Why Orthodoxy? Pt. IV

3. Consistency of Theology (Part IV of IX)

Because Orthodoxy honors the present and respects the past (even enough to confront it), it can also display a greater consistency of theology.

One of the first impasses in the beliefs of my heritage churches I came to while training for the ministry. Ours was a group of churches seeking to best understand the New Testament, and the Church of Christ revealed in it, so best to believe and practice those things the New Testament Church believed and practiced. This led to an historical-grammatical hermeneutic (much like the ancient Antiochene “school” which shaped St. John Chrysostom). Our intent, and tendency, was to let the Scripture speak for itself and understand it on its own terms.

So, it will come as no surprise that our view of baptism was that it was an act of immersion done in the name of the Trinity, for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the gift (and seal) of the Holy Spirit. Though my heritage churches would have rejected the term “sacrament,” nonetheless, this view of baptism is very sacramental. The view that we espoused was one which really took the Scriptural passages “on their face,” as it were. However, in complete contradistinction to our view of baptism, our hermeneutic was left off to one side when it came to the Lord’s Supper (or Eucharist). Here, rather than take the passages “on their face” (i. e., that consumption of the elements was consumption of the Body and Blood of our Lord, clearly stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11, for example), we took them “symbolically.” The “body” Paul was referring to was the Church. When Jesus spoke about eating his Body and Blood in John 6, he was just exagerrating to prove a point. And so forth.

This was inconsistent.