“John became a Baptist after reading Scripture and becoming convinced of Scripture’s authority – even over the church he had been a part of.”

I think it would be better said that John became a Baptist after reading Scripture as interpreted and taught by the Baptist confession. Sola scriptura is not so much an incorrect practice as it is a non-practice; it is, I would posit, impossible to engage Scripture apart from some kind of traditional interpretive rule, whether from the Reformed West or from Constantinople. John — a victim of parents who did not do for him what parents should do (make the home a “little church” where Christ, His Church, His saints, and His Scripture are exalted, and make attendance at “big church” a regular, cherished practice) — heard the kerygma of the Christian faith from the Baptists: “Repent and live the gospel.” That he did not hear such from his family and church will be on their heads at the Judgement Day. But to say that the pure, unadulterated influence of Scripture is what turned him, well…I would say it’s all about who tells you what that Scripture says.

Ah, one more thing (forgive the length)…you asked how our use of Tradition in interpreting Scripture solves the interpretive problem. I would simply point to the few number of churches where Tradition is used to interpret Scripture, as opposed to the many confessions (hundreds? thousands?) that jettison the Great Tradition in favor of trying to “reform the wheel,” as it were.

All that having been said, you did a very fair, very amiable job of interviewing our brother in Christ.

I guess the big question is how different would things be if John was ingrained as deep into Orthodoxy as Theron was Baptist? If John did what the Church Fathers tell us to do. To treat the family as the “Little Church” and pray regularly with one’s family. To constantly read the scriptures. If he went to all the services and listened to the entire Psalter being read through every week. If he read the Church Fathers. If he participated in the Divine Liturgy regularly. The Truth is, if one participates in the entire weekly cycle of the Church, more scripture is recited in one week, than one hears in a year in a baptist Church.

John knew nothing about his faith. He knew the motions, but he didn’t understand the depth Orthodoxy has. I don’t doubt in the slightest that John is reading the scriptures now and going regularly to services. The thing is, he didn’t give Orthodoxy that chance before concluding that Orthodoxy was just plain wrong.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

Orthodoxy has dead churches just as Baptists have dead churches. In fact, there were “dead churches” from the beginning as we read in the book of Revelation where Christ calls these churches to return to their first love – to revive their devotion.

What happens if you are in a “dead Church” but have a living faith? Do you abandon the true doctrines in favor of a church that has false doctrines, but a more zealous following?

I don’t know, what group has more martyrs for Christ?

My thoughts rest on your third point as well. What do you mean by “Scripture as the final authority”? From your comment, I sense you misunderstood Theron’s point, at least as you summarized it in your interview. I cannot connect the things he said to the conclusion you draw from it. Nor do his words which you quoted actually seem to say to me what you assert in this post. Rather, Theron seemed to be making the statement that he came to recognize that it was not actually ‘scripture’ he was holding to as ‘authority’, but his own personal interpretation and understanding of scripture, often as shaped by the interpretation and authority of others (not least the teams of interpreters that provide us the various english translations). Nevertheless, he was the final authority in that he could pick and choose the interpretation of scripture he would hold.

I’m Protestant, but that is an accurate description of the core of ‘sola scriptura’. The phrase at the reformation actually meant the reformers rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium to interpret Scripture and asserted their own right to do so. Theron is essentially correct that that is what it means to be Protestant. And that path carries great danger and risk. Witness the abuses and splintering of the Protestant tradition. They are not the same dangers and risks (though often strikingly similar) as the other two great traditions carry, but I’m not convinced they are any less in degree.

We lie to ourselves and twist our own interpretations just as easily (sometimes moreso) as any external authority. Scripture must be interpreted. And the interpretation you choose to support illustrates the authority you have chosen.

A more chastened statement would be that the Holy Spirit exercises its authority over the Church in part through Scripture. And I believe that view is more consonant with our own text than attempts to turn our faith into a religion of sacred writings, as so often seems to happen to people in our culture.

It is difficult for me to imagine Theron as a Baptist in Romania becoming Orthodox, just as it is hard for me to picture John as a faithful Orthodox believer in America turning to the Baptists. The importance of culture in these discussions cannot be underestimated, but that doesn’t mean that it all boils down to culture.