Response to Protestant Heresies

[AGG]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/thema_response.htm

Orthodox Christian Information Center

MILES FROM THE TRUTH
A Response to "Thema: Eastern Heterodoxy"

By Father Deacon John Whiteford and Patrick Barnes

"A thousand words from the pen, in a stream; but ten thousand miles
away from the theme." óa Chinese saying

Introduction

In the past decade there has been an ever increasing level of interest
in Orthodoxy in this country. Along with this interest has come a
tremendous increase in the number of converts from Protestantism to
Orthodoxy. Thus, it was inevitable that Protestant apologists would
begin to train their intellectual artillery on Orthodoxy. In the
Protestant Reformed journal Credenda/Agenda, we find one of the first
attempts to repudiate the claims and teachings of the Orthodox Church
in a way that does not merely rehash anti-Roman polemics (though the
author does not fully escape this temptation, as we shall see).

In the lead article of the issue under consideration, Douglas Jones
attempts to lay out the battle plans for subsequent articles. He
briefly levels six specific charges against the Orthodox Faith in
order to support his basic thesis that it is apostate. We have chosen
to list these in the order in which we will address them, not as he
presented them: 1) our theology is Platonistic, and thus pagan; 2) the
doctrine of Theosis relegates the Cross of Christ to a "quaint
sideshow"; 3) Orthodoxy teaches salvation by works, substituting human
effort for Christ's effort; 4) we have subjugated God's revelation
(Holy Scripture) to human tradition; 5) we place an undue emphasis on
ecclesiastical power and tradition which has turned the Church into a
magisterial authority dominated by "ecclesiastics"; 6) our worship is
arrogant and pagan.

One may wonder why it has taken so long for an Orthodox response to
this Credenda issue to appear. Even though some Protestants have found
the articles persuasive, many Orthodox have argued that these articles
should not even be dignified with a response. Jones' remarks in
particular lack balance and objectivity. The Church that has produced
tens of millions of martyrs for Christ in this century alone is to him
merely a "synagogue of Satan." Common sense, decency, and even a
cursory reading of Orthodox materialsólet alone interaction with
Orthodox Christiansówould easily lead an objective person to the
conclusion that the Credenda staff's depiction of the Orthodox Church
is way off. Nevertheless, we have decided to respond to these
articles because many sincere Protestants who are unfamiliar with
Orthodoxy have unwittingly accepted them at face value. We felt that
a thorough reply was necessary for the sake of those Evangelicals who
want to learn the truth about the Orthodox Church.

What will become more clear as one reads the rest of the issue in
question is that the authors' fundamental misunderstanding of
Orthodoxy stems from a penchant for analyzing everything through the
prism of a Reformed Protestant worldview. This worldview is decidedly
different from that of the Orthodox, and likewise that of Christian
antiquity. Their mistakes are also the result of an over-dependence
upon modern Orthodox writers (who frequently do not properly
articulate the Patristic consensus), as well as a complete neglect of
the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. The latter is an
especially serious error; for our theology is often set forth in these
texts in ways that other written forms of Holy Tradition do not. To
overlook them is to invite error and misrepresentation, both of which
are rife in these essays. In the end, Jones and company portray an
Orthodoxy which no one (Orthodox or otherwise) with even a moderate
grasp of Orthodox belief could recognize.

Though we wanted to give a thorough introductory response to Jones'
many accusations, each of them will be dealt with more thoroughly in
the other essays in this Internet rebuttal.

I. Platonistic Theology

Jones lobs his first charge:

A Paganized Deity. The Colossian church struggled in the midst of a
culture enslaved to mystical and ascetic Greek philosophy with its
degrees of divine being. To them Paul declared, "Beware lest anyone
cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the
tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and
not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). Eastern Orthodoxy loudly
repudiates Plato only to embrace Plotinus, whose Neo-Platonic system
has been openly cultivated into every aspect of Eastern Orthodox
theology, from God's degrees of being to human deification. Such
paganism flies in the face of the first commandment.

This is a hackneyed charge that is frequently brought against
Orthodoxy by Protestants. It is entirely without ground and indicates
a superficial understanding of our Faith and its interaction with
Hellenism. Twenty years ago this would have been excusable, for the
number of works in English on this subject were very few. However, in
our day, and especially for one who is well-educated, these
accusations are rather astounding.

In arguably the most important book on the subject of Christianity's
interaction with Hellenism, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos makes the
following extended remarks apropos of our discussion:

The presence of Platonic notions and terms is so noticeable in the
writings of Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of St. Basil, that he has been
called by some a "Christian Platonist." Two later Church FathersóJohn
Damascene, who flourished during the first half of the eighth century,
and Photios the Great, who lived in the next centuryóhave been
characterized by some as "Christian Aristotelians." This has been
occasioned by the fact that both wrote substantial chapters on the
Categories and the Predicables of Aristotle. But a careful reading of
the whole body of their works shows that they made much greater use of
Plato's writings than of Aristotle's, particularly in their
discussions of God and the human soul. With regard to Photios, it is
very significant that in his Lexicon of ancient Greek words, entitled
Lexeon Synagoge, there are far more references to Plato than to
Aristotle. In listing words used by Plato, Photios often names the
Platonic works in which they appear. He mentions altogether fifteen
dialogues.

Moreover, in one place he speaks of Plato as "great" (ho megas
Platon), but he nowhere uses this highly honorific word for Aristotle.
On the basis of such internal evidence, there would seem to be a
justification for calling Damascene and Photios "Platonists," rather
than "Aristotelians." Actually, the use of either of these terms for
them is inappropriate, a serious error, as it is when applied to
Justin Martyr, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, or any other of the
Greek Church Fathers. For the foundation of their thought is neither
Platonism nor Aristotelianism, nor some other secular system of
thought, but is Christian revelation. This very important fact is
noted frequently by the Greek Fathers from the earliest to the latest.
Thus the fourteenth century Father Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of
Thessaloniki, says: "Whence did we learn about God, whence about the
universe, whence about ourselves something certain and free of error?
Is it not from the teaching of the Spirit?"

The adoption of certain notions and terms from Plato, Aristotle, and
other pagan writers does not make the Greek Church Fathers adherents
of such writers. They would have had no objection to being called
simply "philosophers." For they call Christianity "philosophy," "the
divine philosophy," and characterize serious reflection on some
problem or topic, such as those they engaged in, "philosophizing." But
none of them called himself or any other of their learned Christian
predecessors a "Platonist," an "Aristotelian," a "Christian
Platonist," or a "Christian Aristotelian." Such characterizations were
for them unthinkable. They were unthinkable because they would have
been untrue, for the foundation of their thought was, as we have
noted, neither Platonic nor Aristotelian, but Christian. Although they
did use many elements from Plato and Aristotle, they chose those
elements that did not contradict revealed teaching, but were in
harmony with it and helped express or illustrate its content. In other
words, their use of pagan philosophy was not a wholesale, slavish one.
it was a very selective or "eclectic" use, which left them quite free
to criticize the errors of secular philosophy. Material for this
eclecticism was provided for them not only by the writings of Plato
and Aristotle, but also by those of the Stoics and other Greek
philosophers and, further, by ancient Greek poets, historians, and
orators. The following remark by St. Basil is very illuminating in
this connection: "Since it is through virtue that we must enter upon
this life of ours, and since much has been uttered in praise of virtue
by poets, much by historians, and much more still by philosophers, we
ought especially to apply ourselves to such literature."

The guiding principle for this eclecticism was put forth by Basil and
used by the other Christian philosopher-theologians or Church Fathers
of the East. Basil advised: Take from heathen books whatever befits
the Christian and is allied to the truth, and pass over the rest. The
model to be used is the bee. "Altogether after the manner bees," says
Basil, "must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the
flowers without discrimination nor indeed do they carry away entire
those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is
adapted to their needs, they let the rest go." . . .

One reason why the Greek Fathers selected and adapted such elements
was because they found them very helpful for formulating in clear and
precise form the content of the Christian faith. Another reason was
the fact that the use of philosophical terms and concepts would
attract to the faith the more educated among the pagansóthose who had
received instruction in philosophy. For these reasons, too, they chose
as their language not the common Greek, the koine, but Attic Greek,
using as their models particularly such great masters of Attic prose
as Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Thucydides. From Plato, they
took many philosophical elements, modified them to a greater or lesser
extent, and assimilated them organically in the Christian teaching."
[1]

The author then proceeds to show clearly, and from primary sources,
how the Greek Fathers emulated the bee in their expressions of
Christian truth. Dr. Cavarnos is an Orthodox Christian and scholar of
international repute. He received his B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. from
Harvard University. He has authored over forty books in the fields of
philosophy, Orthodox theology, and Byzantine and modern Greek art and
thought. He is exceptionally well read in the Fathers. In short, he is
an eminently more trustworthy authority on these matters.
Additionally, his findings are corroborated by a number of other
eminent scholars, including Jaroslav Pelikanóa recent convert to
Orthodoxy from Lutheranism who has authored, among many other fine
works, a five volume history of the development of Christian doctrine
[2]óand Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna [3], another widely published
scholar of Patristic literature and Orthodox theology. His Eminence
makes the following forceful remarks in the opening paragraphs of his
article:

The relationship between Hellenistic thought and the theology of the
Greek Fathers is one which is frequently misunderstood by Western
theologians, not only because they look rather superficially at
classical Greek philosophy itself, but also because they often
overlook the clear process of development, during the first few
centuries of Christianity, that led to a remarkable unity of thought
in the Greek Patristic understanding of the cosmos and man. Thus it is
that various theologians and Church historians hold forth with pompous
and sweeping, if naive and sometimes unctuous, pronouncements against
the "Platonic" or "Aristotelian" foundations of this or that Eastern
Patristic notion. Indeed, even many an ingenuous scholar has eulogized
the Greek Fathers with tales of their woeful fall to the traps of
Hellenistic paganism.

One cannot deny, of course, the existence of certain affinities
between the corpus of Patristic writings, both Eastern and Western,
and Hellenism. Nor would we wish to disclaim certain general
intuitions, as it were, held in common in these respective systems of
thought. But the Greek Fathers, in "borrowing" language, images, and
ideas from the Greek philosophers, maintained, in this process, views
that are wholly at odds with the cosmology and anthropology of the
Greek ancients. One might even say that their debt to Hellenistic
thought is not so much that of a student to his mentor as that of a
sculptor to his stone. The Greek Fathers built with the basic
materials of Greek philosophy, but what they produced was different in
form and in intent from that philosophy. The very vision of what it
was they were to form from the stone of the Greek ancients, in fact,
flowed from a view of man and the universe that the Greek classical
philosophers would have considered "revolutionary.

Interestingly, as Carmen Fragapane points out in his article in this
Internet response, the Church Father who rightly can be closely
associated with a misuse of neo-Platonism is St. Augustineóthe
watershed Father for Western Christendom. His doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, as espoused mainly in De Trinitate, is thoroughly imbued with
neo-Platonic thought and has profoundly influenced Roman Catholicism
and Protestantism. The resultant failure of Western theology to
embrace the Patristic consensus concerning the dogma of the Holy
Trinity is well known. As Christian truth is properly derived from an
understanding of the Holy Trinity, the effects of Western Trinitarian
dogmaóespecially the filioqueócan be seen in many theological
tributaries downstream of these tainted headwaters. Quite ironically,
the charge of neo-Platonism could be brought against the West, not the
East!

Jones also appears to be unaware that skeptics make the very same
charges as he with regard to the New Testament itself! His failure to
deal with this point significantly weakens the force of his
assertions. The New Testament was written in Greek and the majority of
the early Church Fathers wrote in Greek. As Dr. Cavarnos pointed out
above, the use of various Hellenic philosophical terms was deemed
necessary for the defense and propagation of the Faith. Certainly
Jones must know that even St. Paul himself quoted approvingly from the
Greek poets such as Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), Aratos (Acts 17:28), and
Epimenides (Titus 1:12). [4] Furthermore, the use of Platonistic
expressions throughout the New Testament, and particularly in the book
Hebrews, is a well known and indisputable phenomenon which one will
find discussed in great detail in any Protestant Biblical commentary
of any worth.

Finally, Jones also fails to address a related problem which his
polemic raises. Since he adamantly affirms the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity, including St. Athanasius' explanation of the Holy Trinity and
the Incarnation; and since he also claims allegiance to the
Chalcedonian Christologyóall of which involves the use of Hellenistic
philosophical terms that were brought into use by the Churchó, how can
he lambast Orthodox theology as being "neo-Platonic" and "Hellenistic"
while not also indicting his own tradition?! His "guilt by
association" attempt fails on all accounts in a rather embarrassing
way.

II. Salvation, the Cross, and Theosis

Jones spends a great deal of time attempting to attack the Orthodox
doctrine of Theosis, which he views as a par excellence example of the
influence of neo-Platonism upon Orthodoxy.

In response, we note that the phrase "God became a man, so that men
might become as gods" (i.e., "divine") was used by no less than St.
Athanasius himselfóa Church Father who Protestants generally hold up
as a pillar of the Faith. Jones tosses this phrase into the arena, but
he fails to adequately explain what Orthodox mean by it. The reader
gets the distinct impression that he is employing these phrases and
terms only with a view towards shocking the sensibilities of the
reader.

Nevertheless, theosis language can be found throughout the writings of
the Holy Fathers. The doctrine of theosisóthat man can become God by
grace, though not by natureóis without any doubt one that can be
readily discerned in even a cursory examination of the Patristic
corpus. The Church has always taught that man, by participating in the
divinizing Energies of God, can become like Him.

The doctrine of theosis flows from the Patristic understanding of
salvation, as centered upon our organic union with Christ through the
Mystery of Baptismó"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and
of his bones" (Eph. 5:30). This union literally infuses us with the
Life of the God-Man. As St. Athanasius put it,

It was not things non-existent that needed salvation, for which a bare
creative word might have sufficed, but manóman already in existence
and already in process of corruption and ruin. It was natural and
right, therefore, for the Word to use a human instrument and by that
means unfold Himself to all.

You must know, moreover, that the corruption which had set in was not
external to the body but established within it. The need, therefore,
was that life should cleave to it in corruption's place, so that, just
as death was brought into being in the body, life also might be
engendered in it. If death had been exterior to the body, life might
fittingly have been the same. But if death was within the body, woven
into its very substance and dominating it as though completely one
with it, the need was for Life to be woven into it instead, so that
the body by thus enduing itself with life might cast corruption off.
Suppose the Word had come outside the body instead of in it, He would,
of course, have defeated death, because death is powerless against the
Life. But the corruption inherent in the body would have remained in
it none the less. Naturally, therefore, the Saviour assumed a body for
Himself, in order that the body, being interwoven as it were with
life, should no longer remain a mortal thing, in thrall to death, but
as endued with immortality and risen from death, should thenceforth
remain immortal. For once having put on corruption, it could not rise,
unless it put on life instead; and besides this, death of its very
nature could not appear otherwise than in a body. Therefore He put on
a body, so that in the body He might find death and blot it out. And,
indeed, how could the Lord have been proved to be the Life at all, had
He not endued with life that which was subject to death? Take an
illustration. Stubble is a substance naturally destructible by fire;
and it still remains stubble, fearing the menace of fire which has the
natural property of consuming it, even if fire is kept away from it,
so that it is not actually burnt. But suppose that, instead of merely
keeping the fire from it somebody soaks the stubble with a quantity of
asbestos, the substance which is said to be the antidote to fire. Then
the stubble no longer fears the fire, because it has put on that which
fire cannot touch, and therefore it is safe. It is just the same with
regard to the body and death. Had death been kept from it by a mere
command, it would still have remained mortal and corruptible,
according to its nature. To prevent this, it put on the incorporeal
Word of God, and therefore fears neither death nor corruption any
more, for it is clad with Life as with a garment and in it corruption
is clean done away. [5]

In this vein, we read in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem the following:

But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of
the Eucharist. after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread
no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no
more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it
is Christ's gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is
made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically
applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is
anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy
and life-giving Spirit....
Moreover, you should know that in the old Scripture there lies the
symbol of this Chrism. For what time Moses imparted to his brother the
command of God, and made him High-priest, after bathing in water, he
anointed him; and Aaron was called Christ or Anointed, evidently from
the typical Chrism. So also the High-priest, in advancing Solomon to
the kingdom, anointed him after he had bathed in Gihon. To them
however these things happened in a figure, but to you not in a figure,
but in truth; because ye were truly anointed by the Holy Ghost. Christ
is the beginning of your salvation; for He is truly the First-fruit,
and ye the mass; but if the First-fruit be holy, it is manifest that
Its holiness will pass to the mass also. [6]

In other words, contrary to the Reformers, we truly are made godly by
means of our union with Christ.

It is somewhat surprising that Calvinists would disagree with any of
this, especially given St. Peter's statement that we "might be
partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4). However, given
Luther's teaching that a person cannot be made righteous but only
legally declared by God to be so (recall the imagery for a Christian
that he usedóa dunghill merely covered in snow); and given Calvin's
similar views, especially as laid out in Book III, Ch. 11 of his
Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is understandable that many
(thought not all) Protestants would take exception to an organic
(instead of only a forensic) understanding of salvation and the
concomitant doctrine of theosis. [7]

It is a shame that, despite the clear witness of the Holy Fathers,
Jones is unable to see Orthodox teaching as anything more than
neo-Platonic and pagan. Frankly, we would rather take the word of the
two great Saints cited aboveótwo examples of many which can be found
in the writings of the Fathersóover Luther, Calvin, or Jones.

The author then attempts to impugn Orthodoxy's understanding of the
significance of the Cross:

Salvation without the Cross. Since deification is grounded in the
incarnation rather than the atonement, Christ's cross becomes, in
principle, non-essential, a quaint sideshow in deification.
Discussions of substitutionary atonement and propitiation are
virtually absent from their published explanations of salvation. Such
concerns cannot fit comfortably into their Neo-Platonic scheme.
Deification needs only incarnation and a faucet of grace, but
apostolic faith is essentially driven by the sacrificed Messiah whose
perfect righteousness is decisively imputed to His people. Biblical
salvation is deeply Hebraic, not Hellenistic.

Jones obviously is under the mistaken impression that the Church
understands the Incarnation to be a reference only to the birth of
Christ. In fact, it is properly understood as a reference to the
entire first advent of Christ from his Navitity to His Ascension.
This is reflected in a widely available catechism by Metropolitan
Philaret of Moscow, a document which Jones almost certainly owns since
it is contained in the three-volume Creeds of Christendom by Philip
Schaff. In this catechism we read:

Q: You said that the Son of God was incarnate for our salvation: in
what way did he effect it?

A: By his doctrine, his life, his death, and resurrection. [8]

Reformed Protestants often view the veneration of Saints and their
relics, praying to Saints, or even the free will of man, as somehow
robbing God of the glory that is due solely to himóa violation of soli
deo Gloria. That this flows from a mindset under the sway of late
medieval scholastic nominalism has been aptly demonstrated by Louis
Bouyer in his The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. We will not
elaborate further on this point. However, this same mindset is evident
in Jones' accusation that the Cross becomes a "quaint sideshow." Jones
apparently thinks that because we emphasize other aspects of Christ's
saving economy that the Cross becomes a "non essential." In keeping
with our analogy, by venerating the other saving acts of Christ we are
accused of robbing the significance of the Cross from the doctrine of
salvation. This is patently false. Not only is the premise flawed, but
his conclusion cannot stand under the weight of evidence from Orthodox
dogmatic texts and hymnography.

First, let us examine the apparent premise: that an emphasis on the
Incarnation, the Baptism of Christ, the Resurrection, etc., along with
the Crucifixion, takes away from the significance and centrality of
Christ's Death. As Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Holy
Fathers attest, Christ's work of redemption involved far more than his
Death on the Cross. The Orthodox understanding of Christ's ministry on
our behalf is beautifully reflected in this prayer of St. Symeon
Metaphrastes. It is used by countless thousands of Orthodox Christians
all over the world in their preparation to receive Holy Communion:

O only pure and sinless Lord, Who through the ineffable compassion of
Thy love for mankind didst take on all of our substance from the pure
and virgin blood of her that bare Thee supernaturally through the
descent of the Divine Spirit and the good will of the everlasting
Father; O Christ Jesus, Wisdom of God, and Peace, and Power, Thou Who
through the assumption of our nature didst take upon Thyself Thy
life-giving and saving Passionóthe Cross, the nails, the spear, and
death: mortify the soul-corrupting passions of my body. Thou Who by
Thy burial didst lead captive the kingdom of hades, bury with good
thoughts mine evil schemes, and destroy the spirits of evil. Thou Who
by Thy life-bearing Resurrection on the third day didst raise up our
fallen forefather, raise me up who have slipped down into sin, setting
before me the ways of repentance. Thou Who by Thy most glorious
Ascension didst deify the flesh that Thou hadst taken, and didst
honour it with a seat at the right hand of the Father, vouchsafe me
through partaking of Thy holy Mysteries to obtain a place at Thy right
hand among them that are saved. O Thou Who by the descent of Thy
Spirit, the Comforter, didst make Thy holy disciples worthy vessels,
show me also to be a receptacle of His coming. [9]

Notice that almost the entire scope of his ministry is spoken of, not
just the Cross. This is in perfect step with what the Church has
always taught from the very beginning. One need only read On the
Incarnation of the Word of God by St. Athanasius the Great to get a
view of the breadth and depth of patristic soteriology. Despite this,
Jones seeks to impugn Orthodoxy because we do not agree with his
myopic and scholastic soteriology introduced chiefly by Anselm in Cur
Deus homo and later advanced by the Protestant Reformers. Our refusal
to do so stems from the fact that the Protestant overemphasis on
substitutionary Atonement and the forensic aspects of Christ's Death
are entirely inconsistent with the consensus of the Holy Fathers.
Though the idea of substutionary Atonement is not wrong per se and can
indeed be found in Orthodox writings, the emphasis given to it by
Protestants is completely unbalanced. It is the bad fruit of their
whole rationalistic and legalistic theological construct.

Moreover, the Protestant focus actually reduces and narrows Christ's
ministry. For example, where does one find in Protestant theology any
proper understanding of the Lord's Baptism in the Jordan? Many
Protestants would acknowledge that all of creation is under the Curse
and has become the abode of demons; that not only us sinners but also
matter itself must be redeemed. Yet the relation of Christ's Baptism
to this necessary work is lost on Protestants. In Orthodoxy, however,
this event is given its proper place. The following is just one of
many texts that could be cited for the Feast of Theophany:

(Irmos) He who stilled the heat of the flame of the furnace
That mounted high in the air and encircled the godly Children,
Burnt the heads of the dragons in the stream of the Jordan:
And with the dew of the Spirit He washes away
All the stubborn obscurity of sin.

The fierce Assyrian flame that prefigured Thee
Hast Thou quenched, changing it to dew:
And now Thou hast clothed Thyself in water, O Christ, and so dost burn
up
The evil spoiler hidden in its depths,
Who calls men to follow the path that leads to destruction.

Of old the Jordan was parted in two,
And the people of Israel passed over on a narrow piece of dry land,
Prefiguring Thee, O Lord most powerful,
Who now makest haste to bear the creation down into the stream,
Bringing it to a better and a changeless path.

We know that in the beginning Thou hast brought upon the world the
all-ruining flood,
Unto the lamentable destruction of all things,
O God who revealest wonders most great and strange:
And now, O Christ, Thou hast drowned sin in the waters
Unto the comfort and salvation of mortal men. [10]

And this, from the Eighth Ode:

Let the whole earthly creation clothe itself in white,
For this day it is raised up from its fall from heaven.
The Word who preserves all things
Has cleansed it in the flowing waters:
Washed and resplendent, it has escaped from its former sins.

Thus, our human nature and all of creation was cleansed by Christ in
the Jordan. He who holds the whole world in the palm of His hand and
Who took upon Himself our corrupt nature has emerged from the waters
having restored all things to their original (natural) state. In
short, Jones' accusations should be recognized for what they are: the
misguided potshots of an outsider who cannot see spiritual things
clearly because he is seriously hampered by the Calvinist prism
through which he views all things.

But let us continue with the second premise. Jones claims that, for
Orthodoxy, the Cross is a "quaint sideshow," a "non-essential." Only
one who has the most limited knowledge of Orthodoxy could come away
with the impression that the Orthodox Church downplays the
significance of the Cross. Aside from the fact that making the sign of
the Cross is the most common act of Orthodox piety, and aside from the
constant references to the significance of the Cross in our services,
Jones needed only to look into a standard Orthodox catechism that is
universally available, and almost certainly in his own private
library:

Q: How does the death of Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin,
the curse, and death?

A: That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God
teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the
comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of
all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus
Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made
himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself
through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the
curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death
in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for
us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless,
God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the
justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of
infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to
justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have
victory over sin and death. [11]

That the Cross is an essential aspect of our theology, life, and
worship is attested by fact that on the date of September 14
(according to the Church Calendar) we celebrate one of our twelve
major annual Feasts-the Universal Exaltation of the Precious and
Life-Giving Cross. The Exapostilarion for this Feast declares:

The Cross is the guardian of the whole earth; the Cross is the beauty
of the Church. The Cross is the strength of kings; the Cross is the
support of the faithful. The Cross is the glory of angels and the
wounder of demonsÖ Today the Cross is exalted and the world is
sanctified. For Thou who art enthroned with the Father and the Holy
Spirit hast spread Thine arms upon it, and drawn the world to
knowledge of Thee, O Christ. Make worthy of divine glory those that
have put their trust in Thee.

Also, on the Third Sunday of Great Lent we celebrate the Adoration of
the Precious and Life-Giving Cross. The first verse in Ode Nine of the
Canon for Mattins reads:

Thy tomb, O Christ, has brought me life: for Thou, the Lord of life,
has come and cried to those who were dwelling in the grave: "O all who
are in bonds, be loosed: for I am come, the Ransom of the world.

Or this, sung by the Choir when the faithful are coming forward to
venerate the Cross:

Today the Master of the creation and the Lord of Glory is nailed to
the Cross and His side is pierced; and He who is the sweetness of the
Church tastes gall and vinegar. A crown of thorns is put upon Him who
covers the heaven with clouds. He is clothed in a cloak of mockery,
and He who formed man with His hands is struck by a hand of clay. He
who wraps the heaven in clouds is smitten upon His back. He accepts
spitting and scourging, reproach and buffeting; and all these things
my Deliverer and God endures for me that am condemned, that in His
compassion He may save the world from error.

These are just a few examples out of hundreds that could be brought to
bear from our services. No one who has even the least familiarity with
Orthodox worship could make the kind of accusations that our author in
question sets forth. The texts used in Orthodox worship perfectly
reflect the Patristic consensus and the fullness of the Christian
Faith. Those which speak of Christ's saving economy are very similar
in content and tone to the writings of at least one Saint who is dear
to the hearts of many ProtestantsóSt. Athanasius the Great. In his On
the Incarnation of the Word of Godówhich C.S. Lewis calls in his
Introduction to the St. Vladimir's Seminary Press edition "[a]
masterpieceÖ The whole book, indeed, is a picture of the Tree of
LifeÖ"óSt. Athanasius speaks often of the Cross. Here is a small
sample of the many passages in this classic work which show the
importance of the Cross for Orthodox Christians:

We must next consider the end of His earthly life and the nature of
His bodily death. This is, indeed, the very centre of our faith, and
everywhere you hear men speak of it; by it, too, no less than by His
other acts, Christ is revealed as God and Son of God. [12]

Fitting indeed, then, and wholly consonant was the death on the cross
for us; and we can see how reasonable it was, and why it is that the
salvation of the world could be accomplished in no other way. [13]

The Orthodox Church believes exactly as St. Athanasius the Great
taught.

For this reason, and because of our "Hebraic" belief that symbolic
actions participate in the reality of that which is signified, we
venerate the Cross of Christ and employ the sign of the Cross in every
aspect of our life and worship in the Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
quoted approvingly in the Credenda/Agenda, summarizes the importance
of the Cross in his Catechetical Lectures:

Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified [i.e., Christ].
[Let] the Cross [be] our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our
brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink;
in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down
and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still.
Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the sake of the
poor; without toil, for the sick; since also its grace is from God. It
is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of devils: for He triumphed
over them in it, having made a shew of them openly; for when they see
the Cross they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him,
who bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of
the freeness of the giftÖ. [14]

This is echoed later by St. John of Damascus, the great Byzantine
theologian, hymnographer, and dogmatic systematizer in the eighth
century:

Every action, therefore, and performance of miracles by Christ are
most great and divine and marvelous: but the most marvelous of all is
His precious Cross. For no other thing has subdued death, expiated the
sin of the first parent, despoiled Hades, bestowed the resurrection,
granted the power to us of contemning the present and even death
itself, prepared the return to our former blessedness, opened the
gates of Paradise, given our nature a seat at the right hand of God,
and made us the children and heirs of God, save the Cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ. For by the Cross s all things have been made right. So
many of us, the apostle says, as were baptized into Christ, were
baptized into His death, and as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ. Further Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God. Lo! the death of Christ, that is, the Cross, clothed us
with the enhypostatic wisdom and power of God. And the power of God is
the Word of the Cross, either because God's might, that is, the
victory over death, has been revealed to us by it, or because, just as
the four extremities of the Cross are held fast and bound together by
the bolt in the middle, so also by God's power the height and the
depth, the length and the breadth, that is, every creature visible and
invisible, is maintained. This was given to us as a sign on our
forehead, just as the circumcision was given to Israel: for by it we
believers are separated and distinguished from unbelievers. This is
the shield and weapon against, and trophy over, the devil. This is the
seal that the destroyer may not touch you, as saith the Scripture.
This is the resurrection of those lying in death, the support of the
standing, the staff of the weak, the rod of the flock, the safe
conduct of the earnest, the perfection of those that press forwards,
the salvation of soul and body, the aversion of all things evil, the
patron of all things good, the taking away of sin, the plant of
resurrection, the tree of eternal life. [15]

One might easily turn Jones's arguments against him, asking why it is
that Protestants never make the sign of the Cross over themselves? Are
they ashamed of such things? Or why are there no special services of
worship for Protestants in which the Cross is the focus? Why do
Protestants not show proper respect and veneration for the Cross, as
the Orthodox do? One could quite easily argue that it is the
Protestant Faith that has done harm to the centrality of the Cross by
rejecting the ancient and venerable Church practices concerning it,
and by putting an unbalanced emphasis on the forensic nature of the
atonement to the neglect of the other saving works in Christ's economy
towards mankind.

Aside from these readily available affirmations of the significance of
the Cross, no one who is the least bit familiar with the Orthodox
understanding of theosis would fail to see the role that the Mysteries
(Sacraments) of Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist play in
connection with deification. These Mysteries are integrally related
with the Death of Christ, a claim that can be easily proven by an
appeal to our dogmatic and liturgical texts. It is through these
Mysteries that we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ.

As St. Nicholas Cabasilas wrote in his classic work The Life in
Christ:

What could be more precious than this death [upon the Cross], what
more awesome? How great a sin had human nature committed that needed
so great a penalty to expiate it! How great was the wound that
required the power of this remedy! [16]

He who seeks to be united with Him must therefore share with Him in
His Flesh, partake of deification, and share in His death and
resurrection. So we are baptized in order that we may die that death
and rise again in that resurrection. We are chrismated in order that
we may become partakers of the royal anointing of His deification. By
feeding on the most sacred bread and drinking the most divine cup we
share in the very flesh and Blood which the Saviour assumed. In this
way we are joined to Him who for our sake was incarnate and who
deified our nature, who died and rose again [17].

St. Paul himself said of the Eucharist "For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come"
(1 Cor. 11:26). It should go without saying, but without any doubt,
the Eucharist is the most central feature of Orthodox worship, and it
is in celebrating this chief of mysteries that we emphasize exactly
what Douglas Jones accuses us of relegating to a "quaint sideshow."

III. Faith, Works, and the Doctrine of Synergy

Jones cites "one Russian ascetic" (St. Theophan the Recluse) whom he
quotes as saying "being assisted by grace, man accomplishes the work
of his salvation." The intent of this citation is obvious: Jones wants
his readers to believe that the Orthodox teach salvation by works,
contrary to the Protestant belief that we are saved by faith alone.

It is futile to rehash here the centuries of debate between
Protestants and Roman Catholics on this issue. Let it suffice to say
that for Orthodox, the debate over grace and works is something that
has never found a foothold. It is an entirely Western argument,
founded upon false concepts of grace and free will as largely espoused
by St. Augustine. While acknowledging that the Church did synodally
uphold the Blessed Hierarch's defense against Pelagianism, his views
on grace and free will that were later to fuel theological debates in
the West remained foreign to the ethos of Orthodoxy. They are not
supported by the patristic consensus.

It is interesting to note that in the entirety of Scripture, the words
"faith" and "alone" appear together in only one bookóthe Epistle of
St. James, which states: "See how a man is justified by works and not
by faith alone" [ouk ek pistews monon] (James 2:24). Though Jones
impugns the Orthodox doctrine of "Synergy", we find St. James
specifically stating it: "Do you see that faith was working together
[synergei] with his works, and by works faith was made perfect [or
completed]" (James 2:22). Of course, the Apostle Paul himself also
commands us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"
(Phil. 2:12).

The Orthodox Church teaches that we are saved only on the basis of
God's grace. However, God himself has established conditions for us to
receive this grace, namely faith and worksóthe first of which must be
repentance. These conditions do not earn our salvation, but God
nonetheless requires them of us, and this is what the Scriptures and
the Holy Fathers through every century have taught. In fact, it is
also what many Protestants teach. As St. Nicholas Cabasilas put it:

There is an element which derives from God, and another which derives
from our own zeal. The one is entirely His work, the other involves
striving on our part. However, the latter is our contribution only to
the extent that we submit to His grace and do not surrender the
treasure nor extinguish the torch when it has been lighted. By this I
mean that we contribute nothing which is either hostile to the life or
produces death. It is to this that all human good and every virtue
leads, that no one should draw the sword against himself, nor flee
from happiness, nor toss the crowns of victory from off his head. [18]

Also, the Orthodox Church certainly does not teach that the Mysteries
alone can save someone apart from faith, as Jones implies. Judas
received the Eucharist from Christ himself, and then went out to
betray himóand so his unworthy participation in the sacraments was
actually to his damnation. Consider also what St. Cyril of Jerusalem
said in his pro-catechesis:

Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not
enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened
not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his
soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him. [19]

It is interesting to note that Lutherans specifically rejected the
Calvinistic conception of the Mysteries. Instead, they affirmed that
Baptism is regenerative and that the Eucharist truly is the Body and
Blood of Christ. [20]. One wonders when we will see a Credenda issue
titled "Lutheranism: Reformation Betrayed", perhaps with a picture of
Martin Luther with his hand over his mouth on the cover. However, one
probably should not hold their breath.

Our author then lays another claim:

Glorification by Human Discipline. Eastern Orthodoxy attempts to evade
the charge of self-salvation by appealing to the foundational grace
shown in the incarnation. Rome speaks of merit, and the East speaks of
acquisition, but both substitute human effort for Christ's effort. So
both have reason to boast, but not before Christ. Climbing up the
chain of being, even when aided by grace, is Plotinus again, not New
Covenant faith.

Those with a Wesleyan background will find this charge interesting;
because what Jones says about the Orthodox view of asceticism also
impugns the Wesleyan Tradition, which has always emphasized the
significance of discipline in the Christian life.[21] So if this makes
the Orthodox apostates, it makes a large portion of Evangelicalism
apostate as well.

It seems that Jones takes particular exception to the use of the term
"acquisition" or "acquire" in relationship to the Holy Spirit. This
term is found often in the writings of the Holy Fathers, especially
those from Russia. Perhaps the most famous use of these terms stem
from St. Seraphim of Sarov's famous conversation with Nicholas
Motovilov:

"The Lord has revealed to me," said the great Elder [to Nicholas],
"that in your childhood you had a great desire to know the aim of our
Christian life, and that you continually asked many great spiritual
persons about it."

I must say here that from the age of twelve this thought had
constantly troubled me. I had, in fact, approached many clergy about
it; but their answers had not satisfied me. This was not known to the
Elder.

"But no one," continued Father Seraphim, "has given you a precise
answer. They have said to you: 'Go to Church, pray to God, do the
commandments of God, do goodóthat is the aim of the Christian life.'
Some were even indignant with you for being occupied with profane
curiosity and said to you: 'Do not seek things that are beyond you.'
But they did not speak as they should. And now poor Seraphim will
explain to you in what this aim really consists.

"Prayer, fasting, vigil and all other Christian activities, however
good they may be in themselves, do not constitute the aim of our
Christian life, although they serve as the indispensable means of
reaching this end. The true aim of our Christian life consists in the
acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God. As for fasts, and vigils, and
prayer, and almsgiving, and every good deed done for Christ's sake,
they are only means of acquiring the Holy Spirit of God. But mark, my
son, only the good deed done for Christ's sake brings us the fruits of
the Holy Spirit. All that is not done for Christ's sake, even though
it be good, brings neither reward in the future life nor the grace of
God in this. That is why our Lord Jesus Christ said: He who gathers
not with Me scatters (Luke 11:23). Not that a good deed can be called
anything but gathering, since even though it is not done for Christ's
sake, yet it is good. Scripture says: In every nation he who fears God
and works righteousness is acceptable to Him (Acts 10:35)....

"That's it, your Godliness. In acquiring this Spirit of God consists
the true aim of our Christian life, while prayer, vigil, fasting,
almsgiving and other good works done for Christ's sake are merely
means for acquiring the Spirit of God."

"What do you mean by acquiring?" I asked Father Seraphim. "Somehow I
don't understand that."

"Acquiring is the same as obtaining," he replied. "You understand, of
course, what acquiring money means? Acquiring the Spirit of God is
exactly the same. You know well enough what it means in a worldly
sense, your Godliness, to acquire. The aim in life of ordinary worldly
people is to acquire or make money, and for the nobility it is in
addition to receive honours, distinctions and other rewards for their
services to the government. The acquisition of God's Spirit is also
capital, but grace-giving and eternal, and it is obtained in very
similar ways, almost the same ways as monetary, social and temporal
capital.

"God the Word, the God-Man, our Lord Jesus Christ, compares our life
with a market, and the work of our life on earth He calls trading, and
says to us all: Trade till I come (Lk. 19:13), redeeming the time,
because the days are evil (Eph. 5:16). That is to say, make the most
of your time for getting heavenly blessings through earthly goods.
Earthly goods are good works done for Christ's sake and conferring on
us the grace of the All-Holy Spirit.

"In the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, when the foolish ones
lacked oil, it was said: 'Go and buy in the market.' But when they had
bought, the door of the bride-chamber was already shut and they could
not get in. Some say that the lack of oil in the lamps of the foolish
virgins means a lack of good deeds in their lifetime. Such an
interpretation is not quite correct. Why should they be lacking in
good deeds if they are called virgins, even though foolish ones?
Virginity is the supreme virtue, an angelic state, and it could take
the place of all other good works.

"I think that what they were lacking was the grace of the All-Holy
Spirit of God. These virgins practiced the virtues, but in their
spiritual ignorance they supposed that the Christian life consisted
merely in doing good works. By doing a good deed they thought they
were doing the work of God, but they little cared whether they
acquired thereby the grace of God's Spirit. Such ways of life based
merely on doing good without carefully testing whether they bring the
grace of the Spirit of God, are mentioned in the Patristic books:
'There is another way which is deemed good at the beginning, but it
ends at the bottom of hell.'

"Antony the Great in his letters to Monks says of such virgins: 'Many
Monks and virgins have no idea of the different kinds of will which
act in man, and they do not know that we are influenced by three
wills: the first is God's all-perfect and all-saving will: the second
is our own human will which, if not destructive, yet neither is it
saving; and the third is the devil's willówholly destructive.' And
this third will of the enemy teaches man either not to do any good
deeds, or to do them out of vanity, or to do them merely for virtue's
sake and not for Christ's sake. The second, our own will, teaches us
to do everything to flatter our passions, or else it teaches us like
the enemy to do good for the sake of good and not care for the grace
which is acquired by it. But the first, God's all-saving will,
consists in doing good solely to acquire the Holy Spirit, as an
eternal, inexhaustible treasure which cannot be rightly valued. The
acquisition of the Holy Spirit is, so to say, the oil which the
foolish virgins lacked. They were called foolish just because they had
forgotten the necessary fruit of virtue, the grace of the Holy Spirit,
without which no one is or can be saved, for: 'Every soul is quickened
by the Holy Spirit and exalted by purity and mystically illumined by
the Trinal Unity.'

"This is the oil in the lamps of the wise virgins which could burn
long and brightly, and these virgins with their burning lamps were
able to meet the Bridegroom, Who came at midnight, and could enter the
bridechamber of joy with Him. But the foolish ones, though they went
to market to buy some oil when they saw their lamps going out, were
unable to return in time, for the door was already shut. The market is
our life; the door of the bridechamber which was shut and which barred
the way to the Bridegroom is human death; the wise and foolish virgins
are Christian souls; the oil is not good deeds but the grace of the
All-Holy Spirit of God which is obtained through them and which
changes souls from one state to anotheróthat is, from corruption to
incorruption, from spiritual death to spiritual life, from darkness to
light, from the stable of our being (where the passions are tied up
like dumb animals and wild beasts) into a Temple of the Divinity, into
the shining bridechamber of eternal joy in Christ Jesus our Lord, the
Creator and Redeemer and eternal Bridegroom of our souls.

As one can see, nowhere does St. Seraphim suggest that we can
"merit"óin the medieval Papist senseóthe gift of the Holy Spirit. In
context, the terms "acquisition" and "acquiring" are used
metaphorically in a way not unlike the way our Lord spoke in parables
(the Pearl of Great Price immediately comes to mind). As with most
metaphors or analogies, they break down when pressed beyond their
original limited intent. The reader is encouraged to consider the
entire "Conversation" with great care. It is a profound work, and
captures perfectly the Orthodox understanding of the Christian life.

In this vein consider also this prayer, said every morning by Orthodox
Christians around the world:

O my plenteously-merciful and all-merciful God, Lord Jesus Christ,
through Thy great love Thou didst come down and become incarnate so
that Thou mightest save all. And again, O Saviour, save me by Thy
grace, I pray Thee. For if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this
would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty; yea, Thou who art
great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. "For he that believeth in
me," Thou hast said, O my Christ, "shall live and never see death." If
then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me,
for Thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed
to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me.
But may my faith suffice instead of all works...

But note carefully: this faith is not separated from works, for the
prayer concludes:

Vouchsafe me, O Lord, to love Thee now as fervently as I once loved
sin itself, and also to work for Thee without idleness, diligently, as
I worked before for deceptive Satan. But supremely shall I work for
Thee, my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and
ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen" [22].

In short, the Orthodox Church strongly affirms that which is clearly
taught in Holy Scripture: that we are saved by grace through faithóbut
not by faith alone (James 2:24). For those who wish to delve into this
further, Carmen Fragapane's response to Jones' "Salvation by Plotinus"
and Fr. George Florovsky's "The Ascetic Ideal in the New Testament"
thoroughly address Jones' misconceptions.

IV. Scripture and Tradition

Jones continues with another "Orthodox apostasy":

Subjugation of Scripture. Christ reserved some of his most heated
denunciations for that ecclesiastical body which subjugated God's
revelation to human tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy attempts to evade
this charge by claiming to preserve only divine tradition. But the
Pharisees made the same claim, and it in no way alleviated Christ's
condemnations. Those who attempt to suppress God's covenantal word
invite on themselves the curses of the covenant.

This is an unsubstantiated accusation. It has been answered in detail
in a monograph by Fr. Deacon John Whiteford entitled Sola Scriptura:
an Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology.
Speaking about the fact that early Christians often did not have
access to the writings of Holy Scripture, Father John writes:
So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how
to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had
only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the
Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the
passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later
generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New
Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost
entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.

This dependence upon tradition is evident in the New Testament
writings themselves. For example, Saint Paul exhorts the
Thessalonians: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral
tradition] or our epistle" (II Thessalonians 2:15).

The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word
paradosisówhich, though translated differently in some Protestant
versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking
of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this
meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is
the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of
the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to
authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second
Thessalonians 2:15).

So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the
Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the
traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of
men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to
Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember
me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as
I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (First
Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first
place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to
you" (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church
refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Traditionó"the Faith once
delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is
Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all
that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the
world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John
21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and
the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the
pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early
Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received
from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first
had only fragmentsóone local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a
Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into
collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did
these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were
notófor (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and
gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was
the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this
determination. [23]

Jones' tactic is "guilt by association." As the Pharisees were
condemned for appealing to tradition, in likewise manner should the
Orthodox be condemned. The inadequacy of this charge, if not evident
by now, will become glaringly so after our critique of his claim that
our worship is arrogant (Section VI).

Though Jones does not make this specific accusation, it is here worth
highlighting the fact that the Orthodox Church has always strongly
encouraged the reading of the Scriptures among the faithful. Anyone
familiar with the writings of the ascetic Fathers will know that great
emphasis is laid upon reading and doing the Gospels in particular. An
example is the focus that is clearly evident in The Arena, the
nineteenth century classic by St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov). Bishop
(then Archimandrite) Kallistos (Ware) made the following remarks
apropos of our rebuttal in his Introduction:

What are the chief sources upon which Ignatius relies in presenting
his picture of the Christian's path? First and foremost comes the
Bible. Ignatius quotes frequently from Scripture, and he underlines
with great clarity the part which the Gospels in particular should
play in our ascetic training. 'From his very entry into the
monastery'ósuch are the opening words of The Arenaó'a monk should
occupy himself with all possible care and attention with the reading
of the holy Gospel. He should make such a study of the Gospel that it
may always be present in his memory, and at every moral step he takes,
for every act, for every thought, he may always have ready in his
memory the teaching of the Gospel.' 'Never cease studying the Gospel
till the end of your life,' Ignatius adds a little later. 'Do not
think that you know it enough, even if you know it by heart'." Those
who imagine that the Orthodox Church pays insufficient attention to
the Bible would do well to keep these passages from The Arena in mind.
No 'Evangelical' in Victorian England showed a greater reverence for
God's Word than this nineteeth century Russian bishop. [24]

In another Russian Orthodox classic, The Way of Pilgrim, we read about
the spiritual journey of a man who travels through Russia with only a
New Testament and a copy of Philokalia. Another example among many of
the emphasis given in Orthodoxy to the reading of God's word is a
story found in the booklet Missionary Conversations with Protestant
Sectarians. [25] In it we read that a Russian priest, after defeating
a Protestant in a public debate, then proceeds to hand out free copies
of the Russian New Testament to the crowd.

The Orthodox Church has also continually made the translation of the
Scriptures into the native tongue the first priority when doing
missionary work. Moreover, one who is familiar with Orthodox worship
would know that our hymnography is almost entirely drawn from Holy
Scripture.[26] To study these texts is to be rewarded with many
profound insights into a variety of topological themes related to our
Redemption. Various circles within the Protestant Reformed tradition
have always placed emphasis on typology. It is a wonder why Jones has
not seen this.

We might also add that all Orthodox Christians hear a passage each
from the Gospels and the remainder of the New Testament (excluding the
Book of Revelation) at every Divine Liturgy. Much of the Psalter is
also chanted at this service. If one attends other Orthodox services a
similar emphasis is found. One could truthfully say that the Bible is
read and heard more in Orthodox worship than in any form of Protestant
worship!

V. The Church and Authority

Jones' remarks concerning Orthodox ecclesiology were worded in such a
way that it was difficult to determine what he was trying to say. He
also made no attempt to substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, we have
deduced several ecclesiological questions that are worth addressing.

First, Jones begins his essay with a fairly accurate presentation of
some tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology, though, for example, he
erroneously states:

Rejecting the infallibility of Church councils and the Roman Pontiff,
Eastern Orthodoxy holds that the "decisions of an Ecumenical
[worldwide] Council, formulated by the bishops under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit and accepted by the clergy and laity, constitute the
highest authority of the Orthodox Church."

While it is certainly true that the Orthodox Church rejects the
infallibility of the Pope; and while it is true that we do not vest
blanket infallibility in any gathering of Bishops in Synod; it is not
true that we reject the infallibility of truly Ecumenical Councils
(better, "åcumenical Synods"). In fact, quite the opposite is true.
We consider the decrees of such Synods to be an infallible and
inspired defense of the Apostolic Faith. But it is vitally important
to understand that åcumenical Synods do not constitute the highest
authority in the Orthodox Church. Authority for us is rooted in
Christ, the Head of the Church. As Jones correctly points out
elsewhere,

the whole Church catholic... bishops, presbyters, deacons, and
laity,... through time and space, amounts to an ongoing council.... In
the long run, then, ultimate authority is vested by Him [Christ] in
her.

This authority is expressed in the written and oral traditions of the
Churchói.e., Holy Tradition, which could also be called the Mind of
Christ. One's ability to discern the Mind of Christ grows through
participation in the Mysteries of the Church, ascetic struggle leading
to purification of the soul, and reading the Lives and writings of the
Saints. In this way a person begins to acquire or enter into the
phronema ton Pateron, or "mind of the Fathers," which enables him or
her to know the will of God to an ever greater extent. Relating this
concept to our discussion of Bishops meeting in Synod we would say
that when the entire Church accepts their synodal conclusionsói.e.,
when Her members confirm that what was stated conforms to the Mind of
Christ (Holy Tradition)óthen this synod is invested with authority. We
might also not that this "entering into" is another aspect of the
acquisition of the Holy Spirit, as discussed in an earlier section.
Ultimately, then, authority is for Orthodox Christians a
pneumatological concept that is not easily related to those outside of
the Church.[27]

In another place Jones tosses out the following Patristic reference
without sufficient explanation. It is one that would undoubtedly
foster alarm in the mind of most Protestant readers:

Given this, they strongly affirm the generalization that "Outside the
Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church."

This statement comes from no less than St. Cyprian of Carthage, an
early Hieromartyr of the Church. It is also echoed in the writings of
other Saints such as Augustine of Hippo. The reader should understand
that the Orthodox Church does not teach that everyone who remains
outside of Her in this life will be eternally damned. As Patrick
Barnes notes in his book on this complex and subtle question:

The status of the heterodox is properly seen in two ways. When
speaking of their ecclesial statusói.e., their relation to the
Orthodox Churchówe would say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her
members because they have not been ingrafted into the one true Body of
Christ through Holy Baptism. On the other hand, when speaking of their
eternal statusói.e., the implications of this ecclesial separationó,
we leave them to the mercy of God and do not judge them. To affirm
their separation is not to imply their damnation.

The final issue Jones raises concerning ecclesiology is contained in
his list of our supposed "Primary Apostasies":

Church as Emperor. With God's written revelation suppressed due to its
"obscurity," the ecclesiastics take over the supreme position. Their
own traditions are somehow remarkably clearer than God's word. Once
supreme and unconstrained, the church becomes a magisterial authority
rather than ministerial authority. That is not Christ's Church.

It is unfortunate that Jones does not elaborate further. We can only
make an educated guess about what disturbs him. The accusation follows
on the heels of the claim that we subjugate Scripture to human
tradition. (This we have dealt with in the previous section.) In this
context, what our author seems to be saying is that, having suppressed
the witness of Holy Scripture, the institutional side of the Orthodox
Churchói.e., the Priest, Bishops, and other authoritative
"ecclesiastics"óhas stepped into the silent void, bringing with it a
certain unscriptural dictatorial power that squelches the ministerial
side of the Church.

Here Jones is clearly viewing Orthodoxy through the lens of medieval
Papal abuses. The result is a complete distortion of the true nature
of Orthodox ecclesiology. The essence of the mistake is a confusion
over prophecy and order. The prophetic nature of the Church has always
prevailed over the administrative aspect of the Church when the need
arose. Orthodoxy teaches that the entire Body of Christ is responsible
as guardians of the Faith: "...because the protector of religion is
the very body of the Church, even the people themselves...." [28]
Church history is replete with times when the "ecclesiastics" had
fallen to heresy and the laypeople were left to defend the Faith
against these wolves in sheeps clothing. In every instance the actions
of heretical heirarchs were thwarted by the resistance of the laity
and the true shepherds that remained.[29] This is entirely to be
expected, for Christ promised that He would never leave us or forsake
us (Heb. 13:5) and that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against
[the Church]" (St. Matt. 16:18). This preeminence of prophecy over
order reflects the Orthodox understanding that the Church is
constrained by the will of Christ, which is expressed in Holy
Tradition. Fidelity to Holy Tradition, which is identical to obedience
to Christ, is the standard by which any ecclesial body with Apostolic
Succession is judged to be Orthodox. This is an important point that
is often missed by many Orthodox today who have been unwittingly
influenced by the modern Ecumenical Movement and the corresponding
neo-papal "officialdom" that has infected every one of the Orthodox
churches involved in it.[30]

In closing our brief critique of Jones' view of ecclesial authority we
must point out that, for Orthodox Christians, the Bible, Tradition,
the Church, and authority are all intertwined.[31] As St. Paul taught,
the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." For Protestants,
it is the Bible. Orthodox accept the consensual teaching of the Saints
throughout the centuries. Protestants derive their authority
ostensibly from Scripture alone, apart from the consensus of the
Church and almost exlusively through the interpretive framework of the
pivotal Reformation figures. The reader will do well to grasp the
fact that our disagreements ultimately stem from this fundamental
disagreement over the nature of authority. Everything else flows from
this. Until this problem is faced squarely, debate over various points
is largely futile. The reader would do well to ponder whether it can
be shown that the Church has, throughout the centuries, viewed the
relation of Holy Scripture and Tradition in the way that the
Protestant Reformed tradition does.

VI. Orthodox Worship

Completing our author's claims:

Arrogant Worship: God forbids us to worship Him on our own terms. He
sets the terms of His worship. To ignore such commands is to mock His
Lordship. More than almost anything else, Israel's deterioration under
its Kings is expressed by its arrogance in worshiping Jehovah as their
tradition saw fit. They used all sorts of images, statues, and
sacrifices to worship Jehovah, not other gods. The Lord judged their
arrogance in a fearful way. Eastern Orthodoxy shows no concern for
conforming any aspect of its worship to the requisites of the Lord.
They rejoice in imitating the inferior worship of the Old Covenant
temple and shallowly overturn the ancient prohibition on venerating
images. God says that He will not be mocked.

There are two issues here: one implicit and the other explicit. Coming
from the Reformed tradition, Jones would affirm what they call the
"Regulative Principle of Worship." This is defined as follows:

Good and necessary consequence, or be derived from approved historical
example (e.g., the change of day from seventh to first for Lord's day
corporate worship). "As under the Old Dispensation nothing connected
with the worship or discipline of the Church of God was left to the
wisdom or discretion of man, but everything was accurately prescribed
by the authority of God, so, under the New, no voice is to be heard in
the household of faith but the voice of the Son of God. The power of
the church is purely ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold
forth the doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which
Christ has given her. She is to add nothing of her own to, and to
subtract nothing from, what her Lord has established. Discretionary
power she does not possess."

The view commonly held among Protestant churches today is that
anything is permitted in worship, provided it is not explicitly
forbidden in the Bible. This was, and is, the accepted view among
Episcopalian and Lutheran churches. The early Reformed and
Presbyterian churches rejected this view as unscriptural. The
Westminster Confession of Faith says, "the acceptable way of
worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by
His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the
imaginations and devices of men. . . or any other way not prescribed
in the holy Scripture." [32]

Jones charges us with worshiping "on our own terms." We thus infer
from this that the Orthodox Church has violated the "Regulative
Principle."

In reply we briefly note two things. First, Protestants should be the
last ones to accuse anyone of worshipping God on their own terms. Most
Protestant worship is demonstrably novel and dissimilar with that of
the early Church, whereas Orthodox worship is undeniably continuous
with it, having organically developed under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit from the Temple and synagogue worship to its present form
today. Our worship is entirely in keeping with what we read about in
the Holy Fathers of every age. Second, as with the doctrine of "sola
Scriptura," the "Regulative Principle" has never been taught by the
Church. Nothing like it can be found in the writings of the Holy
Fathers. Moreover, the Refomed defense of it stems from the same
distorted views of the Bible that they use to justify "sola
Scriptura," iconoclasm, and other heresies.

The burden of proof is once again upon the Credenda writers to
demonstrate that the Church has always viewed worship in the way that
the Reformers did. Our author has his work cut out for him; for
passages such as the following from St. Basil the Great's On the Holy
Spirit abound in the writings of the Fathers. The impetus behind this
passage is important to underscore. St. Basil is not attempting to
defend the unwritten traditions that he lists. Rather he is appealing
to unwritten traditions that even the heretics with whom he was
disputing took for granted. He was appealing to the Doxology as
evidence that the Holy Spirit is God. His opponents countered by
stating that the Doxology was unwritten and therefore lacked
authority. St. Basil then demonstrated that many aspects of the
Christian faith and life stemmed from unwritten tradition, and no one
disputed these things. If Jones reasons consistently then this Saint
would also be "arrogant," for he clearly violates the "Regulative
Principle" which requires written Scriptural proof for any element of
worship.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly
enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived
from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a
mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in
relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will
gainsay; ó no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such
customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the
importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the
Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public
definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the
first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in
writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn
to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing
the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the
Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known,
content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in
preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance
to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten
teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the
chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what
written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and
mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil
itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice [i.e.,
by triple immersion]? And as to the other customs of baptism from what
Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does
not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our
fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and
inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the
awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the
uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be
publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of
the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to
every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the
first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged
worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings
and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one
chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not
always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was
fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed
at the strangeness and novelty of the sight.

Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and
to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the
unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and
Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus
guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for
what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at
all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and
practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected
and condemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and
"Kerygma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence;
the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is
the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of
"dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the
reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us
know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God
planted in Eden in the East. We pray standing, on the first day of the
week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the
resurrection (or "standing again"; Grk. anastasin) we remind ourselves
of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we
rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek those things which are
above," but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image
of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of
days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says "There was
evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often
recurred. Now "one and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly
indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes
mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after
this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no
successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity,
then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their
prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual
reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for
our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the
resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day,
if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the
holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the
same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And
so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as
in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the
church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for
by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no
longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall
upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by
our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our
Creator were called back to heaven.

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of
the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of
our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source?
If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the
obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our
baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in
conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents
grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory
as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the
ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written
evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which
we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and
their bearing on "the mystery of godliness" is so important, can they
refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the
Fathers; ó which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in
unperverted churches; ó a word for which the arguments are strong, and
which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force
of the mystery? [33]

This passage is from one of the most important Patristic texts of the
early Church. It is obvious that Credenda/Agenda loves to quote from
various Church Fathers, even St. Basil the Great. But it is abundantly
clear that they pick and choose the quotes that fit with their
interpretive schema. There is a term for this: proof-texting.[34]

As for the charge that we "shallowly overturn the ancient prohibition
on venerating images," this has been thoroughly refuted over eleven
centuries ago by St. John of Damascus in his On the Divine Images.
[35] The famous Orthodox iconographer, Leonid Ouspensky, summarizes
the Church's reasoning concerning the Old Testament prohibition of
images. This reasoning is thoroughly Biblical and logical:

The Church teaches that the image is based on the Incarnation of the
second person of the Trinity. This is not a break with nor even a
contradiction of the Old Testament, as the Protestants understand it;
but, on the contrary, it clearly fulfills it, for the existence of the
image in the New Testament is implied by its prohibition in the Old.
Even though this may appear to be strange, the sacred image for the
Church proceeds precisely from the absence of the image in the Old
Testament. The forerunner of the Christian image is not the pagan
idol, as is sometimes thought, but the absence of direct iconography
before the Incarnation, just as the forerunner of the Church is not
the pagan world, but the Israel of old, the people chosen by God to
witness His revelation. The prohibition of the image which appears in
Exodus (20:4) and in Deuteronomy (5:12-19) is a provisional, pedagogic
measure which concerns only the Old Testament, and is not a
prohibition in theory. "'Moreover I gave them statutes that were not
good' (Ez. 20:25) because of their callousness," says St John of
Damascus, explaining this prohibition" by means of a biblical
quotation. Indeed, the prohibition of all direct and concrete images
was accompanied by the divine commandment to establish certain
symbolic images, those prefigurations which were the tabernacle and
everything which it contained, and the smallest details of which were,
so to speak, dictated by God. [36]

Jones fails to address the fact that God commanded the use of images
in the Temple. Perhaps this is because he cannot explain how these
images could be permissible in the light of the Old Testament
prohibitions. Douglas Wilson adds to this error in his article
expanding upon Jones' introductory remarks. Wilson asserts: "We know
that the Jewish Temple had no images for use in prayer and worship."
Have they not read the Old Testament descriptions of the Tabernacle
and the Temple? We find numerous images of Cherubim in the following
places:

On the ArkóEx. 25:18
On the Curtains of the TabernacleóEx. 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of HoliesóEx. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary ó I Kings 6:23
On the Walls ó I Kings 6:29
On the Doors ó I Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings ó I Kings 7:29,36
Are the editors of Credenda/Agenda therefore asserting that the Temple
itself was not used as a place of worship? Also, as we shall see,
Wilson fails to deal with the actual historical data in anything
beyond the most superficial ways.

Returning to Ouspensky's summary, he states that the eighth-century
iconoclasts

limited themselves to the biblical prohibition and confused the
Christian image with the idol. Comparing the Old Testament texts and
the Gospel, St John shows that the Christian image, far from
contradicting the prohibition of the Old Testament, is, as we have
said, its result and conclusion, since it arises from the very essence
of Christianity.

His reasoning can be summarized as follows: in the Old Testament God
manifests Himself directly to His people only by sound, by word. He
does not show Himself, and remains invisible. Israel does not see any
image. In Deuteronomy (4:12), we read: "The Lord spoke to you out of
the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form;
there was only a voice." And a bit further (4:15), we read: "Therefore
take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that
the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire." The
prohibition comes immediately afterwards (4:16-19)....

Thus when God speaks of creatures, He forbids their representation.
But when He speaks of Himself, He also forbids the making of His
image, stressing the fact that He is invisible. Neither the people,
nor even Moses saw any image of Him. They only heard His words. Not
having seen God's image, they could not represent it; they could only
write down His divine word, which is what Moses did. And how could
they represent that which is incorporeal and indescribable, that which
has neither shape nor limit? But in the very insistence of the
biblical texts to emphasize that Israel hears the word but does not
see the image, St John of Damascus discovers a mysterious sign of the
future possibility of seeing and representing God coming in the flesh.
"What is mysteriously indicated in these passages of Scripture?, he
asks.

"It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God.
But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will
make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having
clothed Himself in the flesh, becomes visible, then represent the
likeness of Him who has appeared... When He who, having been the
consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form
of a servant [Phil 2:6-7], thus becoming bound in quantity and
quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible
to everyone Him who desired to become visible. Paint His birth from
the Virgin, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Mount
Tabor... Paint everything with words and with colors, in books and on
boards."

Thus the very prohibition against representing the invisible God
implies the necessity of representing God once the prophecies have
been fulfilled. The words of the Lord, "You have seen no images; hence
do not create any," mean "create no images of God as long as you have
not seen Him." An image of an invisible God is impossible, "for how
can that which is inaccessible to the eye be represented?" If such an
image were made, it would be based on imagination and would therefore
be a falsehood and a lie. [37]

In another section describing the response of St. Theodore the
Studite, Ouspensky states:

The iconoclasts also said that nothing in the New Testament indicates
that icons should be made or venerated. "The custom of making icons of
Christ has no foundation either in the tradition of Christ, or in that
of the apostles or the Fathers," they maintained. "But, St Theodore
the Studite replied, "nowhere did Christ order any word to be put
down; and yet His image has been traced by the apostles and been
preserved up to now. What is written down on paper and with ink, is
put on the icon through various colors or another material." [38]

How interesting! Jones and company take Orthodoxy to task for painting
and venerating images when the New Testament does not explicitly state
that we are allowed to do so, and yet they fail to see the beam in
their own eye: that our Lord never commanded anyone to write down what
he said or did. So much for the Bible in the light of the "Regulative
Principle." Are not words a type of image? Do they not metaphorically
"paint" something? Absolutely. Speaking of the decrees of the Seventh
åcumenical Synod, Ouspensky writes:

The council states that Holy Scripture and the holy image are
"mutually revelatory." One single content is witnessed in two
different waysówith words or with imagesóconveying the same revelation
in the light of the same sacred and living Tradition of the Church. We
read in the council's canons:

"The Fathers neither transmitted to us that it was necessary to read
the Gospel nor did they convey to us that it was necessary to make
icons. But if they conveyed the one, they also conveyed the other,
because a representation is inseparable from the biblical account,
and, vice versa, the biblical account is inseparable from a
representation. Both are right and worthy of veneration because they
explain one another and, indisputably, substantiate one another."

Thus, the visible image is equivalent to the verbal image. Just as the
word of Scripture is an image, so is the painted image a word. "That
which the word communicates by sound, a painting demonstrates silently
by representation," the Fathers of the council said, referring to St
Basil the Great. Elsewhere they write, "By means of these two ways
which complement one another, that is, by reading and by the visible
image, we gain knowledge of the same thing." In other words, the icon
contains and proclaims the same truth as the Gospel. Like the Gospel
and the Cross, it is one of the aspects of divine revelation and of
our communion with God, a form in which the union of divine and human
activity, synergy, is accomplished. Aside from their direct meaning,
the sacred image as well as the Gospel are reflections of the heavenly
world; the one and the other are symbols of the Spirit they contain.
Thus, both the one and other transmit concrete, specific realities,
not human ideas. In other words, what was asked was "How can the icon
correspond to the Gospel and explain it, and vice versa?"

In the eyes of the Church, therefore, the icon is not art illustrating
Holy Scripture; it is a language that corresponds to it and is
equivalent to it, corresponding not to the letter of Scripture or to
the book itself as an object, but to the evangelical kerygma, that is,
to the content of the Scripture itself, to its meaning, as is true
also for liturgical texts. This is why the icon plays the same role as
Scripture does in the Church; it has the same liturgical, dogmatic,
and educational meaning. [39]

It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully address the Orthodox
response to iconoclasm. We can only summarize the Church's reasoning
and remind the reader that this question was resolved to the
satisfaction of the entire ChurchóEast and Westómore than a thousand
years ago. The Orthodox teaching on Icons is readily available in
English. We find it highly unlikely that Jones could have overlooked
these works. Yet he fails even to acknowledge that the Orthodox
explanation of why the Old Testament prohibitions no longer apply is
not only firmly grounded in Scripture and the doctrine of the
Incarnation, but that it is also eminently reasonable. Had he
acknowledged this and simply stated that he personally disagreed with
what the entire Church heartily affirmed in the Seventh åcumenical
Synod over a thousand years ago, we would have no argument with him.
However, Jones and company seem only to want to rehash iconoclasm
using antiquarian arguments that have already been soundly refuted.
They fail to see that certain Old Testament prohibitions were
temporary. The Incarnation brought many things to fulfillment. As the
Holy Fathers reasoned and the Church affirmed, to be an iconoclast is
to be against the Incarnation. Credenda/Agenda clearly stands outside
of the Christian tradition on this matter.

A more detailed response to the issues we have briefly touched upon
will be given in the responses to Douglas Wilson's "Pomegranates &
Synagogues" and Wes Callihan's "Presumptuous Icons."

Conclusion

In his closing, Jones ushers a summary warning:

Scripture promised us that the church would include false teachers (II
Pet. 2:2), and right in the midst of apostolic tradition, Paul warns
us that "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,
. . . they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn
their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II
Tim. 4:3). Eastern fables point us to Hellenistic heterodoxy not
covenantal orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

In the following responses to the Credenda/Agenda's attacks on the
Orthodox Faith, we will see that the Apostle Paul is not referring
here to the Orthodox Faith which has preserved the Apostolic
Tradition, but rather refer to heretical and schismatic leaders and
their followers who turn aside from that Faith. Elsewhere, St. Paul
speaks of such heretics saying, "men shall arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Jones is a
Calvinist, a group named for John Calvin. Other Protestants are
referred to variously as Lutherans (for Martin Luther), Arminians (for
James Arminius), Wesleyans (for John Wesley), Mennonites (for Menno
Simmons), etc. The Orthodox are not named for any leader who has
spoken perverse things and drawn us away to be his disciples. Our
Faith is the Faith of the ancient Christian Church. It is Jones who
has followed the novel teachings of John Calvin and other key
Reformers who are outside of any Church with historical and doctrinal
continuity with the Apostolic Church. It is not Orthodoxy which has
betrayed Tradition, as the Credenda writers assert, but rather Papism
and its offshoot, the now thirty thousand Protestant sects (and
growing!).

Endnotes

* Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from the Church Fathers are drawn
from the 38-volume Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers set that is widely
available on the Internet.

1. The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical Tradition (Belmont, MA:
Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1989), pp. 17-21.
The quote from St. Basil is taken from To Young Men, on How They Might
Profit from Greek Literature, sect. IV and V; cf. 1 Thess. 5:21.

2. See his Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of
Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Yale
University Press, 1993).

3. See "The Transformation of Hellenistic Thought on the Cosmos and
Man in the Greek Fathers," The Patristic and Byzantine Review, 1990,
IX, 2&3.

4. Cavarnos, p. 20.

5. On the Incarnation, trans. and ed. by A Religious of C.S.M.V.
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993 [1944]), ß 44, pp.
80-81.

6. Lesson 21, ß 3 and 6.

7. See, for example, Gordon R. Lewis, "Are Mormons Christians?", The
Christian Research Journal, Fall 1992, p. 33. Also, Wesleyans have
often appealed to this doctrine to support their own understanding of
the doctrine of sanctification. See Christensen, Michael J. "Theosis
and Sanctification: John Wesley's Reformation of a Patristic
Doctrine." Wesleyan Theological Journal, Vol. 31, no. 2 (Fall 1996),
pp. 71-94; McCormick, Kelly S. "Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: An
Eastern Paradigm on Faith and Love." Wesleyan Theological Journal,
Vol. 26, no. 1 (1991), pp. 38-103; Maddox, Randy L., "John Wesley and
Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences, Differences," The Asbury
Theological Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1990), pp. 29-53; Synder, Howard,
"John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian," The Asbury Theological
Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1990), pp. 55-60; David C. Ford, "Saint
Macarios of Egypt and John Wesley: Variations on the Theme of
Sanctification," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33, (Fall
1988), pp. 285-312.

8. The Creeds of Christendom: Volume II, The Greek and Latin Creeds,
Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983), p. 474.

9. Prayer Book, 4th ed., (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery,
1986), pp. 358-9.

10. Second Canon of the Seventh Ode.

11. Schaff, pp. 475-6. Appended to the catechism answer are the texts
for Col. 1:26-27 and Rom 5:17, 8:1-4. The use of the term
"satisfaction" here is not to be confused with that of Anselm or the
use strains of Protestantism have put to it. As Fr. Michael Pomazansky
points out in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

The interpretation of the truth of the Redemption was greatly
complicated thanks to the direction which was given to it in the
Western theology of the Middle Ages. The figuative expressions of the
Aposteles were acceptied in medieval Roman Catholic theology in their
literal and overly-narrow sense, and the work of redemption was
interpreted as a "satisfaction"ómore precisely, a satisfaction for
offending God, and even more precisely, a satisfaction of God (God in
the Holy Trinity) for the offense caused to Him by the sin of Adam."
It is easy to see that the foundation of such a view is the special
Latin teaching on original sin: that man in the transgression of Adam
"infinitely offended" God and evoked God's wrath; therefore it was
required that God be offered complete satisfaction in order that the
guilt might be removed and God might be appeased; this was done by the
Saviour when He accepted death on the Cross: the Saviour offered an
infinitely complete satisfaction.

This one-sided interpretation of Redemption became the reigning one in
Latin theology and it has remained so up to the present time. In
Protestantism it evoked the opposite reaction [in certain segments of
Protestantismóed.], which led in the later sects to the almost
complete denial of the dogma of Redemption and to the acknowledgement
of no more than a moral or instructive significance for Christ's life
and His death on the Cross.

The term "satisfaction" has been used in Russian Orthodox theology,
but in a changed form; "the satisfaction of God's righteousness." The
expression "to satisfy the righteousness of God," one must
acknowledge, is not entirely foreign to the New Testament, as may be
seen from the words of the Saviour Himself: "thus it becometh us to
fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15). An expression which is close
in meaning to the present term, but which is more complete and is
authentically Biblical, and gives a basis for the Orthodox
understanding of the work of Redemption, is the word "propitiation,"
which we read in the First Epistle of John: "Herein is love, not that
we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10). ("Propitiation" is a direct
translation of the Greek word ilasmos. The same use of the word is to
be found in I John 2:2, and in St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews,
2:17, were it is translated as "reconciliation" in the King James
Version). [Trans. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) (Platina, CA: St. Herman
of Alaska Brotherhood, 1973) pp. 208-209.]

12. Ibid., p. 48.

13. Ibid., p. 56.

14. Chapter 13:36.

15. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, St. John of Damascus, "On
Faith and Baptism," Book IV, Ch. 9.

16. The Life in Christ, trans. by Carmino J. DeCatanzaro, (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), p. 59.

17. Ibid, pp. 65-66.

18. Ibid, pp. 48-49.

19. Catechetical Lectures, Lesson 1, ß 2.

20. See, for example the "Formula of Concord," and "Saxon Visitation
Articles" in The Creeds of Christendom: Volume III, The Evangelical
Protestant Creeds.

21. This is why they were called "Methodists." See, for example, The
Early Methodist Class Meetings, David Lowes Watson (Nashville:
Discipleship Resources, 1987.

22. Prayer Book, ibid., p. 21.

23. From the Internet version of the published monograph.

24. Trans. Archimandrite Lazarus (Moore) (Jordanville, NY: Holy
Trinity Monastery, 1991), pp. viii-ix.

25. The Rev. Kyrill Zaits (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery
Press, 1985).

26. An Orthodox Priest has taken great pains to document the extent to
which the Divine Liturgy is made up of passages from the Holy
Scripture. See Fr. Constantine Nasr, The Bible in the Liturgy
(Oklahoma City, OK: Theosis Publishing Company, 1988).

27. For more on this concept see the many articles on the "Acquiring
an Orthodox Phronema" (Mindset) page.

28. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848.

29. Two excellent examples are the Monothelite Controversy involving
St. Maximos the Confessor (6th. cent.) and the pseudo-Synod of
Ferrara-Florence involving St. Mark of Ephesus (15th cent.).

30. For further reading on the complex and nuanced topic of Orthodox
ecclesiology see: Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, Against False Union, Ch.
28-30: "Orthodox Ecclesiology"; Fr. Alexander Schmemann, "Problems of
Orthodoxy in America: The Canonical Problem," St. Vladimir's Seminary
Quarterly, Vol. 8, No.2 (1964); "An Ecclesiological Position Paper for
Orthodox Opposed to the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism", by Metropolitan
Cyprian of Oropos and Fili; Father Georges Florovsky, Collected Works,
Vol. 1, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Orthodox Perspective (Belmont,
MA: Nordland, 1972-79); Father Michael Pomazansky, "The Unity of the
Church," Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (St. Herman of Alaska Press,
1994), pp. 234-237; articles on "canonical" and "canonicity" on the
"References and Terms" subpage of Ecumenism Awareness.

31. See Bible, Church, Tradition, ibid.

32. Brian Schwertly, "The Regulative Principle of Worship and
Christmas".

33. On the Holy Spirit, ß 66-67. Tertullian also uses a similar
argument in "The Chaplet, or De Corona", Ch. 3.

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when
we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the
state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has
prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from
tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it
has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written
authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore,
whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted.

34. In this vein, Fr. George Florovsky has written eloquently:

It is not enough to be acquainted with the texts and to know how to
draw from them quotes and arguments. One must possess the theology of
the Fathers from within. Intuition is perhaps more important for this
than erudition, for intuition alone revives their writings and makes
them a witness. It is only from within that we can perceive and
distinguish what (actually) is a catholic testimony from what would be
merely theological opinion, hypothesis, interpretation, or theory. . .
Only in the integral communion of the Church is this "catholic
transfiguration" of consciousness truly possible. Those who, by reason
of their humility in the presence of the Truth, have received the gift
to express this catholic consciousness of the Church, we call them
Fathers and Doctors, since what they make us hear is not only their
thought or their personal conviction, but moreover the very witness of
the Chruch, for they speak from the depth of its catholic fullness.
Their theology evolves on the plane of catholicity, of universal
communion. ["The Ways of Russian Theology" in The Collected Works of
Georges Florovsky, Vol. IV, Aspects of Church History (Belmont, MA:
Nordland, 1987), pp. 191, 192.]

It is precisely this connection with the catholic consciousness of the
Church that the writers of the Credenda issue lack. Their use of the
Fathers is like dipping buckets in a stream, or raking up old dead
documents. We cannot stress this enough. Our challenges for proof are
likely made in vain, for their recourse will undoubtedly be almost
entirely to Scripture, with a few select quotes from the Fathers
thrown in for good measure. For Orthodox Christians this methodology
is unacceptable. "Following the Holy Fathers" does not mean to
selectively quote from them but rather to "acquire their mind, their
phronema" ("Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church,"
Ibid., p. 18). Thus, a reasonable argument pieced together from
various passages does not constitute proof. Rather, they must clearly
show from the writings of the Fathers, åcumenical Synods, and other
expressions of the Church's life and faith that their views have been
held, to quote St. Vincent of Lerins, "everywhere, always, and by
all." Piecing together various texts, or interpreting Scripture
willy-nillyói.e., apart from the consensual interpretation of the
Church Fathersówas long ago denounced by another of their more
oft-quoted Saints, Irenaeus of Lyons. His analysis is applicable today
more than ever:

Such, then, is their [the Protestant Reformed] system, which neither
the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles
delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a
perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the
Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes
of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to
their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of
the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their
scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however,
they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so
far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring
passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of
another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in
adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of
acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been
constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should
then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the
gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog
or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then
maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king
which the skillful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which
had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the
image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the
latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels,
should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form
was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox
was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these
persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavor, by
violently drawing away from their proper connection, words,
expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God
to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they
proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma.

35. An excellent English translation of this text has been produced by
St. Vladimir's Seminary Press and is widely available. See also St.
Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, also by SVS Press.

36. Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, Vol. 1 (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), pp. 41-42.

37. Ibid., pp. 42, 44.

38. Ibid., pp. 130-131.

39. Ibid., pp. 138-139.

[nick cobb]

These people are "Fundamentalist Orthodox."

AGG wrote:

> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/thema_response.htm
>
> Orthodox Christian Information Center
>
> MILES FROM THE TRUTH
> A Response to "Thema: Eastern Heterodoxy"
>
> By Father Deacon John Whiteford and Patrick Barnes
>
> "A thousand words from the pen, in a stream; but ten thousand miles

> away from the theme." —a Chinese saying

> cursory reading of Orthodox materials—let alone interaction with
> Orthodox Christians—would easily lead an objective person to the

> called by some a "Christian Platonist." Two later Church Fathers—John

> Damascene, who flourished during the first half of the eighth century,

> and Photios the Great, who lived in the next century—have been

> attract to the faith the more educated among the pagans—those who had

> received instruction in philosophy. For these reasons, too, they chose
> as their language not the common Greek, the koine, but Attic Greek,
> using as their models particularly such great masters of Attic prose
> as Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Thucydides. From Plato, they
> took many philosophical elements, modified them to a greater or lesser
> extent, and assimilated them organically in the Christian teaching."
> [1]
>
> The author then proceeds to show clearly, and from primary sources,
> how the Greek Fathers emulated the bee in their expressions of
> Christian truth. Dr. Cavarnos is an Orthodox Christian and scholar of
> international repute. He received his B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. from
> Harvard University. He has authored over forty books in the fields of
> philosophy, Orthodox theology, and Byzantine and modern Greek art and
> thought. He is exceptionally well read in the Fathers. In short, he is
> an eminently more trustworthy authority on these matters.
> Additionally, his findings are corroborated by a number of other

> eminent scholars, including Jaroslav Pelikan—a recent convert to

> Orthodoxy from Lutheranism who has authored, among many other fine
> works, a five volume history of the development of Christian doctrine

> [2]—and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna [3], another widely published

> associated with a misuse of neo-Platonism is St. Augustine—the

> watershed Father for Western Christendom. His doctrine of the Holy
> Trinity, as espoused mainly in De Trinitate, is thoroughly imbued with
> neo-Platonic thought and has profoundly influenced Roman Catholicism
> and Protestantism. The resultant failure of Western theology to
> embrace the Patristic consensus concerning the dogma of the Holy
> Trinity is well known. As Christian truth is properly derived from an
> understanding of the Holy Trinity, the effects of Western Trinitarian

> dogma—especially the filioque—can be seen in many theological

> tributaries downstream of these tainted headwaters. Quite ironically,
> the charge of neo-Platonism could be brought against the West, not the
> East!
>
> Jones also appears to be unaware that skeptics make the very same
> charges as he with regard to the New Testament itself! His failure to
> deal with this point significantly weakens the force of his
> assertions. The New Testament was written in Greek and the majority of
> the early Church Fathers wrote in Greek. As Dr. Cavarnos pointed out
> above, the use of various Hellenic philosophical terms was deemed
> necessary for the defense and propagation of the Faith. Certainly
> Jones must know that even St. Paul himself quoted approvingly from the
> Greek poets such as Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), Aratos (Acts 17:28), and
> Epimenides (Titus 1:12). [4] Furthermore, the use of Platonistic
> expressions throughout the New Testament, and particularly in the book
> Hebrews, is a well known and indisputable phenomenon which one will
> find discussed in great detail in any Protestant Biblical commentary
> of any worth.
>
> Finally, Jones also fails to address a related problem which his
> polemic raises. Since he adamantly affirms the doctrine of the Holy
> Trinity, including St. Athanasius' explanation of the Holy Trinity and
> the Incarnation; and since he also claims allegiance to the

> Chalcedonian Christology—all of which involves the use of Hellenistic
> philosophical terms that were brought into use by the Church—, how can

> he lambast Orthodox theology as being "neo-Platonic" and "Hellenistic"
> while not also indicting his own tradition?! His "guilt by
> association" attempt fails on all accounts in a rather embarrassing
> way.
>
> II. Salvation, the Cross, and Theosis
>
> Jones spends a great deal of time attempting to attack the Orthodox
> doctrine of Theosis, which he views as a par excellence example of the
> influence of neo-Platonism upon Orthodoxy.
>
> In response, we note that the phrase "God became a man, so that men
> might become as gods" (i.e., "divine") was used by no less than St.

> Athanasius himself—a Church Father who Protestants generally hold up

> as a pillar of the Faith. Jones tosses this phrase into the arena, but
> he fails to adequately explain what Orthodox mean by it. The reader
> gets the distinct impression that he is employing these phrases and
> terms only with a view towards shocking the sensibilities of the
> reader.
>
> Nevertheless, theosis language can be found throughout the writings of

> the Holy Fathers. The doctrine of theosis—that man can become God by
> grace, though not by nature—is without any doubt one that can be

> readily discerned in even a cursory examination of the Patristic
> corpus. The Church has always taught that man, by participating in the
> divinizing Energies of God, can become like Him.
>
> The doctrine of theosis flows from the Patristic understanding of
> salvation, as centered upon our organic union with Christ through the

> Mystery of Baptism—"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and

> of his bones" (Eph. 5:30). This union literally infuses us with the
> Life of the God-Man. As St. Athanasius put it,
>
> It was not things non-existent that needed salvation, for which a bare

> creative word might have sufficed, but man—man already in existence

> that he used—a dunghill merely covered in snow); and given Calvin's

> similar views, especially as laid out in Book III, Ch. 11 of his
> Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is understandable that many
> (thought not all) Protestants would take exception to an organic
> (instead of only a forensic) understanding of salvation and the
> concomitant doctrine of theosis. [7]
>
> It is a shame that, despite the clear witness of the Holy Fathers,
> Jones is unable to see Orthodox teaching as anything more than
> neo-Platonic and pagan. Frankly, we would rather take the word of the

> two great Saints cited above—two examples of many which can be found
> in the writings of the Fathers—over Luther, Calvin, or Jones.

> robbing God of the glory that is due solely to him—a violation of soli

> life-giving and saving Passion—the Cross, the nails, the spear, and

> wounder of demons… Today the Cross is exalted and the world is

> to the hearts of many Protestants—St. Athanasius the Great. In his On
> the Incarnation of the Word of God—which C.S. Lewis calls in his

> Introduction to the St. Vladimir's Seminary Press edition "[a]

> masterpiece… The whole book, indeed, is a picture of the Tree of
> Life…"—St. Athanasius speaks often of the Cross. Here is a small

> the freeness of the gift…. [14]

> "faith" and "alone" appear together in only one book—the Epistle of

> St. James, which states: "See how a man is justified by works and not
> by faith alone" [ouk ek pistews monon] (James 2:24). Though Jones
> impugns the Orthodox doctrine of "Synergy", we find St. James
> specifically stating it: "Do you see that faith was working together
> [synergei] with his works, and by works faith was made perfect [or
> completed]" (James 2:22). Of course, the Apostle Paul himself also
> commands us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"
> (Phil. 2:12).
>
> The Orthodox Church teaches that we are saved only on the basis of
> God's grace. However, God himself has established conditions for us to

> receive this grace, namely faith and works—the first of which must be

> repentance. These conditions do not earn our salvation, but God
> nonetheless requires them of us, and this is what the Scriptures and
> the Holy Fathers through every century have taught. In fact, it is
> also what many Protestants teach. As St. Nicholas Cabasilas put it:
>
> There is an element which derives from God, and another which derives
> from our own zeal. The one is entirely His work, the other involves
> striving on our part. However, the latter is our contribution only to
> the extent that we submit to His grace and do not surrender the
> treasure nor extinguish the torch when it has been lighted. By this I
> mean that we contribute nothing which is either hostile to the life or
> produces death. It is to this that all human good and every virtue
> leads, that no one should draw the sword against himself, nor flee
> from happiness, nor toss the crowns of victory from off his head. [18]
>
> Also, the Orthodox Church certainly does not teach that the Mysteries
> alone can save someone apart from faith, as Jones implies. Judas
> received the Eucharist from Christ himself, and then went out to

> betray him—and so his unworthy participation in the sacraments was

> commandments of God, do good—that is the aim of the Christian life.'

> saving; and the third is the devil's will—wholly destructive.' And

> this third will of the enemy teaches man either not to do any good
> deeds, or to do them out of vanity, or to do them merely for virtue's
> sake and not for Christ's sake. The second, our own will, teaches us
> to do everything to flatter our passions, or else it teaches us like
> the enemy to do good for the sake of good and not care for the grace
> which is acquired by it. But the first, God's all-saving will,
> consists in doing good solely to acquire the Holy Spirit, as an
> eternal, inexhaustible treasure which cannot be rightly valued. The
> acquisition of the Holy Spirit is, so to say, the oil which the
> foolish virgins lacked. They were called foolish just because they had
> forgotten the necessary fruit of virtue, the grace of the Holy Spirit,
> without which no one is or can be saved, for: 'Every soul is quickened
> by the Holy Spirit and exalted by purity and mystically illumined by
> the Trinal Unity.'
>
> "This is the oil in the lamps of the wise virgins which could burn
> long and brightly, and these virgins with their burning lamps were
> able to meet the Bridegroom, Who came at midnight, and could enter the
> bridechamber of joy with Him. But the foolish ones, though they went
> to market to buy some oil when they saw their lamps going out, were
> unable to return in time, for the door was already shut. The market is
> our life; the door of the bridechamber which was shut and which barred
> the way to the Bridegroom is human death; the wise and foolish virgins
> are Christian souls; the oil is not good deeds but the grace of the
> All-Holy Spirit of God which is obtained through them and which

> changes souls from one state to another—that is, from corruption to

> incorruption, from spiritual death to spiritual life, from darkness to
> light, from the stable of our being (where the passions are tied up
> like dumb animals and wild beasts) into a Temple of the Divinity, into
> the shining bridechamber of eternal joy in Christ Jesus our Lord, the
> Creator and Redeemer and eternal Bridegroom of our souls.
>
> As one can see, nowhere does St. Seraphim suggest that we can

> "merit"—in the medieval Papist sense—the gift of the Holy Spirit. In

> taught in Holy Scripture: that we are saved by grace through faith—but

> paradosis—which, though translated differently in some Protestant

> versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking
> of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this
> meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is
> the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of
> the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to
> authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second
> Thessalonians 2:15).
>
> So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the
> Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the
> traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of
> men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to
> Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember
> me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as
> I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (First
> Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first
> place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to
> you" (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church

> refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition—"the Faith once

> delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is
> Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all
> that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the
> world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John
> 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and
> the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the
> pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
>
> The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early
> Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received
> from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first

> had only fragments—one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a

> Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into
> collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did
> these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were

> not—for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and

> gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was
> the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this
> determination. [23]
>
> Jones' tactic is "guilt by association." As the Pharisees were
> condemned for appealing to tradition, in likewise manner should the
> Orthodox be condemned. The inadequacy of this charge, if not evident
> by now, will become glaringly so after our critique of his claim that
> our worship is arrogant (Section VI).
>
> Though Jones does not make this specific accusation, it is here worth
> highlighting the fact that the Orthodox Church has always strongly
> encouraged the reading of the Scriptures among the faithful. Anyone
> familiar with the writings of the ascetic Fathers will know that great
> emphasis is laid upon reading and doing the Gospels in particular. An
> example is the focus that is clearly evident in The Arena, the
> nineteenth century classic by St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov). Bishop
> (then Archimandrite) Kallistos (Ware) made the following remarks
> apropos of our rebuttal in his Introduction:
>
> What are the chief sources upon which Ignatius relies in presenting
> his picture of the Christian's path? First and foremost comes the
> Bible. Ignatius quotes frequently from Scripture, and he underlines
> with great clarity the part which the Gospels in particular should
> play in our ascetic training. 'From his very entry into the

> monastery'—such are the opening words of The Arena—'a monk should

> (better, "Œcumenical Synods"). In fact, quite the opposite is true.

> We consider the decrees of such Synods to be an infallible and
> inspired defense of the Apostolic Faith. But it is vitally important

> to understand that Œcumenical Synods do not constitute the highest

> authority in the Orthodox Church. Authority for us is rooted in
> Christ, the Head of the Church. As Jones correctly points out
> elsewhere,
>
> the whole Church catholic... bishops, presbyters, deacons, and
> laity,... through time and space, amounts to an ongoing council.... In
> the long run, then, ultimate authority is vested by Him [Christ] in
> her.
>
> This authority is expressed in the written and oral traditions of the

> Church—i.e., Holy Tradition, which could also be called the Mind of

> Christ. One's ability to discern the Mind of Christ grows through
> participation in the Mysteries of the Church, ascetic struggle leading
> to purification of the soul, and reading the Lives and writings of the
> Saints. In this way a person begins to acquire or enter into the
> phronema ton Pateron, or "mind of the Fathers," which enables him or
> her to know the will of God to an ever greater extent. Relating this
> concept to our discussion of Bishops meeting in Synod we would say

> that when the entire Church accepts their synodal conclusions—i.e.,

> when Her members confirm that what was stated conforms to the Mind of

> Christ (Holy Tradition)—then this synod is invested with authority. We

> might also not that this "entering into" is another aspect of the
> acquisition of the Holy Spirit, as discussed in an earlier section.
> Ultimately, then, authority is for Orthodox Christians a
> pneumatological concept that is not easily related to those outside of
> the Church.[27]
>
> In another place Jones tosses out the following Patristic reference
> without sufficient explanation. It is one that would undoubtedly
> foster alarm in the mind of most Protestant readers:
>
> Given this, they strongly affirm the generalization that "Outside the
> Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church."
>
> This statement comes from no less than St. Cyprian of Carthage, an
> early Hieromartyr of the Church. It is also echoed in the writings of
> other Saints such as Augustine of Hippo. The reader should understand
> that the Orthodox Church does not teach that everyone who remains
> outside of Her in this life will be eternally damned. As Patrick
> Barnes notes in his book on this complex and subtle question:
>
> The status of the heterodox is properly seen in two ways. When

> speaking of their ecclesial status—i.e., their relation to the
> Orthodox Church—we would say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her

> members because they have not been ingrafted into the one true Body of
> Christ through Holy Baptism. On the other hand, when speaking of their

> eternal status—i.e., the implications of this ecclesial separation—,

> we leave them to the mercy of God and do not judge them. To affirm
> their separation is not to imply their damnation.
>
> The final issue Jones raises concerning ecclesiology is contained in
> his list of our supposed "Primary Apostasies":
>
> Church as Emperor. With God's written revelation suppressed due to its
> "obscurity," the ecclesiastics take over the supreme position. Their
> own traditions are somehow remarkably clearer than God's word. Once
> supreme and unconstrained, the church becomes a magisterial authority
> rather than ministerial authority. That is not Christ's Church.
>
> It is unfortunate that Jones does not elaborate further. We can only
> make an educated guess about what disturbs him. The accusation follows
> on the heels of the claim that we subjugate Scripture to human
> tradition. (This we have dealt with in the previous section.) In this
> context, what our author seems to be saying is that, having suppressed
> the witness of Holy Scripture, the institutional side of the Orthodox

> Church—i.e., the Priest, Bishops, and other authoritative
> "ecclesiastics"—has stepped into the silent void, bringing with it a

> gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the

> Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in
> unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and

> On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
> On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
> On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
> Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary — I Kings 6:23
> On the Walls — I Kings 6:29
> On the Doors — I Kings 6:32
> And on the furnishings — I Kings 7:29,36

> Œcumenical Synod, Ouspensky writes:
>
> The council states that Holy Scripture and the holy image are
> "mutually revelatory." One single content is witnessed in two

> different ways—with words or with images—conveying the same revelation

> satisfaction of the entire Church—East and West—more than a thousand

> years ago. The Orthodox teaching on Icons is readily available in
> English. We find it highly unlikely that Jones could have overlooked
> these works. Yet he fails even to acknowledge that the Orthodox
> explanation of why the Old Testament prohibitions no longer apply is
> not only firmly grounded in Scripture and the doctrine of the
> Incarnation, but that it is also eminently reasonable. Had he
> acknowledged this and simply stated that he personally disagreed with

> what the entire Church heartily affirmed in the Seventh Œcumenical

> (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993 [1944]), § 44, pp.
> 80-81.
>
> 6. Lesson 21, § 3 and 6.

> interpreted as a "satisfaction"—more precisely, a satisfaction for

> offending God, and even more precisely, a satisfaction of God (God in
> the Holy Trinity) for the offense caused to Him by the sin of Adam."
> It is easy to see that the foundation of such a view is the special
> Latin teaching on original sin: that man in the transgression of Adam
> "infinitely offended" God and evoked God's wrath; therefore it was
> required that God be offered complete satisfaction in order that the
> guilt might be removed and God might be appeased; this was done by the
> Saviour when He accepted death on the Cross: the Saviour offered an
> infinitely complete satisfaction.
>
> This one-sided interpretation of Redemption became the reigning one in
> Latin theology and it has remained so up to the present time. In
> Protestantism it evoked the opposite reaction [in certain segments of

> Protestantism—ed.], which led in the later sects to the almost

> 19. Catechetical Lectures, Lesson 1, § 2.

> 33. On the Holy Spirit, § 66-67. Tertullian also uses a similar

> show from the writings of the Fathers, Œcumenical Synods, and other

> expressions of the Church's life and faith that their views have been
> held, to quote St. Vincent of Lerins, "everywhere, always, and by
> all." Piecing together various texts, or interpreting Scripture

> willy-nilly—i.e., apart from the consensual interpretation of the
> Church Fathers—was long ago denounced by another of their more

[EHB]

nick cobb wrote:

> These people are "Fundamentalist Orthodox."
>

And, as usual, Nick, rather than dealing with what people have to say,
just dismisses them with nice propaganda names.

There is just no better way to discredit people than to call the
"Orthodox Fundamentalists." That way you just turn them into a
bogeyman, and a straw-bogeyman at that. Josef Goebbels would be proud
of you if he could see how well you follow his tactics.

--------------------------------------------------------------

BOOK REVIEW

[Archpriest] John W. Morris, Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View.
Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Publishing, 1998. Paperback.

Father John Morris has, unfortunately, expressed deep disdain for
Orthodox traditionalism in general and the Greek Old Calendarists in
particular. He has characterized our Bishops in a rather vulgar way,
even going so far as to call us cult leaders. His writing certainly
gives the impression that he has important things to say. And he is
obviously capable of good scholarship. But his book on Orthodox
fundamentalism (in effect, on us Orthodox opposed to ecumenism and
modernism), which wholly misunderstands and distorts our ecclesiological
and theological arguments, suffers from those weaknesses that always
beset scholarship wanting of objectivity. Father Morris’ description of
us as fundamentalists is, in the final analysis, a somewhat ironic
response to the fact that we have rightly pointed out that the
ecumenical movement, in which the author is an active participant, has
its historical roots in Protestant fundamentalism. His book will impress
those with a cursory knowlege of the Fathers, of ecclesiology, and of
the history of the ecumenical movement. Though he does, once more, make
some good points, he takes on a complex matter in a simplistic way. A
publisher’s blurb about the book, which claims that the author "...
presents the truth [of Orthodoxy] in five chapters," speaks to this
fact. Capturing Orthodoxy in five chapters would be quite a feat.

Needless to say, we resisters to modernism and ecumenism do not believe,
as Father John has asserted, that the calendar and priestly dress—while
important parts of the tradition of the Church—are essentially dogmatic
issues. Nor do we believe that the Orthodox Church should live in
isolation from other religious confessions. We do believe, however, that
Orthodoxy is not simply one "lung" in the multifaceted Body of the
Church, but the Church itself. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is
made manifest through the traditions of the Church—even seemingly
insignificant ones—and that we must consciously preserve them.

Finally, we consider ourselves part of the Orthodox Church and
walled-off in resistance from error and the compromised confession of
the modernists. We do not, as these ecumenists say so freely of us,
declare them to be outside the Church. Certainly some of them are not
true believers (True Orthodox), are not true clergy, and have removed
themselves from the pale of Orthodoxy—and this not only by their
in-novations, but by their deep, enduring hatred of us traditionalists.
Nonetheless, the final course of modern Orthodoxy is yet to be revealed
and it is our hope that many modernists, including those blinded by
personal animus, will one day see the light of true belief.

In the meantime, let those who possess analytical skills carefully
examine what we teach and then objectively study books such as the one
in question. An intelligent man will see that this book attributes to us
traditionalists things which we neither believe nor teach. It is meant
more to attack a perceived enemy, who has been "dressed to kill," than
it is to criticize our actual ecclesiology and thought. And this
detracts from the good that the book actually contains.

These are sad days. Orthodoxy has become a place where those who,
finding no eminence elsewhere, do so in Orthodoxy. And thus their love
of words like "official," "mainstream," and "large," the verbal refuges
of the mediocre—an inappropriate and sad retreat, indeed, for someone as
obviously gifted and intelligent as the author of this book. Thus, too,
the personal hatred for those of us who call for a deeper and more
authentic Orthodoxy, and especially among converts from Western
Christianity. Personal hatred taken to the point of writing books that
distort and misrepresent the teachings of one’s perceived antagonists
represents a trend among Orthodox polemicists—both modernists and
traditionalists—which accomplishes nothing. We must all work to avoid
this trend.

Archbishop Chrysostomos
Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies

*Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, No. 2, pp. 32-33.

[nick cobb]

Boy, you SO want to be accepted as having normal Orthodox Christian
views. SORRY! Keep quoting Whiteford, a ROCOR cleric of infamous reputation!

EHB wrote:

> nick cobb wrote:
>
>> These people are "Fundamentalist Orthodox."
>>
>
> And, as usual, Nick, rather than dealing with what people have to say,
> just dismisses them with nice propaganda names.
>
> There is just no better way to discredit people than to call the
> "Orthodox Fundamentalists." That way you just turn them into a
> bogeyman, and a straw-bogeyman at that. Josef Goebbels would be proud
> of you if he could see how well you follow his tactics.
>

33.

[Steven Hunter]

You may or may not be right about ecumenism, but do you ever actually make a
point? Are insults and ad hominem sleights all you have to offer here? How
pathetic...

"nick cobb" <ni...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kQ_Pb.61140$sm1....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

[Al]

WE are probably viewing the long-term psychological effects of the
OCA's refusal to ordain him.

"Steven Hunter" <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nPidnXhObf-...@adelphia.com>...

[learner]

"Steven Hunter" <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nPidnXhObf-...@adelphia.com>...

Well, I do not like ad-hominem attacks, I believe that they
demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of an argument. In respect to
Mr. Whiteford, I have had discussions with him in the past - which in
part convinced me to leave the Orthodox Church.

His attack on Protestant "heretics" is amusing, to say the least. Mr.
Whiteford often misses the point of the other side and attempts to
drown them in words.

For example, it was especially amusing that, on one had, Whiteford
attempts to deny Platonic influences on the Church and then proceeds
to cite Dr. Cavarnos to defend these influences!

The section concerning icons was internally contradictory. Citing
Leonid Ouspensky, Mr. Whiteford tells us:

> The Church teaches that the image is based on the Incarnation of the
> second person of the Trinity.

But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.

> Even though this may appear to be strange, the sacred image for the
> Church proceeds precisely from the absence of the image in the Old
> Testament.

And this statement will be contradicted in a moment.

> The prohibition of the image which appears in Exodus (20:4) and in
> Deuteronomy (5:12-19) is a provisional, pedagogic measure which concerns
> only the Old Testament, and is not a prohibition in theory.

Then where are these injunctions abrogated in Scripture? Where does
the Bible tell us, in contradiction of God's Word, to make and
venerate images?

Now, to the aforementioned contradiction concerning the "absence" of
images in the OT:

> Jones fails to address the fact that God commanded the use of images
> in the Temple.

But God did not command their veneration. The Jews did not venerate
angels, nor did they seek their intercession.

> Douglas Wilson adds to this error in his article expanding upon Jones'
> introductory remarks. Wilson asserts: "We know that the Jewish Temple had no
> images for use in prayer and worship."

Once again, the Jews did not venerate these images, nor did they seek
their intercession.

> Have they not read the Old Testament descriptions of the Tabernacle

> and the Temple? We find numerous images of Cherubim in the following places:.

Yet, in none of these passages do we find that these were venerated or
that they were prayed to for intercession.

Whiteford is correct that there are references to images in the Old
Testament, and that they were venerated. In fact, in Exodus 32, the
Children of Israel made and venerated a Golden Calf - and God was not
happy about that!

> The iconoclasts also said that nothing in the New Testament indicates
> that icons should be made or venerated. "The custom of making icons of
> Christ has no foundation either in the tradition of Christ, or in that
> of the apostles or the Fathers," they maintained.

They were correct.

> "But, St Theodore the Studite replied, "nowhere did Christ order any word to
> be put down; and yet His image has been traced by the apostles and been
> preserved up to now. What is written down on paper and with ink, is
> put on the icon through various colors or another material." [38]

That is the fallacy of an argument from silence. Some of my gay
friends rightly point out that Christ did not explicitly prohibit
homosexuality, therefore it too is allowed.

The trajectory of Orthodoxy [whether discussing icons or infant
baptism] is :

1. What the Bible does not explicitly prohibit is therefore permitted,
2. What is then permitted is required,
3. Anyone who disagrees with what is required is a heretic.

Also, Christ told His followers to spread the Word and, as some of us
know, words are often written. On the other hand, Christ never
instructed us to make and venerate images, nor did Paul.

> Thus, the visible image is equivalent to the verbal image. Just as the
> word of Scripture is an image, so is the painted image a word. "That
> which the word communicates by sound, a painting demonstrates silently
> by representation,"

My problem here is that we have a pretty good idea, from manuscript
evidence, what Jesus and the Apostles believed and taught. In the
case of icons, we have no idea concerning the appearance of Christ,
Mary, or the early Saints. Worse is the case of icons of the Old
Testament Patriarchs - the Jews never made images of these men, so how
does an iconographer know how to paint these men?

Also, from a spiritual standpoint, is it possible that an iconographer
could be inspired by an unclean spirit, and that those who venerate an
icon painted under this inspiration are, in effect, venerating that
spirit?

Learner

[Al Green]

And there you have it from El Slicko Nicko HamasKobbs...a slander against a
well-respected priest of the Orthodox Church.

What a guy!

"nick cobb" <ni...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kQ_Pb.61140$sm1....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

[nick cobb]

Get some help!

[Al Green]

After you!

"nick cobb" <ni...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:tiEQb.12056$Ce5....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

[Fr. John Whiteford]

I would like to point out that Fr. John Morris and I are now quite
good friends. He lives here in the Houston area, and I see him at the
Orthodox Clergy Association meetings on a regular basis.

-Fr. John Whiteford

EHB <e...@nospam.yu> wrote in message news:<YI_Pb.41189$Bj....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

> For example, it was especially amusing that, on one had, Whiteford
> attempts to deny Platonic influences on the Church and then proceeds
> to cite Dr. Cavarnos to defend these influences!

You only do not understand because you do not wish to. Orthodoxy has
not been shaped by Platonic thought, but Orthodox has made careful use
of Greek Philosophic terminology in order to explain the faith to a
culture that spoke in those terms.

> The section concerning icons was internally contradictory. Citing
> Leonid Ouspensky, Mr. Whiteford tells us:
>
> > The Church teaches that the image is based on the Incarnation of the
> > second person of the Trinity.
>
> But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
> God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.

The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).

Let me ask you this, Learner, if photography existed during the time
of Christ, would it be idol worship to make a photograph of Christ?
Would this violate the second commandment?

Learner: "Then where are these injunctions abrogated in Scripture?

Where does the Bible tell us, in contradiction of God's Word, to make
and venerate images?"

Me: See:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/icon_faq.htm

The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which
had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it
commands: "bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note
first of all that the word for "bow" here, is the same word used in
Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.

And what is the "footstool of His feet"? In 1st Chronicles 28:2,
David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In
Psalm 99 [98 in the Septuagint], it begins by speaking of the Lord who
"dwells between the Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow
to His holy hill"—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is
speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm
132:7, where it is preceded by the statement "We will go into His
tabernacles..." and is followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into
Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength."

Interestingly, this phrase is applied to the Cross in the services of
the Church, and the connection is not accidental—because on the Ark,
between the Cherubim was the Mercy Seat, upon which the sacrificial
blood was sprinkled for the sins of the people (Exodus 25:22,
Leviticus 16:15).

Note also:

""And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face
before the Ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of
Israel, and put dust upon their heads." (Joshua 7:6)

Learner: "Once again, the Jews did not venerate these images, nor did
they seek their intercession."

Me: We do not seek the intercession of images either.

-Fr. John Whiteford

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...

> > But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
> > God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.
>
> The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
> Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
> to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).<

We have not seen Him; and those who did see Him did not make any images of
Him.

> Let me ask you this, Learner, if photography existed during the time
> of Christ, would it be idol worship to make a photograph of Christ?
> Would this violate the second commandment?<

No. But nobody knows what Jesus looked like, so everything is left up to the
artist and, of course, his patron.

Peter

[Al Green]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FCNQb.102$1V6....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

>
> "Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
> > > God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.
> >
> > The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
> > Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
> > to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).<
>
> We have not seen Him; and those who did see Him did not make any images of
> Him.

***So?

>
> > Let me ask you this, Learner, if photography existed during the time
> > of Christ, would it be idol worship to make a photograph of Christ?
> > Would this violate the second commandment?<
>
> No. But nobody knows what Jesus looked like, so everything is left up to
the
> artist and, of course, his patron.

***Sure we do. Just look at the Shroud of Turin.

[Fr. John Whiteford]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote

> We have not seen Him; and those who did see Him did not make any images of
> Him.
>
> > Let me ask you this, Learner, if photography existed during the time
> > of Christ, would it be idol worship to make a photograph of Christ?
> > Would this violate the second commandment?<
>
> No. But nobody knows what Jesus looked like, so everything is left up to the
> artist and, of course, his patron.

So you assert, but according to Tradition Christ made at least one
image (and perhaps two) of himself. What is your opinion of the
Shroud of Turin?

-Fr. John Whiteford

[brachypodium]

"Al Green" <a...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ruPQb.79224$Su5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

>
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:FCNQb.102$1V6....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
> > > > God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.
> > >
> > > The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
> > > Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
> > > to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).<
> >
> > We have not seen Him; and those who did see Him did not make any images
of
> > Him.
>
> ***So?<

So no one knows what Jesus looked like.

Peter

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8ebb50c0.0401...@posting.google.com...

Has that been used as the model for icons? What was used for the icons of
Mary and the apostles?

Peter

[EHB]

Dear Fr. John,

Blagoslovi.

I am glad so much has changed since the publication of that regrettable
volume back during the AA's War on Traditionalism.

Kissing your right hand,
Ephrem

P.S. You and Fr. John Morris also have in common being on the receiving
end of Kobbs' hate-filled vitriol. I remember well the constant stream
of insults to which the esteemed Archpriest (and his Khouria) were
subjected by our resident SVS grad.

[nick cobb]

Yep, "Fundamentalist Orthodox." Filled with externals, but internally
lacking!

[Fr. John Whiteford]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<gPWQb.29331

> Has that been used as the model for icons? What was used for the icons of
> Mary and the apostles?

Documentaries I have seen on the shroud have historians who note that
the image on the shroud is consistent with the image that has been
traditionally used for Christ.

There are very ancient icons of Ss. Peter and Paul (a second century
one is the earliest that comes to mind) and there is a consistent
iconographic tradition that matches.

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...

> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<gPWQb.29331
>
> > Has that been used as the model for icons? What was used for the icons
of
> > Mary and the apostles?
>
> Documentaries I have seen on the shroud have historians who note that
> the image on the shroud is consistent with the image that has been
> traditionally used for Christ.<

If one was going to attempt a forgery, one would hardly do anything other
than copy popular myth, if that is what it was.

Now about your claim, and the question that arises from it.

'Christ made at least one image (and perhaps two) of himself.'

Has the Turin Shroud been used as a template for pictorial representations
of Christ? If not, and the current absence of an answer to this question
gives grounds for believing it was not so used, why did Christ make an image
of Himself?

Peter

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.0401...@posting.google.com>...

> So you assert, but according to Tradition Christ made at least one
> image (and perhaps two) of himself.

Really? Where are these icons? Have they been made available for
archaeological analysis and carbon dating?

> What is your opinion of the Shroud of Turin?

In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three
independent sources: Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All of these respected
institutions dated the cloth as originating in medieval times - some
time around 1350.

Learner

[Al]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<gr6Rb.301$H76...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...

Who can tell why Christ made an image of Himself? Do you know the
answer to your question?

Al

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...

> > For example, it was especially amusing that, on one had, Whiteford
> > attempts to deny Platonic influences on the Church and then proceeds
> > to cite Dr. Cavarnos to defend these influences!
>
> You only do not understand because you do not wish to.

And you do not provide an adequate response because you most likely
cannot.

> Orthodoxy has not been shaped by Platonic thought, but Orthodox has made
> careful use of Greek Philosophic terminology in order to explain the faith to
> a culture that spoke in those terms.

First of all, and for the record, I do not agree with the author's
charge that Orthodoxy is "Pagan" because it borrows Platonic
philosophy and terminology.

However, how can one use Platonic thought to construct an argument and
then claim not to be influenced by it? Was "Greek Philosophic
terminology" a part of the tradition of Semitic prophecy on which the
Christian faith is, in part, based? Cultures and ideas do not arise
and develop in isolation of each other, but to deny the influence of
Platonic philosophy on Christianity, and then defend its selective
use, is a bit disingenuous.

> > But, the Word of God existed before the incarnation of Christ - and
> > God strictly prohibited the veneration of images.
>
> The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
> Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
> to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).

Are you claiming that their are no icons which depict the Godhead?
What about Roublev's "Icon of the Trinity"? Also, while one winter
break in Paris with my girlfriend, I noticed a depiction of God the
Father over the altar at Sacre Coeur. So, whether or not you agree
with the depiction of the Godhead, one cannot claim that there is/has
been a total prohibition against it.

> Let me ask you this, Learner, if photography existed during the time
> of Christ, would it be idol worship to make a photograph of Christ?
> Would this violate the second commandment?

First of all, I do not believe that religious art are idols, nor do I
believe that the veneration of these articles is necessarily idolatry.
I do believe that the veneration of religious art is more properly
classified as animism.

There would be nothing wrong with having a photograph of Christ - if
such a thing existed. However, if one bowed down to, kissed, and imbue
this photograph with powers that inanimate objects do not have, then
that person would be committing animism.

> Learner: "Then where are these injunctions abrogated in Scripture?
> Where does the Bible tell us, in contradiction of God's Word, to make
> and venerate images?"
>
> Me: See:
>
> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/icon_faq.htm
>
> The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which

> had two prominent images of cherubim on it....

Here is why this is not an answer:

Notice the GOD told the Children of Israel to bow to the Ark. GOD
also told the Children of Israel to build the Ark and gave very
specific instructions as to how this was to be done and how the Ark
was to be handled.

NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus Christ, or Paul tell
us to create icons. There are absolutely no instructions in
Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church [ie the Didache]
concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of icons. Icons are
a human innovation to the Christian faith. They make some believe
that they can worship God on their terms and not on His terms - a
mistake also made by the Israelites when they made and venerated the
Golden Calf .

An additional problem is: - the cherubim on the Ark were 3-dimensional
images, not 2-dimensional icons. If you extrapolate God's command to
bow down to the Ark to Christianity, then why do Orthodox Churches not
have, and venerate, statues as the Roman Catholics do? Even by your
own argument, you are worshipping God on your terms!

A third problem is: how do you know that the icon is an accurate
representation of the person in question? As previously mentioned,
God gave instructions concerning the design and construction of the
Ark. What about icons, especially those of the Old Testament
Patriarchs? For example, on Canal Street [which is the heart of New
York's Chinatown], there is a shop with a picture of a Chinese Jesus.
Would it be wrong to venerate this image?

Or, is it possible that an unclean spirit [assuming such things exist]
could have, at some point in history, inspired an iconographer to make
its image for others to venerate?

> Learner: "Once again, the Jews did not venerate these images, nor did
> they seek their intercession."
>
> Me: We do not seek the intercession of images either.

Semantics. You seek the intercession of the person pictured.

Learner

[brachypodium]

"Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com...

John Whiteford, presumably.

> Do you know the
> answer to your question?<

No; that's why I'm asking. Do you?

Peter

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

"First of all, and for the record, I do not agree with the author's
charge that Orthodoxy is "Pagan" because it borrows Platonic
philosophy and terminology.
However, how can one use Platonic thought to construct an argument and
then claim not to be influenced by it? Was "Greek Philosophic
terminology" a part of the tradition of Semitic prophecy on which the
Christian faith is, in part, based? Cultures and ideas do not arise
and develop in isolation of each other, but to deny the influence of
Platonic philosophy on Christianity, and then defend its selective
use, is a bit disingenuous."

Let me ask you a few questions before I respond:

1) Do you believe the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a
Platonist?

2) What is your view of the inspiration of Scripture?

3) Are you aware that the charge is often made that Hebrews is
Platonistic, and if so what is your response?

Learner: "Are you claiming that their are no icons which depict the

Godhead? What about Roublev's "Icon of the Trinity"? Also, while one
winter break in Paris with my girlfriend, I noticed a depiction of God
the Father over the altar at Sacre Coeur. So, whether or not you agree
with the depiction of the Godhead, one cannot claim that there is/has
been a total prohibition against it."

We do not believe that the Holy Trinity looks like Three Angels. That
is a depiction of a seen from Genesis in which the Trinity was
revealed in a symbolic way.

Likewise, icons of God the Father in which he is represented as an Old
Man are symbolic depictions based on Daniel's vision of the Ancient of
Days. Even so, many Orthodox object to this depiction on the grounds
that it is easily misunderstood. In any case, God the Father is
spirit, and does not look like an Old Man. Thus neither icon depict
the Godhead in anything but a symbolic way -- and in both cases, the
images come from things *seen* in the Old Testament, and are not icons
of the invisible Godhead.

Learner: "First of all, I do not believe that religious art are idols,

nor do I believe that the veneration of these articles is necessarily
idolatry. I do believe that the veneration of religious art is more
properly classified as animism. There would be nothing wrong with
having a photograph of Christ - if such a thing existed. However, if
one bowed down to, kissed, and imbue this photograph with powers that
inanimate objects do not have, then that person would be committing
animism."

Do you think the Jews are engaging in animism when the bow down and
kiss inanimate scrolls of the Torah?

Learner: "Notice the GOD told the Children of Israel to bow to the

Ark. GOD also told the Children of Israel to build the Ark and gave
very specific instructions as to how this was to be done and how the
Ark was to be handled. NOWHERE in Scripture does GOD the Father, Jesus
Christ, or Paul tell us to create icons. There are absolutely no
instructions in Scripture, or in the earliest documents of the Church
[ie the Didache] concerning the making, yet alone the veneration, of
icons. Icons are a human innovation to the Christian faith. They
make some believe that they can worship God on their terms and not on
His terms - a mistake also made by the Israelites when they made and
venerated the Golden Calf."

This brings us to the question behind the question here, and that is
whether your assumption of Sola Scriptura is a valid one. I argue
that it is not:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.htm

Learner: "An additional problem is: - the cherubim on the Ark were

3-dimensional images, not 2-dimensional icons. If you extrapolate
God's command to bow down to the Ark to Christianity, then why do
Orthodox Churches not have, and venerate, statues as the Roman
Catholics do? Even by your own argument, you are worshipping God on
your terms!"

There were two dimensional icons of the cherubim as well, in the
temple. As for the two verses three dimensional question, that is a
question of tradition, which brings us back to the question Sola
Scriptura. There is nothing wrong in principle with statues, aside
from the fact that the Church has generally preferred 2 dimensional
icons -- probably because two dimensional images are less likely to be
misunderstood in idolatrous ways.

Learner: "A third problem is: how do you know that the icon is an

accurate representation of the person in question? As previously
mentioned, God gave instructions concerning the design and
construction of the Ark. What about icons, especially those of the
Old Testament Patriarchs? For example, on Canal Street [which is the
heart of New York's Chinatown], there is a shop with a picture of a
Chinese Jesus. Would it be wrong to venerate this image?"

Icons of some Biblical figures are no doubt not based on their actual
apparence, appart from what we can discern from Scriptural references
to their apparence. These icons represent them, but probably do not
show how they actually looked. Exact reproduction is not the point in
any case. Traditional icons have elements that are intentionally
non-realistic, but that gets into a number of side issues and takes us
away form the central issues here.

There are black icons of Christ from Ethiopia that nevertheless are
easily recognizable as Christ. If you were able to identify Christ in
a Chinese icon, in which he had more asian features, there is nothing
wrong with that, so long as it still is recognizable. In the case of
Christ, we do know what he looked like.

Learner: "Semantics. You seek the intercession of the person
pictured."

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

"In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three
independent sources: Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All of these respected
institutions dated the cloth as originating in medieval times - some
time around 1350."

Me: That has not been the end of the story. Egyptian Mummies have
also been carbon dated to be as much as a 1,000 years off from their
actual date because of a coating caused by micro organisms.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

See also: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/shroud.htm

And http://www.shroudstory.com/c14.htm

-Fr. John Whiteford

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...

> Learner wrote:
>
> "In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three
> independent sources: Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and
> the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All of these respected
> institutions dated the cloth as originating in medieval times - some
> time around 1350."
>
> Me: That has not been the end of the story. Egyptian Mummies have
> also been carbon dated to be as much as a 1,000 years off from their
> actual date because of a coating caused by micro organisms.<

That does not mean that this artefact is not from the 14th C. If faith
depends on scientific tests, how much is it worth?

Neither does it answer my questions.

Peter

[Al]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<HZaRb.35$xF...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...

No.

So where do we go from here?

[brachypodium]

Keep waiting for John to reply, I suppose.

Peter

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Peter wrote:

> If one was going to attempt a forgery, one would hardly do anything other
> than copy popular myth, if that is what it was.
>
> Now about your claim, and the question that arises from it.
>
> 'Christ made at least one image (and perhaps two) of himself.'
>
> Has the Turin Shroud been used as a template for pictorial representations
> of Christ? If not, and the current absence of an answer to this question
> gives grounds for believing it was not so used, why did Christ make an image
> of Himself?

See:

http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm

It should be noted that the scholars who make this argument are not
Orthodox. Many are Evangelical Protestants.

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Peter wrote:

> That does not mean that this artefact is not from the 14th C. If faith
> depends on scientific tests, how much is it worth?
>
> Neither does it answer my questions.

You could find the answer to just about any question on the Shroud at:

http://www.shroudstory.com/

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...

at:
>
> http://www.shroudstory.com/<

Can I find the answer to these questions there?

Has the Turin Shroud been used as a template for pictorial representations
of Christ? If not, and the current absence of an answer to this question
gives grounds for believing it was not so used, why did Christ make an image
of Himself?

Yes, or no?

Peter

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...

First, I would like to thank you for your response and thoughts. This
discussion has been a welcome relief from much of the character
assassination which is currently going on in this group.

> Let me ask you a few questions before I respond:

> 1) Do you believe the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a
> Platonist?

I do not believe that the author of Hebrews was a Platonist in the
Pagan sense of the term. The author did, however, borrow from
Platonic philosophy. Once again, I do not agree with the author's

charge that Orthodoxy is "Pagan" because it borrows Platonic
philosophy and terminology.

> 2) What is your view of the inspiration of Scripture?

Well, this is a huge debate between me and my girlfriend's father who
holds the "plenary view" of scripture inspiration [every word in the
Bible was written after being "dictated" to the authors by God]. This
may be the case in the OT, but I prefer the "dynamic view" of
inspiration - which believes that God inspired the ideas/concepts in
scripture but allowed the authors to write in their own words.
Therefore, there may be some discrepancies in various Gospel accounts,
but these discrepancies do not impact spiritual truth of Scriptures.

> 3) Are you aware that the charge is often made that Hebrews is
> Platonistic, and if so what is your response?

Yes, I am aware of the charge. Hebrews makes use of the Platonic idea
of "types" in the case of the earthly and heavenly tabernacles when it
talks about how the earthly tabernacle is only a shadow/copy of the
heavenly tabernacle. Clearly, the author is using a Platonic idea to
express a Christian argument. Once again, I do not believe the one
can use Platonic thought to construct an argument and then claim not
to be influenced by it - even in a Christian context.

> We do not believe that the Holy Trinity looks like Three Angels. That
> is a depiction of a seen from Genesis in which the Trinity was
> revealed in a symbolic way.

Apparently Roublev did. But that is not the point. I mentioned this
because in response to your statement:

> The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
> Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
> to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).

which is not accurate. There are icons which depict God the Father,
whether or not we agree with the practice is a different issue.

> Do you think the Jews are engaging in animism when the bow down and
> kiss inanimate scrolls of the Torah?

Animism is based on intentions more than actions. In other words, if
someone kisses the Torah, believing that paper and ink have some type
of supernatural powers, then they are engaging in animism.

> This brings us to the question behind the question here, and that is
> whether your assumption of Sola Scriptura is a valid one. I argue
> that it is not:

When did I assume Sola Scriptura to be a valid argument? I have said,
on several discussions that both the Sola Scriptura view of Scripture,
as well as the Orthodox view, both amount to a circular argument.

For example, one could argue in favor of Sola Scriptura by pointing to
St. Paul's statement that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim
3:16) as scriptural testimony to this doctrine. However, the problem
is that unless we know [from some other source] that this letter is
inspired - we are arguing in a circle.

The Orthodox also stumble into the very same trap. If we believe that
the Orthodox Church is the most "reliable" interpreter of the Bible,
we first must accept the premise that the Bible is, in fact, inspired.
Right?

We then believe in the Bible based on the authority of the Orthodox
Church. The Orthodox Church then attempts to prove her authority from
the Bible by pointing out that it is given authority by the writings
of certain individuals who tried to prove the authority of the Church
from the Bible, or from the writings of certain men who, who wrote
about other men who tried to prove the authority of Church from the
Bible......and so on.

Whether either side likes it or not, the final authority to which the
Orthodox and the Protestants both refer is the Bible. Both Orthodox
and Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate proof to God -
Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly and
Orthodox claiming authority to the Bible through the channel of
tradition.

> There were two dimensional icons of the cherubim as well, in the
> temple. As for the two verses three dimensional question, that is a
> question of tradition, which brings us back to the question Sola
> Scriptura. There is nothing wrong in principle with statues, aside
> from the fact that the Church has generally preferred 2 dimensional
> icons -- probably because two dimensional images are less likely to be
> misunderstood in idolatrous ways.

First of all, Sola Scriptura is not the issue here. I agree that
there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with statues, or with
icons. However, I find your last statement very interesting and
intriguing - perhaps more so that you intended it to be!

When you say:

> ...the Church has generally preferred 2 dimensional icons -- probably because

> two dimensional images are less likely to be misunderstood in idolatrous ways.

you are implying that icons could be "misunderstood in idolatrous
ways" - although it is "less likely". If this is the case, then why
should we risk falling into "idolatrous ways" by venerating icons?

> Icons of some Biblical figures are no doubt not based on their actual
> apparence, appart from what we can discern from Scriptural references
> to their apparence. These icons represent them, but probably do not
> show how they actually looked. Exact reproduction is not the point in
> any case. Traditional icons have elements that are intentionally
> non-realistic, but that gets into a number of side issues and takes us
> away form the central issues here.

But this misses a question that I asked earlier: is it possible that

an unclean spirit [assuming such things exist] could have, at some
point in history, inspired an iconographer to make its image for
others to venerate?

> There are black icons of Christ from Ethiopia that nevertheless are

> easily recognizable as Christ. If you were able to identify Christ in
> a Chinese icon, in which he had more asian features, there is nothing
> wrong with that, so long as it still is recognizable. In the case of
> Christ, we do know what he looked like.

One one hand, you say that it is acceptable to venerate an icon of a
Chinese or African Jesus if we are able "to identify Christ" in these
icons. But then you say :

> In the case of Christ, we do know what he looked like.

How can an icon picture a man "easily recognizable as Christ" when we
do not know what Christ really looked like?

Learner

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...

> Me: That has not been the end of the story. Egyptian Mummies have
> also been carbon dated to be as much as a 1,000 years off from their
> actual date because of a coating caused by micro organisms.

Perhaps, but the chances of error is very small when three different
institutions reach the same conclusion - the precision of these
results indicates that they are accurate.

For other problems with the shroud, see:

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

Learner

[Al]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<hpsRb.267$5W5....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>...

John is "Father John." He is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Peter wrote:
> Can I find the answer to these questions there?
>
> Has the Turin Shroud been used as a template for pictorial representations
> of Christ? If not, and the current absence of an answer to this question
> gives grounds for believing it was not so used, why did Christ make an image
> of Himself?
>
> Yes, or no?

You will have to click on the link that answers that question:

http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm

-Fr. John Whiteford

[AGG]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<lhtRb.44$lk4...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...

Your question may be unanswerable.

[Joseph]

learner wrote:
> frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...
>
> First, I would like to thank you for your response and thoughts. This
> discussion has been a welcome relief from much of the character
> assassination which is currently going on in this group.

Please forgive my intrusion into this lovely exchange. I don't intend
to attack you on multiple fronts (actually, I don't intend to attack you
at all), but this discussion was so *interesting*. I know you are being
spread pretty thin in here, though!

[snip]

>>2) What is your view of the inspiration of Scripture?
>
>
> Well, this is a huge debate between me and my girlfriend's father who
> holds the "plenary view" of scripture inspiration [every word in the
> Bible was written after being "dictated" to the authors by God]. This
> may be the case in the OT, but I prefer the "dynamic view" of
> inspiration - which believes that God inspired the ideas/concepts in
> scripture but allowed the authors to write in their own words.
> Therefore, there may be some discrepancies in various Gospel accounts,
> but these discrepancies do not impact spiritual truth of Scriptures.

Pretty much my view, actually.

>>3) Are you aware that the charge is often made that Hebrews is
>>Platonistic, and if so what is your response?
>
>
> Yes, I am aware of the charge. Hebrews makes use of the Platonic idea
> of "types" in the case of the earthly and heavenly tabernacles when it
> talks about how the earthly tabernacle is only a shadow/copy of the
> heavenly tabernacle. Clearly, the author is using a Platonic idea to
> express a Christian argument. Once again, I do not believe the one
> can use Platonic thought to construct an argument and then claim not
> to be influenced by it - even in a Christian context.

May I venture another possibility here? St. Paul was using terminology
Platonist terminology, but in a different way. So with the Church
Fathers. When a person objects to the idea that "the Fathers were
influenced by Platonism," they might be objecting to the notion that the
Fathers were Platonist. In the sense that they used the terminology,
they were influenced by Platonism. But, in the sense that they used the
terms differently (however slight the difference) it can be said that
the Platonism did not affect them.

It comes down to how exactly you frame the question.

Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius both made heavy use of Platonist and
Neo-Platonist terminology (though reinterpreting it), and the
Cappadocian Fathers were greatly influenced by Origen and
Pseudo-Dionysius. I think the real claim would be that the Fathers used
(Neo-)Platonist terms in non-Platonist ways.

So, it depends on how you look at it. The original argument might not
be so at odds with your statements.

>>We do not believe that the Holy Trinity looks like Three Angels. That
>>is a depiction of a seen from Genesis in which the Trinity was
>>revealed in a symbolic way.
>
>
> Apparently Roublev did.

Ummm, how would you know? He did depict a scene from Genesis in which
three Angels visited Abraham. Church tradition says that these angels
were a manifestation of the Trinity. It may be playing with loopholes,
but it is technically not an attempt at a direct depiction of the
(essential) Trinity.

Just like the supposed icon of God the Father is really based on the
Ancient of Days from Daniel's visions. It is a depiction of a vision,
not (technically) of the Father.

However, I have never really been comfortable with these icons, because
I feel that they are just side-stepping the canonical prohibitions.

> But that is not the point. I mentioned this
> because in response to your statement:
>
>
>>The prohibition was based upon the fact that we could not depict the
>>Godhead, which is in essense invisible to us. But this does not apply
>>to the incarnate Word, whom we have seen (1st John).
>
>
> which is not accurate. There are icons which depict God the Father,
> whether or not we agree with the practice is a different issue.

Whether people follow the rules or not does not mean the rules don't
exist. There are, indeed, prohibitions against depictions of God the
Father. The fact that some iconographer or another has side-stepped
this by claiming, "but it is a depiction of Daniel's vision, not of the
Father," does not change the fact that there is a prohibition.

>>Do you think the Jews are engaging in animism when the bow down and
>>kiss inanimate scrolls of the Torah?
>
>
> Animism is based on intentions more than actions. In other words, if
> someone kisses the Torah, believing that paper and ink have some type
> of supernatural powers, then they are engaging in animism.

Not necessarily.

I think the more precise term that you are looking for is "totemism".
Animism imbues objects with spirits/animation of their own. Totemism
gives an object or animal a special relationship to a deity. The
object/animal stands in, symbolically, for the divine, and takes on its
attributes. Think of the ancient Hebrew sacrificial lamb, or Native
North American totem poles.

Animism would imbue the objects with an independent animation of their
own, which was not a stand-in for some higher deity. Both ancient
judaism, and Orthodox Christianity have totemic aspects. We believe
that icons stand in a /relation/ to that wich they represent. They do
not have a spirit/animation of their own. Rather, veneration (and
contemplation) directed at the icon is confered upon the person or
concept which it represents.

You can continue to make your argument as you like. But you will make
it better if you trade in "animism" for "totemism". Do you see what I mean?

[snip]

>>...the Church has generally preferred 2 dimensional icons -- probably because
>>two dimensional images are less likely to be misunderstood in idolatrous ways.
>
>
> you are implying that icons could be "misunderstood in idolatrous
> ways" - although it is "less likely". If this is the case, then why
> should we risk falling into "idolatrous ways" by venerating icons?

I addressed this a while back. Look at http://tinyurl.com/2qxsc to see
the archive of that discussion. Looking back, some of my sentences were
awkwardly worded. If you have any trouble parsing them, don't be afraid
to ask. I'm not always in top form.

In any case, it is a valid question. I think that the matter I brought
up in response might be interesting to discuss with you, as a matter of
fact. Do what time permits, though. But do please read it.

[snip]

Cheers,

- Joseph

--
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the
state of doubt is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty,
knowledge arises when this feeling gives way to one of
assurance." - John Dewey

[bensu]

Dear Joseph,

Below is a relevant quote from /The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical
Tradition/, by Dr. Constantive Cavarnos (Belmont, MA: Institute for
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1989), pp. 17-21.

In XC,
Ephrem

---------------------------------------------

The presence of Platonic notions and terms is so noticeable in the
writings of Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of St. Basil, that he has been
called by some a "Christian Platonist." Two later Church Fathers—John
Damascene, who flourished during the first half of the eighth century,
and Photios the Great, who lived in the next century—have been
characterized by some as "Christian Aristotelians." This has been
occasioned by the fact that both wrote substantial chapters on the
Categories and the Predicables of Aristotle. But a careful reading of
the whole body of their works shows that they made much greater use of
Plato’s writings than of Aristotle’s, particularly in their discussions
of God and the human soul. With regard to Photios, it is very
significant that in his Lexicon of ancient Greek words, entitled Lexeon
Synagoge, there are far more references to Plato than to Aristotle. In
listing words used by Plato, Photios often names the Platonic works in
which they appear. He mentions altogether fifteen dialogues.

Moreover, in one place he speaks of Plato as "great" (ho megas
Platon), but he nowhere uses this highly honorific word for Aristotle.
On the basis of such internal evidence, there would seem to be a
justification for calling Damascene and Photios "Platonists," rather
than "Aristotelians." Actually, the use of either of these terms for
them is inappropriate, a serious error, as it is when applied to Justin
Martyr, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, or any other of the Greek
Church Fathers. For the foundation of their thought is neither Platonism
nor Aristotelianism, nor some other secular system of thought, but is
Christian revelation. This very important fact is noted frequently by
the Greek Fathers from the earliest to the latest. Thus the fourteenth
century Father Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, says:
"Whence did we learn about God, whence about the universe, whence about
ourselves something certain and free of error? Is it not from the
teaching of the Spirit?"

The adoption of certain notions and terms from Plato, Aristotle,
and other pagan writers does not make the Greek Church Fathers adherents
of such writers. They would have had no objection to being called simply
"philosophers." For they call Christianity "philosophy," "the divine
philosophy," and characterize serious reflection on some problem or
topic, such as those they engaged in, "philosophizing." But none of them
called himself or any other of their learned Christian predecessors a
"Platonist," an "Aristotelian," a "Christian Platonist," or a "Christian
Aristotelian." Such characterizations were for them unthinkable. They
were unthinkable because they would have been untrue, for the foundation
of their thought was, as we have noted, neither Platonic nor
Aristotelian, but Christian. Although they did use many elements from
Plato and Aristotle, they chose those elements that did not contradict
revealed teaching, but were in harmony with it and helped express or
illustrate its content. In other words, their use of pagan philosophy
was not a wholesale, slavish one. It was a very selective or "eclectic"
use, which left them quite free to criticize the errors of secular
philosophy. Material for this eclecticism was provided for them not only
by the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but also by those of the Stoics
and other Greek philosophers and, further, by ancient Greek poets,
historians, and orators. The following remark by St. Basil is very
illuminating in this connection: "Since it is through virtue that we
must enter upon this life of ours, and since much has been uttered in
praise of virtue by poets, much by historians, and much more still by
philosophers, we ought especially to apply ourselves to such literature."

The guiding principle for this eclecticism was put forth by Basil
and used by the other Christian philosopher-theologians or Church
Fathers of the East. Basil advised: Take from heathen books whatever
befits the Christian and is allied to the truth, and pass over the rest.
The model to be used is the bee. "Altogether after the manner bees,"
says Basil, "must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all
the flowers without discrimination nor indeed do they carry away entire
those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is
adapted to their needs, they let the rest go." . . .

One reason why the Greek Fathers selected and adapted such elements
was because they found them very helpful for formulating in clear and
precise form the content of the Christian faith. Another reason was the
fact that the use of philosophical terms and concepts would attract to
the faith the more educated among the pagans—those who had received
instruction in philosophy. For these reasons, too, they chose as their
language not the common Greek, the koine, but Attic Greek, using as
their models particularly such great masters of Attic prose as Plato,
Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Thucydides. From Plato, they took many
philosophical elements, modified them to a greater or lesser extent, and
assimilated them organically in the Christian teaching.

[Joseph]

bensu wrote:
> Dear Joseph,
>
> Below is a relevant quote from /The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical
> Tradition/, by Dr. Constantive Cavarnos (Belmont, MA: Institute for
> Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1989), pp. 17-21.
>

Thank you very much for taking the time to post that, Ephrem.

[brachypodium]

"AGG" <agg...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:fde09ba0.0401...@posting.google.com...

Then the claim that God left an image of His Son cannot be entertained
seriously. The answer is not on the cited website anyway, despite the claim
to the contrary.

Peter

[Al]

"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<jaPRb.31408$OA3.11...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

> >
> >
> > Your question may be unanswerable.<
>
> Then the claim that God left an image of His Son cannot be entertained
> seriously. The answer is not on the cited website anyway, despite the claim
> to the contrary.
>
> Peter

Your reasoning seems sound from a secular, humanistic point of view.
But, are there no mysteries in the Christian faith? Are there not
things about God that are unexplanable? Christianity is one of the
most mystical of all the religions.

Al

[brachypodium]

"Al" <aggr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com...

> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<jaPRb.31408$OA3.11...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Your question may be unanswerable.<
> >
> > Then the claim that God left an image of His Son cannot be entertained
> > seriously. The answer is not on the cited website anyway, despite the
claim
> > to the contrary.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Your reasoning seems sound from a secular, humanistic point of view.<

God created a universe of cause and effect, susceptible to reasoning and
science, and there is no such thing as secular reasoning.

> But, are there no mysteries in the Christian faith?<

I cannot think of any that relate to what is knowable by mankind.

Peter

[learner]

Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<KvGdnbfGoZN...@speakeasy.net>...

> Please forgive my intrusion into this lovely exchange.

Hey, at least we are not calling each other "Free Masons"!

> So, it depends on how you look at it. The original argument might not
> be so at odds with your statements.

Well, for the record, I agreed with Father John's objection against
the Credenda Article which calls Orthodoxy "Pagan" simply because
Platonic philosophy was used in the early Church. However, I would
not go so far as to say that Platonism did not influence those who
employed it. You cannot reach a conclusion without considering the
premises.

> >>We do not believe that the Holy Trinity looks like Three Angels. That
> >>is a depiction of a seen from Genesis in which the Trinity was
> >>revealed in a symbolic way.
> >
> > Apparently Roublev did.
>
> Ummm, how would you know?

He called the icon "The Trinity".

> However, I have never really been comfortable with these icons, because
> I feel that they are just side-stepping the canonical prohibitions.

Nor am I. Images of God the Father [however one wishes to rationalize
them away] create a huge problem. The Christological argument in favor
of images also argues against the representation of God the Father.
But, as has been noted, these representations do exist in Orthodoxy -
and, in fact, are included in some iconography manuals.

> Whether people follow the rules or not does not mean the rules don't
> exist. There are, indeed, prohibitions against depictions of God the
> Father. The fact that some iconographer or another has side-stepped
> this by claiming, "but it is a depiction of Daniel's vision, not of the
> Father," does not change the fact that there is a prohibition.

Then why do/have iconographers ignore this prohibition? Why did the
Stoglav Council fail in banning this practice?

> I think the more precise term that you are looking for is "totemism".
> Animism imbues objects with spirits/animation of their own. Totemism
> gives an object or animal a special relationship to a deity.

OK, "totemism" is a better term.

> The object/animal stands in, symbolically, for the divine, and takes on its
> attributes. Think of the ancient Hebrew sacrificial lamb, or Native
> North American totem poles.

Or icons of St. Nicholas which are supposed to protect ships and
sailors, and the icon of the "Unburnt Thornbush" of Mary which is used
to prevent house fires.

> We believe that icons stand in a /relation/ to that wich they represent.
> They do not have a spirit/animation of their own. Rather, veneration (and
> contemplation) directed at the icon is confered upon the person or
> concept which it represents.

This is clearly a Platonic idea! This argument is similar to the
veneration of Pagan images in the ancient world. When one venerated a
statue of Apollo [for example], they knew that the statue was a stone
representation of the god, and that the "real" Apollo was with the
other gods. When a Pagan venerated an image of Apollo, he was
honoring the god through this veneration. The image was sacred because
it represented Apollo and by venerating an image, the Pagan, was
really venerating Apollo.

This is essentially the same as the Orthodox veneration of icons. If
an icon is "written" according to specific standards, a spiritual link
is created with the person that the icon depicts. When one venerates
an icon of a Saint, that person is venerating that Saint. The ideas
behind both are essentially the same, except that the veneration is
simply directed toward different persons. For example, the Pagans
prayed to images of Perun for protection from storms. After
Christianity took over, these prayers were directed to icons of the
prophet Elijah.

Also, history tells us that there were Pagans who believed that there
were miraculous events associated with certain images. Today, many
Orthodox believe in miraculous event that are associated with certain
icons.

> I addressed this a while back. Look at http://tinyurl.com/2qxsc to see
> the archive of that discussion. Looking back, some of my sentences were
> awkwardly worded. If you have any trouble parsing them, don't be afraid
> to ask. I'm not always in top form.

I think that this is largely an argument of distraction. I agree that
anything can be idolized - including words. However, I would say that
the historical record shows that images have been idolized by far more
people than words - and therfore are a greater spiritual threat.

Learner

[Joseph]

learner wrote:
> Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<KvGdnbfGoZN...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>
>>Please forgive my intrusion into this lovely exchange.
>
>
> Hey, at least we are not calling each other "Free Masons"!

No no. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was so pleased to see an exchange
between people in which they were taking relatively opposed positions,
and yet carried on a civilized discussion.

>>So, it depends on how you look at it. The original argument might not
>>be so at odds with your statements.
>
>
> Well, for the record, I agreed with Father John's objection against
> the Credenda Article which calls Orthodoxy "Pagan" simply because
> Platonic philosophy was used in the early Church. However, I would
> not go so far as to say that Platonism did not influence those who
> employed it. You cannot reach a conclusion without considering the
> premises.

Yeah. I actually agree with you that it is silly to claim that it had
no influence. I was just venturing a possible way to think of that
objection in such a way as that it might make sense. If by "influence"
we mean something compromising, then I would object to the idea of
"influence." However, I don't think the influence was compromising, so
I don't mind admitting the influence.

Actually, I think its a plus. I got into Plotinus a bit last semester,
and found a lot to appreciate. Also in Plato. I could see clearly what
was used by some of the Fathers, and what they changed and omitted.
From my perspective, what they borrowed simply made them able to put
into words concepts that were difficult to express in the limited
philosophical language of the Semitic background of the Bible.
Seriously, the seminal work of Judaism, "A guide for the Perplexed," was
thoroughly influenced by Greek philosophy. Maimonides was well versed
in the philosophers.

>>>>We do not believe that the Holy Trinity looks like Three Angels. That
>>>>is a depiction of a seen from Genesis in which the Trinity was
>>>>revealed in a symbolic way.
>>>
>>>Apparently Roublev did.
>>
>>Ummm, how would you know?
>
>
> He called the icon "The Trinity".

Well, yeah. But I might call it that if I painted it (which I
wouldn't). I don't think that people think that the Holy Spirit really
looks like a dove, and yet they show the dove descending on Christ, and
call it the Holy Spirit.

I am only pointing out that just because he called the icon the Holy
Trinity doesn't mean that he thinks the Holy Trinity looks like three
angels -- only that they appeared to Abraham as such once. So, really,
you don't know that he thought that.

But, perhaps this is a ridiculous point to dwell on.

>>However, I have never really been comfortable with these icons, because
>>I feel that they are just side-stepping the canonical prohibitions.
>
>
> Nor am I. Images of God the Father [however one wishes to rationalize
> them away] create a huge problem. The Christological argument in favor
> of images also argues against the representation of God the Father.
> But, as has been noted, these representations do exist in Orthodoxy -
> and, in fact, are included in some iconography manuals.

I agree, they should close the loopholes.

>>Whether people follow the rules or not does not mean the rules don't
>>exist. There are, indeed, prohibitions against depictions of God the
>>Father. The fact that some iconographer or another has side-stepped
>>this by claiming, "but it is a depiction of Daniel's vision, not of the
>>Father," does not change the fact that there is a prohibition.
>
>
> Then why do/have iconographers ignore this prohibition? Why did the
> Stoglav Council fail in banning this practice?

A loophole is a loophole. Technically, he was writing an icon of
Daniel's vision. I'm not sure why they haven't closed this loophole.
Perhaps they don't want to stifle.

>>I think the more precise term that you are looking for is "totemism".
>>Animism imbues objects with spirits/animation of their own. Totemism
>>gives an object or animal a special relationship to a deity.
>
>
> OK, "totemism" is a better term.

:-)

>>The object/animal stands in, symbolically, for the divine, and takes on its
>>attributes. Think of the ancient Hebrew sacrificial lamb, or Native
>>North American totem poles.
>
>
> Or icons of St. Nicholas which are supposed to protect ships and
> sailors, and the icon of the "Unburnt Thornbush" of Mary which is used
> to prevent house fires.

Sure. No argument from me. I might get in trouble for saying it.
Christians always seem to want to deny that Christianity falls into any
category of religion that is shared with any other religion. I find the
connections warming. Call me weird.

>
>
>>We believe that icons stand in a /relation/ to that wich they represent.
>>They do not have a spirit/animation of their own. Rather, veneration (and
>>contemplation) directed at the icon is confered upon the person or
>>concept which it represents.
>
>
> This is clearly a Platonic idea! This argument is similar to the
> veneration of Pagan images in the ancient world. When one venerated a
> statue of Apollo [for example], they knew that the statue was a stone
> representation of the god, and that the "real" Apollo was with the
> other gods. When a Pagan venerated an image of Apollo, he was
> honoring the god through this veneration. The image was sacred because
> it represented Apollo and by venerating an image, the Pagan, was
> really venerating Apollo.

It is conceptually similar. Of course, they actually worshipped the
statues. Orthodox Christians venerate icons like they venerate bishops.
And we don't pray to saints as much as ask them for their prayers.
Well, them's the rules, anyway.

> This is essentially the same as the Orthodox veneration of icons.

I wouldn't say _essentially_ the same. Or, I guess you could mean
"essentially" is the colloquial sense of "nearly". Because, even when
the icon is of Christ -- who is worthy to be worshiped -- we don't
actually worship the icon. It still gets veneration. So, we are never
supposed to think that it is right to direct worship at the icon.

But, I won't deny the similarity.

> If
> an icon is "written" according to specific standards, a spiritual link
> is created with the person that the icon depicts. When one venerates
> an icon of a Saint, that person is venerating that Saint.

Well, yeas -- so long as they intend to be venerating the saint. One is
technically supposed to direct the veneration at wood and pigments. But
devotees of Apollo probably said they weren't directing their worship at
stone. I don't care.

> The ideas
> behind both are essentially the same, except that the veneration is
> simply directed toward different persons. For example, the Pagans
> prayed to images of Perun for protection from storms. After
> Christianity took over, these prayers were directed to icons of the
> prophet Elijah.

Isn't that cool?

>
> Also, history tells us that there were Pagans who believed that there
> were miraculous events associated with certain images. Today, many
> Orthodox believe in miraculous event that are associated with certain
> icons.

Eh. Miracles happen. St. Paul sent out kerchiefs to bless people and
heal them. It's called "the principle of contagion" in anthropological
terms. Christians have it all the way back into the New Testament.
Pagans had it. NonChristians have it today. So what. What makes
Christians Christian isn't simply the sum of the ways that they are
different from nonChristians.

When I was still in the nondenominational denomination of my youth,
there was a special _drum_ that was going around. Somebody played it at
some worship conference. Then some lady took it home, and claimed that
it cured her of cancer. Then it was making the rounds at later worship
conferences. And all of the Evangelical Protestants were getting worked
up over how God had blessed this drum. They even brought up St. Pauls
kerchiefs.

It ain't just us Orthodox...

>>I addressed this a while back. Look at http://tinyurl.com/2qxsc to see
>>the archive of that discussion. Looking back, some of my sentences were
>>awkwardly worded. If you have any trouble parsing them, don't be afraid
>>to ask. I'm not always in top form.
>
>
> I think that this is largely an argument of distraction.

I can assure you, it isn't.

> I agree that
> anything can be idolized - including words. However, I would say that
> the historical record shows that images have been idolized by far more
> people than words - and therfore are a greater spiritual threat.

I strongly disagree. I think it is just the opposite. The idolatry of
words is so common, and sometimes so severe, precisely because people
don't even think about it. Especially in the West. It happens to us
Orthodox too. We get so busy trying not to idolize our icons, we might
not pay attention to the danger of words. But the Protestants think
they are imune -- so they aren't on guard at all.

Orthodoxy has a tradition of being wary of the falseness of words:

"For St. Gregory of Nyssa, every concept relative to God is a
simulacrum, a false likeness, an idol. The concepts which we form in
accordance with the understanding and the judgment which are natural to
us, basing ourselves on an intelligible representation, create idols of
God instead of revealing to us God Himself. There is only one name by
which the divine nature can be expressed: the wonder which seizes the
soul when it thinks of God." [LOSSKY 2002:33-4]

This, of course, is apophatic theology. This is what the West
abandoned, slowly, starting with Augustine -- and culminating finally in
Aquinas.

So, no, I don't think it is a distraction issue. I think it is at the
heart of the issue. What worries me is that Orthodox might begin to
forget this. I just see too much lately where Orthodox, in dialoging
with the West, argue *like* the West. Most especially in the stuff that
comes from Conciliar Press. And what bugs me is that they are arguing
like Evangelicals. The least they could do is argue like Jesuits! ;-)

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner: "First, I would like to thank you for your response and
thoughts."

Me: Likewise. :)

Learner: "I do not believe that the author of Hebrews was a Platonist

in the Pagan sense of the term. The author did, however, borrow from
Platonic philosophy. Once again, I do not agree with the author's
charge that Orthodoxy is "Pagan" because it borrows Platonic
philosophy and terminology."

Me: The author of Hebrews used Platonistic terms, but not in
Platonistic ways -- but used them to express authentically Christian
ideas that have nothing to do with Platonism. Any time you convey the
Gospel in another language, you have to work with the lexicon that
exists or create new terms. Christians did both, when expressing the
Gospel in Greek. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a Hellenistic
doctrine, but its expression employed terms from Hellenistic
philosophy. The theological controversies of the first millennium
were in many ways the struggle to defend the authentically Christian
understanding of the Gospel, and thus the authentically Christian
understanding of theological terms.

Learner: "Well, this is a huge debate between me and my girlfriend's

father who holds the "plenary view" of scripture inspiration [every
word in the Bible was written after being "dictated" to the authors by
God]. This may be the case in the OT, but I prefer the "dynamic view"
of inspiration - which believes that God inspired the ideas/concepts
in scripture but allowed the authors to write in their own words.
Therefore, there may be some discrepancies in various Gospel accounts,
but these discrepancies do not impact spiritual truth of Scriptures."

Me: The term "plenary" simply means "fully". When people speak of
plenary inspiration, this does not necessarily imply a dictation view
of inspiration, but simply is an affirmation that the Scriptures are
without error in all that they intend to teach.

Learner: "Yes, I am aware of the charge. Hebrews makes use of the

Platonic idea of "types" in the case of the earthly and heavenly
tabernacles when it talks about how the earthly tabernacle is only a
shadow/copy of the heavenly tabernacle. Clearly, the author is using
a Platonic idea to express a Christian argument. Once again, I do not
believe the one can use Platonic thought to construct an argument and
then claim not to be influenced by it - even in a Christian context."

Me: I would argue that the author of Hebrews uses Platonistic *terms*,
and makes arguments that were geared towards people in a context in
which Platonistic terms were the lingua franca of intellectual
discussion... but I would disagree that this means he expressed
Platonistic ideas.

Learner: "Apparently Roublev did. But that is not the point. I

mentioned this because in response to your statement:"

Me: St. Andrei Rublev believed that this scene was an symbolic
manifestion of the Trinity, but not that this was an incarnation of
the Trinity, or a revelation of how God looks.

Learner: "There are icons which depict God the Father, whether or not

we agree with the practice is a different issue."

Me: The fact that many see these icons as depictions of how God the
Father would look is an argument against their use which many make.
However, the intention behind this image is symbolic.

Learner: "Animism is based on intentions more than actions. In other

words, if someone kisses the Torah, believing that paper and ink have
some type of supernatural powers, then they are engaging in animism."

Me: When Jews venerate holy things, they venerate them as way of
showing there reverence for the holiness of these things. Here is an
extended quote from an Orthodox Rabbi which is found in a book written
to explain Orthodox Jewish piety to non-observant Jews who are trying
to re-learn their faith:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/prostration_heb.htm

KISSING: AN ACT OF RELIGIOUS DEVOTION
by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin
Kissing is a universal sign of affection. It is an act of love, an
expression of endearment, not only between man and woman, parents and
children, but is also the expression of one's feelings for the ritual
objects and the religious duties associated with them.
There are no religious laws that require us to kiss a ritual or holy
object. There is only the force of custom as it develops through the
ages. In varying degrees kissing has become an optional commonplace
among the Jews as an expression of religious devotion at the following
times:
· The tallit [prayer shawl] is kissed just before putting it on.
· The tefillin [phylacteries] are kissed when taken them out of their
bag and before replacing them in the bag.
· The mezuzah on the doorpost is sometimes kissed upon entering or
leaving a house. It is done by touching the mezuzah with one's hand
and kissing the fingers that made contact with the mezuzah.
· The Torah is kissed when it passes by in the synagogue. Here, too,
it is often done by extending a hand to touch the Torah mantle and
then kissing the hand. Some touch the Torah with the edge of a tallit
and then kiss the tallit.
· The Torah is also kissed before one recites the blessings over it.
Here it is done by taking the edge of one's tallit or the sash that is
used to tie the scroll together, touching the outside of the scroll
with it, and then kissing the tallit or the sash. Many people place
the tallit or sash to the very words where the reading is about to
begin. The sages advised against doing this as it may hasten a
wearing away or erasure of the letters. At best, they recommend
touching only the margin area near the line where the reading is about
to begin. In all instances, one should not touch the Torah parchment
with one's bare hand. The custom of not doing so derives from a
special edict issued by the sages prohibiting such contact (Shabbat
14a: OH 147:1).
· The curtain on the Ark (paokhet) is kissed before one opens it, or
after closing it when the Torah is put away.
· A siddur [prayer book] and [C]Humash [Jewish Bible] are kissed
before putting them away. These holy books are also kissed if they
are accidentally dropped on the floor.
From To Pray as a Jew: A Guide to the Prayer book and the Synagogue
Service, (New York: Basic Books [Harper Collins], 1980), p.43f.
*******************************************************************
So my question is, do you believe that there is anything objectionable
in the above explanation of the veneration of holy things?

Learner: "When did I assume Sola Scriptura to be a valid argument? I

have said, on several discussions that both the Sola Scriptura view of
Scripture, as well as the Orthodox view, both amount to a circular
argument. For example, one could argue in favor of Sola Scriptura by
pointing to St. Paul's statement that all Scripture is inspired by God
(2 Tim 3:16) as scriptural testimony to this doctrine. However, the
problem is that unless we know [from some other source] that this
letter is inspired - we are arguing in a circle."

Me: This passage does not teach Sola Scriptura, and so even if we
grant that this text is inspired, it does not constitute proof of that
doctrine.

Learner: "The Orthodox also stumble into the very same trap. If we

believe that the Orthodox Church is the most "reliable" interpreter of
the Bible, we first must accept the premise that the Bible is, in
fact, inspired. Right?"

Me: Actually, the Orthodox Church does not stake its claim to
authority solely on the Scriptures, but in order to have a discussion
of this sort, we have to establish what we agree upon in order to move
towards the questions that we disagree. If am discussing the claims
of Orthodoxy with an atheist, there is no point is debating whether
venerating icons is biblical, because the atheist doesn't accept the
more fundamental issues that need to be established before one can
have a meaningful discussion. This is one of the reasons why I asked
you about your view of Scripture. You have stated that you believe
the Scriptures to inspired, which means we can now move on to the
question of how they are properly interpreted.

Learner: "We then believe in the Bible based on the authority of the

Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church then attempts to prove her
authority from the Bible by pointing out that it is given authority by
the writings of certain individuals who tried to prove the authority
of the Church from the Bible, or from the writings of certain men who,
who wrote about other men who tried to prove the authority of Church
from the Bible......and so on."

Me: We believe in the Orthodox Church, because we accept that Christ
is who he says he is based on the testimony of those who knew Him,
which has been passed down to us by those whom the disciples taught
both orally and in Scripture. These people also taught us a few
things about the nature of the Church, and the nature of Scripture.

Whether either side likes it or not, the final authority to which the
Orthodox and the Protestants both refer is the Bible. Both Orthodox
and Protestants leave the burden of the ultimate proof to God -
Protestants claiming authority for the Bible from God directly and
Orthodox claiming authority to the Bible through the channel of
tradition.

Learner: "...you are implying that icons could be "misunderstood in

idolatrous ways" - although it is "less likely". If this is the case,
then why should we risk falling into "idolatrous ways" by venerating
icons?"

Me: Scripture can be misunderstood too... even in idolatrous ways in
which it is treated as a magic book. However, we do not toss the
Scriptures because they can be misused. Instead, he teach their
correct use.

Learner: "But this misses a question that I asked earlier: is it

possible that an unclean spirit [assuming such things exist] could
have, at some point in history, inspired an iconographer to make its
image for others to venerate?"

Me: Theoretically, I suppose one could postulate such a thing, but one
could also postulate that an unclean spirit inspired the writing of
the Scriptures. Also, it should be noted that even the Iconoclasts did
not base their objection to icons on the question of veneration... but
rather on the basis of their being made at all, or possessed. The
iconoclasts accepted the veneration of the Cross, for example. Do
you?
They also accepted the veneration of the Saints, and anathematized any
who rejected their venerations or did not seek their intercessions.

Learner: "One one hand, you say that it is acceptable to venerate an

icon of a Chinese or African Jesus if we are able "to identify Christ"
in these icons. But then you say : "In the case of Christ, we do know
what he looked like." How can an icon picture a man "easily
recognizable as Christ" when we do not know what Christ really looked
like?"

Me: We do know what he looked like, and the Ethiopian icons of Christ
only differ in terms of color of the skin.

[Joseph]

Joseph wrote:

> Well, yeas -- so long as they intend to be venerating the saint. One is
> technically supposed to direct the veneration at wood and pigments.

Errrggg! That should read, "One is technically *not* supposed to direct..."

Sorry.

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

> Perhaps, but the chances of error is very small when three different
> institutions reach the same conclusion - the precision of these
> results indicates that they are accurate.

These institutions accurately dated the micro-organic film that covers
ancient cloth, just like when they carbon date mummies without first
cleaning the material of this film.

> For other problems with the shroud, see:
>
> http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

While I am admittedly scanning the referenced URL, and so may have
missed it, I do not see where it addresses the findings that I pointed
out, that explain why the carbon dating would be off. It references
another argument, but not the one involving the discovery of the
micro-organic film.

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Peter wrote:

> Then the claim that God left an image of His Son cannot be entertained
> seriously. The answer is not on the cited website anyway, despite the claim
> to the contrary.

On what basis do you assert that it cannot be entertained seriously?
Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ?

-Fr. John Whiteford

[brachypodium]

"Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com...

> Peter wrote:
>
> > Then the claim that God left an image of His Son cannot be entertained
> > seriously. The answer is not on the cited website anyway, despite the
claim
> > to the contrary.
>
> On what basis do you assert that it cannot be entertained seriously?<

If an all-powerful, holy God left an image of His Son to be used as such,
there must be firm evidence that it was so used, so that there is no
uncertainty, and no argument. The provenance of this artefact is so far from
the type of standard expected of even a human artefact that this fact in
itself puts the Turin Shroud, if shroud it be, out of contention as the
image of Christ.

Peter

[Lee Malatesta]

Peter wrote:
> If an all-powerful, holy God left an image of His Son to be used as
> such, there must be firm evidence that it was so used, so that there
> is no uncertainty, and no argument. The provenance of this artefact
> is so far from the type of standard expected of even a human artefact
> that this fact in itself puts the Turin Shroud, if shroud it be, out
> of contention as the image of Christ.

I'm curioius. Could the same argument be leveled against the
resurection? Would not the likes of the Jesus Seminar questioning the
resurection then refute the doctrine of the bodily resurection of Christ?

Or what about the Incarnation? Would not the refusal of the Jews to
accept the Word made flesh refute the doctrine of the God-made-man?

Or perhaps that there is a difference that eludes me.

Regards,

Lee

[brachypodium]

"Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lee_malatesta-31B...@news.isoc.net...

> Peter wrote:
> > If an all-powerful, holy God left an image of His Son to be used as
> > such, there must be firm evidence that it was so used, so that there
> > is no uncertainty, and no argument. The provenance of this artefact
> > is so far from the type of standard expected of even a human artefact
> > that this fact in itself puts the Turin Shroud, if shroud it be, out
> > of contention as the image of Christ.
>
> I'm curioius. Could the same argument be leveled against the
> resurection?<

Of course; but do you believe it?

Peter

[Al]

Are you, Mr. Kobbs, an example of all that is good, the epitome of
fulfillment, in the life of an Orthodox Christian? Do you have the
ingternal depth of love and humility that leads you to love us all as
Christ commanded?

nick cobb <ni...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<5y_Qb.12299$AA2....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
> Yep, "Fundamentalist Orthodox." Filled with externals, but internally
> lacking!
>
>
>
> EHB wrote:
> > Dear Fr. John,
> >
> > Blagoslovi.
> >
> > I am glad so much has changed since the publication of that regrettable
> > volume back during the AA's War on Traditionalism.
> >
> > Kissing your right hand,
> > Ephrem
> >
> > P.S. You and Fr. John Morris also have in common being on the receiving
> > end of Kobbs' hate-filled vitriol. I remember well the constant stream
> > of insults to which the esteemed Archpriest (and his Khouria) were
> > subjected by our resident SVS grad.
> >
> > Fr. John Whiteford wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to point out that Fr. John Morris and I are now quite
> >> good friends. He lives here in the Houston area, and I see him at the
> >> Orthodox Clergy Association meetings on a regular basis.
> >>
> >> -Fr. John Whiteford
> >>
> >> EHB <e...@nospam.yu> wrote in message
> >> news:<YI_Pb.41189$Bj....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >>
> >>> nick cobb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> These people are "Fundamentalist Orthodox."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And, as usual, Nick, rather than dealing with what people have to
> >>> say, just dismisses them with nice propaganda names.
> >>>
> >>> There is just no better way to discredit people than to call the
> >>> "Orthodox Fundamentalists." That way you just turn them into a
> >>> bogeyman, and a straw-bogeyman at that. Josef Goebbels would be
> >>> proud of you if he could see how well you follow his tactics.
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> BOOK REVIEW
> >>>
> >>> [Archpriest] John W. Morris, Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View.
> >>> Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Publishing, 1998. Paperback.
> >>>
> >>> Father John Morris has, unfortunately, expressed deep disdain for
> >>> Orthodox traditionalism in general and the Greek Old Calendarists in
> >>> particular. He has characterized our Bishops in a rather vulgar way,
> >>> even going so far as to call us cult leaders. His writing certainly
> >>> gives the impression that he has important things to say. And he is
> >>> obviously capable of good scholarship. But his book on Orthodox
> >>> fundamentalism (in effect, on us Orthodox opposed to ecumenism and
> >>> modernism), which wholly misunderstands and distorts our
> >>> ecclesiological and theological arguments, suffers from those
> >>> weaknesses that always beset scholarship wanting of objectivity.
> >>> Father Morris’ description of us as fundamentalists is, in the final
> >>> analysis, a somewhat ironic response to the fact that we have rightly
> >>> pointed out that the ecumenical movement, in which the author is an
> >>> active participant, has its historical roots in Protestant
> >>> fundamentalism. His book will impress those with a cursory knowlege
> >>> of the Fathers, of ecclesiology, and of the history of the ecumenical
> >>> movement. Though he does, once more, make some good points, he takes
> >>> on a complex matter in a simplistic way. A publisher’s blurb about
> >>> the book, which claims that the author "... presents the truth [of
> >>> Orthodoxy] in five chapters," speaks to this fact. Capturing
> >>> Orthodoxy in five chapters would be quite a feat.
> >>>
> >>> Needless to say, we resisters to modernism and ecumenism do not
> >>> believe, as Father John has asserted, that the calendar and priestly
> >>> dress—while important parts of the tradition of the Church—are
> >>> essentially dogmatic issues. Nor do we believe that the Orthodox
> >>> Church should live in isolation from other religious confessions. We
> >>> do believe, however, that Orthodoxy is not simply one "lung" in the
> >>> multifaceted Body of the Church, but the Church itself. We also
> >>> believe that the Holy Spirit is made manifest through the traditions
> >>> of the Church—even seemingly insignificant ones—and that we must
> >>> consciously preserve them.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, we consider ourselves part of the Orthodox Church and
> >>> walled-off in resistance from error and the compromised confession of
> >>> the modernists. We do not, as these ecumenists say so freely of us,
> >>> declare them to be outside the Church. Certainly some of them are not
> >>> true believers (True Orthodox), are not true clergy, and have removed
> >>> themselves from the pale of Orthodoxy—and this not only by their
> >>> in-novations, but by their deep, enduring hatred of us
> >>> traditionalists. Nonetheless, the final course of modern Orthodoxy is
> >>> yet to be revealed and it is our hope that many modernists, including
> >>> those blinded by personal animus, will one day see the light of true
> >>> belief.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime, let those who possess analytical skills carefully
> >>> examine what we teach and then objectively study books such as the
> >>> one in question. An intelligent man will see that this book
> >>> attributes to us traditionalists things which we neither believe nor
> >>> teach. It is meant more to attack a perceived enemy, who has been
> >>> "dressed to kill," than it is to criticize our actual ecclesiology
> >>> and thought. And this detracts from the good that the book actually
> >>> contains.
> >>>
> >>> These are sad days. Orthodoxy has become a place where those who,
> >>> finding no eminence elsewhere, do so in Orthodoxy. And thus their
> >>> love of words like "official," "mainstream," and "large," the verbal
> >>> refuges of the mediocre—an inappropriate and sad retreat, indeed, for
> >>> someone as obviously gifted and intelligent as the author of this
> >>> book. Thus, too, the personal hatred for those of us who call for a
> >>> deeper and more authentic Orthodoxy, and especially among converts
> >>> from Western Christianity. Personal hatred taken to the point of
> >>> writing books that distort and misrepresent the teachings of one’s
> >>> perceived antagonists represents a trend among Orthodox
> >>> polemicists—both modernists and traditionalists—which accomplishes
> >>> nothing. We must all work to avoid this trend.
> >>>
> >>> Archbishop Chrysostomos
> >>> Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
> >>>
> >>> *Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, No. 2, pp. 32-33.

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...

> Learner: "First, I would like to thank you for your response and
> thoughts."

> Me: Likewise. :)

Any time Father John ;)

> Me: I would argue that the author of Hebrews uses Platonistic *terms*, and
> makes arguments that were geared towards people in a context in which
> Platonistic terms were the lingua franca of intellectual discussion... but I
> would disagree that this means he expressed Platonistic ideas.

I think that the author of Hebrews went well beyond the use of
Platonic "terms" and constructed an entire argument based on Platonic
philosophy and ideas - although the conclusion of the argument was
clearly Christian. Here is the difference :

Platonic "terms", and even the vocabulary of heretical groups, were
used in Scripture. John used the term "Logos", which is clearly a
neo-Platonic term, to express how Jesus was both God and "with God".
Also, Paul speaks of Christ [in Colosians] as one in whom the
"fullness" of God dwells. The term "fullness", at this point in
history, was a favorite buzzword among Gnostics - who Paul was
fighting against.

However, there is a difference between Paul and John's use of Platonic
and Gnostic terminology and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hebrews makes
use of the Platonic idea of "types" [to form an argument and to reach
a conclusion], not just the terminology.

> Me: St. Andrei Rublev believed that this scene was an symbolic manifestion of
> the Trinity, but not that this was an incarnation of the Trinity, or a
> revelation of how God looks.

Perhaps. But even as symbolic imagery, Rubliev made a decision
concerning how God the Father would/could/should appear.

> Me: When Jews venerate holy things, they venerate them as way of

> showing there reverence for the holiness of these things....

> So my question is, do you believe that there is anything objectionable
> in the above explanation of the veneration of holy things?

There are two issues here:

1. What is being venerated?
2. What does veneration imply concerning the object in question?

If a Jew kisses the Torah [or if an Orthodox Catholic kisses the
Bible] out of affection for God's Word - and not because they believe
the scroll or book have powers beyond those which paper and ink
possess - I see absolutely nothing objectionable.

I also see nothing objectionable with religious art or symbols. There
is ample archaeological evidence that the early Church made use of
symbols such as the fish, chalice, and the cross. My problem is with
the veneration of icons - a practice which developed fairly late in
the early Church, and with the neo-Platonic idea that we are conveying
veneration to a person through a prototype.

The watershed historical event that replaced early Christian symbols
with icons, was clearly the Quinisext Council - which largely purged
the Church of symbolic art and replaced it with "direct" images. The
Council concluded:

"Having welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the
truth passed on to the Church, today we prefer grace and truth..."

So, instead of early Christian symbols [such as the lamb or the Good
Shepherd], icons of Christ as "Pantokrator", as well as other icons
became the common art form. This was a clear break with the early
Church! Even Lossky ["The Meaning of Icons"] admits this when he
says:

"The council orders that the symbols from the Old Testament, used in
the first centuries of Christianity, be replaced by direct
representations...."

> Me: This passage does not teach Sola Scriptura, and so even if we
> grant that this text is inspired, it does not constitute proof of that doctrine.

I am not saying that it does. When I said "one could argue", I was
referring to those who cite this passage.

> Me: We believe in the Orthodox Church, because we accept that Christ is who
> he says he is based on the testimony of those who knew Him, which has been
> passed down to us by those whom the disciples taught both orally and in
> Scripture. These people also taught us a few things about the nature of the
> Church, and the nature of Scripture.

I tend to give far greater weight to Scripture than to the Church's
unwritten tradition. We have manuscript evidence that, doctrinally
speaking, the Scriptures are the same from the beginning. The problem
with oral tradition is that we do not have a "chain of transmission",
or any other methodology, to determine its historicity.

Also, from the written history of the early Church, we can see that
there was often a wide spectrum of beliefs, some true, some heretical.
This spectrum narrowed significantly when Christianity became the
State religion of Byzantium. In the case of icons, the was
considerable debate. Even Eusebius of Caesarea [who held the
position of the early Christians] rebuked the sister of the Emperor
for idolatry for her request that he obtain an icon for her.

> Me: Scripture can be misunderstood too... even in idolatrous ways in which it
> is treated as a magic book. However, we do not toss the Scriptures because
> they can be misused. Instead, he teach their correct use.

That is very true. There is a Pakistani student in my dorm who
repeats certain passages from the Qur'an [which he doesn't understand
since he does not speak Arabic] as a talisman! However, I see two
differences between the two:

1. We have had Scripture from the beginning - first the Old Testament
and then Paul's Epistles and the Gospels - and we have manuscript
evidence of this. Icons - not to be confused with religious symbols
or art - came later.

2. Earlier Scriptures can be used to discern the truth of later
works. What is the "control" which is used to discern the correct
teachings concerning icons? We have already discussed the fact that
the Church officially forbade icons of God the Father - however, these
icons have been common in Orthodoxy (and have been used in and out of
Church) for centuries.

If the 7th Council is the "control", then this raise two other issues:

(1) The 7th Council was supposed to protect iconography from whimsical
creations and personal expressions of the icon "writer". However,
how do we explain icons of St. George slaying a dragon and icons of
St. Theodore Tyron and his monster?

(2) The 7th Council declares those who do not venerate icons anathema.
The problem here is that there is no record that anyone in the New
Testament, or in the first centuries of Christianity, venerated icons.
By calling those who do not venerate icons anathema, this Council
irrevocably cut the Church off from early Christianity [effectively
condemning the early Christians] - and created something quite
different than the early Church.

>> Learner: "But this misses a question that I asked earlier: is it
>> possible >> that an unclean spirit [assuming such things exist]
>> could have, at some point in history, inspired an iconographer
>> to make its image for others to venerate?"

> Me: Theoretically, I suppose one could postulate such a thing, but one
> could also postulate that an unclean spirit inspired the writing of the
> Scriptures.

True. I would consider some of the Pseudographia to be in this
category. Earlier Scripture, as well as recorded history, can be used
to refute these false works. What is the "control" on icons?

> Also, it should be noted that even the Iconoclasts did not base their
> objection to icons on the question of veneration... but rather on the basis
> of their being made at all, or possessed. The iconoclasts accepted the
> veneration of the Cross, for example. Do you?

That is a tough question Father John!

On one hand, I see nothing wrong in venerating the Cross as a symbol,
or in making the sign of the Cross when we pray. However, the reality
behind the Cross is that it was a brutal and barbaric method to
torture and kill people - including the Lord. Perhaps that is the
reason that the fish was a more common symbol for the early
Christians. This reality has been "smoothed over", to some degree,
through the passage of time, and the fact that crucifixion has not
been practiced for some time.

To illustrate my point somewhat awkwardly [and I intend no disrespect
or imply any mockery in this], suppose that the Romans had an electric
chair in the time of Christ - and that they employed this method
instead of the Cross. Would you be comfortable venerating the
representation of such a thing? I would not, perhaps because we
understand the reality of this instrument at this point in history.

>> Learner: "One one hand, you say that it is acceptable to venerate
an
>> icon of a Chinese or African Jesus if we are able "to identify
Christ" in
>> these icons. But then you say : "In the case of Christ, we do know
what he
>> looked like." How can an icon picture a man "easily recognizable as
Christ"
>> when we do not know what Christ really looked like?"

> Me: We do know what he looked like, and the Ethiopian icons of Christ
> only differ in terms of color of the skin.

But you said in an earlier message [and I quote]

>>> "In the case of Christ, we do know what he looked like."

How do we know what Christ looked like? This is a huge problem
because one of the best defenses of icons was made by St. John of
Damascus.

He claimed that because Christ became incarnate, "God", one could
depict Him, and that those who deny icons also deny the incarnation
[which is, or course, the fallacy of the false dilemma]. This
argument presupposes that we know how Jesus looked. If we do not
depict Jesus exactly as He appeared, we are merely venerating a
creation of human imagination and not Christ.

Learner

[nick cobb]

Get some help Al!

aggr...@netscape.net (Al) wrote in message news:<df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com>...

[learner]

Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<PI6dnUi4Sp4...@speakeasy.net>...

> Yeah. I actually agree with you that it is silly to claim that it had
> no influence. I was just venturing a possible way to think of that
> objection in such a way as that it might make sense. If by "influence"
> we mean something compromising, then I would object to the idea of
> "influence." However, I don't think the influence was compromising, so
> I don't mind admitting the influence.

OK, we agree! Nuf said [as they say in Brooklyn].

> I wouldn't say _essentially_ the same. Or, I guess you could mean
> "essentially" is the colloquial sense of "nearly". Because, even when
> the icon is of Christ -- who is worthy to be worshiped -- we don't
> actually worship the icon. It still gets veneration. So, we are never
> supposed to think that it is right to direct worship at the icon.

It is nearly the same. The idol for the Pagans, or Icon in the
Church, is a prototype of the person - and we direct prayers through
the prototype to the person.

It is evident, even in early Paganism, that not all Pagans believed
idols to be the actual gods. For example, there is a story in the
Midrash where Abraham went into the local Pagan temple, smashed all of
the idols except one and, placing the stick near this idol, told
everyone that the idol did it! The people did not believe him,
admitting that such a thing was impossible.

> > The ideas
> > behind both are essentially the same, except that the veneration is
> > simply directed toward different persons. For example, the Pagans
> > prayed to images of Perun for protection from storms. After
> > Christianity took over, these prayers were directed to icons of the
> > prophet Elijah.
>
> Isn't that cool?

I guess that depends on the definition of "cool". Instead of
following in the Semitic traditions [who did not practice this], we
Christians ended up following the Pagans - putting a Christian veneer
over a Pagan idea. If the Jews did not make images of Elijah the
Prophet, yet alone venerate them, why should we?

> > Also, history tells us that there were Pagans who believed that there
> > were miraculous events associated with certain images. Today, many
> > Orthodox believe in miraculous event that are associated with certain
> > icons.
>

> Eh. Miracles happen...

Of course they do. But I am very skeptical of weeping icons, bleeding
statues, and milk-drinking Ganesh idols. Perhaps it is because I grew
up in northeastern Ohio and, as a child, saw Ernest Angely heeeeaaaaal
people by whacking them on the head!

> > I agree that
> > anything can be idolized - including words. However, I would say that
> > the historical record shows that images have been idolized by far more
> > people than words - and therfore are a greater spiritual threat.
>
> I strongly disagree. I think it is just the opposite. The idolatry of
> words is so common, and sometimes so severe, precisely because people
> don't even think about it. Especially in the West. It happens to us
> Orthodox too. We get so busy trying not to idolize our icons, we might
> not pay attention to the danger of words. But the Protestants think
> they are imune -- so they aren't on guard at all.

Can you give an example of this? Perhaps Marxism?

> ....This, of course, is apophatic theology. This is what the West

> abandoned, slowly, starting with Augustine -- and culminating finally in
> Aquinas.

I think that the West abandoned it for good reasons. Apophatic
theology says that anything pertaining to God is defined in the
negative. All that we can say about God is negation: God is not
limited in power, or that God is not a Black Labrador Retriever.

However, all of these assertions are governed by logic. In any event,
I have a question concerning Apophatic theology. How does one "really"
distinguish between a positive and a negative statement? Any positive
statement, such as "God is X", can also be put into negative form:
"God is NOT non-X".

Also, how does one put "God is love" in negative form?

Learner

[learner]

aggr...@netscape.net (Al) wrote in message news:<df4e6c04.04012...@posting.google.com>...

> Are you, Mr. Kobbs, an example of all that is good, the epitome of

> fulfillment, in the life of an Orthodox Christian? Do you have the
> ingternal depth of love and humility that leads you to love us all as
> Christ commanded?

Are you an example of "all that is good" Al? Am I? Are any of us?

Learner [the sinner]

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04012...@posting.google.com>...

> Learner wrote:

>
> > Perhaps, but the chances of error is very small when three different
> > institutions reach the same conclusion - the precision of these
> > results indicates that they are accurate.
>
> These institutions accurately dated the micro-organic film that covers
> ancient cloth, just like when they carbon date mummies without first
> cleaning the material of this film.

This is one of two hypotheses that are usually used to explain the
relatively late date of the C-14 dating of the shroud - the other
hypothesis is that the carbon "clock" was "reset" by the Chambery fire
in 1532.

There are two problems with this hypothesis:

First, the fibers were cleaned before they were burned to create
elemental carbon for the C-14 test.

Second, according to Dr. Walter McCrone [who has written numerous
articles on the subject which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals]
it would take an amount of 20th century carbon nearly twice the weight
of the shroud to change a first century date into a 14th century.

I do not doubt the death and resurrection of Christ, however I do have
my doubts concerning the authenticity of relics in general, and the
shroud of Turin in particular. What relics did exist were most likely
lost between the time of Christ and the 4th century when Helena went
in search of the "true Cross". Before this time, the Romans
destroyed Jerusalem and, if anything survived the Romans, it was most
likely destroyed when the Persians destroyed the city in the 7th
century.

Learner

[Lee Malatesta]

If your argument is valid in one case, it is valid in another. If you
mean me to believe your argument against the shroud of Turin being
authentic, then you must also intend for me to believe that same
argument levelled against the resurection and the incarnation.

Regards,

Lee

[brachypodium]

"Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:lee_malatesta-B13...@news.isoc.net...

> Peter wrote:
> > "Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:lee_malatesta-31B...@news.isoc.net...
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > If an all-powerful, holy God left an image of His Son to be used as
> > > > such, there must be firm evidence that it was so used, so that there
> > > > is no uncertainty, and no argument. The provenance of this artefact
> > > > is so far from the type of standard expected of even a human
artefact
> > > > that this fact in itself puts the Turin Shroud, if shroud it be, out
> > > > of contention as the image of Christ.
> > >
> > > I'm curioius. Could the same argument be leveled against the
> > > resurection?<
> >
> > Of course; but do you believe it?
>
> If your argument is valid in one case, it is valid in another.<

Only when cases are similar.

Peter

[Lee Malatesta]

Peter wrote:
> "Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:lee_malatesta-B13...@news.isoc.net...
> > Peter wrote:
> > > "Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:lee_malatesta-31B...@news.isoc.net...
> > > > Peter wrote:
> > > > > If an all-powerful, holy God left an image of His Son to be used as
> > > > > such, there must be firm evidence that it was so used, so that there
> > > > > is no uncertainty, and no argument. The provenance of this artefact
> > > > > is so far from the type of standard expected of even a human
> artefact
> > > > > that this fact in itself puts the Turin Shroud, if shroud it be, out
> > > > > of contention as the image of Christ.
> > > >
> > > > I'm curioius. Could the same argument be leveled against the
> > > > resurection?<
> > >
> > > Of course; but do you believe it?
> >
> > If your argument is valid in one case, it is valid in another.<
>
> Only when cases are similar.

Please explain what the difference is.

Regards,

Lee

[brachypodium]

"Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:lee_malatesta-5E3...@news.isoc.net...

Why should I?

Peter

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

"I think that the author of Hebrews went well beyond the use of
Platonic "terms" and constructed an entire argument based on Platonic
philosophy and ideas - although the conclusion of the argument was
clearly Christian. Here is the difference : Platonic "terms", and
even the vocabulary of heretical groups, were used in Scripture. John
used the term "Logos", which is clearly a neo-Platonic term, to
express how Jesus was both God and "with God"."

Me: St. John's use of the term "Logos" is more complicated than that.
He uses a term that was in use in Greek philosophy, but he is also
drawing upon the meaning of "dabar YHWH" in the OT. And he clearly
re-interprets the term in an entirely Christian way, when he says "and
the Word became flesh..."

Some Chinese translations of the Bible use the word "Dao" for Logos,
but I think that this move does no mean that such Bibles are
influenced by Taoism, rather they are putting a Taoist term to work
for a Christian purpose.

Learner: "However, there is a difference between Paul and John's use

of Platonic and Gnostic terminology and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Hebrews makes use of the Platonic idea of "types" [to form an argument
and to reach a conclusion], not just the terminology."

Me: Can you refer me to analogous argument that can be found in the
writings of Plato, Plotinus, or some other Platonist? I think a
distinction needs to be made between a Platonistic argument, and a
Christian argument that is designed to appeal to a Platonistic
culture.
Please also state specifically what about these arguments you believe
that have been Platonistic.

Learner: "There are two issues here: 1. What is being venerated?

2. What does veneration imply concerning the object in question?
If a Jew kisses the Torah [or if an Orthodox Catholic kisses the
Bible] out of affection for God's Word - and not because they believe
the scroll or book have powers beyond those which paper and ink
possess - I see absolutely nothing objectionable."

Me: Jews do not see the Torah Scroll as magical, but they do believe
it is holy. Also, one can cite many examples of holy things in the
Scriptures through which God worked miracles, don't you agree?

Learner: "I also see nothing objectionable with religious art or

symbols. There is ample archaeological evidence that the early Church
made use of symbols such as the fish, chalice, and the cross. My
problem is with the veneration of icons - a practice which developed
fairly late in the early Church, and with the neo-Platonic idea that
we are conveying veneration to a person through a prototype."

Me: An Icon is not a proto-type, it is an image of a prototype. Why
would you object to veneration of a sacred image, if you do not object
to veneration of other holy things? Let me ask you this, do you
object to saluting the Flag? When you salute the flag, are you
honoring a piece of cloth, or the country that the flag represents?

Learner: "The watershed historical event that replaced early Christian

symbols with icons, was clearly the Quinisext Council - which largely
purged the Church of symbolic art and replaced it with "direct"
images. The Council concluded: "Having welcomed these ancient figures
and shadows as symbols of the truth passed on to the Church, today we
prefer grace and truth..." So, instead of early Christian symbols
[such as the lamb or the Good Shepherd], icons of Christ as
"Pantokrator", as well as other icons became the common art form.
This was a clear break with the early Church! Even Lossky ["The
Meaning of Icons"] admits this when he says: "The council orders that
the symbols from the Old Testament, used in the first centuries of
Christianity, be replaced by direct representations....""

Me: There are two key questions when it comes to icons. 1) Is it
permissible to make them and have them? 2) Is it permissible to
venerate them. The question of symbolic is a question of making them,
but that is not a question you are disputing, is it? You do not
object to depictions of Biblical scenes, Biblical figures, Christ, or
the Saints... are you? If you aren't, then this point is not
pertinent.

Learner: "I tend to give far greater weight to Scripture than to the

Church's unwritten tradition. We have manuscript evidence that,
doctrinally speaking, the Scriptures are the same from the beginning.
The problem with oral tradition is that we do not have a "chain of
transmission", or any other methodology, to determine its
historicity."

Me: It is the unwritten tradition that establishes the Scriptures,
because otherwise we have no way of knowing which books should be
considered Scripture. What is the chain of transmission from the time
of Abraham until the time the traditions of Abraham were written down?
If you cannot establish that chain of transmission, then how can you
believe what the Bible says about Abraham? And if you say that you
belief in those traditions rests upon your faith affirmation that the
Scriptures are inspired, why should you doubt the oral transmission of
Christian traditions over far fewer centuries... obviously, you must
believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of preserving such oral
transmissions in the case of Abraham, why not Apostolic traditions?

Also, at what point did the oral traditions that St. Paul said were
equally authoritative with his written epistles cease to be
authoritative? (2nd Thessalonians 2:15)

Learner: "Also, from the written history of the early Church, we can

see that there was often a wide spectrum of beliefs, some true, some
heretical."

Me: Why should we not accept the Church's arguments on this question,
since we accept her traditions about the canon of the New Testament?
St. Irenaeus answered this question:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this
Faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet
guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believed
these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same
heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands
them down, as if she possessed one mouth. For, while the languages of
the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is
one and the same. Neither do the Churches among the Germans believe
otherwise or have another Tradition, nor do those among the Iberians,
nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, or in Egypt, nor in Libya,
nor those which have been established in the central regions of the
world. But just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same
throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the Truth shines
everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a knowledge of
the Truth. Nor will any of the rulers in the Churches, whatever his
power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no on is above the Teacher;
nor will he who is weak in speaking subtract from the Tradition. For
the Faith is one and the same, and cannot be amplified by one who is
able to say much about it, nor can it be diminished by one who can say
but little" [Against Heresies 1:10:2]."

"When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek
among others the Truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For
the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most
copiously everything which pertains to the Truth, and everyone
whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the
entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is
why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the
utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold
of the Traditions of Truth. What then? If there should be a dispute
over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most
ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from
them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if
the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be
necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to
those whom they entrusted the Churches?" [3:4:1].

Learner: "This spectrum narrowed significantly when Christianity

became the State religion of Byzantium. In the case of icons, the
was
considerable debate. Even Eusebius of Caesarea [who held the
position of the early Christians] rebuked the sister of the Emperor
for idolatry for her request that he obtain an icon for her."

Me: Again, we must keep straight the two questions. Eusebius (a
semi-Arian) rejected making or having any images at all. He never
addressed the question of venerating images. His view was clearly a
minority opinion, because Christian images were common before and
after his time, and the Fathers of the Church did not object to this.

Learner: "We have had Scripture from the beginning - first the Old

Testament and then Paul's Epistles and the Gospels - and we have
manuscript evidence of this. Icons - not to be confused with
religious symbols or art - came later."

Me: We find icons in the Old Testament, and they existed before the
Old Testament was even close to being completed.

Learner: "Earlier Scriptures can be used to discern the truth of later

works. What is the "control" which is used to discern the correct
teachings concerning icons? We have already discussed the fact that
the Church officially forbade icons of God the Father - however, these
icons have been common in Orthodoxy (and have been used in and out of
Church) for centuries."

Me: It is not a fact that the Orthodox Church has icons that were
forbidden by the 7th Ecumenical Council, because they do not attempt
to depict the invisible Godhead.

What earlier Traditions do you have of Abraham to check against the
ones recorded in Genesis? Where is the "control" which is used to
discern the correct teachings about Abraham? There are none. You
have to trust the book of Genesis on that one, don't you?

Learner: "If the 7th Council is the "control", then this raise two

other issues: (1) The 7th Council was supposed to protect iconography
from whimsical creations and personal expressions of the icon
"writer". However, how do we explain icons of St. George slaying a
dragon and icons of St. Theodore Tyron and his monster?"

Me: That is a side issue, that only distracts from the issue at hand.

Learner: "The 7th Council declares those who do not venerate icons

anathema. The problem here is that there is no record that anyone in
the New Testament, or in the first centuries of Christianity,
venerated icons."

Me: There is no record in the Bible of anyone venerating a Torah
scroll, but this not does prove that it was not a practice current
during the period of the New Testament – it only proves that it was
not written. There is also no record of anyone believing in an
afterlife in the books of Moses, but does that prove that they had no
concept of an afterlife?

Learner: "By calling those who do not venerate icons anathema, this

Council irrevocably cut the Church off from early Christianity
[effectively condemning the early Christians] - and created something
quite different than the early Church."

Me: Your assertion would only be true if one assumes that your
position on this question is correct. You have no proof that the
Early Church did not venerate icons. I have proof that they had them,
one need only examine the walls of the catacombs.

Learner: "On one hand, I see nothing wrong in venerating the Cross as

a symbol, or in making the sign of the Cross when we pray. However,
the reality behind the Cross is that it was a brutal and barbaric
method to
torture and kill people - including the Lord. Perhaps that is the
reason that the fish was a more common symbol for the early
Christians. This reality has been "smoothed over", to some degree,
through the passage of time, and the fact that crucifixion has not
been practiced for some time. To illustrate my point somewhat
awkwardly [and I intend no disrespect or imply any mockery in this],
suppose that the Romans had an electric chair in the time of Christ -
and that they employed this method instead of the Cross. Would you be
comfortable venerating the representation of such a thing? I would
not, perhaps because we understand the reality of this instrument at
this point in history."

Me: The Cross was in use as a Christian symbol long before Crucifixion
ceased to be a method of capital punishment.

Learner: "How do we know what Christ looked like? This is a huge

problem because one of the best defenses of icons was made by St. John
of Damascus. He claimed that because Christ became incarnate, "God",
one could depict Him, and that those who deny icons also deny the
incarnation [which is, or course, the fallacy of the false dilemma].
This argument presupposes that we know how Jesus looked. If we do
not
depict Jesus exactly as He appeared, we are merely venerating a
creation of human imagination and not Christ."

Me: I have answered this question. The image of Edessa, according to
tradition, came from Christ himself, and is the basis of Orthodox
Iconography. Some identify this image with the shroud of Turin. It is
also possible that the images are not to be identified, but both are
authentic. They both have the same face, in any case.

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

> This is one of two hypotheses that are usually used to explain the
> relatively late date of the C-14 dating of the shroud - the other
> hypothesis is that the carbon "clock" was "reset" by the Chambery fire
> in 1532.
>
> There are two problems with this hypothesis:
>
> First, the fibers were cleaned before they were burned to create
> elemental carbon for the C-14 test.
>
> Second, according to Dr. Walter McCrone [who has written numerous
> articles on the subject which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals]
> it would take an amount of 20th century carbon nearly twice the weight
> of the shroud to change a first century date into a 14th century.
>
> I do not doubt the death and resurrection of Christ, however I do have
> my doubts concerning the authenticity of relics in general, and the
> shroud of Turin in particular. What relics did exist were most likely
> lost between the time of Christ and the 4th century when Helena went
> in search of the "true Cross". Before this time, the Romans
> destroyed Jerusalem and, if anything survived the Romans, it was most
> likely destroyed when the Persians destroyed the city in the 7th
> century.

First off, the microbial phenomenon that I have referenced, and which
was mentioned in the articles that I posted links to, is a proven
phenomenon. It may or may not be what is going on in the case of the
Shroud (further tests would be needed to establish that) but it
clearly is a possible and reasonable explanation for the results of
the carbon 14 tests.

Also, you may discount St. Helena's discovery of the Cross, but during
that same dig, she discovered the Holy Sepulchre, and Scientists have
demonstrated that there is very good reason to believe that the Holy
Sepulchre is what it claims to be. There was a very good documentary
about this on PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_tomb/index.html

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Fr. John Whiteford]

One set of points I forgot to make in my last post:

Learner wrote: I would consider some of the Pseudographia to be in
this category [that an unclean spirit could have inspired it].

Earlier Scripture, as well as recorded history, can be used to refute
these false works."

Me: If you did not accept the Church's word on which books should be
accepted, how would you know which earlier Scriptures to use to refute
these false works? Much of the pseudopigraphal literature pre-dates
the New Testament. We also have very old fragments of Gnostic texts.
And when you speak of using recorded history... would that include
things like the councils of the Church?

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Lee Malatesta]

Peter wrote:
> > Peter wrote:

> > > "Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > If your argument is valid in one case, it is valid in another.<
> > >
> > > Only when cases are similar.
> >
> > Please explain what the difference is.<
>
> Why should I?

Because it is polite to do so and will help me understand why you think
the way you do. I don't see any difference and you do. Perhaps you know
something I do not.

Regards,

Lee

[brachypodium]

"Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:lee_malatesta-B71...@news.isoc.net...

> Peter wrote:
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > > "Lee Malatesta" <lee_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > If your argument is valid in one case, it is valid in another.<
> > > >
> > > > Only when cases are similar.
> > >
> > > Please explain what the difference is.<
> >
> > Why should I?
>
> Because it is polite to do so and will help me understand why you think
> the way you do. I don't see any difference and you do.<

How do you know that I think there is a difference?

Why do you not believe objections to the incarnation and resurrection of
Jesus?

Peter

[Joseph]

learner wrote:
> Joseph <zaph...@NOmiraiSPAM.cx> wrote in message news:<PI6dnUi4Sp4...@speakeasy.net>...

[snip]

>>I wouldn't say _essentially_ the same. Or, I guess you could mean
>>"essentially" is the colloquial sense of "nearly". Because, even when
>>the icon is of Christ -- who is worthy to be worshiped -- we don't
>>actually worship the icon. It still gets veneration. So, we are never
>>supposed to think that it is right to direct worship at the icon.
>
>
> It is nearly the same. The idol for the Pagans, or Icon in the
> Church, is a prototype of the person - and we direct prayers through
> the prototype to the person.

The relevant point that I was trying to make is that icons are not
*worshiped*, whereas idols are. Even an icon of Christ is not
worshiped, even though it is an icon of God the Word.

>
> It is evident, even in early Paganism, that not all Pagans believed
> idols to be the actual gods.

Again, whether they believed them to be the actual gods or not isn't my
point. My point is that the idols were/are worshiped. Icons are not.

[snip]

>>> The ideas
>>>behind both are essentially the same, except that the veneration is
>>>simply directed toward different persons. For example, the Pagans
>>>prayed to images of Perun for protection from storms. After
>>>Christianity took over, these prayers were directed to icons of the
>>>prophet Elijah.
>>
>>Isn't that cool?
>
>
> I guess that depends on the definition of "cool". Instead of
> following in the Semitic traditions [who did not practice this], we
> Christians ended up following the Pagans - putting a Christian veneer
> over a Pagan idea. If the Jews did not make images of Elijah the
> Prophet, yet alone venerate them, why should we?

That's a rather odd track to take. In terms of practice, Christianity
is an enormous departure from Semitic Judaism (however not *as* much of
a departure from the Hellenized Judaism that produced the Septuagint).
The Orthodox Church is far more connected to their Hebraic roots than
any Protestant group, in any case. The Jews didn't believe in the
Trinity either; should we stop worshiping the Trinity? The Jews did a
lot of things we don't do; must we do them? Since when is Christian
practice limited to what the ancient Jews did?

>>>Also, history tells us that there were Pagans who believed that there
>>>were miraculous events associated with certain images. Today, many
>>>Orthodox believe in miraculous event that are associated with certain
>>>icons.
>>
>>Eh. Miracles happen...
>
>
> Of course they do. But I am very skeptical of weeping icons, bleeding
> statues, and milk-drinking Ganesh idols. Perhaps it is because I grew
> up in northeastern Ohio and, as a child, saw Ernest Angely heeeeaaaaal
> people by whacking them on the head!

That is, in general, a more Roman Catholic type of phenomenon. However,
farbeit from me to tell God how He can and can not minister His grace to
His children.

I myself have a very large skeptical component in any case of a reported
miracle. But that is because I take the miraculous very seriously, and
I think it is ultimately irreverant to lay every Mary-shaped burn on a
tortilla at the door of the Lord. So, while I am actually skeptical
about such claims, I am also open to the possibility that God may have
chosen so to minister -- and I am also mindful of the many instances in
the Bible where God mediated His grace through seemingly miraculous
physical occurences.

>>> I agree that
>>>anything can be idolized - including words. However, I would say that
>>>the historical record shows that images have been idolized by far more
>>>people than words - and therfore are a greater spiritual threat.
>>
>>I strongly disagree. I think it is just the opposite. The idolatry of
>>words is so common, and sometimes so severe, precisely because people
>>don't even think about it. Especially in the West. It happens to us
>>Orthodox too. We get so busy trying not to idolize our icons, we might
>>not pay attention to the danger of words. But the Protestants think
>>they are imune -- so they aren't on guard at all.
>
>
> Can you give an example of this? Perhaps Marxism?

Huh? Marxism?

For one thing, Protestants in general flirt with idolatry of their
Bibles. But that is a common accusation (no less true for it, though).
More specifically, they get very hung up on their pet words, their
"word studies", their proof-texts. I have encountered so many people
who take literalism to the extent that they think that every word of the
NIV or the NKJV is infallible each unto itself.

What really gets me, is that it is bad enough to get caught up on a word
from the original texts -- but I know people who get so attached to the
words in their crappy modern translations. People who so uncritically
read the NIV that they think that "teaching" is a good word and
"tradition" is a bad word.

>
>
>>....This, of course, is apophatic theology. This is what the West
>>abandoned, slowly, starting with Augustine -- and culminating finally in
>>Aquinas.
>
>
> I think that the West abandoned it for good reasons.

Obviously, I disagree about that. But more substantially, I challenge
you to provide any clue that apophasis was abandoned consciously in the
West. What I am saying is that, they didn't *have* any reasons, because
they just sort of unthinkingly shrugged it off in favor of a more
spiritually and ascetically lazy "logical" approach. They didn't
appreciate that they were discarding an important theological tradition,
because they were, rather early on, too theologically ham-handed to have
understood it.

> Apophatic
> theology says that anything pertaining to God is defined in the
> negative. All that we can say about God is negation: God is not
> limited in power, or that God is not a Black Labrador Retriever.

That is a very caricature-ish portrayal of apophatic theology. It is
not a true portrayal. "Theology of negation" is a good enough tagline
for shallow discussion, but it is insufficient.

The real point of an apophatic approach is an appreciation for the fact
that all of our terms, and names, and words are false likenesses. Short
of some very central theological themes taken from revelation
(Scripture, etc.), our theology is not generally done affirmatively.
But, affirmative isn't the right word. It is not done
*positivistically*. Positivism assumes the basic reliability of our
premises, and builds premise upon premise. From the Traditional
(apophatic) perspective, this merely propagates the error, exponentiates
the simulacra.

Apophasis does not preclude affirmative statements. It is not a matter
of the statements made so much as the way by which we arrive at those
statements. In apophatic terms, a theologian is one who prays. Some in
the West (here and there) have appreciated that. Theology should be a
process on the part of the theologian in which they, in prayer,
meditation, fasting, *remove* the layers of false likeness, and approach
a closer aprehension of that which can not be named. The irony is that
the outcome, in understanding etc., must be expressed in words. But it
is expressed rather self-consciously in words. Proper respect is always
paid to the essential falseness of our words.

But, what apophasis does is to limit the falseness to first- or
second-order disparity -- rather than the positivism of the "logical"
West which builds simulacrum upon simulacrum in ever thickening layers
of falseness.

The real problem with Western positivism is that it has become
"systematized" all over the place. There are, to be sure, a lot of
different systems, though. But this takes the positivism to a worse
level. Because now, with their systematic theologies, Westerners have
made it so that arguments only need to be cogent *inside* the system, in
order for them to be accepted and built upon. So now, they don't even
have to subject each new claim to the raw logical positivism of the
naked situation; rather, they can simply keep building up from their one
(or few) original premise(s). The simulacra are cemented into the
fabric of that group's worldview -- and what's worse is that they have
all fooled themselves into thinking themselves objective.

>
> However, all of these assertions are governed by logic. In any event,
> I have a question concerning Apophatic theology. How does one "really"
> distinguish between a positive and a negative statement? Any positive
> statement, such as "God is X", can also be put into negative form:
> "God is NOT non-X".
>
> Also, how does one put "God is love" in negative form?

Non-issue. Apophasiss requires no such thing. Read the Cappadocian
Fathers to see how apophatic theologians speak.

What is interesting is that you incorrect definition of apophasis
reveals very clearly your misperception. It is funny, because your
version of apophasis is really just an upside-down version of the
Western positivism that you embrace.

According to the scheme that you demonstrate here, the Westerner would
say, "I love you." While the Easterner would say, "I don't not love
you." And as you point out, this is still positivism, but framed in
rather silly phrasing. But this merely demonstrates your confusion on
the subject to date. I hope you can see something from what I tried to
get across above. But, my words are quite possibly inadequate.

Grace and peace,

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04013...@posting.google.com>...

> Me: Can you refer me to analogous argument that can be found in the
> writings of Plato, Plotinus, or some other Platonist?

Sure.

In "The Republic" [Book IX], Plato wrote that God created two worlds -
the corporeal world [where humans live] and the incorporeal ideal
world [Heaven]. Our world is merely a "sketch and shadow" of the
"ideal world". Incidentally, this idea can be ultimately traced to
the Akkadian tablet VI of "The Creation Epic" which says: "Make a
likeness on earth of what he [God] has wrought in heaven."

If we look at Plato's idea that the objects we see are merely "a
sketch and shadow" of the perfect heavenly objects and then look at
Hebrews:

"They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the
heavenly one. For Moses when he was about to erect the tent, was
warned, 全ee that you make everything according to the pattern that
was shown you on the mountain.' " (Hebrews 8:5-6)

"Moses made the tabernacle, according to the pattern that God showed
him, a "sketch and shadow" of the perfect temple that exists in
Heaven: "For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a
mere copy of the true one {that exists in Heaven} ..." (Hebrews 9:24)

> I think a distinction needs to be made between a Platonistic argument, and a
> Christian argument that is designed to appeal to a Platonistic
> culture.

I agree. Hebrews is clearly a Christian conclusion, but I believe
that it is based on a Platonic argument - and I see nothing wrong with
that.

> Me: Jews do not see the Torah Scroll as magical, but they do believe
> it is holy. Also, one can cite many examples of holy things in the
> Scriptures through which God worked miracles, don't you agree?

Yes, I agree.

> Me: An Icon is not a proto-type, it is an image of a prototype.

Sorry about that Father John. You are correct, St. John of Damascus
said that the icon is an image of the "prototype" as did the Quinisext
Council.

> Why would you object to veneration of a sacred image, if you do not object
> to veneration of other holy things?

Because Icons are not merely symbolic, or depictions of a physical
likeness, or mere "art" - they are a vehicle through which veneration
is conveyed to a prototype in a somewhat Platonic fashion. I am not
comfortable with this because many Pagan cultures have/had similar
practices.

On Saturday, I went to a Hindu festival in Queens which honored the
goddess Saraswati [I went for the food]. The Hindus who venerated the
marble statue of this goddess [with prayers, incense, and water] did
not believe that the stone was Saraswati, but that their worship was
passed via that statue to the goddess - who lives [I was told] in the
mountains. What is the difference, aside from the object venerated,
between this and the veneration of icons?

> Let me ask you this, do you object to saluting the Flag? When you salute the
> flag, are you honoring a piece of cloth, or the country that the flag
> represents?

I salute the flag as a symbol. I do not believe that it is a "window
to eternity", nor do I believe that saluting a physical flag conveys
salutations to a prototype flag in heaven.

> Me: There are two key questions when it comes to icons. 1) Is it
> permissible to make them and have them? 2) Is it permissible to
> venerate them. The question of symbolic is a question of making them,
> but that is not a question you are disputing, is it? You do not
> object to depictions of Biblical scenes, Biblical figures, Christ, or
> the Saints... are you? If you aren't, then this point is not
> pertinent.

I have no objections to creating icons, statues, or any other form of
religious art. I have a modest icon collection in my dorm. I am not
a "classic" iconoclast.

> Me: It is the unwritten tradition that establishes the Scriptures,
> because otherwise we have no way of knowing which books should be
> considered Scripture.

First of all, the Church "collected" A Canon of Scripture, not THE
Canon of Scripture. There were a wide variety of competing Canons of
Scripture both before and after the Council of Carthage(397 A.D.),
including (to name but a few): The Muratorian Canon, The Canon of
Origen (A.D. 185-254), The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D.
265-340), The Canon of Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), The
Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360), The Canon Approved By The Synod Of
Laodicea (c. A.D. 363 - and this was lost), The Canon Of Athanasius
(A.D. 367) , The Canon Approved By The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D.
380), The Canon Of Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-89), The Canon Of
Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394), and finally, The Canon Approved By
The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397).

Second, which is the true canon? The Armenians, Syrians, Russian
Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox all have different Canons
[different from the Greek Orthodox Canon]. The Ethiopian Orthodox
Bible Canon contains the Book of Jubilees as well as I Enoch which are
not in any other Orthodox Canon. The Russian Orthodox Bible has 2
Esdras, which is not in the Greek Orthodox Bible.

> What is the chain of transmission from the time of Abraham until the time the
> traditions of Abraham were written down?

There is no chain of transmission, and scant historical evidence,
concerning Abraham. All that we have is Genesis, which was written by
Moses under divine inspiration.

> If you cannot establish that chain of transmission, then how can you
> believe what the Bible says about Abraham? And if you say that you
> belief in those traditions rests upon your faith affirmation that the
> Scriptures are inspired, why should you doubt the oral transmission of
> Christian traditions over far fewer centuries... obviously, you must
> believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of preserving such oral
> transmissions in the case of Abraham, why not Apostolic traditions?

Because I can look to the Scriptures and find, at least for
Christians, the Scriptures doctrinally are the same from the
beginning. Church tradition is far more problematic.

As a student of history, I have found that many of the Church's
beliefs date from long after the time of Christ and the Apostles. For
example, many of the Mariological beliefs [such as the "Dormition"]
first appeared in the 6th century A.D. - a fact confirmed by the most
devout Mariologists - Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the founder of
the American Mariological Society].

We also have some interesting teachings from the Church Fathers, such
as Justin, who said that the Jordan broke forth in flames when Jesus
came to it for baptism, and Irenaeus who claimed that Jesus lived to
be over 50 years
old(Against Heresies,2).

So, my problem with Orthodoxy is: how can I distinguish the historical
core beliefs of the Church from the non-factual/un-true encrustations?
In other words, if one claims that an Church Tradition contains both
truth and fiction, then we assume that one "knows" what the truth and
untruth are.

I am sure that you believe that the Church can discern the truth from
the "encrustations", however, Tradition did not prevent the Eastern
Sees from falling into a number of heresies over time.

> Also, at what point did the oral traditions that St. Paul said were
> equally authoritative with his written epistles cease to be
> authoritative? (2nd Thessalonians 2:15)

I don't know at what point in time that this happened. However, I am
very skeptical of any tradition that I cannot trace back in time.

> Me: Why should we not accept the Church's arguments on this question,
> since we accept her traditions about the canon of the New Testament?
> St. Irenaeus answered this question:

One can accept/reject the Bible for a variety of reasons without
accepting the authority of the Church. The most that we can claim is
that if one rejects the Church's interpretation, that person would be
foolish to accept the Bible on the Church's authority

> Me: We find icons in the Old Testament, and they existed before the
> Old Testament was even close to being completed.

Where are there Icons is the OT [not symbols] which are venerated in
the same way/for the same reasons as they are today?

> What earlier Traditions do you have of Abraham to check against the
> ones recorded in Genesis? Where is the "control" which is used to
> discern the correct teachings about Abraham? There are none. You
> have to trust the book of Genesis on that one, don't you?

Genesis is the only direct historical record of Abraham, although
there are some indirect evidences [the Ebla tablet]. I find no
evidence of the veneration of icons in the NT, the Didache, or the

early Church.

> Me: Your assertion would only be true if one assumes that your
> position on this question is correct. You have no proof that the
> Early Church did not venerate icons. I have proof that they had them,
> one need only examine the walls of the catacombs.

First, it is a logical fallacy to expect someone to prove a negative.
I do not know of a single art historian who believes that icons [not
to be confused with religious symbols] were used in the earliest
Christian communities.

Sir Steven Runciman wrote ["Byzantine Style and Civilization"]

"The earliest Christians took little interest in art. They were
largely influenced by the Stoics, to whom art was irrelevant, and
they were under the shadow of Mosaic Law, with its stern ban on idols
and graven images."

Runciman's view is repeated in Alexander Schmemann's "The Historical
Road of Orthodoxy," and John Meyendorff's "The Orthodox Church.".

Second, catacombes were often used by many groups over the course of
many years, so it is not surprising that one can see the evolution of
Christian symbols into icons.

> Me: The Cross was in use as a Christian symbol long before Crucifixion
> ceased to be a method of capital punishment.

Yes, but that was not the point. I appears that the fish was a more
popular symbol in the early years of Christianity.

> Me: I have answered this question. The image of Edessa, according to
> tradition, came from Christ himself, and is the basis of Orthodox
> Iconography. Some identify this image with the shroud of Turin. It is
> also possible that the images are not to be identified, but both are
> authentic. They both have the same face, in any case.

The Edessa cloth in was discovered in 525 A.D. and is now lost, so
there is no way to examine this relic. Also, I see some valid points
in those who agree that it is the same as the Shroud of Turin,
especially some of the studies based on Byzantine coins which show
folds similar to those in the Shroud.

The Edessa cloth gives a perfect opportunity to test the veracity of
Church tradition. Neither the Edessan Chronicle nor the historian,
Procopius, even mentioned the cloth. The Church's tradition
concerning this relic in nothing more than a 10th century
embellishment to a 4th century tall tale which was based on a 3rd
century lie.

The legend of Jesus and Apgar was created by the first "orthodox"
bishop of Edessa, [Bishop Kune], who fed it to Eusebius. The purpose
of this story was derail the native Gnostic brand of Christianity in
favor of the "orthodox" Church. When we fast-forward to the 4th
century, we have the Jesus-Abgar V connection - the Doctrine of Addai
[which Eusebius did not mention]

By the tenth century, we have a well developed mythology concerning
this relic. Other relics of this time included the True Shroud, the
Crown of Thorns, vials of Holy Blood and Virgin's Milk, the True
Cross, the lance used to stab Jesus's side, the Virgin's Robe and even
some of Jesus's soiled diapers!

Learner

[learner]

frjohnw...@yahoo.com (Fr. John Whiteford) wrote in message news:<8ebb50c0.04020...@posting.google.com>...

> Me: If you did not accept the Church's word on which books should be
> accepted, how would you know which earlier Scriptures to use to refute
> these false works?

Once again, the Church created A Canon of Scripture, not The Canon.
Even to this day, various Orthodox groups include books that are not
in the Canons of other Orthodox Churches.

> Much of the pseudopigraphal literature pre-dates
> the New Testament. We also have very old fragments of Gnostic texts.

Some works, but not the majority, pre-date the Council of Carthage -
the Gospel According to the Egyptians, Gospel of St. Peter, and Gospel
of St. Thomas are a few examples.

I believe that the Gospels pre-date these because many of the authors
of the Bible were martyred very early in Christian history - James (62
A.D.), Paul (64 A.D.), and Peter (65 A.D.). Second, most of the New
Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.),
and the fire of Rome (64 A.D.)- since neither event is mentioned.
Also, the Bible does not mention the state sponsored Roman persecution
of Christians.

The manuscript evidence also must be noted. The Magdalene Manuscript
(of Matthew 26) is dated to around 50-60 AD, the John Rylands
MS(Gospel according to John) has been dated between from between
90-130 A.D. and the Chester Beatty Papyri (of the New Testament) is
dated from about 200 A.D., as is the Diatessaron by Tatian (the
Gospels).

> And when you speak of using recorded history... would that include
> things like the councils of the Church?

It could include these along with other historical records. Also,
common sense can be used to call Scriptures into question. For
example, in Maccabees, Antiochus died three times under three very
different circumstances!

One can look to internal evidence within the Scriptures [ie
contradictions between texts] and external evidence - recorded history
in many cases.

Learner

[Joseph]

learner wrote:

[snip]

> Also, the Bible does not mention the state sponsored Roman persecution
> of Christians.

Only if you don't count Revelation.

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner wrote:

"In "The Republic" [Book IX], Plato wrote that God created two worlds
-
the corporeal world [where humans live] and the incorporeal ideal
world [Heaven]. Our world is merely a "sketch and shadow" of the
"ideal world". Incidentally, this idea can be ultimately traced to
the Akkadian tablet VI of "The Creation Epic" which says: "Make a
likeness on earth of what he [God] has wrought in heaven.""

Me: The author of Hebrews does not suggest that the visible world is a
sketch and a shadow of the ideal world. He limits this to the temple
being a picture and shadow of heaven. The fact that something similar
is found in an Akkadian tablet that well predated Plato only goes to
show that such an idea is not Platonic.

Learner: "If we look at Plato's idea that the objects we see are

merely "a sketch and shadow" of the perfect heavenly objects and then
look at
Hebrews: "They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and
shadow of the heavenly one. For Moses when he was about to erect the
tent, was
warned, 全ee that you make everything according to the pattern that
was shown you on the mountain.' " (Hebrews 8:5-6) "Moses made the
tabernacle, according to the pattern that God showed him, a "sketch
and shadow" of the perfect temple that exists in Heaven: "For Christ
did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true
one {that exists in Heaven} ..." (Hebrews 9:24)"

Me: First off, the writer of Hebrews is not even directly addressing
Platonists, he is addressing Jews who have been influenced by Philo,
who was Platonistic. Hebrews differs rather significantly from Philo,
however. I quote from the Evangelical Bible Scholar, George Ladd's "A
Theology of the New Testament:

"This [the idea of two worlds found in Hebrews 8 & 9] sounds very much
like Phlonic dualism. Philo believed that the entire phenomenal world
was transitory and ephemeral -- only a copy of the real, invisible,
spiritual world of ideas in heaven, which are apprehended by the mind.
Philo has entirely displaced the Jewish hope for the future with the
Greek hope of the flight of the soul after death to the invisible
world of eternal reality. Hebrews has not, however, displaced
eschatology. Elements of it are found throughout the book. The
object of all of God's dealings with men is "the world to come" (2:5).
This future world will not be subject to angels but to Christ.
However, Christ has been seated at the right hand of God, already
crowned with glory and honor, but not yet being made Lord over all
things (2:8). He is waiting until his enemies are made the footstool
of his feet (1:11; 10:13). This will occur at "the day" (10:25),
i.e., the Day of the Lord that is drawing near. Christ "will appear a
second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly
waiting for him" (9:28). This passage makes it unmistakably clear
that Christians will receive the promised Salvation (10:36) only at
the parousia of Christ" (page 573).

He also notes:

"Furthermore, it is not accurate to say that Hebrews, like Philo,
contrasts the phenomenal world with the noumenal, regarding the former
as unreal and ephemeral. Hebrews applies the idea of two worlds
primarily to the Old Testament cult. The tabernacle with its priests
was a copy and shadow of the heavenly sancturary. The real has come
to men in the historical life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. History
has become the medium of the eternal. There is nothing ephemeral or
transitory about Jesus' life and work. The Christ-event was history
with an eternal significance. What Jesus did, he did once and for all
(ephapax, 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). No New Testament book emphasizes the
humanity of Jesus more emphatically than does Hebrews" (p. 574).

Learner: "Because Icons are not merely symbolic, or depictions of a

physical likeness, or mere "art" - they are a vehicle through which
veneration is conveyed to a prototype in a somewhat Platonic fashion.
I am not comfortable with this because many Pagan cultures have/had
similar practices."

Me: Many pagan religions have animal sacrifice. Does that discount
the Old Testament?

Learner: "On Saturday, I went to a Hindu festival in Queens which

honored the goddess Saraswati [I went for the food]. The Hindus who
venerated the marble statue of this goddess [with prayers, incense,
and water] did not believe that the stone was Saraswati, but that
their worship was passed via that statue to the goddess - who lives [I
was told] in the mountains. What is the difference, aside from the
object venerated, between this and the veneration of icons?"

Me: It is not true that pagans typically held such a view of images.
Divine spirits were believed to dwell in their images, ideas to the
contrary developed later in Greek thought, but this was a view that
developed in the Greek world, and is not one that is typically found
in pagan religions. In Hinduism particularly, sacrifices are offered
to images. Food is placed before images, as an offering. In Chinese
culture, it is believed that images of the gods are inhabited by
lesser spirits who serve sort of as delegates of the greater deity.

Learner: "I salute the flag as a symbol. I do not believe that it is

a "window to eternity", nor do I believe that saluting a physical flag
conveys salutations to a prototype flag in heaven."

Me: Of course you do not believe the United States to be divine, but
you nevertheless honor the country the flag represents by honoring the
flag itself.

Learner: "I have no objections to creating icons, statues, or any

other form of religious art. I have a modest icon collection in my
dorm. I am not a "classic" iconoclast."

Me: So your view of images has no basis in Church history prior to the
reformation, i.e., no one shared the view that you hold -- not the
iconoclasts, and not the Orthodox.

Learner: "First of all, the Church "collected" A Canon of Scripture,

not THE Canon of Scripture. There were a wide variety of competing
Canons of Scripture both before and after the Council of Carthage(397
A.D.), including (to name but a few): The Muratorian Canon, The Canon
of Origen (A.D. 185-254), The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D.
265-340), The Canon of Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350), The
Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360), The Canon Approved By The Synod Of
Laodicea (c. A.D. 363 - and this was lost), The Canon Of Athanasius
(A.D. 367) , The Canon Approved By The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D.
380), The Canon Of Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329-89), The Canon Of
Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394), and finally, The Canon Approved By
The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397). Second, which is the true
canon? The Armenians, Syrians, Russian Orthodox, Copts, Ethiopian
Orthodox all have different Canons [different from the Greek Orthodox
Canon]. The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible Canon contains the Book of
Jubilees as well as I Enoch which are not in any other Orthodox Canon.
The Russian Orthodox Bible has 2 Esdras, which is not in the Greek
Orthodox Bible."

Me: A distinction has to be made between the New Testament canon,
which was precisely defined by the Church and received universal
acceptance, and the canon of the OT. In the case of the canon of the
OT, there was not a controversy that forced as precise a definition,
and so there is not one to be found. None of the canonical lists of
the Old Testament canon match that of the Protestant canon, I might
add. One can say that there is universal agreement that certain OT
books should be included in the canon, and there are other books about
which there are different opnions as to what their precise authority
is. But the point is, you did not come to your own conclusions about
which books should be included in the New Testament, you have accepted
the canon that the Church established for you.

Learner: "There is no chain of transmission, and scant historical

evidence, concerning Abraham. All that we have is Genesis, which was
written by Moses under divine inspiration."

Me: If you can accept traditions that were at least 500 years old
before they were written down, why can you not accept Apostolic
traditions that the Church has embraced as well? Why can you accept
the inspiration of Moses, and not the inspiration of the Church?

Learner: "As a student of history, I have found that many of the

Church's beliefs date from long after the time of Christ and the
Apostles. For example, many of the Mariological beliefs [such as the
"Dormition"] first appeared in the 6th century A.D. - a fact confirmed
by the most devout Mariologists - Eamon Duffy and Juniper Carol [the
founder of the American Mariological Society]."

Me: What you are saying is that there is no documentary evidence of
certain traditions for several hundred years after Christ. Why is
this different than the lack of documentary evidence of Abraham for
several hundred years?

Also, what about those traditions for which we do find very early
documentary evidence, such as prayers for the dead and making the sign
of the Cross:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-10.htm#P1035_422175

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-06.htm#P1852_482023

Learner: "We also have some interesting teachings from the Church

Fathers, such as Justin, who said that the Jordan broke forth in
flames when Jesus came to it for baptism, and Irenaeus who claimed
that Jesus lived to be over 50 years old(Against Heresies,2)."

Me: Where did St. Justin say that the Jordan broke forth in flames?
St. Irenaeus held the view that Christ lived to be 50 years old based
on his reading of John 8:57. His view is of course not shared by the
other Fathers of the Church. No one has argued that the fathers were
infallible, just like there are no infallible manuscripts of the New
Testament, there are no infallible fathers, but by comparing the
fathers, and seeking the consensus of the Church, we are able to
discern the infallible tradition of the Church.

Learner: "So, my problem with Orthodoxy is: how can I distinguish the

historical core beliefs of the Church from the non-factual/un-true
encrustations? In other words, if one claims that an Church Tradition
contains both truth and fiction, then we assume that one "knows" what
the truth and untruth are."

Me: How are you able to distinguish the historical core beliefs of the
Scriptures? How do you know that there are no encrustations in the
Scriptures?

Learner: "I don't know at what point in time that this happened.

However, I am very skeptical of any tradition that I cannot trace back
in time."

Me: Then, again, why do you accept the traditions about Abraham?

Learner: "Where are there Icons is the OT [not symbols] which are

venerated in the same way/for the same reasons as they are today?"

Me: There were icons in the OT. They were venerated, as I have shown.
Now you demand insights into what was going on in the heads of people
in the OT when they did so?

My evidence for the Orthodox understanding of the veneration of holy
things includes the fact that the Jews venerate Holy things in the
same why (minus the sign of the Cross) and for the same reason
(because they are holy).

Learner: "Genesis is the only direct historical record of Abraham,

although there are some indirect evidences [the Ebla tablet]. I find
no evidence of the veneration of icons in the NT, the Didache, or the
early Church."

Me: There is no evidence of the veneration of the Scriptures in the
Didache, but this does not prove that the Christians did not follow
the practice of the Jews in venerating them... does it?

Learner: "First, it is a logical fallacy to expect someone to prove a

negative. I do not know of a single art historian who believes that
icons [not to be confused with religious symbols] were used in the
earliest Christian communities."

Me: Images of saints and Biblical figures are found in the catacombs.
They have been dated by art historians. They are as old as the
catacombs themselves. There obviously could be no physical evidence
of their veneration, but there is no evidence that they were not
venerated. There are also crosses in the catacombs, and yet not even
the iconoclasts disputed the veneration of Crosses, or of the
Scriptures.

Learner: "Sir Steven Runciman wrote ["Byzantine Style and

Civilization"] "The earliest Christians took little interest in art.
They were largely influenced by the Stoics, to whom art was
irrelevant, and they were under the shadow of Mosaic Law, with its
stern ban on idols and graven images.""

Me: Note that he speaks of a ban on images, i.e., on the making of or
the having of images. This does not address the question of
veneration. That images were made and had, we have physical proof.

Not only that, we know that Jews made and had images:

http://www.library.yale.edu/exhibition/judaica/jcsml.2.html

http://www.pitt.edu/~tokerism/0040/images2/213.jpg

Learner: "Second, catacombes were often used by many groups over the

course of many years, so it is not surprising that one can see the
evolution of Christian symbols into icons."

Me: The images on the catacombs can and have been dated. It should be
noted that there are also Jewish catacombs, with Jewish images.

Learner: "Yes, but that was not the point. I appears that the fish

was a more popular symbol in the early years of Christianity."

Me: What is your source for this claim, and how do you explain
Tertullian's reference to the practice of making the sign of the cross
as a venerable and indisputable tradition even in his time (160 to 225
a.d.)?

Learner: "The Edessa cloth gives a perfect opportunity to test the

veracity of Church tradition. Neither the Edessan Chronicle nor the
historian, Procopius, even mentioned the cloth. The Church's
tradition
concerning this relic in nothing more than a 10th century
embellishment to a 4th century tall tale which was based on a 3rd
century lie."

Me: Procopius was not from Edessa. According to tradition, the cloth
was placed inside the archway of the main gate of the city, on the
outside of which, as I recall, was an icon of Christ. This image was
rediscovered in during a siege of the Persians which came after the
date of the chronicle you reference. Aside from the possibility that
this tradition is accurate, and was simply not mentioned in that
Chronicle... which I do not have access to, and so cannot be sure of
it's purpose or content aside from that which I can gather from
secondary referenced, there are other explanations for the appearance
(or reappearance) of this image in the 6th century, see:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/markward.pdf

Learner: "By the tenth century, we have a well developed mythology

concerning this relic. Other relics of this time included the True
Shroud, the Crown of Thorns, vials of Holy Blood and Virgin's Milk,
the True Cross, the lance used to stab Jesus's side, the Virgin's Robe
and even some of Jesus's soiled diapers!"

Me: It is fallacious to mention all of these relics as if their claims
to legitimacy were all on an equal footing, or that their acceptance
within the tradition of the Church is at all comparable.

-Fr. John Whiteford

[Fr. John Whiteford]

Learner: "Once again, the Church created A Canon of Scripture, not The

Canon.
Even to this day, various Orthodox groups include books that are not
in the Canons of other Orthodox Churches."

Me: Again, a distinction must be made between the Old and the New
Testament canons. Do you know when the Epistle of 2nd Peter was
finally accepted by the Church? What would you say would be a good
cut off date in the history of the Church, afterwhich all traditions
that have no documentary evidence should be rejected?

Learner: "I believe that the Gospels pre-date these because many of

the authors
of the Bible were martyred very early in Christian history - James (62
A.D.), Paul (64 A.D.), and Peter (65 A.D.). Second, most of the New
Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.),
and the fire of Rome (64 A.D.)- since neither event is mentioned.
Also, the Bible does not mention the state sponsored Roman persecution
of Christians."

Me: Which means you accept the oral tradition of the Church regarding
the authorship of these books. None of the Gospels name the author in
the text.

Learner: "It could include these along with other historical records.

Also,
common sense can be used to call Scriptures into question. For
example, in Maccabees, Antiochus died three times under three very
different circumstances! One can look to internal evidence within the
Scriptures [ie contradictions between texts] and external evidence -
recorded history in many cases."

Me: What are your references in Maccabees that you have in mind, and
if I can show you a similar apparent contradiction in Scripture, will
you reject the books that contain them?

-Fr. John Whiteford