Communion of Saints, Part 2 – Who Cares?

Last week we learned something about the different understandings of “sainthood” within the Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox faiths. So, what does this mean to us? What should it mean to us?
What does the Bible say about how we should regard departed saints?

To begin with, the Apostle Paul instructs us to look to him—and other imitators of Christ—as examples of how to live a godly life:

Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. (Php 3.17)

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (1 Co 11.1)

Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. (1 Co 4.16)

The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Php 4.9)

That we should, at the very least, look to saints in Heaven and on Earth as examples on which to pattern our lives is something on which I believe all Christians can agree. Beyond this however is generally where Protestants part ways with their Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren, who not only emulate the lives of departed saints, but also ask for their prayers as often as they ask for the prayers of saints still in the flesh.

This brings us to an activity with which most Protestants strongly disagree: Prayer to the Saints.

Before we go any further, let me make sure we’re on the same page regarding what we mean by “prayer.” One of the definitions that Merriam-Webster provides for “Prayer” is “an earnest request or wish.” This is the definition we will be using. When I refer to “prayer” to the saints, I do not mean worship, adoration, deification, or exaltation. I simply mean asking or requesting their prayer to God, in the same way that I would ask my family or my pastor for their prayers. There is nothing idolatrous or diabolical about it. Let me explain why (see here for a great explanation of this concept):

First of all, the Bible tells us to pray for one another…

Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. (Eph 6.18)

Pray for each other (Jam 5.16)

…and gives us numerous examples of Christians praying for and with other Christians.

They all joined together constantly in prayer. (Acts 1.14)

They raised their voices together in prayer to God. (Acts 4.23-31)

Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. (Acts
9.40)

I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. (Eph 1.15-23)

Should these directives and examples apply only to Christians on Earth?
Well, let’s see; according to the Scriptures, everyone in the Church is connected as part of the Body of Christ.

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. (Rom 12.4-5)

For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. (Rom 14.7)

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Co 12.26-27)

For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. (2 Co 1.5)

If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent. (2 Co 2.5)

This connection takes place through baptism…

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (1 Co 12.12-13)

…having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2.12)

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6.4)

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3.27)

…and is not broken in the event of physical death:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8.38-39)

Therefore, there is only one Body of Christ, which includes those in Heaven and on Earth.

There is one body and one Spirit (Eph 4.4)

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1.22-23)

And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the supremacy. Now I rejoice…for the sake of His body, which is the Church. (Col 1.18,24)

So then, given that everyone in the Church*—in Heaven and on Earth—are united through baptism to the one Body of Christ, and that Christians are instructed to pray for one another, what could possibly be objectionable about asking departed saints for their intercessory prayers in the same way that we ask Christians on Earth for their prayers?

Objections:

The Scriptures refer to everyone who believes in Jesus as “saints.” (Rom 1.7; Eph 3.8; Jude 1.14; Eph 4.11-12; Acts 9.13, 32, 41, 26:10; Rom 8.27, 12.13, 15.25-26, 31, 16.2, 15; 1 Cor 6.1; 2 Cor 1.1, Eph 1.1)

The Orthodox don’t believe that saints exist only in Heaven. But they also don’t believe that only the saints on Earth are able to pray for us, or that only the saints on Earth deserve our prayer requests.

Prayer to the saints violates God warning against “consulting the dead” (Dt 18.10-12)

This commandment is a warning against the occcult; against witches and sorcerors and necromancers trying to conjure up spirits. Seeking the intercessory prayer of departed saints has nothing to do with conjuring spirits. And nowhere does this passage, or any biblical passage, say that we cannot ask the saints in heaven—who, as we have seen, are members of the Body of Christ—to intercede for us.

John Calvin objected on the grounds that “no less insult is offered to the intercession of Christ by confounding it with the prayers and merits of the dead, than by omitting it altogether, and making mention only of the dead.”

Calvin is right. Except that we’re not talking about dead people here, because God “is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mt 22.31-32). When Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus and three of His disciples during the Transfiguration (Mt 17.1-4), did God break his own commandment by calling up the dead? No, because Moses and Elijah are alive!
And the Orthodox certainly do not believe that we should pray to the departed saints instead of to God. Rather, they believe that we pray to God alongside the saints, both those who are in Heaven and those who are still in the flesh.

Saints in Heaven can't hear us or see us; therefore, we cannot pray to them.

This assertion assumes that, if we can’t see/hear the departed saints, then they can’t see/hear us; that our earthly limitations apply also to those in Heaven. However, the Scriptures tell us that saints in Heaven do not have the same limitations that we have here on Earth:

However, as it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’” (1 Co 2.9)

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Co 13.12)

And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Co 15.49)

Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pt 1.4)

The things of Heaven are beyond anything our finite minds can possibly imagine. To assert that the saints in Heaven are limited in the same ways that we are here on Earth is to assert something that is clearly contrary to Scripture.

Saints in Heaven are not aware of what is happening here on Earth.

The martyrs in Revelation Chapter 6 obviously knew that their deaths had not yet been avenged: "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (v. 10)

In the first Book of Samuel, the Prophet actually prophesied from beyond the grave: “The Lord will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.” (28.8-19)

The rich man in Luke Chapter 16 knew his relatives hadn’t yet repented: “‘If someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’” (vv.19-31) If someone in hell knows the condition of people on earth, why should we believe that those in Heaven are kept in ignorance?

Luke’s Gospel tells us that “there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (15.7-10) If angels are aware of what’s going on down on earth, is it unreasonable to believe that the departed saints, who “will be like the angels in heaven” (Mt 22.30), are also aware?

And the Apostle Paul reminds us that “we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12.1), who are all around us and can see us whether we can see them or not.

Why bother praying to the Saints when you can go straight to Jesus?

Why bother asking each other for prayer when we can go straight to Jesus?
Any argument against asking for the intercessory prayer of the saints in Heaven is an argument against asking for the prayer of saints on Earth. Orthodox Christians recognize the Church as a community; not as a multitude of individuals who are all on their own, but as a body of believers who can, indeed must, lift each other up in prayer.

GotQuestions.org, a “Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational” online ministry asserts that those who seek the intercessory prayer of departed saints believe that “if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can ‘...approach the throne of grace with confidence...’”

The Orthodox agree wholeheartedly that Christians can and should approach God confidently in prayer. However, the Scriptures do, in fact, give us reason to believe that the prayers of the saints in heaven are actually more effective than our prayers here on Earth:

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (Jam 5:16)

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers. (1 Pt 3:12)

Is there anyone on Earth more righteous than those in Heaven? (Heb 12:22-23: “the spirits of just men made perfect.”)

1 Timothy 2:5 clearly states that Jesus is the “sole mediator between God and man,” and according to John Calvin, those who “take pleasure in the intercession of saints…dishonour Christ, and rob him of his title of sole Mediator” (Of Prayer, Book III, Ch. XX, Section 21)

Orthodox Christians agree one hundred percent that there is one mediator—Jesus Christ—but do not believe that this means we are not to ask fellow Christians for their prayers. The saints do not, and are not expected to, mediate the covenant of salvation as Christ does (see Heb 9.15, 12.24). Seeking the intercessory prayer of other Christians is not a denial of Christ’s role as the “sole mediator” of this covenant.

Article XXII of the Anglican/Episcopal statement of faith says that “Invocation of Saints, is…vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

I think we’ve shown this not to be the case.

Where does that leave us?
Considering all this, it's pretty clear that...

Saints serve as an example to us.

Members of the Church are instructed to pray for one another.

Physical death does not estrange members of the Church in Heaven from members of the Church on Earth.

Saints in Heaven are alive, not dead.

Saints and angels in Heaven have some knowledge of events, present and future, on Earth; and some knowledge of the condition of those on Earth.

The prayers of the saints in Heaven are effective.

Now, my readers, of course, are free to draw their own conclusions. But, the only honest conclusion I can draw is, not only is the Orthodox practice of asking departed Saints for their prayers not a violation of Scripture, but it is clearly a practice that is good and proper and in keeping with sound Christian doctrine.


For further reading:
On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints

*The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the connection between the Christians on Earth—the Church Militant—and the Christians in Heaven—the Church Triumphant; The Orthodox make no such distinction, regarding all Christians—both in Heaven and on Earth—as The Church. I have heard it said that in the Roman Catholic faith, the veil between the living and departed is much thinner than in Protestant faiths. If this is true, then I believe it’s fair to say that the Orthodox don’t acknowledge any veil at all. And this is a good thing; When you get it through your thick skull that your grandmother is watching you, you’ll start behaving like you should!

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 2a

(click here for info)

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 2

Mary, Part 1 - The Dormition

Today, Orthodox churches that are on the old calendar commemorate the Dormition of the Theotokos. That is, the “falling asleep” of the Mother of God. It is one of twelve Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church.*

The following is from the Orthodox Church in America website:

After the Ascension of the Lord, the Mother of God remained in the care of the Apostle John the Theologian, and during his journeys She lived at the home of his parents, near the Mount of Olives. She was a source of consolation and edification both for the Apostles and for all the believers. Conversing with them, She told them about miraculous events: the Annunciation, the seedless and undefiled Conception of Christ born of Her, about His early childhood, and about His earthly life. Like the Apostles, She helped plant and strengthen the Christian Church by Her presence, Her discourse and Her prayers.

The reverence of the Apostles for the Most Holy Virgin was extraordinary. After the receiving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles remained at Jerusalem for about ten years attending to the salvation of the Jews, and wanting moreover to see the Mother of God and hear Her holy discourse. Many of the newly-enlightened in the Faith even came from faraway lands to Jerusalem, to see and to hear the All-Pure Mother of God.

During the persecution initiated by King Herod against the young Church of Christ (Acts 12:1-3), the Most Holy Virgin and the Apostle John the Theologian withdrew to Ephesus in the year 43. The preaching of the Gospel there had fallen by lot to the Apostle John the Theologian. The Mother of God was on Cyprus with St Lazarus the Four-Days-Dead, where he was bishop. She was also on Holy Mount Athos.

At the time of Her blessed Falling Asleep, the Most Holy Virgin Mary was again at Jerusalem. The faithful, whose number by then was impossible to count, gathered together, says St John of Damascus, like clouds and eagles, to listen to the Mother of God. Seeing one another, the Disciples rejoiced, but…St John the Theologian, greeting them with tears of joy, said that the time of the Virgin's repose was at hand. Going in to the Mother of God, they beheld Her lying upon the bed, and filled with spiritual joy. The Disciples greeted Her, and then they told her how they had been carried miraculously from their places of preaching. The Most Holy Virgin Mary glorified God, because He had heard Her prayer and fulfilled Her heart's desire, and She began speaking about Her imminent end. She called each of them to Herself by name, She blessed them and extolled them for their faith and the hardships they endured in preaching the Gospel of Christ. To each She wished eternal bliss, and prayed with them for the peace and welfare of the whole world.

Then came the third hour (9 A.M.), when the Dormition of the Mother of God was to occur. Without any bodily suffering, as though in a happy sleep, the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave Her soul into the hands of Her Son and God.

The most-pure body of the Mother of God was buried in the family tomb [in the Garden of Gethsemane]. For three days [the Apostles] did not depart from the place of burial, praying and chanting Psalms. Through the wise providence of God, the Apostle Thomas was not to be present at the burial of the Mother of God. Arriving late on the third day at Gethsemane, he lay down at the tomb and with bitter tears asked that he might be permitted to look once more upon the Mother of God and bid her farewell. The Apostles out of heartfelt pity for him decided to open the grave and permit him the comfort of venerating the holy relics of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Having opened the grave, they found in it only the grave wrappings and were thus convinced of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven.

The sash of the Mother of God, and Her holy garb, preserved with reverence and distributed over the face of the earth in pieces, have worked miracles both in the past and at present. Her numerous icons everywhere pour forth signs and healings, and Her holy body, taken up to Heaven, bears witness to our own future life there. Her body was not left to the vicissitudes of the transitory world, but was incomparably exalted by its glorious ascent to Heaven. The Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos is celebrated with special solemnity at Gethsemane, the place of Her burial. Nowhere else is there such sorrow of heart at the separation from the Mother of God, and nowhere else such joy, because of Her intercession for the world.

Read the rest here.

*The Twelve Great Feasts are:
Epiphany/Theophany (Baptism of Christ) (Jan 6)
Presentation (Meeting) of Christ in the Temple (Feb 2)
Annunciation (Mar 25)
Pascha (Easter) (varies)
Ascention of Christ (forty days after Pascha)
Holy Pentecost (fifty days after Pascha)
Transfiguration of Christ (Aug 6)
Dormition of the Theotokos (Aug 15)
Nativity of the Theotokos (Sep 8)
Exaltation/Elevation of the Cross (Sep 14)
Entrance into the Temple of the Theotokos (Nov 21)
Nativity of Christ (Christmas) (Dec 25)

Who is the New Israel

The following is an excerpt from the article "Who Is The New Israel," by John W. Morris, Ph.D (all emphases are my own)

The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, a leading Fundamentalist, once wrote: “If this nation wants her fields to remain white with grain, her scientific achievements to remain notable, and her freedom to remain intact, America must continue to stand with Israel” (Listen America; New York, 1980, p. 98).

A Chart For All Seasons
Fallwell and the others who demand unconditional support for Israel consider the modern Jewish State a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. They are heavily influenced by dispensationalism, a method of Bible interpretation which became popular through the writings of John Nelson Darby (died 1882). Darby, a one time cleric of the Church of England, joined the Plymouth Brethren in 1831 and developed a complicated system of Biblical interpretation that divides God’s saving action into individual eras or dispensations. This scheme influenced thousands of American Protestants through the Niagara Bible Conference of 1895 and the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield the next year.

Dispensationalism makes a strong distinction between the promises made to the Jews before Christ and the reality of the Church after Pentecost. Thus dispensationalists teach that God’s promises to the Jews were not fulfilled through the Church but remained unfulfilled during the Church age. They consider the Church a new and separate creation by God with its own separate agenda, not the heir to the promises made by God to ancient Israel. Therefore, it is natural that the dispensationalists should see the founding of the modern state of Israel as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

Not My Type
Dispensationalists interpret the words, phrases, and sentences of the Bible in a very literalistic manner. Thus they reject or fail to see the importance of an ancient and almost universal principle of Biblical interpretation known as typology. Typology is the method of Biblical understanding which seeks the spiritual meaning of the historical events described in the Old Testament.

Fundamental to the typological method of Biblical interpretation as practiced by the early and later Fathers is the belief that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and completion of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. For example, the near sacrifice of Isaac points towards the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The ark that saved Noah and his family from the Flood is a type of the Church which saves the faithful from sin and death. The burning bush is seen as a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who bore God in the flesh, yet was not consumed by the presence of the divinity within her womb.

The typological method is not just the invention of the Fathers, but is based firmly on the New Testament. Our Lord Himself used the example of Jonah as a type of the three days that He would spend in the tomb (Matthew 12:40). He also compared the lifting up of the serpent by Moses to his own ascent of the cross (John 3:14). Saint Paul considered the passing through the Red Sea as a type for baptism (I Corinthians10:1-2). Saint Peter even uses the term “antitype” to compare the ark with baptism (I Peter 3:20-21). Thus the typological method of interpretation is firmly grounded in the Holy Scriptures.

Typology And The New Israel
According to the typological method, God’s promises to Abraham and his descendents were fulfilled through Christ and His Church. One Orthodox scholar has written: “In Christ, then, the covenant with Israel was fulfilled, transformed, and transcended. After the coming of the Messiah—the Incarnation of God the Son—only those who are ‘built into Christ’ are counted among the people of God. In Christ, the old Israel is superseded by the Christian Church, the new Israel, the body of Christ; the old covenant is completed in the new covenant in and through Jesus Christ” (George Cronk, The Message of the Bible; St. Vladimir SeminaryPress; 1982, p. 80).

This interpretation of the covenant with Abraham and his descendents as fulfilled through Christ and His Church is firmly grounded in the witness of the New Testament. In the parable of the Vineyard Owner, our Lord uses the unfaithful tenants of a vineyard to illustrate this point. The owner, representing God, sent his servants, representing the prophets, and finally his son and heir, representing Christ, to collect his rent. The tenants, who represent the Jews, ignored the request for the rent and killed both the servants and the son of the owner of the vineyard. At the end of the parable our Lord said, “Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others” (Mark 12:1-9). In other words, those who faithfully believe in Him will inherit the status that Israel had before it rejected the Messiah.

Saint Paul wrote, “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham . . . if you are Christ’s then you are of Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7-9). Indeed, Saint Paul called the body of believers “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Saint Peter illustrated this point by applying terms used to describe Israel in the Old Testament when he wrote, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” (I Peter 2:9).

Thus, according to the New Testament, the standard against which all doctrine and Biblical interpretations must be tested, God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents has been fulfilled through Christ and His followers, not through a secular state, for Christ said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

It is true that there are some Old Testament prophecies that speak of a restoration of Israel following the destruction of Israel by Assyria and of Judah by Babylon. For example, Isaiah wrote, “It shall come to pass that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left” (Isaiah 11:11). Jeremiah prophesied, “For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers” (Jeremiah 16:15). Micah said, “I will surely gather the remnant of Israel” (Micah 12:12).

Indeed, God did restore Israel. The book of Ezra tells how Cyrus, the King of Persia who had conquered Babylon, allowed the Jews to return from exile and to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. Significantly the beginning of Ezra states that the events recorded are in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah (Ezra 1:1). Thus the Old Testament prophecies cited in support of the modern state of Israel were fulfilled long ago when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity.

Sons Of Abraham
The time has come for Christians to carefully reevaluate an attitude towards modern Israel which is based on faulty premises. Both Church history and the Holy Scriptures teach clearly that Christ and His Church are the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. Saint Paul tells us that those who follow Christ in faith are the true children of Abraham and heirs to the promises made by God to the Old Testament patriarch. The prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel have already been fulfilled and should not be applied carte-blanche to the modern state of Israel.

The Zionist State was born in conflict between the claims of Jews to a homeland and the rights of the native Palestinian inhabitants of the Holy Land. Christians should, therefore, judge Israel on the same basis as other nations, and not accord to the Jewish State a special status above reproach. Indeed, it is clear that while both sides have committed atrocities, the Zionists have disregarded the rights of the Palestinian people to national self-determination. Christians owe no special allegiance to Israel, but should expect the Jewish State to adhere to the same principles of justice and decency demanded of other nations. Indeed, Christians should call the people of Israel to recognize the legitimate right of all people to the same national self determination that they claim for themselves.

Read the rest here

Communion of Saints, Part 1 – What is a Saint?

The word “saint” derives from the Latin word sanctus, which simply means “holy.” Its current use originated in the New Testament with the use of the Greek word hagios (from άγιος which also means “holy”), where it was used to describe the followers of Jesus. For example, Άγιος Παῦλος, which in Greek is literally “Holy Paul,” will translate into English as “Saint Paul.”

In the Baptist tradition in which I was raised, the “saints” are the members of the Body of Christ here on Earth. Departed Christians might be referred to as “saints” once in a while, but never is there a formal commemoration of the life of a departed saint. Christians from the New Testament era are respected by the Baptist church (although Christians from the post-Apostolic-era up to the Reformation are unknown), but are not recognized as active, living members of the Church who are praying with us and for us. Never do I recall hearing anyone in the church of my youth refer to a departed Christian as “Saint So-and-so,” and the idea of actually asking a departed Christian for their prayers would be seen as being akin to witchcraft. As a Baptist, I never heard about the martyrs or the Early Church Fathers; I had no notion whatsoever of the millions of Christians who had gone before me, who had lived the Faith, and who, in many cases, had suffered and died for it. These people were not examples for me to follow and were certainly not my partners in prayer.

The attitude toward the Saints is a bit different in the Lutheran community, who “remember with thanksgiving those who have gone before us in the sign of faith.” Lutherans “give thanks for the faithful witness that the apostles, martyrs and saints gave to the Christian faith,” and endeavor to “imitate the life and faith of the apostles and martyrs.” (see also Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 21, Para. 4-6)

So Lutherans do recognize and pay respect to saints, but do not seek their intercessory prayers. In The Smalcald Articles, a summary of Lutheran doctrine written in 1537, Martin Luther acknowledged that “the angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ Himself also does), as also do the saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven,” but condemned prayer to the saints as “one of the abuses of Antichrist conflicting with the chief article, [that] destroys the knowledge of Christ,” reasoning that, because “in Christ we have everything a thousandfold better,” we have no need of asking the saints in Heaven for their prayer.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, like the Lutherans, also recognize God’s work in the lives of departed Christians and hold them up as examples to Christians still in the flesh. But, while the Lutheran calendar includes thirty or so festivals or feast days commemorating some key figures in the New Testament—like the Apostles, and the Holy Innocents—the calendars of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are positively bursting with commemorations and celebrations of the lives of departed saints. Every day is a celebration of not one but several saints, Apostles, confessors, martyrs, prophets, ascetics and virgins.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches also seek the intercessory prayer of departed saints, but differ in the process of how one comes to be recognized as a “saint.” The process of recognizing a departed Christian officially as a Saint in the Roman Catholic Church is one that involves no fewer than twenty steps, which are listed on the New Advent website. Beatification—permission by the Church to venerate an individual as a saint—precedes Canonization—a decree requiring churchwide recognition of a saint—and both involve inquiries, discussions, meetings, commissions, petitions, expositions, inchoatives, documents, decrees, votes, reports, and evidence of at least two miracles attributed to the intercession of the individual in question.
This process can take just a few years, as in the case of Mother Teresa (just over six years from the date of her death), or hundreds of years, as in the case of Szymon of Lipnicy (525 years after his death). The most recently canonized saint of the Roman Catholic Church is Marie-Eugénie de Jésus, whom Pope Benedict XVI canonized on 3 June 2007.

Canonization within the Orthodox Church is very much a grass-roots process, beginning with those who knew the individual well while they were still alive on Earth. In many cases certain people, like Saint John Maximovitch (left) for example, become so well known during their lifetime for their humility, charity, devotion to the poor, and life of constant prayer and self-denial, that they are widely regarded as saints long before their repose. The local congregation recognizes a departed Christian for their “virtuous life of obvious holiness,” and affirms that the saint’s “writings and preaching [are] ‘fully Orthodox,’ in agreement with the pure faith that we have received from Christ and the Apostles and taught by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils.” In time, the diocesan bishop submits a request to the Holy Synod of bishops who decides to number the individual in question among the Church’s canon of saints. There is no requirement within the Orthodox Church for a particular number of miracles.

Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches insist that in neither body does canonization make someone a saint; it merely recognizes what God has already done.

Okay, so what do we do with all this? What does the Bible say about Saints? And how should we regard them? We'll get to that next week.

In the meantime, read this:
"Our Life in Christ" Program notes, "Prayer to the Saints - Part 1: What is a Saint?

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 1

What To Expect

I make no secret of the fact that part of the purpose of this blog is to encourage my friends and family to look into Orthodox Christianity. I’ve said before that I truly believe a sincere inquiry into Orthodoxy will ultimately result in the inquirer becoming Orthodox. However, to someone raised in the Protestant faith, there remains a large obstacle to conversion: becoming comfortable with attending Orthodox worship.

I’m not going to lie to you: it is a big shock to the system the first time you witness an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. When I tell you that Orthodox worship could not possibly be more different from Protestant worship, you'll think I'm exaggerating...until you attend Orthodox Liturgy.

But please don’t let that scare you. If I, a Baptist since childhood, can do it, so can you. Here are some suggestions to prepare you for what you can expect to encounter at an Orthodox church:

Be ready to do a lot of standing. Orthodox houses of worship have historically not included pews. In fact, I learned recently that until the Reformation, it was unusual for any church, eastern or western, to have pews or chairs of any kind that weren’t specifically reserved for the elderly or handicapped. Most (but not all) Orthodox churches in the United States do in fact have pews, but even so, worshippers stand for nearly the entire duration of the Liturgy. Don't worry, you won't raise any eyebrows by sitting for a while.

Expect to see a lot of candles.

And icons.*

Orthodox Christians cross themselves…a lot. If you’ve ever been to a Roman Catholic Mass, you’ve seen people making the Sign of the Cross once or twice during the service. Occasionally you’ll see Lutherans and other high-church Protestants doing this as well. During an Orthodox Liturgy, it is not unusual for worshippers to make the sign of the Cross somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred times or more! No kidding. They do it after every “Lord Have Mercy,” and at every mention of the Trinity, and then some.

Don’t be too shocked to see people kissing icons.* Orthodox Christians kiss a lot of things: icons, the Bible, the cross, the chalice, the priest, each other. (But don’t panic, they won’t try to kiss you…at first) Calm down, it’s not idolatry. It’s how they show respect and reverence. It comes from the culture of the Middle East, which, in case you didn’t know, is where Christianity originated. Westerners are squeamish about such things, so it takes some getting used to.

You may even see people prostrate themselves. This is not terribly unusual during Orthodox Liturgy, especially in churches without pews (although people still find a way even in churches with pews). Orthodox Christians prostrate by kneeling, placing their hands palm-down on the floor in front of them, and then touching their forehead to the floor between their hands. (The prostration method you see in the movies where people lie flat, face-down on the floor is the western style, not used in Orthodox worship.)

You’re going to hear a lot of Scripture. Nearly every word you hear during the Liturgy is straight out of the Bible. Much of it is from the Psalms.

Don’t be shocked to see Mary honored. She is certainly not worshipped in the Orthodox Church (that is only for God). But, unlike what you’re accustomed to, she is praised and venerated. Just bear with it. She is most often referred to as Theotokos (this is Greek for “God bearer,” which of course is not so much a statement about her as it is about the Incarnation of Christ).*

The entire Liturgy is sung.

But there won’t be any instrumental accompaniment. Very seldom will you find an Orthodox church that uses instruments. Not sure why. Tradition I guess.

And don’t be too surprised if at least part of the Liturgy is in another language. Even at churches that conduct the Liturgy in English (and most do), they’ll still slip in a “Kyrie Eleison” here and there. But don’t worry if you don’t understand it: God does.

The Orthodox use incense. And it smells really nice. But it has actual liturgical significance as well: it is how God Himself has chosen to be worshipped.

Everything is a big deal in Orthodox worship. At no point should you expect to see anyone casually open their Bible and flip to such-and-such chapter and verse. Everything—and I mean everything—is preceded by prayers and hymns and bowing and kneeling and more prayers and processions and more hymns and incense and more prayers and more bowing. And rightly so; the whole purpose of the Liturgy is to worship Almighty God. Nothing should be done casually.

There are no nurseries or “cry rooms.” Children who are baptized* into the Orthodox Church are full members of the Church and are not excluded from participation in worship.

And, yes that includes Communion. The Orthodox Church does not exclude any of its members—from infants on up—from receiving Communion.* But if you have not been received into the Orthodox Church don’t expect to partake; the Orthodox do exclude non-Orthodox from Communion. Don’t take offense to this, it’s not out of disdain for the non-Orthodox; it’s to preserve the integrity of the Sacrament. In fact, so great is the Orthodox respect for the Body and Blood that not even all Orthodox will receive Communion every Sunday, but only those who have properly prepared for it (i.e. with fasting, confession, etc.).

When you attend Orthodox Liturgy, do so with an open mind. In fact, go ahead and forget everything you ever thought you knew about Christian worship. Stand somewhere in the back, and don’t try to follow along, just watch, and realize that what you're witnessing is an imitation of heavenly worship (Heb 8.5, 12.22-24). What you see will be beautiful and reverential and moving...and you won’t understand any of it the first time. But give it a chance. And when you see something that shocks you (and you will. Believe me), consider the possibility that what you’re seeing isn’t wrong, only different from what you’re used to. It is, after all, the way the Church has done things for two thousand years.

My challenge to all my readers is this: attend Orthodox Liturgy for four Sundays in a row. If after that time you can return to your regular church and not feel that there is something missing—that it lacks reverence or dignity or a sense of sacredness or true God-centered worship—then maybe you should start a blog yourself!

*These items will be addressed more fully in later blog entries.

For further reading:
First Visit to an Orthodox Church: Twelve Things I Wish I'd Known
For Seekers: What To Expect When You Visit

The Scriptures, Part 2

It is interesting and ironic that the Christian faith traditions that hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are the very same ones that use a truncated version of the Bible.

The Bible that Protestants use—and the one I used growing up—excludes seven books from the Old Testament, and parts of two others.

Those books are:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
1 & 2 Maccabees

and portions of:

Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24), and
Daniel (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90; Vulgate Daniel 13; Vulgate Daniel 14).

Protestants call these books "Apocrypha" (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"). Orthodox and Roman Catholics call them "Deuterocanon" (from δεύτερος, meaning "second" and κανών, meaning "rule" or "standard," because they were written after the "Protocanon."). When Orthodox and Roman Catholics refer to the apocrypha, what they have in mind are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, and other books that were never accepted by the Church.

There was certainly controversy in the past surrounding the books of the Old Testament deuterocanon, because they were written after the Hellenization of the Middle East by Alexander the Great, and were therefore never written in Hebrew, but in Greek. Thus, the Jews rejected these books at the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 in an attempt to rid their culture of everything they felt was not entirely Jewish.

For this reason and others, certain members of the early Church (including St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible into Latin) felt that these books should not be included in the Biblical Canon. The Church, however, ultimately decided in favor of these books (as well as certain other controversial books, like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).

The deuterocanonical Old Testament books were included in the Septuagint,* which is the version of Scripture that Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted, and have been part of the liturgical life of the Church since the very beginning. They were part of the canon approved by the Council of Rome in 382, the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage in 397. They were in the fifth-century Latin Vulgate (St Jerome's translation), in the Middle English translation by John Wycliffe in 1382, and in the Bibles that Gutenberg printed in the mid 1400’s.

However, LCMS.org says that "neither Luther nor the Lutheran church has ever regarded these writings as canonical--i.e., as part of the inspired and inerrant Word of God--since they do not meet the criteria discernible from the Scriptures themselves regarding what constitutes those books belonging to the canon of Scripture." I have not yet been able to find where they detail what these criteria are.

If it's true that Christ and the Apostles accepted the Septuagint as Scripture, and that Christians for over a thousand years accepted a canon that was ratified by multiple church councils (and which included the 7 books in question), what “criteria” could possibly exclude these books from the Biblical canon; and why is it that Protestants (specifically Lutherans in this case) "hold to the 66 [rather than 73] books of the Bible that historically authenticated themselves to the church as God's inspired Word" if indeed "all Scripture is God-breathed"? (2 Ti 3:16) Did the Holy Spirit forget to guide the Church in “all truth” (Jn 16.13) for the first fifteen hundred years until the Reformers came along?

Objections to the use of the Deuterocanon:
From the Christian Research Institute (CRI): "They contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical."

Well the thing is, any teaching is unbiblical… if you remove it from the Bible!
Excising chunks of the long-accepted Canon because it doesn't conform with what you think is proper doctrine is no different from removing a few sentences from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and claiming that the virgin birth of Christ is unbiblical! This argument is silly at best, blasphemous at worst. And besides, since when is it the practice of Protestants to tailor the content of the Scriptures to match their beliefs?

Also from CRI: "There have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome."

1. The scholars of Jamnia also rejected the Gospels. And Christ. And when have Christians ever been subject to the decisions of a post-Christian Jewish council anyway? And why are Protestants using the Old Testament given to them by the Masoretes—medieval Hebrew translators—rather than the one used and handed down by Christ, His Apostles, and His Church?

2. There was also much scholarly objection to the inclusion of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, but the Church ultimately accepted them as it accepted the books of the deuterocanon. Why accept this New Testament deuterocanon and reject the Old Testament deuterocanon? There is much we can learn from the Church Fathers, like Sts. Athanasius and Jerome (who, by the way, ultimately did include the deuterocanon in his copy of the Scriptures), but as pious and knowledgeable as they were, they were not the "pillar and foundation of truth"—the Church is.

Also from CRI: "These books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers."

This argument assumes that quotation or citation qualifies a book for canonicity. There are at least two problems with this assertion:

1. Several non-canonical books actually are quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Jude 1:14–15 quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9.
Hebrews 11:37 alludes to the Ascension of Isaiah 5.1-14
Acts 17:28 quotes Cretica by Epimenides and Phaenomena by Aratus.
Titus 1:12 also quotes Cretica.
1 Corinthians 15:33 quotes Thaïs by Menander.
2 Timothy 3:8 references either the Gospel of Nicodemus, Ch. 5 or the Book of Jashar 79.27.**

If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these writings among the canon of Scripture?

2. There are several other Old Testament books—accepted by Protestants—that are also not quoted or cited in the New Testament:

Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Obadiah
Zephaniah
Judges
1 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Lamentations and
Nahum

Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. But the fact of the matter is that we really don't know for sure Christ didn't quote from all of the books of the proto- and deuterocanon, because the Gospels don't record everything Jesus said and did (Jn 21.25). He may have quoted from the deuterocanon daily; we just don’t know.

From CRI: "The Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began."

Let me make something perfectly clear: at no point did either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches add these books to a preexisting canon. The Church had used the deuterocanonical books for many centuries prior to the Council of Trent. It was only in response to the Reformers' rejection of these books and adoption of the Hebrew canon that the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed their use.

"These books don't claim to be inspired."

Neither do most of the other books of the Bible. However, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Mahābhārata, and the Watchtower all claim divine inspiration. Does this claim prove anything?

"They contain historical inaccuracies and contradictions. For example, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places."

In fact, the same is true of the death of King Saul in the Protestant-accepted Old Testament:
Saul killed himself by falling on his sword (1 Sam 31.4-6)
The Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa (2 Sam 21.12)
The Lord put Saul to death (1 Ch 10.13-14)

I have found a list of more than two hundred apparent contradictions and inaccuracies in the same Bible that is accepted by every single Protestant. It is not my intention to demonstrate biblical fallacy, so I won’t post the list here. My point is simply that a case against the inclusion of the books of the Deuterocanon on the grounds of alleged inaccuracy or inconsistency is not to be made by anyone who accepts the rest of the Bible.

"These books teach immoral and ungodly things like lying, suicide, etc."

The deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament do not so much teach these actions as record them. Likewise, the Old Testament accepted by Protestants records—and in some cases actually seems to condone—acts of:
incest (Gn 19.30-36; 2 Sam 13.1-14),
rape (Gn 34.1-2; ),
infanticide (Ex 12.29-30; Nm 31.1-18),
human sacrifice (Jdg 11.29-40),
murder (2 Sam 11.14-17),
adultery (2 Sam 11.2-4), and
slavery (Ex 21.2-6; Lv 25.44-46)

How we are supposed to regard such passages is a subject for someone with much more theological knowledge than I have, but the point is that the recording of immoral acts is not a disqualification for canonicity.

"These books don’t rise to the same level of literary and rhetorical excellence evident in the rest of the Old Testament."

If “inspirational” equaled “inspired,” then the book of Numbers would have been stricken from the Canon millennia ago. However, the Church that determined that the book of Numbers—much of which is as electrifying as its title suggests—was to be included in the Biblical canon is the same Church that has for two thousand years also accepted the books of the deuterocanon.

The suggestion that the books of the deuterocanon lack something of the beauty and eloquence of the rest of the Old Testament is of course highly subjective and one that is likely to be made by someone who has not actually read them. My personal experience has found in the deuterocanon no deficiency whatsoever of the qualities that make the protocanon great.
Here’s a challenge for my readers: Identify which of the following passages is from the deuterocanon? (the answers are below)

1) I will sing a new song to my God;
Great are You, O Lord, and glorious,
Marvelous in power and unsurpassable.
Let all Your creation serve You.
For You spoke, and they were created;
You sent Your Spirit, and He formed them.
There is nothing that can resist Your voice.
For the mountains with the waters shall be shaken at their foundations.
And at Your presence, the rocks shall be melted as beeswax.
And yet You are merciful to those who fear You.

2) My son, accomplish your works with gentleness,
And you will be loved by people the LORD accepts.
The greater you are, the more humble you must be,
And you will find grace before the LORD.

3) So when they had collected their arms and stripped the spoils from their enemy, they kept the Sabbath, greatly blessing and giving thanks to the LORD, who had brought them safely through the day and appointed it for them as a beginning of mercy.

4) Take courage, O Jerusalem, for He who named you will comfort you. Wretched are those who mistreated you and rejoiced at your fall. Wretched are the cities in which your children served as slaves. Wretched is she who took your sons. For just as she took pleasure in your ruin and rejoiced over your fall, so shall she be grieved at her own desolation.

5) Your all-powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne,
Into the midst of a doomed land,
A relentless warrior carrying the sharp sword
Of Your irrevocable command,
And He stood and filled all things with death
And touched the heaven while standing on the earth.

Bottom Line:
Look, the Church never added the books of the Old Testament Deuterocanon to the Bible as some claim, but has recognized them as part of Sacred Scripture since the beginning; even since before it recognized the New Testament! The Church that compiled the rest of the Bible is the very same Church that has always included these seven books in question. Why accept that the Church was right on the one hand and wrong on the other? If you accept the books of the Protestant Bible as Scripture, then you have no reason not to accept the Deuterocanon; but if you reject the Deuterocanon, then what reason could you possibly have not to reject the rest of the Bible?
Is the Church the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” or isn’t it?

*You will often see the Septuagint abbreviated as "LXX," which is the Latin numeration for "70." This refers to the number of scholars who transcribed these Scriptures into Greek.
You will also notice that in the early versions of the Bible, some books have different names than you're used to. For example, 1 Samuel is called 1 Kingdoms, and 2 Samuel is called 2 Kingdoms. Also, 1 & 2 Kings are called 3 & 4 Kingdoms respectively. Some modern Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles reflect this early naming system. The order of the books in the Septuagint is also different from that of most modern Bibles.

**Several books of the protocanonical Old Testament also cite or quote non-canonical sources:
Joshua 10.13 and 2 Samuel 1.18 both refer to the Book of Jashar.
Numbers 21.14 quotes from Book of the Wars of the Lord.
2 Chronicles 12.14-15 refers to the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet, and of Iddo the Seer.
Exodus 24:7 refers to the Book of the Covenant.
1Kings 11:41 mentions the Acts of Solomon.
1Chronicles 27:24 refers to the Chronicles of King David.
Esther 10:2 mentions the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia.

ANSWERS: You knew right away that my quiz was a trick, didn’t you? All five passages are from books that the Protestant world has deleted from their Old Testament canon.
1) Judith 16.13-15
2) Wisdom of Sirach 3.17-18
3) 2 Maccabees 8.27
4) Baruch 4.30-33
5) Wisdom of Solomon 18.15-16
(These passages are taken from the Orthodox Study Bible)

"...and breakfast cereals..."

A bit of levity before we get serious again...

Early Church Fathers, Pt 2

The following is lifted directly from a blog entitled "From Protestant to Orthodox." It reflects one particular blogger's conversion experience; not necessarily mine. But it does give you something to think about. Enjoy.


I found the first group of documents I’d need, conveniently, in one little volume. The title of this quick, easy read is usually just The Apostolic Fathers and is available through many bookstores (or online here). There were several things that any good Baptist would take issue with within these men’s writings:

Baptism was seen as the moment when a believer is fully and truly born again

Infants were admitted to baptism

Worship was seen as liturgical and directly connected to Jewish ritual worship; spontaneous worship was nowhere to be seen

Obedience to one’s bishop and/or priest was seen as a direct measure of whether one was an obedient Christian

Salvation was seen as something that was a process and which the believer could, after having started it, forfeit through later unbelief

Fasting was outlined specifically before the end of the first century, and the way it was to be done was expected churchwide, not individually

The departed saints, as well as the angels, were seen as and sought as intercessors in prayer for those still in the flesh

The Church was seen as a single, visible body of believers that was guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error; one of its chief characteristics was that its bishops (and, by extension, priests) could trace their ordination through the laying on of hands back to one of the apostles themselves

Salvation was never discussed in terms of Christ paying a debt to God the Father, but rather in terms of His defeating death by His Incarnation, transfiguration, death, and resurrection

The Eucharist was, time and again, referred to as the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Himself

My journey into the first century and a half of Christianity had left me, then, not with comforting answers of Evangelicalism’s fidelity to the New Testament Church, but with many more issues to confront. The second century, with the insistence of Irenaeus and others on an intermediate state of the dead between the end of this life and the final Judgement, along with affirmation of the beliefs of the Fathers of the first century, offered little promise to aligning itself with my current beliefs. Either the Church had slipped dangerously “off the rails” immediately after the death of the last apostle, or my reading of Scripture—and that of Evangelicals everywhere—was dangerously off-base!

"God is with us" (Zinoviev)

God is with us
Understand ye nations and submit yourselves
For God is with us
Hear ye, to the uttermost ends of the earth
For God is with us
Submit yourselves, ye mighty ones
For God is with us
For even if ye rise again,
Again shall ye be overthrown
And every counsel ye shall deliberate
The Lord shall destroy
For we fear not your terror
Neither are we troubled
But the Lord our God will we sanctify
And he shall be our fear
And if I put my trust in Him
He shall be my sanctification
I will set my hope on Him
And through Him shall I be saved
For unto us a Child is born
Unto us a Son is given
And the government
Shall be upon His shoulder
And of His peace there shall be no end
And His name shall be called
The Angel of the Great Council
Wonderful Counselor, mighty God
The Governor, the Prince of peace
The Father of the world to come
For God is with us

You Know You're Orthodox If...

I took the following from the "You Know You're Orthodox If..." page on Facebook. I kept only the ones that made sense to me and that were somewhat amusing. Many of these I can't exactly relate to because, well, I'm not Orthodox (yet!) but I thought they were entertaining anyway...

• On Wednesdays and Fridays you eat Japanese food.
• You are more comfortable standing in church than sitting.
• Lent to you means peanut butter, tofu, soy, lots and lots of pita bread and hummus, and services at least five times a week.
• You’re used to skipping breakfast on Sundays.
• You wonder why the Pope crosses himself backwards when you see him on TV.
• To you, a ‘topless’ gal is one without a headscarf.
• You get great deals on Easter candy.
• Before you pray, you say a prayer.
• You don’t flinch when someone throws water at you.
• When you first tell people who ask what religion you are, at first they think you’re Jewish. Oy!
• You’re experienced at removing wax from clothing.
• You consider any service two hours or under short/regular.
• You know you’re in an Orthodox church when the priest says, “Let us complete our prayer to the Lord," and there’s still half an hour to go.
• At the end of Holy Week, you have rug burns on your forehead.
• Your priest is married.
• You address the City as Constantinople instead of Istanbul.
• You can say "Lord have mercy" 40 times without making a mistake.
• You can say "Christ Is Risen"/"Indeed He Is Risen" in a million languages.
• You have multiple priests' numbers in your cell phone.
• Even if you don't speak the language fluently (i.e. Albanian, Greek, Russian, etc.) you could still carry on a decent conversation about food in it.
• You've been or plan on going to Alaska.
• You could write a book on the symbolism in an Orthodox wedding... during the wedding... because they are just that long.

The Scriptures, Part 1

“We believe the Bible is…the supreme authority and guide for all doctrine and conduct.”
North American Baptist Conference Statement of Beliefs

“[T]he Holy Scriptures are the sole source from which all doctrines proclaimed in the Christian Church must be taken...”
Of the Holy Scriptures, LCMS.org

“[T]he Lutheran Church…is a church whose teaching is based on the words written by the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament.”
What the Bible and Lutherans Teach, WELS.net

“The Evangelical Covenant Church…confesses that the Holy Scripture, the Old and New Testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.”
Covenant Affirmations, Page 1

“Moreover, we believe that this Holy Scripture most perfectly contains the whole will of God and that all things are taught in it abundantly…”
Belgic Confession, Article 7

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith and Obedience.”
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Article 1

“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
Westminster Confession, Ch. 1 Article X

“We believe that the Holy Bible…is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”
1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession, Article I

“Holy Scripture conteyneth all thinges necessarie to saluation: so that whatsoeuer is not read therein, nor may be proued therby, is not to be required of anye man, that it shoulde be beleued as an article of the fayth, or be thought requisite [as] necessarie to saluation.”
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, 1571, Article VI

I think you get the point.
I could cite hundreds of Protestant confessions, creeds, and affirmations and I’m fairly certain that they would all say basically the same thing: We derive our doctrine and practice from the Bible and nothing else.

In fact, those of my readers who know better can correct me, but to my knowledge, there is not a single one of the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations in this world—who, as we have seen, disagree on nearly every major point of Christian doctrine and practice—that would not claim to derive the entirety of its doctrine and practice from the Bible and nothing else.

Let me say that again: Every one of the tens of thousands of conflicting and contradictory Protestant belief systems in this world is based on someone's interpretation of the Bible.

This is true even for the Roman Catholic Church except that, in addition to the Bible, they also base their doctrine and practice on what they call Sacred Tradition (See Dei Verbum, articles 9 & 10).

There has been much heated debate over the centuries about whether doctrine should be based on Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) or a combination of Scripture and Tradition.

As with most things, however, the Orthodox Church has a completely different take on the matter.

Clark Carlson explains in his book The Truth that

Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based on or derived from a set of oral teachings that run parallel to the Bible. The Orthodox Church is the living Body of Christ—the living experience in history of the union of mankind with God in the divine-human Person of the Only-Begotten. The Word of God is not a book, but a Person. The Prophets, both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New, are those who have seen and heard and touched the Word of Life.* The Divine Scriptures and the writings of the Saints are the written witness to this experience, but they are not the source of this experience.
Thus, true and false doctrines are not discerned by whether or not one can logically deduce them from the text of the Bible or the writings of a particular Church Father—one can “deduce” just about anything from the Bible, as Protestantism has demonstrated several thousand times over—but whether or not the purported doctrine constitutes a faithful witness to or sign of the communion between God and man that is experienced in the Church (pp.186-7).

Remember when I wrote that Orthodoxy was “a whole new paradigm of Christian worship, devotion, thought, and expression”? Well, this is just one example of what I meant by that.

*1 Jn 1.1

Early Church Fathers

Throughout most of my life as an Evangelical Protestant I was familiar with the church writings through the New Testament era, as well as the writings of Christians since the start of the Reformation. But, aside from the work of Thomas Aquinas, if there was a instance between the years 100 and 1517 in which a Christian had put pen to paper, I was not aware of it.

Then while I was investigating church history last year, I became aware of the vast collection of writings by theologians and scholars and leaders of the early Church. These men were direct, and in some cases immediate, successors of the Apostles. They lived, taught, defended, suffered and died for the Faith handed down to them from Christ through the Apostles.

All my Christian life I had read the works of men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, Rick Warren, Max Lucado, Josh McDowell and other gifted and insightful theologians who nonetheless were centuries or millennia removed from the New Testament Church. And while these men may have good things to offer, how much more can we learn from those with firsthand knowledge of the early Church? If there is any question or doubt as to how the Early Church acted, believed, worshipped, was structured, or what its attitude was toward baptism, the Eucharist, the Incarnation, the Saints, or a multitude of other doctrines, what better source to consult than the men who actually lived in and studied and led that Early Church; the men to whom the Apostles themselves entrusted the Faith? (2 Ti 2.2)

It really should come as no surprise that there is a church today whose doctrine and practice match those described by the Christian church leaders and theologians of the first few centuries after Pentecost. What is shocking, though, is that there is only one.

The discovery of these Early Church Fathers was a profoundly meaningful event in my spiritual journey. It pretty much sealed the deal for me. I once heard a Roman Catholic apologist say that to be familiar with the writings of the Early Church Fathers is to cease to be Protestant. I would agree with him, but I would go even further and question how it is possible for someone to know the Fathers and be anything but Orthodox.

Here are some of the writings that have had the greatest impact on me:

Note: The men below marked with a cross (†) are known as Apostolic Fathers. That is, they were the students of and immediate successors to the Twelve Apostles. They were personally instructed by the Apostles themselves in the same way that the Gospel writers Mark and Luke were.

Ambrose of Milan (340-397): Bishop of Milan and strong opponent of Arianism.
On the Faith
On the Mysteries (Sacraments)

Athanasius (c. 297-373): Patriarch of Alexandria; also a strong opponent of Arianism; first person to identify the same 27 books recognized today as the New Testament.
On the Incarnation

†Barnabas: One of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ (Acts 4.36; 9.27; 11-15; 1 Co 9.6; Gal 2.1,9,13); cousin of Mark the Evangelist (Col 4.10); childhood friend and missionary companion of St Paul; tortured and stoned c. 62
Epistle of Barnabas*

Basil the Great (c. 330-379): Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; opponent of Arius and Apollinarius; he and Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Naziansus are known as the Cappadocian Fathers.
On the Holy Spirit
Liturgy of St. Basil

†Clement of Rome: Baptized by the Apostle Peter; one of the Seventy mentioned in the New Testament (Php 4.3); Fourth Bishop of Rome; exiled to Crimea; martyred c. 99 by drowning.
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle of Clement

Cyprian (200-258): Bishop of Carthage; convert to Christianity; martyred by beheading.
On the Unity of the Church

Cyril of Alexandria (378 – 444): Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt; opponent of Nestorius; presided at Third Ecumenical Council in 441.
Second Epistle to Nestorius
Third Epistle to Nestorius, including the Twelve Anathemas

Eusebius (c.260-341): Bishop of Caesarea; Historian.
History of the Church

Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394): Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia; brother of Basil the Great; one of the Cappadocian Fathers; defender of Trinitarian doctrine.
Against Eunomius

†Hermas: One of the Seventy (Rom 16.14); bishop of Philippoplis in Thrace; martyred in the first century.
The Shepherd

†Ignatius of Antioch (c. 30-110) Believed to be the child in Matthew 18.1-4, he was a disciple of John the Evangelist; Succeeded Euodias of the Seventy (Php 4.2) as Bishop of Antioch; penned seven letters during his journey to Rome to be executed.
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Magnesians
Epistle to the Trallians
Epistle to the Romans
Epistle to the Philadelphians
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle to Polycarp

Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202): Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyon) in Gaul; Student of Polycarp.
Against Heresies
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching

John of Damascus (680-780; pictured above): Theologian and hymnographer;
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407): Bishop of Constantinople; theologian an teacher renowned for his eloquence (was given the surname Chrysostomos, which in Greek is Χρυσόστομος meaning “golden mouthed”); died en route to his exile.
Homilies on First Corinthians
Homilies on Second Corintians
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): Second-century theologian, philosopher, and missionary; tortured and executed in Rome.
First Apology
Second Apology
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
The Discourse to the Greeks

†Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155): Disciple of John the Evangelist; friend of Ignatius of Antioch; bishop of the Greek city of Smyrna in Asia Minor; burned alive and stabbed to death c. 155
Epistle to the Philippians

*There is some discussion among scholars as to whether the author of this letter is actually the Apostle Barnabas or another Barnabas. Either way, it's worth reading.