Pagan Christianity

[David Hawthorne]

I have a friend of a Charismatic background who is interested in Orthodoxy. Another friend of his, concerned about his interest, gave him a book by Barna called Pagan Christianity. It makes a lot of dubious claims about the Church but I don't have time to refute it in the depth my friend would like. Have any good Catholic or Orthodox refutations of this book been put together yet?
Thanks in advance!

[Owen Jones]

I can only say that this is a standard line from many protestants about the catholic faith. Their claim is that sometime after the apostolic period the true Church went underground and that the church that called itself catholic simply absorbed a bunch of pagan elements. They have to say this in order to claim that protestantism is the apostolic church. Of course much of protestantism from Luther on is an attempt really to re-Judaize Christianity. I call it Old Testament Christianity. So that is part of the context. In terms of the specific arguments it's a lot of ridiculous stuff, like the fact that many ancient churches were built over previous pagan holy sites (the point of doing that would seem to be obvious), the dating of Christmas supposedly coinciding with some ancient rite of Mithras, things like that. It is based on a combination of theological and Biblical and historical ignorance. I would point to all of the New Testament teachings that protestants studiously avoid.

[Kosta]

I have a friend of a Charismatic background who is interested in Orthodoxy. Another friend of his, concerned about his interest, gave him a book by Barna called Pagan Christianity. It makes a lot of dubious claims about the Church but I don't have time to refute it in the depth my friend would like. Have any good Catholic or Orthodox refutations of this book been put together yet?
Thanks in advance!

I cant say im familiar with it. But i probably have an idea of some things the book assumes. Like Easter maybe a pagan holiday originally honoring a fertility goddess.

While the west may retain certain secular concepts on Easter such as dying there eggs pastel colors (colors of blooming flowers of Spring symbolizing rebirth), easter bunnies (very fertile animal) and the name of the holiday which maybe the name of a particular goddess. In the east and most western nations Easter is named after its hebrew transliteration of Pesach(passover) = Pascha (example, in spanish easter is called pasqua).

Traditionally in Orthodoxy eggs are dyed red only, to symbolize the blood of Christ. Others here can give you explanations of the allegories of the egg as it pertains to the ressurection and the ancient custom of placing eggs on tomb and the tradition that Mary Magdelene introduces the red egg.

Another accusation is that Christmas is really the pagan holiday of Saturnalia. This holiday, the grandest among the roman empire was celebrated from Dec 17-24. Not the 25th. One of the customs christianity adopted from this holiday is gift-giving. And even that (along with the christmas tree) has only recently been adopted by Orthodoxy.

Another theory is that Christmas is the celebration of Mithra. Its true that the feast of the Nativity of Christ eclipsed a pagan holiday, but its unlikely it was that of Mithra. The holiday of Sol Invictus was primarily one of importance to the military, Sol Invictus was introduced in about 274 to celebrate the military victories under Aurelius. Invictus as a title for Mithra was only used prvately among those devoted to Mithra (and he wasnt the only pagan God associated with this title). Thus the official roman holiday of Sol Invictus is not based on the cult of Mithra.
On top of it all, Christmas actually predates Sol Invictus. Christmas was first celebrated in pockets in the west since about 243 a.d.
Also Sol Invictus was celebrated as an official roman holiday till about 385 a.d. when the emperor Theodosius abolished it. This means both christmas and Sol Invictus was celebrated simultaneously even into the "christian age" ushered in by Constantine. These 2 holidays did not compete with each other nor did they merge. It was simply abolished.

The veneration of saints is quite ancient, at first limited to those martyred. The amount of information from the Pre-Nicene Fathers on the exhortation, remembrance on their anniversary of the martyrs are immense. From there different categories of 'saints' were added not limited to those martyred.

St Cosmas and Damianos were martyred around 300 a.d.. where they also recieved the title of "holy unmercenaries" (a category of saint in of itself). When the first christian temples were allowed to be built under Constantine, these two saints had churches named after them within a few decades after their death, even before most of the apostles had churches dedicated to them.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I used to have a Protestant Bible Concordance with an appendix that "explained" the differences between the "major Christian divisions":

Roman Catholicism: Early Christianity mixed with Roman paganism
Greek Catholicism: Early Christianity mixed with Greek paganism
Protestantism: Early Christianity without the paganism!

I don't have that book any more.

Herman the Pooh

[Andreas Moran]

And even that (along with the christmas tree) has only recently been adopted by Orthodoxy.

The Christmas tree has a perfectly Orthodox origin since its story can be found in the life of the English missionary to Germany, St Boniface (+755).


Saturnalia. This holiday, the grandest among the roman empire was celebrated from Dec 17-24.

There is a desription of the Saturnalia in the letters of the Younger Pliny. Pliny himself didn't like parties so he withdrew to a quiet wing of his villa so his household and slaves could party without being inhibited by his presence. The last of Pliny's letters contain his celebrated correspondence with the emperor Trajan in which he, Pliny (at that time governor of Bythinia), describes Christian practices and asks Trajan's advice on policy towards the Christians.

[David Hawthorne]

This book appears to be extreme even by Protestant house church standards. Perhaps the best approach is along the lines of: "Going by the arguments in this book, no one has had church right since the Book of Acts. It's putting a lot of faith in these two men to believe that they have finally got it right- doesn't it make more sense to believe that the Holy Spirit actually accomplished the mission Christ sent Him for by keeping the Church protected from the gates of Hades and leading her into all truth (especially when there is an unbroken historical record to judge truth claims on)?" Without researching reams of minutiae, I think this goes to the crux of the matter.

[Father David Moser]

It is certain that one will universally find pagan antecedents to Christianity no matter where he might look. This is not a challenge to the faith but rather a confirmation of it. God has not left us alone in this world but rather, even from the beginning of history has provided glimpses of the truth and has prepared the world for the coming of the Truth. These pre-Christian ideas are simply the manifestations of the Truth which are seen incompletely and without proper context. They are therefore understood in error and lead to the pagan rituals and ideas that have similarities to Christianity. But with the coming of Christ, those who sat in darkness have been given the light and those former urges towards the truth can be seen in their proper context and in the proper light - that light is, of course, the Light of Christ which enlightens the world. Christianity only confirms these formers hints of Truth and the existence of these pagan rituals in the light of Christianity only serve to confirm that Christianity is the full and complete expression of that Truth.

Fr David Moser

[D. W. Dickens]

It is certain that one will universally find pagan antecedents to Christianity no matter where he might look. This is not a challenge to the faith but rather a confirmation of it.

This was a big change for me coming to Orthodoxy. Not seeing all the pagan religions as cults started by demons for their own amusements, but as remnants of the light of God/inspired insights of man. Melchizedek (in Genesis and Hebrews) and St Paul's words in Romans 1 were a big help in this.

It was also to stop thinking of the Church as a neo-platonic "ideal" but as a real thing actually existent as persons united in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. If the Church exists, then this notion of the Church's "corruption" is in conflict with the promises of scripture. So the Church which gave us the scripture must be bound by it and preserved with it.

But that's a post for another day.

[Andreas Moran]

Of the many pagan antecedents to the Christian faith, one of the most remarkable is the monotheism of Akhenaten. This 'heretic' pharaoh's 'Hymn to Aten' has often been compared to Psalm 104. There has even been speculation that Moses lived in Egypt at the time of Akhenaten and was influenced by him. One dismisses, of course, what Sigmund Freud thought about this.

[David Hawthorne]

Of the many pagan antecedents to the Christian faith, one of the most remarkable is the monotheism of Akhenaten. This 'heretic' pharaoh's 'Hymn to Aten' has often been compared to Psalm 104. There has even been speculation that Moses lived in Egypt at the time of Akhenaten and was influenced by him. One dismisses, of course, what Sigmund Freud thought about this.

Or perhaps Akhenaten was influenced by the existing monotheism of the Hebrews into which Moses was born. Not sure about the timeline, though- were the Hebrews in captivity in Egypt during Akhenaten's reign considering the times generally given for the Exodus? I believe I have just derailed my own thread.

[Andreas Moran]

Not sure about the timeline, though- were the Hebrews in captivity in Egypt during Akhenaten's reign considering the times generally given for the Exodus?

From what little I have gleaned, the dating of Exodus has been put at anywhere between about 1600 and the 1200s BC. Moses may have lived between about 1390 and 1270. If so, he and Akhenaten were contemporaries. The traditional pharaoh of the oppression of the Hebrews was Ramesses II and of the exodus Merneptah, but Ramesses II died about 1213. It seems no one really knows.

[Mike Fulton]

This was a big change for me coming to Orthodoxy. Not seeing all the pagan religions as cults started by demons for their own amusements, but as remnants of the light of God/inspired insights of man. Melchizedek (in Genesis and Hebrews) and St Paul's words in Romans 1 were a big help in this.

It was also to stop thinking of the Church as a neo-platonic "ideal" but as a real thing actually existent as persons united in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. If the Church exists, then this notion of the Church's "corruption" is in conflict with the promises of scripture. So the Church which gave us the scripture must be bound by it and preserved with it.

But that's a post for another day.

I'm reminded of Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, which some scholars call the Messianic Eclogue, where Virgil predicts a boy being born and starting a "golden age." But I'm not a scholar of Latin literature.

I would be interested in taking a look at this book and the arguments it makes. A lot of Protestants make the argument that liturgical Christianity is pagan. I would counter with Acts, as well as clear indications in the Old Testament that the worship of Yahveh, by its nature, liturgical. What of the Ark and the Temple? The urn containing the manna? The golden cherubim?

A priest that I know of once told me that liturgy is somehow ingrained in the human psyche. I would say that is certainly correct. Even when we know nothing about the orthopraxis of worship, we make things up or we "try" things from other religious traditions. This is evident of a few Protestant denominations that actually utilize tallits, tzitzit, and other accoutrements of Jewish worship because they've thrown out so many different things from traditional Christianity.

[Owen Jones]

The best treatment of Akhenaton that would be appreciated by Christians is found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NDFL50_2ilAC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=voegelin+on+akhenaton&source=bl&ots=MCmpAV_T1o&sig=3GcY8MWZmZnf4z6dFgV7atVSJEc&hl=en&ei=CPzlSd2nCZqNtge7u5SYAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA146,M1

beginning on page 145 I think. It focuses on the spiritual and political revolution brought about by Akhenaton and the relations between the two.

[Owen Jones]

I believe it is Justin Martyr who claimed that Plato encountered Moses in Egypt where he was taught that there was one God. The result was the Timeaus which is the most oft quoted non-Biblical text by the Greek Fathers.

[Owen Jones]

Let's not forget that this is not some new controversy invented by Protestants. Tertullian was famous for asking "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" (Or was it Jerome????)

[Theophrastus]

Let's not forget that this is not some new controversy invented by Protestants. Tertullian was famous for asking "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" (Or was it Jerome????)

I can see Tertullian saying such a thing. Jerome? Nah.

[Edward Henderson]

I think what many protestants seem to be ignorant of is that Christianity baptized Hellenism, which was the culture of the Roman Empire. Thus our theological language employs terms first used by Greek philosophers, but given a Christian context. In reality, we can find "pagan" influences on our hymnology, music, architecture, icons, liturgical life, etc. But this is simply not a problem for the Orthodox. What is ironic is that we can find pagan philosophy in the theology of the protestant reformers. The whole notion of the total depravity of man is nothing but neo-platonic dualism (flesh evil, spirit good).

[Rick]

I should contribute to this thread.

I've been reading Pagan Christianity and I've noticed some glaring problems:

Viola seems to only (selectively) consult modern scholars when it comes to giving us a picture of what 1st century Christianity looked like. It is incredible how he fails to cite early Christian documents, like the writings of the Church Fathers. Wouldn't it make sense to do that, especially if one is attempting to be objective? It's also interesting to note how he doesn't even cite or indirectly mention any of Jaroslav Pelikan's work--someone with such an immense academic reputation and credentials. I think Viola cherry picks those scholars which specifically support his house church movement interests. But even if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt about that, I think Barna's/Viola's "purification" of Christianity (a la Adolf von Harnack) leads to absurdities. Their vision of a "pure" 1st century church is already contaminated with their nostalgic desire: the 1st century church never actively sought to be "pure," to be stripped of pagan influences. This just wasn't part of their mission. It wasn't in their job description, so to speak. If it wasn't, why care? The only purity the 1st century church sought was of the heart, and that is the purity which Orthodoxy once sought, continues to seek, and will always seek of the Lord.

[Jonathan Hayward]

Christianity is in a special sense the fulfillment of Judaism, but it is also the fulfillment of paganism.

Christos Jonathan

[David Hawthorne]

Christianity is in a special sense the fulfillment of Judaism, but it is also the fulfillment of paganism.

Christos Jonathan

Reading your post reminded of Beethoven: Jesu, Joy of Mans' Desire

[Scott Pierson]

Christianity is in a special sense the fulfillment of Judaism, but it is also the fulfillment of paganism.

Christos Jonathan

I believe Clement of Alexandria also held that to be the case.

"Behold the might of the new song! It has made men out of stones, men out of beasts. Those, moreover, that were as dead, not being partakers of the true life, have come to life again, simply by becoming listeners to this song. It also composed the universe into melodious order, and tuned the discord of the elements to harmonious arrangement, so that the whole kosmos might become harmony... and this deathless strain-the support of the whole and and harmony of all - reaching from the center to the circumference, and from the extrmities to the central part, has harmonized this universal frame of things, not according to the Thracian music [of Orpheus] which is like that invented by jubal, but according to the paternal counsel of God"

This brings to mind the Orphic hymn to Apollo that describes Apollo harmonizing the poles of the kosmos with his lyre. Christ being the TRUE Orpheus that the pagan myths foreshadowed in a dim manner.

[Scott Pierson]

just wanted to put up another Clement of Alexandria quote that is pertinent to the topic. This is from "The Stromata".

"So, then, the barbarian and Hellenic philosophy has torn off a fragment of eternal truth not from the mythology of Dionysius, but from the theology of the ever living Word. And He who brings again together the separate fragments, and makes them one, will without peril , be assured contemplate the perfect Word, the truth."

[Michael Astley]

An Orthodox friend (a convert from evangelical protestantism) who had read a book making similar claims came to me two and a half years ago. He said that the author claimed that referring to the Mother of God as "Queen of Heaven" stems from pagan practice which was adopted by Christianity, and that this was, of necessity, a bad thig. Reading this thread rang some bells, so I have fished through my e-mails and managed to find my response to him. Here it is:

============


Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shined upon the world the light of knowledge; for thereby, they that worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory be to Thee.

That’s the tropar from the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord. The reason I’ve quoted it is to answer your point about the reference to Our Lady as Queen of Heaven.

Orthodoxy sees the new dispensation - the New Covenant in Christ – as being the fulfilment of all things. As Christ Himself said, ‘This is my Blood of the New and everlasting Covenant’. The old ways are not cast aside but rather are fulfilled – brought to their fruition in Christ. This is one of the major points on which many strains of Protestantism have departed from the Truth of Orthodoxy. It isn’t an obvious difference because it isn’t immediately apparent when you walk into their churches, not like the absence of holy images or incense – but it is a very real difference.

Many of them see Christ as coming to replace the old ways, which are now past and gone. They would perhaps contradict you if you were to phrase it like that but the fact is that the way they conceptualise and the way their beliefs are formulated show that this is what they, deep down, hold to be true.

Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic who got many things wrong, but one thing he got right was in his hymn on the Eucharist – the summit of the Church’s life - Tantum Ergo Sacramentum:


Therefore we, before Him bending,
This great Sacrament revere;
Types and shadows have their ending
For the newer rite is here.
Faith, our outward sense befriending,
Makes the inward vision clear.

By contrast to many Protestants, Orthodox see God’s interaction with His people as showing itself through these “types and shadows”.

The Protestant view of Eden is simply this: God created man perfect, as he was meant to be for all time. Yet, man fell from this state in what we call The Fall. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is heresy, on the most basic level it is illogical nonsense. If man was perfect, how could he sin?

It is this type of Protestant who rejects the Orthodox concept of theosis. The Orthodox view of Eden, by contrast, is that man was created in God’s image. We draw a distinction between the image of God in man and the likeness of God in man. The image is how we were created – with the potential to grow into the fullness of life with God. The likeness is the realisation of that fullness of life in God, sharing in his glory, his splendour, in the fullness of what man was created to be. Those who have reached the likeness of God we call Saints. It’s right there in the Genesis creation story where nowhere does it say that we were created in God’s likeness:


Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness…’ - Genesis 1:26a

Other translations say “after our likeness”. None of them says “in our likeness”. When it comes to the actual act of creation in the following verse, we have:


So God created mankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them. - Genesis 1:27

You’ll see that there’s no mention of the likeness of God in the actual creation of man.

The Orthodox Church sees the attainment of the likeness of God as a journey, in which God creates us, not in full union with Him, but rather allowing us to grow into a fullness of life with Him through a loving, nurturing relationship. He wants us to “be like God, knowing good and evil”. When, in the story of the Fall in Genesis 3, the serpent promises this to mankind, in the form of Adam and Eve, he was right! Say that to any Protestant and they’ll instantly condemn you as a heretic, but it’s true. The story of the Fall doesn’t show that the serpent was a liar so that we can blame the sin of mankind on him – oh no, we don’t get off that easily! The serpent promised us what we wanted and what was God’s intention for us, but while God’s plan was to gradually reveal more and more of his Truth and Himself to us as we had become more and more mature in a relationship with Him, the serpent said ‘You can have it now, and be as God, knowing good and evil – now’ - it was this that was the serpent's lie. Man’s sin was placing his own will over and above the will of God, and that is the at the heart of the story – man’s innocence was lost, as “they realised that they were naked”.

Back to this journey of mankind into God’s likeness:

The Fathers of the Church have traditionally seen the religions that went before Christ came as revelations of specks of the Truth of Christ – what Thomas Aquinas referred to as “types and shadows” in the hymn quoted above. They were obviously not revealed in their fullness, because man was not yet ready for that but they were still elements of the Truth which were to be fulfilled when the fullness of Truth came: Christ Himself.

Therefore, when we look at the Old Testament, we see God’s interaction with His chosen people, the Jews. With them, He developed a covenantal relationship in a way that He didn’t with other peoples, and so we have a record of His saving works throughout Jewish history, in which we see “types and shadows” of the fullness that was to come with Christ.

In the Western Rite, Thursday just gone was the Feast of Corpus Christi when we praise God for the Holy Eucharist and the Mysteries of His Body and Blood. There is an ancient hymn written for the feast which speaks of some of these “types”, these specks of the Truth that were to be fulfilled in Christ:


Lo! The new King’s Table gracing,
this new Passover of blessing
hath fulfilled the elder rite.

Now the new the old effaceth,
Truth revealed the shadow chaseth,
day is breaking on the night.

Truth the ancient types fulfilling:
Isaac bound, a victim willing,
Paschal Lamb, its life-blood spilling,
Manna sent in agest past.

The manna feeding God’s pilgrims in the wilderness is seen as a type of the Body of Christ. Similarly, Isaac being Sacrificed by a willing and obedient Abraham is seen as a type of Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself on the Cross. The Passover Lamb that was to save the Israelites from the Egyptian death is a type of Christ, the Lamb of God, by the shedding of Whose Blood we, too, are saved from death.

This is just one example, and the Old Testament is riddled with things that we Christians see as being inferior glimpses into the Truth, revealed by god to His people when that was all they could handle.

Most Protestants would have no problem with this, as it is thoroughly Scriptural. In fact, St Matthew, who was a convert from Judaism, makes a point in his Gospel of showing how Christ fulfils the ancient Jewish prophecies. If you look at St Matthew’s Gospel, you will see that, time and time again, he quotes from the prophecies to show how they relate to Christ. He would have been brought upgoing to synagogue and would have known his scripture, and he was writing for a Jewish audience.

Where the Protestants would leave us Orthodox is in our understanding of St John’s Gospel. You see, these types and shadows did not appear in Judaism alone! Yes, it may well be the case that the Jews were God’s chosen people, and their Messiah would be the fulfilment of all things, but “all things” means so much more than just Jewish Scriptures. As Isaiah says:


The Lord has bared His holy arm before the eyes of all nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. - Isaiah 52:10

St John is the person whose Gospel we should be looking at now because he was writing for a Greek (pagan) audience. The people he was writing for had no or little concept of Judaism. They didn’t know the Jewish history of a relationship with God. They did not grow up hearing the prophecies. They didn’t know of a Messiah who would be descended from kings and priests. If you look at St John’s Gospel, he takes this into account. He doesn’t waste time quoting prophecies that his audience would never have heard. He doesn’t waste any ink detailing Christ’s lineage back to the patriarchs of Judaism. He doesn’t even have an account of the Nativity of Christ. He leaves all that to St Matthew and his Jewish audience. No. St John wrote for the Greeks who had their own ideas and had their own revelations from God in the forms of specks of the Truth.

One thing common to the Greek philosophers and even some of the mystery religions that grew up in the Greek empire was the concept that there is a basic, foundational principle – the unspoken idea/word - according to which everything operates – the moon, the stars, the planets on their courses, human birth, life, death – everything. It all had one foundational principle beyond the understanding of man. They may not all have had the concept of God (although many of them did, and based mystery religions on this concept) but the basic groundwork was there. They called this concept logos.

St John shows no shame in drawing on their history and their culture to show them how Christ has come to them as much as He has the Jews. English translations of the Bible render logos as Word, which loses much of the original sense, but to somebody in pre-Christian Greece, whose world-view was that everything was founded on the unchanging and dependable logos, the first chapter of St John must have been mind-blowing. I’ll quote it here without the word logos translated:


In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Logos became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

I recently bought Bishop Hilarion’s The Mystery of Faith, which is essentially an Orthodox catechism written for non-Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Christians alike. (It relies on the reader already knowing about Christianity so wouldn’t be appropriate for someone new to it all). Near the beginning is a chapter entitled The Search for Faith, in which he explores different ways in which various cultures have had the Truth revealed to them. He cites St Justin Marty (2nd century) referring to the Greek philosophers as the “Christians before Christ”. Quoting from that chapter:


An early Greek Father, Clement of Alexandria, claimed that philosophy paved the way for Christ in the Greek-speaking world in the same way that the Old Testament prepared the Jewish world for the coming of the Messiah. Some of the Church Fathers came to Christianity through the study of philosophy and many of them thought very highly of it, in particular Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Theologian. In the narthexes of ancient Christian churches alongside the martyrs and saints, there would be portraits of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle as forerunners and heralds of the Truth.

For example, here’s a quote from Plato’s Timateus:


All that has come into existence needs a reason for its coming into existence. Of course, the Creator and Father of this universe is hard to seek, and if we find him, we should not tell everyone about him. The cosmos is beautiful, and its Demiurge is good. The cosmos is the finest thing that has come into being, and the Demiurge is the finest of all causes. In being good, he cares for all visible things, which abide not in peace but in disharmonious and disordered movement; he has brought them from disorder into order.

In pre-Christian mystery religion, for example, there was a religious cult called Mithraism. The similarities to Christianity are really quite astounding. The god-like figure of this religions was called Mithras. As the story goes, he was born of a rock, or in some sources, of a virgin - in either case it was without the need for sexual relations between biological parents. There is reason to believe that thw date of his birth was celebrated on what would today be the 25th of December (according to some sources). And more astoundingly, the story goes that he commanded that his followers, after his death, to eat his body and drink his blood. Sound familiar?

It is only one of many examples.

Atheists often use this as their reason for being extremely dismissive of Christianity. They say that the early Christians just took bits and pieces from religions that already existed and made up their own.

By way of contrast, many Protestants would probably go into anaphylactic shock to read what I’ve just typed. They see it as pagan, unscriptural, dangerous, and unnecessary. Because many of them don’t understand the concept of theosis and revelation, they do not see the proper place of these precursors to Christ. I have read in the past one protestant view that these mystery religions were Satan’s way of pre-empting Christ’s saving work and deceiving more souls into hell. We can only pray for them and try to show them the truth.

The Orthodox heart, however, should rejoice at hearing these things because for us, it shows that the all-loving God revealed part of the Truth of himself to all people, Jew and Gentile alike, and that the All-Powerful Christ is the beginning and end of all these things – the Alpha and the Omega. These were the tiny specks of the Truth – the types and shadows - before He came to reveal the Truth in its fullness in His New Covenant brought about by his Incarnation, life, death, Resurrection and glorious Ascension. Have a look again at the tropar at the top of this e-mail.

Yes, some of these mystery religions also had female virgin figures who were the mothers or spouses of the gods of the religions. Some of them conceived without sex. Some were depicted as goddesses while others were not. Many of them were turned to in order to intercede with their divine sons. Many Protestants argue that devotions to Our Lady are based on this and that we who do it are simply engaging in pagan practices. They cannot (or will not?) see that this is a precursor to the fullness of Truth in the New Covenant brought about by Christ. By their argument, Christians should also not have Communion, because this, too, appeared in Mithraism and so is just as pagan as devotion to the Mother of God. Christians should not celebrate Christmas because that is when the birth of Mithras was celebrated. Christians should not have sex because that was part of the ritual of some of these religions. Christians should not eat teacakes because raisin cakes were eaten in honour of some of these goddesses. The list could go on for ever. By now, you should be able to see that it is nonsense.

After that very long-winded e-mail, my point is that you mustn’t let these reactionary protestants cloud your judgement. They speak forcefully and let’s face it, they know their bibles better than many of us do, but they speak, sadly, out of a state of being separated from the context where the Bible finds its meaning, which is the Church, and when they try to read the Bible outside the loving and guiding fold of the Church they are bound to be led astray.

St Mark of Ephesus:


Never, O man, is that which concerns the Church put right through compromises: there is no mean between truth and falsehood. But just as what is outside the light will be necessarily in darkness, so also he who steps away a little from the truth is left subject to falsehood.

Mary was raised into the heavenly state where she received the crowning glory of the New dispensation in Christ. Like the other Saints, she has reached the fullness of theosis, sharing in the divine life, glory and splendour of God. Unlike the other Saints, she was the first of all mankind to be given this honour when she was taken, body and soul, into heaven. Therefore, she is rightly called Queen of Heaven in the Orthodox understanding, and we should be able to do so gladly and wholeheartedly without any worry of paganism, while simultaneously praying for our protestant friends who struggle with these things.

I’m sorry for the long e-mail and hope that, having waded through it, you find it to be of some help. The reason that I have written at such length is because this idea of Christ as conquering and fulfilling all things is one of the things that I found most exciting when I came to Orthodoxy. What a wonderful Faith this is!

=================================

In Christ,
Michael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Michael,

Thank you for that post. It, together with Scott's previous, remind of a basic confession of the early (as well as many later) Fathers: namely, that Christ as Logos is the foundation of all that is logikos. To translate logos for the moment as 'truth', the confession that the Truth created the world according to His own truth, infusing it with truth (the 'logos spermatikos' of St Justin), means that all who approach truth are indeed approaching Truth: Christ. As the Fathers took pains to show, what is unique about the Church is not that it is the sole place where truth is found, but that it is the sole place where Truth is known fully, completely, utterly. And while certain practices within which the truth was known in part prior to the incarnation are no longer healthy or tolerable, the Fathers tended to show a reverent respect for them as part of the history which God uses and redeems in Christ.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Vasiliki D.]

One of my favourite quotes is something that Gerontas Paisios had said:

The Truth is not an abstract idea or thought. The Truth is a Person. I am the Truth,Christ announced. He did not say,"I came to tell you a few nice things about truth to help you along" He said; I am the Way & the Truth & the Life! (John 14:16)

[Owen Jones]

Again, the "I" of Christ and the "Way" of Christ are interchangeable. Therefore, the truth is not just a person, but a way.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen, you wrote:


Again, the "I" of Christ and the "Way" of Christ are interchangeable. Therefore, the truth is not just a person, but a way.

And this is quite critical. Christians often (rightly) note that truth is not a set of propositions: it is a person. But it is equally as important to stress, as you do, that this person is the way -- that is, Truth is also a way of life. Truth is known not just in coming to know Christ, but in coming to live Christ's life.

... and so the true philosopher is the ascetic.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

... and so the true philosopher is the ascetic.

Or perhaps the true philosopher is the martyr? Someone willing to die for the truth, like Christ? Also like St. Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher?

[Michael Stickles]

Rdr Michael,

Though your description of the Protestant view of non-Jewish "precursors to Christ" mostly matches what I saw during my time in Protestantism, it is not at all universal. I know that I did not believe it, and some years ago was delighted to find a prominent Protestant author who agreed (I've added line breaks to make it easier to read):



I believe that in the huge mass of mythology which has come down to us, a good many different sources are mixed - true history, allegory, ritual, the human delight in story telling, etc. But among these sources I include the supernatural ...

If my religion is erroneous then occurrences of similar motifs in pagan stories are, of course, instances of the same, or a similar error. But if my religion is true, then these stories may well be a preparatio evangelica, a divine hinting in poetic and ritual form at the same central truth which was later focused and (so to speak) historicised in the Incarnation.

To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ and Plato before St. Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which 999 were pure nonsense and the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man.

And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin; just as if you started by knowing that there were no such things as crocodiles then the various stories about dragons might help to confirm your disbelief.

- C. S. Lewis, in "Religion Without Dogma?", 1946 (paper read at the Oxford Socratic Club as a reply to the paper "The Grounds of Modern Agnosticism"; published in "God in the Dock")


In Christ,
Michael

[Vasiliki D.]

A great resource to refer to in this topic is "The Early Church Fathers as Educators" by Elias Matsagouras. There are elements in what he says that capture what I was taught about when I was a little girl, example, the early church did take from 'paganism'so that it could 'fight' paganism ... it seems strange but the author explains it well. I am only one third of the way through this book so I am not sure the overall outcomes of his study. What I do like about this book thus far is how he explains the convergence (and influences) of Greek philosophical trends* and Judaic elements* into the monastic movement of the early church, which was a reaction to the secularisation of the early Church.

The environment of the early church plays a huge part in the personal development of the early church. This community was a combination of voluntary outcasts from the Judaic religion and also the Gentiles and the Pagans; so, all 'grafted' into the Tree of Life and each brought with them their respective cultures and traditions. These christians lived as communities under persecution so this would have forced them to live together and the respective cultures to converge ... there are many classic examples and theories that can support this such as the "Kandili".

----
To give people a "taste"for this book and also use some of this book as information on 'Pagan christianity' I would like to offer excerpts from Chapter I: Educational Activites in the Early Church. It gives a basic gist ...

A. Hellenism-Christianity

The intellectual struggle between Christianity and the classical world that started in Athens with Paul's speech to the Athenians, continued through the next three or more centuries in such cities as Alexandria, where these two great forces confronted each other at that crossroad of history. To the early Church, classical thought was not just the armoury of pagan hostility toward Christianity, it also represented a debate within the very fibre of the Church, since many Christians who possessed a sound classical education wanted to use it for a better understanding of the new faith and paradoxically, even for a defence against pagan attacks.

Thus, the early apologists had to speak Greek, both literally and metaphorically. They were addressing themselves to the Greek world and they had to express the new message in terms understood by their intellectual contemporaries. The rise of Christian theology and of Christian scholards who would attempt to unite Greek philosophy and Christian faith, was one result of this struggle. A brief survey here of the successive phases of this intellectual struggle will be given by presenting some of the representative schools of thought involved in the conflict:

1. Phase 1, Justin Martyr is considered to be th enoblest personality of the early literature, as well as the most important apologist of the second century. He is also deemed to be the originator of Christian philosophy. He tried to build a bridge between Greek philosophy and Christian faith by presenting the idea that Christ, the eternal Logos, had been active in human histroy, teaching and inspiring good and wise men everywhere, Greeks and Jews alike (Justin the Martyr, Apology, II, 13, ANF p193). Thus he wrote that the Platonic writings and the Bible expressed basically the same doctrine of God and the world, ie God is trancendent, nameless, incorporeal, impassible and immutable. Furthermore, Justin praises Plato's teaching about the soul's kinship to God, its free will and the divine origins of the material world. Nevertheless, Justin also held that the Bible is the complete divine revelation, and did not hesitate to reject Greek philosophical ideas that disagreed with Biblical teaching!

One example is his rejection of the Platonic doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. He had a great respect for most philosophers and this may contribute to the understanding of the Scriptural life of reason to be Christians even though they previously had been thought to be atheists and to some degree the Church accepted this idea.

Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Thucydides and other Greek thinkers were portrayed in Church vestibules together with the Old Testament prophets. Two other figures of the Church, Clement of Alexandria and Origen the Christian continued in Justin's line of thought. These two men rendered a service to Christianity by legitimizing philosophy as a tool in the defense of Christian beliefs."
---

The book certainly continues on this topic and expands into the 'golden century' of the Church. An important summary he makes is:

"the early Church thinkers understood Christianity as a religion with ecumenical dimensions and realised that it had to be converted to some extent to the culture and outlook of late antiquity, before it was possible for it to convert the Greco-Roman world. Thus, the Church, while Christianizing the Greek-speaking and Greek-thinking world, itself became Hellenized to some extent. The first step which Christianity took towards Hellenism was the use of the Greek language. This was followed by the adoption of several philosophical ideas from Plato, Aristotle and Stoics, which, under the shield of Christianity often acquired new meanings."

The author continues, and is, IMHO, a striking comment:

"When 'unchristianised' Greek thought entered the Church it led to the creation of heresies."

Yes, Tertullian did write that 'heresies are instigated by philosophy', however, the three Greats showed that if the philosophy was 'christianised' then it only empowered the Church.

Sorry for the length of this post, however, the information was so critical to share and still there is so much that could be shared, however, my fingers are tired from typing it all up!




Footnote
*For instance, Neo-Platonism offered a ready-made system of thought that was in many ways in agreement with the monastic understanding of the reality: it was theocentric, contemplative, with not much appreciation for the tangible. Moreover, Christians of some sort of Stoic and Cynic backgrounds might have been encouraged to renounce bodily pleasures and society. The majority, however, of the monks were simply people seeking union with Christ in His passion and were not contemplative philosophers.
*Judaic elements, such as traditions derived from the Qumran community, possible also the Syrian christians and the monastic life of Egyptian Therapeutes.

[Jonathan Hayward]

There is a Protestant cottage industry of trying to resurrect the lost ancient Church. And, apart from converts still in catechesis, the Orthodox Church does not have this antiquarian project: it has the reality. To people engaged in the quest to reconstruct the pristine Church, the best advice is, "Leave the shadows you have behind and come and taste the reality. Even, or especially, if the reality you meet does not need projects to reconstruct the ancient Church."

In something of the same fashion, the philo-sophia, the philosophic walk of life, is in very large measure alive in monasticism in a way that is almost dead in university departments of philosophy.

And there is a certain sense in which it can be said that Orthodoxy is "pagan" and neo-paganism isn't: neo-paganism is only a shadow of the spirit of classical paganism, as a Protestant reconstruction is only a shadow of an ancient Church that knew nothing of such secular antiquarianism as a norm. The pagan, like the Protestant, may need to leave aside the very motivations for interest in Orthodoxy to truly join Orthodoxy, but neo-paganism today is hardly comparable to Orthodoxy for preserving the grandeurs that existed in paganism in its grandest days.

Christos Jonathan

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Orthodoxy sees the new dispensation - the New Covenant in Christ – as being the fulfilment of all things. As Christ Himself said, ‘This is my Blood of the New and everlasting Covenant’. The old ways are not cast aside but rather are fulfilled – brought to their fruition in Christ. This is one of the major points on which many strains of Protestantism have departed from the Truth of Orthodoxy. It isn’t an obvious difference because it isn’t immediately apparent when you walk into their churches, not like the absence of holy images or incense – but it is a very real difference.

Many of them see Christ as coming to replace the old ways, which are now past and gone. They would perhaps contradict you if you were to phrase it like that but the fact is that the way they conceptualise and the way their beliefs are formulated show that this is what they, deep down, hold to be true.


As a Protestant (converting), we agreed with this, but the "old" and "fulfilled" was in reference to Judaism of which there are types and shadows of what was to come. On one hand, I ask where you pull in paganism as being included in this equation. On the other hand, I see where early Christian Celts, where at the time there weren't Judaic understanding and exposure, used paganism in just such a way.

BTW, I've been Christmass and Easter free for many years. I can agree with Passover, but also view that as being fulfilled in Communion. So this is a big hurdle for me, even though I am converting.

[Owen Jones]

The big hurtle is really obedience. That is always the problem. Practicing true obedience in its deeper spiritual sense. There is a great amount of freedom in that.

[Ben Johnson]

I haven't read the book, but I know atheists like to accuse Christianity of theft. Christmas was stolen from the Roman celebration of solstice, Easter supposedly is derived from aster, although there is another explanation. I suppose if Christmas was held in July the atheists would find an earlier celebration on that day and complain about it. If the LORD can give new meaning to some bread and wine at Passover, certainly the pagan celebrations can be given a new meaning.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

The big hurtle is really obedience. That is always the problem. Practicing true obedience in its deeper spiritual sense. There is a great amount of freedom in that.
I'm not understanding your comment. Where in Scripture are these days commanded? Where are these days commanded by the Church? From talks with Fr, he has not seemed to have an issue with my not participating in Christmass and the fact that I'm not certain where I stand or how far I will go with the idea of Christmass in regards to the Church. My understanding is that it's not a required observance.

In perspective of my stand over the years, I have, in fact, been being obedient to the concept of not calling holy that which Gd has not declared holy, or declaring the unholy holy.

[Owen Jones]

You are converting to a life of obedience and your priest is wisely giving you time and latitude rather than using force and compulsion.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

You are converting to a life of obedience and your priest is wisely giving you time and latitude rather than using force and compulsion.

So are you claiming that Christmass is a required observance?


I noticed that you didn't touch on any other part of my posts, only on so-called obedience. Conversion requires convincing. One must be convinced that something is right or wrong, particularly when they have held, with good conscience, that something is otherwise than is being presented by those wanting them to convert (and yes, I know you could probably give a flip less if I convert, but I'm speaking more along the lines of my husband and my priest). Therefore, instead of insinuating that I'm not being obedient, especially to something that I have been led to understand is not a required observance but rather something that is open to personal conviction, perhaps you should first approach as to where I am wrong for refusing to call that which is not commanded and was not holy, holy.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Cassiane,

The specific question of what is needed and suitable to you, personally, is something none here can answer - only your spiritual father, the priest of your parish.

But as for the Church, the Feast of the Nativity According to the Flesh of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (i.e. 'Christmas') is an essential part of the Church's life and worship; without it one does not have Orthodoxy.

But how your priest understands to best bring you into this understanding and practice is, as I say, something deeply personal that we could not (and ought not) pontificate on here. As Owen has said, this is part of the relationship of obedience that is your unique relationship with him.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Basically, give be the whole enchilada now and let me decide whether I convert or not convert. Don't just say that I have room on certain things, get me to convert, then suddenly tell me that it's not as I had been led to believe. Honesty is prized highly.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Cassiane,

I don't know what more to say! No one is trying to make you to convert: I hope this is the desire growing in your own heart, not the activity of anyone to coerce!

As to the issue: I think my post above says all I can really say. The Feast of the Nativity is a sine qua non of Orthodoxy: without it, one doesn't have Orthodoxy. As also the feast of Pascha, the Resurrection. These are pivotal aspects of the Church's worship in the incarnate Lord.

But, as before, how your priest understands to bring you into a right, peaceful understanding and practice of this is a deeply personal matter. The approach of the Church is not coercion or force!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Dear Cassiane,

The specific question of what is needed and suitable to you, personally, is something none here can answer - only your spiritual father, the priest of your parish.

But as for the Church, the Feast of the Nativity According to the Flesh of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (i.e. 'Christmas') is an essential part of the Church's life and worship; without it one does not have Orthodoxy.

But how your priest understands to best bring you into this understanding and practice is, as I say, something deeply personal that we could not (and ought not) pontificate on here. As Owen has said, this is part of the relationship of obedience that is your unique relationship with him.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
So the church doesn't hold to one specific view on this? My priest may say something different than another? That is puzzling to me.

I understand the recognising of the Nativity (Christ coming in the flesh, fully human and fully deity, through the Theotokos). I agree with that. I'm speaking more along the lines of what is commonly called Christmass. The taking over of a pagan day, when shepards would obviously not be out in the cold, and calling it holy. The taking over of pagan symbols, the tree, and calling them good. This is where I'm puzzled by Owen's comments on obedience. Do you understand?

I'm afraid we keep cross posting. I keep trying to reply to a post before the one that shows up by the time I'm done typing lol. And ya'll definitely gave me things to bring up to Fr.

[Owen Jones]

I guess the question is whether or not the wisdom of the Church far transcends my own personal wisdom. As to the matter of what constitutes conversion, it is not just a matter of consenting to certain doctrines. It's about being changed, a revolution within the person, so to speak. And it's not just a once and for all event, although Baptism and our first participation in the Eucharist are unique events with unique power and meaning. But it's not just a question of what all this (Orthodoxy) means. It's not just about meaning and purpose, but about a real change in our nature that enables us to look at everything through a different set of eyes, to hear things with a different set of ears, and to taste, touch and feel reality with sense organs that now perceive spiritual realities. Trying to understanding the meaning can serve either as a handmaiden or an obstacle.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

I guess the question is whether or not the wisdom of the Church far transcends my own personal wisdom. As to the matter of what constitutes conversion, it is not just a matter of consenting to certain doctrines. It's about being changed, a revolution within the person, so to speak. And it's not just a once and for all event, although Baptism and our first participation in the Eucharist are unique events with unique power and meaning. But it's not just a question of what all this (Orthodoxy) means. It's not just about meaning and purpose, but about a real change in our nature that enables us to look at everything through a different set of eyes, to hear things with a different set of ears, and to taste, touch and feel reality with sense organs that now perceive spiritual realities. Trying to understanding the meaning can serve either as a handmaiden or an obstacle.
Owen, you are describing salvation (I am, am being, and will be). Something I'm already familiar with. I'm not coming from a heathen background, nor am I a heathen. I am converting from the only Christianity I had access to to the Christianity from which it came. It doesn't mean that I've been floating around with absolutely no ability to understand and thus must be told what to do. Understanding is definitely a handmaiden. To not attempt to help me understand will definitely be an obstacle. It was like your comment on the thread about the eye...you gave a non-answer. I do not understand this kind of response. And the the way that kind of response appears to those asking the question is not a positive one, though one wants to think the best intentions of the one responding. I guess this is where Common Ground speaks about East and West speaking different languages. Though with you being in the US, I would've thought you had an idea of where I was coming from and where I'm trying to get to :(

I also do not understand what salvation and the change that Gd does in us has to do with accepting the pagan practices of Christmass (note: I am differentiating Christmass from Nativity...the Nativity having been an event that happened and you can read about in Scripture).


I'll bring it up to my priest. And no, I'm not being coerced, but I expect to be convinced. It is the way of things and involves Understanding, not passive blind acceptance.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

My husband brought up The History Of Epiphany http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8383 which was VERY helpful.

If this had been brought up or the topic at least discussed and answered, rather than feeling like I was getting the brush off, it would have helped much.

[Jonathan Michael]

Whilst it is true that there are various mid-winter festivals pre-dating the Incarnation in pagan religions, it is worth looking at what they are celebrating. These festivals can be traced to the winter time phenomenon where in the Northern Hemisphere the sun reaches its lowest point in the sky, and we get the "shortest day". After this - miraculously - the days start growing longer, and we begin the journey out of winter and into the rebirth of spring. Are these natural cycles "pagan"? Of course not, the seasons are under the dominion of our Creator, the Trinune God. Because of this, I would certainly shy away from calling the seasons of the earth "unholy". I also, therefore, think the marking of these seasons to be appropriate - though of course it can be observed in an inappropriate way.

So, what the Church do? Early on (though no doubt after the NT scriptures had been written), the Church started to celebrate the birth of Christ during the mid-winter. How perfect is this? In the depth of winter - while pagans celebrate the return of the sun - Christians celebrate the coming of Christ into the world. The parallels are obvious but the differences are key too: while the pagans wrongly worship matter and God's creation, we Christians rightly see nature (that which God called good) as a reflection and image of its source. It is the source - Christ the Word of God - whom we worship. To me it makes absolute perfect sense to celebrate the coming of Christ into the world at the point when the cold, hard winter almost literally starts to melt away. And even more beautifully, the end of winter brings the rebirth of spring, which is when we celebrate the Resurrection*! As I mentioned before, to celebrate in this way is not "copying" paganism: the pagans only celebrated these times of the year because of what nature so powerfully reveals, and nature is nothing but the creation of God. Before the Incarnation, the pagans - in a similar, yet distinct, way to the Jews - had a veil over their hearts, worshiping the revelation of God in nature rather than God Himself. The Son of God becoming man reveals to us that the seasons and natural cycles are significant, as the pagans knew, but not in and of themselves, but because they shadowed the story of mankind's salvation: Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.

I probably should have added the term "redeeming time" to the above response, but carelessly left it out. But this is at least one foundational reason why we Christians have many festivals throughout the year: the redeeming of time, dates, seasons, history, and seeing in them Christ the Son of God.





*But of course the Resurrection did happen in spring: the date of Easter is related to the date of Passover (always the Sunday after Passover has finished, I think); whether near the beginning or near the end, the Passover and Easter do fall in spring. It is fantastic that God would plan the historical fact of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ to happen during the season when all of nature itself was being reborn. You probably know that Easter is on a Sunday because this was the historical day Christ rose from the tomb: the third day after His crucifixion, the day after the Sabbath (Saturday). Here there is no aping of pagan customs: we are celebrating historical days.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I also do not understand what salvation and the change that Gd does in us has to do with accepting the pagan practices of Christmass (note: I am differentiating Christmass from Nativity...the Nativity having been an event that happened and you can read about in Scripture).

I'll bring it up to my priest. And no, I'm not being coerced, but I expect to be convinced. It is the way of things and involves Understanding, not passive blind acceptance.

How do you differentiate Christmas from Nativity? If you equate "Christmas" with "Santa Claus" and holly and decorated trees and all that stuff, then I am right there with you. I prefer "Nativity" to "Christmas" myself and would point out that while personal practice may confuse the two, the Church does not. The Church fasts before the Nativity, and celebrates afterwards, even if some partake of pre-Christmas parties and have Christmas trees and decorate their houses with Santa Claus, that is not endemic to Orthodoxy.

If you object to celebrating the birth of Christ on 25 December, then I guess you skip Church that day, but you separate yourself from the brethren and the Holy Apostle Paul tells us not to forsake the gathering of the brethren. The Church reclaims time as part of the reclamation of creation, we base our cycle of worship on a calendar, we have spiritual seasons, even if the pagans celebrate the agrarian seasons, God gave us the cycle of the seasons to proclaim His glory, and all we are doing is acknowledging that.

I guess I (and I think a few others here) are not quite understanding your point, evidently what we think we are answering is not your question, I think that is why you are having trouble accepting our answers.

So let me ask a few questions so that we might better understand what you are trying to say:

Do you not accept recognizing and celebrating the birth of Christ on a specific day? Or do you object to celebrating the Nativity as a "substitute" for a previously pagan holiday? Or do you think that Holy Days, are not a good idea?

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from, that is all. I am, after all, but a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Jonathan Michael (I smiled as I read your name as you share a name with one of my sons :) ):

I agree. Because I have seen this played and replayed as simply recognising what is part of nature, I'm fine with that. However, the winter solstice is on Dec 21st, not 25th ;) But yes, a beautiful point. Much like the Celts would have made.


Herman:

The issue from my understanding has been the replacing of a specific pagan holy day...that celebrating the birth of Tammuz...when Christ was not born in the winter (shepherds would not be out with their flocks, not have their flocks out, on a cold winter night). And yes, also the trappings that come along...hewing down a tree and decorating it with gold and silver (there is a verse speaking against such, let alone the representation of the evergreen to Tammuz), etc. I've tried hard to keep a clear conscience on this matter. Most pagans and those of other faiths laugh at much of Christianity here in America for their ignorance on the matter. Even they recognise what most do not. This stand has helped open others up to hearing about my faith in the past.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

As a Protestant (converting), we agreed with this, but the "old" and "fulfilled" was in reference to Judaism of which there are types and shadows of what was to come. On one hand, I ask where you pull in paganism as being included in this equation. On the other hand, I see where early Christian Celts, where at the time there weren't Judaic understanding and exposure, used paganism in just such a way.



This is what I was initially seeking an answer to, Herman. But it spun far and away from it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is what I was initially seeking an answer to, Herman. But it spun far and away from it.

A couple of thoughts and then I'm done. We are reclaiming Creation. We bless things; water, oil, bread, wine, each other, and we bless possessions; homes, vehicles, and things we use. We also bless the seasons, reclaiming even time in the Name of Christ the Lord. Pascha is not celebrated "historically" in that we do not necessarily celebrate it the exact same day it historically happened, it is a "moveable" feast, that being a decision the Church made early on so that we would all celebrate it together. In a sense, it was somewhat arbitrary, but a particular way of fixing the date was selected. The same is true for the Nativity. We don't know exactly what day it actually happened, the Scriptural narratives are not very clear on the subject, evidently the "when" was not seen as that important by the Gospel authors. Evidently a day that competed with pagan celebrations was picked. Again, I simply see it as the Church "reclaiming" the seasons.

Do you have to have holly wreaths and Christmas trees to be Orthodox? Absolutely not, these things have been imported from western traditions and are not really part of Orthodoxy, although if some are "reclaiming" them as Orthodox Christians, I have no problems with that. I know of Russian Orthodox who specifically forbade Christmas trees and such (too "German" for their tastes and not specifically Orthodox).

But then we have the example of the Russian mission to the natives of Alaska. They had no problem with appropriating certain local pagan customs and giving them Christian meanings. Your mileage may vary I guess.

Herman the Pooh, peace out!

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

A couple of thoughts and then I'm done. We are reclaiming Creation. We bless things; water, oil, bread, wine, each other, and we bless possessions; homes, vehicles, and things we use. We also bless the seasons, reclaiming even time in the Name of Christ the Lord. Pascha is not celebrated "historically" in that we do not necessarily celebrate it the exact same day it historically happened, it is a "moveable" feast, that being a decision the Church made early on so that we would all celebrate it together. In a sense, it was somewhat arbitrary, but a particular way of fixing the date was selected. The same is true for the Nativity. We don't know exactly what day it actually happened, the Scriptural narratives are not very clear on the subject, evidently the "when" was not seen as that important by the Gospel authors. Evidently a day that competed with pagan celebrations was picked. Again, I simply see it as the Church "reclaiming" the seasons.

Do you have to have holly wreaths and Christmas trees to be Orthodox? Absolutely not, these things have been imported from western traditions and are not really part of Orthodoxy, although if some are "reclaiming" them as Orthodox Christians, I have no problems with that. I know of Russian Orthodox who specifically forbade Christmas trees and such (too "German" for their tastes and not specifically Orthodox).

But then we have the example of the Russian mission to the natives of Alaska. They had no problem with appropriating certain local pagan customs and giving them Christian meanings. Your mileage may vary I guess.

Herman the Pooh, peace out!Thank you, that was very helpful :)

[Jonathan Michael]

Dear Cassiane,

Looking at the earlier post you quote, it looks like my own reply to you was just me telling you things you already know:

On the other hand, I see where early Christian Celts, where at the time there weren't Judaic understanding and exposure, used paganism in just such a way.

This is my fault for not reading the thread through properly. Good point on the date of the winter solstice - this goes to show that human inventions like calendars can only do an imperfect job of tracking the and measuring the time.

So, the Christmas festival itself is a redeeming of time, and as Herman has already said, the other symbols and practices are redeemed things as well. But of course it does get a bit complicated, as not all practices and symbols are equal.

And actually I do understand why you might feel uncomfortable about some things. It is all very well redeeming a pagan symbol like a holly wreath and giving it a new meaning in the light of Christ (in this case representing the crown of thorns, complete with berry red drops of blood), but it becomes less useful if Christians themselves don't know this "new" meaning, or are dull to discovering it for themselves. In such cases the barriers between worshiping the Creator and the created symbols can become a little weaker. However I must say that this is not something I have noticed within Orthodoxy, and is a testament to its strength (and truth).

It would be too tedious to go through all the different "Christmassy" things to see which are Orthodox and which are not. Potentially, they all are (i.e. they are all redeemable) but that doesn't mean all have been at this moment in time. Personally, I've never seen a Christmas tree in an Orthodox church, but then I have mainly experience of parishes with Russian backgrounds. Christmas trees are certainly a practice of north Europe (primarily German) origin.

One thing on paganism though. The history of pagan religion may be long, but the strength of its tradition is weak (or at least it seems so to me). Most pagan practices known of today by modern pagans cannot easily be traced back to pre-Christian roots. They can be certainly traced back a long way, but rarely before the Gospel was introduced to a particular tribe/nation. I strongly suspect that many "rediscovered" pagan rites and rituals are actually Christian practices peculiar to local areas. These practices may have pagan origins, but the precise nature of these origins are lost to us today. They are lost to us because the power of Christ overcame the old superstitions; only the form - not the substance - remains. We Christians (me and you) are not superstitious and don't believe in magic spells, so these traditions have no power except that which Christ gives them. Well anyway, this is from my experience of reading modern pagan writings; I confess I might not have read as much as you on the subject.

[Father David Moser]

I would like to broaden the field a bit here. None of the feasts of the Church are "optional" as they are all interconnected (especially the 12 Great Feasts). All of the feasts point in one way or another to the incarnation and to discount the feast is to discount the incarnation (without which we would not have anything).

OTOH, how we celebrate the feasts is another question entirely. Without denying that Jesus was God incarnate, born of a virgin, fully God and fully man, one could easily be reticent to participate in all the customs that surround the feast (the tree, the lights, the gifts, the carols - all that stuff). It is important however to consider the balance of the life of the Church. Our Holy Mother Church gives us both times of fasting and times of feasting. If we fast without feasting, then we linger on the brink of despair - but if we feast without fasting then we fall into negligence and inattention. We need the balance, we need both the feast and the fast.

For someone who came from a tradition without celebrating feasts, it is probably true that this tradition does also not keep the fasts. If a person from such a tradition were to begin keeping the fasts, then the necessity of keeping the feasts would soon become evident. We cannot have only feasting or only fasting, but we must have both for our own spiritual and emotional health and well being.

But to single out one or two feasts (even if they are the greatest feasts of the Church year) and go ahead with all the other feasts (since maybe the resistance to them had never developed) is foolishness. All of the tradition of the Church is given to us for our spiritual benefit and well being, why would we seek to reject any part of it simply because its not what we were used to in some other non-Orthodox environment.

Fr David Moser

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Please know that I'm not rejecting the observance of the feasts and fasts. I'm on board there. It was all the other "stuff". And when someone says going to church for Nativity or Epiphany and having service, that is one thing to me. When someone says celebrate Christmas, that is another thing to me. I'm not against exchanging a couple of gifts with the grandparents (it would be worse to deny them over a little thing) is not even a big thing as long as it's not done in extreme. They know we like simplicity and respect that as well.

Jonathan and Fr David, I think you two really hit it for me and the rest is something that I have to work through.

But my question is still: Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism...but are those in this thread also saying that it's a completion of paganism, or a righting of?

[Owen]

Yes, both!

[Owen Jones]

The way Christmas is celebrated in America outside the Church certainly gives pause to a lot of us, but it's really a matter of conscience I think, not a Church dogma one way or the other. If having a Christmas tree is a problem because of its pagan connotations, don't do it, but really the Church embraces including folk customs where appropriate. Ever been to a Greek festival????

[Owen Jones]

btw, it was the Calvinists and Puritans who went to great lengths to ban Christmas as it was being celebrated culturally because they claimed it was a pagan holiday. That's where all of this comes from. Orthodoxy is neither Calvinistic or Puritan.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

The way Christmas is celebrated in America outside the Church certainly gives pause to a lot of us, but it's really a matter of conscience I think, not a Church dogma one way or the other. If having a Christmas tree is a problem because of its pagan connotations, don't do it, but really the Church embraces including folk customs where appropriate. Ever been to a Greek festival????

Yes LOL! But did not see anything that I could object to.


btw, it was the Calvinists and Puritans who went to great lengths to ban Christmas as it was being celebrated culturally because they claimed it was a pagan holiday. That's where all of this comes from. Orthodoxy is neither Calvinistic or Puritan.

Uhm, that is the background I'm coming from. Which is why I'm laying it out and trying to work through it.

[Mary]

But my question is still: Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism...but are those in this thread also saying that it's a completion of paganism, or a righting of?

Yes!!! And that is what is so exciting! Of course, the link between Judaism is the easiest to see, because that's where all the detailed prophesies come from. But the wise men who came to worship Jesus, were not Jews. They worshiped stars, as it says in the nativity hymn. The first time I heard that hymn, it filled me up with so much joy that I thought I'd burst! God truly does find all those who seek Him, even if they're using strange ways to find Him. They like stars? Then He'll use the stars to guide them to Himself. Isn't that cool?!

My other sources - believe it or not - are protestant. Missionary stories of people who went to tribes and nations in the middle of nowhere and tried to convert people. And in learning about the people, found legends and traditions and linguistic expressions that in some way resembled Judaism/Christianity and they were able to use those old stories as a starting point, to tell those people about Christ.

The group of people that we used to work with, had an interesting ceremony that had nothing to do with water, but they called it: "Being born again".

There's little stars like that, scattered everywhere - and even whole constellations in the protestant churches. Things they're already familiar with - and Orthodox Christianity shows them how it all fits in the right place, what it all truly means, brings it all to life - fulfills all their hopes. We have no excuse for not following those stars.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

Thank you, Mary. Very good points. I will have to admit though to having not heard the "Nativity Hymn" as of yet. This will be our first Nativity feast. I don't know what they hymn or Orthodox teaching is, but I never heard that the wisemen worshiped the stars before, merely that they were readers of the stars, which is quite different.

[Mary]

Thank you, Mary. Very good points. I will have to admit though to having not heard the "Nativity Hymn" as of yet. This will be our first Nativity feast. I don't know what they hymn or Orthodox teaching is, but I never heard that the wisemen worshiped the stars before, merely that they were readers of the stars, which is quite different.

Oh, sorry Etsi,

I thought you might've read the previous posts. It is quoted in Post #23:


Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, hath shined upon the world the light of knowledge; for thereby, they that worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory be to Thee.How long have you been looking into orthodoxy? You know, if this is your first nativity season, then, you have no concerns. Go to church, pay attention to the scripture readings and the hymns, and also take a look at the saints commemorated during this season of preparation, and you'll see how we cannot have orthodoxy without celebrating the nativity. It is totally glorious. Makes every other "Christmas" I ever celebrated, seem like it was pagan, even though it wasn't!

In regard to studying the stars & worshiping them, I believe the difference is most obvious only in present times, where astronomy has nothing to do with astrology. However, the result of the study that the Wise Men did sounds more like astrology than astronomy to me. How did they know, so accurately, that a King was born - and not just any king, but a King who deserved to be worshipped? What kind of signs had they seen in the skies that announced the birth of kings? I wonder if anyone can read the stars today, as they did.

in Christ,
mary

PS - don't stop looking at the commemorations after Christmas - only the orthodox church remembers all those infants that Herod murdered in Bethlehem. That made me weep, and at the same time, it filled me with joy, because all those innocent little martyrs haven't been forgotten by the Church for all these years. Life and death side by side. Joy and Sorrow like two sides of the same coin. There seems to be this constant tension in orthodoxy that seems to be capable of creating some kind of balance.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

But the wise men who came to worship Jesus, were not Jews. They worshiped stars, as it says in the nativity hymn.

This is probably not so. The term Magi (Greek Magoi) in Matt. 2:1 indicates that the "Wisemen" were Persian holy men and probably followers of Zoroaster, who studied the stars and but did not worship them. "Those who worshiped the stars" in the Tropar of the Nativity were the devotees of the Sol Invictus ("the Unconquered Sun"), whose cult was popular among soldiers especially. These were taught by the Nativity to worship the "Sun of Righteousness." (Malachi 4:2) Before his conversion, St. Constantine was partial to the Sol Invictus and named Sunday in its honor.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Etsi JC Brigid W.]

How long have you been looking into orthodoxy?

Unbeknownst to me, my husband has been looking into Orthodoxy for over 2yrs. He brought it to my attention this spring even though he had been working in little things here and there (Theotokos, for instance). We attended our first Divine Liturgy this past June and have been attending ever since. We have thrown ourselves into Church life here and our children even more so. Every time I turn around there is another event they have to go to or help serve in; they love it! We're loving it :) I found out yesterday that we are looking at Chrismation in December. I want it to be a special time and I knew I needed to work through this one issue as it had been building in me. It's been pointed out to me that there was some miscommunication earlier in my participation on this thread. I want to apologise. I was getting frustrated and may communicate a bit differently than many of you here. What one person says may mean one thing to them and it meant something different to me, thus I took offense where none was meant, I'm certain. Thank ya'll for bearing with me.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I want to back away from my previous post, with apologies to Mary. "Those who worshiped the stars" may indeed have meant the Magi, as the Greeks associated the followers of Zoroaster with astrology. This may not be entirely fair to the actual Magi. Zoroastrianism placed a high value on truth, and I have always assumed that the Magi followed the star of Bethlehem seeking truth. At any rate, the larger truth is that many others who did worship stars and other creatures were taught by the Nativity to worship the one true God.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Owen Jones]

back to the original theme of the thread, it would be good to look at John 12: 20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. "Sir," they said, "we would like to see Jesus." 22Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

23Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Cassiane and others,

I might offer this as a small thought and contribution: Christianity is a life of transformation. Orthodoxy is 'other' than the world only insomuch as this 'otherness' -- i.e., not succumbing to worldliness -- allows it to transform the world. Our model and vision is always Christ: He did not do away with humanity, with human nature, in order to redeem mankind: he transformed it, transfigured it, as we see on Mt Thabor.

There are many aspects of the great amalgam we now think of as 'culture' that derive from Pagan sources, as also from many other backgrounds. Christianity has always the power to simply ignore these, or, as it so often has done, to transform them -- to reclaim from the Pagan context a seed which can blossom as a Christian fruit.

We ought not to resist something like the keeping of the Feast of the Nativity according to the date / timing of an older Pagan seasonal festival, on grounds that such a practice is therefore itself 'Pagan'. It is not Pagan: it is the conversion of Paganism. It is the interjection of Christ into a context that has tried to exist without Him, to show a brighter and better way.

Similarly, the keeping of the feast of Pascha, mingled in loose association with the old Pagan Saxon feast of Eostre (i.e. Easter), is not a succumbing to a Pagan tradition, but a conversion of it. Eostre was a 'Mother Goddess' figure whose name was associated with 'spring' or 'fountain'. Early Christians did not recoil in fright from this Pagan tradition: they saw it as an evangelical opportunity, to proclaim the one who is the true spring, the true fountain of life; to make adoration of a pale, weakling 'mother goddess' a clear absurdity in the face of the death-defeating Son of the true and eternal Father.

This is decidedly not 'Pagan Christianity'. It is Christianity standing in the midst of the world, Pagan or otherwise, and loudly proclaiming: 'here is the true and better way'.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Vasiliki D.]

HOMILY: on the Creator of the new man
… for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace (Ephesians 2:15).

"When He came to earth, the Lord, the Lover of Mankind, came to all men, not just to some. The Jews awaited a messiah; He came as the Messiah. The pagans awaited a redeemer; He came as the Redeemer. He came with equal love for both the Jews and the pagans. There was no other group on earth-only the Jews and the pagans. The Jews were the only ones in the world who believed in one God, whereas the pagans worshiped idols. But the Jews had obscured their faith by their transgressions and, therefore, knew nothing. Thus, both the Jews and the pagans had become equal in their ignorance and equal in the curse of sin with which Adam had burdened the benighted earth. As of old Adam did not belong to the Jews exclusively, but also to the pagans, for they both descended from him, so Christ, the new Adam, did not belong to one or the other, but to both, for He saved both. The Lord Jesus could not side with the Jewish kingdom of empty legal formalism, or the Hellenic kingdom (including paganism in general) of naturalistic fables and demonic divinations and sorcery. Rather, He healed them both. He took both of these sick ones and he created the new man. And this is the Church of God. Thus, the Lord annulled and cast out both Judaism and Hellenism, and created His Holy Church.

O Lord Jesus, All-good and All-wise, everything Thou hast done is good and wise beyond words. To Thee be glory and praise forever. Amen."

~ St Nikolai Velimirovich, Prologue from Ohrid.

[Fred B.]

I read 'Pagan Christianity' a few years ago, and ironically it played a role in my own journey to Orthodoxy. In my opinion, the ideas in 'Pagan Christianity' are the logical conclusion of a certain thread of Protestantism - "If it isn't in the Bible, it is isn't Christian". For myself, the book exposed the fundamental absurdity of such ideas by taking them to the extreme, and forced me to realize where my own ideas about the early church would ultimately lead.

One aspect that struck me as contradictory and anachronistic is the assumption that early Christians sat around reading their Bibles. Of course, the reality is that the canon of writings of the New Testament were not entirely established until the 4th century, so most local churches only had one or a few of the New Testament writings. Furthermore, until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, it was incredibly expensive to produce a copy of the Bible, and even then most people were illiterate anyway. Also, when Paul writes "Holy Scriptures" in 2 Tim 3:15 ("and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.") he is obviously not talking about the New Testament, which did not exist when Timothy was an infant.

So to me, the very idea of looking in the New Testament to determine how to "do Christianity" is not something early Christians would have even done. It begs the question of how knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ would have been transmitted if not through reading the Bible and developing a private interpretation. Clearly, the Apostles did more things than only what is described in the New Testament.

Another issue I had with 'Pagan Christianity' is the very strange idea that somehow the same Christians who defended the fundamentals of the Christian faith against all manner of heresy and paganism were at the same time incorporating pagan ideas and practices into the church. The same people who established the canon of Scripture were also making serious deviations? To go a bit further back, the same people who gave their lives in martyrdom for Truth were at the same time corrupting the Truth? And we who live in spiritually enfeebled modern times, nearly 2000 years later, are better equipped to judge what is correct faith and practice?

One of the early problems I had with the Bible (before I was a Christian at all), is that its claims to authority are entirely circular (at least as argued by Protestants). The Bible is infallible because the Bible says it is infallible, and the Bible is never wrong. That always seemed circular to the point of tautology. In fact this problem plagued me until I discovered Orthodoxy, where the Bible is a part of tradition, not outside of tradition. And the tradition teaches the correct interpretation of the Bible, as handed down by the Apostles to the Bishops.

Furthermore, the principle of private interpretation of Scripture, using Scripture to understand Scripture, also seemed plagued with problems. If such an approach was supposed to get us in touch with truth, why are there so many contradictory interpretations, each backed up with Scriptures to "prove" the position? 'Pagan Christianity' is itself the product of such a process. Looking at the Arian heresy I learned that they argued against the divinity of Jesus using an approach very similar to Sola Scriptura, which was argued against in part through appeal to tradition. I have a Buddhist friend who makes some rather bizarre claims about the "true" nature of Christianity, all based upon his private interpretation of the Bible, and he makes some rather clever arguments entirely from Scripture. The best defense I have against those ideas is that what he is saying contradicts how the church has always understood it's own teaching.

So, all of this forced me to realize that ideas such as the ones presented in "Pagan Christianity" are themselves part of a new tradition, in fact a very post-modern one. Why should I accept or even read 'Pagan Christianity', or any other book than the Bible, according to their logic? I realized that 'Pagan Christianity', and Protestantism itself, is a well-meaning attempt to set up a tradition over and apart from that which was handed down by the Apostles.

My apologies for a rambling post. If I am incorrect anywhere, I appreciate correction.

[Sacha]

One of the early problems I had with the Bible (before I was a Christian at all), is that its claims to authority are entirely circular (at least as argued by Protestants). The Bible is infallible because the Bible says it is infallible, and the Bible is never wrong. That always seemed circular to the point of tautology. In fact this problem plagued me until I discovered Orthodoxy, where the Bible is a part of tradition, not outside of tradition. And the tradition teaches the correct interpretation of the Bible, as handed down by the Apostles to the Bishops.

Furthermore, the principle of private interpretation of Scripture, using Scripture to understand Scripture, also seemed plagued with problems. If such an approach was supposed to get us in touch with truth, why are there so many contradictory interpretations, each backed up with Scriptures to "prove" the position? 'Pagan Christianity' is itself the product of such a process. Looking at the Arian heresy I learned that they argued against the divinity of Jesus using an approach very similar to Sola Scriptura, which was argued against in part through appeal to tradition. I have a Buddhist friend who makes some rather bizarre claims about the "true" nature of Christianity, all based upon his private interpretation of the Bible, and he makes some rather clever arguments entirely from Scripture. The best defense I have against those ideas is that what he is saying contradicts how the church has always understood it's own teaching.



Hi Fred,

Because internet forums are not conducive to the proper conveyance of the tone of a post, please know that my following questions are not offered flippantly, nor do I intend any disrespect whatsoever to the OC. My questions are asked in all seriousness, and are not an attack. I would genuinely like to know the answers.

How would you respond to this:

The OC is infallible because our tradition is infallible, and we were infallible in handing down that tradition. Is that circular?

2nd question relates to your point about contradictions. Speaking from experience, I started a thread on propitiation and atonement, looking for reinforcing teaching about atonement from an Eastern view. Yet I was surprised to see substantial disagreement on something as fundamental as the atonement in the thread. 100+ posts counting, and someone from the outside looking in would honestly not be able to avoid the conclusion that much is contradictory there. Beyond that an orthodox friend of mine has actually warned me about the influence of certain people in a certain Orthodox 'group' (let's just leave it at that to avoid any inflaming of the passions), saying that their teaching is corrupt. So what of these contradictions then?

[Herman Blaydoe]

The OC is infallible because our tradition is infallible, and we were infallible in handing down that tradition. Is that circular?

If that was what we were saying it would indeed be circular and completely bogus. We ain't got no infallibility, we don' need no infallibility, I don' got to show you any steekin' infallibility! (movie reference, first one to get it wins a free cup of coffee, just show up at our parish, St. Thomas the Apostle (http://www.apostlethomas.org/), to collect)

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us … ". Who needs infallibility? There have been controversies, there have been apostasies, there have been heresies, but the Holy Spirit has always kept the Church faithful to the Apostolic Witness; as revealed by Christ, as taught by the Apostles, as proclaimed by the bishops, as "Amen-ed" by the laity down through the centuries. infallibility is superfluous.

What is "Tradition"? According to G. K. Chesterton; "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

Ultimately however, Orthodoxy is not about "tradition", it is about encounter with the Living God. Orthodoxy is the continuing witness of that encounter. It is worshipping Christ in Spirit and Truth.

Herman

[Sacha]

I understand that the word 'infallible' is emotionally charged due to the papal proclamation, so I probably should have used another term. But I don't think that it would have changed the underlying proposition, which Fred sees as problematic for Protestants. I see it as problematic not just for protestants but for any other part of Christianity claiming the authentic encounter with God. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the OC is not authentic. That is not for me to judge and I only know my sins. But the point I make is that Fred's proposition's weakness is not so easily dismissed.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sooooo, where do YOU encounter God? That is where you should be, regardless of our arguments, circular, speculative, logical, nominal, or otherwise. I know where I first truly encountered God, that is why I am where I am.

[Sacha]

Sooooo, where do YOU encounter God? That is where you should be, regardless of our arguments, circular, speculative, logical, nominal, or otherwise. I know where I first truly encountered God, that is why I am where I am.

I hope to encounter Him in the same place where the publican does.

[Antonios]

If that was what we were saying it would indeed be circular and completely bogus. We ain't got no infallibility, we don' need no infallibility, I don' got to show you any steekin' infallibility! (movie reference, first one to get it wins a free cup of coffee, just show up at our parish, St. Thomas the Apostle (http://www.apostlethomas.org/), to collect)


Blazing Saddles. Pay up Herman!

[Rick]

I understand that the word 'infallible' is emotionally charged due to the papal proclamation, so I probably should have used another term. But I don't think that it would have changed the underlying proposition, which Fred sees as problematic for Protestants. I see it as problematic not just for protestants but for any other part of Christianity claiming the authentic encounter with God. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the OC is not authentic. That is not for me to judge and I only know my sins. But the point I make is that Fred's proposition's weakness is not so easily dismissed.

Sacha, I'm sorry: what's the "underlying proposition" exactly? I was tracking with you up until that point.

Also I'm not sure about what you mean by "any other part of Christianity" (given that "Christianity" and "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" are not synonymous) and the claim about "authentic encounter" with God.

I've never run across any dogma of the OC claiming that only the OC has a monopoly on an "authentic encounter" with God. The OC is quite clear that God is authentically encountered by both Jew and Gentile, that is to say, by all people. What the OC claims is that it is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that, because of this and what Christ says about the Holy Spirit guiding it, it believes that, insofar as it is the Holy Spirit that guides the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has the "seal" of the perfect work of the Holy Spirit, which is to say, it is infallible. Where is the circularity here?

Thanks.

[Owen Jones]

I believe the term infallible came into play in the Council called by Justinian.

[Fred B.]

Sacha, thank you very much for your questions. I don't take them as an attack at all, but rather as an important part of my own process of figuring things out. Unfortunately I am just about to leave town for the weekend, and I don't want to just write a nonchalant response without thinking about it. You raise good points. So I will have to delay my response until next week.

Also, I apologize for my own poor writing. Please don't take it to necessarily be the position of the Orthodox Church, but merely my own feeble understanding as I walk along my own path. Moving from a Protestant background into Orthodoxy I have my own unresolved feelings about my own background that sometimes comes through my writing. I should probably not speak up at all until I have a better understanding.

[Sacha]

Sacha, I'm sorry: what's the "underlying proposition" exactly? I was tracking with you up until that point.

Also I'm not sure about what you mean by "any other part of Christianity" (given that "Christianity" and "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" are not synonymous) and the claim about "authentic encounter" with God.

I've never run across any dogma of the OC claiming that only the OC has a monopoly on an "authentic encounter" with God. The OC is quite clear that God is authentically encountered by both Jew and Gentile, that is to say, by all people. What the OC claims is that it is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that, because of this and what Christ says about the Holy Spirit guiding it, it believes that, insofar as it is the Holy Spirit that guides the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has the "seal" of the perfect work of the Holy Spirit, which is to say, it is infallible. Where is the circularity here?

Thanks.

If you reframe it as Herman has done, by disemphasizing the tradition passed down and only emphasizing the Holy Spirit, then the problem would not so much be circularity as it is the claim of having the Holy Spirit. This same claim is made by Pentecostals among many others. It's the same problem with the typical wrong headed Protestant attitude of Sola Scriptura, which as Orthodox have rightly pointed out is logically absurd. The Baptist minister will say, "but we only follow the Bible, if it's not in the Bible we don't believe it" and when I point out to him that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim the same, He starts to argue about interpretation, which of course, is the real issue. Likewise, I would ask the question, ok, you claim to have the Holy Spirit, how do you know so? If you say, because Jesus promised it to us, I'll have to say sorry, that's what the Baptists claim as well. Do you see the problem?

Now, I know that many will interject that the Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. My understanding of that verse is tempered by what He also taught in the parable of the mustard seed. The birds of the air came and nestled in the tree's branches. To me, it is despite those birds of the air that christians have prevailed over the centuries. In other words, the fact that Christianity has survived and thrived through the centuries is not necessarily indicative of the absolute purity of any one of its divisions, no matter how loudly the latter will claim purity.

[Rick]

If you reframe it as Herman has done, by disemphasizing the tradition passed down and only emphasizing the Holy Spirit, then the problem would not so much be circularity as it is the claim of having the Holy Spirit. This same claim is made by Pentecostals among many others. It's the same problem with the typical wrong headed Protestant attitude of Sola Scriptura, which as Orthodox have rightly pointed out is logically absurd. The Baptist minister will say, "but we only follow the Bible, if it's not in the Bible we don't believe it" and when I point out to him that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim the same, He starts to argue about interpretation, which of course, is the real issue. Likewise, I would ask the question, ok, you claim to have the Holy Spirit, how do you know so? If you say, because Jesus promised it to us, I'll have to say sorry, that's what the Baptists claim as well. Do you see the problem?

Now, I know that many will interject that the Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. My understanding of that verse is tempered by what He also taught in the parable of the mustard seed. The birds of the air came and nestled in the tree's branches. To me, it is despite those birds of the air that christians have prevailed over the centuries. In other words, the fact that Christianity has survived and thrived through the centuries is not necessarily indicative of the absolute purity of any one of its divisions, no matter how loudly the latter will claim purity.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

I wouldn't say I've deemphasized tradition. In Orthodox Church, Met. Kallistos Ware intimates that there is no real way to disconnect the Holy Spirit from Holy Tradition.


Tradition is far more than a set of abstract propositions — it is a life, a personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit. Tradition is not only kept by the Church — it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Orthodox conception of Tradition is not static but dynamic, not a dead acceptance of the past but a living experience of the Holy Spirit in the present. Tradition, while inwardly changeless (for God does not change), is constantly assuming new forms, which supplement the old without superseding them.But aside from this detail, your concern is a real one to you, so I won't brush it aside carelessly.

Many groups claim things that aren't true. We are fallen and, even in the OC, priests and bishops have claimed things that aren't true, but which are in due course dealt with.

According to the OC, the Holy Spirit is "everywhere and fillest all things." No Orthodox would deny that the Holy Spirit works even in the lives of the most explicit anti-Christian, for, God loves us all. So we can say that, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is active in the world in general to lead us to salvation.

But notice: It doesn't follow from this that, since the Holy Spirit is at work in everyone's lives toward their salvation, whatever they claim will be true. Arius said that the Son was created even while the Holy Spirit was at work in his life in some way, always toward his salvation.

Here's my point: The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. If group X and Y claim that their teachings are the result of their having the Holy Spirit, and X teaches doctrine D, and Y teaches not D, then we have a problem: Either the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, or only one of those groups is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are.

Let's use your example. Pentecostals/Baptists would say that their doctrine of Sola Scriptura accords with what the Holy Spirit has revealed. However, the OC would say, no, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not accord with what the Holy Spirit has revealed.

Either the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, and so it teaches falsity, or only one of those two, Pentecostals/Baptists or the OC, is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are.

Supposing we are correct in our assessment here, how then would you decide who teaches a doctrine that is genuinely the result of the work of the Holy Spirit? And on the basis of what criteria?

I hope I've engaged you in some meaningful way.

[Fred B.]

The OC is infallible because our tradition is infallible, and we were infallible in handing down that tradition. Is that circular?

I haven't looked into issues of infallibility in the OC much, so I don't have a strong answer for this. From my understanding of this issue so far, I'm not sure the position described in the quote above is quite the position of the OC. One factor to consider is the system of checks and balances inherent in the conciliar approach to ecclesiastical structure, which is a strong safeguard against error in doctrine. This is a different approach than both the Roman Catholic position (church authority flows from the pope), and the Protestant position (personal interpretation of the Bible is the authority, with varying degrees of appeal to some form of Christian tradition).

The problem I attempted to describe in my previous post is that "Pagan Christianity" upholds the Bible as sole authority while at the same time claiming that the early church was corrupted by rampant paganism which thoroughly infected it's traditions. So, by this way of thinking, the only witness to the Bible's authority is the Bible itself. To me it makes more sense to also take into account the traditions handed down by the Apostles to the bishops which they themselves appointed, and thus to the Church as a whole. In this way the criteria of 2 Corinthians 13:1 is satisfied "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses". The Bible is supported by tradition, and tradition is supported by the Bible.

The image I see in my imagination is a bit like a cathedral...several arches all working together to lift up the structure of the central dome from all sides.



2nd question relates to your point about contradictions. Speaking from experience, I started a thread on propitiation and atonement, looking for reinforcing teaching about atonement from an Eastern view. Yet I was surprised to see substantial disagreement on something as fundamental as the atonement in the thread... So what of these contradictions then?

I haven't seen that thread, but I will look into it. One thing to consider is that this discussion board does not necessarily represent the totality of OC teaching. The fact that there is disagreement on this message board does not necessarily mean there is disagreement in the historic teaching of the OC. I am an example...I come here to learn, and therefore I am likely to post things which are not in accord with OC teaching. That does not mean OC teaching is wrong, it means I am wrong.

And yes, of course just like any group, at any given time there are disagreements between people, sometimes on important issues, and sometimes entire groups of people can be in error. The OC is a living dynamic body. What is important is that the conciliar structure of the OC safeguards correct teaching over time, so that errors are corrected, and a person seeking answers can find them in the body of OC tradition.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I have not yet found disagreement within the church's teaching on the important matters of doctrine. The contradictions I was referring to within Protestantism are on important matters of doctrine. There is widespread disagreement on the relationship of human will and divine will even within the subgroup of Calvinism, for example. There are groups as divergent as Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutherans, and home church groups such as Frank Viola's. All three are united in the doctrine of the sole authority of the Bible, but come to very different conclusions on important matters. Even right at the birth of Protestantism, Lutherans slaughtered Anabaptists for their interpretation of Scripture, even though both groups had the same basis - private interpretation of the Bible as the basis for doctrine.

So there are disagreements in all bodies, but the question is how to settle those disagreements. The usual way is by appeal to tradition, and the question is "which tradition"? By the approach of "Pagan Christianity", the only acceptable tradition is the one you form yourself based on your private interpretation of the Bible. By the approach of the OC, the only acceptable tradition is the one that can be traced back directly to the Apostles through an unbroken historical continuum. The OC is an organic body that does indeed grow, much like a vine, but the body at one point in time does not contradict itself at another point in time, which is an astounding thing considering the vine has been growing for nearly 2000 years.

[Donna Rail]

It was the pagan Romans who gave us the aqueduct, which supplied running water, and the pagan Egyptians who gave us the flush commode.

If I use those things, does that make me a 'pagan'? :)

The authors of that book are peddling just one more bad theory which comes about precisely because they are severed from the church of antiquity. It is sad to see that such poor research doesn't die out with time.

[Fred B.]

Sacha,
I'm in the process of reading through the thread you started on propitiation/atonement. Thank you for that discussion, and for your comments here. I find both to be very humbling. I think what you wrote in the following quote makes sense of the apparent contradictions:


I've come to the conclusion that all of the metaphors used by St Paul to describe the atonement are not meant to be pressed into a neat pattern that we can over analyze intellectually as much as they are meant to create in the depths of our soul a sense of awe and wonder at the depth of God's grace and love for us. I suspect that is why St Paul used so many metaphors, so that he wouldn't leave anyone out who would come to true experiential knowledge in the heart of God's love, justice and might through one of those word pictures. If I may add, the one metaphor of the atonement that I think dominates St Paul's writing, on the whole, is the idea of heroic rescuer calling on us to participate in his victory. Christ, rescuing us from the powers of evil, so that we can share in his suffering and victory.

The work that Christ accomplished on the cross is perhaps the deepest and most mystical event in history, and we as humans struggle to understand something that is truly beyond our understanding and beyond the capacity of our language to communicate. We do the best we can, and in the process create some degree of confusion.

[Sacha]

Hi Fred,

I think that if you read the thread closely, you will find two very different views of the atonement from Orthodox posters (I am not in that group). This difference is reflected further in the opposition, from within Orthodox circles to Bishop Kalomiros' teaching in the 'The River of Fire'. We have seen Fr Steenberg for example, clearly refute Kalomiros' views on this forum (see Fr Hopko and the Wrath of God thread). So these are the contradictions I am pointing to. Whether you are inclined to see in my understanding (that you quoted above) a means to resolve this contradictions or not (I am glad that you do, en passant), the fact remains that the contradictions are there and are present in the discussion over doctrines of high importance like the atonement.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. I agree with you that contradictions in the Protestant church are rife, and they stem from the circular reasoning applied to private Biblical interpretations. However, I remain unconvinced that similar problems do not exist in the Orthodox church.

[Sacha]

I also have to add that what I said (quoted above) on St Paul's metaphors should not be understood as meaning that I endorse penal substitution, or the idea that God had to punish Christ into order for us to receive forgiveness. This is the idea that some Orthodox posters are sympathetic to, based on their understanding of certain church Fathers which they quote later on in that thread.

[Sacha]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

I wouldn't say I've deemphasized tradition. In Orthodox Church, Met. Kallistos Ware intimates that there is no real way to disconnect the Holy Spirit from Holy Tradition.

But aside from this detail, your concern is a real one to you, so I won't brush it aside carelessly.

Many groups claim things that aren't true. We are fallen and, even in the OC, priests and bishops have claimed things that aren't true, but which are in due course dealt with.

According to the OC, the Holy Spirit is "everywhere and fillest all things." No Orthodox would deny that the Holy Spirit works even in the lives of the most explicit anti-Christian, for, God loves us all. So we can say that, in a sense, the Holy Spirit is active in the world in general to lead us to salvation.

But notice: It doesn't follow from this that, since the Holy Spirit is at work in everyone's lives toward their salvation, whatever they claim will be true. Arius said that the Son was created even while the Holy Spirit was at work in his life in some way, always toward his salvation.

Here's my point: The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. If group X and Y claim that their teachings are the result of their having the Holy Spirit, and X teaches doctrine D, and Y teaches not D, then we have a problem: Either the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, or only one of those groups is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are.

Let's use your example. Pentecostals/Baptists would say that their doctrine of Sola Scriptura accords with what the Holy Spirit has revealed. However, the OC would say, no, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not accord with what the Holy Spirit has revealed.

Either the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, and so it teaches falsity, or only one of those two, Pentecostals/Baptists or the OC, is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are.

Supposing we are correct in our assessment here, how then would you decide who teaches a doctrine that is genuinely the result of the work of the Holy Spirit? And on the basis of what criteria?

I hope I've engaged you in some meaningful way.

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your thoughts, kindly shared. I'll address your main point stated here:


Here's my point: The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself. If group X and Y claim that their teachings are the result of their having the Holy Spirit, and X teaches doctrine D, and Y teaches not D, then we have a problem: Either the Holy Spirit contradicts itself, or only one of those groups is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are.

The problem, as I see it, is not about the Holy Spirit 'contradicting' Himself, but rather with the vessels which are supposed to receive the Holy Spirit and be guided by Him. I think that Christ's church has prevailed not because of the absolute purity of these vessels, but instead has prevailed despite the impurities. From my point of view, I believe that the birds of the air have nested themselves in the mustard seed tree's branches, resulting in division and contradictions.

I can understand how this can lead to the objection "So what hope is there then?" To which I can only say, I only know my sins, and can only pray the Jesus prayer. My prayer is that Christ would find faith in me when He returns. I do not claim to know anything or have definitive answers for others. My understanding of my own theology is that it is both weak and deeply fallible. I have no objections to others criticizing me for this admission, in fact, I respect the criticism.

[Daniel R.]

Dear Sacha,

I was wondering whether you thought of the birds of the air as meaning divisions ect... or whether you had heard it some from someone else. Saint Cryil says that the bird of the air are us who compared to God are like sparrows who are small compared to God and flee to the tree for refuge.

Which is funny for in my neighbours back garden there is a tree with ivy, or some other plant I'm not sure, anyway just after my dinner I saw when any danger goes by all the sparrows fly from my garden and theirs and hid in the tree.

The Blessed Theophylact explains the birds of the air as being those who are lofty in knowledge who were Greek philosophers but have come to know the God through the Gospel having found this tree to perch on.



Sure there are going to be contradictions between people, even priests, as the in the tread you spoke of but that does not mean that the Orthodox Church as a whole does not know the answer. It just means there are a few different opinions about the place just beacuse someone is Orthodox it does not mean they speak for the Church.

There have always been misunderstandings about what the Church teaches and people try to understand what the Fathers wrote and find it hard and even hard to explain what they have understood to others or even to understand what others are saying. But the Church is not a set of theological dogmas but the living breathing body of Christ which he established and promised the gates of hades would not prevail against.

[Sacha]

I don't understand the birds of the air in the parable of the mustard seed in the way you shared above for two reasons: first, right after that parable, Jesus speaks of the yeast that causes the dough to rise, yeast is symbolic of sin. Notice that it is the woman who introduces the yeast, and the yeast is foreign to the dough. To me, the two parables are one and same. The birds of the air are foreign to the mustard tree, but they find their way in. Have you ever seen a mustard tree in Israel? It does not grow tall, and is bushy. Secondly, note the other place where Jesus uses the phrase 'birds of the air' in a parable, i.e., in the parable of the sower. The connotation is clearly negative there as well.

[Daniel R.]

I think you are right in saying the the two parables are one and the same at least about the same thing. Leaven is not normally symbolic of sin but of teaching and therefore in some cases the teaching of the Pharisees ect.., this if mixed with the flour imparts is properties and spoils the bread. But in this case of the Kingdom of God which also imparts its properties to the flour.

The Holy Fathers teach this in both,

The Apostles going forth into the world imparting the Gospel amongst the people as leaven mixes with the flour imparting its properties into the flour causing the bread to rise.

And again as the leaven mixes with the flour imparting its properties into the flour so 'the word of God operates in us in a similar manner: for when admitted within us, it makes us holy and without blame, and pervading our mind and heart, it renders us spiritual, that as Paul says, "Our whole body and spirit and soul may be "kept blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -Saint Cyril

[Rick]

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your thoughts, kindly shared. I'll address your main point stated here:

.

The problem, as I see it, is not about the Holy Spirit 'contradicting' Himself, but rather with the vessels which are supposed to receive the Holy Spirit and be guided by Him. I think that Christ's church has prevailed not because of the absolute purity of these vessels, but instead has prevailed despite the impurities. From my point of view, I believe that the birds of the air have nested themselves in the mustard seed tree's branches, resulting in division and contradictions.

I can understand how this can lead to the objection "So what hope is there then?" To which I can only say, I only know my sins, and can only pray the Jesus prayer. My prayer is that Christ would find faith in me when He returns. I do not claim to know anything or have definitive answers for others. My understanding of my own theology is that it is both weak and deeply fallible. I have no objections to others criticizing me for this admission, in fact, I respect the criticism.

Thanks for this. That is my prayer as well. I don't have all the answers either. I appreciate your kindness. I'm trying to understand your position on these things, so this helps.

You said:


The problem, as I see it, is not about the Holy Spirit 'contradicting' Himself, but rather with the vessels which are supposed to receive the Holy Spirit and be guided by Him.I think what you are getting at is this: The problem is not so much that the Holy Spirit contradicts itself as much as it is that groups who claim to have the Holy Spirit do.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough or was confusing, since you are saying precisely what I was saying. Let me modify what I said a bit, which I'll indicate with an underline.

If group X and Y claim that their teachings are the result of their having the Holy Spirit, and X teaches doctrine D, and Y teaches not D, then we have a problem: Only one of those groups is teaching a doctrine according to the Holy Spirit, or neither of them are, since we know for a fact that the Holy Spirit does not contradict itself.

How is this relevant?

It forces us to answer the following question:

Can the Holy Spirit instruct a group X toward teaching doctrine 'D', and then, at the same time, instruct another group Y toward teaching the doctrine 'not D'?

Sorry if this sounds pedantic. I hope the above is lucid enough.

You said:


I think that Christ's church has prevailed not because of the absolute purity of these vessels, but instead has prevailed despite the impurities.If by "Christ's church" you mean the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what you say is exactly what the OC believes, given its long history of battling heresies coming from within, even. If this is what you mean, then why not join "Christ's church"? This is a rhetorical question.

Full disclosure: The general argument I'm making is that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If this is true, no argument of circularity is possible.

Respectfully and in Christ's love.

[Fred B.]

Looking through some threads for discussion of "infallibility", it seems there is ample disagreement on that subject as well! Perhaps it would be good to restart one of those threads, or create a new one?

My limited understanding of "infallibility" in Orthodoxy is that it is a bit different than both the "infallibility" of ex cathedra papal decrees, and the Bible . It seems to mainly apply to doctrinal statements of Ecumenical Councils, not individuals, and also seems to be a quality acknowledged by future councils, not the council making the doctrinal statements. In other words, it is not up to a particular council to make a doctrinal statement and then declare it infallible, but rather any council's statements are evaluated by the church as a whole over time, and retrospectively declared infallible or not, if it all. To my mind, this avoids the circularity that generally accompanies declarations of "infallibility". Again, that is my very limited understanding, and I have much to learn.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is my position that people throw that word "infallibility" around like it means something. I don't think it really does. It is, at best, its own circular argument, and at worst, a singular oxymoron. I would contend that in an Orthodox context, it is superfluous. Councils are not deemed "infallible", they are merely confirmed by the Church as correct.

Some people seem to need the security blanket of "infallibility". I call it a false sense of security. There have been fallible councils, there have been fallible bishops, there have been fallible saints. There are even very fallible poohs (hard to imagine, but there you are ...)

The Holy Spirit guides a very fallible people. Bit of a conundrum I suppose. I think it worth noting that absolutely NO SINGLE THING "infallibly" guides the Church. There are 7 to 9 councils (depending on how you count them), patristics, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, synodal councils, prophets, saints, and of course the hymnody and worship of the Church, that all work together, synergistically through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to keep those recalcitrant and stiff-necked people on the straight path, thorugh we try to stray time and time again.

Call that "infallibility" if it helps you sleep at night, but I really just don't see the need.

Herman the somewhat fallible Pooh (but then again, I could be wrong ...)

[Andrew Prather]

I haven't read everything, but you could bring up that Barna has no credibility in the scholarly field whatsoever and his biblical scholarship is rather lacking. Viola is the same way.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

The majority of the "paganism" claims originated in the 19th century work of a quack/pseudoscholar Evangelical minister named Hislop. Many Evangelicals and their ilk swallowed Hislop's stuff hook, line, and sinker. It wasn't until nearly a century and a half afterward that someone actually investigated Hislop's claims. Ralf Woodrow, after uncritically accepting Hislop for years, finally took up a challenge to prove all the allegations. Out of that challenge came The Babylon Connection?, which debunked Hislop very well. The response to this remarkable honesty was for Woodrow to be rejected by a large portion of modern Evangelicals. I would suggest finding a copy of The Babylon Connection? as a place to start.

[Fred B.]

Thank you, Bryan, I will check out The Babylon Connection.

[Adrian]

Ask him to read this link, the Appendix with Appologetics:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?8316-The-abc-of-eternal-life-in-few-minutes