Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
The Eastern Orthodox/Coptic claim “artos proves it must be leavened,” and the teacher counters that “artos…does not exclude unleavened bread”; what does this back-and-forth reveal about the limits of proof in theology, and how should the church respond when certainty is not achievable?
Another way to ask: When each side says the word *artos* proves their view, what does that show about how hard it can be to “prove” things in theology, and what should the church do when we can’t be fully certain?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The back-and-forth shows that some theological questions cannot be proven beyond doubt from a single argument, so the church should avoid condemning others and instead hold conclusions with charity, restraint, and reverence.
- The Orthodox claim is presented: “it’s clear in Scripture” because communion uses *artos*, and they even “anathematized” those who use unleavened bread.
- The speaker’s counter is explicit: “artos…does not exclude unleavened bread…[it] means bread,” so it “doesn’t prove it has to be leavened.”
- He adds another uncertainty: the Last Supper “uses artos,” yet he is “99% certain” it was unleavened—showing the term cannot settle the matter alone.
- He notes lack of early clarity: “None of their writings say, ‘Well, it’s got to be unleavened…or…leavened.’”
- He concludes God may have left “enough doubt” so we “not be dogmatic,” and says he dislikes both Orthodox anathematizing and Western accusations of heresy.