Ancient Christian Witness

"The Antiochians denied the major premise (the Word
is the subject of even the human operations and suffering), the Alexandrians the
minor (all things predicated of the Word are done so according to nature). For
the Alexandrines, and here chiefly Athanasius, the minor premise lacked the
specificity which the Incarnation demanded, namely that Christ had two natures.
By making this distinction, the major premise could be vigorously maintained.
But it was another assumption that led the Antiochians, chiefly Theodore and
Diodore of Tarsus, to accept the minor premise: that natures have subjects
corresponding to the properties of its respective natures. Thus, the human
nature has a human subject (namely the human person of Christ, which is distinct
from the divine person of the Word). This Antiochene response can be found in
later writers, particularly during the Reformation controversies over the
Eucharist between the Lutherans and the Reformed. The Lutherans divinized
Christ’s humanity in an almost Eutychian manner, while the Reformed, so bent on
keeping the human nature of the Word away from the Eucharistic elements, refused
to allow that the human nature of Christ was the result of the actions of the
Word."

Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason
on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us that no virgin’s lamp can go
out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be
cut off from unfruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name
blotted out from God’s book! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor;
nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect
so great salvation”; trifle away “a day of grace“; “look back” after putting his
hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,”
and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon
themselves swift destruction.” Nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so
lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth.

They use reams of
paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if
one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast
forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green.

"In a previous post I had mentioned the ill-conceived
accusation that the Nicene Creed was hard to understand, and offered to explain
it to any one who needed help. Recently I went to a special class where my
priest explained the creed in greater detail, and after taking my notes and
doing some additional research in scripture, I thought I would present an
amateur exegesis of the creed myself.

Some who attempt to denounce
Christianity mistakenly believe that after the creed was formed at Nicea (325
AD) those who did not follow it were immediately persecuted. In fact, various
versions of the creed existed across the Roman Empire before the council, hence
the need to formalize it, and the version of the creed we know today was
actually written later at the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD). The
version written at Nicea was much shorter, simpler, and had a lengthy attack
against heresy at the end. Arianism, which had led to the Nicene council in the
first place, still continued afterward and found revival in scattered parts of
the empire, leading to further councils and further efforts by the Church
Fathers. Historically speaking, Nicea was hardly an instance of case closed.

It should be noted this shouldn't be considered the ultimate explanation
of the creed, nor should it be considered "scholarly". It was just done for fun,
and to help those who might be curious about the background of the words.


I believe in one God, Father
Almighty...


It is fitting that the Church Fathers
opened the creed in this manner, because they affirm right at the start that
there is one God. Christianity is neither tritheistic nor polytheistic, for it
believes very firmly that there is one and only one God.

From here we
move into the Trinity, beginning with the Father. The Father is almighty, which
in the original Greek is defined with the word pantocrator. The Father is the
source of all things, and nothing exists without Him. It was only by God's will
that something, visible or invisible, exists (Rev 4:11).


...maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and
invisible.


When God began creation, He made the
heavens (the invisible) first and then the earth (the visible) second, hence why
the heavens are often listed before the earth (Gen 1:1; Isa 42:5). The mention
of "heaven" in Genesis 1:8 is considered by most theologians to mean "the
visible heaven," or rather the sky.

The rebellion of Satan and his
angels, who all became the demons, is believed to have happened between the
creation of the heavens and the creation of the earth. The Church Fathers taught
that the main motive behind Satan's tempting of Adam was, above all things,
jealousy."

"According to the wrestling observer, (is that better Matt?)
TNA star Booker T and WWE star The Boogeyman were in a bit of an altercation in
a Houston sports bar called Vito's Deck House on Sunday.

Booker claims
that the bar is discriminatory against Christians. Apparently what happened was
both Boogeyman and Booker went into the bar to watch an NFL game.
Boogeyman—actual name Marty Wright—was wearing a cross.

Wright was asked
by the bartender to take the cross off or leave the bar. The bartender said it
was a violation of the bar's dress code. Booker got upset by it and asked to
speak to the manager. And then manager even said it was a violation of the dress
code.

Well of course the bar has a no right to tell you that if it's not
posted up, and come to find out, the dress code was not posted anywhere in the
bar. Booker still upset said he was not leaving and told Boogy not to either.

Police were called and police officers told Booker and Wright to leave
the bar. Booker said he saw two man at the bar wearing crosses and they were not
approached by management and told to leave.

But they did leave the bar
when they saw Booker and Boogy being kicked out over Wright wearing the cross.

Booker has a protest scheduled and quote "hopes it gets as much
publicity as possible to inform people about the sports bar suppressing people's
freedom to express their belief in God."

And as a Christian guy I have
to be in favor of Booker's case here. If they don't like the cross, its ok
people don't like it. But to make up a false dress code to make someone take
their cross off, is just stupid to me."

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — You better watch out. There is a new
combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god?
Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses
starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist
Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.

In lifting lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the
Washington-based group is wading into what has become a perennial debate over
commercialism, religion in the public square and the meaning of Christmas.

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an
audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the
humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an
awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a
little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional
religion."

To that end, the ads and posters will include a link to a Web
site that will seek to connect and organize like-minded thinkers in the D.C.
area, Edwords said.

Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God
doesn't exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a
seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's
minds."

The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life
that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value
to self and humanity."

Last month, the British Humanist Association
caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

"There was an event that happened on Sunday, November 9,
2008, in Lansing, MI, that appears to have slipped under the radar of most
Michigan and national news.

According to Catholic Online, which appears
to give the least biased account of the happenings at Mount Hope Church in
Lansing:

November 12, 2008: Catholic Online: On Sunday, November 9, a
band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well
dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed
in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!
, claims the evangelical church is guilty of "transphobia and homophobia."
The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting "Jesus
was a homo" on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms
went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge
rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, "IT'S OKAY TO BE GAY!
BASH BACK!" The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers
were confronted. There were no arrests.
Okay, while nothing too violent
appears to have happened during this confrontation, I disapprove of involving
children on either side of a radical event. Right or Left.

And I'll
point out that while we cannot claim that Jesus was homosexual with any
definity, he was certainly raised in a homosocial environment. Seriously, look
it up.

Back to the action

November 11, 2008: LifeSiteNews.com:
When the signal was given the protesters inside the church rose from their seats
and began loudly to disrupt the service. The fire alarm was pulled inside the
church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was
unfurled with the inscription, "IT'S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!"
The church
was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted.
According to Right Michigan the protestors in their demonstration also used
condoms, glitter, confetti, and pink fabric. A video camera wielded by the
homosexualists attempted to capture violent reactions from members of the
congregation, of which there were none. Right Michigan also reports that
approximately an hour after the demonstration two of the demonstrators were
found by security in a public restroom in the church together. There were no
arrests.

Bash Back! issued a press release on their website after the
fact, which admitted that "the group was extremely loud and wildly offensive."
The group described Mount Hope Church as "deplorable" and "anti-queer."

The release concluded, "Let it be known: So long as bigots kill us in
the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!"


According to Bash Back! Lansings "Points of Unity", as listed on
their MySpace account , all members must agree to:

1. Fight for
liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of
oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward
liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.
2. A rejection
of Capitalism, Imperialism, and all forms of State power.

3. Actively
oppose oppression both in and out of the "movement." All oppressive behavior is
not to be tolerated.

4. Respect a diversity of tactics in the struggle
for liberation. Do not solely condemn an action on the grounds that the State
deems it to be illegal.


Which, again, why do 'Anarchist' groups have
rules, tenets, or manifestoes?

November 12, 2008: Global Politician:
Right Michigan observes that Mt. Hope Church is guilty of nothing more than
providing "free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, ... care for families dealing
with medical emergencies, support groups for ... [people] dealing with ...
life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, ... volunteer work"
and much, much more.
For promoting and practicing their Christian faith, the
sexual deviants decided to target the church in an action planned out like a
military operation.


Again, why portray this group as 'Anarchists'?
They obviously had a plan, brought the press, had two groups in action, one as
an "inside" team that wore suits and carried bibles and the "outside" team who
brought in the demonstration gear. They were also wearing Secret Service style
earwigs to coordinate the action.

Apparently Nathan Harris, a reporter
for 'City Pulse', had prior knowledge of the event and was there to document it.

November 11, 2008: RightMichigan: The initial RightMichigan story
mentioned his presence on-site and [suggested] that he was more interested in
getting a story than in preventing the vandalism, the violence and the
anti-Christian hatred being spewed by the lefties.
Harris: I wanted to
identify myself for you, put a name to the quote-unquote journalist, and let you
know that, according to all professional guidelines I'm aware of, I stand by my
story as reported. There is a specific role the press plays in our society, and
there are significant questions that go along with putting that into practice. I
know that I have a responsibility, though, to provide an accurate record of
events, regardless of where my personal sympathies may lie for any given
assignment.

Harris brings up an interesting point... journalists, in the
best tradition, are there to watch, to listen, to observe and to record, but
never to interfere (name that TV show). In other words, the conclusions I'd
drawn in the initial story were 100%, spot-on, laser-focused accurate. He was,
and admits, to being more interested in getting his story than in preventing
violence, vandalism and anti-Christian hatred.

Here's the broader,
ethical question... where does the responsibility of a journalist end and the
responsibility of a human being, a moral agent, begin? Is it when there is a
possibility of some uncomfortable moments? Maybe not. When there is an imminent
threat of physical violence? See how suddenly the line blurs a bit?


But there were no reports made of physical violence, just a
disruption of services, a bit of lewdness, passing out of flyers and glitter.
Actually something I would have prayed for when I used to have to go to church.

However, there was some indecency involved."

"A fresh look at ancient faith, Orthodox harmonies
on Web.

I got hooked on it three weeks ago.

Ancient
Faith Radio is an Internet station (http://ancientfaith.com) filled with
allusions to people with names like Methodius, Basil the Great and Ephraim the
Syrian.

There's lots of mentions of someone called the Theotokos, which
I've since learned is Greek for "Mother of God."


Julia Duin's
Stairway to Heaven column on faith runs on Thursdays and Sundays.

Unlike
contemporary Christian radio fare, the station airs sonorous chants and
breathtaking harmonies that soak into the soul. Lyrics, some of which date from
the second century after Christ, are in Greek, Romanian, Russian, Serbian,
Arabic, English, French and Spanish.

Patrick Reardon, an Orthodox priest
and friend since my seminary days, clued me in on the station, originally
sponsored by his Chicago church. During the
evenings, I click on iTunes and voila - heavenly music like a Gregorian chant on
steroids: minor scales, major scales, pentatonic scales, the works. My toddler
likes it too.

There is a theology behind this music. Greek Christians in
the Byzantine Empire, dating back to 330 AD, believed that sacred chant united
believers with angelic choirs. Byzantine music has this unusual component of an
"ison" - a base drone that sounds like a bagpipe - that gives an unearthly feel
to the monkish choirs.

The station breaks feature a "saint for the day,"
someone who has been martyred, has suffered greatly or has kind of a somber
teaching for the chastisement of the soul. St. John Chrysostom is a regular
here.

And there are the crystal-clear reading voices of the volunteer
announcers.

"Professional people kind of came out of the woodwork when
they discovered the station," says John Maddex, who founded the
station in his Chicago-area home in late 2004. At the time, he was the division
manager of Moody Institute's 35 broadcast stations. A convert to Orthodoxy, he
also has done radio for the mega-evangelical ministry Focus on the
Family."

"PITTSBURGH, PA [OCA Communications] -- On Wednesday,
November 12, 2008, His Grace, Bishop Jonah of Fort Worth was elected Archbishop
of Washington and New York and Metropolitan of All America and Canada at the 15th All-American
Council of the Orthodox Church in America.

His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah was born James
Paffhausen in Chicago, IL, and was baptized into the Episcopal Church. While
still a child, his family later settled in La Jolla, CA, near San Diego. He was
received into the Orthodox Church in 1978 at Our Lady of Kazan Moscow
Patriarchal Church, San Diego, while a student at the University of California,
San Diego. Later, he transferred to UC Santa Cruz, where he was instrumental in
establishing an Orthodox Christian Fellowship.

After completing studies
at UCSC, James attended St. Vladimir's Seminary, graduating with a Master of
Divinity degree in 1985 and a Master of Theology in Dogmatics in 1988.

He went on to pursue studies towards a Ph.D. at Graduate Theological
Union in Berkeley, but interrupted those studies to spend a year in Russia.

In Moscow, working for Russkiy Palomnik at the Publishing Department of
the Moscow Patriarchate, he was introduced to life in the Russian church, in
particular monastic life. Later that year, he joined Valaam Monastery, having
found a spiritual father in the monastery's Abbot, Archimandrite Pankratiy. It
was Archimandrite Pankratiy's spiritual father, the Elder Kyrill at Trinity-St.
Sergius Lavra, who blessed James to become a priestmonk. He was ordained to the
diaconate and priesthood in 1994 and in 1995 was tonsured to monastic rank at
St. Tikhon's Monastery, South Canaan, PA, having received the name Jonah.

Returning to California, Fr. Jonah served a number of missions and was
later given the obedience to establish a monastery under the patronage of St.
John of Shanghai and San Francisco. The monastery, initially located in Point
Reyes Station, CA, recently moved to Manton in Northern California, near
Redding. During his time building up the monastic community, Fr. Jonah also
worked to establish missions in Merced, Sonora, Chico, Eureka, Redding,
Susanville, and other communities in California, as well as in Kona, HI."

"LOS ANGELES -- California voters have adopted a
constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, overturning the state
Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago.

The passage of Proposition 8 in Tuesday's election represents a crushing
political defeat for gay rights activists, who had hoped public opinion on the
contentious issue had shifted enough since the state overwhelmingly passed an
earlier gay marriage ban in 2000 to help them defeat the measure.

"We
pick ourselves up and trudge on," Kate Kendell, executive director of the
National Center for Lesbian Rights, said early Wednesday when it appeared the
measure was headed for passage. "There has been enormous movement in favor of
full equality in eight short years. That is the direction this is heading, and
if it's not today or it's not tomorrow, it will be soon."

With almost
all precincts reporting, election returns showed the measure winning with 52
percent. With election officials and others estimating 2 million to 3 million
provisional and absentee ballots remained to be tallied, leaders of the No on 8
campaign said they were not ready to concede.

"Because Prop 8 involves
the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait
until we receive further information about the outcome," Geoff Kors, director of
Equality California said in a statement Wednesday.

But based on trends
and the locations of the votes still outstanding, the margin of support in favor
of the initiative appeared secure. The Yes on 8 campaign declared victory just
after midnight.

"People believe in the institution of marriage," Frank
Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign said. "It's one institution that
crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up
because they care about marriage and they care a great deal."

Opponents
of the gay marriage ban said Wednesday that one legal challenge was filed and
others were being prepared.

By changing the state constitution to limit
marriage to a man and a woman, Proposition 8 overturns the California Supreme
Court decision that overturned the 2000 ban and legalized same-sex marriage in
the state in mid-June. Since then, an estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian couples,
many of them from other states, have been married.

The measure's passage
represents a personal loss for couples who still hoped to wed, and casts a
shadow of uncertainty on the legal unions of those who already have. Because the
initiative holds that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in
the state, legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether
existing gay marriages would be nullified.

Amid uncertainty over when
the amendment takes effect, gay and lesbian couples continued seeking marriage
licenses throughout the state Wednesday. They were successful in some
jurisdictions and not others where county clerks wanted direction before
sanctioning any more same-sex unions.

Jake Rowe, 27, and James Eslick,
29, were in the midst of getting married at Sacramento City Hall Wednesday
morning when someone from the clerk's office stopped the wedding. The two men
had planned to get married next year because "We held in hope that 8 would not
pass," Rowe said.

"I'm thoroughly surprised. I thought Californians had
come to the point where they realized discrimination wasn't right," he
said."

"The following is a video of me rapping when I was a senior
in high school. The school was Lancaster Mennonite High School, a school where I
have great memories. However, some miserable guys there did not like the fact
that I was a die hard urbanite using rap as means of praising God and
communicating His word. Their god was created in their image–white and also
racist. I share this video made by a friend, who kept it all these years, to
demonstrate how the rap was birthed out of pain and hope. Pain because there
were people who hated me just because I thought different, looked different, and
was different. It was a painful time because on one hand the few Latinos and
African Americans at the school recruited from the inner city thought I was
holier than thou because I was vocal about my faith and called all Christians to
the standard of Christ likeness. On the other hand I was despised by a few white
people who hated my culture, my land, and my ethnicity. My time there was lonely
and painful yet God used that time to mold me into the man I am today."

"The OCA plays a special role in American Orthodoxy. Through
its participation in SCOBA it is already involved in fostering pan-Orthodox
unity on the American continent. I believe that one day, sooner or later, there
will be a united Orthodox Church of America that will embrace all currently
existing jurisdictions. It is clear, however, that there is a long road ahead,
and on this road the OCA, which is already constituted as an autocephalous
Church, may assist other Orthodox Churches in identifying themselves as parts of
all-American Orthodoxy.

Dr. Bouteneff: Many times, you have reminded
ecumenical gatherings of the important witness Orthodox Christians make in the
theological, moral, and ethical spheres. Do you believe that ecumenical dialogue
holds promise?

Bp. Hilarion: After more than thirteen years of intensive
ecumenical involvement I can declare my profound disappointment with the
existing forms of “official” ecumenism as represented by the World Council of
Churches, the Conference of European Churches and other similar organizations.
My impression is that they have exhausted their initial potential. Theologically
they lead us nowhere. They produce texts that, for the most part, are pale and
uninspiring. The reason for this is that these organizations include
representatives of a wide variety of churches, from the most “conservative” to
the most “liberal.” And the diversity of views is so great that they cannot say
much in common except for a polite and politically correct talk about “common
call to unity,” “mutual commitment” and “shared responsibility.”

I see
that there is now a deep-seated discrepancy between those churches which strive
to preserve the Holy Tradition and those that constantly revise it to fit modern
standards. This divergence is as evident at the level of religious teaching,
including doctrine and ecclesiology, as it is at the level of church practice,
such as worship and morality.

In my opinion, the recent liberalization
of teaching and practice in many Protestant communities has greatly alienated
them from both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. It has also undermined the
common Christian witness to the secularized world. The voice of Christendom is
nowadays deeply disunited: we preach contradictory moral standards, our
doctrinal positions are divergent, and our social perspectives vary a great
deal. One wonders whether we can still speak at all of “Christianity” or whether
it would be more accurate to refer to “Christianities,” that is to say, markedly
diverse versions of the Christian faith.

Under these circumstances I am
not optimistic about the dialogue with the Protestant communities. I am also far
less optimistic about the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue than my beloved teacher
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. In my opinion, the only two promising ecumenical
dialogues are between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, and between the
Eastern and Oriental Orthodox families. While there are well-known theological
differences between these three traditions, there is also very much in common:
we all believe in Christ as fully human and fully divine, we all uphold the
apostolic succession of hierarchy and de facto recognize each others’
sacraments.

But even with regard to relations between the Roman
Catholics and the Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, we need new forms of
dialogue and cooperation. It is not sufficient to come once every two years for
a theological discussion on a topic related to controversies that took place
fifteen or ten centuries ago. We need to see whether we can form a common front
for the defense of traditional Christianity without waiting until all our
theological differences will disappear. I call this proposed common front a
“strategic alliance” between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. I
deliberately avoid calling it a “union” or a “council,” because I want to avoid
any historical reminiscences and ecclesiastical connotations. Mine is not a call
for yet another “union” on dogmatic and theological matters. I am rather
proposing a new type of partnership based on the understanding that we are no
longer enemies or competitors: we are allies and partners facing common
challenges, such as militant secularism, aggressive Islam and many others. We
can face these challenges together and unite our forces in order to protect
traditional Christianity with its doctrinal and moral teaching."