Year-End Exam

Okay, let's have some fun.

This quiz has forty questions, and shouldn't take more than ten minutes to complete. There is no time limit, but once you start, you have to finish or you lose your progress.
There are no trick questions; all questions relate directly to material covered in this blog and can be answered by referring back to that material (click here to open a new window to look at previous blog entries while you complete the exam)

Good luck.
(it may need a few seconds to load)

Sola Scriptura, Part 9

Continued form last week [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8]

THE ORTHODOX APPROACH TO TRUTH

Lest any be mistaken or confused, let me be clear: the Orthodox approach to the Scriptures is not based upon "scientific" research into the Holy Scriptures. Its claim to understand the Scriptures does not reside in its claiming superior archaeological data, but rather in its unique relationship with the Author of the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ, the pillar and ground of the Truth, and it is both the means by which God wrote the Scriptures (through its members) and the means by which God has preserved the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church understands the Bible because it is the inheritor of one living tradition that begins with Adam and stretches through time to all its members today. That this is true cannot be "proven" in a lab. One must be convinced by the Holy Spirit and experience the life of God in the Church.

The question Protestants will ask at this point is who is to say that the Orthodox Tradition is the correct tradition, or that there even is a correct tradition? First, Protestants need to study the history of the Church. They will find that there is only one Church. This has always been the faith of the Church from its beginning. The Nicene Creed makes this point clearly, "I believe in... one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." This statement, which almost every Protestant denomination still claims to accept as true, was never interpreted to refer to some fuzzy, pluralistic invisible "church" that cannot agree on anything doctrinally. The councils that canonized the Creed (as well as the Scriptures) also anathematized those who were outside the Church, whether they were heretics, such as the Montanists, or schismatics like the Donatists. They did not say, "well we can't agree with the Montanists doctrinally but they are just as much a part of the Church as we are." Rather they were excluded from the communion of the Church until they returned to the Church and were received into the Church through Holy Baptism and Chrismation (in the case of heretics) or simply Chrismation (in the case of schismatics) [Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII]. To even join in prayer with those outside the Church was, and still is, forbidden [Canons of the Holy Apostles, canons XLV, XLVI]. Unlike Protestants, who make heros of those who break away from another group and start their own, in the early Church this was considered among the most damnable sins. As St. Ignatius of Antioch [a disciple of the Apostle John] warned, "Make no mistake brethren, no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the passion" [to the Philadelphians 5:3].

The very reason there arose a Protestant movement was that they were protesting Papal abuses, but prior to the Roman West breaking away from the Orthodox East these abuses did not exist. Many modern Protestant theologians have recently begun to take a second look at this first millennium of undivided Christendom, and are beginning to discover the great treasure that the West has lost (and not a few are becoming Orthodox as a result). 19

Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.

Most Protestants, because their theological basis of Sola Scriptura could only yield disunity and argument, have long ago given up on the idea of true Christian unity and considered it a ridiculous hypothesis that there might be only one Faith. When faced with such strong affirmations concerning Church unity as those cited above, they often react in horror, charging that such attitudes are contrary to Christian love. Finding themselves without true unity they have striven to create a false unity, by developing the relativistic philosophy of ecumenism, in which the only belief to be condemned is any belief that makes exclusive claims about the Truth. However, this is not the love of the historical Church, but humanistic sentimentality. Love is the essence of the Church. Christ did not come to establish a new school of thought, but rather, He, Himself said that He came to build His Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail (Matthew 16:17). This new community of the Church created "an organic unity rather than a mechanical unification of internally divided persons." 20 This unity is only possible through the new life brought by the Holy Spirit, and mystically experienced in the life of the Church.

Christian faith joins the faithful with Christ and thus it composes one harmonious body from separate individuals. Christ fashions this body by communicating Himself to each member and by supplying to them the Spirit of Grace in an effectual, tangible manner.... If the bond with the body of the Church becomes severed then the personality which is thereby isolated and enclosed in its own egoism will be deprived of the beneficial and abundant influence of the Holy Spirit which dwells within the Church. 21

The Church is one because it is the body of Christ, and it is an ontological impossibility that it could be divided. The Church is one, even as Christ and the Father are one. Though this concept of unity may seem incredible, it does not seems so to those who have gone beyond the concept and entered into its reality. Though this may be one of those "hard sayings" that many cannot accept, it is a reality in the Orthodox Church, though it demands from everyone much self-denial, humility and love. 22

Our faith in the unity of the Church has two aspects, it is both an historic and present unity. That is to say that when the Apostles, for example, departed this life they did not depart from the unity of the Church. They are as much a part of the Church now as when they were present in the flesh. When we celebrate the Eucharist in any local Church, we do not celebrate it alone, but with the entire Church, both on earth and in heaven. The Saints in heaven are even closer to us than those we can see or touch. Thus, in the Orthodox Church we are not only taught by those people in the flesh whom God has appointed to teach us, but by all those teachers of the Church in heaven and on earth. We are just as much under the teaching today of Saint John Chrysostom as we are of our own Bishop. The way this impacts our approach to Scripture is that we do not interpret it privately (II Peter 1:20), but as a Church. This approach to Scripture was given its classic definition by St. Vincent of Lerins:

Here, perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer,] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men.... Thus it is because of the great many distortions caused by various errors, that it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.

In the Catholic Church itself, every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. This is truly and properly Catholic, as indicated by the force and etymology of the name itself, which comprises everything truly universal. This general rule will be truly applied if we follow the principles of universality, antiquity, and consent. We do so in regard to universality if we confess that faith alone to be true which the entire Church confesses all over the world. [We do so] in regard to antiquity if we in no way deviate from those interpretations which our ancestors and fathers have manifestly proclaimed as inviolable. [We do so] in regard to consent if, in this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and propositions of all, or almost all, of the Bishops. 23

In this approach to Scriptures, it is not the job of the individual to strive for originality, but rather to understand what is already present in the traditions of the Church. We are obliged not to go beyond the boundary set by the Fathers of the Church, but to faithfully pass on the tradition we received. To do this requires a great deal of study and thought, but even more, if we are to truly understand the Scriptures, we must enter deeply into the mystical life of the Church.
But what of the work that has been done by Protestant Biblical scholars? To the degree that it helps us understand the history behind and meaning of obscurities, to this degree it is in line with the Holy Tradition and can be used.

As Saint Gregory Nazianzen put it when speaking of pagan literature: "As we have compounded healthful drugs from certain of the reptiles, so from secular literature we have received principles of enquiry and speculation, while we have rejected their idolatry..." 25 Thus as long as we refrain from worshiping the false gods of Individualism, Modernity, and Academic Vainglory, and as long as we recognize the assumptions at work and use those things that truly shed historical or linguistic light upon the Scriptures, then we will understand the Tradition more perfectly. But to the degree that Protestant scholarship speculates beyond the canonical texts, and projects foreign ideas upon the Scriptures — to the degree that they disagree with the Holy Tradition, the "always and everywhere" faith of the Church, they are wrong.

If Protestants should think this arrogant or naive, let them first consider the arrogance and naivete of those scholars who think that they are qualified to override (and more usually, totally ignore) two thousand years of Christian teaching. Does the acquisition of a Ph.D. give one greater insight into the mysteries of God than the total wisdom of millions upon millions of faithful believers and the Fathers and Mothers of the Church who faithfully served God, who endured horrible tortures and martyrdom, mockings, and imprisonments, for the faith? Is Christianity learned in the comfort of ones study, or as one carries his cross to be killed on it? The arrogance lies in those who, without even taking the time to learn what the Holy Tradition really is, decide that they know better, that only now has someone come along who has rightly understood what the Scriptures really mean.

CONCLUSION
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God's Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.

From the Orthodox Christian Information Center

19. In fact a recent three volume systematic theology, by Thomas Oden, is based on the premise that the "ecumenical consensus" of the first millennium should be normative for theology [see, The Living God: Systematic Theology Volume One, (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), pp ix — xiv.]. If only Oden takes his own methodology all the way, he too will become Orthodox.

20. The Holy New Martyr Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky), Christianity or the Church?, (Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1985), p. 11.

21. Ibid., p. 16.

22. Ibid., p. 40.

23. St. Vincent of Lerins, trans. Rudolph Morris, The Fathers of the Church vol.7, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1949), pp. 269-271.

25. St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Oration 43, Panegyric on Saint Basil," A Selected Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, series 2, vol. vii, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff (New York: Christian, 18871900), p. 398f.

Christ is born, glorify him.
Christ is from heaven, go to meet him.
Christ is on earth, be ye lifted up.
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
Sing out with gladness, all ye people.
For he is glorified.
(First Ode of the Christmas Canon)

Today the Virgin gives birth to the Transcendent One,
And the earth offers a cave to the Unapproachable One!
Angels, with shepherds, glorify Him!
The wise men journey with the star!
Since for our sake the Eternal God is born as a little child
(Christmas Kontakion)

No Room at the Inns

How appropriate...

From Mere Comments:

By Judith Sudilovsky
Bethlehem, 22 December (ENI)-- Hotel capacity is often around 100 percent these days, so things are looking up for Bethlehem says the head of the city's chamber of commerce and industry board.

Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce and Industry chairperson, Samir Hazboun, told reporters that Bethlehem had celebrated its one millionth visitor of the year in November. This, Hazboun said, was the highest number in decades, and he hoped there would be at least 100,000 more visitors by the end of 2008.

Yet, although visitors from India, Poland and Russia are expected to increase, the people of Bethlehem believe the current world economic crisis will hit them after Christmas, Hazboun noted.

Of the current visitors to Bethlehem, 76 percent are pilgrims, and while most tourists stay in the city for only about two hours, some who come for religious reasons spend the night in order to attend a church service or pray at the holy sites.

Bethlehem has a hotel capacity of 3,000 rooms, Hazboun said, and the construction of three new hotels now being completed will add another 250 rooms. Still, he said this would not be enough to accommodate all the visitors who come to Bethlehem.

The city is increasingly perceived as a safe destination, Hazboun asserted. He said Bethlehem currently receives about 100 tour buses daily.

Hazboun said 27 percent of the 185,000 residents of the district, which includes the "Christian triangle" of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jalla and some smaller villages, are Christian. In Bethlehem proper, which has 31,000 residents, the figure is 45 percent

Mary, Part 4 - Veneration

"There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper." St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion: Against the Collyridians

Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 bull Ineffabilis Deus, formally defined as dogma of the Roman Catholic Church the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. According to this belief, Mary's soul, "in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

It would take someone with far more knowledge than I have to provide a proper explanation of the Orthodox Church's objection to this doctrine. Such an explanation would involve a look at the Church's understanding of original sin, and a discussion of Mary's human nature, which she would necessarily have had to pass along to her Son. It will suffice for now to say that the Orthodox Church has never accepted the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. (However, those of my readers who are interested in learning more about the Orthodox understanding of this subject can find excellent and fascinating essays by two prominent Orthodox bishops here and here)

The Orthodox feel, not only that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is incorrect, but also that it clears the way for more objectionable teachings. For example, there is a movement underway among Roman Catholic clergy and laity to petition the Pope for an official bestowing on Mary of the titles "Co-Redemptrix," and "Mediatrix of all Graces."

At the extreme opposite end of the Marian spectrum is the Protestant attitude toward Mary, which can be summed up in two words:

"Mary who?"

Never have I been to a Protestant church service in which Mary--if she is mentioned at all--is referred to as anything other than as an historical figure. In my twenty years as a Baptist, I don't know that I ever heard a pastor utter the name "Mary" when he wasn't flanked either by Christmas trees or Easter lilies. In the Lutheran church that Kathryn and I attended, more than thirty stained glass windows adorn the walls of the nave depicting all twelve Apostles, Sts Paul, Polycarp, and Athanasius, Ruth and Naomi, and even Dorcas, the dressmaker from Acts chapter 9. Can you guess who is not shown?

Why is there such an aversion to Mary among Protestants? The best sense I have been able to make of it is that it is a reaction to the excesses of Roman Catholic Marian devotion. An article quoted on the This is Life! blog sums up why this is not a good thing (emphases are my own):

The Church catholic has always kept Jesus and Mary close together, as evidenced by the ecumenical confession of Mary as Theotokos, "Mother of God." This title was formally authorized by the General Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), a council convened not to address Mariology but Christology. At a deep intuitive level, the Church has understood that her confession of the Incarnation of the eternal Word is intrinsically connected to the veneration of the blessed Virgin. Yet for some reason Protestants, including the overwhelming majority of Anglicans, do not intuit this connection. . . .

Something is very wrong with Protestantism. Our ecclesial communities do not generate a devotion to Mary. This absence of Marian devotion suggests to me a theological flaw. . . .

The Protestant, of course, immediately protests: "I believe in the Incarnation as strongly as any Catholic or Orthodox Christian!" But the fact remains that all of Protestantism has lost Mary, and many forms of Protestantism are now on the verge of losing Christ.

This raises a critical question for me: Is a Protestant competent to offer judgment on Marian devotion or Marian titles? I am beginning to suspect that no matter how "orthodox" we Protestants think we are in our doctrine of the Incarnation, we in fact are not. We have not faithfully appropriated the orthodox doctrine, because we have deleted Mary from the Church's life of worship and prayer.

This deletion of Mary is both evidence of our deficiency in our understanding of the Incarnation and a cause of this deficiency. Something is very wrong when our teaching and love of Christ does not generate the kind of hymnody, veneration, and devotion that is common in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. . . .

Within the tradition and history of the Church, a lively faith in Jesus as the incarnate Word has gone hand-in-hand with a lively veneration of his blessed Mother. Yet for Protestants, Mary remains a person of the past, much like Abraham, David, and John the Baptist. One must wonder if we really have understood the mystery of the Incarnation.

Mary herself said, "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." This is not something I have seen in Protestantism. But she also said "My soul doth magnify the Lord." not vice versa, as often seems to be the case in Roman Catholicism. Not until I found Orthodox Christianity did I finally see what it means to give Mary her due honor; only then did I discover a middle ground between the Roman Catholic deification of Mary and her near omission by Protestants.

Mary is given a special place in the Orthodox Church, where she is hailed as being "more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious, beyond compare, than the Seraphim." But she is not seen as a goddess, nor as the fourth person of the Trinity; She is not given honor that is due to God alone: "Just as with the Holy Icons, the veneration due Mary is expressed in quite different words in the Greek writings of the Fathers than that due God." In the Orthodox Church, Mary is very seldom depicted without Christ (the image above is from a Roman Catholic website), and is attributed only with the power to intercede for us to her Son. She is lauded for her obedience to God and for her example of humility and piety.

According to the Orthodox Christian Information Center, Orthodox Christians "do not 'worship' the Virgin Mary. We 'venerate' her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus."

Orthodox Christians recognize that, "where the God-Man is, so also, in Him, His Mother, His saints, His angels and His righteous ones are present. In Him—and only in Him—we have fellowship with them and ask their help. His Mother is truly Mother of us all in the Church, where she holds the most exalted position, closest to Christ, but she does not act independently from Him. She is not the Mother of the Church, nor the Mediatrix of all graces, nor the Co-Redemptrix" (Orthodox Info)

For more information:
The Veneration of the Virgin Mary in the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God
Veneration of the Virgin Mary

Just How Exactly Does One Perform a Sacrifice?

From Again and Again

The Epistle of James supplies us with further Scriptural evidence for the Jewish roots of Christian worship. For the word in James 2:2 referring to a Christian occasion or place of worship, usually translated as “assembly”, in Greek is actually “synagogue” [συναγωγὴν]. That Greek term means both Synagogue and the Synagogue-type Service of worship. James here indirectly indicates that the early Christians thought of their place of worship as a Synagogue, where they celebrated Christianized Synagogue Service of worship.

The word “Synagogue” is found forty-four times in the New Testament; but, ironically, the word Synagogue, which today we customarily associate exclusively with Judaism and the Old Testament, is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. For the Synagogue was a development in Judaism that postdated the writing of most of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The word “Synagogue” is from the Greek, meaning “to gather together.” The Jewish Synagogue has its origin in Babylon during the Babylonian Captivity. In 597 and again in 586 BC, the Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar deported the most prominent Jews from Israel to his capital city, where they and their children remained in exile for approximately 100 years. During that time, it became customary for the Jews to gather on the Sabbath to hear the Scriptures read, to sing Psalms, and to receive instruction. This practice developed into an orderly pattern of liturgical worship. The Jews, of course, were already quite accustomed to liturgical worship in the Temple, so it was only natural for them to develop liturgical forms of worship in their Synagogue Services.

By the time of Christ, the common order of Service in the Synagogue was as follows: the Service began with several readings from the Scriptures, followed by preaching from various individuals who would be invited by the Synagogue leader to comment on the day’s readings; finally, Psalms were sung and appropriate Benedictions were recited. At the end of the service, men who were of priestly families would be invited to recite Aaron’s Blessing (Numbers 6:26).

The typical Synagogue in the first century was an open hall, with no seats for the congregation. At one end (facing Jerusalem if possible) there was a “bema” or high place, which was an elevated stage-like platform. In the center of the wall behind the bema was the seat of the ruling elder, with seats for his council on either side. In the center of the bema itself stood a table upon which sat both the “Menorah” (a seven-branched candlestick) and the Ark, a decorated cabinet containing the Scrolls of the Scriptures.

After the return from the Babylonian Captivity and the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Jews brought the custom of Synagogue worship to Judea. But not all the Jews returned to the Holy Land. Those who remained behind in Babylon continued to worship in their Synagogues. By the beginning of the first century, the custom of Synagogue worship had gradually spread throughout the Jewish Diaspora. Jews from all around the ancient world were able to participate in and benefit from Temple worship only if they made a pilgrimage to the Temple in the Holy City. Back home it was the Synagogue which naturally was the center of Jewish life and worship.

Temple worship centered on the offering of sacrifices. Synagogue worship centered on reading, preaching the Word, singing the Psalms, and the offering of Benedictions. Worship, both in the Temple and in the Synagogues, was understood to be fundamentally an act of praise to God, and focused only secondarily on seeking His blessings. The emphasis, in other words, was on giving, not receiving. The benefits one derived from both Temple and Synagogue worship were the by-product of one’s participation in the acts of adoration, praise, and thanksgiving to the God of Israel.

The only detailed instructions in the Bible for Services of worship are the elaborate rules for the sacrificial rites set forth in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. But even there, we find no directions on how exactly to offer a sacrifice. Some contemporary traditionalist Jews, dreaming of restoring Temple worship, have found this fact truly a stumbling block. For if they were to reconstuct the Temple, how exactly would a sacrifice be performed? No one today knows.

Since we find no reference to the Synagogue in the Old Testament, obviously neither will we find any directions in the Old Testament on how to conduct a Synagogue Service. The manner of conducting worship in the Synagogue, like the instructions for offering sacrifice, was a part of Jewish tradition found outside of Scriptures. According to the Scriptural record, neither Jesus nor the Apostles had the slightest difficulty with this fact, for, as we have seen, they all participated in Synagogue worship on a regular basis. They had no reason even to expect the Bible to provide directions on how to conduct Synagogue worship.

We do have a very good idea today of how a Synagogue Service was done two thousand years ago, simply because the Jews have been conducting Synagogue worship all along, without break, even to this present time. Modern Jewish Synagogue worship, as well as Jewish home worship, is part of a living tradition. On the other hand, however, we do not know today the finer details of the sacrificial worship of the Temple, since the Jews were forced in AD 70 to cease offering the liturgical sacrifices ordered by the Law of Moses. In that year, the Imperial Legions of the Roman Emperor Titus destroyed the last Temple of the Jews.

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 16

Note: keep your eye on the lady in the black skirt. What she does at 1:33 is probably my favorite moment in the whole "Things You'll Never See" collection.

Troparion to St. Nicholas:

The truth of things revealed thee to thy flock as a rule of faith, a model of meekness, and a teacher of temperance.

Therefore thou hast won the heights by humility, riches by poverty.

Holy Father Nicholas, intercede with Christ our God that our souls may be saved.

St Nicholas

It's a safe bet that most people are aware that St Nicholas was, in fact, a real person. What may not be as well known, however, is that he was a fourth-century bishop of the Orthodox Church, and that he actually was known to leave gifts during the night. Today, Orthodox Christians who observe the old calendar celebrate the memory of this great saint. The following is an excerpt of his biography, courtesy of oca.org:

Saint Nicholas, the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Myra in Lycia is famed as a great saint pleasing unto God. He was born in the city of Patara in the region of Lycia (on the south coast of the Asia Minor peninsula), and was the only son of pious parents Theophanes and Nonna, who had vowed to dedicate him to God.

From his childhood Nicholas thrived on the study of Divine Scripture; by day he would not leave church, and by night he prayed and read books, making himself a worthy dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Bishop Nicholas of Patara rejoiced at the spiritual success and deep piety of his nephew. He ordained him a reader, and then elevated Nicholas to the priesthood, making him his assistant and entrusting him to instruct the flock. In serving the Lord the youth was fervent of spirit, and in his proficiency with questions of faith he was like an Elder, who aroused the wonder and deep respect of believers. Constantly at work and vivacious, in unceasing prayer, the priest Nicholas displayed great kind-heartedness towards the flock, and towards the afflicted who came to him for help, and he distributed all his inheritance to the poor.

There was a certain formerly rich inhabitant of Patara, whom St Nicholas saved from great sin. The man had three grown daughters, and in desparation he planned to sell their bodies so they would have money for food. The saint, learning of the man's poverty and of his wicked intention, secretly visited him one night and threw a sack of gold through the window. With the money the man arranged an honorable marriage for his daughter. St Nicholas also provided gold for the other daughters, thereby saving the family from falling into spiritual destruction. In bestowing charity, St Nicholas always strove to do this secretly and to conceal his good deeds.

Upon the death of Archbishop John, Nicholas was chosen as Bishop of Myra [pronounced mee-rah] after one of the bishops of the Council said that a new archbishop should be revealed by God, not chosen by men. One of the elder bishops had a vision of a radiant Man, Who told him that the one who came to the church that night and was first to enter should be made archbishop. He would be named Nicholas. The bishop went to the church at night to await Nicholas. The saint, always the first to arrive at church, was stopped by the bishop. "What is your name, child?" he asked. God's chosen one replied, "My name is Nicholas, Master, and I am your servant."

After his consecration as archbishop, St Nicholas remained a great ascetic, appearing to his flock as an image of gentleness, kindness and love for people. This was particularly precious for the Lycian Church during the persecution of Christians under the emperor Diocletian (284-305). Bishop Nicholas, locked up in prison together with other Christians for refusing to worship idols, sustained them and exhorted them to endure the fetters, punishment and torture. The Lord preserved him unharmed.

Upon the accession of St Constantine (May 21) as emperor, St Nicholas was restored to his flock, which joyfully received their guide and intercessor. Despite his great gentleness of spirit and purity of heart, St Nicholas was a zealous and ardent warrior of the Church of Christ. In the year 325 St Nicholas was a participant in the First Ecumenical Council. This Council proclaimed the Nicean Symbol of Faith, and he stood up against the heretic Arius with the likes of Sts Sylvester the Bishop of Rome (January 2), Alexander of Alexandria (May 29), Spyridon of Trimythontos (December 12) and other Fathers of the Council. St Nicholas, fired with zeal for the Lord, assailed the heretic Arius with his words, and also struck him upon the face. For this reason, he was deprived of the emblems of his episcopal rank and placed under guard.

The Fathers of the Council agreed that the audacity of the saint was pleasing to God, and restored the saint to the office of bishop. Having returned to his own diocese, the saint brought it peace and blessings, sowing the word of Truth, uprooting heresy, nourishing his flock with sound doctrine, and also providing food for their bodies.

Having reached old age, St Nicholas peacefully fell asleep in the Lord. His venerable relics were preserved incorrupt in the local cathedral church and flowed with curative myrrh, from which many received healing. In the year 1087, his relics were transferred to the Italian city of Bari, where they rest even now (See May 9). The name of the great saint of God, the hierarch and wonderworker Nicholas, a speedy helper and suppliant for all hastening to him, is famed in every corner of the earth, in many lands and among many peoples. In Russia there are a multitude of cathedrals, monasteries and churches consecrated in his name. There is, perhaps, not a single city without a church dedicated to him.

See also:
St Nicholas Center
Accounts of Saint Nicholas
Saint Nicholas and the Origin of Santa Claus

Sola Scriptura, Part 8

Continued form last week [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7 ]

APPROACH # 4, Historical-Critical Exegesis
Drowning in a sea of subjective opinion and division, Protestants quickly began grasping for any intellectual method with a fig leaf of objectivity. As time went by and divisions multiplied, science and reason increasingly became the standard by which Protestant theologians hoped to bring about consistency in their biblical interpretations. This "scientific" approach, which has come to predominate Protestant Scholarship, and in this century has even begun to predominate Roman Catholic Scholarship, is generaly referred to as "Historical-Critical Exegesis." With the dawn of the so-called "Enlightenment," science seemed to be capable of solving all the worlds problems. Protestant Scholarship began applying the philosophy and methodology of the sciences to theology and the Bible. Since the Enlightenment, Protestant scholars have analyzed every aspect of the Bible: its history, its manuscripts, the biblical languages, etc. As if the Holy Scriptures were an archaeological dig, these scholars sought to analyze each fragment and bone with the best and latest that science had to offer. To be fair, it must be stated that much useful knowledge was produced by such scholarship. Unfortunately this methodology has erred also, grievously and fundamentally, but it has been portrayed with such an aura of scientific objectivity that holds many under its spell.

Like all the other approaches used by Protestants, this method also seeks to understand the Bible while ignoring Church Tradition. Though there is no singular Protestant method of exegesis, they all have as their supposed goal to "let the Scripture speak for itself." Of course no one claiming to be Christian could be against what the Scripture would "say" if it were indeed "speaking for itself" through these methods. The problem is that those who appoint themselves as tongues for the Scripture filter it through their own Protestant assumptions. While claiming to be objective, they rather interpret the Scriptures according to their own sets of traditions and dogmas (be they fundamentalists or liberal rationalists). What Protestant scholars have done (if I may loosely borrow a line from Albert Schweitzer) is looked into the well of history to find the meaning of the Bible. They have written volume upon volume on the subject, but unfortunately they have only seen their own reflections.

Protestant scholars (both "liberals" and "conservatives" have erred in that they have misapplied empirical methodologies to the realm of theology and biblical studies. I use the term "Empiricism" to describe these efforts. I am using this term broadly to refer to the rationalistic and materialistic worldview that has possessed the Western mind, and is continuing to spread throughout the world. Positivist systems of thought (of which Empiricism is one) attempt to anchor themselves on some basis of "certain" knowledge. 11 Empiricism, strictly speaking, is the belief that all knowledge is based on experience, and that only things which can be established by means of scientific observation can be known with certainty. Hand in hand with the methods of observation and experience, came the principle of methodological doubt, the prime example of this being the philosophy of Rene Descartes who began his discussion of philosophy by showing that everything in the universe can be doubted except ones own existence, and so with the firm basis of this one undoubtable truth ("I think, therefore I am") he sought to build his system of philosophy. Now the Reformers, at first, were content with the assumption that the Bible was the basis of certainty upon which theology and philosophy could rest. But as the humanistic spirit of the Enlightenment gained in ascendancy, Protestant scholars turned their rationalistic methods on the Bible itself—seeking to discover what could be known with "certainty" from it. Liberal Protestant scholars have already finished this endeavor, and having "peeled back the onion" they now are left only with their own opinions and sentimentality as the basis for whatever faith they have left.

Conservative Protestants have been much less consistent in their rationalistic approach. Thus they have preserved among themselves a reverence for the Scriptures and a belief in their inspiration. Nevertheless, their approach (even among the most dogged Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the same spirit of rationalism as the Liberals. A prime example of this is to be found among so-called Dispensational Fundamentalists, who hold to an elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in history God has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," such as the "Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the "Mosaic dispensation," the "Davidic dispensation," and so on. One can see that there is a degree of truth in this theory, but beyond these Old Testament dispensations they teach that currently we are under a different "dispensation" than were the Christians of the first century. Though miracles continued through the "New Testament period," they no longer occur today. This is very interesting, because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural basis) this theory allows these Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the Bible, while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in their everyday life. Thus, though the discussion of this approach may at first glance seem to be only of academic interest and far removed from the reality of dealing with the average Protestant, in fact, even the average, piously "conservative" Protestant laymen is not unaffected by this sort of rationalism.

The great fallacy in this so called "scientific" approach to the Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical assumptions to the study of history, Scripture, and theology. Empirical methods work reasonably well when they are correctly applied to the natural sciences, but when they are applied where they cannot possibly work, such as in unique moments in history (which cannot be repeated or experimented upon), they cannot produce either consistent or accurate results. 12 Scientists have yet to invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit world, and yet many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science the idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been disproved. Were the Devil to appear before an Empiricist with pitch fork in hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be explained in some manner that would easily comport to the scientists worldview. Although such Empiricists pride themselves on their "openness", they are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they cannot see anything that does not fit their vision of reality. If the methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would discredit all knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is conveniently permitted to be inconsistent by those who hold to it "because its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity that its prestige overrides the defectiveness of its own foundations."13

The connections between the extreme conclusions that modern liberal Protestant scholars have come to, and the more conservative or Fundamentalist Protestants will not seem clear to many — least of all to conservative Fundamentalists! Though these conservatives see themselves as being in almost complete opposition to Protestant liberalism, they nonetheless use essentially the same kinds of methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, and along with these methodologies come their underlying philosophical assumptions. Thus the difference between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" is not in reality a difference of basic assumptions, but rather a difference in how far they have taken them to their inherent conclusions.

If Protestant exegesis were truly "scientific," as it presents itself to be, its results would show consistency. If its methods were merely unbiased "technologies" (as many view them) then it would not matter who used them, they would "work" the same for everyone. But what do we find when we examine current status of Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the "experts" themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. 14 In fact this crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the admission of a recognized Protestant Old Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel [in his survey of the history and current status of the discipline of Old Testament theology, Old Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate], that during the 1970s five new Old Testament theologies had been produced "but not one agrees in approach and method with any of the others."15 In fact, it is amazing, considering the self-proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant biblical studies, that you can take your pick of limitless conclusions on almost any issue and find "good scholarship" to back it up. In other words, you can just about come to any conclusion that suits you on a particular day or issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who will advocate it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as mathematics or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of learning that presents itself as "objective science," but which in fact is a pseudo-science, concealing a variety of competing philosophical and theological perspectives. It is pseudoscience because until scientists develop instruments capable of examining and understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical interpretation is an impossibility. This is not to say that there is nothing that is genuinely scholarly or useful within it; but this is to say that, camouflaged with these legitimate aspects of historical and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog machines and mirrors of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant methods of biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant of Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions. 16

With subjectivity that surpasses the most speculative Freudian psychoanalysts, Protestant scholars selectively choose the "facts" and "evidence" that suits their agenda and then proceed, with their conclusions essentially predetermined by their basic assumptions, to apply their methods to the Holy Scriptures. All the while, the Protestant scholars, both "liberal" and "conservative," describe themselves as dispassionate "scientists."17 And since modern universities do not give out Ph.D.s to those who merely pass on the unadulterated Truth, these scholars seek to out-do each other by coming up with new "creative" theories. This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and self-deception.

Continued in Part 9 - The Orthodox Approach to Truth

11. The term positivism comes from the French word positif, which means sure, or certain. This term was first used by Auguste Comte. Positivistic systems are built upon the assumption that some fact or institution is the ultimate basis of knowledge — in Comtes philosophy, experience or sense-perception constituted that basis and thus he was the forerunner of modern Empiricism [See Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1914 ed., s.v. "Positivism," by S.H. Swinny; and Wolfhart Pannenburg, Theology and Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 29].

12. For example, one method for determining the reality of past events, among empirically minded scholars, is the principle of analogy. Since knowledge is based on experience, then the way one understands what is unfamiliar is by relating it to something that is familiar. Under the guise of historical analysis they judge the probability of a supposed past event (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus) based upon what we know to take place in our experience. And since these historians have never observed anything which they would consider supernatural they determine that when the Bible speaks of a miraculous event in history that it merely is recounting a myth or a legend. But since to the Empiricist, a miracle entails a violation of a natural law, then there can be no miracles (by definition) because natural laws are determined by our observation of what we experience, so were such an Empiricist to be confronted with a modern analogy of a miracle it would no longer be considered a miracle because it would no longer constitute a violation of natural law. Thus empiricists do not produce results that falsify transcendent reality, or miracles; rather their presuppositions, from the very outset, deny the possibility of such things. [see G. E. Michalson, Jr., "Pannenburg on the Resurrection and Historical Method," Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (April 1980): 345-359.]

13. Rev. Robert T. Osborn, "Faith as Personal Knowledge," Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (February 1975): 101-126.

14. Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 9.

15. Ibid., p. 7.

16. I have discussed Liberal Protestantism only to demonstrate the fallacies of "Historical" exegesis. An Orthodox Christian is much more likely to be confronted by a conservative Fundamentalist or a Charismatic, simply because they take their faith seriously enough to seek to convert others to it. Liberal Protestant denominations have their hands full trying to keep their own parishioners, and are not noted for their evangelistic zeal.

17. For a more in-depth critique of the excesses of the Historical-Critical Method, see Thomas Oden, Agenda for Theology: After Modernity What? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) pp 103-147

St Sabbas the Sanctified

St Sabbas (also Saba, Sava, Sawa, Savas) is remembered tomorrow according to the old calendar. The following biography is from oca.org:

Saint Sava the Sanctified [whose tomb is pictured above] was born in the fifth century at Cappadocia of pious Christian parents, John and Sophia. His father was a military commander. Journeying to Alexandria on military matters, his wife went with him, but they left their five-year-old son in the care of an uncle. When the boy reached eight years of age, he entered the monastery of St Flavian located nearby. The gifted child quickly learned to read and became an expert on the Holy Scriptures. In vain did his parents urge St Sava to return to the world and enter into marriage.

When he was seventeen years old he received monastic tonsure, and attained such perfection in fasting and prayer that he was given the gift of wonderworking. After spending ten years at the monastery of St Flavian, he went to Jerusalem, and from there to the monastery of St Euthymius the Great (January 20). But St Euthymius sent St Sava to Abba Theoctistus, the head of a nearby monastery with a strict cenobitic rule. St Sava lived in obedience at this monastery until the age of thirty.

After the death of the Elder Theoctistus, his successor blessed St Sava to seclude himself in a cave. On Saturdays, however, he left his hermitage and came to the monastery, where he participated in divine services and ate with the brethren. After a certain time St Sava received permission not to leave his hermitage at all, and he struggled in the cave for five years.

St Euthymius attentively directed the life of the young monk, and seeing his spiritual maturity, he began to take him to the Rouba wilderness with him. They set out on January 14, and remained there until Palm Sunday. St Euthymius called St Sava a child-elder, and encouraged him to grow in the monastic virtues.

When St Euthymius fell asleep in the Lord (+ 473), St Sava withdrew from the Lavra and moved to a cave near the monastery of St Gerasimus of Jordan (March 4). After several years, disciples began to gather around St Sava, seeking the monastic life. As the number of monks increased, a lavra sprang up. When a pillar of fire appeared before St Sava as he was walking, he found a spacious cave in the form of a church.

St Sava founded several more monasteries. Many miracles took place through the prayers of St Sava: at the Lavra a spring of water welled up, during a time of drought there was abundant rain, and there were also healings of the sick and the demoniacs. St Sava composed the first monastic Rule of church services, the so-called "Jerusalem Typikon", accepted by all the Palestine monasteries. The saint surrendered his soul to God in the year 532.

For more information:
St. Sabbas Orthodox Monastery
Sabbas the Sanctified (OrthodoxWiki)
Saint Sabbas

Holidays

To my great delight, I have not yet seen or heard an Orthodox Christian raise any objection to the phrase "Happy Holidays." And why should they? According to the Orthodox calendar, Christmas begins a twelve-day celebration (hence the "12 Days of Christmas") that concludes with the feast of Theophany (known in the Western Church as Epiphany). That's two holidays (i.e. holy days) right there.

But wait, there's more...

Between Thanksgiving and the end of January, Orthodox Christians commemorate:

5 of the Twelve Apostles (plus all of the Seventy Apostles on Jan 17),
7 Old Testament Prophets,
No fewer than 51 individual Martyrs, plus the 20,000 Martyrs of Nicomedia (Jan 10), and the Holy Innocents (Jan 11),
The Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple (Dec 4),
The Conception of the Theotokos (Dec 22),
The Circumcision of the Lord (Jan 14), plus the feast days of such well-known figures of Church history as:
St John Chrysostom (Nov 26),
St John of Damascus (Dec 17)
St Sabbas (Dec 18)
St Nicholas (Dec 19)
St Ambrose (Dec 20)
St Ignatius of Antioch (Jan 2)
St Joseph the Betrothed (Jan 11)
St Basil (Jan 14)
St John the Baptist (Jan 20), and a whole lot of lesser-known ones.

So, while the Nativity of Christ is the most important day of the season, it is but one of several holy days that Orthodox Christians celebrate, and so the greeting "Happy Holidays" really would not be inappropriate.

While we're on the subject, I have in the past heard Christians object to the abbreviation "X-mas" because they feel it is crossing out Christ. Not to worry. The "x" here is not the English letter "x" and is not the symbol used for "crossing out." It is the Greek letter chi, which, as we have seen, is the first letter of the Greek word for Christ: Χριστός.

The word "Christmas," by the way, is historically unknown in the Eastern Church, which has instead preferred to call the celebration The Feast of the Nativity According to the Flesh of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ (could this title leave any question as to the true meaning of Christmas?). According to Dr. Alexander Roman, the name "Christmas" is from pre-Schism (i.e. Orthodox) England, and,

is a composite of the Calendar feast in honour of which the daily Liturgy was celebrated i.e. "Christ-Mass." In the Old Sarum Rite, there was "Andermas" for St Andrew's Day. Others included: Martinmas, Michaelmas, Ladymas (for the Mother of God), Candlemas (Feast of the Meeting of St Simeon or "Purification"), Johnmas or, in Ireland, Seanmas (and thus the name, "Seamus") and so on.

I have seen another remarkable thing about Christmas in the Orthodox Church. In our western culture, we celebrate during the days leading up to Christmas, and then on the 26th the party is over and the curbs are littered with discarded Christmas trees.

Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, prepare for the Nativity as they do with other important Feasts: with fasting and prayer. In the Orthodox Church, "Advent represents the time before Christ’s birth, when God’s people had become lost and disconnected from Him. Instead of 'pre-celebrating' the Christmas holiday during Advent, the Orthodox Christian faithful participate in a solemn, six-week Nativity fast during this time. It is a spiritual practice that helps people grieve their losses, endure their sadness, feed their souls, and, ultimately, experience joy on Christmas day."1

To Orthodox Christians, the celebration begins--rather than ends--on Christmas Day.

For further reading:
American Christmas and Orthodox Nativity
What Do You Do About Western Christmas?
Dealing with a Secularized Christmas
Christmas--To An Eastern Orthodox Christian
Orthodox Christmas Recipes


1. How to Avoid Christmas Depression

☧

Nativity Icon

click on the image to connect

Sacraments

A Sacrament is defined as "a way in which God imparts grace to His people," and is described as "a combination of an outward visible sign with an inward spiritual grace."

"Sacrament" is a word that originated in the west, and Orthodox Christians normally refer to Sacraments as the Holy Mysteries. The word mysterion (μυστήριον), which appears at least 22 times in the New Testament (KJV), means not what we commonly understand in modern English language as a "mystery"--like a riddle to be solved--but rather a spiritual Truth, known only by divine revelation.

St John Chrysostom wrote that, "a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe. For such is the nature of our Mysteries. I, for instance, feel differently upon these subjects from an unbeliever" (Homily on 1 Corinthians).

The Orthodox Church regards the life of Faith, indeed the very purpose of human existence, to be nothing less than participation in the life of God. The sacraments are a means to accomplish this. According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "the Church takes material things--water, bread, wine, oil--and makes them a vehicle of the Spirit. In this way the sacraments look back to the Incarnation, when Christ took material flesh and made it a vehicle of the Spirit" (The Orthodox Church, p.274)

Christ Himself used matter to communicate His healing power: He used mud to heal the blind man (Jn 9.1-14), and the hem of His garment to heal the woman with the flow of blood (Lk 8.43-44). Later, handkerchiefs and aprons that had simply touched His Apostles were used to heal the sick (Acts 19.12). Of course, He didn't need these items to heal: He had also healed people merely with His words (Mt 8.16), and by laying hands on them (Lk 4.40). But He showed us through His example that matter can be used to impart the power of the Holy Spirit, as is done through the Holy Mysteries.

Roman Catholics recognize seven--and only seven--Sacraments. Lutherans recognize two or three, depending on whom you ask. Many Christians reject altogether the notion of Sacraments based on their understanding of the "universal priesthood."

Orthodox Christians recognize the same seven sacraments that are known to Roman Catholics. They are:

Baptism: Mt 28.18-20; Rom 6.4; Gal 3.27

Chrismation (Confirmation): Acts 8.15-17; 1Jn 2.27

Holy Eucharist (Communion): Mt 26.26-28; Jn 6.30-58; 1Co 10.16; 11.23-31

Confession: Jn 20.22-23; 1Jn 1.8-9; Jam 5.16

Ordination (Holy Orders): Mk 3.14; Acts 1.15-26; 6.1-6; 1Ti 3.1-13; 4.14

Marriage: Gn 2.18-25; Eph 5.22-33

Healing (Unction): Lk 9.1-2; Jam 5.14-15

These seven actions are the only ones that I have heard specifically referred to as "Sacraments" (or "Mysteries") in the Orthodox Church. However, Orthodox Christians do not believe that these are the only sacramental acts. They believe that many other actions can be sacramental as well:

Neither the liturgical book called Euchologion (prayer book), which contains the texts of the sacraments, nor the patristic tradition, however, formally limits the number of sacraments; they do not distinguish clearly between the "sacraments" and such acts as the blessing of water on Epiphany day or the burial service or the service for the tonsuring of a monk that in the West are called sacramentalia. In fact, no council recognized by the Orthodox Church ever defined the number of sacraments; it is only through the "Orthodox confessions" of the 17th century directed against the Reformation that the number seven has been generally accepted (From the Orthodox Information Center)

According to Fr Thomas Hopko, "the more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical."

For more information:
Orthodox Worship: The Sacraments (Ware)
The Sacraments

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 15

Q&A

Q: What the heck are Magi anyway?

A: The Magi (singular Magus, from Latin, via Greek μάγος) were an Iranian tribe from ancient Media, who — prior to the establishment the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC — were responsible for religious and funerary practices of the ancient Iranian peoples.

Later they accepted the Zoroastrian religion and developed it into Zurvanism, which would become the predominant form of Zoroastrianism during the Sassanid era (AD 226–650). No traces of Zurvanism exist beyond the 10th century. In English, the term magus may refer to a shaman, sorcerer or wizard; it is the origin of the words magic and magician.1

According to the Gospel of Matthew (2:1-16), the wise men or Magi followed a star to the birth place of Christ. It was written that they were from the east and that they brought three gifts to Christ; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Since there were three gifts, it has been inferred that there were three Magi.

In Latin tradition dating from the seventh century,(from a greek manuscript) their names are given as Gaspar (or Caspar/Jasper), Melchior and Balthasar. According to one tradition, the Magi were baptized by the Apostle Thomas, and became bishops. The Church commemorates the Magi as saints; the Eastern feast day of the Magi is December 25 [new calendar].2

For more info:
The Importance of the Magi (video)
The Magi and the Infant Jesus


1. Wikipedia
2. Orthodoxwiki

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Why Should I be an Orthodox Christian?"

Courtesy of Orrologion

Sola Scriptura, Part 7

Continued form last week [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6]

PROTESTANT INTERPRETIVE APPROACHES THAT DON'T WORK

Even from the very earliest days of the Reformation, Protestants have been forced to deal with the fact that, given the Bible and the reason of the individual alone, people could not agree upon the meaning of many of the most basic questions of doctrine. Within Martin Luther's own life dozens of competing groups had arisen, all claiming to "just believe the Bible," but none agreeing on what the Bible said.

Though Luther had courageously stood before the Diet of Worms and said that unless he were persuaded by Scripture, or by plain reason, he would not retract anything that he had been teaching; later, when Anabaptists, who disagreed with the Lutherans on a number of points, simply asked for the same indulgence, the Lutherans butchered them by the thousands — so much for the rhetoric about the "right of an individual to read the Scriptures for himself."

Despite the obvious problems that the rapid splintering of Protestantism presented to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not willing to concede defeat to the Pope, Protestants instead concluded that the real problem must be that those with whom they disagree, in other words every other sect but their own, must not be reading the Bible correctly. Thus a number of approaches have been set forth as solutions to this problem. Of course there has yet to be the approach that could reverse the endless multiplications of schisms, and yet Protestants still search for the elusive methodological "key" that will solve their problem.

Let us examine the most popular approaches that have been tried thus far, each of which are still set forth by one group or another:

APPROACH # 1, Just take the Bible literally — the meaning is clear.
This approach was no doubt the first approach used by the Reformers, though very early on they came to realize that by itself this was an insufficient solution to the problems presented by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Although this one was a failure from the start, this approach still is the most common one to be found among the less educated Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Charismatics — "The Bible says what it means and means what it says," is an oft heard phrase.

But when it comes to Scriptural texts that Protestants generally do not agree with, such as when Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins (John 20:23), or when He said of the Eucharist "this is my body.... this is my blood" (Matthew 26:26,28), or when Paul taught that women should cover their heads in Church (I Corinthians 11:1-16), then all of a sudden the Bible doesn't say what it means any more — "Why, those verses aren't literal..."

APPROACH # 2, The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.
When presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second solution to the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of course everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if this approach were a valid one, that would only leave history with one group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of course the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing we can be sure of — he or she probably thinks his or her group is it.

Today, however, (depending on what stripe of Protestant you come into contact with) you are more likely to run into Protestants who have relativized the Truth to some degree or another than to find those who still maintain that their sect or splinter group is the "only one" which is "right." As denominations stacked upon denominations it became a correspondingly greater stretch for any of them to say, with a straight face, that only they had rightly understood the Scriptures, though there still are some who do. It has become increasingly common for each Protestant group to minimize the differences between denominations and simply conclude that in the name of "love" those differences "do not matter." Perhaps each group has "a piece of the Truth," but none has the whole Truth (so the reasoning goes). Thus the pan-heresy of Ecumenism had its birth. Now many "Christians" will not even stop their ecumenical efforts at allowing only Christian groups to have a piece of the Truth. Many "Christians" now also believe that all religions have "pieces of the Truth." The obvious conclusion that modern Protestants have made is that to find all the Truth each group will have to shed their "differences," pitch their "piece of Truth" into the pot, and presto-chango —the whole Truth will be found at last!

APPROACH # 3, Let the clear passages interpret the unclear.
This must have seemed the perfect solution to the problem of how to interpret the Bible by itself — let the easily understood passages "interpret" those which are not clear. The logic of this approach is simple, though one passage may state a truth obscurely, surely the same truth would be clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Simply use these "clear passages" as the key and you will have unlocked the meaning of the "obscure passage." As the Tubingen Lutheran scholars argued in their first exchange of letters with Patriarch Jeremias II:

Therefore, no better way could ever be found to interpret the Scriptures, other than that Scripture be interpreted by Scripture, that is to say, through itself. For the entire Scripture has been dictated by the one and the same Spirit, who best understands his own will and is best able to state His own meaning. 10

As promising as this method seemed, it soon proved an insufficient solution to the problem of Protestant chaos and divisions. The point at which this approach disintegrates is in determining which passages are "clear" and which are "obscure." Baptists, who believe that it is impossible for a Christian to lose his salvation once he is "saved," see a number of passages which they maintain quite clearly teach their doctrine of "Eternal Security" — for example, "For the gifts and callings of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29), and "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (John 10:27-28). But when Baptists come across verses which seem to teach that salvation can be lost, such as "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression" (Ezekiel 33:12), then they use the passages that are "clear" to explain away the passages that are "unclear." Methodists, who believe that believers may lose their salvation if they turn their backs on God, find no such obscurity in such passages, and on the contrary, view the above mentioned Baptist "proof-texts" in the light of the passages that they see as "clear." And so Methodists and Baptists throw verses of the Bible back and forth at each other, each wondering why the other cant "see" what seems very "clear" to them.

Continued in Part 8 - APPROACH # 4, Historical-Critical Exegesis


10. Mastrantonis, 115.

Patriarch Aleksy II laid to rest

From Russia Today

Aleksy II will be remembered as the first Patriarch of a new Russia. He led the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church after Soviet repression, and united it with congregations abroad after the 90 year split which followed the Bolshevik Revolution.

For more than 25 years he worked in a conference of European churches, a body set up at the height of the Cold War to promote dialogue and friendship.

In times of harsh economic reforms and a shift in public values, Aleksy did his utmost to defend morality and faith during the 90s. He was close to Soviet dissidents like the late Russian writer Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, whose widow Natalya thinks the Patriarch’s death is a huge blow

Aleksy II traveled widely, visiting more than 100 dioceses as Patriarch and encouraging congregations to come back to the fold.

And at the end of 2006 there were more than 27,000 active parishes throughout the old territory of the Soviet Union.

He was active internationally, presiding over the reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church with the one outside of Russia in May 2007. The two churches had separated in the early 1920s.

But relationships with other faiths proved more difficult. Aleksy refused to meet with the Pope, accusing the Catholic Church of aggressive missionary policies in both Russia and traditionally Orthodox former Soviet republics. He in turn was accused of making the church a force for nationalism.

But no Russian would deny he united the country after decades of harsh policies and turbulence. Today two-thirds of Russia’s population are Orthodox followers and are mourning their tremendous loss.

Funeral of Patriarch Aleksy II

Patriarch Aleksy was interred today at the Epiphany Cathedral in Moscow. This, of course, is big news in Russia. Not so in the U.S., where news websites are busy covering such pivotal stories as: "Fans bid farewell to Polaroid film" (CNN), "'Nagging' wife, sausage help man win lottery" (MSNBC), "300 Santas in Minnesota" (Fox News).

The following video is very long, but very good and worth watching if you have the time.

The Shack

From a review by Fr. Lawrence R. Farley of The Shack, which I found on the Little Shavings blog.

The Trinity as pictured in The Shack is utterly devoid of any awe-inspiring numinus. Moses may have been full of fear and trembling at the manifestation of the God of Sinai (Heb. 12:21), Isaiah may have declared himself undone at the sight of the Lord of Hosts in the Temple (Is. 6:5), Ezekiel may have fallen on the face before the Lord at the River Chebar (Ezek. 1:28) and even St. John fell at the feet of the glorified Christ as if he were dead (Rev. 1:17). But the sight of the Trinity in this volume excites no such reaction at all. All is warm and casual, comforting and cozy—a God who giggles, and calls you ‘honey’, a God who drops and breaks crockery, a God who never condemns or is disappointed in any of us. In short, the God who is your buddy, so characteristic of modern Evangelicalism and celebrated in their feel-good choruses. It is not the God invoked in our baptismal service, “whose glance dries up the deep, whose interdict makes the mountains melt away”, the God who “touches the mountains and they smoke, who clothes Himself with light as with a garment”. All of the other errors and mis-steps of the volume pale in comparison with this basic mis-presentation of the divine. The awesome God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has become the comfortable demi-god of the emergent church. The face of the King has been distorted...

Patriarch Alexy II Remembered

Святейший Патриарх Московский и всея Руси Алексий II

The Patriarch of Russia, Alexy II, died of heart failure on Friday morning, Dec 5.