I'm afraid that the Archbishop's conditions for full communion with make it virtually impossible for the majority of those in ACNA join with the Eastern Church. Although there are a substantial number of Anglo-Catholics in ACNA, the overwhelming majority are from the Evangelical and Charismatic traditions. Many are outright Calvinists. The 39 Articles are essentially Calvinist, as is classic Low Church Anglican theology (don't EVER expect Evangelical Anglicans to reject the articles). Only Anglo-Catholics can except everything in all seven Eccumenical Councils; as for renouncing iconoclasm, Evanglicals consider the Eastern use of icons in worship to be blatantly idolotrous. They will never budge from their belief in only two sacraments. As for the "heresies of the Reformation," they are bedrock doctrines for Evangelicals, most of whom would pursue unity with the PCA Presbyterians before considering union with Constantinople or Rome. If the Metropolitan is not willing to budge on the issue of abandoning the essential principals of Protestantism, he can forget full communion with ACNA. Perhaps he should pursue unity with the more Anglo-Catholic Continuing bodies instead.

Anglo-Orthodox unity is something to be prized. I call on ACNA to unite with the one, holy Orthodox Church. You'll be glad you did!

Good for Metropolitan Jonah! Lay out those issues which separate much of Anglicanism from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and let them be discussed. These are the issues that will also divide Anglicans against one another, unless they are resolved. Putting such discussions off will not bring about the much needed unity in the ACNA. As an "outsider" I pray for the success of the ACNA - but I fear trying to be all things to all sides will not bring about such success.

May God bless us all.

+Ed

We can only hope ++Bob is listening.... Ditch WO. It is difficult to be all things to all people. Anglo-Catholics should all unite and take Metropolitan Jonah up on his invitation. We have so much in common with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. Until the ACNA ends the innovation of WO, I can't get excited about all this. Nothing has really changed. It just buys a little time before we end up here again!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

I am a priest in AMIA and I pray that Jesus prayer will be answered..."that they all may be one". If we love Jesus more than anything, why would we think that issues are more important than unity. I cannot see anything in Orthodoxy that is opposed to Anglican orthodoxy. I have studied it and the Calvanist beliefs that some say are inherent in low church Anglicanism must be something different than I have learned as an Anglican priest.

I pray for unity for our sake as Christians and for the sake of those who are not but are looking at the fragmantation of His Body. we must love souls more than some of our beliefs that are not necessarily scriptural.

I was not aware as an iconographer that some Anglicans think icons are idolatrouos. I have seen many in Anglican churches and have even been commissioned to paint for Anglicans. If some think it is idolatrous, they need to get over it and understand icons. The old argument is so double standard. The same people who might think that would keep a picture of a grandma in high esteem or a close relative and maybe even kiss that picture. I have found icons and crucifixes a great aid to my own worship and the beauty that comes from God in churches where He is worshiped. We want our homes to be beautiful and so we should want God's houses to be beautiful.It makes for a much better "holy space". After all God told the Hebrews to have angels on the Ark and walls of the Temple. Can't imagine that the Lord would contradict Himself.
"Lord bring Unity in Your Church and help us to win the world for Jesus."

AMIABill,

Let’s all be one as our Lord prayed (Jn 17:21-23). Let’s have the courage to be what God calls us to be.

You say that you are “afraid” of Metropolitan Jonah’s conditions. Is it a fear of the conditions for coming into unity with the Orthodox Church or is it a fear of having to submit to an authority other than yourself? Be honest–we don’t have time for pretenses. I don’t think most Anglicans give a fig about your much-vaunted Reformed theology, but they do care about proper worship and the Sacraments.

You assert, “don’t EVER expect Evangelical Anglicans to reject the Articles,” but what authority do you have to speak for Evangelical Anglicans? God will do what He’s going to do with Evangelical Anglicans without asking for your permission. Get over it–the Holy Spirit is far more powerful than all your concepts, than all your passions, than all your nonsense.

Instead of suggesting that Metropolitan Jonah “pursue unity with the more Anglo-Catholic Continuing bodies,” ACNA should continue to discuss unity with Metropolitan Jonah for the edification and benefit of the majority and folks like you and those who are foolish enough to follow you should admit that they’re not really Anglicans and, therefore, “pursue unity with the PCA Presbyterians.”

We’re at the point now where we all need to get real, Bill, which means you need to stop fooling around–not just with your own Salvation, but with other people’s Salvation: Fish or cut bait; you’re in or you’re out. To be even more blunt, there’s a lot going on, so most of us are very busy and we just don’t have time to put up with your nonsense, so either get on board or sail on over to Presbyterianism and stop wasting everyone else’s time.

Blessing you on your way,

chaps+

chaps is right, AMIABill. If, 25 years ago, the West Coast leadership of Campus Crusade for Christ could rethink their stance on what you call "bedrock doctrines for Evangelicals" and return to the Orthodox Church, other Evangelicals can, have already done so, and will continue to do so.

The question is not if "the Metropolitan is not willing to budge." He wasn't stating a personal position as if he were beginning a negotiation; he was simply being truthful about the unchanging position of the Orthodox Church as it always has been and always shall be. The only negotiation that takes place is within our own hearts.

"Only Anglo-Catholics can except (sic: accept) everything in all seven Eccumenical Councils."

This statement overlooks a number of facts. First, the Western Churches (Rome, Anglicans, Protestants) accept only the doctrinal affirmations of the Councils, but not their disciplinary or administrative decrees. The Eastern Churches would require fuller obedience, on matters like bishops being celibate, or not kneeling during Eastertide. They have a more legalistic approach to things like the date of Easter.
Secondly, the Trinitarian and Christological affirmations of the first SIX (not just Four) Councils are written into the magisterial Lutheran and Calvinist Confessions of the 16th century, as the great Charles Hodge of Princeton gladly acknowledged. Thirdly, modern EO goes beyond (and possibly violates) the 7th Ecumenical Council on the matter of Icons. That Council drew a clear distinction between worship and veneration, and declared that veneration of icons(not worship) is permissible (not mandatory) and worship is forbidden. Modern EO makes the use of icons practically mandatory and treats them in a manner which is almost indistinguishable from worshp. Oriental Orthodox Churches (so I am informed), having never experienced the Iconoclastic controversies, have fewer icons in their churches and do not make the same fuss over them.

The presence of Metropolitan Jonah at Bedford is simply an anomaly. Where on earth did the dear man think he was? On a mission trip? Did he bring a team of Orthodox Youth to hand out tracts and testify?

Well said +Ed. What is the point of avoiding theological issues as many Anglican traditionalists of all stripes try to do? The only consequence I see to doing so is an apparently smooth veneer of civility which easily falls apart when substantial theological matters are approached. These issues carry strong emotion and cannot be covered over if unity is the goal. How many times have we seen reason thrown out the window on VOL when Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants attempt to broach the subjects?

I say let's have open discussions and may theologians be clear about the tradition they espouse. Agree with Met. Jonah or not but his clarity is a breath of fresh air.

Neal

AMIABill,

I recommend a full reading of Exodus chapters 25-27 and II Kings chapter 6 and then tell me that all images were prohibited in the Tabernacle and Temple. The only images that were expressly prohibited were as Exodus 20:23 stated( a restatement and qualification of 20:4) "You shall not make for yourselves gods of silver, and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.") Apparently the cherubim on the Mercy Seat, the cherubim woven into the linen curtains and the 15 foot high Angels covered in gold in the Temple were not considered to be graven images of gods. Not to mention except in passing the carvings of lions, flowers, palm trees, pomegranates, the bulls holding up the bronze laver, etc.

You can't use Exodus 20:4 as a prohibition against all images unless you want to read it out of context to the whole chapter and the chapters that follow.

Discussion of other Protestant objections need to happen. Let the most adept theologians from both sides lay out their best arguments clearly and without dissimulation.

Met. Jonah is not interested in a touchy-feely amorphous unity based in sentiment and a few so-called isloated "essentials". That's what happened to Anglicanism with its via media. Problem is the underlying disunity many tried to cover over has sprouted into full bloom. He has no intention of going there.

Blessings,

Neal

Ikwells,

The differences between worship and veneration are clear in Orthodoxy sir. We don't worship icons. How do you know the hearts of those who behave respectfully toward icons anyway? I don't know for sure but it seems to me that Western culture as a whole has virtually forgotten what veneration means. Therefore the differences between worship and veneration may more difficult to grasp.

There was a time when I was growing up Baptist that entering the sanctuary was done in silence, a Bible would never be placed on the floor and nothing on top of it as well. These were behaviors of veneration without the eastern physical movements such as bowing or kissing. These have virtually disappeared and I saw this when I was in an Evangelical seminary. Sanctuaries become auditoriums and the Bible is a book to be tossed about like the TV evangelist I saw casually tossing his Bible onto a step he was pacing in front of, and the Holy Spirit may be treated like a baseball as I saw at a church famous for having received the so-called "Toronto blessing". Francis Schaeffer said it well in Escape from Reason when he wrote that in a desacralizing culure the secular "eats up" the sacred. Without the attitude of veneration I'm afraid everything becomes secular.

Give me a spirit of veneration any day. By the way there is much more freedom in Orthodox behavior than you know. No one ever insisted I do something or forced me to do anything.

Respectfully,

Neal

Well Said Neal! I am an Eastern Catholic myself and Icons are not worshiped and no they are not forced on members. The 7th Ecumenical Council restores Icons to their proper place- In the Church! If one reads the history of the Iconoclast period the supporters of Icons (the Orthodox) were persecuted. Icons were smashed, the Holy Mysteries were trampled. It was a tough time for the Church.
I don't believe people should pick and choose what parts of an Ecumenical Council they like or that meats there theology.
Metropolitan Jonah is a great man. I hope he continues Orthodox/Catholic discussions. I can't wait for the day, and I believe it will come, that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will be one- Our Lord wants it to be so! And I look forward to Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox union

Also I have been to Oriental Orthodox Churches and they have beautiful Iconography- in fact I have a Coptic Icon in my Icon corner.

Does anyone know whether there will be a video of Metropolitan Jonah's talk that he gave yesterday morning in Bedford? I would very much like to hear exactly what he said, and to observe the gestures he made while talking and be able to have every word there to think about.

Thanks!

What is Christianity really supposed to be all about? What should be its most important tenet? Isn't it supposed to be about following the teachings of The Christ Himself and emulating His Persona?
Isn't it true that within the relevant passages of The Holy Bible is unambiguously demonstrated His high regard for women? Thus, isn't the denigration of women so prevalent within much of today's Christianity inconsistent with the actual behavior of The Christ, as related in The Holy Bible?
And what of homosexuality? Isn't it a fact that The Holy Bible does not cite any instance of The Christ having said anything about homosexuality whatsoever?
And doesn't The New Testament boldly proclaim, without a trace of ambiguity, that "God is Love",
and could this constitute its authors' subtle explanation of what Love is?
Yet, there is a war going on within Christendom over the issue of homosexual rights. It is not a war of violence, however, it is a war in behalf of what The Christ Himself would teach.
In this war, then, Love will be our sword and our shield, because we know that The Lord could not create a straight person and a gay person and not love them equally, not want them to enjoy equal rights.
And, as a straight male, I know we will win in the end, because the Love of The Christ is on our side, and therefore It will always defeat hate.

I left the Episcopal Church many years ago to embrace Orthodoxy as a route to a possible vocation to the priesthood. I kissed icons, swung incense, fasted, chanted liturgy, et. al. I ultimately returned to Anglicanism. Orthodoxy is Roman Catholicism with Patristic theology as the substitute for the Magesterium. The Orthodox are like Orthodox Jews--too much ritual and a spirituality not biblically anchored. Does anybody hear the word "Phariseeism"?

Tell them that according to 1 Tim., a bishop may marry and they'll tell you Tradition has reinterpreted the verse. So much for your 7 ecumencial councils.

I have relatives in the OCA. This church is rife in fiscal mismanagement and the FBI is involved in some shady dealings. Shhushh scandal!!

For all you iconodules and cross kissers among this new Anglican fold, just remember these 2 apostolic verses that precede and yes, preclude, Patristic revision:

"whom HAVING NOT SEEN you love. Though you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" 1Pet.1:8 NKJV

"knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by TRADITION FROM YOUR FATHERS but with the precious blood of Christg, as of a lamb without blemeish and without spot." 1 Pet 2:18-19 NKJV

I'm watching and praying for the new ACNA. I'm worried that ultimately there will be an atomic clash between catholics and protestants aboard this cruiseliner.

Meanwhile, everybody should take a crash continuing education course with the 1662 BCP. How many of the new ACNAs have ever celebrated communion according to these rubrics?? The only church on the passenger list that does this is the Reformed Episcopal Church, but even they have their high churchmen and some use the 1928 BCP (PECUSA).

Whose idea was it to invite Metropolitan Jonah?? I guess the real question is who is patronising whom? What in the world did you think he was going to say???

I find the comment made by the Orthodox Church in America leader regarding Calvinism to be out of line for a speaker at the ACNA inaugural event. Why? Because, I assume this comment is directed to the 39 articles which are part of the ACNA doctrinal standards and are also part of the AMIA doctrinal standards. The fact that Metropolitan Jonah believes Calvinism to be heretical is probably no surprise and therefore it is no surprise that he would state this position when addressing the ACNA; however, this begs the question as to why he was allowed to speak at the meeting.

Are the 39 Articles heretical? Let’s cut to the chase and be direct- Is the Reformed understanding of the Faith, the Faith that was once delivered? It is because it accurately defines the truth of the Holy Scriptures (the Scriptures contain the Apostolic Tradition) .

We should work and pray for the unity of the catholic church. Our unity is to be found in Gods’ truth. As we conform our will to God’s will, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we will be one. There is one God so there is one truth- His truth. It is an objective truth!

May the Lord have mercy upon us and draw us together in the knowledge of Himself and may we be loving, peaceful, and longsuffering with each other as we strive to know Him. Amen

Best wishes,
Lenn

Is the Reformed understanding of the Faith, the Faith that was once delivered? It is because it accurately defines the truth of the Holy Scriptures (the Scriptures contain the Apostolic Tradition).

The more cogent question is, Do the Holy Scriptures contain ALL of the Apostolic Tradition? And is it more reasonable to contend that those who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors might well have a better idea what the authors of the New Testament intended, or that those reading those works in the 16th through the 21st Centuries have a better understanding of the early Church than those who lived in it?

The plain fact is that none of the early Church writings lend themselves particularly well to a Reformed interpretation. We can debate to what extent they are compatible with modern Orthodoxy or Catholicism or even Lutheranism, but much of the early writings seem much more compatible with those modern communions than with modern Reformed doctrine.

FWIW.

Tell them that according to 1 Tim., a bishop may marry and they'll tell you Tradition has reinterpreted the verse. So much for your 7 ecumenical councils.

The tradition of celibate bishops is very old, certainly well predating the 7th Council and even being commonplace before the 1st Council at Nicea. It was not so much a doctrinal issue so much as it was a practical issue - a bishop who was too engrossed in the demands of running a household (with the implied care of children or grandchildren) would be in the position of not giving proper attention to either his family or the Church. In those days modern conveniences were not what they are now, and his frequent absences on Church business might well make things difficult for his family - or anticipated family difficulties might make him less willing to provide pastoral care in large dioceses.

Also of concern was that some bishops did attempt to pass Church property or offices on to their children - clearly not a desirable action. This is certainly a concern even today, though there are now better legal protections available for organizations like the Church.

At this point in history the tradition of celibate bishops has lost much of its original point, but the Orthodox Church would be reluctant to change it without a truly Ecumenical Council - which there hasn't been since 787.

This is, in fact, also the basis for the reason why the Orthodox Church is reluctant to change the computation of the date of Easter: it was adopted as a Canon by the Council; therefore there is a reluctance to change it in the absence of a new Ecumenical Council. It is no more legalistic than the Western definition of Easter, where both the Catholics and the Protestants follow the formulation of the Pope.

It seems to me that Metropolitan Jonah defeats his own intent, if it is indeed his intent to promote unity. His Beatitude voices a platitude about hoping for unity and then throws out a gauntlet of theological barriers to such a goal.
The filioque alone would be enough to bar unity. Scripture should prevail. Any sensible reading of the Gospel of John (16 and 20) should establish who the Holy Spirit is and who sends him. In my opinion, the EO ignores scripture in several other instances and then pinches itself into a corner with irrevocable constraints against any course but their own (per M.Jonah).
I believe that the foundation of ACNA is theologically correct (based on scripture) and if the Reformed Episcopal Church (reformed Catholicism) can live with it, so can I (and most other Anglicans I know).

The filioque alone would be enough to bar unity. Scripture should prevail. Any sensible reading of the Gospel of John (16 and 20) should establish who the Holy Spirit is and who sends him.

John 16 and 20 describe the mission of the Holy Spirit - and there is no doubt that the Spirit is sent by Christ. But the Orthodox understand that part of the Creed to be saying something important about the essence of the Spirit, not His mission. And right there in the Gospel of John is one of the texts that backs up the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Spirit: John 15:26.

Consider also that the Creed was amended at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople to include these words in order to answer the non-Trinitarian objections raised by the Arians and Macedonians. If the intent is merely to affirm that the Spirit is "sent" (whether by the Father or the Son or both), this says nothing about whether or not He is one of the Divine Triad. The Archangels were also "sent" but they aren't considered part of the Godhead! In this context it seems obvious that the Fathers of the Council must have wanted to affirm the divinity of the Spirit, and were trying to express something about the Spirit's nature or essence rather than merely His mission.

The Holy Scriptures themselves assure us that they are sufficient and God given (2 Timothy3:15-16) and they themselves tell us not to add to them, Deuteronomy 4:2. So I do not think it is a stretch to say that whatever is not contained within the Canon of Scriptures is not authoritative (in fact it is normative!). Also, this is supported by the Early Church Fathers themselves- see my quotes below.

Is this the understanding of the Early Church Fathers? According to this quote it is. Irenaeus stated-
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (1)

I’ll quote Heiko Oberman, a church historian, regarding his understanding of how the early church saw tradition and Scripture-
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". (2)

According to this historian, tradition and Scripture were the same to the Early Church.

One of my thoughts is why do you appeal to a tradition that is outside of the Holy Scriptures when the Scriptures themselves prohibit such innovations? I think the prior posters comments regarding the Orthodox Churches position on celibacy for a bishop is a great example of innovation that miserably fails the test when tested to the objective standard of Scripture.

What was the Reformation other than an attempt to return to the Apostolic Faith! John Calvin in his commentaries quotes the Church Fathers regularly. Are these actions of an innovator? I think NOT!

I’m wondering why there is no talk of building ecumenical relations with the PCA Presbyterians? Are they not Christians and do not Anglicans have more in common with them because of the 39 Articles?

You did not respond to my very telling question regarding the Articles—are they heretical? And if so perhaps those who disagree should be put out or leave.

References:
1. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.
2. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366

On marriage of clergy in the Orthodox Church:

The rule is, a man may be married, if he gets married before he becomes a deacon. If he is not married before he is made a deacon, he remains celibate for the rest of his life: whether his life is lived as a deacon, priest or bishop. A man who may have =been= married before he became a deacon, but his wife has died, may be considered to become a bishop. But a member of the Orthodox clergy, if his wife should die, can never marry again.

As I understood it when I was studying Orthodoxy in 1973, the reason why bishops in the early Orthodox Church were unmarried was simply that they were chosen from the monks in the monasteries, where monks of course do not marry--the reason was practical: for your bishop you need someone literate, and monks could read and write. So the custom of choosing bishops from among the monastics became a permanent feature, because it facilitated effective leadership for the dioceses. In monasteries, monks learnt much about administrative matters as well as scripture, prayer and spirituality. Bear in mind that Metropolitan Jonah is indeed a monk.

All that said, and in view of the fact that Metropolitan Jonah was =invited= to speak at the assembly, I am not sure that his usual practice of "telling it like it is" was accepted in the spirit in which it was offered. That is why I would like to see a video of the speech, so that we could check the facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice.

It is true that when one becomes Orthodox one must renounce what the Orthodox Church considers to be foreign to Orthodoxy. It is also true that Orthodox spirituality is based on prayer and the scriptures--even the Church fathers, as has been pointed out, were Scripture scholars above all.

But I would submit that I doubt that the Orthodox Church would exert any sort of pressure on anyone to become Orthodox. Here is the bottom line:

If anyone wants the Orthodox Church to adapt herself to modernism, relativism or revisionism in any form, he will be disappointed. The "ways" of the Church do not change unless an ecumenical council ratifies the change.

It would be unwise for anyone to try to become Orthodox while feeling bitter, angry, frustrated or in a mood to make demands as far as faith matters are concerned. It is important to take one's time and be sure. No one will ever force you or try to speed you up--if they do that, run away. That is not the Orthodox way.

I became Orthodox in search of unchanging God and unchanging Truth. I studied for many years before making up my mind. Nobody rushed me.

We are there. We care. But we don't ensnare.

Take your time. If anyone expects Orthodoxy to be a "haven of blessing and peace", it will become apparent that we too have our problems, our personality-faults, our own sins and scandals. Orthodox Christians are human and we make mistakes with human speech--some of us still don't even speak fluent English. Some of us are still smarting from communist (or other) persecutions. Some of us still are mired in all kinds of local customs and folk-religion (and yet, these persons can be so holy that they glow with uncreated light--I was surprised, in Greece, to meet illiterate grannies who glowed--then my spiritual father told me, "Remember, western saints get the stigmata from contemplating Christ's crucifixion, while Orthodox saints glow from thinking about Christ's Resurrection and at the same time getting close to God by unceasing prayer".

The whole ground of our spirituality is indeed scriptural: "Pray without ceasing".

Pray, take your time, and do whatever the Lord tells you. It's up to you and God: not to us.

Mary

First, I wish to thank those members of the Orthodox Church who have clarified many points of doctrine with their postings. Your words here have been a real blessing.

I think this thread has done a great service. it has shown that aside from differences with the Orthodox churches (and Roman Catholicism as well), Anglicans have much to resolve amongst themselves. Whether it is the number of sacraments, the meaning and purpose of the 39 Articles, or the role of Holy Tradition; there is much to be settled. As I stated earlier, until such issues are resolved there will always be problems. My prayers are with you all.

+Ed

Here is my two cents worth, for what it’s worth.

So long as we are steadfast in keeping God first, and honestly try to do what is right in His sight, than it will be inevitable that we, and all other Christians, will move closer together. In time, our earthly divisions will become so minimal as to no longer matter, and all will reunite into truly One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Frankly, I have no idea what that Church will look like. But I do know this. As long as this Church obeys the First and Greatest Commandment in all things it will be good.

That being said, all of us will have to be willing to make and accept changes. Not for the sake of “accommodation”, but for the sake of making right those things that we have corrupted into something other that what God intended. For many Anglicans this will mean an end to woman ordination. For many Roman Catholics it will mean acknowledging that purgatory does not exist. Undoubtedly this will be a very long process, most likely taking much longer than the time that I have left in this life. That being said, I believe the journey has now begun. Let us go forth together in Faith.

The Holy Scriptures themselves assure us that they are sufficient and God given (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

I do not think this verse says what you think it does. Let me quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 from the KJV: "16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This clearly says that Scripture is very useful - even essential - and that what it says is true, but it does not say that the Scriptures contain all truth. Indeed the Apostle John even states that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (Jn 21:25)

As for Deut 4:2, if you take that in its strictest possible sense of referring only to the written Word then extant, then no writings should be considered Scripture other than the Pentateuch since that would be adding to the writings of Moses. I think that very few, whether Jew or Christian, would care to defend that interpretation!

And in that context, what is the Word? Is it the Scriptures (ie, "Writings") only, or is He Christ? The Apostle John was in no doubt: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory." (Jn 1:1 ff)

Meanwhile, in 1 Tim 3:15-16 Paul writes: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth; 16 And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Clearly Paul in this passage also puts a great deal of weight on the teachings of the Church and not just of Scripture. When he was writing, the term "Scriptures" would have referred primarily to the Septuagint and perhaps secondarily to one or two of the early Gospels.

Protestants are very fond of attacking the Catholics and Orthodox for their use of clerical celibacy (manifested somewhat differently in both cases). It is important to emphasize that neither of these traditions regard this as a doctrinal necessity, but rather as a traditional discipline that has been found useful. If the circumstances should warrant it, it would certainly be open to revision - but neither of these communions is known for doing things in haste. Given the widespread confusion in modern-day Protestantism (amply illustrated by the current difficulties in the Episcopal Church), the danger of doing things in too much haste should be apparent.

During my sojourn in a Reformed tradition, it is true that very often one heard the Fathers quoted. Unfortunately as I started to read them more in their entirety I found that very often the quotes were not representative of their writings as a whole. I do not by any means think this was deliberate - doubtless a great many of the misunderstandings that have occurred over the years between the East and the West have been at their root caused by linguistic and cultural difficulties that make it difficult for both sides to understand each others' world view - but I finally came to the conclusion that the East had been right.

After all, as our priest has said, Christianity did start out as an Eastern tradition, not a Western one. Western Christianity - even Protestantism - still bears much of the baggage from that initial translation from the Greek tradition to a Latin one. In fact, it could well be (and indeed, has been) argued that the widespread use of Latin in Church writings encouraged a legalistic attitude that is apparent to this day in Western Christianity, including Protestantism.

Women's ordination must be dealt with. Other than that the 39 Articles of Religion provide a much more fundamental and encompassing point for discussions of "full communion" than the eastern line of propaganda.

This offer of "full communion" is nothing more than typical eastern arrogance. "We offer you full communion if you become Eastern Orthodox." That is what he was saying ...nothing more and nothing less.

I recognize our Eastern brethren as brethren. But they look at us as something less.

I am sure Jesus is very proud of the Eastern Church's arrogance.

I recognize our Eastern brethren as brethren. But they look at us as something less.

I think you misunderstand the difference between what the East would regard as serious heresy and what would be regarded as schism.

Full Eucharistic sacramental communion would indeed imply full union - like a family! Is divorce really to be desired?! The Orthodox regard the Eucharist as a family meal - as the Sacrament of Unity. Unity not in word only, but in belief. This is a different understanding than that in many Protestant communions, especially those who practice "open communion."

By contrast, the East does not recognize at all any Sacraments of those groups whom she regards as being in serious error - non-Trinitarian groups, for example. For example, the East recognizes the baptism of virtually all Catholic and Protestant groups, since they are considered primarily schismatic rather than seriously heretical (not that there aren't a number of Western doctrines that the East regards as heresy, but most of these are secondary issues).

In other words, separated brethren, but still brethren.

The exegesis of Deuteronomy 4:2 in an earlier post by bcwright overlooks the obvious injunction. The verse states, emphasis mine- “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (NKJV). God is telling us (we are the you) that we cannot… Revelations 22:18-19 contains a similar prohibition. God is emphatically telling us NOT to add or subtract from His word I.E., the Divine Revelation. I think most Christians would agree and defend this position.

So what is “Holy Tradition”? According to, Elder Cleopa at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx,
Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Church, God-given with a living voice, from which a portion was later written down. As with Holy Scripture, so, too, Holy Tradition contains Holy Revelation, and is, therefore, fundamental for our salvation. Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit and, consonant with the enduring life of the Church, is thus a wellspring of Holy Revelation, such that, consequently, it possesses the same authority as Holy Scripture

As I understand the Scriptures, this definition is at odds with the injunction set out in the Holy Scriptures which prohibits additions and subtractions to the Divine Revelation. This is a horrible innovation. Perhaps, regarding this issue, we should consider the warnings of Revelations 22:18-19.

From my earlier post I gave a quote by Early Church Father Irenaeus who stated that the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our Faith. We have the testimony of Scripture in 2 Timothy that states that the Scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” We have the Scriptural account in Acts 17:11 where the Bereans “received the word…and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (NKJV). I understand these to be Jews who received the word from Paul and Silas and then searched the Old Testament Scriptures. The Early Church Fathers did the same thing they tested doctrines against the rule of Scripture. I quote Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer on this issue for her comments regarding some of the Early Church Fathers-

"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." (1)

We have the testimony of the Scriptures that they are from God and that they are sufficient! The Scriptures teach plainly that they are not to be added to or subtracted. Because the Scriptures are from God, they are authoritative. We have the example of the Early Church Fathers who looked to the Scriptures to define the Apostolic Faith. We have the example in the Scriptures of the Bereans who examined the message that Paul and Silas brought them to the Scriptures.

The fact that the Scriptures do not contain all the things Jesus did as John 21:25 states does not undermine its authority or its purpose. The Scriptures are sufficient and authoritative. How does John 21:25 change that norm- it does not!

The Reformers rightly championed Sola Scriptura as a return to the Faith that was once delivered.

Best wishes,
Lenn

References:
1. Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144.

From my earlier post I gave a quote by Early Church Father Irenaeus who stated that the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our Faith.

This is an example of precisely what I was cautioning against in my previous post: The proof-texting of the Fathers, picking short quotes out of context from a much larger work and giving the impression that it is representative of the whole. (Not that I'm accusing anyone of dishonesty, because I think it's usually more of an example of not being familiar with the entire work). For both Irenaeus and Cleopa, it is not so much a question of "either-or" but rather "both-and" - each of them has a very high regard for both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. For example, in that same work Irenaeus also wrote:

Quote:

There is much more along that line in the same book. From the totality of that work, it is clear that Irenaeus has a very high regard for both Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Likewise, in Elder Cleopa's book "The Truth of Our Faith" (from which your quote of him was drawn) a few pages farther on he writes:

Quote:

Clearly this is a very high standard. It is important to note that he explicitly states that probably the most prominent and essential component of Holy Tradition that is not explicitly contained in Scripture is the Creed itself - hardly an unimportant element of the Faith even for Protestants.

Note well that for something to be considered part of Holy Tradition, it must have been believed "Always, everywhere, and by all" - it must be possible to find clear evidence that it has always been part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. This is not some Gnostic "Secret Knowledge" that can be introduced as an innovation at any point in time - in fact, in "Adversus Haereses" Irenaeus explicitly denounces those who claim to have such secret knowledge.

For what it's worth the Orthodox do in fact have a very high regard for Scripture - practically the entire Divine Liturgy is composed of wholesale quotes from the Scriptures. I know of no other Christian tradition that uses more Scripture in their services - and many who use much less, including virtually all Protestants.

Thank you Mr. Wright for your comment that protect’s my integrity. I had not read the entire work that I quoted Irenaeus from, in fact, it was a quote from another article I had read on the subject. However, the statement is direct and straightforward. Certainly, the quote can be taken at face value.

Could you extrapolate on the Irenaeus’ text I quoted-- "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."— what is the Early Church Father teaching us by these words if not what is in plain view?

I appreciate the tone of this dialog because in my opinion it is direct but kind, and I would add longsuffering. In the end, we probably will agree to disagree but our conduct as members of the visible church should reflect Christ’s love and His discipline (we are not going to agree to feign unity and consequently we both cannot be right) and may it be said of both of us from those who witness our conduct here that we loved Christ most and first and then loved each other as ourselves. And thereby we desire to be faithful to Christ and we were kind to one another even though we disagree.

From the website, http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx, where I quoted the definition of “Holy Tradition” An Inquirer ask the following, “ Why isnt Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition?” The Elder Cleopa does not disagree with the import of the question. So I ask you the same question, are the Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition? It should be noted to affirm such is to contradict the Scripture that is referenced (2 Tim. 3:15-16). I’ll agree that the Scriptures referenced here are particularly the Old Testament but the principles defined here apply to all Scriptures.

So I ask you the same question, are the Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition? It should be noted to affirm such is to contradict the Scripture that is referenced (2 Tim. 3:15-16).

I would stand your question on its head: If we were without any Tradition, how should we read the Scriptures? For in fact the Apostolic Tradition is not something foreign to the Scriptures, but rather provides explanation and context, and in some cases, rubrics. If we were without any Tradition, how should we distinguish between the various interpretations of Scripture, whether Orthodox or Catholic or Gnostic or Arian or Protestant or Mormon or Oneness Pentecostal or Jehovah's Witness - or even Islamic? (The list being more-or-less in order by time rather than by anything else). All of these claim to be faithful to the written Scriptures; it is enough to make one's head spin to try to figure out on one's own which is correct.

Take just a "simple" example: baptism. How should it be performed - by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling? Or are all three acceptable? Is it acceptable to baptize infants? Is it necessary to baptize in the Triune Name, or is it sufficient to baptize only in the name of Jesus? Is using modernistic formulations like "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" a valid option? Can it be repeated, the individual repenting and being baptized multiple times? Whose baptisms are to be accepted - only those done within the Church, or are baptisms performed by schismatics or heretics also to be accepted? Etc. The Scriptures are silent on the specifics, and different faith communities have come up with different answers to these questions. Clearly God's grace is not limited by our formulations, but if we stray too far from His intent we do so at our peril.

Or consider interpreting the meaning of the Scriptures: In the Gospel of Luke the Archangel greets Mary with the salutation: "Hail, full of grace [or highly favored one]! The Lord is with you." (Lk 1:28). The word translated "Full of grace" or "Favored one" is the Greek κεχαριτωμένη, a rare word in the Koine Greek, but etymologically it can only mean something like "overflowing with grace" or "overflowing with favor." Is this Scriptural evidence for the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or not? The Orthodox would answer No, saying that although Mary was the holiest of Christ's earthly followers and in a very real sense the Foundress of the Church of His followers (and that that epithet does convey something of her saintliness), the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception turns her from the Great Exemplar of our Faith to the Great Exception. But without the Tradition we are left to our own devices.

Or take another Scriptural example: In the letter of James he writes: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith, if it has no works is dead. ... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." (James 2:14-17, 26) But yet the Apostle Paul writes, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. ... And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was also able to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ro 4:16, 4:21-5:1). How should we resolve this apparent contradiction? Probably more ink has been spilled on commentary for these passages than on almost any other subject in the Christian tradition, without a clear result (though with many unilateral declarations of victory). But our Tradition tells us that our works are the evidence and perfection of our faith and a means to our sanctification, and that if we lack works then we must, perforce, lack a saving faith; while at the same time works alone will never suffice to justify us before God - so that both Paul and James are correct but are expressing the concept differently.

Or again, what about the concept of the Trinity? The formulation "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" appears only once in Holy Scripture (Mt. 28:19), but what does it mean? Is the scene at the Baptism of Jesus somehow related to this? It would be very difficult or even impossible for most people to answer these questions without any kind of guidance. But our Tradition does give us an answer, one that is commemorated in the Troparion of the Feast of Epiphany:

"When Thou, O Lord wast baptized in the Jordan
The worship of the Trinity was made manifest!
For the Voice of the Father bear witness to Thee
And called Thee His beloved Son!
And the Spirit in the form of a Dove
Confirmed the truthfulness of his Word!
O Christ, our God who hast revealed Thyself,
And hast enlightened the world, Glory to Thee!"

Moreover, this answer is not merely a recommendation, but the strongest kind of endorsement: that this concept is in fact part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

So to answer your question, "Are the Holy Scriptures sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition?", I would have to answer that this would put the believer at a tremendous disadvantage. We do not all have the ability to be New Testament scholars, nor do even those of us who do have such an ability have complete and direct access to the world of the Apostles and the early Church in order to fully understand the context in which it was written. And even if we had such knowledge, would it not be desirable to be able to ask the Apostles directly for clarification? I do not believe that a loving and merciful God would leave us so helpless as to give us no guidance in understanding His Word - indeed, Christ said "Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Mt. 28:20).

I do not believe that this answer contradicts in any way 2 Tim 3:15-16, which does affirm the authority of Scripture but which does not exclude the possibility of other modes of transmitting Truth.

I would also like to thank you for keeping the tone of our dialog within the spirit of Christ; too often such exchanges degenerate into mere name-calling, which brings scandal to our Faith.

In peace,

Take just a "simple" example: baptism. How should it be performed - by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling? Or are all three acceptable? Is it acceptable to baptize infants? Is it necessary to baptize in the Triune Name, or is it sufficient to baptize only in the name of Jesus? Is using modernistic formulations like "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" a valid option? Can it be repeated, the individual repenting and being baptized multiple times? Whose baptisms are to be accepted - only those done within the Church, or are baptisms performed by schismatics or heretics also to be accepted? Etc.

Allow me to expand on this a little bit. When I was still a member of the Episcopal Church, I began reading many of the early Fathers in more depth. And what I found there often surprised me: They seemed to assume that baptism was normally by immersion (but that other modes were sometimes accepted); that the baptism of infants was to be accepted; that baptism was only ever to be given in the Triune Name, other formulations being invalid; that it was only ever performed once on a single individual, confession being the normative way of restoring communion to the Church in the case of serious sin rather than re-baptism (which was never accepted); that the baptisms of schismatics were accepted whilst those of heretics were rejected.

Moreover they believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist - not merely symbolically, but actually present. Yet it was hard to pin them down on exactly what they meant by that.

For a long time I thought that there were no longer any Christian communities who believed in this way. The Catholics believed in the Real Presence - but they went beyond that in legalistic definitions of exactly what that meant. Still, they clearly had a similar concept to that of the early Church. And they did baptize infants, but they did not normally practice baptism by immersion, preferring to use pouring.

Likewise, the Baptists would accept baptism by immersion, but rejected most of the other distinctives of the early Church.

I came to the conclusion that at least in the external rites of the Sacraments (if not in their underlying meanings), all of the modern Christian communions had abandoned the practice of the early Church. And many had abandoned the original meanings of the Sacraments as well.

Until I encountered the Orthodox Church.

I had been aware of the Orthodox for a long time - but I hadn't really known much about them. They just seemed ... well, different. But the more I read about them, the more I realized that their modern practices and beliefs were astonishingly close to those of the early Church.

Eventually I came to the realization that the early Church was more compatible with the Catholic or Orthodox understanding than were the Protestants or even the Anglicans. After much study and prayer I concluded that the Orthodox had been on the correct side of the Great Schism, after which I had no choice but to enter the Holy Orthodox Church.

I can do nothing else but to encourage anyone investigating the foundations of their Faith to engage in much study and prayer; you may find, as I did, that the answer lies in the East. But at the very least I am sure that your own faith will be encouraged and strengthened.

Thank you bcwright for your posts above and for your tone. Whether anyone agrees with you or not you have written clearly, kindly and powerfully. I know of only a few who visit VOL who could do as well and no one better. And thanks to those who have taken the high road. These kinds of dialogues are essential I think. Any other kind, in my opinion, is destructive.

I again thank God for my Anglican brothers and sisters. I left ECUSA many years ago but did not leave my friends.

Blessings!

Neal

I agree bcwright’s posts here are very well written (although I’m disagreeing with the conclusions).

I have taken the time to review Adversus Haereses 3.1.1 through 3.4.1 to see the Irenaeus’ quotes we have referenced in prior posts in their context. The references to tradition in 3.4.1 in context are refereeing to the oral teachings of the Apostles (we both agree at this point) which are to be found in the Scriptures themselves (here we will disagree). In other words, the tradition of the Apostles is the truths of Scriptures given orally and not additional truth. This then is not by definition Elder Cleopa “Holy Tradition.”

In the preface to the work, Irenaeus states, my paraphase, that he will give Scriptural proofs to combat error. In 3.1.1, he begins his work by stating, my paraphase, that the Apostles first taught orally (in public) but later by the will of God they were recorded in Scripture “to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” This quote of mine in an earlier post is according to you an example of quoting the Fathers in a way that is not representative of the actual work. You cite a quote from 3.4.1 where the Early Father makes reference to the “tradition of the truth” that was entrusted to the churches. And state- "it is clear that Irenaeus has a very high regard for both Scripture and Holy Tradition". In order for my post to be misrepresentative, the Holy Tradition that bcwright refers to (which I would understand to be the Holy Tradition as defined by Elder Cleopa) has to be the same as the tradition of the Apostles that Irenaues mentions.

Adversus Haereses 3.1.1 teaches that the oral teachings of the Apostles are later recorded in the Scriptures. 3.4.1 makes reference to traditions that are entrusted to the churches but is this tradition something in addition to the Apostolic teachings that are contained in the Scriptures? 3.4.2 goes on to elaborate the point made in 3.4.1. by referencing those who cannot read and therefore do not have the written word and also believe in Christ. He states, my paraphase, that they would not be taken in by these heresies because they have carefully preserved the tradition. He then expounds this as— “believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.” All of these truths are found within the Scriptures. Consequently, the context does not define tradition as something in addition to the Scriptures but rather tradition is the oral teachings of the Scriptures. This brings me back to my prior post quote from Heiko Oberman regarding Scripture and tradition as being the same- "Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition"

As far as “holy tradition” filling in the gaps for the many cited examples in your post, I would understand the Scriptures to be able to do the same.

However, if tradition is to be understood as commentary on the Scriptures that teachers of the church have compiled throughout the ages not infallible not equal in authority to Scriptures then I would agree that type of tradition is not only helpful but desirable. I’m very much interested and concerned with the doctrinal norms that the Early Church had and I would expect much commonality from then to today. If we have different doctrine now, then I would want to understand the difference and I would strongly scrutinize the latter development in light of the old!

As I close, I’ll affirm that that the Apostolic Tradition is contained within the Holy Scriptures and they are the only rule of faith that God has given His church.

Best wishes.
In Christ,
Lenn

For those who wanted to hear the sermon by Metropolitan Jonah at the ACNA gathering;

Click here

Tremendous Love!!!


humbly, gregory


http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/tag/acna/

Masha, just saw your request.

So here you are;

Hear Metropolitan Jonah sermon at the ACNA;

Click here


humbly, gregory

Lenny,

Your posts are very thoughtful, but I would, as a later-in-life convert to Orthodoxy, humbly offer a couple of cautionary notes:

First, the difficulty in your methodology is that even in reading all of St. Irenaeus' works, that does not mean that does not mean that one understands all of Orthodoxy or its beliefs regarding Holy Tradition, its role, and what it means. One cannot make such a claim of ANY single Father of the Church (though some do summarize, in a way, many dogmas of the Church very well). Orthodoxy, I have found, simply defies the Western tendency to "chop up" and "compartmentalize" aspects of the Faith for easy comparison, digestion and understanding. It is truly a "holistic" (though I often dislike that word) system that requires constant learning.

That is, IF one is going to discuss Orthodoxy Theology and dogmas. At least, in the Western sense, as we are here. Orthodoxy is replete with Saints who were actually illiterate but who knew more, and understood more deeply, the fullness of the Faith than great and learned scholars. The Faith does not depend on one's schooling, though such knowledge does serve those of us not as deeply in Communion withe Holy Spirit as the Saints very well in these circumstances.

Of course, the preceding illustrates the difficulty in discussing Orthodoxy in a piecemeal fashion. To fully understand and appreciate the statement I've just made, we'd have to go on a long tangent and discuss theosis and the real-world, physical effect that it has, and just what, exactly, it means. Again, it is nigh impossible to discuss this topic without veering off in to seemingly unrelated topics in order to fully explain the Orthodox position. And even then, I, myself, would do no more than attempt, as poorly as I might, to use the Fathers to explain any particular position as I feel that my own "studies" do not provide me with the true insight into the Faith that the Fathers have and do now possess(ed).

This, of course, is related to what Met. Hierotheos calls the "lived faith" versus the "learned faith." True understanding of the Faith is not about learning or textual analysis, though this is a step many take and that is profitable to many (no one-size-fits-all salvation - it depends on the needs of each individual). Only the Faith *lived* within the Communion of the Body of Christ, the Church, provides true understanding. But, again, this is another tangent . . .

Second, I'd caution against not examining the first step we all take with Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a fraud, always was. No one actually practices it, since even the Scriptures require interpretation. How do we properly understand the Scriptures? If the Scriptures were alone sufficient, and self-defining, why are there so many groups (let alone individuals) with such diverse understandings of Scripture?

No, to understand Scripture we need to have the *proper* guide, the *correct* (orthodox) light so that we will not go astray. That is why I, and other Orthodox, completely agree with your statements regarding Scriptures warnings against adding or subtracting anything from the Faith (the Gospel). However, if one "reinterprets" a phrase (such as the one about people dieing or getting sick from improperly preparing before participating in the Eucharist) to eliminate any notion that the Eucharist is a physical event and physical consequences, then isn't that "adding or subtracting?"

My point here is that interpretation (especially since sola scriptura would require only using the Septuagint (the OT quoted by Christ, Himself, as well as the Apostles) and the Greek NT - any translation is, necessarily, an interpretation) necessarily means that there is an external tradition, from one source or another, by which one determines what Scripture means at any given point. The minute any individual or group says "well, this verse means X," they are abandoning sola scriptura and appealing to a tradition, new or old, by which they believe they are properly interpreting the Scripture in question.

Third, I would say that Holy Tradition doesn't "fill in the gaps" so much as it preserves the totality of the Faith. It keeps improper interpretation, and heresy, at bay.

I know I am rambling - new baby and no sleep . . . I'll try to be clear in saying this: I think we'd agree that there is one Faith, a totality of Truth summed up in Christ and, as it says in Jude, verse 3, delivered to the saints once for all. The Faith does not change, it does not alter or bend for the sake of any group or individual. The point of the Church, the Body of Christ, is simply to preserve it.

This, of course, does not apply to non-dogmatic issues and aspects of life within the Body of Christ. It only talks of the Faith, the totality of beliefs, propositions, dogmas, etc., that make up the Faith, as embodied in Scripture and Holy Tradition (which are one and the same, in Orthodoxy).

Ok, I've gone on too long, and I sincerely apologize for my rambling manner. I'll try to write more coherently after I finally get some sleep (if my son will let me!)

the sinner,

Patrick

Lenn,

Thanks for reasoning along with those who disagree. Good dialogue even if we never agree totally.

I recommend an article written by the great Orthodox theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky. It explains the Orthodox view of the role of Tradition and Scriptures better than anything I have read. In it he includes a discussion of St. Irenaeus view as well. He definitely explains it better than anyone can on VOL. Here is the link.

Georges Florovsky

Blessings!

Neal
Enjoy.

Thank you, sir, for posting that article by Fr. Florovsky! I am a true fan of his. I haven't yet read this, though. I scanned it, quickly, and did see what I expected - St. Basil's letter regarding unwritten Holy Tradition! I recently read that while reading the Selected Works of St. Basil the Great. I was struck, as a history major, at how much it was in line with the writings of Fathers all the way back to the first and second century, and has been echoed since St. Basil's time.

To me, from an historical perspective, it shows what the attitude of the Church has always been regarding Holy Tradition and Scripture. Fr. Florovsky, as usual, does as good a job as any individual can possibly do, in one article, in summarizing the Orthodox perspective. Again, thank you for sharing it!

I would also recommend Fr. Pomozansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology"'s section on Holy Tradition.

the sinner,

Patrick

I'm disappointed that Jonah was allowed to speak. The English Reformation was crucial for the founding of the Anglican church, and Jonah, who was supposed to be a voice of unity, spread faulty teaching by urging the abandonment of the Reformation.

How I pray that all would see the value of the Reformation, and its emphasis on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ alone for their forgiveness instead of their own personal righteousness, goodness, or merit. Here is real unity, around our crucified and risen Savior.

A MESSAGE FOR METROPOLITAN JONAH, LEADER OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA, AND THOSE INTERESTED IN THE ORTHODOX/ACNA DIALOGUE

Dear Metropolitan Jonah,

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and our Savior!

Genuine brother in Christ, I appreciate your desire to make the Lord Jesus Christ known and your tireless work to strengthen God's people. Nevertheless, I'm disappointed about your insistence that the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) abandon the teachings known as "Calvinism" (see Heidt).

The ACNA should provide a warm embrace for Calvinists because of the strong biblical basis for their faith. This biblical basis stems from the Bible's robust teaching about God's grace, and the earth-shattering reality that God comes to sinners who hate Him and regenerates them so that they would believe in Jesus Christ and find eternal life.

The Apostle Paul wrote that before trusting in Christ we "were dead in [our] trespasses and sins," but found life in Jesus Christ because of the eternal God, who is "rich in mercy" and "because of His great love with which He loved us" (Eph. 2:1-6, NASB). Now, a dead corpse has no ability to raise itself up, does it? No, this takes nothing less than an act of God, and so it is in the spiritual realm! We're unable to come to God, but God comes to us and gives us new life. Now that's grace!

Our Lord Jesus Christ taught that men and women can't come to God unless they're reborn by God's Spirit. He taught that what's from "the flesh is flesh," and what's from "the Spirit is spirit," and emphasized that without God's Spirit making someone new, people can't even see God's kingdom (John 3:3-6, NASB). Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44a, NASB). Don't these ideas underscore the necessity of grace from God, and grace alone, to grip our hearts and change us so that we will see things from a heavenly perspective?

The ACNA should provide a warm embrace for Calvinists because of the ACNA's background in the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition. Article 10 of their "Articles of Religion" says that a fallen human being "cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God." It goes on to say that "we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ" (BCP, 604-605). Some of the other Articles, like Articles 11 and 17, are also squarely rooted in the Calvinistic tradition, and reiterate the
wonderful Reformation teachings that we're justified before God through faith alone, and that this is the result of God choosing to save us and show us His wonderful compassion and love! Both of these Articles talk about the tremendous comfort that these gracious teachings bring into our hearts (BCP, 605, 606)!

Do you see why I would like to encourage the ACNA to affirm rather than abandon its Calvinism? I realize that there are Christians who have a different view of grace than I do, but at the very least, churches would do well to accommodate those who, for conscience sake, hold to these teachings. Even the great seventeenth-century Orthodox Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, sought to uphold Calvinistic truths in his ministry (Kauffman, 294). He was a decent Christian man as are you, dear Metropolitan. It would be awful for those who have these convictions to be disenfranchised, nor would that help Christian unity or the cause of Jesus Christ in this world.

Metropolitan Jonah, this means quite a lot to me personally. Although I'm a seminary graduate and have sought to grow as a Christian for years now, I always come back to the fact that I really only deserve damnation, but that by God's grace, I possess salvation from the penalty of my sins! Jesus lived the perfect life in my place, died for my sins, and marvelously rose from the dead. He came to me when I hated Him, and changed my heart so that I would see the value of Him and what He's done for me.

Please, Metropolitan Jonah, reconsider the way you're approaching this issue in your dialogues with the ACNA. You know the grace of God toward you, as I know the grace of God toward me. You know how the Lord left ninety-nine sheep to come after you when you were lost, and when He found you, put you atop His shoulders and called the angels and saints of heaven to rejoice (see Luke 15:1-7)! This really does underscore a robust view of God's grace, even though you don't agree with the exact same understanding as do I and other Calvinists.

The Calvinists in the ACNA need a place in which to minister, and those desiring to dialogue with them should be willing to accommodate their Calvinistic heritage instead of denigrate it.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you, Metropolitan, in all of your life and work. God bless you greatly!

Sincerely,



John A. Peters

1. The Book of Common Prayer (Oxford University Press, 1928).

2. Heidt, Michael, ACNA'09: Metropolitan Jonah calls for Full Communion with New Anglican Province, June 24, 2009 (www.virtueonline; http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10693).

3. Kauffman, Donald T., ed. Baker's Pocket Dictionary of Religious Terms (Grand Rapids: 1967), 294.

I'm sorry, but I can't remain silent after pondering that the Metropolitan's comments about Calviism contradict the claims of Orthodoxy itself.

With all due respect to the Metropolitan but contrary to his claims about Calvinism being heretical according to Orthodoxy, Calvinism wasn't really condemned among the Orthodox until after the death of the great Calvinistic Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lucaris in the 17th century. This was long after the Orthodox requirement that the entire church (pre-schism) must be present in ecumenical council to determine doctrine.

I know that the Metropolitan's Orthodox background stems from the Russian side of their tradition, but this great Greek Patriarch was truly noteworthy for his learning, perseverance, and godliness. Would you take the time to read about his very interesting life?