Hello readers. It has been a good debate thus far. I have sent my six cross-examination question to Jay Dyer and he told me he would answer them as soon as possible. I have appreciated his cordiality in the midst of our debate.
To whet the appetite of our readers, here are the six questions I asked him that he will respond to:
1. Jay, Kallistos Ware admits that the Orthodox have a problem when it comes to the Ecumenical Councils because there were some where bishops were present but the Church does not accept, i.e., the "Robber" Council. The Orthodox try to respond to this by saying, then, that it is the idea of what the "Church accepts," and that's the only way, then, that a Council is viewed as dogmatic. But the problem here is that the Oriental churches (Copts, etc.) do not accept the Formula of Chalcedon and are monophysite. So, how would one "searching out" the truth of Orthodoxy know if he or she should accept the Oriental churches (monophysite) or the Orthodox, based upon that line of reasoning?
2. I of course reject the Pope as you do, but, it seems inconsistent to me that you have such a high view of the Church Fathers here given your thought. You have said that the Eastern Fathers did not accept the *jurisdictional* authority of the Pope, but merely a primacy of honor. But if that is the case, then how do you explain the numerous *Eastern* Father's quotes which very clearly spell out a *universal* primacy with regards to *jurisdiction* when it comes to the Roman Pontiff?
3. Wouldn't you say that Scripture, as part of your tradition, is necessary for faith and life? If so, then how can one not see it as problematic that the Orthodox Church can't even agree as to the extent of the canon (the extent of the rule for faith and life)?
4. If the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father alone, as the Orthodox understand, and not from the Father and the Son (filioque), how do you understand the fact that He is called the "Spirit of Christ"?
5. Your quotes on infant baptism have shown once again how paedobaptists beg the question. If infant baptism was so clearly the apostolic practice, then why does it not become universal, as many scholars now agree, until well until the sixth century, and why do we find no clear evidence of it practiced at all until the late second/early third century?
6. How does Orthodoxy deal with the numerous Scripture texts which speak of "atonement" and "guilt" and "judicial reckoning" etc., being that it has an aversion to judicial categories? How does this not further prove that Orthodoxy does not take into account the full biblical revelation?