Tradition

[Michelle Mosca]

I don't really understand how the traditions in the church have come about. They obviously had to start somewhere biblically, correct? I'd assume that Jesus' teachings are at the base of everything, so that would mean when reasearching, or asking where a tradition in the church started, part of it would be scripture. I could ask, what scripture does this tradition relate to, and get an answer, or is that not right?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Michelle,

The question of scripture and tradition, namely in their relationship one to another, is one that often recurs when people from other traditions examine the orthodox Church (as well as when those within the Church consider her history). Quite a lengthy discussion on it (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1668) was had here back in 2002.

Briefly stated, the answer is that the question itself is somewhat anachronistic: it presumes that the scripture predated the traditions of the Church. The New Testament, however, did not come formally into being, in terms of a settled canon, until the fourth century. Four centuries of constant, developing tradition pre-date the first widespread 'canon' of an NT. Ideas, sometimes floated about, that the NT was 'basically there' earlier, despite the lack of formal canon, cannot bear descent scrutiny of history. It is clear that widely different collections of documents were in use, bearing everything from minimal to full-on influence upon liturgical and ecclesiastical formation.

The basic Protestant vision is that there was scripture first, and from this arose traditions. The basic Orthodox vision is that the tradition of entering into the life of Christ is that from which the scriptures themselves sprang. So no, having some 'source' in a page or chapter of a scriptural book is not a criterion for the development of tradition.

We want to be careful not to turn this thread into an Orthodox v. Protestant discussion on tradition and scripture, which this forum is not for; but there is ample room for discussion on the patristic and liturgical notions of scripture in the tradition of the Church.

INXC, Matthew

[nurse-aid]

and that is HOW my own mom almost killed me, by stop breast feeding, becuse the BOOK by benjamin spoke said so...or other auhor...and that book covered mind and eyes of my mother...to see her own child in her needs...so the RULE become more important then ALIVE Organism...and then it may kill...Thanks be to GOD other women saved me by her milk!

[Antonios]

In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul writes:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=2&version=50)

This was written by Paul years before the first Gospel was written and centuries before the New Testament was organized as we have it today. This is the Apostolic Tradition he is making reference to, guided by the Holy Spirit and practiced since Pentecost Sunday.

with love,
Antonios

[Vasilis Kirikos]

I wish to preface what I am about to write by saying that I'm not prejudice. I am a scientist trained to try to accurately report what I truly observe. Having said that I wish to state that my wife was a Southern Baptist before she became Orthodox. Before we came to the northern regions of the USA to live we lived in the heart of what is known as "the Bible Belt". I had lived in the Bible-Belt most of the early years of my life including most of my college years.

I was left with this observation. Protestants, while they will be the first to protest that they use the Bible and only the Bible as their authority in reality do not really know the Bible; not nearly as well as do Orthodox Christians.

This was proven to me when many of my wife's friends and relatives came to our Orthodox Church from down south; members of my congregation commented on their lack of knowledge (and my mother-in-law was a Sunday School Teacher!).

Also my wife told me that she learned more about the Bible in the Orthodox Church than she had her entire life as Baptist before we were married.

One last observation, Protestantism breeds unbelief; even borders atheism due to the lack of any concrete belief or creed to offer their members. (The Bible recites “my people are destroyed due to their lack of knowledge.)

Moreover, I heard Billy Graham once state that there were more Baptists in what was the USSR than in the USA! But Billy Graham failed to say why. I later found out the reason why so many Baptists were allowed, indeed imported into the USSR. It was because the atheistic Communist state wanted to break the back of religion in Russia and the Communist enslaved nations and they found that impossible to do so long as the Orthodox Church had such a major influence! Indeed, the people of Russia would not fight the Nazis when Hitler invaded Russia; not for Stalin; not for Communism. And much to Stalin’s chagrin he had to ask the Patriarch of Moscow to ask the people of Russia to fight the Nazis. ONLY AFTER THE PATRIARCH ASKED THE PEOPLE TO FIGHT FOR HOLY RUSSIA WOULD THEY FIGHT!! STALIN HATED THE CHURCH, I.E., THE ORTHODOX CHURCH FOR HAVING THAT POWER; POWER HE WAS GRAPHICALLY SHOWN HE DID NOT HAVE! SO THE COMMUNISTS IMPORTED THE BAPTIST TO HELP THEM COMPLETE THEIR INDOCTRINATION AND TURN THE PEOPLE OF THE USSAR INTO ATHEISTS !

I wonder how many Protestants would have withstood the scourges Stalin brought about against the Orthodox Christians?!?!! How many would have died for their faith as did millions of Orthodox Christians if Russia had been protestant!!?!! I think not many.
Many times the Communists would have whole villages march past an Icon of Christ to observe their reactions. If any were observed having any indication of faith they were immediately taken out to be executed; and untold numbers of Orthodox Christians were indeed executed.

Vasilis

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

... They obviously had to start somewhere biblically, correct?

Dear Michelle Mosca,

you are right ! "They obviously had to start somewhere biblically" !

It is written “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)

So, Christ promised to His Apostles that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit. And then it is also written:

"A man named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, sold a field. He brought some of the money to the apostles. But he kept the rest of it. His wife knew what he had done. Peter said, `Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? Why do you lie to the Holy Spirit? You have kept some of the money which you got for the field”. (Acts 5:1-3)"

This passage proves that the Spirit had indeed empowered the Apostles so that they even knew the most hidden acts of man.

So, by these and from other passages from the bible, it is evident that the apostolic authority over the issue of teaching the Christian faith is unquestionable. They were the appointive persons for this goal and they were offered the Holy Spirit for this. And they did just that. So, let’s assume for the sake of our discussion that the Bible is the only authoritative source of our Christian faith, as this was a goal assigned to Apostles by Christ and perfected by the Spirit. But then, Apostle John says at the very end of his Gospel, while serving this goal:

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen”. (John 21:25)

What ? But why did he not write them ALL ? Why ? He knew them all, that is for sure. But he did not write them. Now, imagine the following situation: the very Son of God comes on earth as Jesus, He talks to you, He takes you with Him as His disciple, He presents all the mysteries to you and then He offers you His Holly Spirit to give you power and wisdom to understand them, in order to “witness Him to the end of the earth”, and in this context you write some of them and for the rest you just say: “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” !

OK, that excuse is supposable; one can not write everything about a man’s life, let alone a God-man’s life, but then how many books have St John written of the multitudinous number of books of the whole version of Christ’s life? 10 books ? 20 books ? How many ? Just ONE and he let the rest undocumented! He wrote just his Gospel (St John also wrote the book of Revelation and a letter, which are not about the life and teachings of Christ before His death). Now, if you were in St John’s position how many books would you have written, if they were to become the single reference and authoritative documents of the Christian faith, inspired by the Holy Spirit? St John wrote just one, let me repeat: just one, and he did it in full consciousness knowing the shortness of the book and the large undocumented volume, as he confesses in the end of his Gospel. Why did St John left the Bible incomplete?

Now let’s examine another passage from the Bible, in which, St Paul does something that is even more peculiar:

St Paul, in his letter to Corinthians in verses (1 Corinthians 11:23-34) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2011:23-;&version=50;) is teaching them how to practise the Holy Eucharist/Communion and he starts this most important teaching of the practise of faith by writing: “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…”. By that he makes clear that he is authorized and entitled to teach the mysteries of our faith as an Apostle of Christ by the Lord Himself. Then he presents the due to be delivered and he lets the presentation unfinished, writing in the 34th verse the following unbelievable phrase: “And the rest I will set in order when I come”. Then, St Paul travelled to the city of Corinth and completed his presentation to Corinthians, but who is going to complete it for us? Why did he not write everything down if his letters was to become, with the other books of the Bible, the only source of the Christian teaching and faith and practise? And we should keep in our minds that he was consciously received this deliverables by the Lord and he did not care to write them down completely, but he preferred to write a partial presentation and to complete it for Corinthians later in person, but he left us (the whole Christendom) with no completion. Again the same question arises, like in St John’s case, WHY did St Paul leave the bible incomplete at this point?

St Paul, in the same letter in a previous chapter at verses (1 Corinthians 4:16-17) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%204:16-17;&version=50;) writes also to Corinthians: “Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.” Again he commits them to St Timothy, for an alleged teaching which he chooses not to present in his letter. But his letter is part of the Bible. Again the same question arises, WHY did he leave the bible incomplete at this point?

Dear Michelle Mosca, I am Orthodox Christian and as I read the Bible I understand that the same persons, who wrote these masterpieces of our Christian Faith in Spirit, were also using simultaneously the verbal teaching in the same Spirit. They were not living isolated in an island writing letters to the outside world, but they communicate in person with the Christians at the time and they knew that both the written teachings and the verbal teachings were complementary to each other. The four Gospels, the Acts, the Letters and even the book of Revelation have specific historical recipients, who received these texts because the Apostles were far away and they were not in position to speak with them in the respective time and place and they address them in writing, knowing that their incomplete writings would be completed by teachings in person and in the common prayers as St Paul says: "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification". Corinthians 14:26).

The chapter of Acts 15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015;&version=50;) is describing this process: Some Christians insisted that the non Jewish convert Christians should follow the Jewish laws, that they should become first Jews and then Christians. Some others supported the opposite, that the non Jewish convert Christians should become immediately accepted in Church without first becoming Jews. In order to resolve the disagreement, a council converged in Jerusalem and a decree was formed by the members of the council and then they decided to send letters to the remote Churches in order to make the resolution known to them. The resolution was: “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (Acts 15:28-29), so the council rejected the proposition to make the converts first Jews and then Christians. The interesting thing, for the issue of tradition, that it was written in the letter, send by the council: “We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth” (Acts 15:27). The “report by word of mouth” was needed because the letter was brief and the verbal presentation would present to the recipients the details and the discussion at the council and the counter arguments that were presented there and the whole process that took place at the council, which were not written in the letter. The presentation of the council at the 15th chapter of the Acts is not complete either, just like the letter. In Acts chapter 15, verse 7, it is written: “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them:…” and thereafter in the chapter are presented ONLY the persons and the arguments from the side that was against the Jewish-zation of the converts before accepting them in the Church and the contra arguments and persons are withhold in the phrase “there has been much dispute”. But the issue, at the time, had taken very big proportions in the Church to the point that “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them”(Acts 15:2). For that, the “report by word of mouth” was needed to provide a full report, which was not presented neither by the letter, nor by any other written document.

Since then, the Church kept both the written documents and the "report by word of mouth", because each one is incomplete by itself alone and when they are put together they are perfected in completion.

Dear Michelle Mosca, I hope that in this examples from the Bible you may find some of the answers that you are looking.

May God bless us, all.

[Tim Grass]

Leandros's post above, about Scripture and Tradition, is not Orthodox.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Tim,

I participate in this forum, in order to meet with brothers and sisters in Christ and communicate to them that gospel which I believe and live, "lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain", following the example of St Paul (Galatians 2:1-2).

I do not exclude that yourself, dear Tim, may know the Truth and that you may have revelations and teachings and experiences and that you may possess the true tongue to worship God.

Let me, then, to remind to you the teaching of St Paul, and sincerely ask you to interpret this "tongue" that you are blessed with and explain it, for my benefit, as I recognise myself to be a simple "uninformed saying Amen" :

(1 Corinthians 14:6-19) "But now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either in a revelation, or in knowledge, or in a prophesy, or in doctrine? Likewise the lifeless things, when they make a sound, whether flute or harp, unless they make a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is being played on the flute, or what is being played on the harp? For if the trumpet gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare for battle? So also you, if you do not give a clear word by the tongue, how will it be known what is being spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, so many kinds of sounds in the world, and none of them without meaning. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the sound, I shall be as a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking shall be as a foreigner to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that you may abound to the edification of the church.

Therefore let he that speaks in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the mind. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" when you give thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; but in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in order that I may instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Brothers, do not be children in your understanding; rather, in malice be children, but in understanding be men."

Looking forward for your "five words with your understanding".

Your brother in Christ, Leandros

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Michelle:

It is important to understand that the reverse of your scenario actually happened. In fact, it was the tradition that determined the Bible. As Dr. Steenberg pointed out, the canon of the New Testament now accepted by Protestants and essentially all other Christian groups was not determined until the 4th century. And even then, the canon was determined based upon what the Church believed and taught.

In addition, it is important to understand that the printing press was not available until the 16th century. Consequently, not every Christian could afford a personal copy of the Bible or any other important text. As a result, oral traditions were generally as authoritative as written traditions.

I would encourage you also, Michelle, to reflect upon why you accept the New Testament canon. What is it about the New Testament that makes it the Bible? Why would you consider it to be authoritative? What is it about the biblical tradition that makes you think it is more important or authoritative than the non-biblical tradition of the Church? These are important questions for us as Christians to ask.

Aaron

[nurse-aid]

i have no time now...but what do you mean by:

What is it about the biblical tradition that makes you think it is more important or authoritative than the non-biblical tradition of the Church?


were is no non-biblical tradition in Chrurch...if it is HIS Church...becuse what ever is in the Bible is the life of the Church...or life of the Church or individuals who belongs to the Church IS that biblical exspirience...

so i'm not sure of what are you talking about...

[Michelle Mosca]

ok well then, if the NT did come from tradition, you should be able to say, we do this tradition because and here is the scripture that supports that, that came from that. right? either way, the Bible is the teachings and words of Jesus' that's what makes it authoritative.

[James]

[Reader Seraphim] It's not necessarily true, Michelle, that we would find all of Tradition within Scripture. Remember what the Apostle John tells us:"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25). In other words, all Scripture and all Tradition is founded in Christ, but the two do not necessarily duplicate each other.

[Michelle Mosca]

ok, fair enough. (typing words to fill the minimum post thingy)

[Antonios]

this is my fairly rudimentary view:

How would another person know you better, more personally. From reading some pages which include your report cards from school? some remarks written about you by aquantances? a summary of some of your life events written by a close relative?

Or how about if for the past 18 years of your life, you yourself have been in correspondence with that other person, confiding in them, living with them, learning with them.

Who would know you better?

I think the best answer would be that person who has access to the first and has a relationship with you like the second. That is how Tradition and Scripture brings us closer to the Truth, to the Logos of God.

in love and humilty,
Antonios

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

True, Michelle, Jesus' words are authoritative in and of themselves. However, the New Testament is not Jesus' words per se, but Jesus' words as recorded by various authors. It is important to note that there were tens or hundreds of other Gospels written, many of them claiming to quote the words of Jesus, but these were rejected in forming the New Testament canon for various reasons. The overriding criterion for why they were rejected was, of course, that these Gospels did not line up with the tradition of the Church.

As for the epistles, only one of which contains a single quote from Jesus, why do you consider these to be authoritative?

Aaron

[Theopesta]

dear Michelle Mosca,

if you try to read this tradition at least begin in reading in reasoning level if you are truly knowledgable with the scripturs you will find the two move in same harmony and conformity if you find any thing conflicting or disharmonious study deeply this issue to reach the truth

I think you will love and live in this tradition and may be you will renamed it "practical living of the bible"

forgive me for weak expressions
in one christ
theopesta

[Michelle Mosca]

because i don't trust the validity of the Bible, the Bible is a tool God gave me. The Bible was guided by the Holy Spirit, written by God through the Holy Spirit in the authors.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Antonios' and Aaron's posts have put things nicely into context.

It is fine to believe that the bible was guided in its authoring and formation by the Holy Spirit - this is what the Church has always taught. It is not acceptible to an Orthodox standpoint to believe that only the bible was guided in this way, or that it was so in a degree different from the rest of the tradition of the Church of which the bible is one part.

INXC, Matthew

[Tim Grass]

In response to Leandros's "tongues" post... my point when I said that the earlier post was not Orthodox, was that it isn't. To say about traditions that "you are right! "They obviously had to start somewhere biblically"!" is not an Orthodox response, it's a Protestant response. The Bible _is_ an Orthodox tradition. Our traditions start with the life of Jesus Christ lived in our Liturgy and Church. Finding some source in the Bible about Jesus has nothing to do with how our traditions start.

--tim

[dimitri marinis]

Dearest Michelle,

Here is a word from St Isaac of Syria:


"The ladder to the Kingdom is hidden within you, within your soul. Dive down into your self, away from sin, and there you will find the steps by which you can ascend.
—St Isaac of Syria"

God bless us all
dimitri

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Michelle:

We must continually ask 'why?' Certainly the Church agrees that the Bible and its authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But my question to you is what makes the books of the Bible different from other books that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why do you give the Bible so much credence? Why is it the criterion by which you judge all else? Don't feel the need to answer this on this thread unless you wish, but please do think about it.

I also must say that I appreciated your view of the Bible as a tool. Indeed, the Bible is a very useful tool to our salvation. Unfortunately, many in our society have quit using it as a tool and have begun to hold it up as an end in itself, rather than as a means (or 'tool') to an end. This distortion must be similar to what Christ had in mind when he said: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Nurse-Aid:

Forgive my poor use of language. I should have said something like 'extra-biblical' rather than non-biblical, which could give the impression that there is a tradition contrary to the biblical tradition. Instead, I am referring to a tradition that is 'extra-biblical' that complements the biblical tradition, but in no way contradicts the biblical tradition of the Church. Forgive.

Aaron

[nurse-aid]

so it must be the tool to open ourselves...like magnify glass to see more and depper in own life...own chances which HE gave US...and not what was giving to others long ago...

like tool is NOT itself is a worth to be praised...but the Master and his material...we are, and we are alive and active material...so combaine with Master's skills we maybe praised...as HIS creation...

But how offten we are parising good tool and think that job can be done beter with it...but for the bad dancers no meter what shoes he has, it will not help (my father's proverb)

[Owen Jones]

The Communion of Love, writen by a Coptic monk, has a good section on how the Bible is unique, and how to read the Bible.

[Patrick Walsh]

The late Protopresbyter Fr. Michael Pomazansky wrote an excellent tract on how Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition relate to one another in his "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

In essence, Fr. Michael explains how the Tradition of the Church and Sacred Scripture not only do not contradict each other, but harmoniously express what he calls the "catholic consciousness" of the Orthodox Church. By "catholic" he means the truly catholic, truly universal way of Christ that is the fullness of the Orthodox Church.

To require Tradition to stand on Scripture is to put the cart before the horse twice, not once. The first putting of the cart has already been discussed--that is, from a historical point of view, Scripture is a product of Tradition,not vice-versa. The second putting was hinted at by Owen in his article above.

To read Sacred Scripture, "one must first acquire the faith of the Holy Fathers," as Father Serafim Rose put it--although he was addressing the topic of reading the Fathers rather than the Bible. But I think it is apt to apply this to the reading of Scripture as well. The Holy Church is the source of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15), and Scripture is "profitable for a man of God" (2 Tim 3:15). However, what is a "man of God," if he does not possess the same faith as the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers of the Church?

This said, it must be emphasized that there must always be harmony between Tradition and Scripture. Anything that makes Scripture or Tradition or both contrived, or in true discernable conflict should be rejected. By contrived, I mean Scripture is not manipulated Scripture (selective reading/interpretation) to make something seem true.

So instead of asking where this or that tradition comes from in Scripture, we should ask is it part of the "catholic conscience" of the universal, one and Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Does it separate us from God, or does it bring us closer?

Please forgive me any mis-statements on my part.
Patrick

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Michelle Mosca and friends ,

As I read the messages from Michelle Mosca, I feel that her main argument is that Christ completed His "mission" and the Apostles also did the same and that the Church has compiled a complete version of Christ's teachings in the Bible, through His disciples. So, what more is there to be added by any additional amendments from inspired members of the Church other than reiteration?

I think that in this context, the Tradition is being accepted as the origin of the Bible - as a trustee, who preserved the scattered fragments of the biblical revelation and history - but since the compilation of the New Testament in a complete volume, all these pieces came together and have been included into the Bible. So, Tradition is considered as already being embodied in the Bible, leaving no room for Tradition beyond that which is already unfolded in the Bible .

I think that Michelle Mosca's question can be rephrased: "What more is there, that is not being revealed and presented in the Bible that the alleged Christian Tradition reveals and presents to us»?

At least, this is the way I "read" her inquiring spirit.

Please, dear Michelle Mosca, would you confirm or clarify this ? For if we do not understand your spirit, we could not communicate properly.

Leandros

(Message edited by lpap on 26 September, 2005)

[Michelle Mosca]

i think my questions may have evolved into that simply put sentence.

i understand that tradition was in place before the NT, so long lengthy posts about that are no longer needed. it has been said more than once.

also from what i'm reading a lot of these posts are in my eyes trying to undermine the Bible (which i hold dearly to my heart) and are also placing emphesis on faith. Neither of which needs to be addressed, if i didn't have the faith in God that every true Christian holds, i wouldn't be here. I don't like arguing the little points, I'm looking for a simple answer to what may be a big question. Something I can understand and expand on in my own research. I would not call myself Orthodox at this present time, I'm trying to understand the church I was raised in, but learned nothing about, just to let you know where i'm coming from.

[Patrick Walsh]

Michelle Mosca

I apologize if my words offended you in any way. I beg forgiveness.

Please tell me what "faith in God that every true Christian holds?" This is a very important question, and I am not trying to trivialize anything. Your answer is perhaps the key we need to unlock the barriers to hearing one another.

Patrick

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Michelle:

I can assure you that none of us is trying to undermine the Bible, but trying to discuss its proper place within the context of the tradition of the Church. We would not be honoring the Bible by making it into something it is not. If you could be more specific about who said and/or what was said that makes you think we are trying to 'undermine' the Bible, it would be helpful.

As a side note, countless liturgical hymns and prayers are taken from the Scriptures. Moreover, the Scriptures are venerated at nearly every Sunday Orthros/Matins service. That being the case, if anyone has, in fact, tried to undermine the Bible, then they are acting contrary to the teaching of the Church. If, however, someone is trying to be honest and understand the Bible in its context and this has been misunderstood as an attempt to 'undermine,' then we should continue to clarify and discuss our position.

Aaron

[Michelle Mosca]

my faith is unwavering. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:38-39

it's filled with Joy and Love. It's what i'm made of, without my faith, i'd be diminished to nothing. I haven't always had Christ in my life, but now, knowing and having a personal relationship with Christ, without it I don't think i'd be able to live, and if I did manage i'd be very empty and very depressed.

maybe i'm just a little over sensitive, hearing tradition being put up on such high pedestal, it seems like your putting it higher than the Bible. I'm sure they are equal in importance, I think that's been said.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Michelle:

I enjoyed your last post! Indeed, we are all called to have a personal relationship with Christ. In fact, life without Him is not life at all, for He is 'everywhere present and filling all things,' as one of the more frequently used Orthodox prayers indicates. At the same time, we should understand that we do not just have a personal, subjective relationship with Christ, but a life in Christ that is shared in common with all believers. After all, we together are the body of Christ, and members individually (1 Corinthians 12:27).

Again, to reiterate the points made by myself and others, the Bible is part of tradition, not something set out opposing tradition or contrary thereto. There is a tendency in Protestantism to view this matter as an either/or situation, whereas in Orthodoxy we see tradition and Scripture working together in perfect harmony.

Aaron

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Michelle Mosca,

Please allow me to sincerely say that I am very happy because you have a heart full of faith, and I pray to God to give me a heart like yours.

I am not a teacher of the faith, but let me share with you some things that I keep in my heart in simple words.

When I read a history book about the American Revolution, my conscience is silent about the historical events, and I am compelled to accept the historical facts. But when I read the Bible there are two witnesses present, giving testimony about the truth and the meaning of the written facts and teachings, one is the writer of the good book and the other is ME. My conscience is affecting the meanings according to my valuation. Actually, the illness of my passions, functioning in my heart, is contradicting the Bible and the healthy part of my heart is approving it.

How am I supposed to read the Bible (the teachings and the revelations of God) without having my passions distorting its substance? Let’s look what St Paul did:

“But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)

Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.” (Galatians 1:11-2:2)

Here St Paul says two things, which show that even a man of the spiritual stature of St Paul, having taught the Gospel by Christ Himself, has the need of the tradition of the Church to support and confirm his personal way of understanding the Gospel:

1)But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
2)And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Orthodox Christians are following St Paul’s example, having in the one hand “the Bible which was preached to them… not according to man. For the Bible was neither received from man, nor was they taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (in their hearts) and on the other hand they “communicate, to those who are of reputation, that gospel in which they have faith, lest by any means they might run, or had run, in vain”.

Tradition is the support and confirmation of the life of Church, which is needed, because we can not trust ourselves. And this is a practise that was given to St Paul “by revelation”, as he writes in the above passage.

Tradition is providing the right methodology, practical and theoretical, to verify and correct and in some instances to amend, not the Bible, but OUR understanding/reading of the Bible.

May God bless us, all.

[Owen Jones]

Just a few observations: in the early Church, the catechumens were herded out of the Church before the Gospel is read and the sermon preached. Why? Because we had not yet been illumined and were incapable of grasping the true theological meaning of Scripture. Now, illumination can become formalized to the point of being meaningless. But the underlying point is that the Bible, from the earliest days, was never seen as something that was subject to individual interpretation. It is the theological meaning provided by the Church that is true and reliable. If we don't believe that, it really comes down to defiance and disobedience.

Regarding a personal relationship with Christ, this is dangerous language, because the tendency is to stop there, and reduce faith, or salvation, to a personal relationship with Christ. There are relations, to be sure, but the Bible does not speak of relationships at all. It calls for obedience. And it calls with unity and harmony with our Creator. And, the theory that faith depends on a personal relationship of Christ, can diminish the doctrine of the Trinity. We have a relationship with the Father, but we also have a non-relationship with the Father, who is beyond all things, and is beyond all relationships. Relationships really reflect the personalization and psychologization of religion that began to occur in the 18th & 19th Centuries, and I see little basis for its theology in the Fathers.

Speaking of the Fathers, the Church teaches that we must also obey the Fathers, because they have demonstrated by their teachings and their lives a reflection of the apostolic spirit, the apostolic mind, which many among us have lost. So if we are to acquire the any gifts of discernment, we must enter into their world, and take on their minds.

The liturgy is our primary teacher of Holy Scripture, and of the Apostolic mind (since much good preaching relies on the Church Fathers). Through repitition and deep prayer, we are infused with its Spirit. And we avoid personal and theological error which can lead to dissilusionment, pride, despair and many other sins. We are dealing with very powerful medicine that St. Paul warns will either kill or cure, depending on our intent and our inner disposition.

So relying on the Tradition of Orthodox faith and theological wisdom, it is the difference between consulting an expert, experienced surgeon with a good reputation to treat your cancer, vs. going to some quack who promises to heal you by reading tea leaves.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen,

I both enjoyed and appreciated your post above. Particularly your comments:


Regarding a personal relationship with Christ, this is dangerous language, because the tendency is to stop there, and reduce faith, or salvation, to a personal relationship with Christ. There are relations, to be sure, but the Bible does not speak of relationships at all. It calls for obedience. And it calls with unity and harmony with our Creator. And, the theory that faith depends on a personal relationship of Christ, can diminish the doctrine of the Trinity. We have a relationship with the Father, but we also have a non-relationship with the Father, who is beyond all things, and is beyond all relationships. Relationships really reflect the personalization and psychologization of religion that began to occur in the 18th & 19th Centuries, and I see little basis for its theology in the Fathers

I entirely agree with your basic point(s) here. Obedience, and a true understanding of and approach to obedience, are, as I've said in this community several times before, the principal areas of deficiency in modern-day Christianity.

The mis-focus on relationships is, like so many, a question of emphasis and meaning. What is meant by 'relationship' (as in 'relationship with Christ') in the modern world is largely the outgrowth of a sentimental individualism that finds no grounding in scripture or the fuller heritage of the apostolic witness. In response (explicitly or implicitly), there have been Orthodox reactions that have moved 'relation', in alternate definition, to a central place of another sort: we do not have 'a relationship with' Christ, but we enter 'into relation with' Christ, with the Trinity. There is certainly some value in this; but itself this also misses the critical emphasis on obedience as the defining characteristic of person in encounter with God. In so many of the fathers of the Church, it is obedience that sets the framework for the whole anthropological understanding of who we are with respect to our creator, and how that relation (which is the true patristic sense of relation) can be transfigured and transformed by divine power and ascetical effort. It is in the context of creature obediently transfigured that an authentic sense of relation emerges from the reality of obedient transformation, and not as a context examinable on its own.

INXC, Matthew

[Antonios]

Thank you Owen and Matthew for the poignant posts above- beautifully and concisely written.

in love,
Antonios

[Owen Jones]

I have read most of the English version of the Philokalia, slowly, prayerfully, and meditated on many of the passages, including some of the most esoteric, and I finally concluded that there is one message throughout: obedience. The esoteric wisdom can be a diversion, which is why many admonish non-monastics to not even read it.

The problem with the term obedience is that it is also sadly misunderstood today in terms of the Fuhrer principle. We think of obedience in terms of some leader commanding and we obey in lockstep without thinking. But true obedience in the Greek means a habit of mind in which we are open to the Spirit and we listen to the Spirit. The purpose of the esoteric and ascetic wisdom is to retrain the spiritual senses so that we are capable of listening. When we listen with the right ears, we are eager and willing to live rightly. With the wrong ears, all we hear is condemnation and threats and so, while we might obey, we do so unwillingly, or in a kind of mindless fashion, or believing it is a burden and a punishment.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear friends,

St Silouan said that there are two types of obedience,one being the obedience of the animals to man, which is natural obedience but when it is imitated by monks, it guides them to disaster. And then, there is the obedience of love, which means that the monk should make obedience to his spiritual father in love, which is not a natural obedience – but a monk is not a mule!

The elder Paisios said: Today the obedience is lost. Instead novices to make obedience to the elders, the elders are making obedience to the novices.

[patrick oshana]

dear michelle

i just want to talk about what u said of putting tradition on a high pedestal. I just want to note that it was the tradition of the church which gave birth to the bible and the bible doesnt give the church authority but the church gave the bible authority when they put the NT books together and then the church gave it authority by saying this is the word of god.I just want to give u a verse 1st TIMOTHY chp3 verse 15 which says: But if iam delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of god,which is the church of the living god,the pillar and foundation of truth.

The bible tell u that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the bible is one of the tools that the church uses.