IC XC

Dearest Friend

"Do you have particular examples of pagan practices I could consider?"
• The priesthood
• Funny clothes (remember Father Michael’s own words)
• Iconography (in the Orthodox sense)
• (Transubstantiation) I don’t really about this one for sure but I’ve heard it mentioned in similar conversations
• prayer to the dead
• rituals for the dead
• Platonic philosophy concerning God (i.e. it being an incorrect statement to say that “God exists” because God is beyond being.)
• Platonic philosophy concerning the term “nature” and what it means for god to take on the nature of man
• None of the Above have their roots in Scripture, Teachings from apostles, or some form of legit extra-scriptural/extra-Christological revelation.

"I'm going to have to look up my history on this one. I actually just found out last week that the apocrypha is in their Bible."
• Keep in mind the Septuagint was assembled in a hellenistic/post-babylonian era when pagan worship practices were creeping into Judaism. Also remember Athinasius’ comments on the topic

"2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." I can't claim sola scriptura for two reasons: 1) I don't find Scripture itself to claim it (if you have counter examples I would appreciate them), and 2) I find myself in the company of a long list of heretics who cling to the Bible but find their own interpretation."
• I completely agree. We do need to hold on to the traditions that were taught, but paul also qualifies that statement very very well i.e. “either by our spoken word or by our letter.” There is no mention of many of the Orthodox traditions in the surviving letters of paul (insofar as swinging sensors, paintings of “saints” [who are determined by the church posthumously in the Orthodox tradition], venerations of the cross, creeds etc.). Next, all we know about Paul’s spoken words are revealed through his letters. All we really know about the traditions passed on by paul are reading scriptures, appointing church leadership (laying on of hands, moral qualities etc.), How to deal with insurrection in the church, rules for moral living and the list goes on. Nowhere is there mention of a very large number of things that are practiced in the liturgies. Not to mention mandatory weekly fasting, prayer for your offenses to your guardian angel, patron saints etc.
• Thinking that since the heretics also tried to prove their doctrines from the Bible, the church ought to give up on scriptural "proof texting" and instead appeal to oral tradition and apostolic succession seems rather ludicrous to me. Of course heretics would use the Bible to back up their heresies. Think back to the Garden of Eden and the phrase, “hath God said?”. The only place really good heresies are going to come from is from the bible and once we start thinking the Bible is insufficient it all goes down hill. It’s true that there are other authorities besides scripture e.g. The Word of God who is Christ also the Holy Spirit. And it’s true that the bible contains words of God. All of these are true phrases that are in the Catholic/Orthodox arsenal. But neither of us would that because someone uses something improperly that it must be flawed. We believe scripture is inerrant. Imagine we believed that the justice system in America was inerrant. Some clever lawyer misuses it therefore we should get rid of it. Hardly!
• "I just can't hang with the "Just Me & my Bible" tradition anymore."
Again, I completely agree. God never intended the Christian walk to be “just me and my bible” and I believe that that realization is from God. That’s why we have the church (and the Orthodox/Catholic would agree). Hebrews 10:23-25 “Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” This passage lays out in brief the immediate purposes of “the assembly” in answer to your question "What do you see as the biblical Church order?" the assembly of who? Those confessing the same hope.


"Chrysostom advocates the baptism of babies (a stance that i'm adamtenly against)
I know this is a tangent, but I'm curious, why?"
• I meant “a stance I’m not adamantly against” hahaha. Protestants have a sort of baptism for children, they call it “dedication”. I don’t think we should baptize infants because it’s nowhere in scripture and the model for baptism we do have as laid out by Jesus is for converts (who were always but I suppose not necessarily limited to adult converts). I think people are older when they truly take on the call of Christ and that infants don’t have the same circumstances. But whatever, I don’t care if they anyone baptizes babies.

"I'm confused as to how we can rebut them without pulling in Church authority. I am currently in conversation with some JW's and I honestly don't know where else to go. I bring out the Greek, and they play the semantics game. Right now it seems that what they need is a slap on the hand (with a little excommunication) and a lesson on Church authority."
• Excommunication- I’m not so certain about what I believe about excommunications. I know in most Catholic and Orthodox Jewish backgrounds, that’s when the church says you are going to hell. That’s obviously not a decision made by the church. An Orthodox Christian once told me, “that no one is sure of their salvation excepts the Saints (officially recognized by the church) until they reach the afterlife” I don’t know how they made that conclusion when Paul says the giving of the Holy Spirit is our guarantee salvation sooooo . . . excommunication?
• As for your JW friend. If they’re just playing semantics games then I don’t see why Church authority is needed per say. That’s like saying my little brother is cheating in a board game and we need mom to make the decision when Milton Bradley gave us a nice in-english copy of the rules that are (in my metaphorical opinion) unambiguous. Semantic games are never something I take seriously. If someone starts playing them with me, I usually play back until they say, “you’re just playing semantic games!” they (semantics) are lame and on the same level as “I know you are but what am i?” scripture (and I read greek) is unambiguous about pretty much all of the things that the JW’s argue for. But most people aren’t converted to true faith because of arguments, rather the “love and good works” as aforementioned speak louder than words and are responsible for more conversions than a series of propositions. And i’m not demeaning you speaking to your friend at all. Those arguments need to happen and I could pick few better people than you to engage those issues.

"so speaking functionally, the cannon isn't closed for the orthodox because the words of the church father's are taken with the same authority.
Perhaps with the same authority, but that doesn't mean with more authority, right? The Church is not permitted to contradict the Scriptures"
• Fair enough, but what about when the scriptures contradict or do not comment on particular practices of the church. Both scenarios need to be considered. It’s a far cry from reason to say that the church should only do things mentioned in scripture. It raises serious questions about How ought educate ourselves in modern academia, jobs for Christians becomes very limited etc. But consider when scripture gives a charge against a practice that has been part of the church for centuries (e.g. claiming authority from men i.e. apostolic succession). “oh but the church has always done it this way”. So? And to say that the church never contradicts scripture is to claim it’s infallibility. If we believe in its infallibility then producing counter examples would seem quite difficult indeed, but one only needs to look up some recent news concerning the Orthodox Church to see that that’s not true. The immediate counter example is to bring up the Crusades. And then we say that not everyone who does something in the name church or Christ is a Christian blah blah blah. But this argument only applies to people who assume that the church is fallible and not an institution. The moment you hold that the church is an infallible institution then the whole church becomes responsible for the actions of the hierarchs who are anti-Semites, embezzlers, etc. it goes down hill very quickly.

“Prayer, in my life has been reserved for God” This has also been my perspective, but I find that I have no objection to regularly asking the living saints to pray for me. I somehow do not consider that requesting the intercessory prayer of a living saint somehow also requests their intercession for my salvation. The trouble is that according to this argument of mine, I have three options: 1) I can stop asking my family and friends to pray for me (which I’m not prepared to do), 2) I can start asking the departed saints to pray for me, or 3) I can put an iron wall between this life and the after life and claim the logistical objection that those who have departed can no longer hear me because they are dead (however, this logistical skepticism would be problematic for the rest of my spiritual claims).
• I actually do not have a firm stance on this. I know that pragmatically the Orthodox/Catholics do pray to saints to make intercession for the forgiveness of their sins. Consider St. Gregory of Nyssa when he said, “[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]). This is often cited as church father support for prayer to the saints. There seems to me one problem with this. How do we know who is in heaven? The Orthodox strongly caution us (as do many evangelicals) about making judgments about whether or not individuals go to heaven. So then we only pray to the official saints? The official saints are those whom the church has essentially voted into heaven . . . I don’t think so. The logistics prayer to the saints isn’t concerned with whether they can hear us. I believe Hebrews when it says we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. But the Orthodox saint-making process is so dubious that I have no reason to believe that “those” saints are the ones I should be praying to.
• Secondly the language of “praying to” is different from “praying with”. Are we to believe that the saints know our thoughts? Or can we only pray to them out loud?. If we pray to them out loud are we assuming that their ontology functions in three dimensional space time? They sound like silly questions but they I think they do need to be asked and answered. The same questions don’t apply to God however because of omniscience and the nature of his non-contingency. Not praying to the saints doesn’t seem to putting a wall in your spirituality, for me it seems a safe skepticism to hold until I hear some better answers (preferably from scripture).
As for Sola Scriptura
• John 8:31-32, “If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall no the truth and the truth shall set you free.” I do understand that there are some pragmatic problems with this idea such as the fact that we accept the cannon based on the authority of the church and that the list of canonical books aren’t listed in the Bible, but these are sophomoric questions. We believe things in Christianity on faith. Christians unanimously agree that what we call the Bible is scripture. We don’t unanimously agree about the apocrypha. We unanimously agree on the theology of the Nicene creed (which was established based on scripture on a clause by clause basis by the way). So it’s a decision we have to make for ourselves not taking into account what seems good to us, or what strokes our ego and fetishes for identity and traditions, but solely the guiding of the Holy Spirit in each of our lives. 1 Corinthians says that things of God are indiscernible to the natural man. They are folly to him for they are spiritually discerned” not ecumenically discerned, or traditionally discerned. Like I said, I don’t have a super firm stance but I think the evidence leans one way.

again, sorry for the lengthy soap box. know that i love tons of Orthodox practises these are just most of the ones that i don't like hee hee. be blessed, dear

Jordan

Dear Jordan

"it had kind of been a sneaking desire of mine to start attending some sort of liturgical church (this desire has its roots my own fetishes for identity and traditions.  with most other people i might have to explain what that means but i'm confidendt you get the jist)"

I share your appreciation for liturgy (as you've noticed), although this was not always the case with me.  A few years back (maybe 7?) I started attending a Lutheran service on & off; my original reaction was less than in favor of it, but over time I began to see the beauty in it.  Just this year I attended an Anglican service for the first time and have attended a few more since, and obviously that my attention now falls to Orthodoxy must betray some of my affection for liturgy and tradition.


there are a couple of doc trines and practises that i can not accept however.  

1- that the church is an institution/that we need apostolic succession

I have shared this objection, but am now not so sure.  I'm undecided but am hearing good points on both sides.  Thanks for giving me more to chew on.

2- (less adamantly) the priesthood

What do you see as the biblical Church order?


  all we really know is that after constantine (who had a history of pagan worship) christianity started to resemble pagan practises.

Do you have particular examples of pagan practices I could consider?

prayer is something that i have always reserved for God.

This has also been my perspective, but I find that I have no objection to regularly asking the living saints to pray for me.  I somehow do not consider that requesting the intercessory prayer of a living saint somehow also requests their intercession for my salvation.  The trouble is that according to this argument of mine, I have three options: 1) I can stop asking my family and friends to pray for me (which I’m not prepared to do), 2) I can start asking the departed saints to pray for me, or 3) I can put an iron wall between this life and the after life and claim the logistical objection that those who have departed can no longer hear me because they are dead (however, this logistical skepticism would be problematic for the rest of my spiritual claims).

3- deuterocanonical books (apocrapha) believed to be scripture

I'm going to have to look up my history on this one.  I actually just found out last week that the apocrypha is in their Bible.  I appreciate your references, however, and intend to take note of them.



4- non-sola scriptura paradigm

I have shared this objection, but am now faced with a counter problem that I can't shake.  2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."  I can't claim sola scriptura for two reasons: 1) I don't find Scripture itself to claim it (if you have counter examples I would appreciate them), and 2) I find myself in the company of a long list of heretics who cling to the Bible but find their own interpretation.

 if you recall reynolds said, "if there is a satanic bible sitting on your night stand, but you don't know how to read, can it hurt you? no." i simply disagree. i don't think the satanic bible needs to be read to do harm because the spiritual realm is real and the warefare is also very real. we must also apply that logic to the bible.  that the bible doesn't have any power by itself. but if we believe as athanasius did that scripture is the only livin g text then we must believe that it has a power of its own that doesn't need to be filtered through the institution.
I realize that the Scriptures are "God breathed" and are a living text, but I'm studying Biblical Greek because I believe that it will help me reach a better clarity of what the Scriptures are saying.  The Holy Spirit alone can enlighten the heart to respond to the meaning of the Scriptures, but I currently believe that literacy is instrumental in the first mechanics of in taking that meaning.  Hearing comes by the Word of God, but hearing also comes by the ears.
Also, Christ is the head of a body, and the Spirit was given to the body, so I just can't hang with the "Just Me & my Bible" tradition anymore.

Chrysostom advocates the baptism of babies (a stance that i'm adamtenly against)
I know this is a tangent, but I'm curious, why?

then we can say nothing against mormons, jehova's wittnesses, and arguably muslims for adding above the authoritative level of scripture save The Word of God, Christ.
I'm confused as to how we can rebut them without pulling in Church authority.  I am currently in conversation with some JW's and I honestly don't know where else to go.  I bring out the Greek, and they play the semantics game.  Right now it seems that what they need is a slap on the hand (with a little excommunication) and a lesson on Church authority.

so speaking functionally, the cannon isn't closed for the orthodox because the words of the church father's are taken with the same authority.
Perhaps with the same authority, but that doesn't mean with more authority, right?  The Church is not permitted to contradict the Scriptures.

Sorry, I gotta run.  Look forward to more discussions.  You're giving me healthy stuff to think about. :)


Under the Mercy,
Your Friend

I attended St. Barnabas for three weeks with three torrey students (as well as one or two non-biolans) who are catachumens and are expecting chrismation here within the next few months. so in addition to attending liturgy and catechism, i also got to talk with recent converts (both bilola affiliiates and not) and father michael (the priest overseeing catechism)

all in all i had a really enjoyable time at St. Barnabas. my parents and grandparents had a chatholic background and some of my friends are anglican/episkopalian so the idea of liturgy wasn't entirely foreign to me. in fact it had kind of been a sneaking desire of mine to start attending some sort of liturgical church (this desire has its roots my own fetishes for identity and traditions. with most other people i might have to explain what that means but i'm confidendt you get the jist)

so attending the liturgy was one of the most comforting church experiences i've ever had. the aesthetics and chanting were pretty much exactly the kinds of things that seemed to me to be in keeping with my desire to associated with ancient worship. after chatechism class i'd ask a few questions to father michael and would discuss the principles with my philosophy/torrey buddies on the ride home. i'm not going to lie . . . i loved it!

there are a couple of doctrines and practises that i can not accept however.
1- that the church is an institution/that we need apostolic succession
this isn't an idea was pretty much ever in 1st three centuries of the church. it's true that paul talks about the laying on of hands and authority in the church, but the church was much more like what modern protestant churches do. a bishop would teach and preach (from scriptures only) and they would sing many different kinds of songs (psalms, hymn, and spiritual songs). likewise with apostolic succession. the idea was never really in the church until the 4th century. as long as someone was not in open heresy they were not quenched. recall what jesus said to the disciples when they showed him people who were proclaiming jesus when they were not themselves disciples (Mark 9). the western church claimed peter, the eastern church claimed paul and fell into what paul specifically said not to do, i.e. claiming authority from an apostle! our authority comes from Christ alone! (1 Corinth. 3) so that those whome christ saves are those who call on him alone (romans 10).
the objective history of it says that there is almost no reference to institutionalization of the church nor apostolic succession until after the fouth century (curiously after (st.) constantine delcared christian tolernence). iconography sprang up at this same era because of constantine (at least the orthodox would admit that that is when iconphilia became official). i'm really not against a mild form of iconography for the reasons discussed in the pentatuche and joshua, but kissing priest's hands and pictures of saints (although legit veneration) does not fall into the categories i believe are listed in the OT. i believe the protestant belief (that the church is the invisible body of believers) is more in line with what the bible teaches.
2- (less adamantly) the priesthood
functionally the "priesthood" is just a different name for the pastorship. the orthodox explanation is that Hebrews rids us of the high priest hood and not the ministerial priesthood (analogous to the jewish high priest and the rest of the levites). the orthodox understanding of Hebrews means "technically" we are all priests and that "the" priest is just the one that represents the rest of us before god during the liturgy and in church government.
the only mention of priests in the NT is the removal of them. even in the first 4 centuries of the church there is no mention of priests. after the 4th century however there is a bang of priests, funny clothes (father michael's own words), and traditions. lots of people make different inferences about this. the orthodox believe that it makes more sense that we would not really hear about the priesthood, funny clothes, paganesque traditions because the church was in hiding. then during the tolerance there would be an explosion of that kind of thing because all the christians were coming out. unfortunately this is not the historical perspective. all we really know is that after constantine (who had a history of pagan worship) christianity started to resemble pagan practises.
my own shtick about it is that the priest's job was to intercede on behalf of the people. but 1 timothy says that there is one intercessor between god and man and that is the man christ jesus. and the NT gets got rid of that concept entirely (at least in my opinion) because of Christ. Intercession of the saints is another topic that logically follows from that. i don't really care about it. prayer is something that i have always reserved for God. the jews never prayed to the dead (the orthodox disagree), paying to the dead isn't in the NT or at least it's a big jump (the orthodox disagree) that's more supported by latter fathers than scripture.
3- deuterocanonical books (apocrapha) believed to be scripture
St. Athanasius in his 39th festal letter (367 CE) said,"But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless." the orthodox believe that those books are merely less authoritative portions of scripture and that they were taken out later but Athanasius is unambiguous concerning the apocrapha. they are not scripture. they were never read aloud in the "liturgies" of the early church and they were never apart of the masoretic texts (that's why the dead sea scrolls was such a huge discovery, those books were not found in them.) it's true that many of them are found in the septuigent and that paul probably knew them well, but they were never apart of official hebrew scirpture (the law, the prophets, history, and the poetry were the only universally accpeted jewish scriptures) are never mentioned in the new testament. The septuigent was created in a post-babylon/helenistic jewish era. it was heavily influenced by many near-eastern cultures including the Greeks and the Babylonians. besides having dubious origins the septuigent contains some already quesstionable differences from what was already considered holy, jewish scripture
there is one debate in the NT about a singular reference in Jude to the body of moses. it appears that Jude is referencing non-scritptural texts in support of his point. however, this hardly qualifies for the acceptance of the apocrapha as cannon.
4- non-sola scriptura paradigm
Again Athinasius said after specifying the new testament scripture, "These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them..." the Orthodox belief is openly not sola sciptura and the orthodox will say that the church has never been that way. they will say things like, "the scriptures are words of god and they need divine interpretation and that's why the church is the institution of God." if you recall reynolds said, "if there is a satanic bible sitting on your night stand, but you don't know how to read, can it hurt you? no." i simply disagree. i don't think the satanic bible needs to be read to do harm because the spiritual realm is real and the warefare is also very real. we must also apply that logic to the bible. that the bible doesn't have any power by itself. but if we believe as athanasius did that scripture is the only living text then we must believe that it has a power of its own that doesn't need to be filtered through the institution.

i tried to be as brief as possible and still be fair. gimme your thoughts. be blessed, friend
jordan