Review of Appendix 1: “Of Rock and Sand: A Critique of Josiah Trenham’s Appraisal of Protestantism”

Review of Appendix 1: “Of Rock and Sand: A Critique of Josiah Trenham’s Appraisal of Protestantism”

“The above article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style, and using AI for the glory of God.”

Review of Appendix 1: “Of Rock and Sand: A Critique of Josiah Trenham’s Appraisal of Protestantism” in Joshua Schooping’s “Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church”

Joshua Schooping’s “Disillusioned” (2022/2023) offers both a personal memoir of his journey into and out of Eastern Orthodoxy, where he served as a priest, and a substantive theological critique of core Orthodox claims in iconology, Mariology, and ecclesiology. Appendix 1, titled “Of Rock and Sand: A Critique of Josiah Trenham’s Appraisal of Protestantism,” is a focused and incisive scholarly intervention. It systematically dismantles the polemical framework of Archpriest Josiah Trenham’s “Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings” (3rd ed., 2018), exposing its reliance on caricature, selective historical narration, and theological misrepresentation.

Schooping approaches his task with the methodological rigor characteristic of confessional Protestant scholarship. Drawing on primary sources, including Reformed confessions (Westminster Confession of Faith, Second Helvetic Confession), the writings of the Reformers (Calvin, Bullinger, Zwingli, Luther), and patristic-historical scholarship (notably Edward Siecienski’s “The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy”), he demonstrates that Trenham’s presentation of Protestantism frequently distorts or omits the content of historic Protestant theology. The appendix avoids ad hominem while noting the asymmetry in Trenham’s treatment of historical foibles: moral failings attributed to Reformers (e.g., Luther or Calvin) are highlighted without equivalent scrutiny of Byzantine or Orthodox precedents. This contextualizes Trenham’s work not as a neutral appraisal but as advocacy shaped by prior critical distance from Reformed convictions during his Westminster Seminary years.

Among Trenham’s most egregious misrepresentations, his treatment of the “filioque” stands out for its rhetorical excess and historical inaccuracy. Trenham characterizes the Western addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as “a diabolical and heretical attack upon the Lord God Himself” (RS, p. 171), aligning it with anathemas in the Eastern Synodikon. Schooping refutes this by citing Siecienski’s demonstration that Eastern Fathers such as St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor affirmed versions of the “filioque” (or closely analogous formulations) in both essential and economic Trinitarian contexts. Furthermore, the doctrine enjoyed centuries of peaceful coexistence in Western churches in communion with the East (from at least the fifth century through Toledo in 447/589 and well beyond) without provoking the immediate, intense reaction that Nestorianism elicited. Trenham’s claim that Augustine’s Trinitarian theology lacked patristic precedent is likewise contradicted by the historical record, including precedents in St. Ambrose and broader patristic resonance. This section reveals Trenham’s portrayal as polemically inflated rather than historically nuanced.

Trenham’s ecclesiological claims fare no better under scrutiny. He invokes the Synodikon to place Protestants (and Roman Catholics) outside the Church and under anathema, while simultaneously calling them “Christians” who remain “far” from saving truth. Schooping exposes the internal contradiction: anathematization traditionally implies exclusion from salvific communion, rendering the qualified affirmation incoherent. More significantly, Trenham misrepresents Protestant ecclesiology as inherently sectarian or exclusivist. In contrast, the Westminster Confession (Chapter 25) distinguishes the invisible Church—comprising the whole number of the elect under Christ—from the visible Church, whose purity varies. The Second Helvetic Confession (Chapter 17) similarly emphasizes unity in faith rather than identical rites or administration, allowing for the salvation of believers outside any single visible communion. Protestant theologians such as Francis Turretin affirm that believers constitute the Church and are bound to visible communion under peril of neglect, yet they do not consign those differing in non-essential administration to perdition. Trenham’s caricature thus inverts the actual Protestant commitment to the catholicity of the invisible Church.

In soteriology and justification, Trenham’s reductions are especially distorting. He narrows Protestant conceptions of salvation to “deliverance from the wrath of God,” contrasting this unfavorably with Orthodoxy’s supposedly more comprehensive vision. Schooping counters with the Westminster Confession (Chapters 10 and 20), which describes effectual calling as deliverance from sin, death, guilt, bondage to Satan, and everlasting damnation into grace and salvation. Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession (Chapter 11) likewise encompasses reconciliation, expiation, and victory over death and hell. Trenham’s portrayal of justification by faith alone as a merely forensic “courtroom declaration” or “being saved from God Himself,” devoid of transformative union with Christ or good works, likewise misfires. Reformed standards explicitly affirm that justifying faith is living and quickening, necessarily producing good works as its fruit (Westminster Confession, Chapter 16; Second Helvetic Confession, Chapters 15–16). Union with Christ effects both justification and progressive sanctification; works are necessary consequences, not causes. Trenham’s invocation of James against “faith alone” fails to engage the Protestant distinction between living and dead faith, thereby caricaturing rather than refuting the doctrine.

Additional misrepresentations compound the pattern. Trenham asserts that Reformed theology rejects the real presence in the Eucharist, reducing the elements to “bare signs.” Schooping marshals extensive evidence to the contrary: Bullinger affirms the inward reception of Christ’s true body and blood “spiritually communicated”; Calvin and the Westminster Confession (Chapter 29) teach that believers really and spiritually feed upon Christ crucified; similar affirmations appear across Gallican, Belgic, Scots, and other Reformed confessions, as well as in theologians such as Ursinus, Vermigli, Owen, and Turretin. Claims about Protestant deficiencies in prayer, synergism (properly understood as post-regeneration cooperation), or theosis (affirmed by Reformed writers as sanctifying union) likewise rest on oversimplification rather than engagement with the Protestant tradition’s own resources, including its appropriation of the patristic patrimony.

Schooping’s appendix excels in clarity, documentation, and a constructive tone. By restoring the original language of the Reformed confessions and Reformers, it not only refutes specific distortions but also models responsible inter-confessional engagement. It warns against conversions based on caricatured alternatives and contributes to a more accurate understanding of the historical depth and coherence of Protestant theology. While Trenham’s “Rock and Sand” may appeal to those seeking confirmation of Orthodox superiority, Schooping shows that such appeal often rests on misrepresentation rather than a substantive encounter.

In sum, Appendix 1 is among the most effective and well-substantiated Protestant responses to contemporary Orthodox polemics against the Reformation. It merits careful reading by scholars and laity engaged in East-West dialogue, offering both corrective precision and an invitation to a more faithful representation of Protestant convictions. Schooping’s work thereby advances the very clarity and honesty in theological appraisal that Trenham’s volume frequently undermines.  

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)