History of holy repentance

[Bob Hendry]

Hello all,

While trying to keep up with the discussions under the subject 2nd Commandment I found some time to review the document These Truths We Hold (http://www.stots.edu/these_truths_we_hold.html). The introductory paragraph to the section on Holy Repentance, quoted below, confuses me:


Holy Repentance (Penance Confession)
The Sacrament of Repentance developed early in the Church's history in the time of the persecutions of the 3rd and 4th Centuries, when many people, giving in to the threats of the persecutors, apostasized and fell away from the Church. Apostasy was considered to be a very serious sin; many held the extreme position that such could not be received back into the Church in their lifetime, while others held that those who had lapsed should be re-baptized that is, their sins should be washed away by a second baptism. Moderation, in the course of time, prevailed and a penitential discipline the Sacrament of Repentance developed, taking on the meaning of Second Baptism; for this reason it was eventually numbered among the Sacraments of the Church.

It seems that the sacrament did not exist during the apostolic period of the church, yet Orthodoxy maintains that it holds closely, if not exactly, to the doctrines of the original ancient 1st centruy church. These 2 points seem to me to be in conflict. I must conclude that I don't properly understand the Orthodox Church's position regarding it's history and heritage. Can anyone please enlighten me??

Thank you - In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Herman Blaydoe]

When our Lord was with the Apostles after His Resurrection He and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:22-23) He did not lay out how this was to be done. We often refer to confession and repentance as a "baptism of tears". It was instituted to answer the controversy, since the Church decided that there was to be only ONE baptism in Christ.

You can see the quandry. If ONLY baptism "washes away sins" then what to do when confronted with sins after baptism? Thus the Sacrament of Repentance was instituted in obedience to Christ's proclamation to His Apostles without conflicting with the institution of baptism. Again, Christ said WHAT, He left it to the Church to decide HOW.

[Herman Blaydoe]

One other thing, it is not correct to say that repentance as a sacrament did not exist in the first century Church, the quote from John, I think, shows that Christ gave His Apostles the authority from the beginning. It is simply that what we call the sacrament of Repentance (or Confession) is HOW the Church chose to formalize that authority in later times. It was not a NEW teaching, merely decision as to HOW to best express/carry forward what already existed.

[Bob Hendry]

Herman.

Thanks -

One thing that really pulls me toward Orthodoxy, or at least my concept of it, is it's strict adhearance to ancient tradition. I believe that it is the most important distinctive of Orthodoxy.

I think that it was Fr. Joseph who guided me to the online source for These Truths We Hold (http://www.stots.edu/these_truths_we_hold.html), And I have found it to be most helpful. But - is it the best source for me to 'bone-up' on the history and traditions of the OC? I am primarily interested in the distinctives between the OC and the CC as well as the distinctives which separate the OC from general protestantism.

I understand your reference to John 20. Are you aware of any historical account of any apostle (or anyone else prior to the 3rd century) engaging in the forgiving of sins? My understanding of the passage is the typical protestant one: reather than delegating His authority to His apostles, He was simply conveying doctrinal or ministerial encouragement, that,


by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God’s grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.

(Gill's Commentary of the New Testament)

Obviously, a pretty significant difference in understanding here. Where to find the truth . . .

I hope you understnd why I am probing - not trying to be confrontational - rather, trying to ascertain where Gill, et al, went wrong. Or was it the council that formalized the practice??

Thanks - & I look forward as well to meeting you at St. Thomas'. In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Herman Blaydoe]

Bob,

The Apostle James tells us: "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (James 5:13-16)

This, I think, is a perfect example of a sacrament, a physical manifestation of God's grace through His Creation, the annointing with oil for healing. This is NOT mentioned directly by Christ Himself, this is how the Apostle James formalized the sacrament of healing, and along with it, the forgiveness of sins.

[Herman Blaydoe]

An excellent general online resource is available at the Orthodox Church in America website:

The Orthodox Faith (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm)

[Ken McRae]

1 - "The Sacrament of Repentance developed early in the Church's history ... etc." - 'These Truths'

2 - "It seems that the sacrament did not exist during the apostolic period of the church, yet Orthodoxy maintains that it holds closely, if not exactly, to the doctrines of the original ancient 1st centruy church." - Bob

Hi Bob ~

The passage you quote from 'These Truths' does not admit of any innovation(s), but only "development" in the Church's wisdom and application of the grace of forgiveness administered in baptism and the confession of sin. While Prots may see this 'development' as something innovative, the Fathers clearly did not. A study of the Orthodox teaching on doctrinal development, (which teaching was only gradually and meticulously forged, in the fires of theological controversy over the doctrine of God, during the first eight centuries,) would help you in your investigations.

Apparently, these two mysteries (the sacraments of baptism and confession) were conjoined in the early Church, ( something like baptism and chrismation,) and administered together, according to Mk 1:5 - "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." It appears, then (from this text,) that the 'sacramental' mode of confession practiced by the early Church was of a 'public' nature; though we cannot conclude from this, with any certainty, that the 'private' mode was never used, (especially in cases of more egregious offenses,) before it came - in time - to be instituted as the 'regular' sacramental mode. It seems an early 'rule of thumb', at least by St. Cyprian's time, may have been to use a public mode for sins committed publicly, before many witnesses, and a private mode for private sins.

In his book, 'Mass and the Sacraments', Fr. John Laux, a Catholic priest, states the following :-

"The Church has always taught that every sin can be remitted in the Sacrament of Penance. In the second century the Montanists were condemned for denying that the Church possessed the power to absolve from the three so-called canonical sins: idolatry, adultery, and murder." ( 'Mass and the Sacraments', p. 97 )

While Fr. Laux is no authority, per say, ( though his books received the imprimatur of the CC,) it is evident that the early Church claimed the authority to forgive egregious sin, committed subsequently to having received the sacrament of baptism; and that this practice was attacked by her enemies.

That the Church possessed such authority appears clearly to be the mind of St. Paul, as expressed in his instructions to the Corinthians in regard to the case of the incestuous member :-

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." ( 1 Cor. 5:1-5 )

"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." ( 2 Cor. 2:6-8 )

It would appear from the first passage that the offender was excommunicated and shunned, in the hope that such stern discipline, coupled with the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man, would lead such a one to genuine penance. The second passage commands the Corinthians to forgive this man, perhaps with an intent of restoring him to full communion, on the account of his having served a long and hard penance for his sin.

That the Church is possessed of such power or authority appears clearly stated in the those Scripture texts, which have already been cited in this thread, as those of Mk 16:18-19, Jn 20:22-23, and Jms 5:16 :-

1 - "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ( Mk 16:18-19 )

2 - "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." ( John 20:22-23 )

3 - "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." ( James 5:16 )

With regard to the second and third texts, there was a belief in the Church that any saint, in possession of the grace of the Holy Spirit, to a perfect degree, had the power to forgive sins, committed after baptism, even in the absence of canonical priestly orders. Let someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but I believe St. Symeon the New Theologian adhered to such a tradition, which he received from his own spiritual father, a layman filled with the Holy Spirit, but lacking the 'canonical' authority to grant absolution. There's another passage in the Gospel, though, which appears to possess all the elements expressed in these three particular texts :-

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." ( Matt 18:15-22 )

What does St. Matthew say? "If thy brother shall trespass against thee ... if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." It is not difficult to see in these words the rule or precedent that St. Paul exhorted the Corinthians to follow in their dealings with their incestuous member. The ecclesiastical act of binding and loosing is seen here to clearly pertain to the retaining or remission of a person's trespasses.

As you've noted, I believe, the fundamental question here is whether or not the Church possesses the right or authority to grant absolution from sins. Insofar as the Church possesses the authority to grant water baptism, we say she possesses the authority to absolve sins; for if she withholds baptism, one's sins are retained. Now, if she possesses the authority to grant absolution, through baptism, then we say she possesses an equal right or authority to seperate the sacrament of confession from the sacrament of baptism, as a sacrament to be administered as oft as the need should arise.

In the Didache (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm), the composition of which has been fixed at about A.D. 70-140, we read the following :-

"In the congregation, confess your sins; do not come to your prayer with an evil conscience."

According to this dating, then, it appears that many scholars suspect it predates even St. Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, but even if it should not, almost all believe it was composed by those Fathers in direct contact with the Apostles, of apostolic teachings received from them. It is believed this particular rule or instruction on 'confession' refers to the 'public' mode of the sacrament, in its 'primitive' form.

With respect to public confession in the early Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyons transmits (c. 180 A.D.) to us the following story :-

"His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, became a victim in both mind and body to this magician. For a long time she travelled about with him. At least, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician."

And Tertullian says:-

"By the confession of all past sins, they may express the meaning even of the baptism of John. For the Scripture says: ' They were baptized, confessing their own sins.' To us, it is a matter for thankfulness if we now do publicly confess our iniquities or our depravities. For, by mortification of our flesh and spirit, we make satisfaction for our former sins. At the same time, we lay in advance the foundation of defenses against the temptations that will closely follow." ( c. 198 ) 3.678, 679

And St. Cyprian says :-

"In smaller sins, sinners may do penance for a set time and come to public confession according to the rules of discipline." 5.445

Thus we see, in the Didache, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian, that the sacrament of confession was practiced in the early Church, and that by St. Cyprian's time, about 250 A.D., the 'public' mode was restricted to smaller sins, by which we may infer that a 'private' mode of confession was already being introduced for sins of a more serious nature.

Since the sacrament of confession is an extension or renewal of the saving grace communicated in baptism, the denial of baptismal regeneration, (or the washing away of sins in the waters of baptism,) can only result in a rejection of the baptismal grace (or forgiveness of sins) renewed in the sacrament of confession. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did'nt the Protestant Reformers generally reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration? This teaching, however, is firmly rooted in both Scripture and Tradition, as appears from the following texts, (as well as from Mk 1:5 and Matt 3:6):-

1 - "Jesus answered ... Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [ ... etc. ] After these things came Jesus ... and baptized." ( John 3:5, 22 )

2 - "He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." ( Titus 3:5 )

3 - " In the days of Noah ... eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us ... " ( 1 Pet. 3:20-21 )

Is it purely coincidental, you think, that St. John proceeds, immediately subsequent to the catechetical discourse of Christ on the new birth, to show Him afterwards baptizing? Or is it possible, if not entirely probable that his design was a conscious and deliberate one, intended to illuminate the inherent link or connection between water baptism and spiritual rebirth, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? The Fathers universally understood "the washing of regeneration," in Tit 3:5, as referent to the sacrament of baptism; while the third passage, about Noah's baptism, could'nt be plainer, I feel: "baptism doth also now save us." Whatever the Reformers may teach of these three passages, I am certain they deviate from the Patristic tradition, in whole or in part.

Humbly in Jesus,
Theophilus

[Bob Hendry]

Theophilus,

You have provided ample "stuff" for me to ponder this weekend. Thank you! I am overwhelmed - it will probabley take most of the weekend to work through it.

One question up front, though. The baptism that you point to from Mark 1:5:


Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Do you view this as a Christian sacrament? I believe that it is an old covenant ritual with little or no bearing on Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

It is interesting, however, to note the association of John's baptism with the confessing of sins - I had never connected those dots before. Thank you.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry - busy preparing for the celebration of my youngest daughter's 8th birthday today!! Praise God!

[Ken McRae]

"One question up front, though ... " - Bob

Good question, Bob. As the Last Supper signified the institution of the Eucharistic sacrament, it is generally believed that the Lord's baptism by John likewise signified the institution of the sacrament of forgiveness. In this sense, then, the two baptisms were forever linked; the latter following the earlier model, and thus, was the confession of sins conjoined with baptism, in the Christian institution, which Tertullian has implicitly noted. And without confession of sin, there can be no forgiveness, so thus are we to learn that confession of sin is inherently linked to the sacrament of baptism, insofar as the washing of regeneration brings with it the forgiveness of sins.

1 - "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" (Mt. 21:25)

As the baptism of John was from heaven, and designed to prepare the way for the Spirit of the Lord, by making straight the path into our hearts, in removing the crooks of sin, and was the form that Jesus followed in his institution of the holy sacrament, we may see that the two baptisms are inherently linked forever.

2 - "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." (Mt. 3:16)

As noted, this is generally, or universally received as the divine institution of Christian baptism. Here we may see the mystical relation between water baptism and the new birth, or the descent of the Holy Dove into the regenerated soul.

3 - "John was baptizing ... And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." (Jn 1:26-32)

It appears St. John the Apostle had this event in mind, of the Spirit's descent upon Christ, at the time of His baptism, when he wrote the words, in John 3:5-6, regarding our being born of the Spirit :-

4 - " ... born of water and of the Spirit ... After these things came Jesus ... and baptised ... " (Jn 3:5, 22)

Pax Christi sit semper vobiscum,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 12 February, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Concerning public & private confession & how it arose in the Church.

This is also connected to the rise of monasticism in the Church. Both monks & laity would go to revered elders for spiritual guidance. They would reveal their sins & 'thoughts' in private & receive spiritual counsel.

From this we can see how the tradition of spiritual father & child arose and the whole way of spiritual guidance we still know in the Orthodox Church. We can also see how there is no strict division between spiritual guidance & confession. For example on Mt Athos (as with many formed in the Byzantine tradition) one sits down before the Elder & begins confessing- something difficult for those raised in the Russian tradition of standing before the analoy!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Btw, Bob, may your little princess enjoy a very merry and most blessed happy 8th birthday!! I have one child, a daughter of 8.5 yrs. She was the gift of God, for sure.

I've lost track of how many times God has used my 'unconditional' love for her, and concern for her soul, as a type of cattle prod, to keep me on the right path. How many sins has my love for her, by the grace of God, kept me from? I'd dare say the number exceeds the number of hairs on my head, and at 44, I have the fullest head of hair most people have ever seen, though quite white, I must confess. May God help me always, by the Spirit of Grace, to be a good example for her, of life in Christ!

I said all this to say that, without a word of exaggeration, I fully identify with you, when you say, "I take seriously my responsibility to shepherd my family as the spiritual leader. That is the major stimulus to me in seeking out the truth and history of the Orthodox tradition."

In the humility of Christ,
Theo

[Ken McRae]

From Thomas Merton ( A Catholic Monk ) on on Spiritual Direction c. 1960 (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6270203&wauth=Merton%2C%20Thomas&matches=16&qsort=r):-

01 ) The whole purpose of spiritual direction is to penetrate beneath the surface of a man's life, to get behind the facade of conventional gestures and attitudes which he presents to the world, and to bring out his inner spiritual freedom, his inmost truth, which is what we call the likeness of Christ in his soul. This is entirely a supernatural thing, for the work of rescuing the inner man from automatism belongs first of all to the Holy Spirit. The spiritual director cannot do such a work himself. His function is to verify and to encourage what is truly spiritual in the soul. He must teach others to 'discern' between good and evil tendencies, to distinguish the inspirations of the spirit of evil from those of the Holy Spirit.

02 ) A spiritual director is, then, one who helps another to recognize and to follow the inspirations of grace in his life, in order to arrive at the end to which God is leading him. And this, as we have said, originally presupposed a special vocation. A spiritual director was necessary, above all, for one who had been called to seek God by an unusual and perilous road. It must not be forgotten that the spiritual director in primitive times was much more than the present name implies. He was a spiritual father who 'begot' the perfect life in the soul of his disciple by his instructions first of all, but also by his prayer, his sanctity and his example. He was to the young monk a kind of 'sacrament' of the Lord's presence in the ecclesiastical community.

03 ) In the earliest days of Christian monasticism the spiritual father did much more than instruct and advise. The neophyte lived in the same cell with him, day and night, and did what he saw his father doing . He made known to the father 'all the thoughts that came into his heart' and was told, on the spot, how to react. In this way he learned the whole spiritual life in a concrete and experimental way.

Bob,

I find my thoughts return oft to this question, or topic. Fr. Raphael, makes a very important point here, which we ought to take to heart and look into further. What he points us to, that is, the absence of a "strict division between spiritual guidance & confession," is essential to our forming a correct view of the mystery or sacrament of confession. As you may know, through your recent investigations, the Church is viewed by the Orthodox as a spiritual hospital, her holy elders and priests as physicians, and her sacraments as therapeutic in their action upon the souls of the faithful. While the Church's understanding of this mystery has evolved or developed over time, it is clearly Patristic, without question, and apostolic in origin. When we approach the sacrament of confession in this light, the wisdom of the fathers on this subject becomes apparent to us.

As Father Raphael wisely notes, there are different stages of spiritual development, (as you also know only too well, I'm certain,) which are clearly expressed in Scripture, such as in 1 John 2:12-14, for example:-

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

The teaching of Scripture is quite clear about the nature of the spiritual relationship that should exist between spiritual fathers and their children. The therapeutic dynamics of the sacrament of confession are best viewed within this context, or through the window provided us by such a relationship. Within this context, we see that the sacrament of confession was not merely intended to renew the baptismal grace of forgiveness, but it was designed to teach us obedience to, and humble dependence upon the fathers for their guidance in the mystery of godliness.

While St. Anthony the Great (251-356 A.D.) is often described as "the father" of monasticism, Blessed Jerome has written the life of a man named St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3008.htm), who is reported and believed to have been the first hermit. He notes the following with regard to St. Paul's chronological age: "The blessed Paul had already lived on earth the life of heaven for a hundred and thirteen years, and Antony at the age of ninety was dwelling in another place of solitude ... etc." From this we may calculate that St. Paul was approximately 23 years older than St. Anthony; and approximately born in the year 228 A.D. St. Athanasius tells us that St. Anthony entered monastic life at 18 years of age, and yet he did not find out about the holy hermit Paul until he was ninety years of age. The lesson we may gather from this is that since the Lord saw fit to withhold the knowledge of St. Paul from his servant (St. Anthony) for so long, we can never really be assured that St. Paul was actually the "first" hermit. For example, we have the Hebrews text that says many OT saints, "of whom the world was not worthy ... wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth ( 11:38 )." We are not told of the details, but is it not possible that one of those OT saints, spoken of in this text, actually lived the life of a hermit?

However, while we can see that monastic life flowered quite early in the life of the Church, it's important for us to see that its "goals, ideals, and practices", concerning spiritual life, existed from the beginning, even if only in the kernel. Thus, the teaching of the fathers on confession should be viewed not as something "new" and innovative, but as an apostolic tradition. With regard to confession, St. Athony teaches us that many monks "have fallen and become proud because they put their trust in their own acts and ignored the precept of him who said: 'Ask your father and he will teach you.'" And, again, that "as far as possible a monk should disclose to the abbas the number of steps he takes and the number of drops of water he drinks in his cell, to know whether he is truly in the way of truth". (http://www.scourmont.be/studium/bresard/06-apoph.html#apophI) St. Anthony was a great elder and spiritual father, and we must infer from these words of his that not just the things explicitly mentioned here ought to be revealed to the abbas, but that a monk's entire soul and life must be made completely transparent to his abba; not so much for the elder's sake, as for the monk's own benefit, as clearly appears from the teaching of Abba Moses, a 4th century desert father, described by St. John Cassian as "one of the most experienced of the fathers," who taught the following about the mystery and power of confession:-

"True discrimination comes to us only as a result of true humility, and this in turn is shown by our revealing to our spiritual fathers not only what we do but also what we think, by never trusting our own thoughts, and by following in all things the words of our elders, regarding as good what they have judged to be so ... even before someone is granted the gift of discrimination, the act of revealing his base thoughts openly to the fathers weakens and withers them. For just as a snake which is brought from its dark hole into the light makes every effort to escape and hide itself, so the malicious thoughts that a person brings out into the open by sincere confession seek to depart from him." ( Philokalia, Vol. 1, p. 103 )

This lesson on confession continues for another four pages, and begins to conclude with the following passage on page 106:-

"From all that has been said, we may conclude that nothing leads so surely to salvation as to confess your private thoughts to those fathers most graced with the power of discrimination, and in our pursuit of holiness to be guided by them rather than by our own thoughts and judgment. Nor should the fact that we may encounter an elder who is somewhat simple-minded or lacking in experience either prevent us from confessing to the fathers who are truly qualified, or make us despise our ancestral traditions. Many texts from the divine Scriptures make it clear that the fathers did not say these things according to their own lights, but were inspired by God Himself and by the Scriptures to hand down to their successors the tradition of asking advice from those who had travelled far along the spiritual path. This is born out especially by the story of the holy Samuel ... etc."

Another holy father, (though a century later,) by the name of Abba Isaiah (d. 491 A.D.), was of one mind with all his holy predecessors, in regard to the their teaching on confession, as appears from the following words:-

01 ) Bare all your thoughts to your elder with confidence. [Discourse 4]

02 ) Being silent about, instead of confessing, one's thoughts, signifies one's pursuit of worldly honour and shameful glory. [Discourse 16]

03 ) Do not hide your evey thought and every sorrow and every desire, but proclaim them with respect and with freedom to your elder. And whatever you receive from him, strive to carry it out faithfully. [Discourse 1]

04 ) If some of the elders are speaking the word of God, ask your abba whether you should stay and listen, or else withdraw to your cell. And do whatever your elder tells you. Neither add anything, nor subtract from it (take away anything from whatever he tells you). [Discourse 3]

05 ) We are to be obedient to our fathers in God in everything. [Discourse 25]

While these few words from Abba Isaiah are from his published Discourses, they can also be found in a little pamphlet entitled, 'IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE LORD: THE TEACHING OF ABBA ISAIAH OF SKETIS'. (http://stnectariospress.com/catalog/monastic.htm) In closing, though, I should say a word about the significance of obedience, (as taught by the fathers,) to the preservation and transmission of the apostolic tradition, which two are intimately connected. See what Abba Moses says: "Neither add anything, nor subtract from" your fathers words, as our salvation depends upon it. This is the Patristic mind with regard to the respect and veneration that we are duty bound to show our fathers, in the reception and transmission of their spiritual treasure, that is, their tradition(s).

If you have not done so as yet, I'd humbly suggest that before anything else, you resolve in your heart and mind the question of Sola Scriptura. All your other efforts are in vain, if this dogma still stands in your thinking. Perhaps you have already conquered that hurdle, and I need not bring it up; but if you have'nt, that must be dealt with first off, before all else; as I say, in my humble estimation. The rest will follow in due course, after you have slaughtered that "sacred cow", once and for all. Finally, I wish to bring to your attention an audio lecture online, concerning the History of the Sacrament of Confession (http://www.stvasilios.org/sermons/Biblestudies.htm).

Humbly in the Lord,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 16 February, 2005)

[nurse-aid]

And when someone IS obidient to the Elder...as you said he is the one who help him find for himself WHAT he must confess...Elder never said to him confess your pride, confess this sin...Elder will just gave hima situation in which he able to see himself as it is...

So thank you for advise and lecture on line...i will working on this...to find out WHAT will came out of this...And what ever it will come i'll confess...VERY SIMPLE....

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Theophilus,

I'm going to appoint you official "net fisherman"! You've found links to things Orthodox I've never stumbled on in an active year with a PC!

Thankshttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Dear Fr. Raphael ~

You're most welcome. lol ~ Glad to be of some small help. And thank you, too, btw, for the appointment. Very thoughtful of you! lol ~ I must confess, to my "shagrin", though, I'm afraid, that I can be a bit of a "net-bum" at times, occasionally surfing for hours on end. When I get it in my head that I need to know something, I become like a hunter, driven by the need to satisfy his hunger. However, I have restricted myself to just this one message board, and do not, for the present, travel much outside it's walls, except when driven by necessity.

And Bob ~

Below you'll find a Letter from Abba Ammonas (the spiritual son of St. Antony the Great), on the great subject of rendering obedience to the will of our fathers in Christ, which teaching we may believe was transmitted to him by St. Antony, just as he later transmitted it to his own spiritually 'begotten' children. I have prefaced it, though, with a clip from my previous post, so as to unite father and son in the same cause.

What precious spiritual truth may we gather from this letter? There are several, but the main one I wish us to focus on is the utter necessity of spiritual obedience to the will and teaching of our fathers in Christ, who bear the clear stamp of divine approval upon all their heroic labours in Christ. This is the mystery of Holy Tradition!

Humbly in the Lord,
Theophilus

St. Antony the Great :-

"With regard to confession, St. Athony teaches us that many monks "have fallen and become proud because they put their trust in their own acts and ignored the precept of him who said: 'Ask your father and he will teach you.'" And, again, that "as far as possible a monk should disclose to the abbas the number of steps he takes and the number of drops of water he drinks in his cell, to know whether he is truly in the way of truth". St. Anthony was a great elder and spiritual father, and we must infer from these words of his that not just the things explicitly mentioned here ought to be revealed to the abbas, but that a monk's entire soul and life must be made completely transparent to his abba ... "

Abba Ammonas on Obedience to Spiritual Fathers:-

Ammonas is thought to be, on the historical account of Rufinus, spiritual son to St. Antony the Great. The following "details can be gleaned from the Sayings attributed to him in the 'Apophthegmata Patrum' or 'Sayings of the Fathers': he spent fourteen years in the desert of Skete, visited St. Antony in his cave (to which he was miraculously guided), became his disciple and, after Antony's death in 356, directed the monastery of Pispir. The Sayings also state ... etc." ( The Letters of Ammonas, tr. by Derwas J. Chitty, p. iii )

-1-

Now my brethren, my beloved in the Lord, whom I love with my whole heart, I hear that temptation is troubling you, and I am afraid it may come from yourselves. For I have heard that you want to leave your place; and I was grieved to hear it, though it is a long time since I have been seized by grief. For I know of a surety that if you go away from your place now, you will make no progress at all. For it is not the will of God; and if you go out acting on your own authority, God will not work together with you nor go out with you, and I fear we shall fall into a multitude of evils.

-2-

If we follow our own will, God no longer sends His power which prospers and establishes all the ways of men. For if a man does something, imaging that it come from God, when really his own will is involved in it, then God does not help him and you will find his heart embittered and feeble in everything to which he sets his hand. It is on the pretext of better progress that the believer can go wrong and end up being mocked. For Eve was deceived on no other pretext than that of good and progress. For when she heard, "You shall be as gods' ( Gen. 3:5 ), by failing to discriminate the voice of the speaker, she disobeyed the commandment of God, and thus not only came by no good, but under the curse.

-3-

Solomon says in the Proverbs, "There are many ways which appear good unto men: but the end thereof leads to the pit of hell." ( Pr. 14:12 ) He says this of those who do not understand the will of God, but follow their own will. For such people, not knowing the will of God, at first receive from satan a fervour which is like joy, but is not joy; and afterwards it turns to gloom and lays them open. But he who follows the will of God endures great labour in the beginning, but afterwards finds rest and gladness. Do nothing therefore on your own, until I have come to talk to you.

-4-

There are three motivations which accompany a man everywhere, and most monks are ignorant of them, expecting only those who have become perfect, of whom Scripture says, "Solid food is for the perfect, who by reason of their conscience have their senses exercised to discern good and evil." ( Heb. 5:14 ) What then are these three? One is introduced by the enemy, another is begotten by the heart, while the third is sown by God in a man. Of these three, God only accepts that which is His own.

-5-

Examine yourselves, therefore, which of these three is impelling you to leave your place. Do not go away until God permits you. I am aware what is God's will for you; but it is difficult for you to recognize the will of God. Unless a man denies himself and his own will, and obeys his spiritual parents, he will not be able to recognize God's will; and even if he does recognize it, he needs God's help in giving him strength to carry it out.

-6-

So you see it is a great matter to recognize the will of God, and an even greater one to do it. But Jacob had these powers, because he obeyed his parents. For when they told him to go to Mesopotamia, to Laban ( cf. Gen. 28:2 ), he obeyed readily, even though he did not want to be separated from his parents. It was because he obeyed that he inherited the blessing. And if I, who am your spiritual father, had not formerly obeyed my spiritual parents, God would not have revealed His will to me. For it is written: "The blessing of a father establishes the houses of children." ( Ecclus. 3:9 ) And if I endured great labour in the desert and the mountains, asking God day and night until God revealed His will to me, do you too now listen to your father in this, so that it may be for your rest and progress.

-7-

But I have heard that you have been saying, "Our father does not know our labour, and how Jacob fled from Esau." But we know he did not run away of himself, but was sent away by his parents. Do you therefore imitate Jacob, and remain until your father sends you away, that he may bless you when you go, and then God will prosper your affairs.

Fairwell in the Lord. Amen.

(Message edited by theophilus on 16 February, 2005)

[Bob Hendry]

Marc,

You wrote: (eons ago, it seems!)


You can see the quandry. If ONLY baptism "washes away sins" then what to do when confronted with sins after baptism? Thus the Sacrament of Repentance was instituted in obedience to Christ's proclamation to His Apostles without conflicting with the institution of baptism. Again, Christ said WHAT, He left it to the Church to decide HOW.

I am not in agreement that Baptism washes away sins. I see the Sacrament of Baptism as a sign and seal of the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant. The ONLY way sin can be forgiven is for the atonment of Christ to be applied to those sins, and only those sins, for which Christ suffered and died. He paid the penalty by which we are completely justified. (Colossians 3:8-15, et al)

This then begs the question, for whose sins did Christ suffer and die? For those whom He, for His own infinite pleasure, chooses.

This is one of the major doctrinal 'walls' that separates protestants and (Orthodox / Catholics). I am inclined to think that the fundamental difference is that we protestants place more merit on the inspired revealed Word of God - the Holy Scriptures; while Orthodox seem to place more merit on the historical tradition of the Church. And it is the understanding of the history of the traditions of the Church that I an seeking. Help??

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Mother Evfrosinia]

Dear Bob,

According to my understanding of Orthodox teaching and tradition, Baptisim is precisely the sacrament through which, in your words, "the atonement of Christ is applied to our sins". Baptism is a mystical death, burial and resurrection (hence the insistence upon full emmersion in Orthodoxy) with Christ (Rom 6:4-5, Col 2:12), and through this sacrament we receive full forgiveness of sin, both original sin and actual sin.

I think the difference lies not only in Holy Scripture vs. Tradition, but in a different understanding of time. The Lord's Baptism and Passion and Resurrection are not merely events that happened a long time ago; when a sacrament is performed we are not merely remembering these events, we are participating in them together with Christ in a mystical sense that transcends time.

May the Lord help you work all this out for yourself!
In Christ, m. evfrosinia

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Henry,

In a recent post, you wrote:


I am not in agreement that Baptism washes away sins. I see the Sacrament of Baptism as a sign and seal of the New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant. The ONLY way sin can be forgiven is for the atonment of Christ to be applied to those sins, and only those sins, for which Christ suffered and died. He paid the penalty by which we are completely justified. (Colossians 3:8-15, et al).

Perhaps it is significant that we remember the account of baptism given in the Gospels, namely, that it was precisely baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins' that John offered in the wilderness, to which act Christ joined himself in taking it to his own person.

Perhaps part of the difficulty you encounter with the sacramental idea of forgiveness encountered and realised through the baptismal act, stems from a desire to separate the offering of Christ (which you raise in your post) from that act, whereas in Orthodox practice, it is precisely the union of the offering and the sacramental act that is cherished. It is in the cleansing of baptism that the forgiveness wrought by Christ's offering is directly encountered in the waters in which he himself bathed and sanctified. The human person is joined in this mystery to the life of him through whom forgiveness always comes.

The sacramental mysteries of the Church are not seen by Orthodoxy as 'replacing' or even 'repeating' the acts and works of Christ, but as joining the person to those acts.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Mr. Hendry:

It would be a mistaken notion to believe that Protestants place more merit on the Holy Scriptures. The fundamental difference between Protestants and Orthodox is from which tradition they interpret the Scriptures, not whether or not they place more merit on the Holy Scriptures. So the question is really more about which tradition one should interpret the Scriptures from within rather than whether one should rely more on 'Tradition' or 'Scripture.'

In regards to baptism washing away sins, I would point to Acts 2:38 and 22:16 where we find the teaching of being baptized "for the remission of sins" and the "washing away of sins." In addition, Mr. Steenberg and Mother Evfrosinia have provided excellent posts on this matter.

In regards to predestination and limited atonement, the Orthodox would reference such passages as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10 where we find Paul's teaching that God "desires all men to be saved" and that He is indeed the "Savior of all men."

Aaron

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your response, part of which is quoted below:


Perhaps part of the difficulty you encounter with the sacramental idea of forgiveness encountered and realised through the baptismal act, stems from a desire to separate the offering of Christ (which you raise in your post) from that act, whereas in Orthodox practice, it is precisely the union of the offering and the sacramental act that is cherished. It is in the cleansing of baptism that the forgiveness wrought by Christ's offering is directly encountered in the waters in which he himself bathed and sanctified. The human person is joined in this mystery to the life of him through whom forgiveness always comes.

I don’t understand this, obviously. As I asked in my response to Mother Evfrosinia, if one is baptized in infancy, how does he account for the remission of sins committed after baptism??

I don’t understand your connection of the “sacramental act” to the “offering”. I agree that if the connection exists, it must never be separated

Neither John’s baptisms in the wilderness, nor Christ’s submission to John, had anything to do with the forgiveness of sins, else which sins?? . . . Rather, it was an obscure practice under the old covenant as a reminder of the imminent coming of the Kingdom (Christ): a call to repentance - not absolution. He was NOT baptized in the name of the Triune God.

How do you get to your position, given that Christ hadn’t started His ministry yet? I know that some hold that Christ’s baptism was required as a form of “initiation” in to the covenant, or into the community of sinners whom He had come to save. I don’t see that either . . .

Again, I would like to apologize for any comments that I may be making which might have the appearance of arguing my position. It is only for the purpose of clarifying the roots of my positions, which conflict with yours. The ultimate objection is the acquisition on knowledge and truth.

Thanks for the warmth and kindness extended. I am indeed appreciative.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Aaron,

Your wrote earlier:


It would be a mistaken notion to believe that Protestants place more merit on the Holy Scriptures. The fundamental difference between Protestants and Orthodox is from which tradition they interpret the Scriptures, not whether or not they place more merit on the Holy Scriptures. So the question is really more about which tradition one should interpret the Scriptures from within rather than whether one should rely more on 'Tradition' or 'Scripture.'

You are gifted with clarity that I admire and envy. Very well said! However, I still hold that the scriptures trump tradition. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif


In regards to predestination and limited atonement, the Orthodox would reference such passages as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10 where we find Paul's teaching that God "desires all men to be saved" and that He is indeed the "Savior of all men."

Yes, but He has not decreed it – just as He desires that we sin not, but we DO. He has not decreed that we sin not, else we wouldn’t. God is not and can not be the author of sin. Sin exists in a very real way, even though He distains sin . . .

Am I mistaken to think then that the Orthodox Church teaches that there is no hell? If Christ’s atoning work was indeed universal, doesn’t that obviate hell?

Romans 11:
7 What then? What Israel was seeking it did not attain, but the elect the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, attained it;

Who are "the rest"??

Ephesians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Thanks for the warmth and kindness extended. I am indeed appreciative.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Owen Jones]

Oh, here we go again. someone asking for help understanding Orthodoxy. For what it is worth, Scripture and Tradition are inseparable. Forgive me for beating this drum, but if people had a philosophical foundation, some of this confusion would be removed. It is philosophically wrong in principle to separate reality into discreet segments. the only absolute distinction to be made is between the Created and the Uncreated. No-one would say that Scripture exists apart from inorganic matter. So why try to insist that Scripture exists apart from tradition, or vice versa? The truth of Scripture does not exist on the pages of the text, or as historical data, or in the form of eternal verities showered upon us from above. It exists in the realm of reality in-between man and God.

[Mother Evfrosinia]

Dear Bob,

In Orthodoxy remission of sins committed after Baptism is obtained in the sacrament of Repentance, or Confession, when a penitent is also reconciled with the Church. Again, I think you have to put aside the dimension of time, and not think of this as a completely separate act, having little or nothing to do with Baptism. It's not as if the Saviour's Atonement somehow doesn't "cover" these sins, and we therefore have to "make up for them" in some other way. While we might be committing a sin after Baptism, for the Lord there is no before or after, He is always simply Present, and in that sense He is atoning for our sins right now, in His timeless "present". In the sacrament of confession the penitent expresses his regret and sorrow at having broken his baptismal vows by sinning, and also his desire to change that. We are "channelling" into the Atonement anew, in a different way, so to speak. Through His Passion and Resurrection and Victory over death, and to the extent that we share in that, make that a part of our lives, the Saviour grants us the grace to struggle against sin and overcome it in our own lives. The sacraments are the times and places where we can directly acquire that grace, the meeting points of Heaven and earth, where in a mystical but also in a very real way we share in the Mystery of our Redemption. I hope I'm making some sort of sense to you!

In Christ's love, m. evfrosinia

[Mother Evfrosinia]

Dear Bob,

As for the question of hell not existing if Christ's Atonement is universal, it's universal because Christ did indeed die for each and everyone of us, but hell exists because we do not all choose to accept His Sacrifice. He has granted us free will, the Lord doesn't "force" anyone to be saved. If we reject Christ, we choose hell, and if you've ever met anyone who has consciously made that choice, you'll know that hell is a very real place and state of being.

May the Lord continue to guide you! m. evfrosinia

[Owen Jones]

St. John Chrysostom says that forgiveness of sins is not limited to the sacrament of repentance. Charity, love, almsgiving, prayer -- i.e. the full Christian life, fully lived, not just one specific sacrament. I think this is the general spiritual tone of Orthodoxy. Anything less is magic and superstition. It's like saying, what incantation must I recite in order to acquire forgiveness. It's tantamount to Shamanism. In Orthodoxy, there is no priest's mass. The Divine liturgy is more than just the prayers and hymns and rituals in Church. It is the entire prayers of the entire Church, the angels, etc. It's why we prayer for the dead and ask for the intercessions of the saints. It's all connected. Otherwise, it's like a pathologist picking over a dead corps and demanding to know where the soul is.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Bob,

You are setting up a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. This is partially rooted in the abuses of tradition by the Roman Catholic Church against which the Protestants rebelled. It is also rooted in the seemingly Western notion of separating things that cannot--or at least should not--be separated as Owen noted. It also assumes that Scripture and Tradition contradict one another rather than complement one another as they do in Orthodoxy. In fact, we can say that the notion of Scripture without tradition contradicts Scripture since Scripture tells us to hold to the traditions that were taught whether by word of mouth or epistle.

In regards to your model of salvation, God is indeed the author of sin as He 'decrees' who will be saved and who will not be saved and humanity is bound by this decision. If God 'decrees' that we are to be condemned, we have no choice in the matter and it is He who causes us to sin. In Orthodoxy we believe the reverse. We must be the author of sin before we are condemned.

Furthermore, if God desires that we do not sin but we do, then there are two approaches to this problem other than to say that God is not sovereign. The first is your approach, which makes it look like God is confused since He supposedly desires that we are all saved yet 'decrees' that some of us cannot be. The Orthodox approach which, in my opinion, is much more sensible, is that we have free will and we can choose whether or not we follow the path of salvation. Although I 'desire' that my daughter not sin, I must also love her and give her freedom, which means that she will sometimes do that which is contrary to my desire.

Aaron

[Owen Jones]

Dear Bob,

I think you are asking for too much. I don't think a man has ever existed who could respond to the magnitude and sweep of your questions.

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Aaron,

Thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you wrote, except for the following points:


It also assumes that Scripture and Tradition contradict one another rather than complement one another as they do in Orthodoxy.

Let me clarify.

I know in my heart that the traditions of the church and the holy scriptures not only can be, but must be compatible. I also know, in light of your first premise, that much of the tradition of the Roman Church is not in accord with the scriptures. That’s why I am here. All whom I have encountered here state unequivocally that the traditions of the Orthodox Church have not been so perverted. Where can I go to verify these claims? That's all I am asking.

Owen,

Sorry if I stated my questions to you so broadly that you


don't think a man has ever existed who could respond to the magnitude and sweep of your questions.

Obviously, I have not expressed myself very well. And I am most likely reading into your most recent response that which is not there - an implication that I should throw in the towel in despair?

It has been made abundantly clear to me that many members of the Orthodox Church were formally Protestants. They probably shared many of the questions I am now exploring. How were they able to resolve their questions such that they had the peace and conviction to convert to the Orthodox Church with their whole minds?? Surely, some here, if not many, have the answers that I am seeking; but even then, should I (we) stop pursuing truth??}

Aaron - back to your post. I find your last comment unsettling: <


. . . God is indeed the author of sin . . .

Please yell at me if I have taken this quote out of context inappropriately; but this quote cannot possibly reflect the teaching of the Church, is it?? Surely this statement is not the means to the conclusion that you have so well stated (with which I agree!):


. . . He 'decrees' who will be saved and who will not be saved and humanity is bound by this decision. If God 'decrees' that we are to be condemned, we have no choice in the matter and it is He who causes us to sin. In Orthodoxy we believe the reverse. We must be the author of sin before we are condemned.

Only I would state it differently. God gave man free will. Through his free will, at the prompting of the serpent in the garden, he chose to ignore God's Law and eat of the forbidden fruit. The punishment for this evil act is death. All men were convicted of that sin, which the Roman church along with many protestant denominations (but not all) call original sin. As a consequence, all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and justifiably deserve to burn in hell for eternity. By God's infallible grace, for His infinite pleasure, He chose SOME to commune with Him for eternity, and He chose the remainder to suffer the appropriate condemnation for their sins - eternal damnation.

This is one of the MAJOR tenants of the Christian faith, or should I say Protestantism, alone? If Orthodox doctrine in not in accord with this, I would like to pursue the chain of historic church teaching, to learn WHY we differ so widely on this.

Again, I sincerely appreciate the dialogue. It has been helpful to me in a number of ways. Please continue to pray that I would be led to the truth.

In Christ ,
Bob Hendry

[Owen Jones]

Bob,

Forgive me for turning the question around Bob, but what is the problem with Protestantism, that you think Orthodoxy might have an answer to?

I became Orthodox because a good friend I admired greatly became Orthodox, and if it was good enough for him....

[Bob Hendry]

Owen,

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, which I left shortly after High School &#40;1963!&#41;. During the past couple of years, I have felt a persistent draw back toward the catholic church. This is coupled with a growing perception on my part that the reformers threw out too much. At the time of the reformation, I would agree that reform was sorely needed, but I also think that their growing hatred for anything Roman led them &#40;Luther, Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, et al&#41; to abandon many of the practices which were passed on by Christ’s apostles - because they were not addressed in the Scriptures &#40;Sola Scriptura!&#41;. On the other hand, much of what we do today in Protestant Churches is also not addressed in the scriptures. For example, the vows of membership, the election of elders, and the fencing of the Table at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In my church, one must be a communicant member in good standing of an Evangelical Christian Church to partake of the sacrament.

I am not arguing against these practices, necessairly - rather trying simply to reconcile in my own mind why we do the things we do, and are we indeed consistent about it?? It has been made known to me that the Orthodox Church professes to practice the ancient traditions of the church exactly as practiced at the time of the death of Christ. If this is true, then why is there division - over 30,000 separate Christian denominations in the United States alone?

I am convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer faithful to the practices taught by Christ and implemented by his apostles. Is my Reformed Presbyterian doctrine the closest in existence to the teaching of Christ? Certainly the thousands &#40;millions&#41; of Orthodox Christians would say no. I can think of absolutely nothing that would be more God honoring for a Christian than to find the correct answer to that question.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Ken McRae]

Bob ~

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an innovation or novel teaching. It is not supported by either Scripture of Tradition. The Patristic Fathers universally believed in the binding authority of holy tradtion. St. Athanasius, who stood against the whole world, in the defense of Orthodoxy, is just one of many clear witnesses to this fact. St. Anthony the Great, incidentally, was his spiritual father as well; and thus we may infer from this, that his doctrine was St. Anthony&#39;s as well. I&#39;ve posted below ten passages from St. Athanasius&#39; writings to prove he did not teach a doctrine of Sola Scriptura:-

ST. ATHANASIUS ON THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF HOLY TRADITION:-

001 - &#34;Our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the apostles and tradition of the fathers .&#34; &#40; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, V. 4, p. 576 - 577 &#41;

002 - &#34;What our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their Fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil .&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 153 &#41;

003 - &#34;What then I have learned myself, and have heard men of judgment say, I have written in few words; but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned ... etc.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 479 &#41;

004 - &#34;Our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands, rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, and seeing them now seized upon by others.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 92 - 93 &#41;

005 - &#34;It is your duty to use your anxious endeavours and to labour by every means to correct the irregularities which have been committed contrary to the Canon, and to secure the peace of the Churches; so that the peace of our Lord which has been given to us may remain, and the Churches may not be divided, nor you incur the charge of being the authors of schism. For I confess, your past conduct is an occasion of schism rather than of peace.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 117 &#41;

006 - &#34;It is unreasonable that a custom &#40; i.e. tradition &#41; which had once obtained in the Church, and been established by Councils, should be set aside by a few individuals.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 112 &#41;

007 - &#34;If you wish to be the children of the Fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 571 &#41;

008 - &#34;We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can you assign to your phrases?&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 168 &#41;

009 - &#34;Whom do your advisers wish you to imitate? For we ought to walk by the standard of the saints and the Fathers, and imitate them, and to be sure that if we depart from them, we put ourselves also out of their fellowship. Whom then do you wish to imitate?&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 559 &#41;

010 - &#34;Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of your Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scriptures, and of which you have often been put in mind by me.&#34; &#40; ibid , p. 220 &#41;

These passages cannot possibly be reconciled, IMHO, with the novelty of Sola Scriptura, and the Protestant rejection of holy tradition. In the event, though, that you may think I overstep myself in saying so, I shall now prove that Sola Scripture contradicts the Word of God. We&#39;ll start with the ten texts:-

001 - &#34;Ask thy fathers and they will tell thee, thine elders and they will declare unto thee.&#34;&#40; Deut. 32:7 &#41;

002 - &#34;My son, forget not these instructions, but let thy heart keep my words.&#34; &#40; Prov. 3:1 &#41;

003 - &#34;Bow down thine ear to the words of the wise.&#34; &#40; Prov. 22:17 &#41;

004 - &#34;Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.&#34; &#40; Matt. 5:8 &#41;

005 - &#34;Follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.&#34; &#40; 2 Tim. 2:22 &#41;

006 - &#34;Remember your instructors, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the end of their life ... Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.&#34; &#40; Heb. 13:7-9 &#41;

007 - &#34;And [I] profited in the Jews&#39; religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.&#34; &#40; Gal. 1:14 &#41;

008 - &#34;Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.&#34; &#40; 2 Thes. 2:15 &#41;

009 - &#34;Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.&#34; &#40; 2 Tim. 1:13 &#41;

010 - &#34;And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.&#34; &#40; 2 Tim. 2:2 &#41;

I submit that Sola Scriptura contradicts the doctrine taught in these ten texts. If you wish me to expound, just ask.

Lastly, I submit that the Patristic Fathers universally taught a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. I challenge you to produce a single passage from the Patristic writings to contradict this assertion. And if it was &#34;universally&#34; received by the holy Fathers, as I submit that it was, then the Reformed rejection of this teaching is a novelty and must be condemned.


Humbly in Jesus,
Theophilus

&#40;Message edited by theophilus on 25 February, 2005&#41;

[Owen Jones]

The same problem applies if you were a former atheist having experienced some spiritual stirrings and began looking for a religion. Look at all the religions you have to pick and choose from! Why not be like the Russians, who had no religion per se. Their country was an amalgam of pagan tribes. The Czar, looking for some means to unite the country, and perhaps, sincerely, looking for something greater, sent emmissaries around the world to search for a religion that he could then adopt &#40;impose&#41;. His emmissaries recommended Orthodox Christianity as practiced in Constantinope because their worship was the most beautiful and sublime. And think that&#39;s the best reason I can think of if you have not been raised Orthodox. But a priest friend of mine put it this way. If you drive from Augusta, Georgia to Atlanta in a VW, it will get you there. But if you have the option of travelling in a Rolls Royce....? My advice is to take the Rolls, and there will be plenty of time to investigate what&#39;s under the hood.

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Theophilus,

Thank you for the references that you shared quoting St. Athanasius. It certainly underscores my point:


I am not arguing against these practices, necessarily - rather trying simply to reconcile in my own mind why we do the things we do, and are we indeed consistent about it?? It has been made known to me that the Orthodox Church professes to practice the ancient traditions of the church exactly as practiced at the time of the death of Christ.

My goal is to explore and to comprehend exactly which of the traditions of the church are indeed biblical. There is no doubt that traditions and the scriptures must complement each other; however, I also acknowledge that throughout the history of the church errors and schisms were introduced - most of which were denied at the various councils - but which ones slipped by??? Any? Many? None?

Perhaps it is a shortcoming, but I hold a hermeneutic that demands that the written Word of God trump human tradition. But, at the same time, when dealing with issues or doctrines upon which the Word is silent, then by all means, we must look back to the traditions of the ANCIENTChurch for guidance and direction. When considering matters with apparent conflict, we must come down on the side of the Word of God, for it CANNOT contradict itself. Because the Bible is God’s inerrant, authoritative, sufficient, and sole source of His divine word of truth, every other truth rests on that truth. It is not that the inerrancy of Scripture is a more important truth than, say, the deity of Christ or the Trinity. But it is only from the truth of Scripture that we can know all other truths. God’s word of truth in Scripture is the source and measure not only of all spiritual and moral truth but of all truth of any sort on which it speaks. I must conclude then, that in so far as the traditions of the Church support the truth of God’s Word, it is essential to hold tightly to them; whole at the same time casting aside those traditions which conflict even so subtly with the revealed word of God.

This is the concept intended when I cite the apothegm of the Reformation: "Sola Scriptura"; and I believe this is the meaning intended by Luther, although it has been altered throughout the course of Protestant Church history.

It doesn't seem logical to me that you can sit there and assure me that no error has crept in - given the history of conflict within the church, over time. However, I am beginning to agree that significantly less error has been introduced in the Orthodox Church than in the Roman Church.

Again, my intention is not to inflame; can you explain for me how the following passage from the 5th Chapter of Mark's Gospel should be interpreted, within the context of your doctrine?


5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you ehypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men— the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban” (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Also, once again, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all who have contributed to this discussion. It is indeed beneficial to me spritually and personally.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Owen,


Why not be like the Russians, who had no religion per se.

Because I am keenly aware of my need for a Savior.

Through the fall of man, I was born into a life of sin. By God’s grace, he chose me, before the foundation of the world, unto a life of glory, ascribing to me the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Jesus worte my name in the book of life with His blood. Therefore, I am not driven by a desire to do what looks ‘cool’ or "beautiful", rather to serve my Lord and God as perfectly as I possibly can. For REAL, not for SHOW. For the love of Christ, not simply as practical matter relating to the unification of a nation.

In Christ, in Whose name I am confident of salvation,

Bob Hendry

[M. Rallis]

&#34;Perhaps it is a shortcoming, but I hold a hermeneutic that demands that the written Word of God trump human tradition.&#34;

The &#34;human tradition&#34; that you speak of is something far different from the Orthodox Holy Tradition. Here is a link to a discussion of Holy Tradtion from an Orthodox perspective:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7116.asp

Also, an Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky wrote a tract on &#34;Tradition and traditions&#34; that I have found very helpful in appreciating what Orthodox Holy Tradition is all about.

[Bob Hendry]

Michael,

Thank you for sharing this link - I will have to make time to study it carefully.

You are probably correct - my perception of church tradition is clouded by my experience studying the traditions of the Roman Church. I tend to allow my presuppositions too much latitude.

Cheers from snowy Southern Maryland!

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Owen Jones]

Dear Bob,

Unfortunately there is a gnostic fallacy in your approach that is predicated on the apodictic assertion that there was some point in the history of the church of absolute purity that we can use as a starting point, maybe even get back to. And, there is a theological/philosophical problem in trying to delineate between a pure, spiritual tradition &#40;presumably something handed down directly from God, such as the Ten Commandments&#41; vs. human tradition which is presumably something that is artificial and contrived. Were life so simple.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,
You wrote:


God’s word of truth in Scripture is the source and measure not only of all spiritual and moral truth but of all truth of any sort on which it speaks.

In Orthodoxy we believe that God's Word of Truth which speaks through the Scripture is the source & measure of all truth. The Word precedes Scripture since the Scripture is the work of the Holy Evangelists inspired by the Holy Spirit to write of the Life-giving work of Christ the Word. But there is no Christ the Word without His Church for the Word became Incarnate. Thus it is through His Church that Christ the Word is known.

Further as St. Paul teaches the Church is the Body of Christ into which its members, the faithful are partakers of His Life. Thus there is certainly sin & error within the human members but the Church Herself never wavers since She is organically identical to the Life of Christ Incarnate. She continually & spontaneously redirects Her course in human history as She encounters & purifies men of sin.

This in turn reveals what Tradition means to the Church. It is not custom or moral or even religious laws or practices. Rather Tradition is the Life of Christ working through the specific everyday life of the Church. And further Tradition is the passing on of this Life as we have known & experienced it to others.

Tradition in one sense never changes because the Church only offers one type of Life & Truth to men- that of Christ. But on the other hand this Tradition certainly does condescend to humanity in its real circumstances.

For the Church, Tradition is not writings or a set of rules but rather the Life of Christ working through these things which draws together & unifies the Church. This however means that while we can witness concerning what Tradition is within the Church; we can only understand what Tradition is through life in the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mother Evfrosinia]

Dear Bob,

Have you read Jaroslav Pelikan's books, "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) and "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)

from his series "The Christian Tradition; a History of the Development of Doctrine"? I found them very helpful in explaining how we got from the Early Church and the Holy Scriptures to the whole body of teachings and Tradition that comprise the Orthodox Church today.
May the Lord continue to guide you to His Truth, in Christ, m. evfrosinia

[Bob Hendry]

Fr. Raphael, Well said!

You must e a preacher, or a teacher?

I am severely hampered by my fallible human logic. In my former life, I was a crypto analyst, trained to classify things by common characteristics, and put them in neat little partitions or boxes. In spite of my best efforts NOT to do so in theological meditations, I fail pretty miserably now and then . . .

You have contributed considerably clarity in this discussion by reminding me that the Church IS the body of Christ. I seem to recall that Irene brought up exactly this point in one of her earlier posts. Thanks to both of you.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

p.s.,
How would you describe the visible church today, in terms of membership, structure and government??

Thanks again.

[Owen Jones]

Sorry to sound so critical, Bob, but the term &#34;visible Church&#34; is a protestant innovation designed to overcome the obvious problem of creating an entirely new Church, subsequent to the 1500 years of there being one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church &#40;albeit in a state of schism with the East&#41;. So some of the Reformers invented this concept of there being a visible Church and an invisible Church. The visible Church was the Catholic Church with all of its &#34;trappings,&#34; but the true Church was invisible, and it was somehow maintained with a straight face, that the Protestant movement was a continuation of the Apostolic Church that existed from that time &#34;invisibly.&#34; This particular propaganda ploy has worked quite well. But it is rather nonsensical on the face of it. There is no such disctinction between an invisible and a visible Church in the Orthodox lexicon.

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Owen,

Actually, my questions regarding the visible church stems from an article I read yesterday in The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm):


Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.

Would I be correct, then, to conclude that, in this context, the Orthodox Church denies the doctrine of the visible church?

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Mother Evfrosinia,

Good to hear from you - hope all is well on your side of the pond. Oneday I would like to learn more about Orthodox Monasticism - I am indeed curious, and very ignorant, especially in regard to women monastics.

Thank you for the references to the works of Jaroslav Pelikan - a quick search tells me that none of the public libraries in this part of Maryland have either of them. And no, I haven&#39;t read either of them. I will search the web to see if I can locate at least some excerpts. If anyone reading this knows of any, I would be grateful if you would share the links.

Meanwhile, I have a lot of praying ahead of me, especially for guidance and illumination in light of Fr. Raphael&#39;s thoughts regarding the Church as the actual Body of Christ. I tend to wrap around the proverbial axle over such notions as &#39;but I thought the Church was the BRIDE of Christ - how can she be both . . .&#39;

Thanks for your prayers, & have a blessed weekend.

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Owen Jones]

There is a long, complicated history behind this Catholic statement. The schism between East and West is also a very long, complicated story. I think the opening statement is a somewhat backhanded response to the Protestant doctrine of an &#34;invisible Church.&#34; That&#39;s where it comes from.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Ephesians 5:25-32 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. &#34;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.&#34; This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Sounds like BOTH to me...

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Bob,

A few things from several posts back when you addressed me. First, the best place to verify the claims of the Orthodox Church is an Orthodox church. Reading, studying, conversing, etc. are all great, but there is no replacement for the liturgical life of the Church. Especially as we Orthodox approach and observe Lent!!!

In regards to my comment that &#39;God is indeed the author of sin,&#39; I was referring to my opinion of the Calvinist theology that you seem to be promoting; certainly I was not referring to Orthodox theology!!!

With respect to mankind&#39;s fall in the garden, I find the Orthodox perspective quite satisfying. This perspective is that death was not so much mankind&#39;s &#39;punishment&#39; for the fall, but rather the natural consequence of separating oneself from communion with Life &#40;i.e. God&#41;. For example, if I plug my nose and hold my breath, I will pass out. This isn&#39;t a &#39;punishment&#39; for holding my breath as much as it is a natural result of cutting myself off from the source of breath--oxygen. The same can be said about our fall and its consequence.

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church has never taught the notion of original sin, nor do the Scriptures. Orthodox theologians may refer to the &#39;ancestral sin,&#39; but we do not believe that all men are guilty of Adam&#39;s sin. With that said, we obviously still live with the effects of Adam&#39;s sin--namely death and corruption. A useful analogy is being the son of a convicted drug dealer. The son is not guilty of dealing drugs, but the son lives with the effects of his father&#39;s sin, such as public mistrust.

Moreover, the Orthodox Church does not believe in the Calvinist notion that God chooses some for salvation and others for destruction. It is the Orthodox belief that God gives all men an opportunity to choose Him. Some choose Him, others do not. Nonetheless, God &#34;gave Himself a ransom for all&#34; &#40;1 Tim. 2:6&#41; and offers salvation to all.

The teaching of original sin probably has its roots in Augustinian theology that was unknowingly condemned &#40;meaning that it was unknown by the council that it was Augustine&#39;s teaching&#41; by Church councils. It is certainly a teaching that is never found in the Fathers of the East, nor in Fathers of the West before Augustine. The teaching of limited atonement may also be based somewhat upon Augustinian theology and gained great popularity in the West during the so-called &#39;Holy Roman Empire&#39; because it was politically useful to be considered the &#39;chosen ones&#39; while the others were &#39;condemned by God.&#39;

Aaron

[Ken McRae]

Bob originally posted:-

&#34;Can you explain for me how the following passage from the 7th Chapter of Mark&#39;s Gospel should be interpreted, within the context of your doctrine?&#34;

&#34;Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him,&#39;Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?&#39; He answered and said to them, &#39;Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written ... etc.&#34; &#40;Mk. 7:5-13&#41;

Reply:-

1 - The interpretation of this passage must preserve the harmony of the Scriptures, but the Reformers make it contradict the clear teaching of the Scripture texts I&#39;ve posted, doing violence to their divine harmony, thus proving the error of their way&#40;s&#41; ...

2 - Isaiah prophesied that the Scribes and Pharisees who ruled over the Jews at the time of Christ&#39;s appearance would be a generation of vipers and hardened hypocrites; not that it was always that way, or that the tradition&#40;s&#41; of the holy elders never possessed binding authority ...

3 - Christ does not instruct the Jews to think they are wiser and more enlightened than their fathers and holy elders, who obtained a good report by faith and much suffering for Christ&#39;s sake, whose teachings and examples are worthy of all acceptance and imitation by the faithful; as that would violate the clear teaching of the Law and the Prophets ...

4 - Christ commanded the Jews to obey all that the Pharisees command, for they occupy the Throne of Moses:-

&#34;Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, &#39;The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses&#39; seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not&#39;.&#34; &#40; Matt. 23:1-3 &#41;

Thus, we ought to understand from this that Christ wishes us to render obedience to our teachers, as unto God Himself, even if they be Pharisees; that disobeying those who have authority over us in the Church is the greater sin; and that if our hearts are right with the Lord, and we obey our teachers out of simplicity of heart and respect to God&#39;s commandment, that He will have mercy on us and forgive us our errors ...

5 - Christ does not teach that &#34;the tradition of the ancients &#40;vs. 3&#41;&#34; has no binding authority, for many of them were &#34;elders [who] obtained a good report &#40;Heb. 11:2&#41;&#34; by faith, &#34;of whom the world was not worthy &#40;Heb. 11:38&#41;,&#34; whose lives were both highly exemplary and eminently worthy of being imitated; thus does St. Paul attribute his excellence in the Jewish faith to his exceeding zeal for &#34;the traditions&#34; of his &#34;fathers&#34; &#40;Gal. 1:14&#41;; thus does Christ condemn not &#34;the tradition of the ancients &#40;Mk. 7:3&#41;,&#34; but the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, for He taught that saints, that is, &#34;the pure in heart&#34;, shall see God, implying thereby that their example was trustworthy and ought to be imitated and followed by all who would join them in Paradise ...

6 - In this passage &#40;Mk. 7:1-13&#41;, we must be careful to distinguish between Tradition and tradition, or that with a capital &#39;T&#39; from that with a small &#39;t&#39;, for tradition with a small &#39;t&#39; may occasionally be mixed with bad customs, which customs it is the place of Councils to judge and correct, rather than individuals, as the holy fathers teach us ...

[Bob Hendry]

Greetings Theophilus,

Wow! It's almost too late and my brain is aching. I will work through your post in the morning, in detail; but initially, I would like to respond to what I see as your third point:


4 - Christ commanded the Jews to obey all that the Pharisees command, for they occupy the Throne of Moses:-

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not'." ( Matt. 23:1-3 )

Thus, we ought to understand from this that Christ wishes us to render obedience to our teachers, as unto God Himself, even if they be Pharisees; that disobeying those who have authority over us in the Church is the greater sin; and that if our hearts are right with the Lord, and we obey our teachers out of simplicity of heart and respect to God's commandment, that He will have mercy on us and forgive us our errors ...

Please pray for me, that the Holy Ghost would give me clear counsel and understanding of your commentary on this passage. Initially, I am taken aback pretty violently. I understand this passage quite differently: first off, today, as in the prophets’ times and in Jesus’ time, the world still abounds with teachers who claim to speak in God’s name and power but do not. They usurp the place of the Lord’s true shepherds with lies, false promises, delusions, dreams, visions, and usually are guilty of immoral living.

Second, false religious leaders are characterized by lack of integrity, hypo-critically demanding of others many things they never do themselves.

In exhorting His followers, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;” Jesus obviously was not speaking comprehensively of the lies and errors they taught but only of their instructions that conformed to Scripture. He had made clear that the righteousness acceptable to God must exceed the hypocritical, works-oriented self-righteousness the scribes and Pharisees advocated and practiced (Matt. 5:20). In His following comments He also made clear that their countless man-made traditions, many of which actually contradicted God’s law, were absolutely worthless and led people away from God rather than to Him. They were wrong about murder, fornication, divorce, adultery, swearing, praying, worship, and virtually every other area of living (see 5:21–48). They “invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition” (15:6).

Jesus was not giving blanket approval for following the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees but was rather warning against throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water. In other words, if they speak God’s truth, you should do and observe it, Jesus was saying. The Word of God is still the Word of God, even in the mouth of a false teacher. Insofar as the scribes and Pharisees accurately taught the law and the prophets, their teaching was to be heeded.

Amen Brother Theophilus. With that I will close shop for today. I am suffering guilt at having cut short our family worship tonight, so that I could get back online and re-read your comments, which I value much and appreciate deeply. You are indeed pushing this ol' rock. Tschuss!

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Aaron,

Thanks for your clarification regarding our earlier dialogue and the author of sin- I am guilty of not having read your comment completely. I 'get it' now!

I agree with you regarding the best place to learn the truths of the Orthodox Church - and that day may very well come. I tend to be pretty slow intellectually - I am still guilty of ascribing many of the errors of the Roman Church to the Orthodox as well, At one moment, they are both essentially the same to me, and in the next, I am aware o stark differences.

It is really ironic that the church that is physically closest to my home is St. Thomas the Apostle Church. And to think that I drive about 50 miles each way to get to my church, Trinity RPC, in Beltsville!

Also, you wrote:


With respect to mankind's fall in the garden, I find the Orthodox perspective quite satisfying. This perspective is that death was not so much mankind's 'punishment' for the fall, but rather the natural consequence of separating oneself from communion with Life (i.e. God). For example, if I plug my nose and hold my breath, I will pass out. This isn't a 'punishment' for holding my breath as much as it is a natural result of cutting myself off from the source of breath--oxygen. The same can be said about our fall and its consequence.

I think I agree totally with this. For clarity and my own edification, would you agree with the folllowing:


"We remember that original sin does not refer to the first sin but to the result of that first sin. The Scriptures speak repeatedly of sin and death entering the world through “one man’s transgression." As a result of Adam’s sin, all men are now sinners. The Fall was great. It had radical repercussions for the entire human race." (R.C Sproul, Chosen By God)So when I use the phrase "original sin" I am not speaking of any 'specific' sin - but rather that consequence of Adam's sin that introduced sin to the world. And I believe that this 'sin nature' was inparted to all men:

Romans 3: 10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. 11 There is none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh God. 12 They have all gone out of the way: they have been made altogether unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no not one."

and

Psalm 14:3 "All are gone out of the way: they are all corrupt: there is none that doeth good, no not one."

and

Psalm 53:3 "Every one is gone back: they are altogether corrupt: there is none that doth good, no not one."

Sorry for posting so late - as I was logging-off, I saw your post and - well , let's just say that my self-discipline is lacking . . .

Cheers - In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Herman Blaydoe]

Jesus was not giving blanket approval for following the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees but was rather warning against throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.

BINGO! All we have to do now is determine what constitutes "baby" and what constitutes "bathwater" and we are home free.

This is what we often say the Protestants did. They threw the "baby" of the unwritten Apostolic Witness out along with the "bathwater" of the clearly unscriptural things that the Vatican had added after separating from their Orthodox brethren.


It is really ironic that the church that is physically closest to my home is St. Thomas the Apostle Church.

More ironic than perhaps you realize at present.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Bob,
You asked:


How would you describe the visible church today, in terms of membership, structure and government?

Would you be able to narrow down the focus of your question? It's a bit overwhelming for my poor brain!

Also- if others could please also offer their answers to Bob's question I would appreciate it. I am a bit busy for the next couple of days & won't have much time to give proper consideration to this question.

If I could also make some brief comments about this thread. One is that we certainly accept that there is original sin. All, even the greatest saints, face the struggle with sin & death. Free will enters into how we struggle with sin & death but we are not able to choose whether we will encounter these two. Where we do differ from the west is in how we define what original sin is, its cause & its cure. But by now you are probably seeing what the differences are.

Another point about this topic of original sin. Describing original sin in relationship to our free actions in Paradise against God's will rather than in terms of a punishment that arose from God being offended is an important point.

But we must be careful to not go too far in the other direction so that our description or understanding of sin becomes too clinical.

When we sin & it is said that we offend God there is a very important point that we are going against God's personal providence for each of us. The language that we use about this is analagous concerning God- but it also does describe how God acts in regards to our sin & in this sense it is theological language of the Church.

This goes for other important ways in which we describe how God is in relation to our sin. He is angry not in terms of passion (of course). But such language is used by analogy to refer to God's personal & providential activity in regards to our sin. When we say that God is a "roaring fire" in regards to our sin we do not mean a literal physical fire. But our unthinking, unrepented sin in the face of His uncreated energies is to face something more awful than any physical fire.

It is due to our growing awareness of God's personal love for us & how this works that we are able to gradually learn what repentance means. On the other hand if our understanding of what we have done becomes too clinical we see ourselves as just having made 'mistakes' rather than having sinned. We are in danger of losing or never attaining a sense of compunction for our sin.

I suppose it is like what is described in tomorrow's Gospel of the Prodigal Son. Having left his father & lived with the swine he then 'comes to himself' & returns to his father who embraces his son with tears. None of this is possible to experience unless we see God as Father Whom we offend & Who yet loves us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mother Evfrosinia]

Hello, Bob,

and thank you for your kind words. I hope you can locate those books. My edition was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1971, ISBN 0226653714.
In response to Fr. Rapahael's request for input from others on describing the visible Church:

The Orthodox Church believes in the necessity of a hierarchal structure, Apostolic succession, an episcopate and a priesthood. The Church is governed in a collegial manner by councils of bishops and it is the Church as a whole, not one individual, that is infallible. I feel it is very important to remember that we can’t separate the earthly, material side of the Church from it’s life in Christ our Lord and the Holy Spirit. The Church is an icon of the Holy Trinity in that it, too presets us with the mystery of unity in diversity. We’ve already touched upon the Church as the Body of Christ, as the place on earth where the Incarnation is perpetuated. And the Church presents us with a continued Pentecost, especially in its sacramental life. It is above all a sacramental organism, and exists in its fullness wherever the Eucharist is celebrated. As for membership, it is both Divine and human, visible and invisible, as the Church is composed of concrete congregations, and also of the Most Holy Mother of God, the saints and angels. The Church is held together by communion in the sacraments.

I know that's a bit vague, but otherwise one would have to write an entire book.
In reference to original sin, and to the concept of offending God by our sins: I feel it's important to understand that sin or sins are not merely a string of wrong or bad acts that break certain rules, they are the result of giving in to one's passions and they build a barrier between us and God. By sinning we cut ourselves off from God, we make ourselves deaf to His voice. That is where the real tragedy lies, and that is truly worse than any physical fire.

A blessed Sunday of the Prodigal Son to all!
In Christ, m. evfrosinia

[Ken McRae]

Bob originally posted:-

1 &#41; &#62;&#62; &#34;In exhorting His followers, &#34;All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;&#34; Jesus obviously was not speaking comprehensively of the lies and errors they taught but only of their instructions that conformed to Scripture . He had made clear that the righteousness acceptable to God must exceed the hypocritical, works-oriented self-righteousness the scribes and Pharisees advocated and practiced &#40;Matt. 5:20&#41;.&#34; &#60;&#60;

Dear Bob,

As you may have realized by now, these words hold forth the path of salvation: &#34;All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.&#34; They remove all ground or cause for schism from &#39;the Church&#39;. Is it not of major significance to you that Christ does not tell the Jews to break off their communion with the church of the Pharisees, like the Reformers told their people? Does not Calvin compare the righteousness of the &#39;Papists&#39; to that of the Pharisees, and yet Jesus commands us &#42;not&#42; to break communion with the Pharisees, but rather to submit ourselves unto their authority, as those who occupy the Chair of Moses!! Seperating ourselves from the Pharisees is not the way to keep this commandment, for then we can &#39;observe and do&#39; nothing of what &#34;they bid&#34; us. The path of salvation for us, then, is to return to the Church of the holy fathers, assuming we, as did the prodigal, find ourselves seperated from it.

This teaching parallels that held forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares:- &#34;The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way ... etc. Let both grow together until the harvest ... etc.&#34; [Matt 13:24-30] Christ expressly forbids any attempts to &#39;seperate&#39; the wheat from the tares, and commands that they should be allowed to grow together until harvest. Again, St. John says: &#34;They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.&#34; &#40;1 Jn 2:19&#41; In these words, St John teaches us that those who leave the apostolic Church only prove that they were never truly of that Church; thus implying, that the presence of tares in the Church, such as Pharisees with their &#39;bad customs&#39;, is no ground for seperation from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

However, you are right, though, that Christ is not giving His blessing to breaking the commandments, either knowingly or unknowingly, by commission or ommission. But neither does He commission us to go about pointing the finger in judgment of His priests, saying whether this or that one is a &#39;Pharisee&#39;. When I spoke of rendering obedience to &#34;Pharsiees&#34;, as unto God, I was thinking in terms of the sacrament of the priesthood. Rather ought we to approach the priesthood, in simplicity of heart and mind, as a holy mystery of the Church, in which Christ remains active in His priests, administering sacramental forgiveness, grace and healing to all the faithful. If we are positively sure, though, that our priest is misleading us, that is to say, contradicting the very clear and established teaching of the Church, and the tradition&#40;s&#41; of the saints, who are approved of God, then to consciously, &#34;knowingly&#34; or willingly comply with it would be a sin; and, thus, strictly forbidden.

The efficacy of the sacraments is not dependent upon the personal sanctity of the priest, but upon the promise of Christ and His infinite sanctity and wonder-working power. Blessed Augustine has written the following on this holy mystery:-

&#34;The water over which the name of God is invoked is not profane and polluted, even if that name is invoked by profane and polluted men; for neither God&#39;s creation nor God&#39;s name can be polluted. The baptism which is consecrated by the words of Christ in the Gospels is holy, even when conferred by the polluted, and on the polluted, however shameless and unclean they may be. This holiness is itself incapable of contamination, and the power of God supports His sacrament, whether for the salvation of those who use it aright, or the doom of those who employ it wrongly. The light of the Son, or of a lamp, is not defiled by contact with the filth on which it shines: so how can Christ&#39;s baptism be defiled by the wickedness of any man?&#34; &#40; St. Augustine of Hippo, &#39;On Baptism, Against the Donatists&#39;, 3.15 ; cf. Bettenson&#39;s &#39;Later Christian Fathers&#39;, p. 242 &#41;

This, by no means, though, devalues genuinely godly priests, in whom the spiritual gifts are operative to an extraordinary degree. May we all pray unceasingly for such priests, filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, that God would most graciously, generously, and very literally fill His vineyeard with such &#39;angels&#39;. And with respect to the nature of obedience, the Church teaches that their are two types of &#39;obedience&#39;, and that the obedience rendered to a priest is not as complete or total as that which you&#39;d render to a genuine spiritual father, who has either given birth to you or adopted you, and to whose wisdom you have agreed to submit every aspect of your life for assessment and guidance. Now, you would never render such complete and total submission or obedience to just any priest, especially one that you do not know or trust to be a truly holy and wise servant of God, one deeply absorbed and thoroughly trained in the mystery of godliness, by long personal experience and struggle.

But what if our priest misleads us and we are unaware of it? What then? If he teaches some error that is&#39;nt an obvious or blatant contradition of Church teaching, and the tradition of the saints, and we follow it &#34;innocently&#34;, in the simplicity of our hearts, not knowing or even suspecting we&#39;re being mislead, what then? Will God judge us the same as if we had sinned &#34;presumptuously&#34;? I think not! The scriptures, I feel, distinguish between such sins, characterizing the one as &#34;errors&#34;, and the other as &#34;presumptuous&#34; sins: &#34;Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins ... etc.&#34; &#40; Psalm 19:12-13 &#41;. There is, of course, some sense in which &#39;errors&#39; is being defined in terms of both &#39;secret faults&#39; and &#39;presumptuous sins&#39;; but I feel it best describes &#39;secret faults&#39;, or those sins of which we are guilty, either by commission or omission, but &#34;unknowingly&#34; or unconsciously. It is in this sense that I spoke of God forgiving our &#39;errors&#39;, &#40;a term used often in Scripture,&#41; that is, those sins we commit &#34;unknowingly&#34;, in the simplicity of heart and mind, toward the sacrament of the priesthood.

This is not to imply, however, that we ought not to look upon our errors as &#34;exceeding sinful&#34; &#40;Rm. 7:13&#41;: &#34;Sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.&#34; Note St Paul&#39;s expression, &#34;exceeding sinful&#34;. Father Raphael makes a very good observation, and we would do well to carefully heed it, that we never come to view our sins merely as &#39;mistakes&#39;; for according to the wisdom from above, all sin is &#34;exceeding sinful&#34;, no matter how small and apparently insignificant in the eyes of the worldly wise, including those &#39;errors&#39; or &#39;secret faults&#39; that we are &#34;unknowingly&#34; or unconsciously guilty of. It is my humble opinion, that many of the sins we commit can be directly attributed to a failure on our part to see them as they are in truth, as &#39;exceeding sinful&#39; and offensive to the infinite holiness of God. Thus, we ought not to take any sin so lightly or casually, as though it did not offer us great occasion to weep many tears at the foot of the Lord.

Bob originally posted:-

2 &#41; &#62;&#62; &#34;First off, today, as in the prophets&#39; times and in Jesus&#39; time, the world still abounds with teachers who claim to speak in God&#39;s name and power but do not. They usurp the place of the Lord&#39;s true shepherds with lies, false promises, delusions, dreams, visions, and usually are guilty of immoral living. Second, false religious leaders are characterized by lack of integrity, hypo-critically demanding of others many things they never do themselves.&#34; &#60;&#60;

Reply: -

Your zeal against &#39;false teachers&#39; is commendable; and the Reformers, without question, are closer to the kingdom of heaven, from a Catholic perspective, than are the slaves of the Watchtower, to name but a single example. I would go further than you, however, in this regard, by saying that our own contemporary times have witnessed an unprecedented number of &#39;false prophets and teachers&#39;. And this, I feel, with all due respect, is largely the legacy of the Protestant Reformation itself. Having said that, though, I should also point out that many Orthodox commentators, and members of this community included, no doubt, would rather charge Rome with the &#39;ultimate&#39; blame for this; for, they reason, Rome must take responsibility for the Reformation, which not only paved the way for the current climate of religious chaos in the West, but even deliberately fostered it in the name of religious liberty, and the freedom of conscience.

There is some truth to the viewpoint that Rome must take responsibility for the Reformation, and all the &#39;sectarianism&#39; the latter gave rise to. I cannot deny it. The question, however, that usually surfaces in my mind, in connection with this line of reasoning, is this: who&#39;s to blame for Rome, that is to say, for the Great Schism? I mean, if Rome is to be ultimately blamed for all the heresies and sects that have been born in the West, due to the Protestant rebellion, then why stop there? If one believes that Roman Catholicism is mere &#39;paganism&#39;, as a few Orthodox theologians vigorously assert, then it seems logical to ask who is to blame for RC? If the RC Church is to blame for the Protestant chaos, then why should&#39;nt the EO Church be held responsible for the tragedy of the Great Schism? And the resulting Reformation, &#40;or rather &#39;deformation&#39;,&#41; of the West, in the 16th century?

Now, while your zeal against &#39;false prophets and apostles&#39; is commendable, to be sure, your view, on the other hand, of Pharisees as &#34;false teachers&#34; is incorrect, I feel, strictly speaking; that is to say, it does not conform strictly to the full witness of Scripture. The Pharisee, as far as I can discern from the scriptures, was an &#39;ultra&#39; orthodox Jew, and outwardly blameless &#40;that is, according to the letter of the law&#41;. This is not to say, though, that they never outwardly violated the letter of the law, but only that they did so secretly, under the cover of night, as it were. Thus did they &#34;outwardly appear to men beautiful &#40;Mt 23:27&#41;,&#34; not only in conduct but in doctrine as well: &#34;The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both &#40;Acts 23:8&#41;.&#34; That they could not be charged with &#39;formal&#39; heresy seems evident from at least two considerations: first, because Christ admits that they occupy the chair of Moses, which can never be said of formal heretics and schismatics; and second, because Christ commanded his disciples to observe and do all that the Pharisses bid, and it would be blasphemous to assert that Christ is saying that we ought to obey heretics, even partially!!

There is, of course, a sense in which &#39;orthodoxy&#39; consists not just in correct faith or beliefs, but in the power of godliness itself, after the inward man of the heart. Many a Pharisee was &#34;unorthodox&#34;, in this sense, being completely bereft and void of all true heart purity and theological vision. It is, however, in my opinion again, assuming too much to insist that all Pharisees were &#39;blind leaders of the blind&#39;. That would be &#39;stereotyping&#39; of the first magnitude, not to mention entirely without scriptural support. Perhaps Gamaliel is an example of one Pharisee that was not a &#39;blind leader of the blind&#39;; and perhaps all the more &#34;enlightened&#34; Pharisees of the day were trained at his feet, such as St Paul himself, who may have been groomed, incidentally, I guess, to succeed Gamaliel in his teaching faculty. While the Pharisees generally neglected the &#39;weightier matters&#39; of the law, that is to say, those things which enter into the heart and vitals of true religion, it is difficult to say that they were entirely ignorant of such matters, and did not at least make passing reference to them in their sermons.

For example, in Mark 12:28-34, we have an interesting account of a Scribe, that is, a Pharisee, I believe, questioning the Lord concerning the heart and essence of true religion:-

&#34;And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.&#34;

Now, we are not told this Pharisee&#39;s name but it is quite clear he was&#39;nt &#34;swallowing camels and straining at gnats,&#34; like many of his fellow priests. That he placed loving God and neighbour with the whole inward man above &#34;all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices&#34; is positive proof of this; and yet Jesus says this man had not yet entered into the kingdom of heaven!! What, then, of those Pharisees that had entered? Surely there was a remnant that remained true to the tradition&#40;s&#41; of the OT saints, &#34;of whom the world was not worthy &#40;Heb 11:38&#41;.&#34; Zacharias &#40;Lk 1:5&#41;, father to St John the Baptist, is one example of many, I feel, of whom it is said that he was &#34;righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless &#40;Lk 1:6&#41;.&#34; How many others like him do you suppose there were, but who are left in complete obscurity, as though the world was not worthy to receive knowledge of them, in accordance with &#39;Hebrews 11:38&#39;?

Thus, it is entirely reasonable to for us to assume this holy remnant not only preserved the knowledge of true religion in Israel, but were given to its dissemination; and that all Pharisees received some theological training in the letter of this knowledge. And as the great sin of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, that is, making pretense to that which they were not, it is again entirely reasonable to assume these hypocrites would wish to be thought of as &#39;spiritual men&#39;, and to that end would even master all the words and expressions of true religion, and pretend that they were men deeply experienced in these mysteries of the heart. Thus could the Lord say &#34;they say and do not&#34;, implying that they spoke of the &#39;weightier matters&#39; but did not put them into practice. Regarding the &#39;heavy burdens&#39; that they fastened on men&#39;s backs, the Lord does not even criticise these so much as the fact these hypocrites would not so much as touch such burdens themselves with even a single finger, let alone carry them upon their own backs.

Why does the Lord not criticise them for laying such &#39;heavy burdens&#39; on men&#39;s backs, so much as their hypocrisy in doing so? It is because the work of salvation, as the saints teach us by holy example, is very laborious. Let none think it is an easy thing for us to save our souls, contrary to the opinions of some. Had the Pharisees practiced what they preached, that is, placed these heavy burdens on their own backs, and even ones heavier than those placed on other men&#39;s backs, the Lord may not have accused them of being hypocrites, after all; for in so doing they&#39;d have fulfilled the law of Christ, which is to &#34;bear ye one another&#39;s burdens.&#34; &#40;Gal. 6:2&#41; In keeping with this truth that saving the soul is a very laborious work, let none of us imagine that &#39;correct beliefs&#39; about God and religion are a guaranteed &#39;ticket&#39; to heaven. It is quite possible to possess &#39;orthodoxy&#39; in the head, so-to-speak, without the power and warmth thereof in the heart. May God the Father grant us all to enter fully into the experience of the mystery and power of true godliness!!

Bob originally posted:-

3 &#41; &#62;&#62; &#34;In His following comments He also made clear that their countless man-made traditions, many of which actually contradicted God&#39;s law, were absolutely worthless and led people away from God rather than to Him. They were wrong about murder, fornication, divorce, adultery, swearing, praying, worship, and virtually every other area of living &#40;see 5:21–48&#41;. They &#34;invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition&#34; &#40;15:6&#41;.&#60;&#60;

Reply:-

Regarding your viewpoint that Christ teaches a doctrine of Sola Scriptura in Mk 7:7-9, I must regretfully disagree, for the Lord does not say that &#42;all&#42; their traditions were bad, but &#42;many&#42;:- &#34;Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.&#34; &#40;Mk 7:13&#41; Christ&#39;s expression &#39;the word of God&#39;, as used in this particular context, does not refer to the entire Bible, but strictly refers to the commandment to honour our parents. With regard to Christ&#39;s Sermon on the Mount, it appears as though he criticizes the Pharisees more for what they left unsaid than for what they, in fact, did say; which appeared outwardly correct according to the letter of the law. It is clear, though, from the passage in Mk 7 that Jesus attacks only those traditions or customs that contradict the Scriptures; and, thus are we to infer from this that only traditions which contradict Scripture can be condemned. And Sola Scriptura cannot be derived from this, as that doctrine forbids all traditions, good or bad alike, claiming for Scripture the sole authority to bind the conscience.

Beside this, our Lord taught that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all the truth, and unless you wish to insist that He stopped guiding the Church after the New Testament was written and the canon closed, then He has continued to do so down to our own times. Now, this continuous action of the Spirit of Truth in the bossom of the Church, and the lives of all the saints, must be viewed as much a sacred deposit as the written word of God itself; for St Paul writes that holy &#34;God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels ... etc.&#34; &#40;2 Cor. 4:6-7&#41; Do you see it? God did not deliver a Bible already written and finished to the Church, but rather revealed the brightness and glory of Christ in the hearts of the saints; and they, from pure hearts, were inspired by the Spirit to write of their heart treasure, letters of spiritual guidance to the Church. And this spiritual process continues even today!!

&#39;Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.&#39; &#40;Mt 5:8&#41; Each of the saints will attest to this, that they deliver what they have received of the Spirit. And indeed they are the living epistles of the Spirit, not written with ink on tables of stone, but rather with the Spirit on hearts of flesh. Now, will you insist that we are not duty bound to obey the continuous leading and guidance of the Divine Spirit? Now, if the saints, those pure in heart, shall see God, is it not wise of us to follow in their footsteps, even as they have followed in those of the saints who went before them? If the saints shall see God, then there is nothing in their lives that can prevent us from seeing God, if we follow them in everything, step for step on the narrow path that leads to Paradise!!

Now, it is my humble opinion that the promise and fulfillment of John 16:13 should be studied in connection with St John 3:10-12 and Matt 7:6 ; for in these two passages, Christ implies that the heavenly things were reserved for future times, and left unspoken when he lived among us in the flesh; and that the true pearls of heavenly wisdom were reserved for the saints, that is, those with hearts pure enough to benefit from such exalted revelations, as in St Paul&#39;s case &#40;2 Cor. 12&#41;. While St Paul claims he was forbidden to utter these pearls of divine wisdom to others, he had an abundance of revelations of things not contained in Scripture and it is not unreasonable to suppose he bequeathed some of this heavenly treasure to the most advanced among his spiritual children. It is quite possible that the Spirit permitted him to do so near the end, so as to strengthen those left behind. The saints attest to this many times over, that they have been shown many things by the Spirit not revealed in the Scriptures, and indeed St. Basil witnesses that it was the ancient practice of the Church to pass over and transmit many precious pearls of wisdom in silence, implying that the words of Matt 7:6 were a type of rule in this regard.

That a holy God-inspired &#39;oral&#39; tradition descended in silence from ancient times, through the OT prophets, saints, and holy elders, along with the written Scriptures, is implied not only in the Gospel references to &#39;the tradition of the elders&#39;, and St. Paul&#39;s reference to the traditions of his fathers, but we have at last a proof of it in St. Jude&#39;s reference to the prophecy of Enoch:-

&#34;Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.&#34; &#40;Jude 14-15&#41;

Now, perhaps you are able to point out for us where this prophesy is located in the Old Testament, but I cannot. For me, this is positive proof that the Jewish Fathers received, preserved and handed down an authentic &#39;oral&#39; tradition of prophetic sayings not revealed in Scripture; as well as a body of holy teachings and sayings of the elders on the Law and the Prophets, much of which might consist of things not expressly commanded by God, but inspired and permitted by Him nonetheless. St. Paul makes such a distinction in his first epistle to the Corinthians:-

&#34;Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.&#34; &#40;1 Cor. 7:5-6&#41;

Now, what does he mean when he says, &#34;I speak this by permission, and not of commandment&#34;? It seems to me that he means God has not commanded Paul to write or recommend this, but will permit him to do so, nonetheless. Such was the age old practice of the Jewish elders, doubtless, from whom St. Paul copied it, after the example of Gamaliel, most likely. One O.T. example of this is David&#39;s introduction of &#39;singers&#39; into the Tabernacle worship of God. There is absolutely nowhere in the OT Scriptures, that I&#39;m presently aware of, where this institution was commanded by God, and yet He permitted it!! The Apostles handed down many such things, doubtless, unwritten, both expressly commanded by God, and things permitted, but nonetheless divinely inspired, for we have this from the clear testimony of both Scripture and Tradition, as in these few particular instances:-

01 - &#34;Many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.&#34; &#40;Jn. 21:25&#41;

02 - &#34;And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.&#34; &#40;Jn. 20:30-31&#41;

03 - &#34;Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?&#34; &#40;Jn. 3:10-12&#41;

04 - &#34;Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.&#34; &#40;Mt. 7:6&#41;

05 - &#34;I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.&#34; &#40;1 Cor. 3:1-2&#41;

06 - &#34;Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec, of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.&#34; &#40;Heb. 5:11&#41;

07 - &#34;The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.&#34; &#40;2 Tim. 2:2&#41;

08 - &#34;Keep on doing what you have learned and received and HEARD and SEEN IN ME. Then the God of peace will be with you.&#34; &#40;Phil 4:9&#41;

09 - &#34;Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.&#34; &#40;2 Tim. 1:13&#41;

10 - &#34;Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.&#34; &#40;2 Thes. 2:15&#41;

11 - St. John Chrysostom &#40;c. 390&#41;

&#34;Hence it is manifest that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things UNWRITTEN, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore, let us think the TRADITION of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.&#34; &#40;Comment on 2 Thes. 2:15, NPNF 13:390&#41;.

12 - St. Gregory the Theologian:-

&#34;Our faith has been proclaimed both in written and unwritten and in unwritten form, here and in distant parts, in danger and in security. Why then do some men attempt such innovations, while others remain peaceful?&#34; &#40;St. Gregory the Theologian, in &#39;Epistle&#39; 101.1; Bettenson&#39;s &#39;Later Christian Fathers&#39;, p. 99&#41;

&#34;I desire to learn what is the fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church. But since our faith has been proclaimed both in writing AND WITHOUT WRITING, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how is it that some make such attempts and others keep silent?&#34; &#40;&#39;Epistle&#39; 101.1&#41;

&#34;It suffices for proof of our statement that we have a TRADITION coming down from the fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession FROM THE APOSTLES through the saints who came after them.&#34; &#40;Against Eunomius 4, 6 - On Christ&#39;s Nature&#41;

13 - St. Basil the Great:-

&#34;Of the beliefs and practices preserved in the Church, whether by tacit sanction, or by public decree, we have some derived from written teaching; others we have received as delivered to us &#39;in a mystery&#39; from the tradition of the Apostles; and both classes have the same force, for true piety. No one will dispute these; no one, at any rate, who has even the slightest experience of the institutions of the Church. If we try to depreciate the customs lacking written authority, on the ground that they have but little validity, we should find ourselves unwittingly inflicting vital injury on the Gospel: or rather reducing official definition to a mere form of words.

&#34;For example, to mention the first and commonest instance - who has given us written instructions to sign, with the sign of the cross, those who have set their hope on the name of the Lord Jesus? What written instructions have we for turning to the East in prayer? Which of the saints have left to us, in writing, the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of blessing? For to be sure, we are not content with the record of the Apostle and the Gospel, but we add, by way of preface and conclusion, other elements which we have received from the unwritten teaching, and we regard them as having great importance for the performance of the sacrament. We bless the water of baptism, and the oil of the chrism, and moreover we bless the person who is being baptized. On whose written instructions? Is it not on the authority of silent and secret tradition? And what of the anointing of oil itself ? What written word rejoined that? And whence comes the custom of triple immersion? And with regard to the other rites of baptism, from what scripture do we obtain the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from this unpublished and secret teaching? Our fathers, by silence, preserved this teaching from inquisitive meddlers, having been well instructed to safeguard, by silence, the awful solemnity of these mysteries. It was scarcely likely that a public display, in the shape of written documents, should be made of teaching about things at which the uninitiated are not even allowed to look ... etc.

&#34;[Moses excluded people from parts of the Tabernacle.] Moses had the wisdom to know that contempt readily falls on the trite and the easily accessible, while eager interest tends naturally to attach to the remote and the unusual. In the same way the Apostles and Fathers, who at the beginning laid down ordinances concerning the Church, were concerned to safeguard the solemnity of the mysteries, by secrecy and reticence; for what is published for the casual hearing of the general public is no mystery at all. This is the reason for the tradition of unwritten matters, that the knowledge of dogmas may not be slighted and despised by the multitude, through familiarity. &#39;Dogma&#39; and &#39;Kerygma&#39; are two different things. We keep silent about &#39;Dogma&#39;: &#39;Kerygma&#39; is published.&#34; &#40;St. Basil the Great, in &#39;The Holy Spirit&#39;, 66; cf. Bettenson&#39;s &#39;Later Christian Fathers&#39;, pp. 59-60&#41;

&#34;The question which now crops up, owing to those who are always endeavouring to introduce novelties, was passed over in silence by earlier generations, because the teaching had never been controverted, and thus it had been left without authoritative explanation: I refer to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.&#34; &#40;St. Basil the Great, in &#39;Epistle&#39; 159.2; cf. Bettenson&#39;s &#39;Later Christian Fathers&#39;, p. 73&#41;

14 - Blessed Augustine of Hippo on Holy Tradition

&#34;The admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, &#39;that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,&#39; is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation&#34; &#40;On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:26[37]&#41;

&#34;[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings&#34; &#40;On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]&#41;

&#34;And if anyone seek for Divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by an apostolic authority.&#34; &#40;On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 24&#41;

&#34;But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church&#34; &#40;Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]&#41;

&#34;Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted.&#34; &#40;Epistle 118&#41;

Now, as I indicated in my last post, the distinction needs to be made here as well between tradition with a capital &#39; T &#39; and that with a small &#39; t &#39;. Anything classified under the capital &#39; T &#39; is considered non-negotiable, so-to-speak; whereas that which falls under the small &#39; t &#39; is many times optional, like the Orthodox doctrine of the toll houses, which is viewed as &#39;theological opinion&#39; rather than essential dogma. These distortions, referred to as the &#39;traditions of men&#39;, were very likely late developments, and regarded more as theological opinions, in the same manner Sadducees viewed other doctrines of the Pharisees, like the resurrection, for example:-

&#34;There arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.&#34; &#40;Acts 23:7-8&#41;

Had not the old dispensation passed away with that generation, it is very likely that these corruptions would have come under the scrutiny of some future council, and been finally expunged!! However, while such are often regarded as customs that we are free to pass judgment upon ourselves, it is generally the place of the holy Councils to make such judgments and corrections in the life of the Church.

Bob originally posted:-

4 &#41; &#62;&#62; &#34;Jesus was not giving blanket approval for following the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees but was rather warning against throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water. In other words, if they speak God&#39;s truth, you should do and observe it, Jesus was saying. The Word of God is still the Word of God, even in the mouth of a false teacher. Insofar as the scribes and Pharisees accurately taught the law and the prophets, their teaching was to be heeded.&#34; &#60;&#60;

Reply:-

You&#39;re absolutely right!! I entirely agree that Jesus never gave a &#34;blanket approval&#34;, as you say, to all that the Pharisees taught. I would never think of saying as much, and humbly beg your pardon for giving that impression. I have prepared this lengthy explanation as an attempt to clarify the matter, and hope you will pardon me for taxing your patience with so many words. With regard to the viewpoint that Pharisees were false teachers, I have laboured to present a more moderate viewpoint, one that is less harsh and in greater accord with the sacrament of the priesthood, as I personally visualize it.

Humbly in Jesus,
Theophilus

&#40;Message edited by theophilus on 08 March, 2005&#41;

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Theophilus,

Sorry for the time-lapse - things are finally returning to a normal level of chaos . . . I am grateful for your lengthy post of March 7. It has taken me this long, with frequent interruptions, to wade through it.

You wrote:


As you may have realized by now, these words hold forth the path of salvation: "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." They remove all ground or cause for schism from 'the Church'. Is it not of major significance to you that Christ does not tell the Jews to break off their communion with the church of the Pharisees, like the Reformers told their people? Does not Calvin compare the righteousness of the 'Papists' to that of the Pharisees, and yet Jesus commands us *not* to break communion with the Pharisees, but rather to submit ourselves unto their authority, as those who occupy the Chair of Moses!! Separating ourselves from the Pharisees is not the way to keep this commandment, for then we can 'observe and do' nothing of what "they bid" us. The path of salvation for us, then, is to return to the Church of the holy fathers, assuming we, as did the prodigal, find ourselves seperated from it.

This teaching parallels that held forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares:- "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way ... etc. Let both grow together until the harvest ... etc." [Matt 13:24-30] Christ expressly forbids any attempts to 'seperate' the wheat from the tares, and commands that they should be allowed to grow together until harvest. Again, St. John says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 Jn 2:19) In these words, St John teaches us that those who leave the apostolic Church only prove that they were never truly of that Church; thus implying, that the presence of tares in the Church, such as Pharisees with their 'bad customs', is no ground for seperation from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We have agreement on our respective understanding of the parable of the wheat and the tares. And the knowledge gained form the study of these passages, and others, has led me here. I agree that Christ never advocated separation, rather the Scriptures condemn it. Why then did Pope Leo X excommunicate Luther in 1520?? Is this the reason you blame the RC for "the Protestant chaos"?

Me thinks I know the answer - Rome is NOT the Church?? Orthodoxy is?? (As I am relatively certain that the answers to these questions are both "yes", please acknowledge only if I am not correct.) This, then, leads me to wonder regarding the history of your separation from Rome; can you point me toward a good (concise) history of Orthodoxy?? Preferably, online? There is probably an extensive discourse on this here on Monachos somewhere . . .

You also wrote:


It is my humble opinion, that many of the sins we commit can be directly attributed to a failure on our part to see them as they are in truth, as 'exceeding sinful' and offensive to the infinite holiness of God. Thus, we ought not to take any sin so lightly or casually, as though it did not offer us great occasion to weep many tears at the foot of the Lord.

and I couldn't agree with you more. Perhaps the popularly held evangelical notion that one needs only to "invite Christ" into one's heart to attain salvation, encourages this callous disregard for the effect of sin. This has long been a wall of division between most Evangelicals and we Calvinists. I acknowledge, on the one hand, that even the tiniest infraction against God's law merits eternal damnation, while on the other hand, I still tend to: a) place too little concern on my "venial" sins, and b) continue to choose the lesser of two evils, rather than strive to avoid all sin - altogether . . .

Thank God, that before the foundation of the world, He knew that I would be a miserable sinner; and He, none-the-less, choose me for His infinite pleasure, AND through His unmerited grace, sent His Son to be my propitiatory sacrifice. Amen.

You wrote


It is quite possible to possess 'orthodoxy' in the head, so-to-speak, without the power and warmth thereof in the heart. May God the Father grant us all to enter fully into the experience of the mystery and power of true godliness!!

and I couldn't agree with you more. Well said! So let us cut to the chase - you believe that ALL protestants lack "the power and warmth" of the Truth in their hearts?? Only some? Is it possible for some protestants to hold Orthodoxy in the heart? For any? I recall from my earlier schooling in the Catholic Church (Roman) that they hold a doctrine that says one MUST be RC in order to ever see heaven. Do you share this belief (You, the OC, that is)??

Academically, I agree with you regarding the divisive issue of Sola Scriptura. To a point, the notion is oxymoronic,; without the tradition of the "Church" we wouldn't have 'Scriptura'. However, even the most cursory glance at the history of the church is repulsive, morally, spiritually and scripturally. While we hold strictly to the infallibity of the Word, I cannot hold the same for the church. (I know there is a thread on Monachos that addresses this issue - I haven't had opportunity to read it. In time . . .) (Please forgive me - - when I use the expression "the church" I use it almost universally as the Roman Catholic Church (the ministerial office), and "the Church" as the Body and Bride of Christ. Association with the Orthodox Church is quite new to me, and it hasn't yet registered in my mind that there is a significant difference between the RC and the OC, while I KNOW that there is(intellectual acceptance?). Hmmm . . .) As you, and others have pointed out, the history and orthodoxy of the RC cannot be pleasing in the Eyes of God.

Regarding the sufficiency of the Scriptures, I hold that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand. I would like to continue with a response to your post, but I have to get going for now. Sorry for the abrupt ending here.

While I recognize that this is an obstacle to me, it is certainly not insurmountable; transubstantiation and purgatory are greater. Perhaps we can discuss those, as well, in time.

In the meantime, thank you again for the honesty and directness in your responses, and I will continue to pray that the Holy Spirit would enlighten me to the Truth.

Cheers - In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Hello again, Dear Theophilus,

Finally, I’ve had the opportunity to read your


lengthy explanation as an attempt to clarify the matter

in detail, and in its entirety. And I have to concede that I am completely at peace with your explanation. Initially, I tried to digest your ‘thesis’ in bits and pieces, and respond similarly. Yesterday, for example, I posted a fairly long response to the first half, and fully intended to respond to the remainder today. I have been at work on this response since 09:00 AM this morning, almost continuously, to my own frustration. The process was one of reading a bit, going to the Bible, various commentaries, the web, etc; writing a bit; reading a bit further; then scrubbing all of what I had written (because you had covered my points and answered my objections, one step ahead of me). I was guilty of what I frequently criticize others for - reading only excerpts out of context, and forming illogical conclusions. When I sit back and read your entire article, with my Bible in hand, I must admit that I can find no fault in your exegesis nor in your conclusions. You are clear and precise, and I sincerely appreciate and thank God, for that. (That is a mouthful for a Reformed Presbyterian!)

I feel closer to achieving my objective; TRUTH, and I am in your debt. Thank you and may God continue to richly bless you.

There are other question that perplex me. Please bear with me as I pose them, and be assured that I do not intend to challenge - rather to provoke you (all ) to confirm your beliefs through discipleship - leading me (and others in my camp) to the discovery of God’s Truths. I will start a new thread under the topic "Transubstantiation" or something similar, after pursuing the forum for discussions that might answer my questions. Again, thanks for the help!

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[nurse-aid]

And seriously...desert is vERY tricky place wi8th i8llusions and danger i8n every sigle step...and you nevre know WHO is WHO...

[Owen Jones]

TRUTH -- in ORthodoxy it is a realm. Truth is stated propositionally, because we have no other way to do it, but one always risks reducing truth to propositions, thereby losing the experiential foundation. Man finds himself in an in-between world, in between mortality and immortality, in between world and the beyond, in between imperfection and perfection. There is no &#34;objective&#34; truth as such, as if someone could observe reality from a perspective extrinsic to it. Faith moves us consciously into that in-between world in which truth resides. Truth is a condition of existence and of consciousness of where we have come from and what we are moving toward. Truth is something that is lived in the in-between. This truth is defended by the Church in its doctrine and its life. But it is also defended wherever the Holy Spirit is present and evident in the lives of human beings. This is Orthodox teaching. The argument over the validity of Councils, and other ecclesiastical arguments, while important, are not foundational. When they become foundational, they become substitutes for the living reality.

This is what differentiates ORthodox theology from Rome and Protestantism. There is still some vestige of the idea of movement and progress in Catholic &#34;spirituality&#34; but you won&#39;t hear anybody in the magisterium speaking this way that I know of. And, of course, Protestantism has completely lost consciousness of the Orthodox understanding of man as an eschatological index, in the in-between. A man is a man who is either saved on not saved based on some slogan.

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Owen,

Well said! Thanks for sharing your insight. Perhaps it is time to rethink my purpose for visiting Monachos, in light of John 20:29. Your perception on the meaning of truth, while hurting a bit, forces one to think a little differently.

Sadly, I almost demand a clear answer to all inguires in black and white - might be why we have been dubbed Christ&#39;s &#34;frozen chosen&#34; . . .

In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Bob Hendry]

Dear Owen,

Sorry to jump back so far in time - my wife teaches in, and my children attend, a local Christian School that was on Easter break last week, and I have been thoroughly enjoying their company. Not that I don't enjoy and benefit from the dialogue here - but they trumped Monachos. (I have been following the dialogue - just not participating in it.)

As noted earlier, your post was - and is - provocative. Would I be correct in assuming that your perspective on truth is limited to the specific context of religious truth? Or are you applying it more broadly to include ALL of human knowledge? I know that I frequently fall short, personally, by trying to move religious truth over the line; why can't it all be 'black and white'? . . .

I understand that there is a very fine line between theology and philosophy - but I am unsure of which side you are looking from.

After reading your post several times, I was drawn to the site that discusses the Holy Bible (http://www.apostlethomas.org/article.php?id=45), at the St. Thomas the Apostle (http://www.apostlethomas.org/) website. Conspicuous by its absence, was any reference to the inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible. How does the Orthodox Church view the Holy Bible: is it indeed the inerrant Word of God, recorded by fallible men, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

Your concluding comment:


And, of course, Protestantism has completely lost consciousness of the Orthodox understanding of man as an eschatological index, in the in-between. A man is a man who is either saved on not saved based on some slogan.

gives me grave concern: Does your perception of protestantinism 'at large' include historic protestantinism, and is it indicative of, and 'universally', the Orthodox view? I would certainly disagree. But that would be a different topic not appropriate in this forum. My 'haupt Grund' for participating here is still to gain an understanding of Orthodoxy, not to discuss my Reformed Presbyterian beliefs.

Thanks - In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Herman Blaydoe]

How does the Orthodox Church view the Holy Bible: is it indeed the inerrant Word of God, recorded by fallible men, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

That is EXACTLY my understanding of the Orthodox teaching. I would say that understanding is so basic to Orthodoxy that it literally "goes without saying." That is why we quote Holy Scripture so extensively in our worship. Nothing that Holy Orthodoxy teaches can contradict what is in Holy Scripture, realizing that God is bigger than a book and that the entire New Testament was formed and codified within the teachings and traditions of the Holy Church. The Church existed long before the body of writings that we refer to as THE BIBLE existed.

Herman

[Owen Jones]

How does the Orthodox Church view the Holy Bible: is it indeed the inerrant Word of God, recorded by fallible men, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

This improperly frames the issue. The Bible cannot be approached or understood apart from a properly formed Christian phronesis. It does not stand alone as some kind of objective truth. If it did, there would be no problem. Everyone would recognize it as such, just as we recognize that a rock is hard, that the sun shines, that the wind blows. There is no doctrine of Biblical truth, or inerrancy, if you prefer that term, apart from the formed capabilities of human consciousness. Christian consciousness is a part of the Biblical witness, the Biblical reality, the Biblical truth. Otherwise, it is simply an historical artifact.

This is witnessed by the fact that in the early Church, the catechumens were ushered out of the Church prior to any theological interpretation of the text, because the strong belief was that the catechumens were not yet ready to hear this.

[M.C. Steenberg]

"How does the Orthodox Church view the Holy Bible: is it indeed the inerrant Word of God, recorded by fallible men, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?"

It is interesting to look purely at this question. As it stands, almost every term is open to multiple interpretations, which would greatly influence the manner in which the question is understood and answered. What do we mean when we say 'inerrant', or, in this context, 'Word'? What do we mean when we say 'recorded'? 'Fallible'? 'Inspiration'? These questions makes the realm of response quite broad. In one sense I might agree with our good community member, Mr Blaydoe, and simply respond to the question with 'yes'. But this only holds true from a very specific reading and defining of all the terms in the phrase. Be any one of them defined differently from the set of definitions I have in my own mind, and the answer might become a resounding 'no'.

As a general rule I tend toward the latter response, as most often the question is posed from a context in which these terms have a pre-determined or pre-assigned meaning that is quite against the Orthodox approach to scripture. There is, for example, the openness of Orthodox in general to the notion that the Bible can be and is riddled with 'errors' or 'inaccuracies' when examined in certain terms. It presents contradictions of detail which, though many a contemporary Gospel or scripture 'harmony' have attempted to show them as being otherwise, remain contradictions; but this poses no problem to the Orthodox understanding of 'truth' and 'inerrancy'. So I tend most often to answer the question with a 'no', feeling it more important to assert the differences in approach and vision than blindly to assert a conformity view.

But Owen has really revealed the more fundamental, and substantially more important, issue. Scripture is, in the Orthodox life, a thing approached, received, and lived. Its significance is most clearly seen in the ancient liturgical practice of the Divine Liturgy, when the book was kept outside the sanctuary, 'among the people' (often in the house of the bishop or priest) and brought in during the service at the 'little entrance'. Here we see the book of the scriptures being produced from the people, from human possession and hands, and offered to God processionally as it is taken into the sanctuary and placed upon the holy table. Later this same offering is brought out of the sanctuary, back into the people's midst, where it is proclaimed aloud by the deacon, accompanied by signs of deep reverence -- bows or prostrations, the sign of the cross, and finally the pastoral blessing from the ambon made with the book itself.

There is in this symbolic imagery a strong witness to the Orthodox approach to scripture. It is wrought from the hands of men, a human offering to the revelation God has always been working in the cosmos. Yet this offering is directed by God 'who orders and governs all things', just as the book was processionally brought into the church, into the altar. And God sanctifies through his grace the offering made to his name, such that the thing offered -- the testimony of the scriptures -- becomes revelatory of his grace in its own self. Thus the scriptures are taken from the 'holy of holies', the dwelling-place of God, into the people's midst now as the sacred beacon of divine presence and truth.

All of this reveals the Orthodox approach to scriptural authority as organic, dynamic reality of offering and receipt. It is notable that the entrance of the Gospel book and its re-emergence in the nave is closely paralleled in the 'Great Entrance' with the holy gifts, which also are laid upon the holy table, and which also re-emerge amidst the people consecrated and sanctified as the body and blood of Christ.

What is critical is that the receipt of both -- the testimony of the scriptures as well as the holy gifts of the Eucharist -- comes to the faithful only through the full experience of the Orthodox life, concentrated here in the liturgical celebration. The Gospel book is not simply opened up and read to the people; even its entrance into the nave comes only as part of the engaged reality of the service -- the litanies, the antiphonal chants and prayers, the preparatorial censing, the blessing of the entrance. Scripture's authority is found in the life of the Church, not antecedent to or definitive of it. Here, in the midst of the Church's prayer, the book is exalted and read.

INXC, Matthew

[nurse-aid]

NOT like i want to spoiled anyhting...just came to mind how many peole before me...went the same way....so you alawys have an answer ready...just copy and paste it...not to spoiled anything...just guessing...