Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy is Christian! Chapter 2-A

This Ruff draft is in the process of being re-edited:

Sidenote: These are my own personal oppionions, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Church. Any error in this post must be pointed at me, and not Mother Church. However, all truth in this post must be pointed at Mother Church, and not me



Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy is Christian! (chapter 1)


Chapter 2 of Morey's book.

Quote
What is Orthodoxy?

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

I. Protestant Converts to Orthodoxy

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

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

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

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

He ends the convert section with:

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

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

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


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

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

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

NKJV
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."


Quote:
"If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them. Custom is their strengthener, and faith is their observer.....These instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom. The proper witness for tradition is its demonstration by long-continued observance." Tertullian 211 A.D. [9]

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

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

ISSUE: Regulative Principle


The Lutherian Position is:

"Whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is permissible"


The Reformed Position is:

"Whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden"

So as you can see, for Morey, if it's not found in scripture then it must be forbidden, and eventhough the regula principle is mainly in regards to worship, you will find this same mindset in alot of other areas. You will find it in the area of church government......etc. The Puritans in many ways were like the Anabaptists in that they seemed to have a tendency to lean heavily in the direction of what some call "solo scriptura". Solo Scriptura is a more radical interpretation of Sola Scriptura, but we will get into this later. For now, I just would like to say that there are alot of words and things not found in scripture but are indeed "scriptural". The word "Trinity" is not found in scripture, but the principle is found in scripture. The same is true for the word "homoousios". Thanks to Saint Athanasius, we saw how it was used in a "scriptural" fashion. And so, what is "scriptural" has alot to do with the "meaning" or the "interpretation" of Scripture.


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

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



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


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


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


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



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



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

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


Eastern Christian Icons, are not just art. They are sacred and not secular, they are a pictoral language and not void of meaning. They record the Theology, expressions, and History of the Church itself.
Also bowing down in front of someone or something is not wrong in and of itself. What makes it right or wrong is the context, and intent of the person or persons. Even a protestant blogger was able to see this: Degrees of “worship” in the Bible

Quote:
"For instance, 1 Chr. 29:20:
"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king."

The term “worshipped” (shaha) denotes prostrating (bowing down) in an act of worship/devotion.

In Rev. 3:9 we read:
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
The Greek term proskuneō, is used to describe the act of prostrating (bowing down, "worship") before Jesus (and God the Father) throughout the NT, but in the above text, it is utilized with reference to the saints, the adopted Sons of God.

The evidence strongly indicates that one must speak of degrees of “worship”.
Now, with that said, there is one Greek term of religious devotion reserved for God (the Father) alone: latreuō.
So in ending, which ever side one chooses to defend, one cannot ignore the issue of degrees of religious “worship” (devotion) as being Biblical." (To read everything he had to say about this issue, please visit his post)

We already seen from chapter 1 that the worship service in the Jewish Temple involved bowing in front of the footstool:

Psalm99:1-5
"The LORD reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved! The LORD is great in Zion, And He is high above all the peoples. Let them praise Your great and awesome name— He is holy. The King’s strength also loves justice; You have established equity; You have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob. Exalt the LORD our God, And worship at His footstool— He is holy."

And so, there are different degrees of reverence. Another point I would like to make known is the fact that God does share His glory. Alot of protestants hold to the view that God doesn't share his glory, but He does, as seen below:

In the New Testament:
NKJVJohn 17:21-23
"that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."

Not only have we already been givin glory, but we will also be givin glory in the future when we are "glorified". If this isn't true, then the whole concept of "glorification" just wouldn't make since.

NKJV
2nd Corinthians 3:18
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."

NKJV
Romans 9:23
"and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory"

NKJV
1st Corinthians 15:43
"It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power."


Glory naturally only belongs to God, but he has freely given it also to his people.

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

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

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

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

Or go here: What do we mean by Tradition?

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit decides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Saint Justin Martyr

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



Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy is Christian! (chapter 1)





JNORM888

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


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


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

[9] page 649, from the book "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to more than 700 topics discussed by the early church fathers" Edited by David W. Bercot, Hendrickson Publishers 1998