Ancient Christian Witness

This book is By Albert McIlhenny (a traditional Anglican)

The New Restorationists: A Critique of Frank Viola and George Barna's "Pagan Christianity?"



I just downloaded the pdf for $3.99. It is an awesome read. I have had several emails about when I was going to give a response to the book, I planned on doing something in the future after I'm done working on what I'm doing now in regards to something else. But Albert is already doing an excellent job as it is. It took him a year, all on his free time to trace the quotes and sources of the book, and so he is already on it. He is writing a larger book about the issue, and so, he just put this smaller version out now. But it's awesome! Buy one for all your friends who have Viola and Barna's book. If I ever get around to writing something about it, I will most definately use Albert as one of my main sources.

Also, show them the new set of videos Albert put out as well:

Viola, Barna, and the Church 1: Introduction



Viola, Barna, and the Church 2: Basic Misconceptions



Viola, Barna, and the Church 3: Domus Ecclesiae




Viola, Barna, and the Church 4: Constantine



Viola, Barna, and the Church 5: Basilicas




Viola, Barna, and the Church 6: Gothic Cathedrals



Viola, Barna, and the Church 7: Liturgy




Viola, Barna, and the Church 8: Authority



Viola, Barna, and the Church 9: Eucharist




Viola, Barna, and the Church 10: Conclusion








jnorm

Albert is a traditional Anglican(Episcopal) and he was deeply moved by something Frederica said in one of her books.

















Christ is Risen!

This video was made by Albert (a Traditional Anglican). He's real cool peoples. If/when I ever write a refutation of the book, I'm gonna use him as a source, his basic outline in refuting it was easy to follow.




Frank Viola & the Church (1 through 10)



Response to ChristoferL on Pagan Christianity: Part 1



Response to ChristoferL on Pagan Christianity: Part 2



Response to ChristoferL on Pagan Christianity: Part 3








ICXC NIKA

As seen from OrthodoxChristianity.net


Perry did an excellent job commenting on Morey's book.

Acolyte4236:
"Feel free to cite the review on Amazon to your heart's content.

I know Morey from when I worked at CRI from 1990-1992. He came in to the BAM show during one week from back east. I carted him around Orange County during his stay for a week or so. After my termination from CRI for whistle blowing, I kept in lose contact with Morey via Mike Stephens who after his termination from CRi for essentially the same reason, went to work for Morey as his program manager. Every few years there'd be another purge of employees by Hanagraaf and I would make the phone rounds letting other axed individuals know what was going on.

In any case, I got wind of Morey's book in December. It grew out of a series on CD he did. I wasn't going to pay 65 bucks to hear Morey trash talk Orthodoxy. I have been Orthodox for nearly ten years now. There is a lot I don't know. But I do have a good grasp on core theological concepts and the theological "mechanics" or the logic of Orthodox teaching. I wasn't going to listen to hours of Morey on Orthodoxy for 65 bucks. So when I heard about the book, 17 bucks was cheaper than 65 bucks.

Morey is sarcastic and caustic. Its an act. Just don't let him bully you and don't get offended. When he bellows, bellow back and usually he'll shut up, change the subject or run away, like brave sir robin claiming victory with his tail between his legs.

HWC I suspect is Stephen Macasil or some other toady of Morey's. They've beern going around to Orthodox venue's trolling.

Morey's book isn't worth reading. Perhaps it is worth writing a detailed refutation, just because the book is so entirely bad that it may ensnare some ignorant laymen, Protestant or Orthodox. Any Reformed person with half a brain will ignore it and probably read Letham or Fairbairn instead. And although they have significant defects (Fairbain advocates nestorianism, though he seems unaware of it, and Letham advocates Monothelitism, though he doesn't think he is, but he is nonetheless) they aren't anywhere near as bad as Morey's book.

Morey's book is filled with misquotations, ad hom's, non-sequiturs and fallacies of just about every kind imaginable. I suspect that he did not do the "research" but farmed it out to his toadies and then collected the notes and put the book together. A clean 20% of the sources are tracts and popular books-tracts from conciliar press, ya know the small ones from the Jack Sparks/Gilquist crowd and other pop books like the Orthodox Church from A-Z. There are a few scholarly works used like Russell and Pelikan's work on Icons, but they are so grossly misquoted and/or deployed in a misleading fashion as to make a 90 day Watchtower wonder blush.

Morey doesn't have that significant of a voice among Calvinists. Thats for a few basic reasons.Anyone among them with a brain knows his "scholarship" isn't. 2nd he's a reformed baptist and most Reformation folk are Presbys, Dead Dutchmen or Lutherans. Reformed Baptists are kind of like the hyper active kidn the family tolerates at family gatherings but just wishes that they would shut up or go away or get adopted. Morey has a little following, his books are pop and nothing serious.

The best way to deal with the book is to just chart the dishonest methodology. Arguing theology with these people is not a feasible option. First they are so filled with prejudice that they pretty much see you as the spawn of satan. You should have seen the look on their faces when I was out there in January and inserted myself into a conversation while they were talking about the "damnable doctrines" of Orthodoxy and told them I was Orthodox. So is kind of like arguing with any cultist, you have to discredit their authority first by that authority's dishonest behavior. You gotta take the Watchtower out of the Witness before you take the Witness out of the Watchtower. The same thing applies here with Morey's little cult. These people seriously think he is a major Reformed scholar. He isn't and no serious Reformed theologian alive today thinks so either. His work isn't published in peer reviewed venues and this book is self published, which says it all really. But damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, as it were. Besides, his grasp of Orthodox theology, let alone basic teaching concerning God as well as philosophy and history are so bad, painfully so. So for example, around page 83 or so, if memory serves ( I don't have the bk handy at the moment) he has a chart which is supposed to illustrate how Aristotle posits a dichotomy between essence and form. Uhm, any of my first year students knows that this is false for two basic reasons. First, essence and form mean the SAME THING IN ARISTOTLE. uh, hello? 2nd, Aristotle has a substance/accident dialectic, not dichotomy. Its silly mistakes like these that show that Morey knows little if anything about philosophy or the history of thought.

The book isn't good enough to be wrong. It's just stupid"


The website of the link

His website



JNORM888

A review and rejoinder of Chapter 2 in the book Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian? continued:

Sidenote: These are my own personal oppionions, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Church.


For those that missed parts 1 and 2-a, go here: "A review of Robert Morey's book: part 1" and "A review of Robert Morey's book: part 2-a "




Morey miss understood what both Frank Schaeffer Jr. and the Metropolitan Bishop Kalistos Ware was saying on pages 27-31.

This is obvious from later pages when he totaly rejects the Eastern Orthodox terms of "the distinction between Essence & Energies" and the context in which we understand that, as well as the context in which the Orthodox understands the term "deification". He rejects them and sets up strawmen arguments in their places. In doing so, he is not rejecting what Eastern Orthodoxy actually teach. Instead, he rejects a figment of his imagination.

He also refuses to believe the truth in regards to his own protestant tradition. He quotes Schaeffer Jr. On page 28 about the west embracing the "Aristotelian-Augustinian-Scholastic tradition. But denies this on page 30

What was said on pages 28-29:



Quote
Despite his "frosty" home life, Frankie is absolutely correct that Orthodoxy is a different religion from either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. It should not be viewed as another Christian denomination.

(In quoting Frank Schaeffer Jr)
We converts need to understand that we are not just "switching churches." We must understand that the Orthodox East is fundamentally different than the Latin West."12
"Orthodoxy is not merely Roman Catholicism or Protestantism Plus! Rather, Orthodoxy is a profoundly different religion." 13
...the Christianity of the West evolved into an all together different religion from the Christianity of the East."14


The differences that divide the Evangelical from the Orthodox are not minor according to Frank.

(In quoting Frank Schaeffer Jr)
"One of the major difference between the Orthodox East and Latin West is that we of the Orthodox do not look to reason and science as our primary source of Truth. We trust the uncreated light of Holy Mystery. We pray for a flood of Divine revelation and a genuine if incremental change of character. The Aristotelian-Augustinian-Scholastic-Protestant and "scientific" West, on the other hand, believes in reason and dogma as the means to the Truth if, that is, they believe in Truth at all.15"

Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Roman Catholicism have different and contradictory epistemologies. While the East followed Plato inward into mysticism, the west followed Aristotle outward into rationalism."
[1] pages 28-29


But this is what he says at the end of page 30



Quote
"I have quoted Frankie Schaeffer at length because if I were to say that Orthodoxy is a totally different religion from Evangelical Christianity, some of my readers might be tempted to think that I was being extreme. But this is what Schaeffer and many other Orthodox thinkers have written.

This is why I have taken such great pains to cite so many statements from accepted Orthodox authorities. Despite his bitterness, Frankie Schaeffer is 100% right. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Evangelical Christianity are three different religions. The Orthodox followed Plato into mysticism, the Catholics followed Aristotle into rationalism, and the Reformation followed the Bible back to Jesus."
[2] page 30

Schaeffer didn't say anything about there being three different religions. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are two sides of the same coin. Orthodoxy is predenominational. Morey seems a little upset about Orthodoxy holding on to the Ancient exclusive language that historic christianity always embraced. He also wants to ignore the fact that Protestantism followed Augustin and Aristotle. The Reformation didn't follow the Bible. It didn't go back to Jesus. He is using the Bible and Jesus as smoke screens to hide his innovative Reformed Baptist distinctives.


John Calvin learned greek philosophy at the University of Paris. Why didn't Morey mention this? Now it is true, that he criticized Roman Catholic scholasticism, but it is also true, that Aristotelian logic can be found in his works. The next generation of Calvinists were Protestant scholastics for they found a good use of Aristotle in their cause?


sidenote:(the first generation of protestants, were schooled in Roman Catholic Scholasticism, eventually, some of them would reject it. However, later generations of Protestants [after calvin] would embrace it.

Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan says in the book "Credo": on pages 481 & 482


Quote
"But many more of the Protestant confession came from the second, third, and subsequent generations. Those confessions, moreover, are not only more numerous but usually much longer, than the earlier texts had been. Nor is the difference a matter only of comparative length as such. For it was, paradoxically, the writers of confessions who had not been trained in medieval, Roman Catholic scholasticism who laid the foundations for a new, Protestant "confessional scholasticism." As Horatius Bonar put it, speaking about The Westminister Confession of Faith from the seventeenth century in a description that could as readily have been applied also to The Canons of the Synod of Dort from the same century or to The Formula of Concord from late in the preceding century,

It may be questioned whether the Church gained anything by the exchange of the Reformation standards for those of the seventh century. The scholastic mould(british form of "mold") in which the latter are cast has somewhat trenched upon the ease and breadth which mark the former; and the skillful metaphysics employed at Westminister [or in The Formula of Concord] in giving lawyer-like precision to each statement, have imparted a local and temporary aspect to the new which did not belong to the more ancient standards. 129

Bonar's use of "scholastic", therefore, which commonly refers to Western Roman Catholic theology from the twelfth to the fourteenth century and to the revival of that theology in the modern era, may also be applied to the Protestant "confessional scholasticism" of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which manifested itself in both Lutheran and Reformed theology.
One presuposition for its rise, as it had been for rise of medieval
scholasticism, was the cultivation of Aristotelian philosophy, which, after its
rejection by Luther and other Reformers, enjoyed a strong revival of interest
during subsequent generations of Lutheran and Reformed theologians. It had been
Melanchton's ambition to prepare a new edition of Aristotle. Aristotelianism
gave the Protestant dogmaticians of the seventeenth century a precision in their
vocabulary and a capacity for making careful distinctions. Partly as a
consequence of this renewal of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle, another
component of medieval scholasticism, the investigation of "natural theology,"
played a prominent part in this Protestant scholasticism, too.
Therefore an exploration of what the unaided human reason could know about God, including th traditional proofs for the existence of God, became the prolegomenon to the systematic exposition of the revealed doctrines of Scripture.132"
[3] pages 481-482

Some would like to pick on Eastern Orthodoxy for using portions of greek philosophy in order to convert the Hellinistic World. The truth is, we all use aspects of greek philosophy.....all as in, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodoxy. We all use it at times when speaking about the Truths of the christian faith. Now we may not all use the same greek philosophers, nor do we all agree on our interpretation when we do use the same greek philosopher, but we all make use of them. Infact, the fact that Scripture itself is translated into pagan languages is proof that we do make use of "pagan words" in order to express the truths of the Faith.


Even the Apostle Paul made use of greek philosophy, when trying to express a "truth" of the Christian Faith.

Acts chapter 17
NKJV
"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising."


Plus, elsewhere, Saint Paul talks about being "all things" to "all men".

1 Corinthians 9:21-23
NKJV
"to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."



Now, just like in most things, there is discernment. Which is why Orthodoxy doesn't use every greek Philosopher under the Sun. But God has planted lesser forms of light in every culture. And it is the job of the christian to make good use of the lesser light God has givin to the peoples of the Globe, so that they can have cultural aids to help them understand the truths of the Faith.

So I guess in a way, the seeds of truth, that God has planted in every culture is a form of Prevenient(preceeding) grace.





pages 31 to 33 gives a list of 15 things in which Morey thinks Evangelical Christianity differs from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Quote
"Different views of Greek Philosophy, Particularly
Plato. The New Testament writers, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Reformers
rejected pagan philosophy, while Orthodoxy embraced it."
[4] page 31

Augustine embraced Plato, and Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin learned greek philosophy in his Humanistic studies at Paris University. And the next generation of protestants embraced the philosophy of Aristotle. Also, what about the charge of Penal Substitution's link to Natural theology? As seen here: "Penal Substitution & Natural theology".

Another prime example of some classical Reformed protestants making use of "natural law" is found in Stephen J. Grabill's book "Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics". One can also see it in the work "The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science" by Peter Harisson. A review of the book can be seen here "Secular Hermeneutics".

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't embrace all forms of greek philosophy. It only embraces that which was closest to christianity to express the truths of the christian faith to a greek pagan world. If Mr. Morey believes in the doctrines of the immortal soul, and Divine simplicity then he too embraces christianized greek concepts that go back to Plato.

Quote
"Different epistemologies on how we know if
something is true or false. Orthodoxy's negative Natural theology versus the
revealed theology of the Bible."
[5] page 31

Morey is cloaking his Aristotalian philosophy behind scripture. Both Negative and possitive statements can be used. It's just that Negative statements are superior because possitive statements has its limitations in time and space.

Quote
"Different hermeneutics in the way we should
interprete the Bible. Orthodoxy is mystical and intuitive in its understanding
of the Bible, while biblical Christianity follows the principles of historical,
grammatical exegesis"
[6] page 31

What is Biblical christianity? There are hundreds if not thousands of different sects that claim to represent "Biblical christianity". Also Martin Luther, the founder of the first wave of Protestantism believed in a multiple layered interpretation method. Not to mention Dr. Peter Enns who is/was a calvinist. As seen here, "The New Testament's use of the Old Testament".

And what about the Apostles? They didn't always follow the historical grammatical exegesis method. It is well known that they often used a mystical and intuitive method in interpreting the Old Testament. All one has to do is read the first few chapters of Mathew, and see what they quoted in the Old Testament.

Quote
"Different views on the origin, nature,
inspiration, canon, and authority of the Bible. The Orthodox do not have the
same books in their Bible as found in the Catholic or Protestant Bibles."
[7] page 32

We received what the Apostles had.

2 Timothy 4:13
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.


Did Paul's scrolls and parchments vanish when he died? No, the church kepted them. Also to know what family text type the Apostles were mostly using. All one has to do is look at their Old Testament quotes. They used the LXX family of texts. Which is what we still use today.

Quote
"Different views on the origin, nature, and
inspiration of "the Greek Septuagint." The Orthodox claim tht it is more
inspired than the original Hebrew text!"
[8] page 32

I don't think we would say "more inspired than the original Hebrew". After all it was based on a Hebrew text type. I think we would say, it is more inspired than the masoretic text type. Which is a post christian Hebrew text. If the LXX was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, then it's good enough for me.

Quote
"Different views on the authority of the church,
its "Fathers", councils, creeds, and leaders. The Orthodox use circular
reasoning. Something is true because the Church says so. There is no higher
authority than the Church. This is true because the church says so."
[9]
page 32

Scripture says the "Church" is the foundation of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Morey uses circuliar reasoning too. He will have to say "something is true, because the Bible says so". And since he is a calvinist he will have to use "circular reasoning" in regards to the five points of Calvinism. Everyone seems to use circular reasoning somewhere. Plus on top of that, there is disagreement among protestants of what "sola scriptura" means. As seen here "Differences in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura".

Quote
"different views on the nature, attributes,
existence, and knowledge of God."
[10] page 32

Knowing God is much more than just mere "reasonable propositions". The whole person must know God. And if Morey disagrees with Orthodoxy in regards to the nature, attributes, existence, and knowledge of God then he is only shooting himself in the foot, for his Reformed Baptist group stands or falls on the christianity that came before it. If he tries to separate his denomination further away from Orthodoxy, then it would be to his own down fall. Plus it's not like every evangelical denomination agrees with Morey's Reformed Baptist's group. So I don't think Morey can speak for all "evangelicals". For some hold different views of the nature, attributes, existence, and knowledge of God.

Quote
"Different views on the nature, attributes, person
and work of Jesus Christ."
[11] page 32

If Morey embraces the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, then he is only shooting himself in the foot by saying this. Morey can't have it both ways.

Quote
"Different views of the nature, power, work, and
veneration of angels, Mary, the Apostles, the saints, and the "Father."
[12]
page 32

Morey's refusal to venerate Mary only shows his Nestorian tendencies. Also Scripture says that all generations will call her "blessed".

NKJV
Luke 1:48
"For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

Once again he is shooting himself in the foot.

Quote
"Different views on the veneration of icons and
relics."
[13] page 32

Morey's view of salvation being static, and nothing more than mere mental assent and consent to dogmatic propositions and pronouncements, make his view of Icons and relics different.

If salvation is a dynamic relationship between mankind and the Incarnate God. If it is a real union between man and the dying and ressurected Lord.

Then the veneration of icons and relics are valid.

Quote
"Different views on the nature of man, original
sin, free will, and human potential."
[14] page 32

The gnostics believed the material world was evil. Some of them, like the Manicheans didn't believe in the doctrine of free will. Morey's view is alot closer to their doctrine than it is to christianity. The fact, that he mentioned "original sin", shows that his form of protestantism follows some of the teachings of Augustine, especially in his later years. Augustine made use of Plato, but Morey doesn't want to admit that his form of protestantism follows some of the propositions of greek philosophers.

So he is shooting himself in the foot again.

Quote
"Different views of the nature of sin and what is
needed to correct it."
[15] page 33

He is following an extreme form of Augustinianism (calvinism). One that believes in Total depravity (inability), limited atonement, Unconditional election, irresistible grace, and maybe a stricter form of Once saved always saved (P.O.T.S.). Not all protestants believe this, so he can't speak for "all" of evangelicalism....only just his form.

Quote
"Different views of salvation, grace, works,
faith, and the nature,number and role of the sacraments"
[16] page 33

Once again, he is mostly talking about his Calvinistic perspective, which for the most part is innovative. Some of it can be traced back to Saint Augustine in his older years, but it doesn't preceed Augustine. The western church started to go in a different direction after Saint Augustine. And I doubt if Morey knows what he's talking about in regards to our view of the Mysteries.

Quote
"Different views of the heart of the gospel
message. The Bible teaches that justification is the heart of the gospel, while
Orthodoxy teaches deification."
[17] page 33

He miss understands the doctrine of deification. And not all protestants agree with the "details" of his form of "justification". There are alot of Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Holiness groups that have a slightly different perspective than Morey. Not to mention some of the Anabaptists like the Ahmish. The Campbellites would also disagree with Morey. So he is not speaking for "all" protestantism. And even in the Reformed camp, there are differences. You have Norman Sheperd, you have the new perspective of paul, and even among dispensationalists you have the controversy of "Lordship salvation vs easy believism".

Quote
"Different views on the nature of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper"
[18] page 33

Different protestants dissagree with his view of Baptism and the Lord's Supper so he can't speak for all evangelicals.



On page 34 to 35 he mentions the different schools of thought in Orthodoxy: According to him, they are "Liberal, Conservative, and Fundamentalist"

The truth is, the Liberals of Orthodoxy are still way more conservative and traditional than their Protestant counter parts. The same is true for the Liberals in Roman Catholicism. They tend to be more conservative and traditional than those found in Protestantism.


He says on page 37 that Eastern Orthodoxy is a house divided that cannot help but fall. The Truth is, by the Grace of God Eastern Orthodoxy has been around for two thousand years. Morey's own congregation hasn't been around that long. Maybe he should worry about what's going on in his own fellowship, as seen here, instead of pointing fingers at an organism that's been around for 2,000 years.



JNORM888


[1],[2],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] from the book "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian" by Robert A. Morey. Copyright 2007, published by Christian Scholars Press.

[3] from the book "Credo: Historical and Theological guide to Creeds and Confessions ofFaith in the Christian Tradition", by Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, copyright 2003 by Yale University. Published by Yale University Press.

Sidenote: These are my own personal oppionions, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Church.

For those that missed part 1. They can go to this link here: "A review of Robert Morey's book: part 1"


Chapter 2 of Morey's book.

Quote
What is Orthodoxy?

Where did Eastern
Orthodoxy derive its distinctive doctrines and rituals? In discussions with
Orthodox priests and Theologians, I have heard many different answers.

I. Protestant Converts to Orthodoxy

If they were converts from
Protestantism, especially from Evangelicalism, they would smile at me and say
that Eastern Orthodoxy derived its doctrines and rituals from the Bible.

However, when I pressed them as to exactly where in the Bible could I
specifically find such things as the veneration of icons, they would switch
tactics and state that such things came from the "Holy Traditions" and the
"Fathers." I persisted by asking them,"
[1] page 25

And then he goes on to ask 16 questions. After that he talks about some statements made by Frank Schaeffer Jr. in a few of his books. Schaeffer can defend himself, but I will comment on a few things Morey said.

He then moves on to a few things the Metropolitan Bishop Kallistos Ware made. He makes a 15 point list of what he thinks some of the major differences between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism(his understanding of it) are.

He ends the convert section with:

Quote
"The differences listed above cannot be
dismissed as a mere "tempest in a tea cup." The differences between Orthodoxy
and Evangelical theology are absolutely fundamental and cannot be ignored. We
agree with Orthodox thinkers such as Schaeffer, Ware, et al that Orthodoxy is a
different religion.

In This work, we have chosen to Investigate
Orthodoxy's dependence on Greek Philosophy, its iconolatry, and the origin and
nature of its doctrine of deification. The other issues must await later
analysis."
[2] page 33

The next sections of chapter 2 deal with his explanation of what he calls "Liberal Orthodoxy", "Conservative Orthodoxy", and "Fundamentalist Orthodoxy". And last but not least, he ends chapter 2 with what he calls the "sliding scale".


At this time I would like to look at his questions in chapter 2:

Quote
quote from page 25:
If they were converts
from Protestantism, especially from Evangelicalism, they would smile at me and
say that Eastern Orthodoxy derived its doctrines and rituals from the
Bible.

The New Testament Scripture came from the Church(The Apostles and their scribes were members of the Church). The Church is the foundation of Truth. But for those that only recognize the Primary writtings that She produced, we speak the language that Reformed Baptists understand to establish a link of communication. So we use from our Bossom what they only recognize to help them understand that the "Reformed Baptist Evangelical tradition" is not enough. There is a fullness of the Faith, that was once delivered to the Saints. Something that preceeds the Reformed Baptist tradition by 1,600 hundred years.

Quote
quote from page 25
However, when I pressed
them as to exactly where in the Bible could I specifically find such things as
the veneration of icons, they would switch tactics and state that such things
came from the "Holy Traditions" and the "Fathers." I persisted by asking
them"

He is trying to trap people into a corner. and it wasn't a switch of Tactics. We don't believe in Sola Scriptura so we don't have that mindset. Reformed Protestants believe that any Oral tradition that was inspired was eventually written as scripture. Therefore, in their minds the Bible is the sum of both Oral and written tradition.
In order to understand where Morey is coming from, we need to first look at the Reformed "Regulative Principle". Historically it has been contrasted against the Lutherian "Regulative Principle" as seen here "Theological Issues -Lutherian vs Reformed "

ISSUE: Regulative Principle


The Lutherian Position is:

"Whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is permissible"


The Reformed Position is:

"Whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden"

So as you can see, for Morey, if it's not found in scripture then it must be forbidden. There are alot of words and things not found in scripture but are indeed "scriptural". The word "Trinity" is not found in scripture, but the principle is found in scripture. The same is true for the word "homoousios". Thanks to Saint Athanasius, we saw how it was used in a "scriptural" fashion.


In like manner "Veneration" is "scriptural". It is a type of reverence or respect to the one in which the symbol represents.

Anthony M. Coniaris said it perfectly when he said:

"First, let us consider the charge of idolatry. Orthodox Christians do not worship icons; they merely reverence or venerate them as symbols. Leonius of Neopolis wrote in the seventh century: "We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and make obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross. . .When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the finger because of Christ who on the cross was crucified, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them." [3]



That which is "special" compared to that which is "ordinary"


1.) Was the Ark of the Covenant "special" or "ordinary"? If one says "special" then they automatically venerate the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was "special" because of the One it represented.


2.) Was the ground near the Burning Bush, "special" or "ordinary"? If one says "special" then one automatically venerate the ground near the Burning Bush. The ground was "special" because of the One it was near.


3.) Was the Holy of Holies "special" or "ordinary"? If one says "special" then they automatically venerate the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies is "special" because of the One it represents.



4.) Was the Temple "special" or "ordinary"? If one says "special" then they automatically venerate the Temple. The Temple is "special" because of the One it represents.



5.) Is the Bible "special" or "ordinary"? If one says "special" then they automatically venerate the Bible. The Bible is "special" because of the One it represents.

We can also look at the human family as an example. Is one's mother an ordinary woman or is she someone special? If she's special, it is because of her relationship to you. The same is true for any person of a family. Is one's wife an ordinary woman or is she special? If she's special, it is because of her relationship to you. Is one's child an ordinary kid? Or is your child special? If the little one is special, it is because of their relationship to you.



Also, Eastern Christian Icons, are not just art. They are a pictoral language. They record the Theology, expressions, and History of the Church itself.

Quote
"Can you give me a concise definition of what
constitute a "Holy tradition?"
[4] page 25

His goal is to put "Holy Tradition" into a box so that he can use logic to find any inconsistencies. Thus logic is his "real" foundation of truth. The Church is an Organism not a machine. Therefore "Holy Tradition" is an organic whole that Permeates the Church. It's multifaceted internal authority is primarily Holy Scripture, but scripture is not alone nor can it be separated from the Church and the other internal sources of Holy Tradition. For there is also liturgical custom, patristic consensus, conciliar declaration, credal statements, and Icons.

I believe Patrick Barnes in his discussion with Robin, as seen here, stated it well when he quoted the Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

""Orthodox are always talking about Tradition. What do they mean by the word?... [T]o an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means something more concrete and specific than this. It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons — in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages. The Orthodox Christian of today sees himself as heir and guardian to a great inheritance received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future.....

"Orthodox, while reverencing this inheritance from the past, are also well aware that not everything received from the past is of equal value. Among the various elements of Tradition, a unique pre-eminence belongs to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things the Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised. The other parts of Tradition do not have quite the same authority."

Or go here: What do we mean by Tradition?

Quote
"Is the issue age, i.e. is something a
"tradition", if it can be traced back to the days of the apostles or the early
Church?"
[5] page 25

He is trying to make a distinction between what some call "Apostolic Tradition" with "Episcopal tradition". This is a western concept formed by the fueds between Rome and various Protestant groups or between Episcopalians and other protestant groups.


The Eastern view of "tradition" is different from the Western view of both Rome and Protestantism.


Tradition permeates the Church itself. It is a living tradition. I think the protestant scholar Daniel B. Clendenin did a decent job. When he said: "sidenote: the christian east does not view Tertullian as a church father, so Clendenin made a mistake there"


"While the apostolic deposit finds unique articulation in the written tradition of canonical Scripture, it is not confined or limited to the biblical text, but finds fuller expression in extracanonical tradition. Written Scripture is primary but not exclusive; the tradition of the councils and the Fathers are indispensable for a number of reasons. First, both the church itself and the apostolic kerygma existed for nearly three centuries before the ecumenical councils and the establishment of the scriptural canon. In the Acts of the Apostles the precanonical "word of God" that the apostles preached about Jesus continues to grow and flourish, and even seems to be equated with the church itself (Acts 12:24; 19:20). We also know that Jesus did many things that were never written down (John 20:30-31;25), and that Paul urged the early Christians to accept (John 20:30-31;21:25), and that Paul urged the early Christians to accept both the written and unwritten apostolic paradosis that he passed on to them (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor 11:2). The oral message preached to the Thessalonians was rightly received by them as "the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. Col. 1:25 and 3:16). Oral tradition is thus a necessary complement or supplement to written Scripture, for the gospel kerygma is not exactly contiguous with the canon of Scripture.

Second, Orthodoxy would insist that nobody operates with a clean slate, a tabula rasa, and, accordingly, noncanonical traditions are a practical and hermeneutical inevitability. Although someone might claim to interpret the Scripture de novo in principle, in practice we all read the text not only with theological or denominational presuppositions, but also through the space time prisms of our individual cultures and experiences. Furthermore, even if a neutral reading were possible, it would hardly be desirable because it would likely lead to arbitrary and errant understandings of the text. Thus it becomes all the more important tolocate oneself within the apostolic oral tradition that serves as a hermeneutical context for written Scripture. Third, liturgical precedent also reveals the importance of noncanonical tradition. We saw in the last chapter that when defending the use of icons, both John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite based their cases squarely on the importance of extrabiblical liturgical tradition. According to Orthodoxy, there are many similar aspects of the life and liturgy of the church that, while not explicitly contained in or demanded by Scripture, are of undisputed significance to believers. Pertinent here is a celebrated passage from Basil's On the Holy Spirit. In defending the deity of the Holy Spirit, Basil appealed to the fact that widely used doxologies of the church confessed, "Glory to the Father and to the Son with the Spirit." While the preposition with was not found in Scripture, it had all the weight of liturgical precedent, which Basil was of enormous significance: "Concerning the teachings of the Church, we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true in true religion. No one would deny either source-no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions-or rather, we would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words." Basil goes on to list some of the uncontested ancient liturgical customs of the church: certain baptismal practices, and the renunciation of Satan and his angels. For Basil, not only are certain liturgical traditions of great importance, "they are indispensable for the preservation of right faith." Tertullian had made the same point, in a similar manner, more than a century earlier. Citing important liturgical practices such as the renunciation of the devil at baptism, threefold immersion, celebration of the Eucharist early in the morning and only by a bishop, prayers for the dead at the Eucharist, celebration of the Eucharist on the anniversary of the deaths of martyrs, abstinence from fasting and from praying in a kneeling position on Sundays, prevention of any part of the bread and wine from falling onto the ground, and other such practices, Tertullian remarks: :If you demand a biblical rule for these observances and others of the same sort, you will find none written. Tradition will be alleged to you as the authority and custom to support them and faith to practice them. You yourself will either see the reason which supports the tradition and the custom and the faith, or you will learn it from someone who will have seen it. Meanwhile you will believe it to be not lacking in authority to which to which obedience should be owed." In short, in Basil and Terullian we see a practical example in which the lex orandi defines the lex credendi. Unless we wish to denude and mutilate the apostolic tradition, according to Basil and Tertullian, we will accept the authority of the liturgical precedent, even though it is not contained in Scripture alone.

Fourth, the necessity of the extrabiblical tradition finds broad-based support in the theological methodologies of any number of early fathers, a fact which is of no small significance for Orthodoxy. Tertullian invoked the "rule of the faith" and Irenaeus the "canon of truth" against the heretics of their day. Athanasius, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, had to defend the council against the Arian charge that its conclusions (specifically the term homoousios) were innoations. He was nevertheless thoroughly apostolic. In contending against the Arians, who wished to limit the argument to Scripture alone, Athanasius appealed to the larger "scope" (skopos) or "rule" (kanon) of faith, the tradition and teaching of the catholic church. The stalwart defender of orthodoxy, Ephiphanius, noted that some elements of the apostolic faith were "delivered to us through the Scriptures, the others through the Tradition delivered to us by the Holy Apostles." Chrysostom, commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:15, pointed out that the apostles :did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition; seek no farther." Augustine confessed that "I should not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had notmoved me." And so, according to Orthodoxy, when we appeal to the apostolic tradition outside of sola scriptura, we stand on the firm ground of the early patristic consensus and theological method. Of all the justification for invoking the extrabiblical apostolic tradition a hermeneutical necessity. Hilary of Poitiers noted that "Scripture is not in the reading but in the understanding," a sentiment repeated by Jerome, who rebuked certain heretics because, not having the help of the Holy Spirit, they turned the divine gospel into a human word: "We do not think that [the] Gospel consits of the words of Scripture but in its meaning........In this case Scripture is really usefull for the hearers when it is not spoken without Christ, nor is presented without the Fathers, and those who are preaching do not introduce it without the Holy Spirit." The problem of misunderstanding as a result of private interpreting and twisting of the Scripture exposes the inadequacy of reading the Bible alone and confirms the hermeneutical necessity of its larger patristic context. This is precisely the problem with heretics, as George Prestige so sptly observed: "Heretics showed that they could be as painstaking in their use of Scripture as the saints. The fact soon became obvious to any intelligent thinker that the principle of 'the Bible and the Bible only' provides no automatically secure basis for a religion that is to be genuinely Christian." Irenaeus and Vincent of Lerins made this point in special ways. Irenaeus employed two striking analogies. He compared heretics' treatment of Scripture to people who take a beautifully crafted mosaic of a king, rearrange the pieces to depict a dog or a fox, and then have the audacity to claim that their rearrangement is the authentic mosaic because it contains the original materials. Heretics are also like people who arbitrarily rearrange the poetry of Homer so that, while the verses themselves are original, the meaning has been grossly distorted. In other words, it is one thing to have at one's disposal the original material of Scripture, and quite another to us it properly. Only by adhereing to the apostolic tradition and the rule of truth will we avoid the hermeneutical distortions of heretics and not mistake foxes for kings or paltry paraphrases for the real Word.
When searching for a means to distinguish the true apostolic faith from heresy, Vincent of Lerins noted that while Scripture is "for all things complete and more than sufficient," even heretics appeal to Scripture. It seems, Vincent of Lerins noted that while Scripture is "for all things complete and more than sufficient," even heretics appeal to Scripture. It seems, Vincent observed, that "owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it with one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters". To "detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith," we need the authority of tradition, specifically, "that which has believed everywhere, always, by all." This ecumenicity of time and space serves as a hermeneutical prism so that, in the words of Hilary and Jerome, we do not merely read the text but understand it rightly. For Vincent, as Florovsky notes, "Tradition was, in fact, the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was co-extensive with Scripture. Tradition was actually 'Scripture rightly understood.' And Scripture for St. Vincent was the only, primary, and ultimate canon of Christian truth." pages 110-113 [6]

One can also see this with Saint Athanasius and the fued he had with the heretic Arius "Saint Athanasius and the "scope of Faith"". We can see this when Saint Polycarp's testimony converted many disciples of Marcion and Valentinus, "The genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine", and we can see this in "The Regula Fidei" as noted by George Florovsky.

Quote
quote from page 26
"Is the issue authority,
i.e. was it believed by all "the Fathers" or all great theologians in the past?"
[7]

The authority is the Holy Spirit. The Church maybe the foundation of truth, but it is the Holy Spirit that guides her into that Truth.

I say this because in the Church you have every authority. You have the Holy Spirit, the Bible, Bishops, teachers, the Liturgy, the creeds, the Fathers, and Icons. When it comes to protestant scholars that write about Orthodoxy, I think Daniel B. Clendenin did another decent job by saying:


"For Westerners, this absence of formal criteria or authorities," Meyendorff admits, is "puzzling, . . .nebulous,. . .romantic,. . . unrealistic," apparently "subjectivistic," and even an "embarrassment" of sorts. Nevertheless, "the Orthodox East has never been obsessed with a search for objective, clear, and formally definable criteria of truth, such as either the papal authority or the Reformed notion of sola scriptura." Meyendorff takes pains to clarify this extremely important point: "This lack in Orthodox ecclesiology of a clearly defined, precise and permanent criterion of Truth besides God Himself, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, is certainly one of the major contrasts between Orthodoxy and all classical Western ecclesiologies. In the West the gradually developed theory of papal infallibilty was opposed, after the collapse of the conciliar movement, by the Protestant affirmation of sola scriptura. The entire Western ecclesiological problem since the sixteenth century turned around this opposition of two criteria, two references of doctrinal security, while in Orthodoxy no need for, or necessity of, such a security was ever felt for the simple reason that the living Truth is its own criterion." This, of course, is the exact point made by Khomiakov, that in Orthodoxy the criterion of truth is not external or dogmatic, a speaking to the church, but internal and pneumatic, a living Lord within the church.

Positively, we might say that the only ultimate theological criterion to which Orthodoxy appeals is the living presence of God himself, who safeguards the church and promises through his Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth (John 14:25-26; 16:13). This was the pattern established by the original church in council at Jerusalem, which based its decisions on the charismatic criterion: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). Thus the Orthodox appeal to Irenaeus: "Where theChurch is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is Truth."

Ironically, while many people accuse Orthodoxy of a dead, static repetition of ancient tradition and liturgical ritual, a historicism of sorts, it eschews such a notion of tradition in favor of the dynamic, living presence of God who continually vivifies the church. As Florovsky notes, "reference to tradition is not historical inquiry. Tradition is not limited to Church archaeology. . . Tradition is the witness of the Spirit . . . the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. tradition is a charismatic, not a historical, principle." Tradition is the life of the Spirit in the church, who alone is the ultimate criterion of truth. This, Thomas Hopko insists, is the unanimous position of the Orthodox church, both ancient and modern: "For each of the authors directly studied on this point, and there are about twenty to whom concrete reference could be made here, the Holy Spirit alone remains the ultimate criterion of truth for Christians even though other eternal institutions in the Church, such as [the tradition of the church, including Holy Scripture;] the Councils; and the Church itself are named as the 'highest' and 'supreme' authorities providing formal authorities in the Church. . . The Church itself taken as a whole cannot and must not remain 'external' to the believer, and indeed not the theologian!" pages 104-108 [8]

Quote
quote from page 26
"Is the issue
catholicity, i.e. was it something confirmed in some creed or by some church
council?"
[9]

I wonder what he means by the word "catholicity"? Does he mean wholeness, or Universal? He probably means "Universal". Our word for "Universal" is "eucemenical", this is why we call certain councils "eucemenical councils". Also he seems to be one dimensional. He is trying to find "one" source that would define it. Quote # 8 already answered this question.

Quote
quote from page 26
"Is the issue creedal,
i.e. was it something confirmed in some creed or by some church council?"
[10]

The issue is the Church. One can look at the answer to quote # 7

Quote from page 26
Quote
"Is the issue status,
i.e. did a metropolitan patriarch teach it or did he write a creed or confession
that teaches it?"
[11]

The issue is the Church. One can look at the answer to question # 7

Quote
quote from page 26
"what do we do when one
patriarch condemns another Patriarch?"
[12]

I personally would pray and continue to follow my local Bishop. The Holy Spirit guiding the Church will eventually resolve the issue.

Quote
quote from page 26
"By what standard do we
judge which Patriarch is right?"
[13]

It is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church into all truth. Therefore, the standard is internal to the Church herself.

Quote
quote from page 26
"Is the issue
force, i.e. if a patriarch was murdered, does this mean those who murdered him
were right?
[14]

He is talking about the Patriarch Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638)

Orthodoxy was never going to become a Reformed Calvinist church. In this case one can bring up the issue of "doctrinal continuity". For more information about Patriarch Cyril Lucaris go here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Quote
quote from page 26
"By what objection
standard can we tell if a "tradition" is valid or invalid?"
[15]

There is no such thing as true Objectivity. Everyone has a degree of bias. So instead of looking for external standards. Look for internal ones. For it is the "Faith" that matters.....not us.

I would like to quote Tertullian in this regard.

"Some ask, "How did it come to pass that this woman or that man, who were the most faithful, the most prudent, and the most approved in the church, have gone over to the other side?.....however, what if a bishop, a deacon, a widow, a virgin, a teacher, or even a martyr has fallen from the rule? Will heresies on that account appear to posses the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith?" Tertullian 197 A.D.

What Tertullian said humbles me, not just because it's true. But because he was in need of his own advice some years down the road. But what he said is true. It is the Faith that judges us! We don't judge it. So like wise.....there is no such thing as an outside "objective" standard. Everyone is bias......therefor the standards dwell within the Church.....the standard comes from inside....not outside the Church.

Quote
quote from page 26
"By what standard is
someone called a Father?"
[16]

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides.

Quote
quote from page 26
"What if a supposed
"Father" was later condemned as a heretic for false teachings?"
[17]

He might have Origen in mind, but unlike Rome, we don't call Origen a church father.




Quote
quote from page 26
"Can someone be called a "father" and then later have that title removed"?
[18]


At this time, I can't recall anyone that was called a father only to have that removed, but then again, he may have in mind the Roman Catholic system of how they understand "who is a father".

Quote
quote from page 27
"What if a "father"
believed and taught erroneous doctrines and silly superstitions?"
[19]

This is subjective, for what maybe "erroneous doctrine and silly superstition" to one Protestant will be sound doctrine and mysterious to another protestant.

Quote
"quote from page 27
Are we to accept
everything a "Father" taught as true or do we pick and choose from his writings
what we want at this time?"
[20]

We don't have infallible Fathers.
He said he studied Orthodoxy for 5 years. He should know the difference between the "mind of the Church" vs "personal opinion".

Quote
quote from page 27
"If the supposed
writings of a "Father" are later found to be spurious, i.e. they were not
written by him or there are statements inserted into the text that he never
wrote, are the doctrines and rituals founded in those writings likewise
spurious?"
[21]

It all depends on what you mean by "later found to be spurious". Do you mean by liberal Higher critics? If so then you must include the Bible books you accept for they feel that alot of passages were spurious, so does this mean that the doctrines and writings of the books of the Bible(that you embrace) are spurious? One should read this post of a quote by Mr. Michuta in this regard. "Wise statements by "Gary Michuta""

Ultimately, what Morey said is subjective. The Church says Matthew wrote the book of Mathew, is the book of Mathew spurious? What about the book of Hebrews? This line of cynical thinking will only backfire on Mr. Morey. It is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that decides what work to use, and this is done whether the author is known or not. We embrace the Didache, but we reject the Gospel of Thomas, we embrace the shepard of hermes, but we reject the Gospel of Barnabas. It takes the charisma of discernment, which is something the Church has.

"We should select and possess what is useful out of all cultures." Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

Quote
quote from page 27
"To this day, these
questions go unanswered. I did not find a single Orthodox priest or scholar who
would take the time to answer these questions"
[22]

Maybe it's because they knew what Clement of Alexandria knew when he said:

"Their preconcieved ideas inclined them to disbelieve" Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

and Saint Justin Martyr

"Sound doctrine does not enter into a hard and disobedient heart" Justin Martyr 160 A.D.



A review of Robert Morey's book: part 2-b







JNORM888

[1],[2],[4],[5],[7],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] from the book "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian" by Robert A. Morey, Copyright 2007, published by christian scholars press


[3] pages 171-172, from the book "Introducing the Orthodox Church" by Anthony M. Coniaris, foreward by Stanley S. Harakas. Light and Life Publishing 1982


[6] 110-113, [8] pages 104-108, from the book "Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A western perspective" by Daniel B. Clendenin. Baker Academic 1994, 2003

Sidenote: These are my own personal opinions and not necessarily those of the Church.


Robert Morey wrote a book about something he knows very little about.

In Chapter one of "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?",

He says on Page 15 that Eastern Orthodoxy started out well. He speculates from what happened in Acts chapter 2:10 that many Jewish converts went back to their homelands and converted other Jews into the Christian Faith. He then fantasizes about how glorious and wonderful the Church and it’s pastors were. However, he has no documentation for this. He just declares it and expects us to take his word for it.

He goes on to talk about how hostile the early Egyptian Church was to Pagan philosophy.
He quotes Dr. Frend, the professor of Church history at the University of Glasgow to support his argument that the early Egyptian Church was against pagan philosophy. However, neither the New Testament nor the Apostolic Fathers that he quotes say anything about Christianity in Egypt. And the context of the "heretics" in his quote of Frend is most likely in reference to Valentinus, Basilides , The Heretic Cerinthus, Simon Magus, and maybe Marcion....and all of their followers.

The evidence we do have about Jews in Egypt is that some of them did make use of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo was such an Egyptian Jew. Also Morey is either ignoring or just doesn’t know the stronghold that Hellenism had on "Egyptian Jews". Not to mention Palestian Jews.

As seen from the Jewish Encyclopedia

Quote:
"At Alexandria.

It was, however, in Alexandria that Jewish Hellenism reached its greatest development. Here, freed from the national bonds which held it firmlyto tradition in Palestine, Hellenistic Judaism became more Hellenistic than Jewish (see Alexandria). It is not true to say with Güdemann ("Monatsschrift," xlvii. 248) that Hellenism had no appreciable influence upon the development of Judaism; its influence was appreciable for many centuries; but it was driven out of the Jewish camp by the national sentiment aroused in the Maccabean and Bar Kokba revolts, and in forming the bridge between Judaism and Christianity it lost whatever permanent influence it might have possessed. Since that time, even in Egypt, the classical home of Hellenism, rabbinical Jewish communities have flourished that have borne no perceptible trace of the movement which made Alexandria great."



Also there is some evidence that even Palestinian Jews were influenced by Hellenistic culture. As Seen here, here, and here.

Also the Jewish Encyclopedia says:

Quote:
"It was especially in eastern Palestine that Hellenism took a firm hold, and the cities of the Decapolis (which seems also to have included Damascus) were the centers of Greek influence. This influence extended in later times over the whole of the district east of the Jordan and of the Sea of Gennesaret, especially inTrachonitis, Batanæa, and Auranitis. The cities in western Palestine were not excepted. Samaria and Panias were at an early time settled by Macedonian colonists. The names of places were Hellenized: "Rabbath-Ammon" to "Philadelphia"; "Armoab" to "Ariopolis"; "Akko" to "Ptolemais." The same occurred with personal names: "Ḥoni" became "Menelaus"; "Joshua" became "Jason" or "Jesus." The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people."


So according to the evidence we have, it seems as if the Jews in Egypt were already Hellenized way before the first advent of Christ. We also know that the Jews in Palestine were not immune to the spread of Hellenism.

The name "Nicodemus" is a greek name.

NKJV
John 19:39
"He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds."

Alot of the cities in Palestine had greek names.


He talks about how 1st Clement never quoted any Stoic writer to supprt his convictions about the Stability of the Universe, but clement wasn’t in Egypt. He was in the West. And just because someone makes use of Pagan philosophy, that doesn’t mean they agree with everything the philosopher said. A prime example of this is Saint Paul in Acts Chapter 17 when he quotes Aratus.

NKJV
Acts 17:28
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

He mentions Polycarp who was the Bishop of Smynia not Egypt, and his pupil Irenaeus moved to Gaul(modern day France). Non of this tells us about early Egyptian Christianity.

On page 16 Morey continues with the idea that the Egyptian Jewish Church eventually attracted gentile converts. Eventhough he is talking about early Eastern Orthodoxy he makes it seem as if the "churches" were like some sort of Reformed Baptist congregational Church with the repetitive use of words like “the pastor” or “the Jewish pastors”. You didn't have "congregationalism in the mid second century". He mentions how the Jewish pastors were thrilled to have gentile converts. I wonder where Morey got this from? Did he invent this from thin air? How does he know they were happy at first?

Whatever the case, this is where his conspiracy theory begins. He develops the plot of gentiles taking over the leadership of the Church and kicking Jewish Christians out. He says the Gentile Egyptian Church persecuted the Jewish wing as a sect. I really don't see how that can be if the Jews in Egypt were Hellenistic.

He quotes Dr. Frend again to prove this point. However, the quote he gives is ambiguous. Frend mentions how in the 2nd century there were many Christians who were nonconformist Jews. In this quote he shows the enmity between Orthodox(nonbelieving) Jews and christian Jews. He mentions the essenes, but it is unclear what he is trying to say. The quote ends with the mention of an active Jewish Christianity by the year 190 A.D. that has been reduced to a sect.

Is he talking about the second Jewish rebellion? We all know they were nonconformist, but we also know that they were anti-christian as well. I don't think Morey wants to align himself with Bar Kokhba,


But From my recollection, the Ebionites were the Jewish community that were called a sect by Early Chistians. And I doubt if Morey wants to be associated with them. One can learn more about the Ebionites here and Here.

Also, around this time, Christians were bizzy converting Jews to Christianity, yet Morey says we were kicking Jews out. According to Eusebius the Third Bishop of Jerusalem, who was Jewish by the way, became a christian and helped others of the circumcision sect come back to the Faith.
as seen here "Justus, the third bishop of Jerusalem".



It would seem more likely that Hellenistic Jewish Christianity merged with it’s Hellenistic gentile counterpart. Jewish believers and Gentile believers eventually intermarried. If one looks at how Orthodox(nonbelieving) Jews worship in the synagogue with how Orthodox Christians worship in the churches. Then one will see a strong continuity of thought, ritual, and custom. Morey tries to use Dr. Frend to support his theory of the fall of Jewish Christianity in Egypt, but from the look of his quotes I doubt if Frend was talking about Egypt at all.

Any student of Church history will know that most sects and heretical groups lived side by side with the Orthodox Church. And Sometimes they were both killed and persecuted by the Pagan Roman State. During and slightly after Constantine, people were put in exile, but most of the persecution happened during and after Emperor Julian the Apostate's reign. So most heretical groups were persecuted after 360 A.D., and for the most part it wasn’t done by the Church. It was done mainly by the State.

On page 17 he asserts that the political rule of the Church was total. That’s not accurate.
He exaggerates the political arm of the state over the Church. It was the Church that eventually made the state close down the gladiatorial games. It was the laity of the Church that eventually made the state stop destroying Icons. There were times of peace as well as times of friction between the Church And State.


On page 18, Morey pretends to play God by judging the hearts and minds of early christian Egyptian clergy.

Later on the page he says:

Quote:
"With the assistance of the politicians, they took over
the Orthodox Church and their pagan doctrines, rituals, attire, icons, and art
became the "holy traditions" of Eastern Christianity.
Under the leadership of the emperor and his pagan
priests, Eastern Christianity adopted the core beliefs and rituals of the
paganism around them. This made it even more popular.

The "Babylonian Captivity" of Eastern Christianity took
place between A.D. 130 and A.D. 200. It climaxed with the rise of the "Christian
Apologists." Frend comments," [1]

This dude keeps jumping around. On page 17 he starts out talking about the mid second century only to jump to the 4th and 5th centuries at the end of page 17, only to jump back again to the mid second century on page 18.

What Emperor in the mid second century claimed to be a christian? What Emperor in the mid 3rd century claimed to be a christian?

Who were the clergy in 2nd century Egypt that took over the Orthodox Church with the assistance of politicians? Morey is worst than Dan Brown & Jack chick with his conspiracy theories.


Also on pages 18 through 21 he totally ignores the fact that Egyptian Jews were Hellenistic. This one fact alone collapses everything he said. It makes the whole book pointless. He seemed too bizzy painting a work of fiction to even notice.

Also Morey seems ignorant of the Icons in the Holy of Holies, in the once Jewish temple. He also seems ignorant of the fact that the Priest’s garment had pictures of pomegranates. And on top of that, we don't worship icons, we venerate them. There is a difference between the two.


Now lets look at what really happened in Egypt.

According to Eusebius:

Quote:
"Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the inhabitants of Egypt.

(1) The same Mark, they also say, being the first sent
to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he written and first established
churches at the city of Alexandria. (2) So great a multitude of believers, both
of men and women, were collected there at the very outset, that in consequence
of their extreme philosophical discipline and austerity, Philo considered their
pursuits, their assemblies, and entertainment, and in short their whole manner
of life, as deserving a place in his descriptions." [2]

To learn more about Saint Mark, go here: "Saint Mark"

It was the Apostle Mark that was the first sent to Egypt to proclaim the Gospel there. Also, according to Eusebius, "Annianus was appointed the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark.

Quote:
"(1) Nero was now in the eighth year of his reign when
Annianus suceeded the apostle and evangelist Mark in the administration of the
church of Alexandria. He was a man distinguished for his piety and admirable in
every respect." [3]

After Annianus was Avilius

Quote:
"(1) In the fourth year of Domitian Annianus, who was
the first bishop of Alexandria, died after having filled the office twenty
years. He was succeeded by Avilius, who was the second bishop of that
city." [4]

Credon was the third bishop of Alexandria

Quote:
"(1) After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year,
he was succeeded by Trajan. It was in the first year of his reign that Cerdon
succeeded Avilius in the church of Alexandria, after the latter had governed it
thirteen years. He was the third who held the episcopate there since Annianus.
During this time, Clement was yet bishop of the Romans, who was also the third
who held the Episcopate there after Paul and Peter, Linus being the first and
Anencletus next in order." [5]

Next in line was Primus

Quote:
"(1) About the Twelfth year of the reign of Trajon, the
bishop of the church of Alexandria, who was mentioned by us a little before,
departed this life. Primus was the fourth from the apostles to whom the
functions of the office were there allotted. At the same time, after Euarestus
had completed the eighth year as bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the
episcopal office by Alexander, the fifth in succession from Peter and
Paul." [6]

After Primus was Justus

Quote:
"(1) In the third year of the same reign, Alexandria,
bishop of Rome, died , having completed the tenth year of his ministrations.
Xystus was his successor; and about the same time Primus, dying in the twelfth
year of the episcopate, was succeeded by Justus." [7]

We are mainly talking about all the Egyptian Christians from the reign's of the Emperor TIBERIUS (about 33 A.D.) to the Emperor Severus (about 211 A.D.)

Morey thinks the Egyptian Christian "Babylonian Captivity" happened around this time. Christians were still being persecuted in this era. Most of what he says in this chapter is pure nonsense. He ignores the real historical evidence in favor of his mythical reconstruction.


A review of Robert Morey's book: part 2-a

and

A review of Robert Morey's book: part 2-b




JNORM888

[1] page 18, by Robert Morey, in the book "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian" christian scholars press 2007

[2] page 50, [3] page 62, [4] page 82, [5] page 85, [6] 109, [7] page 110 by Eusebius in the book "Ecclesiastical History" translated by C.F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers 1998