Ancient Christian Witness

A change in direction and name of the blog.

The focus is going to be more personal, devotional, and historical. The Apologetics will strictly be for the other blog.

There are things about Evangelism, Prayer, Fasting, personal issues and struggles, Vespers, Orthros, and the Divine Liturgy I would like to talk about. As well as a host of other things.


.

Please help those in your area around you. Sometimes the only meal that some kids get are breakfast and lunch at school. Thus when they get home they really don't have much to eat, and during the weekend is when they really struggle, and so get involved in your local community. Find out what's going on and do something about it.

We(two parishes within the Antiochian jurisdiction) just started it some months ago. The Roman Catholics have one in town and it's huge. There are a number of various protestant ones in the region as well. And so we thought we should have one too.

I was raised Baptist, and when I was little I was told by both my Mother as well as by a deacon that "we Baptists came from John the Baptist". I believed it then, but as I got older I quickly saw how that wasn't true. Below is a response about the issue:

As seen from the Orthodoxchristianity.net forums

Quote:
"I'm sorry but the history in that quote isn't accurate. The link between Anabaptists and Baptists is weak (John Smyth, Thomas Helwys and company...around 1610 A.D.). This line of Baptists(general baptists and yes they came from English Separatism too) were influenced by the Mennonite Anabaptists but they didn't practice water Baptism by full immersion when they first began(the later particular Baptists would practice and teach it first). They practiced it by pouring. They were also more Arminian in theology and later on they became liberal and I think Uniterian? Hmm, I gotta double check my sources, but yeah, the American Baptists didn't come from them.

Baptists in America came from the English Separatist link by way of Henry Jacob and company. This group of English Baptists were called Particular Baptists(because they were Calvinistic), and they first began to exist some decades after Thomas Helwys's general Baptist group. Like around 1640 or 1680 A.D.....I forgot the exact date. But it was from this group of Baptists that the teaching and practice of Baptism by full immersion would eventually come about.


In America Roger Williams (the 17th century) is seen as being the one who started the first Baptist church in North America. As well as the one who started the colony Rhode Island. Other English Separatists as well as English particular Baptist separatists (in the 17th century) would migrate from England to the Americas. Setting up churches not only in New England, but also in the Mid-Atlantic, and South.

This is where American Baptist churches come from.

I will have to do a youtube video about this. ....well, one of these days."

Eventually I will make a video about the issue on youtube

As seen from Theologica. (I only used the initials of the person in this one)

R. N. said:

"Context, Jnorm.... context, context, context. No sentence nor paragraph is an island. Foremost rule of hermenuetics and all, but maybe that is foreign to your group, I dunno."

I quoted what I did for a reason. You were denying private judgement in regards to Sola Scriptura. As if it had nothing to do with the issue. It obviously has something to do with it.

Also if you read the first page of this thread then you would know that I am aware of what Keith A. Mathison calls Sola Scriptura vs Solo Scriptura. And yes, I will stick by what I said in regards to how I think Sola can easily slide into Solo.

Why?

The issue of private judgment. All the ancient stuff that I hold too.....including the creeds.......will only be accepted by you if you think they are Scriptural. We all know that you are free to pick and choose what pieces of the ancient creeds you like. Do you believe in Baptismal Regeneration? Probably not......and yet you may think you hold to Constantinople 1. Do you believe the Father to be Monarch? Probably not.......and yet you might think you hold to the First council (Nicaea).

Now Why do I say this?

Because you might have the common excuse or cop out of saying "well I don't think this part of the creed is Scriptural, and so I'm not going to accept it".

A full Preterist protestant can say the samething about the part of the creed in regards to the 2nd Advent. They can use the same cop out. The same excuse......the same argument. Not only that, but a number of other protestants can as well. It just all depends on the issue they personally disagree with. Yeah, you all will talk as if you believe some of the ancient creeds, and ancient faith, but when the push comes to shove, you will pick and choose based on what you think is biblical or not. There are some Reformed who are serious about some of the ancient creeds.....like Federal Vision, NPP, Auburn Ave and company, and some of the more high Lutherans, and Anglicans. But a number of Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists don't like these folks and what they are about. And so what does this tell you in the area about embracing the ancient creeds, and ancient faith as subordinate authorities? It should tell you that it's a bunch of lip service! Yeah, there is a distinction between Sola and Solo, but when push comes to shove, Sola can fold into Solo.

This is why I focused on the quote that I did from Charles Hodge.

Why?

Because ultimately it will come down to that issue. And you know it!

R. N. quoted:

Hodge (the paragraphs immediately prior to your quote):

"It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned."

What does this have to do with what I quoted from Charles Hodge? I already mentioned the idea of essential doctrines (even if you nor any protestant can 100%ly agree on what the essentials are) in regards to the issue of Sola Scripura in this thread.

You also quoted this from Hodge:

"It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves."

John Calvin felt free to deny the Eternal Generation of the Son. Now I could be wrong, but I think Charles Hodge agreed with him. I don't know about you, but I would call the doctrine of the Trinity an essential. I would also call the first two councils ecumenical....or universal. And not only that, Charles Hodge fought against John Williamson Nevin (Mercersburgh Theology).

I could be wrong, but I think the Mercersburgh group was serious in regards to the area of what you quoted from Hodge. Not only that, but I think they were headed in the right direction. And so what does Hodge really mean? He obviously didn't mean what the Mercersburgh group meant! He obviously didn't mean what I believe and hold too! And so the part I quoted from Hodge was appropriate.

For at the end of the day, the right of private judgment is what it will really come down to. If you are fighting against the ancient Faith, it is because of Private judgment/conscience of what you think is biblical.....etc.

R. N. said: "Call me crazy, Jnorm, but I don't think Hodge meant what you think he meant. Private interpretation, as you have been touting it, is that anyone can come to any conclusion that anyone deems valid when reading Scripture and that that interpretation is just as valid as the next (which, I believe, is why you erroneously conflate anti-trinitarian cults with protestantism). Except, the thing is, even this authority that you claim to use in understanding Sola Scriptura rejects that very notion (see the last three sentences I underlined)."

I will stick by what I said. Is Baptismal Regeneration an essential issue? I can go on and on and on! At the end of the day, your subjective veto power to disagree with the ancient creeds and Faith is what it will come down to. When everyone has that veto power then you will wind up with thousands of different competing groups.

R. N. said: "Because it appears too hard to grasp, I'll explain Hodge's explanation is simple terms:
On matters necessary to come to, and maintain, the true, catholic faith - Scripture is plain."

This is subjective. And if you can't see the subjectivity in this, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you. Yes, I do understand what Charles Hodge said. I just know that protestants can't 100%ly agree on matters necessary to come to, and maintain, the true catholic faith. Now why would I quote that part if I know protestants don't 100%ly agree on what is and isn't essential? Thus, what I quoted from Hodge was appropriate.

R. N. said: "All men are encouraged, and required, to read the Scriptures. In their study they should come to the same conclusion, that is the true faith. If they do not, they are dissenting against the Scriptures. On the tougher things, Scripture remains the final authority, and all men should study the Scripture. In their study they should compare Scripture to Scripture as well as pay deference to the faith of the church."

Most of what you said up above is subjective. I mean, why aren't you a Lutheran? Why aren't all protestants Lutherans? Yet, you are upset that I quoted something that really mattered. The reason why you aren't Lutheran is because you have the right(private judgment) not to be, based on how you understand Scripture.

That's it in a nutshell! And so, once again. At the end of the day, it will come down to the issue of private judgment.

R. N. said: "What we deny, as Hodge points out in the out of context section that you quote, is that any man or men hold authority over us higher than Scripture. Scripture binds us, not the judgment of men."

It wasn't out of context. The issue of private judgment is linked to the issue of Sola Scripture.

R. N. said: "Not our own judgement (where's Daniel's head to wall gif?), for there is the possibility of error, but Scipture (our own discretion is dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit - as Hodge also points out but you've appeared to miss). And then Hodge goes on to explain why - by providing Scriptural reference, no less."

I didn't miss it. I am a former Baptist protestant, and so I know about the individual being guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding God's word. I didn't include that because the Holy Spirit isn't the author of confusion. You don't blame the Holy Spirit for the mess we have today.

No, what you blame is the part I quoted and highlighted from Hodge. That is what you blame. For that is the problem. Now in saying this I do recognize that other protestants will state the issue of private judgment differently, but not all protestants do that.

Also, even when they do state the issue differently, it's not like I believe them. For they are not being honest about the issue. They are just trying to hide the fact that they are the ones that have the last say. Thus, they are using Scripture as a smoke screen.....something to hide behind.

As seen from Theologica: (I am putting this on my blog because it took me a few hours to write. I only used his initials instead of his full name in this one.)

C.B. said:

"Jnorm, I find your arguments pretty persuasive (my best friend in a Baptist turned EO too)."

Did he turn EO in a Baptist seminary? I know a number of new converts that did while in seminary or while pastoring.

C.B. said:
"But...do you hold that its impossible for error to be introduced in the church's practice and theology?"

No I don't see it as impossible. For us, time is a major factor. We don't call Clement of Alexandria a Saint. Eventhough he had some good things to say. But we don't call him a saint for a reason. We eventually called Origen a heretic some centuries after his death(eventhough he too had alot of good things to say. He was a prodigy, a genius, and well loved, he is probably one of the most respected and well loved declared heretics of all time), and we call Origenism heretical as well. Why? Because of time. Time is a tester of fruit. One can see the implications or logical conclusions of a belief through time. This is also true in regards to the issue of Arainism....well at least in regards to the Christian East. The moderate Arians or homoiousiosians saw the fruit of Arianism through the radical Arians. Once they saw that, they were ready and willing to re-unite with the Nicene party. It took Saint Athanasius many decades to get them back, but they were ready once they saw the implications of Arianism for themselves.

And so Time is the answer. When we look at the issue of Sola Scriptura, we see that eventually everyone wasn't content to just go by what a Martin Luther, a Zwingli, or a John Calvin had to say. Eventually the flood gates of individualism was open. Eventually the rapid growth of perpetual schisms and splits was open. There is a reason why thousands of different groups exist today. Yes, schisms and splits will always happen, but at what magnitude? Sola Scriptura was like the assembly line for schism. It made splits more easily available, and once it was transplanted to North America in where we have freedom of Religion, it became unstoppable. America is a schism factory. We are in the business of producing schisms. We should have a stamp that says "Schisms R Us"! It has gotten to the point of schism being the norm. No one really cares about the chaos. No one really cares about the massive divisions. No one really cares about what the New Testament has to say about schisms and those who create them. No one really cares because we are entrenched in schism mania.

C.B. said:
"How reliably can all the doctrines be traced back to the first centuries?"

1.) It depends on the issue, and what we are talking about
2.) We would have to include both implicitness as well as explicitness
3.) We would have to look at consistency, logical conclusions....etc
4.) We would have to look at wholeness, meaning what would have to change in order to embrace such and such. Every doctrine influences another, even if you can't see it or perceive it at the time. There is an influence.

It is my personal opinion that out of all the groups that exist today, we are the ones that can make the best claim in this regard. We may not be perfect, and we may fall short in some areas, but this is my own personal opinion.

C.B. said:
"What about when the Fathers contradict each other?"

It depends, as seen from this podcast, When The Fathers Disagree. It also depends on what issue we are talking about as well. If we are talking about the issue of Free Will, then the finger would have to be pointed at Origen and Origenism for bringing in a teaching of determinism for Christians in the Eschaton(due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism), in regards to determinism in the here and now, as well as the Eschaton, we would have to point the finger at Saint Augustine and Augustinianism(also due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism). Other than that you will see most Fathers....especially in the East as being uniform in regards to that issue. And so it really all depends. A good portion of the contradictions have a context to them. This is the reason why we look for Consensus. Or Patristic consensus. The consensus is not just in the area of different regions, but also in regards to different times as well. And so it's both....both time and region.

Those who reject the teaching of Free Will, will simply pick and choose differently. They will have to start with Saint Augustine and stay within the Augustinian tradition by picking and choosing a number of high Augustinians throughout the centuries......like Lucidus, Gottschalk,......etc.

A similar situation would be true in regards to the issue of Baptismal Regeneration. I could be wrong, but it would seem as if one would have to point the finger either at Wycliffe(because of his high Predestinarian views) or at the Christian humanists of the 16th century.....you know, people like Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and maybe John Calvin. I hear conflicting things by people about what he believed, and so I really don't know at this time in regards to John Calvin.

But before that time, it's hard not to see Baptismal Regeneration as being universally advocated. The view is represented strongly in the Fathers. When one adopts the method of Patristic Consensus, then Baptismal Regeneration is the view. Not only in different regions of the globe, but also in every time period as well.

Those who reject Baptismal Regeneration will have a rougher time picking and choosing. They will have to go to Wycliffe(maybe) and then to Zwingli and all those in the Zwnglian and maybe Calvinist tradition. That is what they will have to do.

In regards to the issue of the Eucharist, if one holds to the method of Patristic consensus, then the obvious view is one of the Real Presence. I don't object to the doctrine of Transubstantiation because it's one acceptable school of thought of the Real Presence. Some Orthodox will even use the Latin word.

We have our own word, as found in a ecumenical council, but some Orthodox will make use of the Latin term as well. Those who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence will have to jump to the 5th century to an obscure statement by Saint Augustine. Then they will have to jump again to the 10th or 11nth century to what a Christian Philosophical Naturalist said. Then from there you would have to jump to the 16th century. Some in the 16th century found out what the Naturalist I just mentioned earlier said and so they were following him. We(Christians) are not atheists(naturalists) nor semi-atheists(naturalists). Christians are those who believe in the Supernatural.

And so it all depends on the issue we are talking about. One will find more continuity than discontinuity when looking at the Fathers.....especially when you compare their contradictions to the ones we have in our day(I am including liberals/modernists in all this as well). The contradictions among Christians today is far more severe and chaotic then what we can find in the past. What we would find in the past will always be to a lesser degree than what we will find today. As far as disagreements go.

C.B. said:
"If we have a Father from the second century affirming a doctrine, how do we know the view was catholic?"

If you don't see people fighting over the issue, having arguments and conflicts over the issue, and splitting over the issue, then it is probably a good sign that it's universal. Chillism was faced with opposition early on. Saint Hippolytus had to change his mind on the issue. And so we can tell by the reaction it gets.

C.B. said:
"How you you understand Arianism, specifically in regards to that it WAS the orthodox view for a period? (I assume there might be a disagreement on how one defines orthodox, but as I understand it at one point the Arian view was dominant in the church in terms of numbers and ecclesial and and politicla power)."

I might get a little long winded in this, and so if I loose you, please let me know. All Arians weren't the same. Most of the Eastern Imperial Arians were moderates. There is a reason why they rejected Nicea. You see, the word homoousious was associated with heretical groups. In the 3rd century a local eastern council rejected it in the context of how it was being used by the heretics they were fighting with. Now in saying this I am leaving out some other factors. For there were some Christians in the 3rd century that did use the word. Tertullian used it, and Origen used it, and so Saint Athanasius wasn't the first, but I don't want to get into that at this time, for the word could mean different things to different people. There is an Orthodox way to use it and that is what Nicea represented, but like I said, I don't want to talk about that at this time. What I do want to talk about is how the Christian East hated Sabellianism. I mean, they really really hated Sabellianism. And so Arius went into error in the other direction as a reaction against modalism. There were fears by some in the Christian East that Nicea was a modalistic council because it adopted the word homoousious. These fears were confirmed when they saw Marcellus of Ancyra openly teach Sabellianism.

Quote:
"For Marcellus, Son and Spirit emerged from the Godhead as distinct persons only for the purposes of creation and redemption. At the end of the world, both would be resumed into the divine unity. These statements of Marcellus convinced many that the Creed of Nicaea was suspect of Sabellianism, and he would long be an albatross about the necks of the orthodox Nicenes. Marcellus made the mistake of sending a book embodying his views to Constantine. For his pains he was deposed in 336, surviving through many vicissitudes until his death at the age of ninety in 374.
[1] page 76


Marcellus was friends with Saint Athanasius. The moderate Arians wanted Athanasius to condemn Marcellus, but Athanasius refused, and so it took decades of verbal fighting before re-union could take place.

"Quote:
"The aftermath

"The Church historian Socrates (380-450) describes the failure of mutual understanding: "The situation was like a battle by night, for both parties seemed to be in the dark about the grounds on which they were hurling abuse at each other. those who objected to the term homoousios imagined that its adherents were bringing in the doctrine of Sabellius and Montanists. So they called them blasphemers on the ground that they were undermining the personal subsistence of the Son of God. On the other hand, the protaganists of homoousios concluded that their opponents were introducing polytheism, and steered clear of them as importers of paganism........Thus while both affirmed the personality and subsistence of the Son of God, and confessed tht there was one God in three hypostases, they were somehow incapable of reaching agreement, and for this reason could not bear to lay down arms."
[2] page 82


What finally caused reunion to happen was due to the radical Arians. Once the moderates saw the fruit of the radicals, that's when they were ready to rejoin the Nicene party.

Quote:
"How Athanasius eventually won over the semi-Arians/moderates.

Quote:
"Amid the disturbances of Julian's rule, the doctrinal differences within the Church continued. In 361 the radical Arians met at Antioch under the leadership of Euzoius and declared their belief in a Son unlike the Father. In 362 Athanasius, before his exile, called a peace conference at Alexandria consisting of representatives from Egypt, Palestine and Italy along with delegates sent by the fanatical Nicene Lucifer of Cgliari, Apollinaris of Laodicea and the priest Paulinus, chief of the Nicene community at Antioch. Athanasius' main concern was to reconcile the moderates and the Nicenes by getting behind party catchwords to the deeper meaning of each position. He recommended asking those who held three hypostases if they meant three in the sense of three subsistent beings, alien in nature like gold, silver and brass, as did the radical Arians. If they answered no, he asked if they meant by three hypostasis a Trinity, truly existing with truly substantial Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and if they acknowledged one Godhead. If they said yes, he allowed them into communion. Then he turned to those who spoke of one hypostasis and asked if they meant this in the sense of Sabellius, as if the Son were not substantial and the Holy Spirit impersonal. If they said no, he asked them if they meant by one hypostasis one substance or ousia because the Son is of the substance of the Father. If their answer was yes, he accepted them into communion. Finally, in a statesmanlike fashion Athanasius brought out the truth each side was fighting for and showed that between the moderates and the Nicenes there was really no ground for disagreement. The results of these deliberations were sent off to Antioch divided into three factions: the Arians led by Euzoius, the imperially recognized bishop, the Homoeousians led by the exiled Meletius and the old Nicenes led by the priest Palinus, loyal to the long-dead Eustathius. The way seemed open for peace.But the way was proved long and ruff. For while Athanasius was laying the groundwork for reconciliation at Alexandria, Lucifer of Cagliari had gone to Antioch and made things worse. Instead of attempting to reconcile the moderate bishop Meletius who had already declared for the Nicene faith. Lucifer consecrated the Old Nicene Paulinus as bishop. The two parties which Athanasius had been attempting to reconcile were now separated by rival bishops, while the old Arian Euzious held the churches of the city. This schism at Antioch would impede reconciliation between moderates and Nicenes for years to come as Athanasius and the bishop of Rome came to support Paulinus, while the rising leader of the East, Basil of Caesarea, remained loyal Meletius.
[3] page 102-103


I hope this helps. Like I said before, it takes time to test an idea. A doctrine, a belief, and it took decades for the council of Nicea to be embraced. The moderate Arians weren't that far away from the Nicenes, and at the end of the day they were able to heal the split. Yes, the Empire fought against the Nicene party for decades. But there was light at the end of the tunnel.
Check out these podcasts:
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 1
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 2
The Council of Nicaea - 1
The Council of Nicaea - 2
The Council of Nicaea - 3
Post Nicaea

and this:
1st Ecumenical Council-Nicea 325 AD and the struggle with Arianism

C.B. said:
How do you understand/explain the schism between East and West under this view of authoritative tradition? How did the inerrant tradition of the church basically cause it to divide in two? How is the East vs. West doctrinal splits resolved according to tradition? (I know the differences are fewer in magintude and importance to the Protestant split, but its still and issue).

The influence of the Franks and Germans. There are two good books you can read if you want to learn more about this from our perspective: (sidenote: avoid volume 1 in the series)
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D


and

Greek East And Latin West
Greek East And Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071


I hope this helps.

C.B. said:
"Are all doctrines past form the apostles or are some developed based on other things? Take the Trinity as an example...my understanding is that this was systematically formed based on heterodox attacks, but as a systematized doctrine it was new."

The western interpretations are different from the Eastern. Our interpretation has strong strong strong continuity with the pre-Nicene world. The same may not be true with some western interpretations. In my protestant years from 1997/1998 to about 2003 I use to follow David Bercot's online ministry/website. And so I use to believe in the pre-Nicene view of the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, they did believe in the Father, the Logos(I said it this way for a reason), and the Holy Spirit. And yes, they saw all Three as Eternal and Divine. Now there are differences between the Nicene and Pre-Nicene views. I know what they are, but I don't want to go into much detail right now. For the past few months I have been talking about this very issue with an online friend. You can see it here.

Sorry, but I didn't want to repeat myself over here......eventhough I probably have, but yeah, I use to believe in the Pre-Nicene view. Now I believe in the Eastern Christian interpretation of the Nicene view. The core essence is the same. One of the main reasons why I chose to go East instead of Rome was because of this very issue. I knew that the pre-Nicene view was extremely close to the Eastern Christian Nicene understanding. Listen to this podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko
The Holy Trinity

Also read what Pope Alexander of Alexandria had to say about the issue against the heretic Arius, and you will see that the doctrine is not new.......far far from it.

C.B. said:
"I guess as ideas and therefore doctinres evolve and heterodxies infiltrate and attack, the result can be conflicting traditions...at which point there must be some tie breaker? What is that?"

Read the primary sources for yourself. Yeah, it may take a few years, but it's worth it. I've been reading them off and on since 1997/1998. Read them for yourself and then decide what you think the tie breaker is. I Chose Antioch over Rome because of the doctrine of the Trinity. But for someone else it might be something different. A different issue.


I hope this helps.


[1]page 76, [2]page 82,[3] pages 102-103 from the book the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis

As seen from Theologica:

Tim said:

"I trust them to a point. I can’t just take whatever they say as truth, though."

So you are the deciding factor? I know you will say Scripture is, but you should know that when you say such things, I will naturally see you as being the deciding factor of what Scripture says and doesn't say......even if you feel otherwise.

Tim said: "Where did the church ORIGANLLY get all their doctrine before traditions?"

I know what you are trying to say for I use to be a Baptist. However, I see things differently now, and so the question you asked no longer makes sense to me, for all of it is Tradition......including Scripture itself. Scripture is an aspect of Tradition, it is not really separate from it. Nor is it the whole of it. It maybe the Primary aspect, but it's not the only aspect.

Tim said: "The Scriptures and direct apostolic tradition. Numbers are inconsequential. Just talk to Christopher Columbus."

If you believe it's Scripture and direct apostolic tradition, then how can you hold to Solo Scriptura?

Tim said: "Looking at the Scriptures alone, I just can’t see how you can see everything you hear taught now and equate it with what the apostles taught."

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura? You seem to believe in Solo. It would seem as if all the talk of other authorities is nothing more than lip service. You don't really believe in other authorities.

Tim said: "But like I said, where did the church ORIGANLLY get all their doctrine before traditions? The Scriptures and direct apostolic tradition."

In the other thread about Head Coverings, do you believe what Paul said in Scripture to be binding today? If you say no, then I doubt if "direct apostolic tradition" really would matter to you since Scripture doesn't really matter to you. You pick and choose what you want from Scripture, and so Scripture is not really your final authority. You don't really believe in Scripture. You believe in yourself. You are the deciding factor. You are the boss. You make the decisions. You decide what is and isn't valid today in regards to Scripture. And thus, you are the real final authority. This is why you want to isolate Scripture from it's surrounding context. You isolate it because you want to be the one to determine what Scripture means, and you know that the Fathers disagree with you and so you don't want them to have a say. Either that or you don't want their say to really matter.

Tim said: "Since we only have the Scriptures as transfers of direct apostolic tradition,"

Says who? Do you believe all the people that sat at the Apostles feet got it wrong? Do you believe they all lost what the Apostles told them to keep? Do you believe they all got amnesia shortly after the death of the Apostles?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this. I trust the prayer of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

Chapter 17 verse 20
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;"

Jesus prayed for those who would listen to the Apostles. I believe the next generation was faithful, and the ones who were not ......in regards to heresies.....we already know for they told us who the heretics were. Also Jesus said other things in other places that would support the idea that the visible Church that He started would still be around......it wouldn't go away, and it wouldn't fall into utter apostasy when the last Apostle died. And so yes I trust them. Why don't you?

Tim said: "the Scripture then become the sole standard of doctrine."

According to who? Do you believe in Solo Scriptura or Sola Scriptura? You seem to believe in Solo Scriptura.

What was the Sole standard of doctrine in the 1st century? It wasn't Sola Scriptura. They still had Jesus, the Apostles, and the council in Acts chapter 15 in the first century. Not only that, but the New Testament doesn't really tell much about how Christians worshiped. Surely they Worshiped, and surely the Apostles and other Apostolic men taught them how. So what about the second century?

Well let's look at Saint Polycarp:
The genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine

Quote:
"Polycarpus (1) bp. of Smyrna, one of the most prominent figures in the church of the 2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to intellectual ability, which does not appear to have been pre-eminent, than to the influence gained by a consistent and unusually long life. Born some 30 years before the end of the 1st cent., and rasied to the episcopate apparently in early manhood, he held his office to the age of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at least one apostle and must in early life have met many who could tell things they had heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The younger generation, into which he lived on, naturally recognized him as a peculiarly trustworthy source of information concerning the first age of the Church. During the later years of his life Gnostic speculation had become very active and many things unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth as derived by secret traditions from the Apostles. Thus a high value was attached to the witness Polycarp could give as to the genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his testimony condemning as offensive novelties the figments of the heretical teachers. Irenaeus states (iii.3) that on Polycarp's visit to Rome his testimony converted many disciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp crowned his other services to the church by a glorious martyrdom." [1]





The third century?
Tertullian and Tradition/Observances/Customs not mentioned in Scrip...:

Quote:
"If, for these and other such rules, you insist
upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be
held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and
faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and
faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has.
Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason to which submission is
due."




The next following centuries aren't your friend either.

And so, If they didn't go by your version of Sola Scriptura, then why should anyone abide by it today?

Tim said: "Is that not like the old days then?"

No, it's not. What the Apostles spoke was just as authoritative as what they wrote. I don't know if you do, but if you fight against modern Pentecostals, then I don't see how you can see yourself as copying the Apostles. Saint Peter had a vision about the gentiles, do you believe in visions? If not, then you can't say what you just said. Like I said before, you pick and choose what you wish to believe in. You pick and choose what you want to be binding in Scripture for today. Thus, you are the deciding factor. You are the final authority.





[1] page 846 from the book "A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography: A Reference Guide to over 800 Christian men and women, Heretics, and Sects of the first six centuries" edited by Henry Wace & William C. Piercy. Originally published in London 1911 by John Murray, republished by Hendrickson publishers 1999

They raised alot of funds tonight. I'll check out Obama'a speech on CSpan. I'm sure they will show it again.

As seen from Theologica

Quote:
"If Germany and Luther been Orthodox rather than Catholic, would we still have had the Reformation? Why or why not? Why didn't Luther just leave the RCC for the "original" OC?"

I would say no for 11 reasons:

1.) The western tradition had a history of Reformers that is pretty much absent in the East. At least in the way it was done in the west. Most of these pre-Reformation Reform groups were monastic orders. They were accepted or embraced by Rome, some of the pre-Reformation Reform groups that were rejected are people that you all already know of.....The Waldensians, Huss, Wycliff......etc. And so I would say no because the protestant Reformers of the 16th century were following a western tradition unique to itself. The Monasticism of the East was more stable and uniform by the time of the early western pre-Reform groups and so the situation was totally different.

2.) Most of the Reform groups were Augustinian in one way or another. The Christian East is not Augustinian

3.) In order for the protestant Reformation of the 16th century to stick, it needed Kings, princes.....etc to support it. And this situation is unique to the west for the simple reason of the western holy Frankish and German Roman Empire. The rise of the Nation states.....which used the Reformation as an excuse to gain more independence from the western Emperor...... is what helped the protestant Reformation survive. The situation in the East was different. The west spread the idea of Nation states all throughout the world and that only made Orthodoxy stick even more in the areas it was mostly in.

4.) The Rise of Islam helped Martin Luther survive. If it wasn't for Islam, it would be hard for the protestant Reformation to stick. The Christian East was fighting Islam for centuries and so our paradigm would of been different. Because of the Crusades and the fall of Constantinople....due to the alliance and trading between France and the Turks. It was French Canons that took down the walls of the city. And so their was tension between the Christian East and the West.

5.) We care about issues you probably don't.....like the Filioque, the Essence vs Energies distinction, the Monarchy of the Father, the 7 councils, strong continuity with the past......etc.

6.) The Banks, I forgot the name of the family...I wanna say the Fuggers , but Saint Peters in Rome wouldn't of been possible apart from it.

7.) The issue of indulgences. You see, the Fuggers wanted their money, and so Tetsil was used by the Vatican to collect funds in order to help pay the Fuggers for the building of Saint Peters. There would be no protestant Reformation if this didn't exist.

8.) The Renaissance movement. The southern Renaissance was based on art and Architecture(thus the building of Saint Peter's in Rome.....no Saint Peter's no 16th century Reformation). The Northern Renaissance was based on literature(thus the slogan of "going back to the sources"....no textual criticism no 16th century Reformation). The 16th century protestant Reformation was an academic revolt. little different from the academic revolt of the late 19th century to early 20th centuries. Yes, the one that sparked the split between protestant liberals and protestant Fundamentalists. The protestants of the 16th century were seen as liberals. Or the liberals of their day. And so in a way, the liberals of the 19th/20th centuries could be called Reformers. But in going back to the 16th century, one could assume that in a way the Reformation was a fight between the two Renaissance movements.....the north and the south.

9.) The inter-action between the western Scholastics and Islam which would help bring about the rise of 16th century protestantism and their view of Sola Scriptura. The original view was Prima Scriptura.

10.) The bad Reforms that happened in the East:

a.) Ebionitism (bad reform)

b.) Modalism (bad reform)

c.) Montanism (bad reform)

d.) Tertullianism (bad reform)

e.) Origenism (bad reform)

f..) Arianism (bad reform)

g.) Nestorianism (bad reform)

h.) Monothelitism and Monoenergism (bad reforms)

i.) Iconoclasm was due to the outside influence of Islam (bad reform)

j.) The 17th century influence of Calvinism that didn't last (bad influence and Reform)

11.) We were influenced by both protestantism and Roman Catholicism. You can see this from the 17th to the mid 20th centuries. And so our Reform movements from these centuries have been truly Reform movements....in the sense that in fighting against the western Captivity we have consistently gone back to the Fathers.....especially the ones in where the theology of the ecumenical Church Councils were based on. You can see this out cry by a number of Orthodox from the 19th century onward.....probably before too, but I only know about what happened from the 19th century onward in this regard. A true Reform movement is suppose to go back to something that existed before, most western reform movements seem like Restorationist movements for they go back to something that never existed. Each Restorationist group looks different from the other and so there is something wrong about that. If one can't empirically pin point what they are going back to then it's not a Reform....it's a self made restoration. We can pin point the Church Councils and Fathers. We all know what that looked like.

Now in saying this, the Orthodox are sympathetic to what happened with the Old Russian Believers, in modern times some have come back in communion with Russia by way of ROCOR. But the Old Believers would have more in common with the Mennonite and Amish Anabaptists than with the Lutherans and Reformed.

Because eversince July of 2008 the spiritual struggle intensified. I never had it this bad in my protestant years. It is as if something out there wants me to stop for I am being attacked on all sides. And so I've been trying to focus more on my prayer and fasting life. Eventually I will post more of my own thoughts, but first my personal prayer and fasting life needs to improve. And so most of my posts will continue to be other peoples stuff. I will post my own thoughts every now and then, but this is the reason why I cut back. Spiritual Warfare is real, and I need more strength!

Pray for me!

2010 was both a blessing as well as a curse. Both painful as well as a delight.

The bad first:

1.)Three people I knew fell away from Orthodoxy. I knew two personally and one online. The one online started out as a nominal christian, turned atheist only to join Islam. Then from there he became Orthodox and about a year after being Chrismated he decided to become a Protestant. First a nonCalvinist, and two weeks after that he decided to become a Calvinist. I tried to get him back but it was a no go. I assembled a team of about 6 to talk to him through e-mail and after a few go arounds of going back and forth we saw that it was probably best to stop. I told him that he made too many changes quickly and that he needed to slow down and think about this some more. I also told him that it would probably be best to put his old blog on private. He refused to take my advice about taking it slow and so I said that I would still see him as a friend, and so is our relations today. We are friends despite our theological disagreements.


2.) Some months before that I lost another friend who went to my Parish. I drove him to the Ancient Christianity Conference once. I met his parents, and other family members in Indiana. He was raised Baptist like myself, and he was also an African American. However, he was struggling with doubt, and atheism in particular. He carried that struggle with him when he became Orthodox. At first I thought he was able to handle his personal struggle for he found a girlfriend who was a daughter of a GOA priest, and he was pretty much embraced. But two years later he caved in to his doubts. He worked at the Library and so he would spend alot of time there. Well, I don't know when, but he got a hold of two "psychology and religion" books with an Atheistic bent/bias. He ate it up and decided to totally give in to his doubts. I knew he was flirting with atheism for the two years I knew him. But he finally gave in. I didn't know about it until some months later. Perry called me and told me about it for I still had his name as an administrator on my blog. I told Perry I saw him at Church some weeks ago, and how he never told me that he was now an Atheist. And so I spoke to the one in question and sure enough it was true. I tried to get him back by arguing with him nicely on facebook, but it was a no go. Some months later he invited me to see him. He wanted me to see his new friends and he wanted us to all talk. Well, I thought I was gonna debate them, but when I got there I saw they had no interest in that. Instead they wanted to talk about carnal things and do drugs, and so I left some hours after arguing with them anyway.


3.) My sponsor who was raised Roman Catholic but became Orthodox some months before me decided to become Roman Catholic again. I wasn't mad at him, nor did I try to argue him out of it. He always loved Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism in general. He also would often criticize the Orthodox for not being categorical and precise in abstract legal definitions like Roman Catholicism. He stopped going to the Parish after talking to our Priest about something. He would always visit the local Coptic Parish and he would try to get the Arabic Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians to do more things with the Nonchalcedonian Coptics. But he would go about it too hard and he would often get depressed when things didn't happen as quickly as he would like.

Plus other things outside the Parish happened as well, and so over all, he just felt more comfortable with Roman Catholicism. I am still friends with him, but I had to delete him from the list of blog administrators.


4.) Being my age and still at home with moms. My job isn't paying enough for me to move out and do what I really wanna do in life, and my mom doesn't want me to leave just yet for she is separated from my step dad and can't really survive on her own....well she can now, but for some reason she doesn't want me to leave just yet. I can't find a girlfriend who won't laugh at me for being in this situation. And so it's been bad. I thought about joining the Armed forces just to escape, find a wife, and get my own place once I get out. But those plans have recently been thwarted. And so now I don't know what I'm gonna do to get out this situation. I'm paying off some old loans for my mom's and from the looks of it they won't be fully paid off until 2014, but I can't stay here that long. I'll go crazy if I have to stay that long.


5.) I was born with three hernias, two closed up, but one was still open. The Armed forces wouldn't accept me with it, and so I had to get it done. It took about 6 to 8 weeks for it to fully heal. The first week was extremely painful. However, I'm not going to the Armed forces any more. I'm staying here. And so I'm going to have to look for a better job or something. Don't know yet. All I know is that I gotta eventually find a way to move to the Hill District. The hood/ghetto of my mothers side of the family. For that's where we(me and the sub-deacon) are planning to reach the community.


Well, that's the bad that happened. Now the good!


1.) I got to meet David and His family this year!



2.) I got to know Perry a bit better and he has really been helpful in not only theology, but also with practical every day parish life issues.


3.) I got to meet Ed and his family at the conference. I first met Ed online about a year or two before. And it was just cool to actually see him in person. He is the one in the middle below!



4.) Also, meeting all the others at the conference was a great blessing!






5.) I've gotten closer with the people at my Parish.....including the older folks. I was shy at first.....some 3 and a half years ago. I told myself that I would take things slow and gradually open up over time. Well, it's been 3 years and 9 months since I've been Chrismated and now I am opening up more and more to people at the Parish.




6.) Subdeacon Paul moved back to Pittsburgh last month or the month before......just when I was planning to bounce to O.C.S.(officer candidate school).....I know, I was just about to compromise my semi-pacifistic stance. Something I believed in for years, but the pressures of life and trying to survive and support a possible future family really got to me. But the sub deacon talked me out of it. He really wants to reach the Urban community here in Pittsburgh and he really wants my help in doing it. He was in Allentown Pa for some months after graduating from Saint Tikhons.



7.) The Ordination of a friend...he was Chrismated 6 months before me, but he was at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when he converted and so instead of going to seminary again afterwards, our Archpriest and Mandrate decided to take him in under his wing as an apprentice for 4 years. It was cool to see him ordained.




8.) I forgot to mention my friend Troy. He was Chrismated hours before me in 2007. We were both Episcopal before we became EO. In 2010 he finally became a novice monk at the Hermitage of the Holy Cross in Wayne, WestVirginia. Something he would talk about and wanted to do ever since I've known him.








So yeah, 2010 was both good and bad.

I had a hard time finding all five parts on the blog. I needed part 4 for something, but all I could find was parts 2 and 3. Now they are all connected and so if I find one I will find them all.


Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 1

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 2

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 3

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 4

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 5

I'm saving this on my blog just in case the Theo section on HCR gets erased again.


Does god want you to sin? Yes or no

According to Seal it's yes! There is no way for Seal to really get out of it! He can't have it both ways.......eventhough both you and him are trying to have it both ways.

If you are going to advocate "monergism" in Sanctification then you will automatically run into trouble when it comes to the issue of sin.

Does god want you to sin? Yes or no

If god doesn't want you to sin then why doesn't he stop you? If you believe god's willing in you to both will and believe to be monergistic, then why didn't he stop you from sinning? If he is willing you monergistically then he obviously wants you to sin .....wants you to fall! You can't have it both ways!

If god ordained you to sin at 5pm today then that means he wants you to sin!

So why not give god the glory for your sin?

There is no way to get out of it. You make god both good and evil! This is dualism! And this isn't the GOD of Scripture!

You all make god the author of sin. God is not the author of sin!


Both Matt 23:37, Romans 1, and 1st Corinthians 10 talk about synergy, not monergy.

This is what God wanted! But because they were not willing, God turned them over to their evil desires, and they eventually killed their Creator(God Incarnate) on a Cross!
Matthew 23: 37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

God turns people over to their evil desires......this can only happen in synergy!
Romans 1
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts."


This is what God wants! However, according to you all.......god is not faithful for he really wants you to fall.
1 Corinthians 10:13
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”


God doesn't want you to sin homey! But He will turn you over to your evil desires if you remain unwilling. This can only happen in Synergy.

According to you all, god doesn't make a way of escape because he wants you to sin. In monergy, if god doesn't move you to say no to your evil desires, then guess what? You have no choice but to fall to your evil desires!

There is no way getting around it! You may not want to believe it, but everything in your system says "god is the author of sin"

Such a thing is first rank HERESY!


It's the implications of what you say. You want to have it both ways, and I'm trying to show both you and Seal that you can't. You can't have it both ways.

I already know who in the Reformed protestant world teach such damnable heresy:

1.) Gordan Clark
2.) Jay Adams
3.) R.C. Sproul Jr
4.) Vincent Cheung



Others in the Reformed protestant world need to condemn it as heresy as well. They(the 4 mentioned above) all make god the author of sin. This is pure heresy and it is not the view passed on to the Saints.

The Early Christians fought hard against such blasphemy. I stick to their interpretation of Scripture.

"I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God's fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault." Justin Martyr 160 A.D.

"We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it" Tatian 160 A.D.

"God did not make evil. Nor is He at all in any way the Author of evil. But whoever failed to keep the Law.....after being created by God with the faculty of free will....is called evil." Methodius 290 A.D.



The view advocated by the Reformed protestants above was not the view advocated by Jesus, the Apostles, and the church fathers, and early witnesses after them.

It is not a christian view.

If you take a look at the 5th and 6th councils, as well as the work of Saint Maximus the confessor, then you will understand why 2nd causes won't help the argument......especially if you believe in "determinism".

And this is why you can't have it both ways. And this is why I was talking about "implications". The onlything you can do is not think about it and call it a mystery, but that in and of itself won't get rid of the infrastructure of your system, which can only lead in one direction, and that direction is god being the author of sin.


Wisdom 1:13-15 & 2:23-24
""13 because God did not make death,
and he does not delight in the death of the living.
14 For he created all things so that they might exist;
the generative forces* of the world are wholesome,
and there is no destructive poison in them,
and the dominion* of Hades is not on earth.
15 For righteousness is immortal.


23 for God created us for incorruption,
and made us in the image of his own eternity,*
24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his company experience it."

James 1:12-18
"Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

The evil desire didn't come from God. God permitted/allowed the fall, but you all don't believe in God allowing stuff to happen.....you all don't believe in God permitting stuff to happen. Seal, KingNeb and maybe others want god to have an "active" role.


And when it comes to personal sin, some on the board want god to have an active role in personal sin.......not a passive(allowing/permitting) role.

This is from the HCR Theo Forum.