has the indwelling Holy Spirit, giving direct connection to God. In that aspect each person should have major authority.”

1. It seems that part of what the Church’s authority consists in is the power to interpret the revelation of Christ in a conscience-binding way. Consider for instance texts such as the following:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:19

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;” Acts 15:28

“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” Titus 2:15

The binding-loosing power of the Apostles is, given the Jewish context of these words, more than just the ability to excommunicate. It is also the power to authoritatively interpret the revelation of God. Acts 15 seems to be a time at which this power of binding and loosing was used by the Church to bind a “burden”, interpreting what the revelation of Christ meant for the inclusion of Gentiles into salvation. And Titus 2:15 seems to be an example of a non-Apostle (namely a local leader of a congregation) being charged with the use of this power to bind and loose. So it looks to me like the Church’s authority is more than just the ability to exclude or include people in fellowship.

2. With respect to whether this only involves congregations, Acts 15 does not seem to fit neatly or obviously into this pattern. Titus also seems to have a duty grounded in his office to ordain at multiple congregations:

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:” Titus 1:5

Timothy also seems to be involved in writing an authoritative letter to a Church that he is not personally located at (2 Thess 1:1). So these seem to be examples of extra-congregational authority.

3. Even though it is true that every believer is a saint, it doesn’t seem like every believer is equally holy. We must give honor where honor is due, and honor is due to those who are more receptive to divine holiness, who have received more gifts and are more fully indwelt by God.

4. Also, though all believers are priests, priest is a title that can be used to describe ministers in the Christian Church (Romans 15:16). Paul is said “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” The fact that there exists a priesthood of all believers does not preclude the existence of a ministerial priesthood, anymore than a universal priesthood in the Old Testament precluded the existence of a ministerial priesthood.

5. Furthermore, the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit initially in the life of a Christian does not entail that there aren’t other kinds of spiritual gifts that can be given—other ways of participation in the Spirit (1 Cor 12:28-31). Some of these divine gifts are had by ordination, for instance (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6). So just because all have the Holy Spirit does not mean that all have an identical role in terms of authority.

You wrote:

“Third, while I have read several comments above about Biblical Church authority, I have not seen any book, chapter, and verse. Look for I think it will be rare. I realize my brief comment has no references either, but I will work on them if anyone requires them. May we all cherish the work of the past, draw fresh air, and come to some glimpse of the eternal truth.”

If you can provide arguments for your congregational view of the ministry, that would be helpful in comparing the plausibility of each of our views.

I’m sorry for taking so long to get back to you. You wrote:

“It is good to see that you guys are still discussing these important matters. Although I am completely sympathetic to Orthodoxy, I still have a question about this post. Why not think that reason is the authority when it comes down to interpreting Scripture? Perhaps this type of authority is not similar to what you think is authority, but nonetheless it is sufficient. In other words, this type of authority does not require one’s conscious to be morally bound to an authoritative claim. Rather, one’s conscious is epistemically bound.

We often speak of (at least in philosophy) a person being epistemically negligent. That is, that person is being careless with her or his reasoning. Or that person is intentionally bypassing defeaters. Why is this type of authority not sufficient for the Protestant?”

1. One significant issue with that suggestion is the fact that the way Scripture seems to understand authority is in terms of an inherently normative power to bind the conscience. Consider these examples:

For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matthew 7:29)

Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3)

For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]. (Luke 7:8)

And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. (Luke 22:25)

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28-29)

These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (Titus 2:15)

These quotes seem to presuppose a concept of authority as the intrinsic power to bind human consciences. In the first quote, Matthew does not seem to be contrasting accuracy of interpretation with inaccuracy; after all, Matthew probably thinks the scribes are accurate on the whole in their interpretation of Torah. It is the way in which Jesus teaches, speaking as one who can prescribe action to the human conscience. With the second quote, we see an attribution of the power to bind human consciences to do certain things to the scribes and Pharisees. To say that this is nothing more than the ability to exegete a text well seems incorrect, because exegetical argument is not something that seems to be in view. Rather, it is the commands of people in authoritative positions that bind consciences. The statement of the centurion gives a similar understanding. To be an authority means to have a position in a society where you can bind human conscience by command. Notice how different command is from mere persuasion. When someone persuades, they appeal to the reason of another person and try and show that their claim is well-evidenced enough to be accepted. When a command to perform action x is issued, there is inherent authority to it. You should obey not because you find the arguments in favor of performing action x persuasive. Instead, obedience to a command is based on the fact that “*this* person said I ought to do x”. The conscience-binding normativity of the command is based on the fact that a particular person says “do this”. The statement about the kings of the Gentiles seems to show the same kind of concept is operative in the use of the word “authority”. In Acts 15 we have an example of an exercise of Church authority. Here it seems pretty clear that the Council’s decision is not merely a matter of plausible inference to be accepted by those who are persuaded on independent grounds that the council is correct. On the contrary, the decree is described as “lay[ing] upon you no greater burden…”, implying the laying of a small “burden”. The same idea seems to be in play with Paul’s exhortation to Titus. It goes without saying that Titus would want to make plausible inferences if he were speaking, exhorting, and rebuking others. So “do so with all authority” seems to be going beyond mere inferential operations of the intellect. If this is the correct way to understand these texts, then we need to assess whether or not the Church has authority from within this framework.

2. A second issue is this. Authority is linked to office in Scripture. Now, lets assume that authority is purely a matter of reason. If so, office would serve no purpose. Why do some people in the Christian Church have the office of Apostle, or of Bishop, or of Presbyter, or of Deacon? Is it just because they make more plausible inferences and are better Bible scholars? It sure seems like there are awfully good Bible scholars among the laity in any given denomination or communion, and they are sometimes better at it than clerics. So whatever office is, it can’t just be a matter of being a better bible scholar. The most plausible explanation for what office means is that the authority it confers involves something more than accuracy and reason (which plenty of people without office have).

3. It seems intuitive that the Church Christ established should have as much (or more) authority over its people as parents have over children or judges have over courts. For various reasons (some of which I have given in my comments to Nate) it seems implausible to me that parental or civil authority can be reduced to expertise (even if expertise can be called “authority” in a loose sense within our culture). Instead, there is an inherent conscience-binding normativity to what our parents and governments say. This is a higher kind of normativity than mere expertise. So if we would expect the Church to have higher authority than our parents or governments, and our parents and governments have intrinsic authority, the Church should be at least as intrinsically authoritative as our parents and governments.

You wrote:

“That is my first question. My second question is: Why not think that the Holy Spirit provides the authority for an individual to interpret Scripture? That is, the Holy Spirit leads the individual into correct doctrine. The main difference that I see is this: the Orthodox and others hold that the Holy Spirit leads the entire church into truth. We might call this a corporate view. On the other hand, why not think that the Holy Spirit merely leads an individual to the correct interpretation of the Bible? Why is authority not legitimate when it is no longer corporate but individualistic?”

Are you talking about the Holy Spirit bestowing accurate knowledge of the truths of Christian religion on an individual?

Does this question presuppose that accuracy is sufficient for authority? If not, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit could bind human consciences by direct divine revelation to an individual privately? If so, would confirming miraculous signs have to accompany this revelation?

Other than calling him a Gnostic, what else can be said of where most Orthodox think he went wrong?

Blessings,
Jonathan

The key question to the issue (irrespective of Williams’ writing) is this matter of the essence-energies distinction and absolute divine simplicity. Working that out through whatever means will be an important part for mutual understanding of the East and the West.

With that being said, St. Gregory’s work is commended to me by my spiritual father, so I am hopeful that regardless of the means of reconciliation (correction of one, the other, both, or a sort of understanding that the views are complementary/not mutually exclusive), that that reconciliation will come one day.

Blessings.

That was extremely well-put. Not only is this counter-intuitive, it implies a commitment to nominalism (at least with respect to the relationship between choices and character formation). It seems there is an intrinsic, necessary connection between sin (personal action seperating oneself from God’s goodness) and corruption (a disoriented state of psychological or physical being). This follows from the fact that choices are intrinsically and necessarily related to character.

If this is so, it is much easier to read Paul as commenting on this in Romans 1 when he mentions that the fact that sin leads to corruption *is* the wrath of God. Given that Paul should have already accepted that sin intrinsically and necessarily leads to death, if he believed God also retributively punishes sin by making human beings more wicked (whether through natural laws/secondary causation or immediately and directly), it would have been preferable for him to state as much, and clarify how what he is saying is different from the obvious fact that sin leads to death by nomological necessity. And the same goes for Romans 6:23 where he says that sin (the power or tyrant–not God responding to our guilt) pays us the “wage” of death. This seems to be highlighting a necessary and intrinsic connection–not something that is imposed arbitrarily by divine fiat. The alternative–God could make a world where sin leads to life–seems quite unacceptable. How could personal action of seperating oneself from life lead to a greater degree of participation in life?

And yeah, given that the Fathers weren’t nominalists and that Athanasius always speaks of death in terms of a natural law, it makes more sense to think that he is viewing things in terms of natural consequences.

I suppose one could hold that murder is necessarily intrinsically evil and still say that God can decree that it can lead to life. But that isn’t a much better picture; it seems to show divine disregard for intrinsic worth. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Reformed person was okay with that, though.

I’ve read some of it. Williams basically seems to think that Palamas had the same view of God as Aquinas, namely absolute divine simplicity (either that or his view is compatible with that of Aquinas, I don’t remember). At face value this seems rather bizarre, given his involvement in the controversy with Barlaam and the fact that in order to deny what Barlaam is saying you need to affirm that the essence-energies distinction is a real distinction. I didn’t pick up any positive argument for the controversial part of her thesis with respect to Palamas per se, but rather an argument that the essence-energies distinction is not stated so clearly as to rule out the possibility that it is a mental distinction in the Triads.

My impression is that Williams had omitted reading many much clearer texts in Palamas’ writings (ie. the Capita or Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlamite) which state the distinction very unambiguously compared to the Triads.

Also, (though this point is unnecessary given the above) regardless of the clarity or lack thereof with which Palamas says things, the distinction is in the earlier Fathers, and is necessary for the Christology of the sixth ecumenical Council.

If you would like me to take a closer look into Williams’ book, I can. But I doubt there is anything in there (and other people have confirmed this to me) that convincingly shows that Palamas did not hold to essence-energies as a real distinction.

Blessings!