I have no familiarity with Dr. Anders. I've never heard of him. Nevertheless, I've venture a few observations which are by no means intended to be comprehensive:
1. It really does not surprise me that he attended non-Reformed schools. His investigative process into the legitimacy of
sola scriptura has me wondering how he became a doctor. Did he ever read William Whitaker? Did he ever
himself apply the principle of
sola scriptura to the Reformed theologians he read? The root of his rejection of Reformed theology lies here.
As a segue into what follows, in a recent post, I wrote (
link):
I sincerely believe that Protestants who truly understand sola scriptura and the weakness of arguments against it have nothing to fear in reading church history. In fact, more Protestant apologists are needed in this arena, for as I've listened to various non-Protestant groups (e.g. Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism), it is here that much interaction seems to be taking place. Lord willing, I plan to write more about this, for it is fascinating that those who oppose sola scriptura experience more disagreement about the contents and perspicuity of post-apologetic, so-called "infallible" authorities... sometimes even within their own traditions.
Having recently invested in reading church history, I'll push back on two topics mentioned in the link:
2. On the veneration of images, the evidence cited is one-sided. Dr. Richard Price, who is Roman Catholic and has translated many of the acts of various "ecumenical councils" (including Nicaea II), is much more honest: see 46:52 (the early Christians, they wanted to distinguish themselves very sharply from pagans and so that did create a certain prejudice
against images) and 53:22 (the West got into difficulties because, as I said, you see,
the fathers of the fourth century express - no disapproval - of images but they
don't talk about venerating them and
Pope Adrian... he didn't really win the debate against the Franks)
here. Gavin Ortlund has done good work in this area.
3. Regarding the papacy, Dr. Anders says, "You find that very, very early on, Popes are making claims not only to a primacy of honor, but to a primacy of jurisdiction, meaning they claim the right to in fact intervene in the internal affairs of other diocese."
Ha! I would
love to hear a case in which a pope actually did that! See Price at 58:54
here:
Question: "Why did the bishops in Chalcedon feel they needed to judge Theodoret if Leo had already reinstated him?
Answer: Well, they didn't - they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the Eastern provinces. So Leo's reinstating for that was not decisive - a decision has to be made in the East.
Likewise, at the council of Constantinople 879-880, Price notes (
36:33):
From their first appearance the roman legits treated Photius as patriarch. Now, they claimed that it was Rome's decision to recognize him as patriarch that restored him - that he was therefore restored by Rome's voice in 879, to which the easterners of that council 879-80 said, "but no, we've accepted him for years!" They were not ready to recognize that Rome's voice made any change.
If you don't know the background: the pope of Rome attempted to depose Photius as patriarch of Constantinople around 10 years prior to this council. East and west patriarchates (including the pope) later reconciled in that a later pope of Rome recognized Photius as a legitimate patriarch and "absolved" Photius' of his prior actions - to which Photius and easterners basically rolled their eyes and got along to get along.
www.joshuatcharles.com
