I suppose that being Protestant for some three decades plus, I do not quite see the problematic envisioned by my co-blogodoxers in engaging Protestants in dialogue. Indeed, far more of my present friendships are among Protestants, than among Orthodox, and I do not know of one person with whom I interact on a regular and significant basis who is a strong Roman Catholic (although I know a lot of strong “dissenting” Catholics, which seems to my biased view to be a contradiction in terms . . . but I digress).

Although it is certainly true that Roman Catholics and Orthodox share so many fundamental assumptions that discussion can really get underway with far fewer clarifications, I believe the chief problem in dialoguing with Protestants is not differing ecclesiologies, vocabularies and soteriologies, so much as the inattention paid to Protestant assumptions. Roman Catholics and Orthodox, since they share so many of these fundamental assumptions can get right to the nitty-gritty of papal supremacy (over against Orthodox papal primacy) and infallibility, the differences between created and uncreated grace, and so forth. With Protestants, the entire process must begin with the pervasive rejection of the Tradition.

Perhaps I am a bit unusual among other Protestants, since the fellowship of churches I grew up in and for which I trained for ministry, were strongly oriented toward the “restoration” of New Testament belief and practice (as opposed, say, to a particular theological system, a la Calvin), and as such were both friendly to the Reformation and critical of it. So, in our churches, we believed in the sacramental nature of baptism (though “sacrament” was not part of our vocabulary) and immersed in the name of the Trinity–but, conversely, bought into the Zwinglian understanding of the Lord’s Supper as mere memorial though we practiced the observance of the Lord’s Supper every time we met, or minimally on Sundays, and almost always with the words of institution (no epiclesis, obviously). We were Protestant, but we had a “backward looking” hermeneutic. My journey to Orthodoxy (though it went through Anglicanism first) was not a large mental step, then. After all, what I wanted was the New Testament Church, which I’d been taught all my life to seek and labor for, and was willing to sacrifice any “system” toward that end.

That being said, however, I did share with nearly all Protestants the antipathy toward Tradition. It mattered little to me, then, whether the Church had always taught or done such and such . . . “what did the Bible say”? It mattered little to me that apart from the Church I’d probably be a Jehovah’s Witness . . . after all the doctrines of the Trinity, Jesus divine-human nature, and so forth were “plainly” right there in the Bible.

In talking with Protestants, then, I think what has to be confronted honestly and lovingly upfront is the self-contradictory nature of their paradigm. Things like: Where in the Scripture is the dogma of sola Scriptura? How does one know the Tradition is wrong on x, y and z? Or, why are Protestant traditions, where they differ from the historic Church’s beliefs, more authoritative than the historic Tradition? Does a hermeneutical paradigm have to be apostolic to yield apostolic teaching? If so, how would one know a hermeneutic is apostolic? Is it possible for two equally sincere, equally Spirit-led, equally faithful Protestants to be led by the Spirit to interpret the Scriptures in contradictory ways? If so, how is it possible to know one has properly interpreted Scripture? If not, how does one explain the contradictions among Protestants on fundamental doctrines such as soteriology and eschatology? On what authority does one decide which Protestant teachings are right and which wrong?

In other words, it’s the “Francis Schaeffer” presuppositional approach. Take the Protestant claims on their face, then work them through to their necessary conclusions.

It will probably do very little good to jump right in and argue the superiority of the Tradition over the Protestant hermeneutic. It will likely sidetrack discussions unnecessarily to argue whether triple immersion as a sacramental locus of grace is works righteousness. One will likely get lost in the hedges arguing over whether Darby-ite premillennial tribulationalism rapture eschatology shows the proper respect for Scripture’s inerrency than does amillennialism. Don’t start with conclusions, start with premises. If the premises fall apart, the conclusions will disintegrate.

Lest you think this is a useless exercise, let me suggest it is the way I “reasoned myself into” a serious investigation of Orthodoxy. You can read about how that worked for me at What I Have Learned.