Lex Rex

Where have the Apostles gone?

2005-10-25T09:44:00.000-07:00

Perhaps my questions of SEVERAL months ago were too broad. Hence, I would like BGM and Lex Rex's input on the following, more narrow question. Are there any Apostles in the Church today, and if so, what makes either of you qualify them as such? For example, are they simply in a position of authority, or are they actually 'walking' in the exemplary power of Apostleship? Are they required to perform miracles, are they required to be Church Apologists?

If you take a position that Apostleship is limited to the Apostolic age, what do you do with I Corinthians 12:28-29?

Zain

The Full Picture

2005-07-13T07:58:00.000-07:00

As I let BGM and Lex Rex further contemplate my request for a summary of our most important differences, I would like to interject a few of my own recent considerations.

The Full Picture:

BGM made a point some time ago, when this discussion regarding Orthodoxy v. Protestantism began. It was something like this: (forgive me BGM if my memory is flawed) BGM's method for determining and rediscovering true/historical Christianity was to look to those Church Fathers who were closest in time and proximity to the Apostles themselves. In other words, if we look at what the early Church taught and practiced, we have a better picture of what delivered Christianity actually was and, hence, should be today.

And I have always admitted that the early historical proximity method (for lack of a better name) has merit. As such, I embarked upon a lengthy read of as many of the Church Fathers from about 130 AD to 250 AD as possible (with also a spattering of Church Apologists through 700 AD). As I have already mentioned in past blogs, based solely on the early Church Fathers, I do see several deficiencies, errors, etc in the modern Church. It must, however, be pointed out that I do not see several important Orthodox claims to authenticity supported by such Church Fathers. Inevitably, you have to go ahead hundreds of years more into Church writings to get the basis for several important Orthodox and Catholic doctrines and/or traditions.

That being said the point of this blog is to give a little more context to the full picture. If you truly want to simply rediscover "delivered" as compared to "developed" Christianity, it only makes sense to me that as much context as is available should be considered. I have brought this point up on a prior occasion, but only did so with vague references. But my research has pointed me back to it. Hence, I would like to bring it up for consideration once again so that the Full Picture may be considered.

I tend to think that many modern Christians, present company excluded of course, would like to begin Christianity with the Nicene Creed which was developed in 325 AD(or so). Although the Nicene Creed served a very important function during a time of great heresy, it is not the beginning, nor even original to the Apostles. Let me say that I do not try to undermine the fundamental importance of the Nicene Creed (I completely agree with it -- BGM, is probably throwing food at his computer screen right now while shouting "Ahhh, westerner! What do you know of the Creed!" -- just adding some levity -- or trying to), but just wish to have a proper prospective. Instead, we can all agree that the New Testament is where we must first and foremost look for evidence of the original Church and its make up. (I am not trying to be insulting, just trying to give order to my own thoughts) I do realize that BGM's method is to look to the early Church for the correct and historical interpretation and application of the NT -- and at some level I agree.

What I am saying is this: there are some significant elements of the original Church for which the 2nd century Church may very well NOT be the best source of interpretation. Here I go: As I have said before, the original Church was JEWISH. To which BGM has replied, yes there were Jewish believers right along side gentile believers. But this response is not the full historical picture. IMHO, the Scriptures show that the first Church was 100% Jewish. Then it was opened to gentile believers, which created a problem. Do the gentile believers have to become Jewish? It was this question that the first council (48 AD) at Jerusalem answered -- NO, they do not. Hence, gentile Churches were begun through the efforts of those such as Peter and Paul, and yes, there were some Jews interspersed in gentile congregations. But there is at least an argument that the Jerusalem Church remained "Jewish" in its practices, certainly not in its justifications, but in its practices. Hence, you had the Jerusalem "Jewish" Church leading its gentile brothers. But something happened in the early years, prior to the Church Fathers of the second century. In 70 Ad, Titus destroyed Jerusalem, significantly changing the Church Structure, in that the Jerusalem Church (the leadership) was virtually removed. If that wasn't enough, in 130 AD the Bar Kochba Jewish revolt against the Romans occurred. The result was to finish the work of 70 AD, Jews were not permitted in Jerusalem by law. Hence, in the few generations prior to the earliest Church Fathers writings, yet after the New Testament period, the Original Church changed significantly -- virtually all Jewish influence was removed.

If this wasn't enough, non-believing Jews were either directly responsible for horrible persecutions of believers, or being persecuted themselves for simply being Jewish, that the separation between Jew and Gentile became complete. It is this period that the first early Church Fathers begin to write. This is perhaps a shallow and poor recounting of the history, but I felt it needed to be said. I am definitely not arguing that the Church should be Jewish, but simply pointing out that merely looking at the practices of a purely gentile second century Church is not to look at the full picture. I will leave the discussion of what we may be able to learn from this added context to another day. First, I will await my beatings and lumps from this general comment. This is my question, if I have at all correctly understood and presented the actual history, how does this change the picture, or does it in your opinions?

Godspeed!

Zain

The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven

2005-06-15T17:51:00.000-07:00

In answer to Zain's question, the thrust of my reluctance goes to the heart of our differences. I do not want to take this out of context, so you can link to the title by clicking on the same. The first two, I do not believe we have any qualms. It is the last part of #3, this arduous path that the Orthodox proclaim by which we save ourselves that I am trying to reconcile with Scripture, namely Romans 3-8. Saint Innocent does proclaim that nothing is possible but by the grace of God, the death and resurrection of Christ, but the “mansion on the hill” can only be reached through a series of activities by the Pilgrim. This does not explain Paul’s journey, he indeed speaks of his ongoing struggles throughout his Christian life, but after his conversion. As a related requirement, the concept of the Eucharist as necessary for salvation is, IMHO, irreconcilable with Scripture.

The Way Into the Kingdom of Heaven
by Saint Innocent of Alaska

....First of all, a Christian must thoroughly study the foundations of the Christian faith. To that end, you must read and reread the Holy Scriptures on a regular basis, especially the books of the New Testament. You must not only learn their contents but also develop an interest in their origin, who wrote them and when, how they were preserved and have been handed down to us, and why they are called Divine and Sacred. You must study the Holy Books with simplicity of heart, without prejudice or excessive inquisitiveness, not trying to discover hidden mysteries but trying to learn that which leads us to self-improvement. Certainly all that is necessary for us to know for our salvation is revealed quite clearly and in detail in the Scriptures.

It is important also to study our God-given faith in detail, since he who is indifferent toward truth is in danger of becoming easy prey for false teachers. It is so sad that many Orthodox Christians perish simply because of their disregard for Christ’s teachings. Having access to the light, they wander in the dark.

The studying of the faith should conform to your aptitudes and knowledge. For instance, for the serious student, in addition to studying the Scriptures, it is also useful to become familiar with the works of the Church Fathers and with the historical and theological books written by other Orthodox authors. These books will help you to comprehend your faith more deeply, which in turn will give you an opportunity to strengthen others in the Orthodox faith, to whom these books are unavailable.

2. When you become convinced that our Orthodox faith is based on Holy Scriptures and is not invented by people and that the Holy Scriptures contain the true word of God, revealed by the Holy Spirit through prophets and apostles — accept it with all your trusting heart. Believe the Holy Scriptures without doubt or philosophizing, pushing aside all heretical explanations. If you humbly accept Christ’s truth, then your faith will become strong and will lead you to salvation.

3. Finally, try to nourish a diligence in yourself to follow that which is taught by the Holy Scriptures. But if you do not have such diligence, fall down before the Savior and with a sincere prayer ask Him to send you a zealous wish to live according to His commandments. Then, when the grace of God starts leading you toward salvation, follow it, valiantly repelling the snares of the devil, who will attempt to detract you from Christ’s path.

....Those who neglect to take Holy Communion do not love Jesus Christ and will not receive the Holy Spirit, and consequently will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So, for the sake of your salvation, partake of Communion as often as possible.

Revisiting the Fathers

2005-06-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

After reading many of the Church Fathers writing around 200 AD and earlier, I would like to ask the following questions:

To BGM:

What are the main issues that you see presented by such honorable men in their writings that demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox is the exclusive and true Church?

And then, more specifically, which doctrines do you see supported by the Fathers that have been rejected, or created, by the Protestant West (and which of those arise to heresy in your opinion)?

To Lex Rex:

What are the doctrines/practices of the Eastern Orthodox that you find most unacceptable (even heretical) and, perhaps more to the point, unsupported in Scripture, or even refuted in Scripture?

I ask not for the complete defenses of each point at this juncture, but rather for them to be set forth with perhaps an abreviated summary of each person's current viewpoint. Then we can delve deeper into the finer points and issues on each as we proceed. I hope this works for both of you, as I would like to get a better understanding of where we agree, disagree or simply need to all consider things not considered before.

As a side point, and meant in the way of encouragement, when I returned home from our common Law-School days, I felt the Lord directing me to the Book of Jude in Holy Scripture. The primary import of Jude's writings, IMHO, is a call to true believers to fight and contend for the Faith that was once delivered to them against the lies and deceptions that had already come in. This is why I have loved this forum and our fellowship. I see that it fits in directly with Jude's admonition to fight for the purity of our Faith. Another Scripture asks the question what shall the righteous do if the foundations are destroyed? I believe that for the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Protestant alike, the foundations are quickly being destroyed and it drives me back to Jude's call. I have been very interested to see of late, the call of Jude arising in several Christian Forums. Interestingly enough to me, they have been spread across the spectrum from Orthodox to Protestant voices. God is moving through His Holy Spirit and I believe Jude's voice is being heard again, and I believe we are meant to part of this great move.

As always, Godspeed!

Zain

The BGM 13: A Reply Concerning Fasting

2005-05-09T22:49:00.000-07:00

BGM:

I am sure you too have found the comment section insufficient for lengthy discussion, so I am afraid I need to respond to the “BGM 13” as a post. My numbers correspond with yours:

1. You indeed brought up the material and spiritual as they concern sacraments and fasting etc…and you herewith impliedly acknowledge the Orthodox view of the necessity of both for salvation of man’s soul. I will address this more below, but your second question will lead the discussion:

2. “Do you think God uses material things to convey His grace?” This is an easy one for me and you may find my answer surprising, but not so if you fully understood my upbringing: ABSOLUTELY! I say this with enthusiasm because it is the heart of my beliefs concerning salvation. Jesus indeed was the ICON in which grace was/is dispensed, you can not get more material than God incarnate; the suffering and crucified body of Jesus hanging on a cross is the center of my salvation. But perhaps you are inquiring whether AFTER Jesus was born into this world, suffered, died, was buried and rose on the third day to be seated physically at the right hand of His Father in Heaven, there is further need for material to convey His grace. In other words, was God’s physical act accomplished once and for all through the crucifixion, or is there more “material” required of God? In the Orthodox sense of ICONS (beyond the first, that was Jesus) and Eucharist, I am not presently convinced of the necessity of this material. As to the fourth sacrament of repentance and confession, I view these as material in that repentance confession are physical acts required by God for the forgiveness of sins and while not “material” as I believe you are using the term, there very much IMO a material aspect to this as offering our life and body as a physical sacrifice. As to baptism with water as a necessity for salvation, as yet I do not believe it is the water itself that saves, but that said, God’s grace is made possible by the public act of obedience. Concerning baptism, if water is necessary for salvation, why was Jesus baptized? Concerning the Eucharist, if necessary for salvation, why did Jesus partake? Why do we not have to also then be nailed to the cross, as Jesus did this as well? On the latter, we indeed do need to crucify the old man, but notice we cannot accomplish this through the physical act of crucifixion.

3. Concerning the requirement for salvation, you inquire whether I tow the protestant line of spiritually saved by spiritual confession. Perhaps I do not understand the arguments of my protestant brothers, but I have never heard my church, nor any others I have attended, preach sola spirituality. Indeed, I have always understood the physical needs on both sides of the equation. It is difficult for me to articulate this, but how is a spiritual (silent?) confession effective without the physical act of obedience in repentance? The prior without the former is merely words spoken. Individuals in the early church were referred to as “professed Christians” because it was only after their lives were examined for a time that any evidence of salvation could be determined. We cannot ignore the evidence in Scripture, for some in a very shortened period of time are transformed to life eternal, but I do not miss the example of the suffering Christ, He did not die instantly and nor does our old man in very case.

4. Concerning whether fasting is required for salvation, in a deeper sense, while it is not a sacrament, one could say fasting in Orthodoxy is found in the tool box on the bench of confession and repentance, which is a sacrament. And one could further say that confession and repentance as far as being effectual when killing off the old man, are rusty bolts that without which the tools of fasting and prayer, such bolts could not be loosened. So while I understand that Fasting is not declared as a sacrament, it is the “material” in confession and repentance that is difficult to separate from the same. Thus my posture regarding fasting is not from any protestant brainwashing, truth be told, I have never heard a message preached regarding this topic as it relates to Orthodoxy, so I have no pre-conceived notion of the same apart from the influence of half of my family. Consider the following written by Orthodox, let me know if you disavow any of these writings as they seem to be standard Orthodox theology:

“Fasting is another aid to kill off the old Adam, and to put on Christ, for the benefit of all (ourselves, the Church, and the world in which we witness His love). This continual transformation (or repentance) is the path and goal of the Christian life.

This pursuit of such godly transformation is furthered by both “spiritual” and “physical” means. “Spiritual means” such as prayer, preaching and singing (with which Evangelicals agree) as well as “physical” means (or aids) such as the sacraments, icons, incense, fasting, the Cross, etc. (with which Evangelicals generally disagree). God works through both spiritual and physical means (the Orthodox believe) to make transformation of the whole man, spiritual and physical. “ Written by the esteemed BGM. (I pose the question to BGM: Given the extreme importance of fasting, do you believe that the transformation of man both physically and spiritually is possible without the same?)

“Once the soul is inclined towards pleasing its Creator, and through obedience and fasting is subdued, the soul thirsts for its Lord and prayer is made effective. Our Lord Jesus Christ then begins the work of cleansing the soul, and illuminating the intellectual power of the soul with a right understanding of its Lord and Creator. In this way the Lord rebuilds the temple of our souls, as the Psalmist notes:

LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear (Psalm 10:17 )

For some this may occur very quickly, as in the blessed grace-filled state attained by the holy martyrs as they made their bold confessions. For others it may take their entire life. Nevertheless, if an Orthodox Christian continues in such a way the Lord will provide all that is necessary for salvation…..

Those who deviate from the fundamental law of obedience and insolently choose to live according to their self-will, fall away from God, and so are banished utterly and cast into outer darkness. (St's Callistus and Ignatius, "Directions" 15)

We see from the above investigation that the holy Church, inspired by its loving Creator, has provided to us rules for fasting, that in and of themselves are of no benefit to an individual, unless that individual understands that he fulfills them not as an empty obligation, but in obedience, without argument or contradiction, as a means of expressing ones desire to please the Lord. When we fast with such an understanding, the Lord rewards our well-intentioned desire with a resolve to practice the virtues. In such a way the Lord undertakes the arduous work of rebuilding our wretched souls. Glory be to our Lord for all the benefits he bestows upon us poor wretches. (Russian Orthodox writer)

“So it is with the soul: the grace of the Holy Spirit is preserved by keeping the commandments, and the keeping of the commandments is the foundation laid for receiving the gift of God's grace. Neither does the grace of the Holy Spirit remain in us without our obeying the commandments, nor can obeying the commandments be useful and salutary without Divine grace.” (St. Simeon the New Theologian "Practical and Theological Precepts" 95)

A life of fasting, properly understood as general self-limitation and abstinence, to the annual practice of which the Church always calls us with the Great Lent, is really that bearing of the cross and self-crucifixion which is required of us by our calling as Christians. And anyone who stubbornly resists this, wanting to live a carefree, happy, and free life, is concerned for sensual pleasures and avoids sorrow and suffering that person is not a Christian. Bearing one's cross is the natural way of every true Christian, without which there is no Christianity. Archbishop Averky of Syracuse (of Blessed Memory)

BROTHER: What are fasting and prayer?

OLD MAN: Fasting is the subjugation of the body, prayer is converse with God, vigil is a war against Satan, abstinence is being weaned from meats, humility is the state of the first man, kneeling is the inclining of the body before the Judge, tears are the remembrance of sins, nakedness is our captivity which is caused by the transgression of the command, and service is constant supplication to and praise of God.

BROTHER: Are these able to redeem the soul?

OLD MAN: When internal things agree with external, and manifest humility appears in the hidden works which are from within, verily, a man shall be redeemed from the weight of the body. E. A. Wallis Budge, "The Paradise of the Holy Fathers," Seattle, St. Nectarios Press, 1984, pp. 263-264

Bodily purity is primarily attained through fasting, and through bodily purity comes spiritual purity. Abstinence from food, according to the words of that son of grace, St. Ephraim the Syrian, means: 'Not to desire or demand much food, either sweet or costly; to eat nothing outside the stated times; not to give oneself over to gratification of the appetite; not to stir up hunger in oneself by looking at good food; and not to desire one or another sort of food. The Prologue from Ochrid - by St. Nikolai Velimirovich (Volume 4, p 338)

Do you disagree with these quotes? Are they taken out of context? I do not believe I have overstated the importance of fasting regarding salvation in the Orthodox view. Again, can you kill off the old man without fasting? If not, how can confession & repentance and therefore salvation be achieved without fasting?

5. “Thus, if fasting, is not required for salvation, why do it? Why because God commands it!” You are preaching to the choir here, that is the Protestant view of fasting, as I have heard it preached numerous times, I understand it no less.

6. Here, you hit the nail on the head, it is shameful that we protestants do not fast more, and I think it is because most hide behind their concept of grace. My church does encourage fasting and prayer, but it is not an annual November 28-December 25 fast, nor is it during lent. Individually, I have personally engaged in fasts of water only, although I have not in any recent memory, guilty as charged. The last true fast was during law school and I think I complained a bit even so.

7. “Rather than answer, I will ask you (and I will try rare silence rather than speculate): Lex, why don’t you and your assembly fast when it is clearly established in scripture?” See 6 above.

8. “Lex, do you really think I am so dumb as to base my broad, scholarly critique of Evangelicalism upon my personal experience at a single church? Is that really indicated by the nature of my writing or my citations? Do you view me as that poor an attorney?” I have nothing but the highest regard of you, however, your broad-brush strokes often times do not apply to my church so it leaves me wondering if my church is just an anomaly? I answer in the negative, I have experienced countless denominations that run contrary to your indictment. Even Greg Laurie whom I assume you would place in the Western indictment stated the other day that we must finish the race as a necessary component to salvation.

9-11: “… your symbolic Lord’s supper is a tradition, your sola fide is a tradition. Similarly, my Real Presence is a tradition, my Baptismal regeneration is a tradition. We both share the traditions of the Trinity and the Incarnation, etc. etc” Which is why I prefaced that I was “sure BGM agreed”: To the extent sola fide is extra-scriptural and contrary to scripture, it is not tradition, it is heresy. The same with any of the above: If I cannot find scriptural support and also find scriptures debunking the practice, I do not consider these “traditions” in accordance with God's word, I'm sure you agree. On the other hand, where I can find scriptural support, I do not consider these “traditions” apart from the obvious procedural traditions (thrice sprinkled, fast 11/28-12/25 etc..), of which I have no problem with these if they do not offend scripture. For example, we celebrate the advent calendar every year, I find no harm in this tradition. The symbolic Lord’s supper, for example, as I have numerous times pointed out, I have provided scriptural support. You also have argued from numerous scriptures regarding the Lord’s supper and real presence, so how can you call your defense of the same a “tradition”? Sure, you have also provided historical support, but I hardly call your apology for real presence a tradition. The same with Baptismal regeneration, the Orthodox provide scripture support. Scripture is replete with examples of baptism, where tradition appears is the ceremony surrounding the same. We may disagree as to the interpretation of scripture in this area, but how can you call Baptismal regeneration a “tradition?” You also here (admittedly to my surprise) lump in the Trinity and Incarnation as traditions. Again, the scripture is replete with the doctrine of Trinity, beginning in Genesis with the plural use of “elohim” when referring to God in the beginning, and forward through Scripture (pre-incarnate Christ, God the Father, The Holy Spirit sent etc. etc..) And Incarnation as a “tradition? Huge stretch here with all due respect: How can you possibly classify Incarnation as a “tradition?”

12. What is my position on fasting? Where did I state it was not important nor necessary? All I said is that it was not necessary for salvation, which you purport to agree with, but your comment here seems to display an understanding of what I proposed above regarding fasting; to the Orthodox fasting is essential to kill off the old man, if the old man is not killed off, salvation is impossible, therefore in a round-about way, fasting is necessary for salvation.

13. Amen.

Fasting, Flesh & Incarnation

2005-05-02T22:36:00.000-07:00

Greetings fellow Pilgrims!

As the excuse for my delays would likely trigger cabbages rather than sympathy, I press causally onwards (as if no one noticed I arrived three hours late for dinner). I am sorry for my injuries caused this august forum (although it grew in my esteem directly due to my absence from it). Recall Groucho Marx and his opinion of clubs that would grant him membership.

Is the Italian Counselor now a member (I look forward to his wisdom and cautious corrective)?

Having missed out on so much of the conversation, I dive back in with a brief comment on Zain’s latest posting on fasting (I seek to then reply to his and Lex Rex’s posts on the sacraments). I agree with Zain’s comments and point out only a few introductory Orthodox impressions (so appropriate at the conclusion of the Lenten fast with the celebration of Our Lord’s glorious third day resurrection in Pascha (Easter)).

The Isaiah 58 passage is one that fully comports with the Orthodox understanding of the fast (to be added the many other biblical passages concerning fasting that I never investigated as a Protestant, including: Matt 4:2, 6:16-18; 17:21: Luke 2:37; Acts 13:3; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor 6:5, etc.).

The overwhelming biblical evidence describes fasting as a normative, continuing Christian act (these are solely NT passages) yet very few Protestant churches fast in any manner. Why? IMO, because of significant dogmatic changes in many (not all) Protestant views of salvation, nature of the “material” and critical details of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Fasting is another aid to kill off the old Adam, and to put on Christ, for the benefit of all (ourselves, the Church, and the world in which we witness His love). This continual transformation (or repentance) is the path and goal of the Christian life.

This pursuit of such godly transformation is furthered by both “spiritual” and “physical” means. “Spiritual means” such as prayer, preaching and singing (with which Evangelicals agree) as well as “physical” means (or aids) such as the sacraments, icons, incense, fasting, the Cross, etc. (with which Evangelicals generally disagree). God works through both spiritual and physical means (the Orthodox believe) to make transformation of the whole man, spiritual and physical.

Man is both material and immaterial, not a disembodied spirit or brain floating in a glass jar. Even more important, the material world is not evil. God did not become embodied, His spirit take on flesh (material) so as to provide a salvation for only our minds (through our mere mental assent to the “four spiritual laws”). (I do not accuse any on this blog of this error, I am making a general comment).

He came to save us as whole men: body and soul, flesh and spirit; all of us. As such, the Orthodox Church conveys tools that affect both body and spirit, to involve the whole man in the pursuit of godliness and his ultimate salvation (Theosis).

In my own shallow experience of the same, I have learned that I have the greatest power of influence over my own self, next over my family, then my Church, and then the world. Thus, the Orthodox view the personal disciplines of fasting, prayer, alms, etc., as the very foundation and means of witnessing to and saving the world. Be yourself transformed into an imitation of Christ and you will lead others to Him. This is the obvious meaning of being “salt” and “light.” It is that we ourselves become different (as preservative salt or illuminating light) as His witness. Not that we (merely) talk words of Jesus being salt and light, theoretically to a decaying and dark world. I have just begun to learn and repent.

As a Protestant, I thought I should teach (often lecture) others on Christian doctrine to bring them into the Kingdom. This was “preaching the word” I thought. I now believe that the personal transformation of my life into an imitation of Christ, in humility and submission should be my leading method of Christian witness (even though I obviously fail in this and regularly continue my old “lecture route” by habit, training and sin, as you can all witness). How different are these two approaches (in my life and in the response).

The most remarkable corrective of this error is the continuing nature of fleshly Incarnation of Jesus through today. Most Protestant’s agree with the Nicene Creed in that “(Jesus) ascended into heaven, and He sits at the right hand of the Father.” But most Protestants do not consider (Council of Chalcedon) that Jesus retains His human flesh, there, at the heavenly throne, this very moment. This is a critically important (and for me, paradigm shifting) correction.

The Theo-anthropos Savior (God-Man) resurrected from the dead, with His human flesh intact (not as a ghost or Platonic disembodied soul, leaving his human flesh in the tomb), he ate, walked around, spoke, ministered in His human flesh and then He took His human flesh back to heaven as He ascended and now presently sits in heaven at the right side of the Father, with that same human flesh! (How’s that for the elevation of lowly humanity!)

Again (I speak to myself of this incredible feat) Jesus took His God/Human body BACK to HEAVEN! That God (=Spirit) could become flesh (incarnate= to become flesh) was crazy to start with. But to have the now God-Man keep His human flesh and take human flesh back into the heavens was total absurdity. If St. Paul’ Mars Hill proclamation (of the bodily Resurrection) was foolishness to the Greeks, this was too foolish to even respond towards.

This is one of the most important concepts in Orthodoxy, and one (in my opinion) significantly missed by evangelicalism, and thus, explains much of the differences between the two. The consequence and depth of this Incarnation teaching have almost no end. This understanding of the Incarnation transforms my view of God and Man, heaven and earth, spirit and matter, etc., etc. As example, with this concept of the perpetual God/Man as our advocate, reread Hebrews 4:14-16:

“Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we doe not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

I do not blame the evangelicals as they (as I did) largely miss this point. IMO the evangelicals have never been taught the true meaning and consequence of the Incarnation, and its continued meaning, and as such, they discredit the material in the Christian life. I know that this was true for myself. I viewed the incarnation and ministry of Jesus as a largely a condition prerequisite for Calvary, not as a transformation of the very nature of humanity.

As a reformed Protestant, I saw life as largely a determined play set in existence solely for the climatic act of the legal redemption of Calvary, not as God transforming His very creation, especially His prize creation of Humanity. A human act such as fasting makes little sense in the common evangelical approach.

God forever transformed the nature of humanity by His Incarnation, taking human flesh to the heavens forever.

This is one of the most important concepts in Christianity and I was never taught anything of it until perhaps two years ago. I have so much to learn.

I have gotten carried away again (from fasting to the Incarnation, sorry).

Grace,
BGM

PS: If you want me to leave again, I'll understand.

Sacraments

2005-05-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

Happy "Eastern" Easter!

May the Lord bless our "Eastern" brothers on this day of their celebration of our Lord's resurrection. May they embrace the fast that our Lord declared through His prophet Isaiah.

"Is this not the fast that I have chosen: To loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him, and not hide yourself from your own flesh?" Isaiah 58:6-7

I do not reference this Scripture to undermine the concept of fasting by denying our flesh, but only remind us all, myself included, that such self denial fasting is needed to bring our own flesh into submission, but in order to please our Lord, His fast is clearly declared through Isaiah.

Concerning the Sacrament of Communion/Eucharist, it seems that if you try to pin down what each branch of Christianity actually believes you get a confusion of responses. I know that the Orthodox and the Catholic have official statements, but when it comes to application even within their own communions, it is a confusion of understanding (at least from my perception). So, let me ask a couple of basic questions of BGM and Lex Rex (Simon_Templar feel free to add your esteemed comments).

First, to the Orthodox, why does the real presence of our Lord in the Communion necessarily deny its "remembrance nature" as its prime purpose"? On the other hand protestants, why does our Lord's instruction to continue the Communion in our remembrance of Him require it to be mere symbolic gesture?

It is also interesting to me that in 1 Corinthians 11, when Paul is giving further meaning to the Communion of the Bread and Cup, that he links their unworthy manner to the fact that they are partaking of the Supper in a divided manner, not discerning the Lord's body. Specifically, that they were adhereing to their schisms. They were instructed to, instead, take it together. At a minimum it seems to suggest a strong fellowship element in the Communion, does it not? And perhaps says something about the schisms and factionalism within Christianity. (Anyway, just a thought for future discussion.)

Godspeed!

Zain

"Habemus papam!"

2005-04-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

Nothing more, just wanted to use some latin to announce the new Bishop of Rome...

Early Church: Sacraments

2005-04-08T13:54:00.000-07:00

I would like to hear input on Augustine, he seems to support more of the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and not so much real presence. I do not know how accurate this is, but Schaff claims there was considerable debate over the issue of the Eucharist early on (its meaning, not practice) and obviously, that debate continues today.

Let's look at John 6, and read this in the context that Jesus Himself provides: (my comments will be in IT, and no BGM, I am not quoting White or any other of your proclaimed enemies, the following are just mere observations of Scripture of which I am sincerely open to feedback):

JOHN
25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." (Here, Jesus IMO is establishing the context, making a distinction between perishable nourishment that sustains you for a while and that of spiritual nourishment that is everlasting) 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (Notice here the Jewish audience ignore the food reference and focus on the labor) 29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (Here again, Jesus is referring to belief in Him) 30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat." 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (here, this bread must be metaphorical as Jesus is obviously not standing before them appearing like manna or a loaf of bread, but in flesh) 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (He refers to himself as the bread of life and in the same sentence refers to the belief in Him) 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (Again, refers to belief in Him)41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, "I have come down from heaven?" (notice here, the Jews focus again not on the bread reference but on clearly what Jesus is saying, that He is of Heaven) 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, "And they will all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." (This seems to be a clear reference to his coming sacrifice, and that the sacrifice of his flesh is the "bread" of life).
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 Jesus [3] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (Jesus reveals the clear meaning to His disciples, as He does other times when He uses allegorical teaching, i.e. leavened bread)(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

It is with this revelation in private to His disciples that Jesus, IMO, lays out what He meant. He spoke directly to their confusion, it is the Spirit that gives life, the reference to flesh was an allegory.

Here is another example of where Jesus employed allegory, but in this case revealed the true meaning, perhaps because He knew the heart of Nicodemus,
John 3:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus [1] by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [2] he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [3] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, "You must be born again." 8 The wind [4] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Are we now to have the sacrament of the womb where we ritualistically climb into a womb and engage in a birthing experience? I am not being smart here, I sincerely ask)Another example of Jesus using symbolism to illustrate a point:Matthew 16:5:

When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7 And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Notice they again mistook His example for literal meaning, ironically involving a metaphorical Bread. These men walked with Jesus and made mistakes, is it possible that after the ascension, without Jesus there to re-direct or rebuke, that the church once again mistook allegory for a literal interpretation? Not only possible, but seems likely, which is why from the start I have been hesitant to rely on what the church fathers did as ipso facto proof that is what we are to do today.

And again,

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit."

Bread is referenced in the OT as sacrifice, it is fitting for Jesus in NT to refer to Himself as the bread from heaven, or sacrifice:

Levitecus:

21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, 23 but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the LORD who sanctifies them."

So my question is, with all of the times Jesus uses allegory to illustrate who He was/is, why is the church insistent on reading a literal interpretation into the sacrament of the Eucharist in the form of the real presence doctrine? Is not the clear context and Jesus' revelation to His disciples indicate what he meant, i.e., that the bread, or His presence in thereof, is not the point, it is clearly your belief in Him, a belief that looks alone to Jesus as the sustenance of our soul, in the spiritual sense, and that the sacrifice of His body was sufficient? Does this not mesh well with how we interpret the NT vs. the OT in all other matters, i.e. circumcision, temple sacrifice, etc....Jesus replaced it all, once and for all.

Sacraments

2005-04-07T09:13:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex and BGM,

As I have been doing little else than reading through the earliest Church Fathers of late (up through Tertullian and Origen), I wanted to interject this initial observation as to the Sacraments. Second century emphasis, at least in the surviving texts, is limited to Baptism and the Eucharist. Unless I have missed something, which is always possible, I simply do not see any reference to other Sacraments (other than perhaps that Marriage is of God).

At the beginning of third century, Tertullian does expand the Sacramental discussion, along with many many many other topics. But, frankly, without knowing BGM's take on Tertullian, I find much in his writing to be over the top. I am simply not sure what level of trust to put in either Tertullian or Origen, in that both were quite off in many of their teachings (not just in my opinion, but the opinion of their contemporaries as well). The Church of their day obviously distrusted them as they were both either given the boot or they themselves broke fellowship with the very Church they had vigorously defended. That being said, I have, however, found some very interesting conclusions they arrived at on various topics but will fight the urge to rant and rave off of topic.

I will await BGM's and Lex Rex's, and even perhaps Simon_Templar's, valued input before devolving further except to say that as to the Eucharist, I believe I have found evidence that has significantly raised the importance of said Sacrament in my heart and mind (and body as may be). Based upon the NT and OT I believe that there indications of the importance of treating the elements of the Eucharist with reverence. I will explain the Scriptural basis for this statement when time presents. After reading the earliest Fathers I have been left with the impression that they believed it was more than mere symbol, but actually imparts physical sustenance to those who partake in a worthy manner. I am still admittedly in deliberations on this topic and, thus, have chosen to limit my comments until seeing what my highly esteemed brothers have to say.

Godspeed!

Zain

Early Church: Sacraments

2005-04-05T11:55:00.000-07:00

In honor of the passing of the Bishop of Rome, let's shift away from the great schism for now (we should return later to have BGM respond regarding succession) and study the sacraments. This study will necessarily involve both history and scripture.

1. Besides Baptism and the Eucharist, when were the other 5 sacraments instituted?

2. Do the sacraments effectuate grace or are they mere symbols as Luther posited?

Brief Pause

2005-03-31T13:45:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex would like to implement a brief pause in our early church discussion, to reflect on the judicially sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo. The slide to Auschwitz continues.

Early Church

2005-03-26T23:22:00.000-07:00

Blessed Resurrection Day Zain (and Lex Rex)!

I am very impressed by your post (again) and must kick myself to make time to properly respond to your sound reading and questions (as Lex Rex).

I completely agree with most all of your approach. I found in my studies the same three choices you mention; Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican. I will happily go through my thinking as to my inclination towards the Orthodox (when I reply further).

[Note: An incredible note on this topic is Prince Charles’ recent inclination towards Orthodoxy! How’s that for conflicted; He is to be the head of the Anglican Church as King, yet he has all but converted to Orthodoxy. See this very interesting article:]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1214522,00.html

Your citation of the bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops is exactly correct, and remains Orthodox teaching (even though this may be surprising).

With extreme brevity, Rome is the first among the bishops, like the Chief Justice is first among the Supremes. He has honor and ceremony on his side. He can speak for the bishops (often, not always) but he cannot speak for himself, against the other bishops, as if he speaks for God. He does not have a superior authority that allows him to claim universal earthly jurisdiction, nor infallibility in utterances of faith and morals, nor superiority to the balance of the college of bishops.

As for who is in schism, you are exactly right; there’s the rub. The flippant answer is 4 out of 5 patriarchs chose Orthodoxy (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem vs. Rome). The longer answer will involve the nature of the schism, its politics and dispute. Suffice it to say that Protestants and Orthodox agree (to my read) that Rome expanded its claims of the authority of the Bishop of Rome as it was married to Frankish politic of western expansion and empire.

The Frank theologians empowered the Roman bishop with such claims of universal jurisdiction (over the college of bishops) as it sought to strengthen the “Holy Roman Empire” of the west, against the second Rome (Constantinople) and the Byzantine
Empire (which was the actual, first Christian empire, for better and worse).

Thus political power and empire building required novel theology. This was broadly the source of the schism (from an Orthodox perspective).

Also, as for apostolic succession, the Orthodox and Catholics generally (not universally) recognize the legitimacy of each other’s sacraments, priesthood and succession. They were one Church for 1000 years, east and west, sharing all of this. Thus their differences are largely (not entirely) known as schism (as your rightly note) rather than heresy (although there is now some of this in the mix, too).

As they share so much, my route would be to investigate the origin of their distinctives to attempt to determine their origin. I believe that you will find the Orthodox to be the ancient Tradition, and that the Catholic is the later, deviant doctrine on these topics (but your should certainly investigate on your own).

I love the Catholics (and the Protestants). I encourage them where we agree and wish them to change where I presume them in error.

As for the ethnic churches of the Orthodox, all I can say is GUILTY AS CHARGED. You are totally correct and this is a failure and disgrace. Some of this is ignorance, some is mere cultural, but plenty of it is a totally failure in the great commission.

As an Orthodox I have a real freedom to criticize the real failures of the Orthodox (historic and present). Never think for a moment that because I find fault with Protestant theology (as you may have noticed) that that makes the Orthodox beyond criticism. If the Orthodox have what I think they do, they need be held to a higher standard (as you have pointed out). I pray to be used in some way in this rejuvinated American Orthodoxy.

I leave on an appropriate Orthodox response for today: “We adore His glorious third day resurrection!”

Grace, BGM

Early Church

2005-03-26T21:06:00.000-07:00

Happy "Western" Easter:

May our Lord bless and keep you on this high blessed day!

I have been enjoying a read of Ireneaus Bishop of Lyons recently (Specifically his refutation against the Gnostic Heretics of his day, Books 1-5, special emphasis on 3-5, about 180 AD). Note, I do define this author as being part of the 'Early Church' -- Ante-Nicene Fathers. I did find many things of interest to me personally, but just wanted to get input on one specific line of thought for starters.

Obviously BGM will be looking to Ireneaus' strong language regarding Apostolic Succession as the basis for true doctrine and authority within the Church, which I cannot deny is clearly present in his writing. However, I was interested in the fact that this line of reasoning included one very important addition.

Ireneaus made special mention of the fact that all of the Churches were to look to the Bishop of Rome with a level of submission and honor above all others. Hence, the question presents itself, why did you, BGM, become a member of the Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Based solely upon the Apostolic Succession justification, which is at least one of the chief arguments for the Orthodox Church, it would seem that the Catholics have at a minimum an equal claim, and based upon the level of honor it held, perhaps a greater claim to true Apostolic Succession. Who is really the Scizmatic Church?

If the choice boiled down to better theology, this argument would seem to deny the very essence of what I will call Strict Historical Apostolic Succession, as relied upon. This is primarily due to the fact that the theology is argued to take its authority from the fact that it relates back to the Apostolic authority which passed it down. Therefore, the Church at Rome having the highest authority and honor should have the most input on correct theology -- based on this line of reasoning anyway.

Also, my research seems to reveal that the Traditional 'Catholic' Anglican Church also has a pure line of Apostolic Succession. Why did you, BGM, not join that Church? It is, afterall, a 'western' line of the true apostolic succession.

Hence, it appears to me that you have at least 3 separate historical and apostolically pure Branches of Christianity who all claim, at some level anyway, to be the true and exclusive expression of the visible Church. Or is it that Tradition is on a higher plain than that of true Apostolic Authority? Thus, if one of these 3 has a tradition that seems somewhat closer to that of the first and second century Church it must be the correct one regardless of the Apostolic Succession issue. But again, Tradition takes its authority from the Apostolic Succession doesn't it? So it would seem that there are 3 different traditions and theologies which all claim to have their mandate and exclusive authority from the fact that each of them is a direct line in Apostolic Succession. Each of them have their own form of councils, liturgies, etc.

As you can tell, I do not see the logic of it all. But let me say this: If I were living in Ireneaus' day when there was such a very clear assurance of a true and direct time connection between the bishops and the actual original Apostles who trained them, I would most probably have agreed whole heartedly with Ireneaus on many points (as applied then) and would have had no trouble submitting to his authority.

But this state of affairs (what I call true and reliable Apostolic Succession) is simply not what we see in any of the Church today! And I am wondering what Ireneaus would have done and said in today's state of affairs. Would he have been Catholic, Traditional Anglican or left the 'West' where he was a Bishop among the Keltae to join the Eastern Orthodox? More than likely everybody would be on the block, including the East. What I am saying is this: We may be able to determine what such men did in their own time when the Church was, in fact, one Orthodox and Catholic Church in the truest of senses. But if brought back today, what would they now think? I believe it is probable that they would see great deficiencies in all of Christianity and simply jump in and begin working locally for its revival and repentance.

One last comment, my search, at least thus far, tends to demonstrate that it would be nearly impossible to join not to few of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The closest one to me (1.5 hrs away), is a small Ethnically based Orthodox Church. It is my distinct impression that membership is only encouraged along ethnic lines! Although you BGM may be in a branch that is not so exclusive, this seems to be a common thread in Eastern 'Ethnic' Orthodox Churches. This result does not seem to fit any form of Christianity I have seen anywhere in the bible.

Godspeed!

Zain

Early Church

2005-03-11T21:55:00.000-07:00

How about the first five chapters of Acts. Do these verses give us a glimpse of the early church? If so, what church today resembles this?:

1:14:"...They all joined together constantly in prayer..."

2:42: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

2:45: "Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone in need. 46: Every day they had continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread together in their homes and ate together...."

3:1: "One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer-at three in the afternoon."

4:32-35: They shared possessions. They continued to testify to the ressurrection of the Lord Jesus...from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them and brought the money from the sales, put it at the feet of the apostles and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

5:12..."and all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade....

5:25: "....the men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people..."

Early Church

2005-03-11T10:39:00.000-07:00

BGM & Lex Rex,

I would like to return to a direct review of what the earliest part of the 'Early Church' believed, if there is no objection. I am thinking that, atleast for an initial starting point, we could look at the period up to approximately 200 AD, give or take. We have been looking at the 7 epistles of Ignatius and should continue to do so, but what other writings have been passed down from this earliest period? Justin Martyr, Polycarp, etc.? Maybe after reviewing a particular resource, we should each point out a list of topics that we see raised in it. Thoughts?

Also, in addition, I would like to have the freedom to discuss general principals that may affect the above discussion. I know this has been abused, but I will try harder to avoid ranting and raving. For example, what of the 'dog that didn't bark' principle? Should we not also consider 'Sherlock' in all of this (not as a theologian of course - I hope that much is obvious)?

If there is nothing written on a particular topic, why? Or, if a practice is not evident from the record, why? Just to say a practice was passed on in secret, as some of the writers from the later periods claim (ie, Basil), like a secret handshake, bothers me to a degree. I understand that not everything was written down, but it could be argued that the important things were. In other words, if not written down, the question begs itself, is it as important as what was written down? To simply say it was meant to remain hidden due to the years of persecution is not persuasive to me, in that the whole of the Gospel, by our Lord's very own words, was conveyed in parables to be hidden from the world during times of persecution, and yet was still written down.

Another example of the dog that didn't bark is as follows. The first, and only biblically recorded, council occured at Jerusalem under the direction of the Apostles in about 48 AD. Why was there apparently no other council until the First Council at Nicaea in 325 AD (about 277 years later)? This period of time is quite lengthy. In other words, not only did the earliest Christians lack the canonized New Testament, as BGM has pointed out, but they also apparently did not look to a system of Councils as the determining factor of defining Christianity. Furthermore, if we take the First Jerusalem Council of 48 AD as the Apostolic Guide, it does not seem as though all localities or Bishops were consulted on the issue being decided, let alone even invited to the Council. (Persecution is the inevitable justification, but, again, seems weak to me in that persecution was certainly present at the 48 AD Council, but did not stop it.)

And even when the Church finally did have another Councel, 277 years after the Apostles met in Jerusalem, it seemed very limited to the topic of avoiding a major split in the Church over Arianism versus the Trinity. It also must be pointed out that, historically speaking of course, it was not really the Church that called said Nicene Council, but the Emperor who actually presided over the Council during the entire lengthy session. It could be argued that, again from a historical point of view, the Emperor's motivation did not arise from a great concern over purity of doctrine, but from the fact that a split in the Church would cause instability in the empire and, perhaps some level of embarassment to the Emperor as he had set it up as the standard of religion.

A quick (very quick mind you) read over the topics addressed at subsequent councils, atleast beginning with the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, seems to show an increased dependence on said format of looking to Councils over what the earliest Christians practiced. It seems to me that the progression of said Councils also grows more and more polictical in motivation and the topics much less weighter than the original 3. But that is just my gut reaction.

Again, just some thoughts, let me know if you have evidence to the contrary.

Godspeed!

Zain

Ignatius and Early Church

2005-03-06T00:24:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex:

You now have me concerned. Mr. Balboa first blocks with his face, but he always wins in the end. This does not bode well for me.

With apologizes (and true brotherly love),
BGM

P.S.- "I don't want no rematch" A. Creed

Early Church

2005-03-05T22:25:00.000-07:00

BGM, please, do not hold back. This forum is intended for straight talkers, so you need to be more direct with your rebuke! LOL! I believe the Lord loves you in the same manner as St. Peter, and I mean that as a huge compliment (by comparison) as the Church was built upon this great apostle don't you know. I love your zeal, and your style. I think Bondage of the Will would have been a far better read with BGM in Erasmus' stead. No I will not reveal my source as I am afraid he will not be able to take a punch in the same manner. While the identity of Lex Rex is largely unknown, some rare photos were snapped shortly after reading BGM's latest:

"Mommmmyyyyyy"

"Is that all you got? Oh yeah, well I'm still standing...kind of..."

Early Church

2005-03-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

BGM,

OK then.

I will agree to limit the frequency of my blogs, if you would limit the length of yours.

With all sincerity, my greatest concern for you, BGM, is that although you can, all too easily, see the problems in the West, you, despite your recognition of the "warts" of Orthodoxy, have not been able to see the problems of the East. Even if, for argument sake, I conceded that the East retained a closer historical version of traditional Christianity, it is simply not enough! Do I really need to invoke the Pharisee example again. I will continue to do so, until it sinks in.

It is my prayer for you that the Lord will open your eyes/heart to the active role the Holy Spirit wants in your life. And yes, I believe this can happen within the Orthodox Church. Maybe the Lord will raise you up to restore a heart of true worship in that part of the Body of Christ.

That being said, of course we will try to use the chosen format as a guideline. But lets not be rain-manish over it. I am, as I have stated, truly intrigued by the early Church and would like to hear more of what they believed. It is also true in any search, however, that reviewing one specific thing most often raises more general questions and issues. I know that such minor deviations will not be a stumbling block to this great search nor its participants, but rather add to the richness of the discussion.

And, furthermore, I am certainly willing to change when the Holy Spirit leads and reveals the truth. (It is true that many use the Holy Spirit as their own personal stamp of approval, or excuse as may be, but as I have said, the abuse of a truth by some does not change the truth for others.)

The truth is that a man led by the Holy Spirit can come to the "truth" of an issue long before the man who has a head full of knowledge on the same topic but is not being so led. So much for ignorance! What was it that the Scriptures mentioned about Peter and John when they appeared before the "learned men" of their day? It seemed apparent that all of the head knowledge in the world could not undermine the simple "wisdom" brought by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In order to get this "discussion" back on track, (remember BGM it was you who reacted so strongly against using argument as an effective style of truth seeking), let me ask a fundamental question. I have my own thoughts on the following matter, but would honestly like to hear what Lex Rex and BGM think. Fundamentaly, we have begun our discussion with the early church, but what qualifies as the early church? The tendency in any historical consideration is to broaden what is included in such statements as the "early" this or that. The further from the event you have become, the more time is included in terms such as 'early'. Hence, early to you may very well not be early to me.

P.S. I just wanted to restate that I am not backing away, and never intended to, from my views on the importance of Scriptures. I simply, in an apparently failed attempt at humor, tried to make up a new tag phrase, I did not realize I was already beaten to the punch. I simply do not want to associate with unknown phrases already defined by someone else. My position is what it is! Look back at my last post to reread it.

As always, God Speed!

Zain

Ignatius & The Early Church

2005-03-05T10:56:00.000-07:00

INTRO:

Lex Rex & Zain:

This is my third revision (as you both continue to post, and update your posts, constantly adding new topics without a days pause to let me reply to your recent posts). This must be the new “cage match” rules as we have obviously abandoned our forum charter (remember when we were going to learn what the Early Church was like? And then, discuss/critique their views)? Is it now rather “He who posts the most of his denominational tradition (jumping from subject to subject) wins?”

I earlier this week waited three days for Lex Rex to make his post (working under the old rules). Now I know the technique, keep burying your opponent with accusations, moving on to another topic before he has a chance to respond. Have we abandoned any pretense of being responsive to previous posts, or can I just cut and paste anti-Protestant harangues to post herein (I’ve got plenty, how many pages do you want)? Please, could we return to actually responding to previous posts?

Let me be frank. Both of you, though fully educated and intelligent, are presently substantially ignorant of what the early Church believed (in dogma and practice) and as such, your opinions (often set forth with simple self-assurance) are not (yet) of much value. Further, you are each being taken advantage of (to varying extent) by your tradition’s demagogues who are frankly, totally lightweights in this arena (please see below).

Is this too harsh? No, it’s just common sense. My opinion is worthless in any field in which I have done no (or little) study. This is true for anyone in any topic. As you well know, ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance can be cured by study, which both of you are fully competent in, but plainly you have both just begun this study of the early Church.

Upon what basis, therefore, can you already make summary judgments on these subjects? You know almost nothing about the early church!! I have been at this study for the last five years in earnest, and I have only recently begun to make such direct assertions (after first devoting years (in silence) to the hard, slog of research). Most of my following corrective would be unnecessary if I we had continued within the original approach of this forum (cry for me Argentina). But some like it the hard way. Get your erasers out boys.

ZAIN:

First, to Zain:

I must obviously devote my energy to Lex Rex’s post, but I state a general “amen” to the approach of your last two (or was it three) posts. I think your latest post (or two) backtracked a little from where I though you were, so I set out my presumed understanding here (please correct me where I am wrong):

If I understand accurately, you seemed to agree that there exists some need for an authoritative (not infallible) Church authority, and that such visible Church should be empowered to uphold and covey the correct interpretation of scriptures. This “correct understanding of the scriptures” can be understood as the most basic form of oral (or non-scriptural) tradition.

To attempt a summary in one sentence: The visible Church conveys both the written scriptures and their proper interpretation (tradition) with authority (not infallibility) from generation to generation.

Is this sentence accurate in your view?

If this correctly conveys your views, you overwhelmingly share the Orthodox approach on the topic. The issue is largely the obvious fact that the scriptures do not interpret themselves, and that there needs exist someone to correctly interpret them (that by an interpretation of the scriptures that exists outside of themselves). This is all that is required for most Protestant renditions of sola scriptura to be shown as false. Thus I happily found your phrase “prima scriptura” as a valid summary of this understanding (so substantially similar to the Orthodox as to be not worth further delineation at this time, IMO). I am uncertain as to why you have since disavowed your use of this term.

Obviously, none of this requires you, Zain, to accept the Orthodox as the legitimate heir to the throne of this authoritative Church (as you have plainly expressed), but allows us to begin to investigate who (or which denomination) best fits the criteria, if the role is admitted to be proper and needful within Christendom. As we mutually further investigate the Church history, we may further discuss likely candidates to this high duty, the visible Church. Finding the seat of Moses, we may now seek to identify who sits in such chair (or which foot fits the golden slipper?).

But your morning post, as well as Lex Rex’s, shows me the need to clarify certain basics (which I falsely presumed we had at least initially covered).

In short, it is obvious that neither of you even know what “Sola Scriptura” means, or has meant by various Protestants in Church history. Thus, Lex Rex, especially, has devoted enormous energies to fighting windmills, rather than the actual topic of SS as found in history and as the subject of what I thought we were discussing. Please see more on this below.

LEX REX:

Secondly, to Lex Rex:

I am not sure how to begin to respond to your remarkable post, except to note that you failed to include the obvious, consistent claim that all Orthodox mothers wear army boots and that all Catholics kick their dogs (it must be true, James White said so)!

Did you leave any Kool-Aid for your Protestant brethren? Is this not rather the writing of an evil-twin Lex Rex surrogate? Is the real Lex Rex now mightily struggling against his gag and restraints? Rub your roped hands against the chair leg, break your bonds, escape to defend your name from such defamation!

Mamma Mia! How do I begin to reply to this torrent of misrepresentations?!

First in broad summary: Your post, as a whole, is so entirely false, misleading, out-of-context and occasionally ill humored, that I am amazed that you wrote it (I having a high regard for you). I do not take it personally though, as I presume that it is largely the collection and conveyance of other Protestant “web slander” on these subjects, which you have cut-and-pasted (as you admit) and as you are simply ignorant in these matters.

We all work from within our sociologies, commonly supporting heroes of our traditions and attacking our traditional enemies. I will presume that this is just a voicing of your tradition (anti-Catholic evangelical: Orthodox sounds close enough to Catholic to me, right Bubba). These cut and paste passages regularly reflect this profoundly ignorant, ahistoric, fear-mongering anti-Catholicism that passes for Protestant scholarship within this subject. In fact, there is almost no Protestant “scholarship” on this subject (unlike sola fide or sola gracie which has plenty of scholarship). Basic anti-Catholic bigotry is the main source of this particular Protestant dogma (at least within today’s American evangelicalism).

I believe that this blog has the potential of allowing us all to examine our traditions in the light of the Truth (as you well put it). Lex Rex, I believe that if you chose to continue to make honest investigation into these studies (of the early Church, etc.) that you will yourself find embarrassing, and materially inaccurate, the majority of what you have written in this post (without arm twisting from anyone else).

Well then, I stand with a teaspoon and a toothbrush in an initial attempt to clean up after this demagogic tsunami (I cannot tonight reply to all you have alleged, but I will happily in the future).

WHAT IS Sola Scriptura?

First your entire post is obviously a canned Protestant, anti-Catholic stump speech for sola scriptura, not fitting the nature of this forum. It apparently makes no recognition of the previous posts we have all made on the subject, as you ignore our (admittedly summary) initial approach to delineate this rich subject.

You have seemingly failed to respond to a single verse of scripture, historic example or hypothesis set forth by either Zain or myself over our last several posts. This requires me to believe that you found no viable counter to the general approach of our previous posts, and thought it wise to start instead a new front in this discussion (is this correct)? Lex Rex, you are much better than this!

To refresh, Zain and I began the separation of the issues into at least three: Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium (Church authority). I even pointed out the fact that most Protestant discussion fallaciously reduced the topic to a choice between the first two (ignoring the Magisterium as they have no answers). You committed exactly this fallacy within your post!

Next, your post presents the entire topic in the typical, fallacious Protestant fashion of bifurcation: Protestants vs. Catholics, Scriptures vs. Tradition (Faith vs. Works). As the American Protestant demagogues haven’t collected much ammo against the Orthodox, they toss the same bombs previously used against Catholics (even if laughably inapplicable). Lex Rex, do you really think the Orthodox DEFEND the Catholic concept of the Papacy? Are you truly unaware of the medieval Catholic development of the doctrine of Transubstantiation (rather that the broader early Church concept of Real Presence)? Why then do you include such topics plainly not applicable to our forum (there are no Catholics here)? It’s because this is a canned anti-Catholic rant, obviously. Are Zain and I not worthy of a little editing (to save my precious typing strength)?

In short, I don’t believe that these are your beliefs, and thus I will reply to these words and their original authors (likely such as James White, Mike Horton, Will Webster, etc.) directly, meaning no malice to my friend Lex Rex. I just encourage you to keep better intellectual company (whomever you have used as sources are plainly lightweight buffoons who have done you no favors). Really, please let us know your sources so I can better expose their agendas (did I guess any correctly. Do any have English as a first language)?

To the fray:

You start with the bold (and absurd) assertion:

“The early church fathers were indeed sola Scriptura, which is where the Reformers aimed to point the church.”

But you never even define what you mean by this “Sola Scriptura.” There is no single Protestant definition of SS (any more than most any Prot doctrine). Protestants make them up as they are useful, then modify them, or toss them aside as they get old, burdensome or unfashionable. You are apparently unaware of the varied treatments of SS by the various reformers, and their varied desires for the direction of the Church. This is not the way to begin a defense of the topic.

You have three quotes that clearly reveal this confusion (which is the very issue of which you are supposedly convinced):

“Notice that although the church Fathers (in my opinion) sometimes taught things that were not in the Bible, they still upheld the principle of Sola Scriptura because they truly (but sometimes mistakenly) thought that the doctrines had scriptural support.”

“If BGM ultimately cites scripture to support these doctrines, then is he not advocating Sola Scriptura or at least a version of the same?”

“I think the true meaning of Sola Scriptura is: Fallible Christians claim an infallible book.”

These quotes show me that you plainly don’t have even an introductory knowledge of this subject, SS. This is not an insult, you just haven’t devoted the hard work to learning about this topic before. But how can you dare think that you can assert your ignorance with such vigor? [My favorite bumper sticker: “Don’t have strong opinions about things that you don’t understand]. Lex Rex, you don’t begin to understand this topic.

Plainly you need to read a little on this subject before you can make any constructive contribution. As you don’t know even a working definition of SS, your entire post largely misses the mark (and is filled rather with a significantly distorted understanding of the entire Church history on the subject, including most every quote that you have provided).

This is no insult to the mighty Lex Rex. Whenever you get around to the study, you will be found a mighty opponent for the American Evangelical Army, fully worthy of meeting me in battle. Until then, you are out of your weight class (as I am out of your class in many other arenas. In fact I am often reminded that I have no class).

To really begin our topic, please inform us as to the Lex Rex definition of SS, and then I can directly correct the particular variation of this heresy. If you do not wish to invent yet another Prot tradition I can suggest a few popular candidates: Luther or Calvin or Westminster Confession of Faith or James White. If you do not fancy any of these flavors of SS, do what every other Protestant does, invent a new tradition on the subject (it's your right baby, SS empowers you to believe anything your little heart desires. Just think it, and it magically becomes true).

This entire post is in fact a great demonstration of the absurdity of SS: you argue within some belligerance and overreaching certitude for something you don’t understand and never define. This is madness. I believe that SS means little more to the average evangelical than “we won’t worship the Pope or Mary.” This motivation of fear is a strong, yet blunt force. The tool of reason (applied in the hard slog of actual historic research) is far better for the subtleties of our topic.

As you have failed to provide any definition of the doctrine you find assuredly held by the Church Fathers, the reader may attempt to deduce one from your post. One might easily presume that you think that any Church Father who has a high view of scripture is an advocate of SS. If that’s the definition of SS, then lets go home, we all agree, we are all in favor of an equally high view of the God-ordained status of the written scriptures. If the use of scripture by a Church Father = SS, then there is no split, no disagreement (call the whole Reformation off, it was all just a misunderstanding! Fr. Luther return to Rome! Calvin, stop burning heretics!).

But of course, that is not the dispute of SS. The dispute of SS has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the authenticity of the written scriptures, but rather concerns several issues including (especially) Perspicuity (how clear are the scriptures) , Intent/Breadth (for what purpose/application were the scriptures intended) and Authority (who shall interpret the scriptures), etc.

[I note here that we haven’t even touched on Canonics, which will make your Prot heads spin. You have not even begun to sweat the consequence of the 16th century relativistic revolution! We have reaped the whirlwind.]

These were the issues of the reformation concerning SS, not whether the Church Fathers quoted scripture to prove doctrine, OF COURSE THEY DID, and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SS !

[Nota Bene: Again, the only reason the Prot’s ever heard a word of scripture is because the ancient Orthodox Church received, collected, canonized and conveyed the scriptures. Oops! That’s embarrassing.]

Again, the Church did not put scripture against tradition or the authority of the Church, THEY BELIEVED IN ALL OF THEM!! This is so irrefutable (if you choose to do the study) that I am without words.

Whom do you love Lex Rex, your wife, or your son, or your daughter? YOU LOVE ALL THREE OF THEM! Do you think that any expression of love to your wife demonstrates any distain for your son? Or that love of son, denys love of daughter! OF COURSE NOT! Then why does ever Protestant demagogue think that loving the scriptures mean you hate the Magisterium? The ignorance of basic logical fallacy within Protestantism is a continual shock to me (and shows me again that Theology is not the foundation of Protestantism, but rather, Sociology is the foundation of Protestantism).

LUTHER’S VIEW OF SS:

For assistance in your development of the Lex Rex version of SS I can point you to perhaps the first, public proclamation of it in Church history, Father Luther at the Diet of Worms. (1521)

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. God help me. Amen. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise."
[For the full account of Luther's trial, see Luther's Works, 32:103-31].

[You can freely pick other examples if you’d like. Remember, only you can interpret the scriptures. No one else can (at least for you). Choose wisely. Or at least chose a popular tradition that has good food and a nice children’s program]

Here you see a key example of the real, historic meaning of the revolutionary doctrine of SS. It was the ultimate foundation of egalitaritan anarchy: Me, my conscience and my personal interpretation of scripture against the consciences of the entire history of the Church that came before me. Of course he believed that he was following scripture, SO DID THEY. This was not Luther (for the scriptures) vs. the Catholics (for their mere oral, man-made traditions). This was Luther and His personal, novel, self-made tradition upon Luther’s favorite selections of scripture vs. the Entire History of Christianity and their overwhelming, historic traditions and interpretations of scripture (at least on the heart topic of Sola Fide).

The Diet of Worms was a theological debate wherein Luther had to declare the Church authority a nullity because it did not accept his new, self-created, heretical creation of Sola Fide (Faith Alone). Because the Church (corrupted though it was by all accounts) did not accept Luther’s novel heresy, Luther declared dead its Magisterium.

The Orthodox have the middle ground here, as common. The Church hierarchy may err, as 16th cen. Rome, so the laity does have an obligation to study and oppose false Church authority. But concurrently, the vote of one (tiny, ignorant, significantly mentally unbalanced Monk) does not allow the destruction of perhaps 40% of Christian dogma and practice (under so profoundly subjective and relativistic a standard as “my conscience.”)

You fool, Luther, you here established the foundation for the destruction of western Christendom, the font of the cults, the requirement of perpetual schism, the ever-divided, shattered Church, the epistemological crisis from which the West HAS NEVER RECOVERED. Do you Lex Rex and Zain wish to learn from whence came the liberalism which you both speak against. Look no further. The liberalism of the decaying west comes from this man, and begins, with this very speech at Worms.

Luther is the Father of Liberalism and the Patron Saint of Relativism.

This is just the start as to what SS meant and its consequence (as what I thought we were talking about). Does any of this interest you Lex Rex?

Thus you may see that the heart of the actual, historic SS dispute primarily concerned the MAGISTERIUM (or authority of who gets to interpret the Scriptures). The oral tradition was secondary (valid, but not the cause of the Lutheran reformation).

Remember, Luther maintains many oral traditions of the historic church (Lord’s supper, Baptism, Mary, Confession, sign of the cross, Bishops, etc.). Luther was thus not against the concept of the Oral tradition (he just filled it with new content to reflect his theological novelties). Luther WAS against the Catholic Magisterium. If you do not recognize this you are doomed to misunderstand the entire subject.

BRIEF REPLIES:

And now some brief reply to some of the more notable errors relayed in your post (I will try to post your words in bold):

“In other words, all doctrines that originated from apostolic oral traditions were finally recorded in the text of scripture. The substance of Oral tradition doctrines is identical with scripture."

This is sheer tripe, completely unfounded in Church history, logic or scripture itself. This is mere wish fulfilment of ignorant American protestant demogoges. No scholar believes this. Where did this come from? Citation please (so this baboon may be publicly branded).

“3. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it.”

This is completely false. It is not what the Church Fathers teach and it is not what St. Paul teaches. This is so typically Prot. Take a single passage that suits your purpose, ignore context, author, audience, etc., avoid any other scripture on the subject and sell your view.

St. Paul here tells his epistle audience that they can learn by reading his epistle. Upon this you base your SS argument for St. Paul?! Tell me you are joking. Is this why you dodged replying to a single passage that I previously posted (filled with Pauline citation) upon St. Paul’s irrefutable advance of both his Oral as well as his written ministry as equally WORD OF GOD, and equally binding upon the Church?

Are you unaware of the irrefutable history that almost the entirety of the apostolic ministry (St. Paul along with the other apostles) was ORAL, NOT WRITTEN?!? Would you advise me to read this fragment of St. Paul and actively disregard the dozens of others passages (many of which I have already provided you)? Is this the method of SS? Yes, sadly it is. Pick your favorite verse, ignore the rest and start your own denomination (perhaps with banjos, karaoke and bermuda shorts).

Lex Rex, why won't you deal with my past posts (filled with scripture relevent to this topic)? Why, because it doe not further your tradition.

Just a brief additional note. St. Peter says the exact opposite to your point (as I have previously quoted), that in St. Paul’s epistles are “…some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” Sounds like Protestant America. Whose verse seems more on point? Mine can well accommodate yours, your view cannot accommodate this 2 Peter 3:16 passage. Additionally, Acts 8:31 is close to a direct refutation of your read of Eph 3.

The point is really quite simple: some things in scripture have sufficient clarity (perspicuity) to be generally, commonly understood, other things are “hard to understand” and are certainly not “understood by merely reading it.” That’s not hard is it? This read makes sense of all of the scriptures. Your read makes sense of one verse. Why would anyone choose your tradition?

Further, lets test your assertion by application. Lex Rex, do you really expect us to believe that the book of Revelations is understood by “merely reading it.” Do you think it immaterial to have an understanding of language, context, history to property interpret the scriptures? As you differ with Luther on many issues, do you thus presume that he never “merely read” the same Bible as you? Do you think your differences with other Protestants on 100’s of issues (salvation, justification, method and mode of baptism, Lord’s supper, nature of worship, etc., etc.) are the result of your opponents failing to “merely read it.” Of course not, this is laughably absurd.

There is no possiblity that you believe so dumb a statement (you are much smarter than this borrowed quote).

3. All of Christ’s and the Apostles’ teachings were recorded in scripture.

Again, there is absolutely no chance that you actually believe this. You want us to believe that in Our Lord’s 33 years on earth, and the decades long ministries of the Apostles, scattered according to the Great Commission (St. James in Jerusalem, St. Paul in the Mediterranean, St. Mark to Africa, St. Thomas to India, etc.) most of whose ENTIRE MINISTRIES are without a SHRED of WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION, that all of their teachings were recorded in scripture. That they never had a single conversation in their entire lives of ministry other than those handful recorded for us?!! This is sheer lunacy, completely contrary the most introductory gloss of the Church history, contrary elementary logic and the scriptures themselves (recall my previous posts on 1 Tim 3:14-15, 1 John 12, 2 John 13). But, on the other hand, if you believe half of this I do have a really nice bridge you might be interested in….

I haven’t time to here detail how Prot’s commit an entire category error of the document types of scripture themselves (the NT is overwhelmingly history and epistle, and is almost totally devoid of anything approaching systematic theology). For a law analogy, the scriptures are overwhelmingly (not uniformly) like a legal case book (listing cases filled with orbiter dicta as well as ratio descendi, as unsorted) and are overwhelmingly dissimilar to a legal hornbook (systematically listing the “blackletter” law). The cases do not systematize themselves, but rather, they need an interpreter, who can systematize them. This incredibly obvious point is totally ignored in Prot SS discussion.

If God had wanted a SS approach, why didn’t He provide a systematic text (as cults seem often to do)? The generally unsystematic texts of scripture are rather soul-mirrors to the “untaught” or the “unstable” who “twist” the texts “to their own destruction.”

ST. BASIL:

4. When Basil and the Arians both claimed their tradition was correct, Basil said, "let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3) This proves that scripture was viewed by the Church Fathers as the supreme court of determining truth, when traditions contradict each other.

This is so profoundly ignorant of the history, logic and the dogmatic theology of St. Basil (one of the BIG TIME Orthodox). Of all the people to quote to support SS, St. Basil is quite likely THE ABSOLUTE WORST that you could ever find. Oh, this is gonna hurt (but it’s for your own good).

The Arians (as with many heretics) claimed to have the correct interpretation of the scriptures, but claimed that the Church hierarchy was false/illegitimate (as Luther, or yourself, for example). Thus St. Basil (among others) often used the only common ground between them, the scriptures (just as I largely am with you). This provides no argument for the absurd insinuation that the Church has no authority to determine the true tradition (and the true view of scripture).

This is such an incredibly embarrassing example to use for the Protestant cause on so many fronts. First, because the Arians (the ultimate heretics) are the champions of your defended doctrine (SS) against the Church! They used SS to argue against the ORAL TRADITION of the TRINITY! That’s right, the Arians (the young super heretics) used your precious SS as THEIR STANDARD in arguing against the oral tradition of the Trinity. (Should I say it again so it sinks in?).

Again, the doctrine of the TRINITY is ORAL TRADITION. The Arians used SS to argue AGAINST THE ORAL TRADITION of the TRINITY. (Do you still want to argue against oral tradition now, Lex Rex?)

Second, if you choose to engage in our study of Church history a little more you will learn that the larger Arian/Christian dispute was doctrinally resolved in the ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICEA (325) when the COLLEGE OF BISHOPS, empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT, AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED (they as the “Supreme Court”) what the true tradition was (later they would declare what the TRUE SCRIPTURES were, oh, that smarts!). Does this ring any bells? Do you recall a thing called the Nicene Creed?

Third, St. Basil is the author of one of the most important liturgical services within the Orthodox Church, introduced monasticism to Asia Minor, wore a hair shirt, celibate, Archbishop, extreme fasting, etc. (so much for he as a SS view of worship, Christian life).

For a particularly opportune citation from your supposed SS ally, please read (long selection below, go to citation for the full SS-destroying effect): St. Basil “On the Holy Spirit”(emphasis added):

66.561 Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church562 some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery"563 by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;-no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.564 For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying565 of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil566 itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice?567 And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East568 at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country,569 Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East.570 We pray standing,571 on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk. a0na/stasij we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ,572 and are bound to "seek those things which are above,"573 but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one.574 For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old.575 Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called hack to heaven.
67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness576 is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;-which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;-a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-06.htm

Please check this out in its entirety (double dog dare ya). It will rock your little Prot worlds, baby!

Is it too self-serving to note that St. Basil in this passage lists several dozen aspects of Orthodox dogma and practice that are identically held by the Orthodox Church today (and held by NO OTHER tradition or denomination)? Let me declare this passage as one of my cornerstone passages to defend Orthodox liturgy and worship when we discuss the same.

Additionally, is it to indelicate to suggest that your sources (who held St. Basil to support SS) have been smoking crack? Perhaps they practice theology part time (maybe they are painters, the fumes can cause mental confusion). Lex Rex, do you think that they have been good witnesses to your cause? Don’t you think you should hire more trustworthy glossators? I can suggest a few.

A quick search found this fun story from the Bishop (broadly related to our subject):

This Demosthenes had already threatened the archbishop with the knife, and been bidden to go back to his fire. Now he ventured to join in the imperial conversation, and made some blunder in Greek. "An illiterate Demosthenes!" exclaimed Basil; "' better leave theology alone, and go back to your soups."

One might say the same to some Protestants who venture with ignorance and arrogance into these topics: “Leave theology alone, Go back to your sports, shopping and pornography.” So much for SS.

Additionally, a beautiful quote is as follows (when St. Basil resisted the threats of an Arian heretic):

“Modestus threatened impoverishment, exile, torture, death. Basil retorted that none of these threats frightened him: he had nothing to be confiscated except a few rags and a few books; banishment could not send him beyond the lands of God; torture had no terrors for a body already dead; death could only come as a friend to hasten his last journey home. Modestus exclaimed in amazement that he had never been so spoken to before. "Perhaps," replied Basil, "you never met a bishop before."

The Protestant reader should well learn the difference between elder and Bishop (St. Basil certainly did). May I presume, dear Lex Rex and Zain, you neither of you have ever met a bishop before, either?

SUPREME COURT & SS:

I can’t pass the “Supreme Court” reference because it is so helpful (but not to the Protestants) on this subject. As you are well aware, the Supreme Court is a group of elders who rule over written text and judge (oral) disputes of that text’s meanings. I have almost nothing else to add. That is exactly the Orthodox approach.

The texts are higher in authority than the Judges, but the Judges have the duty to interpret the texts (thus exercising authority over the texts). The texts cannot argue for themselves to prevent themselves being misinterpreted by conflicting traditions. A group of authoritative experts are required to properly interpret the texts, keeping the proper interpretation for subsequent generations (the exact equivalent of stare decisis). In fact, the whole of the Protestant distinctives amount to violations of stare decisis (as they do not let the “decision stand” of previous rulings on the text). Further, the fact that the Court errs, does not remove the need for the court to exist. It recognizes that there are good judges and bad judges. A bad judge needs be removed from his office, not the office abolished (just as bad husbands are not sufficient justification to eliminate marriage, or bad rules to eliminate civil hierarchy).

This really is very simple (when you set aside your old traditions)

ST. HIPPOLYTUS:

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.” (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9)Although Hippolytus was fully aware that the gospel as we agree was first preached 100% orally through the apostles and prophets even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in 200 AD, he recognized that scripture was the only source of authority. This also proves that although Hippolytus may also have recognized the witness of church tradition, he saw that tradition was ultimately derived from scripture, since none of the inspired apostles were alive to consult with.

This is a nice quote for SS if you read it as presented (without context or understanding of the author, pulled up by its roots to advance a position impossible to the student of Church history). But it is a simple, gigantic, stinking lie to claim that Hippolytus recognized “scripture was the only source of authority.” Are you not embarrassed to write such falsehoods about people whose lives and dogma with which you are completely unfamiliar?

Here’s just a few other passages from this same book:

“When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. …Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school.” Wow, the heretic Noetus must be a Protestant (invent a novel teaching, get kicked out of the church, open up shop across the street). And so much for SS, the Church utilized their authority to kick him out. (Noetus, Chap 1). Also, do you believe in “blessed presbyters” Lex Rex?

See Hippolytus criticism of the heretic’s use of sola scriptura:

“But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner. But they make use also of other testimonies, and say, Thus it is written…(Noetus, Chap 2)”

In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame…. The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning ” (Chap 3)

And these words he cites without understanding what precedes them. For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it. (Chap 4).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-dogmatical.html

Amen, Bishop Hippolytus. The scriptures are the Word of God upon which we have received much of our knowledge. But the scriptures alone are abused by heretics to support their novel doctrines, in variance with received Oral Tradition. The duty of the Church hierarchy is thus to throw them out.

St. Hippolytus fully believes in the full boat Orthodox view of scriptures, tradition and magisterium (as you will discover should you choose to do your homework). As another passage on this subject (see following):

“But none will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine.”

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES)

So much for St. Hippolytus as your proto-Prot. He dares to defend apostolic succession, the Magisterium, the sacrament of the Priesthood, the Church empowered by the Holy Spirit, the Hierarchy as the guardians of the Church and correct doctrine, etc. Are you slinking down in your seat yet, Mr. Lex Rex?

Is this the best you’ve got?! Oh, you’ve got a lot of “splaining” to do.

SACRAMENTS:

As for the Sacraments, please let me rest before I have to take out my paddle again. Haven’t your sources received enough embarrassing beatings for one night. Shouldn’t you be seeking to plea at this stage? Pretty much every single assertion you have is totally wrong or substantially inaccurate. A few thumbnails: Transubstantiation is a later medieval attempt to philosophically understand what happens in the Lord’s supper, Real Presence is the foundational historic teaching (already in Ignatius, and held by the Orthodox). Orthodox do not support the Papacy, etc.

Well, maybe I have time to knock off just one more, spectacularly fraudulent, misquotation (have you provided any others?)

Hippolytus (200 AD): "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1) (Notice no change in elements)

You provide this as supposed proof that St. Hippolytus DOES NOT believe in the Real Presence (or Lord’s Supper containing the Body and Blood of our Lord). Oh, my, my (this is the most embarassing misrepresentation yet).

I, not being a trusting (or perhaps trustworthy) sort, like always to check citations provided, and found the remarkable REST OF THE STORY. Please read the end of this same paragraph which you have selectively cited above:

“Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;" by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.”

I am shocked (SHOCKED I SAY) to find such total fraud perpetrated upon this esteemed blog forum. Actually, I am not shocked. This sort of dishonesty is the normal m.o. for popular, on-line Protestantism on this subject.

So instead, I shall I politely point out: LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

Oh what lies are committed when people think I won’t check their citations (your source Lex Rex, not yourself)! Check for yourself (to confirm my accuracy):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-exegetical.html

Of course St. Hippolytus believes in the Real Presence, the heretical views (mere symbol especially) on the subject had no support until the 16th Century revolution (with Zwingli being the main culprit, not Luther, nor Calvin). Oh, you have much to learn grasshopper.

Please Lex Rex, you must expose the name of the absolute CHARLATAN who provided these ABSOLUTELY FALSE PROPOGANDISTIC mis-citation of St. Hippolytus (and others). This is (sadly) what I have come to expect from evangelical citation of the Church Fathers. The Truth, YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH (of the Early Church). So lies, disception, half-truths are sold to keep the young evangelicals blindly within the fold. You have been taken. You have swallowed their propaganda; hook, line, sinker (and boat)!

Lex Rex, I have hope for you. You’ve been had by a Protestant Goebbels! Don’t take it lying down. Escape now while your wits still serve you (I’ll lay down cover for you as you escape the Protestant thought-police camp)! Fight the power! Or as they say here up in Boulder, “Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!”

You’ve been lied to by your tradition. It’s OK. I was too. Take up your hammer of truth (just like the running lady in the Apple Macintosh commercial) and throw it through the movie screen of Protestant propaganda (showing Luther and Calvin picking daisies and riding ponies together). Slap yourself a few times (I'd do it for you if I could). Yell out the window, if it helps: “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore.”

Xapis,
BGM

PS: Much more to come, I’m just too tired. BGM.

2005-03-04T21:36:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd place our posts on Early Church to date in Chronological order:

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten

Early Church

2005-03-04T14:10:00.000-07:00

I took out Jehovah's Witness as it was a slap in the face of Orthodox, sorry for lumping them in. As to infallible pastors, I added a question mark as this is open for debate but forgive me Zain, my personal experience excepting you of course has been not good in gently pointing out an inconsistency between their "inspiration" and the Bible. I was "filled with the devil" for even challenging their "authority", which I would label Prima Prida. Of course, based on my past reckless behavior, they may have been correct in their judgment, I digress.

Also, on the continuing virginity of Mary thing, Zain we seriously do need to study this closer. There is some evidence that the early church held this view, even Calvin thought Mary remained a virgin.

Early Church

2005-03-03T18:18:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex & BGM:

Lex Rex, I enjoyed Vol. 1 of the Sparticus Commentary on Sola Scriptura and I eagerly await the Byzantine response as represented by BGM. And let me say, I would rather have the Greek/Austrian and the Irishman by my side than a host of scholars and seminary graduates, which makes me wonder where our Italian comrade is in all of this.

After reading your recent posts (and email responses), I feel it is necessary to clarify a few of my positions and I would beg your patience if it deviates from the choosen format at all.

When I stated that some of my positions atleast seem closer to the Orthodox viewpoint I was mainly refering to the following:

1. "Once Saved Always Saved" -- I have never agreed with this doctrine and feel it is, when strictly applied, a dangerous doctrine;

2. Strict "Faith Alone" -- I think many protestants, present company excluded of course, have abused this doctrine (ex. I believe we are certainly saved by Faith, and not by works, but that true faith always produces true works.) -- now that I think of it I am not sure the exact Orthodox viewpoint here and my view may be closer to many protestants who also do not hold to the Strict version and application of this doctrine -- Please let me know!;

3. "Church Authority and Discipline" -- I agree that a general authority structure does exist within the Church, but does not exist to establish "little kings";

4. "Holy Objects" -- I am even agreeable, but very guarded, toward the fact that Scriptures do include numerous examples of holy objects (never to be worshiped of course).

For the following areas, however, your recent responses make me think we are comparing 'apples and oranges' rather than 'apples and apples', hence, I would like to have clarification on what each of you mean by your references. I will try to state my understanding.

"Private Judgment" -- I am not sure I know what you both mean by this title. My own thoughts are along the following course. I know many protestants who have an attitude that their own personal reading of any given Scripture is their own highest reference point. Even scriptures that should have a clear meaning are twisted to support their desired end. They are their own Pope, to steal a reference from BGM. Normally, they are prideful people who are more interested in justifying their lifestyle than those who are seeking truth.

Yet, as I have said, I do believe "Personal Judgment" is required (we must all choose, but wisdom is often found in the counsel of others). In this regard, I would not agree with those who are content to accept everything their Bishop instructs them in without further consideration. If they simply follow the Bishop with nothing further, how would they even know when they are being led astray? I would agree with Lex Rex that this seems to be a weakness with the Orthodox and Catholics. Do any of us really differ on this point? It does not seem so to me, but please correct me if I am missing something.

And then we come to the current "Sola Scriptura" discussion. I did agree with BGM regarding his description of how we all tend to use a form of tradition when interpreting Scripture. What I meant is that most of us do have our own reference points, whether they be living theologians or views passed down through the ages. In fact, I still think it extremely unwise for anyone to completely ignore the advice or counsel of those who came before, like Ignatius, and those who are elders in the Faith now. But on the other hand, I think it just as unwise to rely solely on such advice and counsel without reading the Scriptures for yourself. Nevertheless, my comments agreeing over this type of tradition should be limited to the context of the interpretation of Scripture, and not be extended to traditions having no basis in Scripture (and especially not be extended to magisterial tradition -- see my last post).

By itself, I do not think this view on tradition undermines nor denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in anyway. If either of you disagree please enlighten me. I should also say that I do agree with Lex Rex that much of Scripture has a plain meaning to those not reading it with a tainted viewpoint to begin. I, not for any claim of personal glory mind you, argued this point early on in our discussions. As all of us agree, any correct interpretation is dependant first upon the direction of the Holy Spirit. (I must be honest and admit, however, that there are not a few Scriptures that I, to this day, do not understand. Perhaps it is just my ignorance.)

I recently, in a private email, referred to my view as being 'Prima Scriptura'. Let me just say that my comments were mostly meant as a jest toward our propensity to use a latin title for everything. Perhaps my jest was lost, but if I had any idea that it was an actual position, I would not have choosen said title. For that, I beg your pardon. A summary of my own view, without the title, would be that Scripture is the ultimate standard we are left with. Anything that is contrary to a plain reading of Scripture must be rejected. Anything not plain must be weighed and judged against that standard (with consideration given to the wisdom of others, including those who came before). If Christ appeared to me in person, as I have said, I would obey. If he sent an angel or prophet or bishop, etc. I would, again, weigh and judge against the standard. Do any of these conclusions violate Sola Scriptura? Again, please enlighten me.

As a side note, Lex Rex I completely agreed with your views on the virginity of Mary and on the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the argument concerning original sin and the virginity of Mary is the same as I have heard, I am not impressed by it. Unless I am remembering wrong, the Hebrew belief was that sin was passed on through the seed of man, which of course was missing in the conception of Christ our Lord (which I suppose would be a Hebrew Tradition). Anyway, I digress.

I did not, on the other hand, agree with your restatement of the Charismatic's as holding to a doctrine of Pastor infallibility. From my experience with Charismatics, which is extensive, this could not be further from the truth.

Finally, let me restate the problem I see in both the West and the East. I do continue to strongly believe that the Western (American) Church has a crisis of Standard, as discussed in my earlier post. Yet, I also, just as strongly, believe that the Eastern Church has a crisis of Heart. Rather than getting into another lengthy discourse supporting this view, I will just reference an analogy I have been hinting at for some time. I believe that the Eastern Church has become pharisitical in its relationship with the Lord. I do not mean either of these conclusions as an insult to either of my esteemed brothers and I understand that the Lord may yet correct me on any one of these conclusions if I have missed the mark.

I apologize for this restatement of my positions, but there is something in me that tends not to like artificial tags and titles, unless they are actually found in Scripture. I know they are useful for topical direction, but it seems to me that they most often fail to accurately define anyone's true position completely. Again, if I have digressed too much, forgive me.

God Speed!

Zain

Early Church

2005-03-02T23:13:00.000-07:00

BGM & Zain,

I cut, pasted, rearranged, and added some commentary to the below admittedly plagiarized apology of Sola Scriptura. Please read this in the spirit it is intended, coming from a highly animated Greek-Austrian, but one that loves his bretheren dearly no less. The early church fathers were indeed sola Scriptura, which is where the Reformers aimed to point the church.

The integrity of Paul's teaching is evidenced in his desire to be held historically accountable. He was careful to mention when he had preserved and passed on oral tradition, and when he had not received some previously held teaching (1 Cor. 7:10, 12; 15:3; 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Tit. 3:8; 2 Tim. 2:11). Also, there are two Pauline texts of Christian hymns or poetry which indicate previous familiarity that were most likely dated not later than the 50s (Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-20). It seems, then, that this short time would virtually rule out any gradual evolution of Christology for the early Church.

Being an oral, pre-literate culture, there were well-established standards in the recording of authentic history during biblical times. Though the author's right to summarize rather than cite every word was recognized, there was an intense concern for accuracy in what counted as history, both in the Greco-Roman tradition and the Jewish tradition. An accurate memory is necessary in preserving ipsissima verba or ipsissima vox.

When the Church Fathers made reference to an "oral apostolic tradition" separate from scripture, they always viewed such tradition as duplicating what the apostles later revealed in scripture as a parallel witness. In other words, all doctrines that originated from apostolic oral traditions were finally recorded in the text of scripture. The substance of Oral tradition doctrines is identical with scripture.

1. Virtually all the apostolic fathers viewed a progressive sequence of revelation passing through three stages: 1. Oral teachings of Christ to his apostles. 2. Oral teachings of the apostles based upon Christ’s oral tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for new information Christ never discussed. 3. All of Christ’s and the Apostles’ teachings were recorded in scripture. The early post-apostolic church viewed scripture as the final process of complete revelation.

2. The Church Fathers viewed the scriptures as all sufficient and complete.

3. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the church expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

4. When Basil and the Arians both claimed their tradition was correct, Basil said, "let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3) This proves that scripture was viewed by the Church Fathers as the supreme court of determining truth, when traditions contradict each other.

Notice that although the church Fathers (in my opinion) sometimes taught things that were not in the Bible, they still upheld the principle of Sola Scriptura because they truly (but sometimes mistakenly) thought that the doctrines had scriptural support. Had they said the doctrines of transubstantiation, the Mass, apostolic succession of bishops, the papacy, elevation of Mary, were not taught in the Bible, but oral tradition alone, only then would their argument be consistent and more debatable. But since all the Fathers believed their doctrines came from scripture, this actually proves they used Sola Scriptura, and not oral traditions in a vacuum. If BGM ultimately cites scripture to support these doctrines, then is he not advocating Sola Scriptura or at least a version of the same? BGM & Zain, perhaps your problem with Sola Scriptura is that few churches properly understand and teach the doctrine.

1. Catholics & Orthodox claim an infallible organization.
2. Pentecostals and Charismatics claim infallible pastors? (inspiration)
3. Evangelicals, Baptists and Calvinists claim infallible individuals. (Illumination of the Holy Spirit)

Could it be that all three are wrong? I think the true meaning of Sola Scriptura is: Fallible Christians claim an infallible book.

BGM: since the sacraments were mentioned in your latest post, while scripture admittedly may teach baptism for the remission of sins, none of the other doctrines mentioned above can be clearly traced back to the apostles, but may be man made doctrines that had their origin no earlier than 150 - 400 AD. For example, consider the following orthodox beliefs and sacraments:

Transubstantiation:
In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". When Jesus said "take eat & drink" he literally gave them bread and juice/wine, did He not? Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper before his blood was shed and body broken. He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future tense. Does this not demonstrate it was a symbol? Before 200 AD, did not the early church view the bread and juice/wine as symbols? Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century, was it not? Indeed, did not this doctrine grow out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developed to full flower in the 4th century? Is it therefore possible that in this regard, the Reformers were indeed reforming the church back to its early roots? In the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. Some Gnostics refused to eat the Lord's Supper altogether. Transubstantiation was not an issue that was discussed. By the fourth century, the church drifted away from the original symbolic view of the Apostles and began to teach transubstantiation. Only in the fourth century, were Gnostics isolated in their symbolic view. But amazingly, they were the ones who maintained the Apostolic traditional view. It was the church that had changed her theology towards transubstantiation. The language of the Gnostics was the same literalistic language used by the church: "….[T]hey say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5): Check out the following quotes/interpretations and tell me if they are wrong:

Justin Martyr (150 AD): "Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70).

Irenaeus (180 AD): Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either.

Tertullian (200 AD): "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40). Does not Tertullian posit that the bread was representative of the true body?

Cyprian (200 AD): Augustine stated, “Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

Hippolytus (200 AD): "And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1) (Notice no change in elements)

Papacy:

Not as old of a doctrine as you think, here is the history:

Bible: 33-100AD: All elders equal. Bible only for doctrine (elder/bishop one office)

150 AD One elder exalted above the others (elder/bishop still one office) Bible still rules

200 AD One Bishop per church overseeing the eldership (elder/bishop two offices) Still based on Bible only

250 AD One diocesan Bishop overseeing other Bishops of other churches. Still based on Bible only

300 AD One Metropolitan Bishop overseeing other diocesan Bishops (Creeds replace Bible)

381 AD One Patriarch overseeing Metropolitans (Man replaces Creeds)

BGM: Is this an accurate history of the evolution of the Papacy? If so, why did it change over a period of 400 years, does not the 33-100 AD resemble most Protestant/reform structure? If so, are the Reformers then more accurate or did the true doctrine just pop up in 381 AD? If you say the latter, why do you complain about Reformer doctrine merely appearing on the scene at a later date (which I still dispute)? Perhaps your view of the Papacy as Orthodox would agree with the above and therefore support your view of such and justify the schism from Catholicism.

Mary Remained a Virgin?:

Because the Bible appears to contradict Catholic doctrine, some Catholic interpreters will insist these are cousins, kinsmen, or from a supposed earlier marriage of Joseph. But the Bible seems to say otherwise. The Catechism gives this (in my opinion) incorrect explanation:

"The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus,' are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ..." Pg. 126 #500).

But see Matthew 13:55-56 & Mark 6:3: 55 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household." Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household."

Also note that James and Jesus cannot simply be “cousins” because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (it escapes me right now for cousins). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother. It becomes less clear in the OT in that there was no word for cousin, and the the term "brother" was commonly used to describe various relations.

Consider the father's use of scripture to support the following doctrines:

1. Doctrines the Fathers thought were in the Bible

-baptism for the remission of sins
-transubstantiation
-the Mass (there may be support for the liturgy in the early writings)
-apostolic succession
-the papacy (orthodox admittedly do not revere)
-Mary Virginity after Christ (may have some support, needs further reading)

2. Doctrines the Fathers said were not in the Bible, but from oral tradition.

-Renouncing the devil before baptism
-Thrice baptism by immersion (Orthodox = yes)
-drinking milk and honey after baptism
-no bath for 1 week after baptism
-kneeling in prayer forbidden in worship (Catholics now permit)
-sign of cross on forehead only (Some orthodox still follow)

BGM: Did not the Fathers use sola Scriptura to defend all the doctrines under 1 which are still practiced today? Conversely, the doctrines under 2, which they say came from oral tradition and not from the Bible, is it not true that you no longer practice? Perhaps it is different in the Antioch Orthodox, but if my assertions are correct, then there really is no “oral tradition” as understood in modern times as all has been reduced to scripture, and that apart from the Bible have been abandoned all together. That I believe that reliance on scripture for column 1 is a misinterpretation, is irrelevant. The point is that the fathers relied on scripture alone to defend these doctrines, and therefore for the Reformers to look to scripture alone to refute the same cannot be a flawed approach, it can only be the correct approach. Check out these quotes from the fathers:

“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. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1)

Irenaeus states that the gospel was first orally revealed, then the gospel was recorded in scriptures and calls the scriptures the "ground and pillar" of faith. This should give every Orthodox some pause in asserting tradition apart from scripture because it is a clear interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 where the same expression is used of the church. Obviously then, Irenaeus viewed that the church came second in authority under the scriptures. It is also clear that you can make no change from what the apostles teach as it was the unchangeable standard of doctrine.

"[T]he sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3) BGM: Tell me if I am misquoting… Athanasius states that in defending doctrine, the scriptures are all-sufficient? In the Arian theological wars, Athanasius uses scripture not tradition as a first line of attack. How is this different from the Reformers?

"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Clement of Alexandria, book 7, ch 16, Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished) So Clement will not accept any doctrine contrary to Scriptures. Sounds sola Scripturian to me.

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9)

Although Hippolytus was fully aware that the gospel as we agree was first preached 100% orally through the apostles and prophets even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in 200 AD, he recognized that scripture was the only source of authority. This also proves that although Hippolytus may also have recognized the witness of church tradition, he saw that tradition was ultimately derived from scripture, since none of the inspired apostles were alive to consult with.

I finish with some questions:

Can you provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Is there any proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin?

Can you provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

I think Zain asked this, but if you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? (I tyhink you may have broached this previously)

Of course, the same can be asked of Protestants…. But if sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

When you see the word tradition, why do Orthodox usually assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

Your brother in His Grace,

Lex Rex

EARLY CHURCH: IGNATIUS

2005-03-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

BGM & LEX REX:

I will admit that this whole discussion has had atleast one apparent negative effect. I keep getting behind in my work! On second thought, I really don't think that 10 years from now I will say, "I wish I had spent more time at the Law Office." Even the mere thought turns my stomach. In fact, now that I think of it, I should be thanking you both.

After reading your last post, BGM, I basically agree, as I would guess that Lex Rex does also, with your description of the type of traditions most of us tend to reference when interpreting any given Scripture. The difference, as you stated, is often simply what tradition a person chooses to consult. Hence, where the variance comes, in most cases, is fundamentally based upon how the standard of Truth is being interpreted and applied.

I would agree with your criticism of the Western Protestant Church in this regard, that it has a crisis of standard. The Truth is true, not because it sounds good and logical, nor because it appeals to current thought or cultural norms, nor because it wins an argument. A deceiving lie can be and do all of these things. The Truth is true because it is the Truth! (How is that for an unassailable logic!) The Western Protestant Church, however, seems to have lost sight of this basic conclusion.

For example, the Word says that God is Love. The Oprah Winfrey mentality of the current American culture losely defines Love as license. They say God is Love, therefore, he does not punish. This view of Love has infiltrated the American Church in various forms. I am baffled that so many in the Western Church have accepted this twisted concept. I say, rather, that in order to truly begin to see the depth of the Love of God, we must first look through eyes that Fear the Lord. It is the terrible and awesome greatness of our Father that underscores the unfathomable Love He has for us. He is the Rock Standard that we must apply in our own life if we wish to avoid judgment. This Standard is so exacting that we must all fail and be crushed by it, but for the Love of God. In the depth of His Love a way was made. Through Christ's blood we have a Robe of Righteousness that perfectly reflects the Standard. Without an understanding of the judgment that awaited us, the sacrifice of Love can not be fully appreciated. I know that Lex Rex and BGM understand this concept (better than I perhaps), but felt it served to illustrate my point about the failure of standard in the American Church at large.

A thing is true because it matches the standard. The only standard for the Truth, is our Lord, Jesus, the Christ. In other words, the only way to know the Truth is to know Him. This applies to our methods of understanding Holy Scripture also. For, as Lex Rex stated correctly, the Lord is the "Word". The "Word", I would agree, includes the oral word, deeds, and written word.

As a believer, if the Lord himself appeared to me in person, as He did to Paul, I should certainly attempt to do exactly as He directs. Likewise, if a messanger from the Lord arrived, I must obey him in the area of his designated authority (Prophets, Apostles or Bishops). But first, I must of course judge whether this person's mandate is true or false. For example, when I ask my oldest son to babysit my other children, if the others disobey him they have disobeyed me. But if my oldest son tries to get them to disobey something I have already instructed them in, they had better disobey him. Hence, this area seems to require a fundamental personal judgment (not private judgment -- see below for more on this area.) I believe Ignatius would even agree that a personal judgment in this area is required. I say this because of Ignatius' statement that a Christian must refuse to follow a Bishop that is falsely leading (I can look up the quote if you wish). The question then is how to determine if the purported messenger is true or false. Obviously, this is fundamentaly determined by a comparison to the Standard of Truth. Again, it seems to boil down to application.

As a believer, I should also read the inspired Written Word and attempt to do exactly what it says. But as you have correctly concluded, BGM, any "word" must be interpreted correctly in order for the interpreter to be found obedient. And I would be a fool if I did not look beyond my own "private judgment" in any such interpretation, to those who came before and those who are more mature in the Faith than I.

Yet, I would also state that each of us must, individually, stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, and, hence, must make a personal, as opposed to a private, judgment even as to Scripture. (I hope I have correctly understood what you, BGM, mean by the concept of private judgment, if not, please correct me.) It seems that the problem boils down to this: if we must obey Godly authority (whether based on deed, oral word or the written word), yet refuse to obey those who would lead us astray, how do we know which is which?

Your post, BGM, references a list of items God gave His Church in order to keep the Church pure in its reflection of His Standard (The Apostles, Bishops, Teachers, His Oral Word, His Written Word, His Sacraments, His Protection and the Sacrifice of Himself.) Although, I would mostly agree, I do see problems with this list, in that it omits the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, there is the obvious problem of relying upon any one, or combination, of these things in that it or they may be the thing that has been misunderstood or misapplied, etc. How would I rightly conclude that a Bishop's direction is indeed false, even within the true Church? Do I look to another Bishop for agreement or disagreement, or to several others? What if they are wrong and the one Bishop I was at first considering is right? Do I look to Scripture? What if I got the interpretation wrong? If I look to the Oral Word, I have at a minimum the same problem of interpretation and application.

I believe the answer to the dilema must be the Holy Spirit. The most important thing, other than Himself, our Lord gave, and gives, to His Church is His Holy Spirit. I am sure you and Lex Rex would agree with this basic conclusion, but I felt it must be emphasized. Without the Holy Spirit, we are all in danger of submitting to the wrong authority, and believing a lie. That is why I believe the Lord instructed His disciples to stay in the upper room until the Holy Spirit came. They simply would fail without the power, guidance and comfort of the Holy Spirit.

One significant issue I have against the Orthodox as well as other main line branches of the Faith is in the area of Magisterial Authority. It is not that I don't believe it exists. Rather, I believe it to be an area of great danger and potential pitfalls. In all honesty, I would go further and conclude that it has been and remains a large source failure in the Church. Not in the sense that one tradition of magisterial actions is necessarily more accurate historically than another. It is rather that the many additions through magisterial tradition have become legalistic and, hence, undermined the heart of the commandments and worship. It is this exact sin that had Judiasm was guilty of when the Lord came the first time. The religious leadership had added so much detail to the application of the law that the fine detail had swallowed the spirit behind the law.

If we superimposed any of the existing main line branches of Christianity upon the First Church, let alone the early Church of Ignatius' day, I do not think we would recognize much as being the same or even close. I believe that many of the differences are simply that dictated formats have, in many, cases replaced the original spirit of worship that is so obvious from a reading of the writings of men such as Ignatius or Justin the Martyr. Yes, things must change to meet changing demands and circumstances, but we should never, never exalt things such as 'our form of liturgy' or 'tonsure', for example over the fact that Christ wants a repentant heart. This is the area of complaint I have when I look at the Orthodox and ask "where is the good fruit of the tree?"

Finally, I would set forth that one of the fundamental differences of view between us, still boils down to a disagreement over the correct definition of the true Church. Again, I would tend to agree with your criticism of many protestants views of denominationalism. Yet, as I have said before, this agreement does not equate with an overall approval of the Orthodox's claim of being the exclusive visible Church. The main difference, I would guess anyway, is how each of understands the "Visible" nature of the Church. I do not disagree with the conclusion that the Church is visible, only on what that means.

How did the first, and the early Church understand its nature? What evidence of their views exist? What, in your opinion BGM, makes the Eastern Orthodox branch the True and, perhaps more importantly, exclusive visible Church? If the Church is visible, which I agree with, what makes you a member of the body, and what connects the members together? I would presume from prior exchanges BGM's view atleast includes 2 concepts: Apostolic Succession and an aherence to original doctrine.

As you know, I have already somewhat set forth the problems I see in each. First, I do not, at this point anyway, believe that true apostolic authority has been successfully passed through a historical chain and would resubmit John the Baptist's warning to the Pharisees about the danger in relying upon historical lineage to prove you are a child of the promise (Matt. ch. 3).

Second, although I must admit that in some very significant ways, as I am sure you have already noticed, some of my views on the Gospel line up better with the Orthodox viewpoints, I do, however, see great difficiencies in the Orthodox form of worship among some other various points. (And attribute many of them to an overzealous misapplication of magisterial tradition and authority.)

Hence, it seems that you and I have seen many of the same problems in the American Church, but seem to have reached different conclusions about the other branches of Christianity. Perhaps it makes sense to ask another question. Does God's Holy Church ever need reformation, and how does He accomplish it?

May our Lord bless and keep all of us and our families!

Your Brother,

Zain

Early Church: Ignatius

2005-02-25T00:02:00.000-07:00

Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

2/24/05

Greetings brethren! I love this conversation and I echo the comment of Zain that both of your posts have encouraged me in my love of the risen Jesus (and my desire to be transformed into His likeness, which I so lack and need).

I find it again remarkable how close many of our positions are. Let me say from the start that the Orthodox position (from my understanding) is fully concordant with Zain’s historic observations that any particular individual, priest or bishop, or entire schools thereof HAVE COMMITTED HERESY, and should be ignored by the godly, and dismissed from their positions which they disgrace.

1. Orthodox Bishops have committed Heresy

To this, I further agree that Bishop Ignatius’s comments of obedience to the Bishop should absolutely be qualified. I note the obvious, that although these letters of St. Ignatius are critically important historic texts, providing important insight into the dogma and practice of the early Church, they are NOT scripture. The Orthodox Church has regularly defrocked errant Bishops, and this passage should not be taken apart to deny the real, proven reality that a Bishop may err (or even apostatize). The examples of Judas (ultimate) and St. Peter’s (temporary) denial should provide sufficient evidence to this end (in addition to Lex Rex’s citation of King David). The Orthodox do not believe in a doctrine of bishop infallibility in the manner of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Bishop of Rome.

2. Need for the Authoritative Church Remains

This said, the issue of the need of an earthly Church authority remains (towards which Zain has expressed some sympathy). As broadly stated, the Orthodox view of the visible Church is authoritative, rather than infallible. In this I do not see the Orthodox view of the visible Church authority as being dramatically different than that of the several “high” church Protestants; including especially the Lutheran and Anglicans.

Each of these maintained (until very recently) a belief in rule of bishops (Lutherans still have bishops in Europe, not in US), apostolic succession, sacraments and that they were the One Holy, Catholic Church, (yet obviously neither believed in infallibility). These Protestant denominations (although many Anglicans do not use the term “Protestant” upon themselves) saw the need for the continuation of the rule of Bishops and an authoritative Church rule to avoid the errors of private judgment (which end in constant schism within the Body of Christ, and aids heresy without).

What do they share with the Orthodox? An understanding that the scriptures do not interpret themselves, and that much in them is “hard to understand, which untaught and unstable men twist to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

The average man is not a systematic theologian (no more than he is an attorney or electrician), knows no Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, is ignorant of history, logic, law, grammar, etc., etc., (if he can even read). These are incredibly problematic circumstances for private judgment without a tutor.

3. Three elements of Sola Scriptura

A nuanced understanding of this SS discussion recognizes at least three elements: scriptures (written), tradition (oral, visual, etc.) and the magisterium (authority of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to rule over both scriptures and tradition in an authoritative manner).

In most Protestant discussion of sola scriptura (SS) the topic is reduced to a bifurcated choice between the first two, set as irreconcilable opposites: scriptures vs. tradition. This is inaccurate in several ways. First it presents the two as opposed, when in fact, the Church has always held both scripture and tradition as twin, agreed sources, not as adversaries. Next, it should be obvious that the Protestants did NOT abolish tradition within their denominations, they merely replaced certain (largely received) traditions, with traditions that they substituted (largely invented) on their own. Every Protestant denomination makes required use of Tradition in their dogma and practice (at the very least in their interpretation of scripture).

4. Protestants Need Tradition Too (just like Orthodox & Catholics)

The Protestant traditions are admittedly less taxing than those of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, but they remain Traditions (or schools of thought, denominational distinctive, systematic theologies, etc.) nonetheless. Why do Lutherans (Anglicans and Methodists) keep Baptismal regeneration of infants, Calvinists keep infant baptism, yet deny baptismal regeneration, and Baptist deny both, advancing rather believer’s baptism? Why, because they have three different Traditions (even though they all believe in sola scriptura). Why did Augustine, Luther and Calvin have three different Bibles? Three different traditions, of course. Why do the reformed uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist the London Confession, and the Lutheran the Articles of Concord (3 different Traditions).

Why does Lex Rex believe once saved always saved, and Zain believe you can fall away (if I quote them correctly)? Obviously they come from two different Traditions on the subject (and each supports his Tradition almost solely via appeal to the scriptures alone).

Thus, this common Protestant approach to the topic of SS in no manner deals with the NECESSITY OF TRADITION, especially, the most basic form of Church Tradition, namely, the correct interpretation of the scriptures (this is sometimes referred to as T1 tradition.)

In short, we all three believe that there exists some correct interpretation of scripture. Whenever a correct interpretation of scripture is discovered, it should be recognized, taught and passed down to subsequent generations of the Church. This is the most fundamental form of Tradition, which every Protestant believes in (though many may perhaps not admit).

Who then, will convey this T1 tradition to the next generation?

5. Magisterium (Church Hierarchy) needed to uphold correct Tradition (T1 at least)

We NEED someone to systematize the scriptures, collect their correct interpretations and exist as a treasury of this divine knowledge. We cannot do it by ourselves (we are too ignorant, sinful, finite and too short of attention). We cannot expect every generation to reinvent the wheel of Christianity, themselves, with their own limited, subjective, culturally biased interpretation. At least not if we wish to maintain “the faith which was once for all given to the saints” (Jude 3). And a frank survey of Church history has shown that such private judgment results in ever evolving, ever-mutating deviations away from received Christianity.

God satisfied these needs through the provision of His Body, the One Holy visible and Apostolic Church. To His beloved Church he gave his Apostles, Bishops and teachers, His oral Word, His written Word, His sacraments, His protection (after He first gave Himself). Later He empowered them to collect His scriptures (from the chaff of spurious writings) in the formation of the Canon, to systematize proper dogma in the Creeds and Councils, etc.

God provided the Church as the means to support, safeguard and convey His Gospel, and its proper interpretation, until the ends of the earth.

6. Personal Note

For a personal testimony, it is these later issues of private judgment, subjectivism, schism, etc., that substantially aided my entry into Orthodoxy. Honestly, the discussion of the content and application of the Oral Tradition played absolutely NO part in my conversion. Even today, it is the scriptural arguments that convict me (the oral tradition is icing on the cake).

But, it is late and I am tired and now write with exponential sloppiness.

Grace,
BGM

Early Church: Ignatius

2005-02-21T23:26:00.000-07:00

Excellent posts BGM & Zain. I do not think anyone disagrees (Protestants included) that many things, more than what is in the Bible, were done and spoken regarding our faith. But we need to determine what God intended man to take away from these deeds and acts, and take away nothing more if we are to remain true to His will. I think we need to study oral tradition. I once heard it said that it was like a water tight cistern with not a single drop lacking when passed to another. We Americans are a bunch of TV watching lazy bums. I believe back then, although hard for us to imagine, the early church took great pride in memorizing and passing on oral tradition. God probably had it written only because he saw how passive the world would become. But the harmony of the Gospels can only lead one to believe that the written word was indeed an accurate rendition of oral tradition, being ultimately written by four different inspired men, in four different parts of the old world (no email back then to check facts). Examine how St. John begins in the original Greek transliteration, "In [the] beginning was the word, and the word was with God and God was the word. This one was in [the] beginning with God." God does make, BGM would agree, special provision for the written word of the prophecy in what we Protestants refer to as to the Revelation, which perhaps may beg the question why not the special admonition in other parts of scripture? BGM makes valid points about the early church, but if we are to believe the Bible wholly inspired by God, we also know as St. John informs us that the Word was God, and the Word came and to us in God-man form. We can I suppose read this to support BGM's position; that is the Word coming to dwell among us is a testament, a new testament, in both deed and spoken words, all of which we know St. John acknowledges all the books of the world could not hold. Or we could also assert that the Word indeed preceded the Church and that what we have today in the written Scripture is what God intended man to have at this time in printed form. If He intended us to have more, why did He not inspire some of the traditions lacking in Scripture?

Sola Scriptora

2005-02-21T20:25:00.000-07:00

BGM,

I just read your response. And I think I understand most of your points, but as always, if I have misunderstood anything, please feel free to correct me. I only have a short time to respond. So, I will try to address a few things.

It is not that I disagree with your overall statements and logic regarding oral versus written tradition. But the Orthodox position does not adequately address a few points, in my humble opinion, of course. First, I do agree with your rendition of how we received God's Word. He spoke and it was delivered and recorded in varying order at varying times. (Note, to be accurate there were some instances where God did convey his word directly through his prophet with the explicit instruction to write it down for initial delivery).

If it is the Protestant position that God only deals in the written word, I would also disagree with them. I have not, however, personally met too many protestants that believe the actual written version of the NT preceded the actual events. Most of us who are serious do understand that the initial conveyance was by teaching and preaching, etc. But, in fact, and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the NT was written and canonized. It is that Inspired Word of God that has now become the Standard. I have never completely rejected the value of oral tradition, only stated that it is not at the same authoritative level as that of Scripture. How can it be? Here is atleast one difference: If I am assured that John wrote it, I can and will treat it as binding. But if a tradition has been passed down about something someone wrote about John, I cannot and will not give it the same place of honor as Holy Writ. There is, afterall, a reason said tradition was not included in Holy Writ. For, again, even the oral tradition has been reduced to writing by someone, hasn't it? The difference is this: I do not know that someone.

My point about the Jewish influence would have been better understood this way. As you have agreed, the first Church did not have the NT. AHHH but they did have the Hebrew OT and did continue to view it as the Holy Scriptures. The NT does not replace the OT but compliments it. And everyone of the original Apostles were Jewish. Hence, my suggestion was more of a counter to your view that we look to the Eastern Church because of its proximity to the first Church. Yes, we should examine whatever resource's we have, but that must include our Jewish brothers in the faith as they have retained the direct knowledge and line of their heritage in the same way you believe the Eastern Church has done. For example, who better to look to in trying to understand the Jewish Feasts and how Jesus fulfilled several of them and will yet fulfill the remaining ones, than our Jewish brothers.

I am truly glad the Orthodox understand that even a Bishop can be wrong. But what they do not seem to understand is that there have been large periods of history when not just one or two or three bishops have been wrong, but that a majority of the Bishops and Church itself had gone astray. We can obviously argue about this point, but my study of History (College Major) has led me to this conclusion.

I do agree that reading Ignatius has reaffirmed my view of the general concept of Bishop authority, although I do agree with Lex Rex that he goes to far by a degree of emphasis. But nevertheless I tend to adhere to the authoritative view in general. But, I do not see how Apostolic Succession is the guiding light on this issue. It appears, to me, that atleast some of the NT churches appointed their leaders from within, not from without. Obviously, some of the Apostles did set up churches and administration, but they did not set them all up. I think the actual history would reveal a much looser structure on this point than the one you seemed to set forth. But anyway, I agree that true authority cannot be taken by anyone who desires it. It must be given by someone who has it. So, the Apostles certainly did convey authority, but authority can be lost also.

Look at what John the Baptist said to the Pharisees, who claimed a similar type of authority and position by means of their line from Abraham.

Matt. (3:9-10): And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

If those who claim to be God's shepherds, instead loot the sheep pen, He will remove their authority. Jesus, said do what the Pharisees say, but not what they do. In other words, it is possible to have a form of godliness, but deny the heart of the truth and be completely rejected by God. Yet, even as God can remove one's authority, He can also grant it to another. Look at Paul. He was not appointed by the other Apostles, and yet against the wishes of many, called himself an Apostle. God can certainly do so today, can't He? The mere fact that many have abused a priviledge does not mean all have, nor that it is inapplicable.

Well, I must go. I will reply more later when time permits. God bless you BGM for your obvious love of God and His Church. You have inspired me to grow closer in my walk with our Lord than you know. God Speed!

Your Brother in Christ,

Zain

Early Church: Ignatius

2005-02-21T12:19:00.000-07:00

Zain and Lex Rex:

I apologize for my tardiness in posting to this esteemed forum. In the future, please make anonymous threats, send spam or make late night phone calls to redirect my attention to my blog duties.

As I am late to this party, I will attempt some initial, brief reply to the thoughtful comments and questions of both Zain and Lex Rex. As both have obviously addressed some enormous issues, I can here do little more than summarily introduce responses to several these topics (and I encourage the further direction of the group to pursue any of these issues in greater detail, esp. those I have totally failed to address).

I do wish to initially comment that I think our posts are already deviating from the order of our Moderator’s initial approach: We are largely skipping over question 1 (what did the early Church believe) straight to question 3 (is the early church correct). I can work under these revised rules but I suggest that it will be a less efficient approach. We have only begun to address one (rule of Bishops) of easily a dozen critical differences in the early church and I suggest that these differences group together in a cohesive manner. Many of the questions asked will be answered as we study the 1st century a little further.

As an example, Zain and Lex Rex’s questions generally presume the existence of the NT scriptures and the protestant doctrines of sola scriptura. In short reply, neither of these presumptions is true. When we deal with the fact that there were no NT epistles (for decades), then no NT canon (for almost 4 centuries), then we will see that such doctrines as scripture alone or private judgment were absurd in the 1st century. There weren’t such scriptures upon which to argue for SS or private judgment. Once these 16th and 21st century doctrines are expunged, then we will begin to understand the 1st century Church as it was (and deal with the options then available). As analogy, we may just as well ask why Gen. Washington didn’t use aircraft carriers against the British. Sola scriptura was just as available to the 1st 4 centuries of the Church, as aircraft carriers to the American revolutionaries.

The rule of Bishops fits the fact that the Church preceded the New Testament (again this is critical, the CHURCH came before the NT), that the oral ministry of an apostle was not lesser than his written epistle, that the sacraments were central to God’s dispensation of His Grace (not the preached word alone), etc., etc. Thus the rule of Bishops makes much more sense (if not the only thing that makes any sense) in light of the actual history of the Church.

To Zain’s questions:

As to why St. Ignatius doesn’t address the same defects of the Ephesian church (as St. John the Apostle), I have no idea (but I will relay anything I subsequently find).

As to the age/experience requirements of the Bishops, I have little direct information on the subject (other than that that was exactly the issue addressed of Timothy as you quote, and I am ignorant as to Timothy’s age). I am not aware of a particular “age of Bishops” as we Americans require for presidents (35) or as the Catholic “age of accountability” (age seven, as I recall). I fully presume that such age varies in accord with the individual and I am not aware of any scripture that would indicate otherwise (as I would presume that your churches likely have no age requirement for elders or pastors).

In general comment, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is broadly that the apostles established bishoprics (bishop See’s) in various parts of the Christian world, in carrying out the great commission by means of “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” Church: meaning the visible and authoritative Church (not a Protestant concept of individuals each separately being saved by God, outside of the Church and God’s sacraments, etc.).

These Bishops were ordained (and thus empowered by a special Grace of God, a sacrament particular to the priesthood/bishop) to carry out many of the duties of the Church: including the administration of the sacraments, preaching and interpretation of the Word and the conveyance of correct Christian doctrine and practice (sometimes within and sometimes without the scriptures of the New Testament), church discipline, etc.

This is a dramatic difference between Protestant and Orthodox (or Catholic) ecclesiology and thus St. Ignatius is such a significant obstacle to the Protestant cause. In short, American Protestants act as if Jesus wrote the NT in His earthly ministry (or that God dropped it out of the sky). This is an innocent (though historically inaccurate) desire to cast back 16th century Prot sola scriptura, trumping the actual history of the Church.

What actually happened is, of course, completely different (but never recalled in evangelicalism as it does not support Prot theology). Jesus established a Church, not a Book. He (of His own perfect will) chose twelve men, tutored them for three years and sent them to build His Church (Keys to the kingdom, Upon this Rock, Feed my Sheep, Power to bind and loose, Great Commission, etc.). They were the Church, NOT the NT. Jesus didn’t write a word (of record) but writing in the dirt before the woman caught in adultery. So much for sola scriptura from the Author of Life!

How can I say this (without in the slightest regard lessening the total divine authority of the scriptures)? Because it is the simple, uniformly agreed, irrefutably assured historic account. All Prot. historians know that there were no NT books for decades after the resurrection (1 Thess likely the first NT book, likely in the early 50’s), nor was there a agreed compilation of the NT for almost four centuries (late 4th cen. for Councils of Hippo and Carthage). Even the formation of the canon was a reaction against heretics (forming a false canon) rather than an affirmative task of the Church (much more on this).

Absent the NT, what then was the doctrinal source, basis and authority of Christianity? How did the Church (when still the primitive, pre-Edict of Milan Church of the catacombs) know what the gospel was? Or the Great Commission? Or the nature of God, Man or the Incarnate God-Man? Why, the visible, hierarchical, grace-empowered, God established and sustained Church told them, that’s how (unpleasant though it may be to 21st cent Am. Evangelicals). This is not Orthodox history, nor Catholic history but uniformly accepted plain, flat unvarnished history.

It is this elementary Church history that must be understood BEFORE we seek to interpret the NT epistles, or else we completely miss the context and correct exegesis. God established His Church as the foundation of Christianity, and the scriptures were documents to be held, protected, interpreted and passed down WITHIN the Church (not as documents dropped from the sky to be used as a blueprint of a future Church).

A few scriptures of relevance include: 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; Phil 4:9; 2 Thess 3:6 and 1 Tim 3:14-15.

This last passage is incredible on several points: “These things I write to you though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” (NKJV).

Wow! First is the bombshell that the CHURCH is the “pillar and ground of truth” not (as Protestantism would allege) the scriptures. God established His Church to represent Him and to remain as the arbiter of Truth. His Church is to keep the Christian message (upholding the Word of God both written and non-written). Further important is the Pauline teaching of the Church as the Body of Christ (obv. more on this anon).

Second is the remarkable comment that the motive of the very writing of the epistle was NOT because somehow St. Paul’s written word was greater in authority than his oral ministry (sola scriptura), but rather he wrote because he was afraid he might be delayed from his personal, oral ministry. This turns the entire Prot. view of sola scriptura on its head (I hope you are sitting down): St. Paul’s oral, personal earthly ministry was as authoritative and God-inspired as his written epistles (that later became recognized as scripture). St. Paul does not believe that his written epistles are of a different type of authority than his oral/personal ministry: both are in the equally empowered in the service of God.

How’s that for a paradigm shift.

Thus, (to further push sola scriptura over the cliff) the very existence of (at least this epistle) was (per St. Paul’s own words) only because he was concerned he might not be able to satisfy his personal face-to-face meeting. God established a church, with men He divinely empowered to minister by oral ministry (99+% of the time) and written ministry (certainly less than 1% of the time). Sola scripture was a doctrine of the heretics (including Gnostics, Manicheans and Donatists) who sought to advance novel interpretations of scripture, contrary the Church’s established read of such scriptures/teachings. Today’s ever dividing, mutating, evolving denominations reveal the same approach, rule and consequence: They will not be bound by received Christianity, and seek rather to modify Christianity to better suit felt needs, changing sociology, to empower a civil government, etc., etc. (even if oft with good intentions).

Remarkably, this view of his own epistle as secondary to his personal ministry it isn’t just St. Paul’s testimony, but St. John (the beloved disciple) has the identical claim for writing two of his three epistles.

2 John 12: “Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink, but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.”

And almost identically,

3 John 13-14a: “I had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink, but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face.”

So much for the apostles putting forth the Christian teachings in their epistles to be conveyed without the Church to individuals via sola scriptura; the two most important NT apostles/authors (St. John and St. Paul) both claim they would rather not be bothered writing these epistles at ALL!! And that they would relay the rest of the Christian story (which we HAVE NO RECORD OF AT ALL) when they got there, face to face!! And that they have “many things to write” that we WILL NEVER KNOW! (because they chose not to write them).

Momma Mia! Upon the Pauline epistles Luther invents scripture alone?!!

Similarly 1 Thess 4:1-9: St. Paul reminds the church to continue to obey the commandants previously given them by St. Paul, in the Lord. He then says on a particular subject that they need no additional instruction “concerning brotherly love you have no need that I should write to you” (because they are so loving). Again, in 5:1 he writes the same: “But concerning the times and seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you.” Remarkable- do you think today’s end time’s denominations have such need that St. Paul write to them on “the times and season”? Well then, why didn’t he? Because he did not believe in sola scriptura. He had no need to attempt to put the entire Christian message in print, because that was never the goal of the scriptures.

Scripture alone is non-scriptural, non-historic and illogical.

St. Paul’s approach is one of God spreading His gospel through the Church, and it’s tools of the apostles and the word (primarily via personal ministry, the written ministry of scripture, plainly (as here) secondary). St. Paul shows no hint of needing to put all of his ministry in print for the 21st century- in fact, he teases us that he is doing the exact opposite! He can’t be bothered to write if he will pay a visit, or if the message is already being obeyed.

In a nutshell, it is indisputable that the CHURCH preceded the NT SCRIPTURES. The Protestant denominations have never come to grips with this fact, and thus (largely) avoid any discussion of the early Church (and thus their laity presume that the Scriptures precede the Church). Once this fact is recognized (and I encourage you to investigate on your own) I presume that you will have a significantly different approach to these issues (I know I did).

Not to mention the authority of the Apostles, also given the next generation. See 1 Tim 1:3 (St. Paul tells Timothy to charge others that they teach no other doctrine). By who’s authority can Timothy tell other believers what to believe? Because of course St. Paul supports the rule of bishops, the visible Church, and not to follow the heresy of private judgment/ sola scriptura.

Whew! Sorry again getting carried away.

As for the questions on “Jewishness” and the Church, I can’t really get started here (too long already). But a few words. Lex Rex what do you mean by “the early church as practiced by the Jews.” The early church was practiced by Christians, both jew and gentile. There was then no such thing as the 20th century American Protestant denomination as the “Messicanic jewish Christian” congregations. There were Christian churches of all jewish converts, Christian churches of all gentile converts, and Christian churches of mixed jew and gentile. The Jewish/evangelical denominations are a modern invention of late 20th century (to my knowledge) and certainly did not exist in the early Church.

I can (and do) learn from anyone in any group. The 21st cen. American messianic Jews can certainly teach me a thing or ten about the OT. But, why would I pick the opinion of 21st century American Jewish Christians over 1st century Palestinian Jewish Christians?
What secret knowledge do they possess?

Perhaps to combine two subjects, let us investigate the Jews and OT on the subject of sola scriptura/private judgment vs. the rule of a God ordained hierarchy. The Jews and the OT equally opposed these heresies of subjective, lawless self-interpretation of an individual against God’s ordained.

In the OT, as the NT, God established an authoritative human body, which He empowered to represent Him and to interpret His word. From Abraham, Moses, the Levites, the Judges, Kings, the Prophets to the Messiah. Where do you find God in the OT tell the laity to grab a copy of the scroll of Isaiah and come up with their own interpretation of God? Or to build their own tabernacle and bring a new type of sacrifice? Or to split from the synagogue, form a new synagogue across the street because a Levite misread a passage of the Torah or Prophets?

No, rather God condemns all of these self-initiated, private inventions of do-it-yourself religion. Cain is criticized for bringing his own sacrifice (not of blood, as God established), Korah rebels against God’s anointed leader Moses (and is destroyed, as Jude 11 recalls against rebellion in the Church), the people rebel against God’s provision of judge rule, preferring rather a King like the other nations (1 Sam 8).

Rather, in both the Old and New Covenants (and OT and NT), God made covenant with people, empowered them in particular offices, and then gave His word to them (both written and oral) for their use in authoritatively (yet not infallibly) directing the people of God (Jews=OT, Christians=NT). Where is their any hint of the 16th century invention of an individual using private judgment to personally develop their own theology?

A few salient OT examples: In the OT God first makes covenant with Adam, empowers him, gives His oral word (no written scriptures) and an oral judgment; Noah, oral warning, oral Noahide covenant; Abraham, God empowers him and gives His oral word (not written), charges him to obey God’s oral promise (no scriptures) that he would father Israel; Moses, is called via a theophany (burning bush) and God’s oral word (no scripture). Moses then empowered as the leader of Israel (spiritual and political) to lead Israel (those that oppose, as Korah, are damned, apostates) proof by signs and wonders (snake, blood, Red Sea, etc.). God gives his first written word (by His own finger) in the Decalogue, which is abandoned by the laity before they even receive it (so much for democracy). Moses’ pens the Torah prior to his death (at the end of his earthly ministry). Moses divinely inaugurates Joshua as the next leader of Israel, commanding the priests, elders and laity to obey Joshua (as apostolic succession). God then uses Judges, Prophets and Kings (alongside perpetual caste classes, Levites and elders) as hierarchical, ordained rule (no democracy here) never bothering to first put His words in print (they are almost all recorded to recall their earthly rule/ministry, not to empower it in the first place).

In fact one of the most poignant (and oft repeated) quotes of the OT is largely the equivocation of this Protestant approach with apostasy: “In those days there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Deut 12:8/ Judges 17:6/21:25). Is this not the story of Protestantism? And 21st century America?

God does not drop copies of the Torah and Prophets from the sky for the nation Israel to privately interpret their own, personal Jewish theology. God rather picks and empowers a human, hierarchy to authoritatively lead the Jewish people, and then gives to these hierarchs His Word.

Further, God almost never used written communication to relay the Word of God to his leaders or laity. Rather He uses non-scriptural communication for almost the entirety of his relationship with Israel. He speaks, forms clouds, fire, water, gives dreams, allows his representatives to work miracles, etc, etc.). The OT scriptures are almost entirely the later written record of the previous (oral) earthly ministry of divinely ordained officers of God. The scriptures are thus (overwhelmingly) the words of men that God divinely empowered and used to accomplish the creation and sustenance of His people. In other words, Isaiah’s prophecy and Jeremiah’s oral warnings were WORD OF GOD the moment they were spoken, not transformed afterwards, when they were recorded in writing for subsequent generations.

The NT Church, as the OT Jews, made use of written scriptures largely because the men were dead and could no longer testify of God personally (not because their was a higher level of authority in their written words absent their oral words). The order is generally as follows:

GOD chooses PEOPLE, communicates with them via ORAL WORD OF GOD ((& miracles, signs, wonders, etc.) empowers them as his CHURCH (or Israel in OT), continues to lead them almost exclusively by ORAL WORD OF GOD (& miracles, signs, wonders, etc.) only later are the works of God and the ministry of His Church recorded as the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD (to minister to later generations). Or to further summarize:

BGM’s Formula of Divine/Human Communication:

God----Oral Word/Signs---Israel/Church----Written Word

Please correct me if this is not the proven, repeated rule of God’s relationship with men throughout both OT and NT.

In other words, the entire Protestant concept of God’s Word, oral vs. written is corrupt and an overwhelmingly false framework designed to defend the novel teachings of the 16th century. From this false premise follows many of the errors of Protestantism.

For a very short summary against SS from Dave Armstrong (my favorite Catholic apologist) see the following.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea3.asp

Lex Rex: The NT has many example of apostolic exhortation to imitate the godly leaders in the Church (even though Americans refrain from such in our error of rugged individualism and disbelief in infused righteousness). This is God’s plan. That we be transformed in the image of Christ, not that we sit back and read about how Christ legally transacted our salvation, as a historic record. As such, this living Body of Christ is to provide continual examples of transformed humanity that should be examples for our behavior. As a quick few such verses see Phil 4:9, 1Thess 2:14, or 1 Cor. 11:1: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ”. Further, you obey your teachers in dozens of topics, yet do not believe it to conflict with your duty to obey God. Obviously you can obey godly men who themselves obey God.

Finally, (as mentioned in a previous email and as far beyond this post) the Orthodox ecclesiology is substantially richer (and more complicated) than perhaps the Catholic (do whatever the Pope says). Orthodoxy understands Bishops to have been guilty of heresy and thus, the rest of the Church has an obligation to disregard their teaching. Two councils were rejected by the laity (Robbers council and 1st Florence if I recall) as deviant. Thus the whole church acts together in keeping the faith once delivered to the
saints (not merely the Bishops). Much more later.

Please forgive this unpolished draft (I am trying to touch on these many topics, without sufficient editing). I love the conversation, truly respect your inputs, comments and corrections and look forward to your thoughtful replies.

Xapis,
BGM

David & Legal Precedent (Early Church: Ignatius)

2005-01-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Zain makes some good points. I would point out that David, a man after God's own heart, essentially murdered a man to take his wife as his own! Hardly the exemplary life. The point being, it is difficult for me to point to any man in the Church, early or otherwise, as a guiding beacon of ecclesiastical history.

Another point Zain references is the copy machine example. BGM, in our own studies of the law and precedent, we see man getting involved in the process and it quickly and wrongly takes on the characteristics of social evolution. What a judge states "black" in 1940, a judge now states that the meaning of black is now white. This is created by a series of (as I recently heard it put) "thin grey lines" that ultimately morph into the unrecognizable. The point is, we indeed do need to look at the early church as practiced by the Jews to get a better glimpse of the original, no?

Ignatius exhorts us to unity, which is of course the whole meaning of the term Catholic. I can see with this exhortation the easy step to Bishop authority. But this makes me wonder when one in authority wanders astray, to whom do we owe our allegiance? What is the check and balance? I do view our Republic separate from our beliefs, but even the founders understood a healthy distrust for man.

On Bishop reverence, Ignatius has some troubling quotes:

"It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself....being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind."

We seem to be early on driven to the examination of scripture; where in the word is there support for such reverence and unqualified obedience? Wasn't it Paul who said he would obey God rather than man?

Early Church: Ignatius

2005-01-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

BGM,

I have read the first two epistles of Ignatius (here and here). I found them mostly very interesting. I did have a couple of concerns that you may be able to answer. The following is a summary.

1) The first epistle is addressed to the Church at Ephesus. Presumably it dates sometime after John's letter to them (conveying our Lord's own critique) as contained in the book of Revelation. However, it must not have been too long after said divine communication, as Ignatius was discipled on some level directly by John. Interesting enough one gets a very similar picture from both letters. The Ephesians were near perfect in their labors for the Lord. Yet, Ignatius has no reference to the very significant failure that is mentioned in Revelation. The Ephesians had lost their first love and needed to repent or face the removal of their lampstand. I understand that in the gap between each letter perhaps the Ephesians had repented and cured their defect, but it seems strange that nothing is even said about it.

2) In his second epistle, Ignatius is encouraging his audience to obey their Bishop despite his apparently tender years. He uses various scriptural examples of youth being used by God. For example, he refers to Paul's admonition to Timothy not to let anyone despise his youth. Yet, it is Paul's letter to Timothy that sets forth the qualities required to be a bishop/elder and they seem to be at least partially based on successfully fulfilling some of life's experiences. The bishop/elder's responsibilities in governing the house of the Lord are linked to their proven experience in having governed their own family and household. How can this happen if the bishop is of such youth that he has not yet had a chance to prove himself?

3) In his second epistle, Ignatius gives some very interesting testimony as to the early churches practices as relate to the Sabbath (Saturday), and the Lord's Day (Sunday). I find this very intriguing and food for thought. That being said, I nearly choked as a read his reference to the Jew-Christ Killers. I sincerely hope this is a travesty of translation! One may argue that the Jews did cause Christ to be killed, but so did the Romans. And out of our sin, so did we all. Our Lord himself as he suffered and died said "forgive them for they know not what they do...." Hence, I am troubled by his statement. Too many in Church history, both East and West, have either caused or agreed with the persecution of Jews.

Here are a few other thoughts that I would like your input on. I have been thinking about your challenge as regards to Ignatius. I also want you to know that I have not dismissed Ignatius, I still consider him a valuable resource, nor have I simply looked for answers that support my position. That being said, please correct me if my assumptions or generalizations are incorrect.

It seems as though your position, on its broadest level, as to true historical Christianity is one based primarily on proximity to the Apostles. If Ignatius was discipled by the Apostle John, how could he have gotten it wrong.... etc. Yet, I am sure you would agree that many of the early, first, second and third generation disciples of the Apostles got it wrong in varying degree. Some of them even wrote heretical works. You then would say but, unlike these heretics, Ignatius was honored as a saint by the whole of the Church in his day and suffered martyrdom for our Lord. And I would generally agree that he deserves some honor and got many things right. But I still submit that being honored by your brethren in a world after the Apostles were gone does not equate in total with getting everything right.

Many with good intentions in almost every congregation, during the very time the original Apostles led the Church, got some things wrong. In other words, if you can get it wrong while the Apostles are leading you directly, you have increased temptation to get it wrong when they are no longer there to correct you. The danger then is very much like a copy machine, every copy distorts a little and the distortions are amplified over time -- If you are relying upon the copy of the thing. This is why having the original is so important, because reference back to it is the only way to be sure you can see whether the copy comports.

Now I do realize that the next problem is much like the problem presented by our emails. The written word's true intent and meaning can be mistaken if the interpreter does not have the correct perspectives. I agree with this concern. This is probably why we have the sin of denominations (division). Every man's perspective becomes the correct one without further seeking. Lord please protect me from such a prideful mistake! We must all strive for the perspective of our Lord, through His Holy Spirit!

Hence, your answer has been, at least in part, to look for the wisdom of those in closest proximity to the event for guidance. In all honesty, this seems like a generally wise method to me. However, there are some issues that need to be resolved in this method, and by itself it must too fail. What I mean is due to the problem of human weakness and error, everyone in the chain must be perfectly led by the Holy Spirit, or the line is corrupted. I understand that this may be one of the doctrines of the Orthodox (that the True Church has been perfectly led in its corporate doctrines by the Holy Spirit), but yet I do not trust this without scriptural support, in that the early church did not demonstrate this quality as is seen by the whole of the New Testament. (Let me know if I am missing a clear scriptural mandate here.)

If you are looking for those in closest proximity to the event, I believe you may have missed a couple of elements. You have only looked at the early church, in an admittedly good attempt at logically fulfilling this role. But all of the original Apostles and our Lord Himself were practicing Jews. In fact, most of the Holy Scriptures are contextually within a Hebrew/Jewish framework. It at least 'seems' obvious to me then that many gentile believers did not have the best proximity to understanding the Hebrew Traditions of the Word of God despite their historical proximity. Hence, my question to you is whether you have looked into the Messianic Jewish movement and any input it may give on this question of the true historical church?

I sincerely look forward to your thoughts.

Your Brother in Christ

Zain

Reformation Revisited: A Comparative Symposium

2005-01-17T07:53:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex is pleased to announce a new symposium, entitled, "Reformation Revisited", wherein questions of foundational theological thought and comparison between orthodox and protestant systems will be examined from a scriptural, contextual and historical study. Lex Rex welcomes two new contributors that are highly regarded, entertaining, and most of all brilliant thinkers; BGM and Zain. While the three of us may differ in our theological views (although there is much agreement), we all share the common belief that the modern church has veered considerably from its early path.

In keeping with our goals of open forum discussion, our hope is to make our private email exchanges more public, and also more broad by refraining from getting bogged down in a deep esoteros type discussion meant only for church scholars.

The initial questions are:

1. What was the early church like (i.e. what did they believe, those who walked with the disciples)? This of course is a purely historical examination.

2. Does orthodoxy better resemble the early church or 1500s era reformist view? We must define the true tenets of orthodoxy and protestant systems here.

3. Did they have it right? It is at this point we must examine God's Holy scripture.

Lex Rex does not intend to be divisive within the church, rather we hope to sharpen, encourage, and edify the Church. Several subtopics are likely to spin off of the above three broad questions. While other postings may be interspersed in between symposium posts, we will have a separate archive column for quick reference.

Pelagius & Augustine

2005-01-07T21:44:00.000-07:00

In "The Five Points of Calvinism", Steele traces the roots of Calvin and Arminius systems: Quoting Cunningham: "As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, so there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius....The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemons Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries...." In the fifth century, Steele writes, the basic doctrines of Calvin were vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius. But which system is closer, historically, to the early church?

UPDATE: Reform position provided here.

Echo Zoe Makes History!

2005-01-07T19:07:00.000-07:00

Lex Rex extends congratulations to Echo Zoe, click here to find out why!

Smash has a funny quote on the Kerry's 2008 campaign swing through Iraq (better labeled Demoralization Tour 2005).

A Not So Beautiful Mind

2005-01-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

Fresh off a case of the blogosflu (I think I caught it through Captain Ed's blog, is that possible?), Lex Rex is back baby! Now my 3000 readers a day, minus 2950 not so uniques, can relax. Joe Carter has an intriguing proposition for bloggers here; Is Americanism the Successor of Puritanism?

As my vast readership is aware, Lex Rex prides itself in refraining from ad hominem attacks. On occasion, human acts of stupidity mandates flexibility with this policy as there can be no other way to describe Babs Boxer's attempt to overturn the voter's will: Thankfully, common sense ruled as the Senate voted 74-1 and the House 267-31 to reject her objection to the certification of Ohio's 20 Electoral College votes. The tag line for A Beautiful Mind, "[s]he Saw The World In A Way No One Could Have Imagined..." seems appropriate here. Both nuts but this is where the comparison ends; one genius, the other dumber than dumb and dumber, combined.

Her list of grievances were bizarre to say the least, mainly complaining that people had to wait to vote. Her next measure brought to the floor was an objection that traffic lights turn red, thereby causing people to wait until they turn green. The horror. Radio Blogger has some good pictures of Hugh's studio. I didn't know Hugh wore a toupee.

Below The Fold

2005-01-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

Kerry back on stage to "maintain a high profile." Make no mistake about it "the closer" (should be "poser") intends to run in '08. His delusion of support continues; minus the Bush hate vote, he would have mustered 123 votes, maybe, which includes his campaign staff and one third of his family members.

House GOP looking to relax ethics rules. While it does look like the right thing to do, any way they try to spin this, likely press fodder for years to come.

Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts plans to "carve out his vision for the Democratic Party and the nation" in a Jan. 12 speech at the National Press Club. A prominent adviser to Kerry during his failed presidential bid, Kennedy's speech is entitled "A Democratic Blueprint for America's Future." This "blue" print will likely have multiple overlays resembling a construction blueprint. The first will show how to destroy America's foundation with a mixture of shredded constitution and imported water from Old Europe. He will then demonstrate raising the walls and floor between religion, which will be locked in a dungeon in the basement, and the State, which will consist of the rest of the opulent structure. Electricity for those in the basement and dungeon will be generated by gigantic windmills located well out of sight, while the rest of the structure will be powered by sucking the life energy out of the economy.

We can only hope that the man who engineered Kerry's campaign will contribute further to the complete devastation of the Democratic party. Get that man a hard hat!

Former President Jimmy Carter is under fire from PETA for his confession on Jay Leno that he is a fisherman. "We're asking President Carter to think this through and to grant fish peace by leaving them in the water where they belong," PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said shortly after putting on her leather shoes, habitat killing rayon clothing, and stepping on uncounted groups of innocent ants on the way to delivering her press release.

Pickering Our Battles

2005-01-03T08:52:00.000-07:00

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos writes on Fox that the "Pickering Battle [is] a Symbol of Ideological War." Pickering, now free to speak as a retiree,

"The mean-spiritedness and lack of civility reduces the pool of nominees willing to offer themselves for judicial service, he said in his prepared statement. Extreme special interest groups opposed my nomination, primarily due to their hostility to any nominee with strong religious convictions these groups believe nominees with committed religious values are not qualified to serve on America's federal courts."

And herein lies the most important battle over the next four years. We can hold congress at bay with a Republican majority, and the White House is occupied by friendlees, but what of the judiciary? Pickering continued:

"It was an abuse; an unprecedented abuse. It was a misuse of race, it was an attack on Mississippi and an attack on religion, .... It was wrong in the 1950s and 1960s for segregationists in the South to use race to divide us and it is wrong in the 21st century for people to inappropriately use race to divide us."

But some good news:

Pickering said he is convinced that the Republican victories in the November election indicate that Americans are not fooled by smear campaigns and filibusters.

I do think that when you take all the judicial nominees who were filibustered, and combine that with the action of the judges in Massachusetts redefining marriage and the judges in California changing the Pledge of Allegiance I think Democrats paid a terrifically high price because of that.

They won the battle in the nomination filibusters, but in the end they lost the war."

What has perplexed me on this issue is the belief that any nominee was ever filibustered. I do not recall a filibuster, only a threat of one. I have to believe that had Pickering allies burned the midnight oil on such a real filibuster, we could have out lasted the pansies on the other side of the aisle and broke the filibuster. One such victory and the dam of unconfirmed nominees would have quickly broke with a flood of common sense flowing through the judicial branch. And imagine what we could have used our filibuster time for? How about pickering through every Democrat Senator's record on the hill; start with the pork and end with the tax increases. Or a reading and re-reading of the Constitution and Declaration ad infinitum until the left cry ad fidem to the principles of liberty. There is a strategy short electing 60 Republicans by 2006, will the spirit of our founding fathers prevail upon those in the Senate or will we pretend to be defeated by ghost filibusters?

The Voice of Truth

2004-12-31T09:08:00.000-07:00

Today I am reminded of the words of a song by Casting Crowns, in part;

Oh what I would do to have
The kind of faith it takes
To climb out of this boat I’m in
Onto the crashing waves

To step out of my comfort zone
Into the realm of the unknown where Jesus is
And He’s holding out His hand

But the waves are calling out my name
And they laugh at me
Reminding me of all the times
I’ve tried before and failed
The waves they keep on telling me
Time and Time again. ‘Boy, you’ll never win!’
‘You’ll never win!’

But the voice of truth tells me a different story
The voice of truth says, ‘Do not be afraid!’
The voice of truth says, ‘this is for my glory’
Out of all the voices calling out to me
I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth….

And to the victims left behind in South Asia, now
is the time to grab onto the cross and hold on tight.

Headlines Today...

2004-12-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

Relief aid is in desperate need in South Asia. There is a rush of aid going on that is unprecedented, but it is bad, really bad out there. As one reporter put it:

"On India's remote Andaman and Nicobar islands, rescuers followed the stench of death to find rotting bodies in jungles, where as many as 10,000 uncounted bodies are believed to be buried in mud and thick vegetation....In Sri Lanka, where she is working....The situation is very dire...People are living in jungles. They're looking for shelter in anything from schools to churches to mosques. Anywhere they can sleep with some coverage and shelter until aid arrives....Survivors from the Indian islands told harrowing tales. Many had not eaten for two days and people had to contend with crocodiles that were washed ashore." .... “When I found my beloved sister's body, it was like someone drove a knife into my stomach,” bin Ahmed said. “I never knew such pain until the bodies of my brother and his wife were found. The whole day they were missing, I felt like a ghost.” “We have not found anyone yet, but I am sure we will because the smell is getting so strong,” bin Ahmed said. The men are armed with only their gloves, black plastic tarps and strong stomachs because the stench in some places seeps into the weave of a T-shirt or cap. “I know it is hard work and dangerous, too, because of the debris. But I know how it feels to be missing someone,” he said.“I hope if I can ease the pain for other people … the pain in my heart will stop.”

Samaritan's Purse headed up by Franklin Graham is a good steward and good place to donate online.

Soros, on the other hand, heads up an organization now charged with tax evasion.

"Group holds fast to Kerry cause with Beacon Hill vigil" caught my eye originally, but it's no "fast" in biblical sense, rather a stubborn unwillingness to let go in the humanist sense.

And finally, this headline "McDonald's Mulling More Humane Chicken Slaughter Methods." I love chicken, I have hunted and killed things that taste like chicken, but the phrase 'Humane Chicken Slaughter Method" strikes me as an oxymoron.

Around the World...

2004-12-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

....today, former president Clinton (Bill that is) calls for a coordinated effort in providing aid to South Asia. Wish I'd have thought of that, dang, that guy is smart.

Bush named most admired man, four years running by Gallup. Canceling this resume item out: Hillary, most admired woman.

Retailers had solid growth this Christmas, the Lex Rex household last minute purchases adding 2.3%.

While at first calling US stingy, later in the day, Jan Egeland, United Nations undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, called the assistance pledged by the United States and Europe "very generous." "I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous," he added. "This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency in the early days. The response so far has been overwhelmingly positive." I hear Mr. Egeland's chauffeured limo has 3 gears in reverse, and one forward.

This just in..."A leading European human rights watchdog has called on Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych (BENCH CONFERENCE: Yanukovych comes up as anchovie in spell check...END CONFERENCE)to admit defeat as initial results showed his West-leaning rival Viktor Yushchenko winning the presidency. Although official confirmation could take several days, the results, with all the vote counted, gave Yushchenko 51.99 percent of the vote to the premier's 44.19 percent. However, Yanukovych has refused to concede defeat and is vowing to challenge the results in court. His camp says it has filed nearly 5,000 complaints about Sunday's balloting." Washington Governor elect Democrat Christine Gregoire, Al Gore, and John Kerry are dispatching campaign staff members to aid Yanukovych in his cause fraudule....

Athiests are now targeting recycling...complaining that Christmas tree recycling is unfair to non-Christians. Blue bags should be given to both groups. What I need is a barf bag. Not quite convinced that Christmas trees are limited to Christians, I'll have to look up that one on Lois Law. Remind me to tell my Jewish friends that they cannot recycle their trees.

And finally, the misleading headline of the day, "Ohio Recount Shows Slimmer Bush Lead." By 300 votes out of 118,000. Technically true, but as we say in the law profession, a distinction without a difference.

Global Warming Causes Earthquake?

2004-12-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

MSM (better labeled Old Media or OM) does not miss a chance to embarrass itself with such foolish assertions as this teaser: "Media Linking Killer Tsunami to Global Warming." The article goes on to actually link things like rising tides, pollution, and coral reef damage to tsunamis. OM would benefit from a short lesson. The word tsunami is of Japanese origin, made from combining the Japanese words for harbor, tsu, and wave, nami. A tsunami is literally a harbor wave. A tsunami is spawned when a deep undersea earthquake causes the floor of the ocean to shift rapidly. As the ocean floor falls or rises in response to tectonic activity in the earth's crust, the quake displaces vast amounts of water, millions of tons. As the titanic forces unleashed by the earth movement radiate and travel through the ocean they eventually run into shallow water. The energy displacement wave that is all but invisible in the open ocean is bunched up and the energy is forced towards the surface as the column of water available for it to travel through contracts with the receding depth. As the displacement wave zooms towards shore, a great pile of water is created by the force of the energy wave and it slams into beaches, often scouring coastlands clean and roaring many miles inland if the spawning earthquake was strong enough and the ocean floor dynamics channeled the energy wave to coastlands with the right topography. Basically a tsunami has two elements: an earthquake out at sea and coastlines that gradually slope into the sea.

Sir Isaac Newton summed it up in his third law, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." So where is Global Warming connected here? At least on the planet I live on, earthquakes have been around for awhile, the cause of which is not even remotely linked to global warming. The gradual sloping of coastlines I believe has always existed as well, sorry, still no connection. Sadly, like the Newman nemesis on Seinfeld, there are those that will read a headline like this and shake their head while mumbling, "Bush"....

ID: Re-Loaded

2004-12-27T07:27:00.000-07:00

More ID debate over at John Mark Reynolds, Evangelical Outpost, and Hugh Hewitt. I previously commented here.

Anti-Peace Activists

2004-12-21T06:55:00.000-07:00

Robin Williams making the rounds entertaining the troops in Afghanistan recently. In one of the few lines that meets the lofty censorship standards at Lex Rex, Williams quipped, "it's a lot like Palm Springs, except for the mines and the small-weapons fire." Ok, funny enough, but how do we reconcile with Williams anti-war stance? Consider the following blistering attack on Bush, while, ironically enough, criticizing what he sees as his country's mixed messages when it comes to national security:
"America is broke, basically, but Bush wants to wage a war that costs pretty much a billion dollars a month...We have a president for whom English is a second language... He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself....In America, we have orange alert, but what the hell does that mean? We're supposed to be afraid of Krishna? Of orange sorbet? Then it's like, 'You can't go out and shop, it's too dangerous out there,' but if that happens then the economy falls. The message is so mixed: 'Be afraid, but not too afraid.'"
But it is Mr. Williams' message that is so mixed. Opposing the war (and the sitting president during war) while "supporting" the troops is as consistent as a pro-abortion celebrity donating money to National Right to Life. "I'm pro abortion but I support those fighting to eliminate it?" Uhmm, yeah, right. In the opinion of Lex Rex, entertainers like Williams are parasitical in that they seek to suck the life blood of their rather un noble cause from the very source that is the target of their cause. It allows them and others a photo op and a stage to repeat the mantra, "see, it is possible to oppose the war but support the troops." Why do we allow such things? Do we not have any say in who entertains the troops? During WWII, those that entertained the troops supported the war.

Steve Feinberg wrote: "The entertainers who flew around to boost the morale of the troops were as important as a fresh supply of ammo. Bob Hope's exploits are well-documented and legendary. Mickey Rooney -- a K-bar knife, hanging from his belt -- won the Bronze Star for insisting that his pilot fly him into a combat zone to give the troops a few laughs. Marlene Dietrich was often found at the front line, without fanfare, German 88's exploding close by, singing a song to the exhausted troops. In Hollywood and New York, troops could drop into the Stage Door Canteen and hobnob with and be entertained by celebrities there. The celebs were not serving up mac and cheese, and donuts and coffee, for a possible photo op, but because they loved America and what America was trying to do. They considered it doing their part. The celebrities of the day, for the most part, loved America."

There is little difference philosophically in what we face today in the present war. Had anti-WWII pacifism won the day, how many more would have died from this brand of "peace"? Just as Fox News were among the first to re-label "suicide bombers" to what they really are, homicide bombers, I think it is time we name anti-war activists for what they really are: anti-peace.

The Sailor's Christmas

2004-12-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

Twas the night before Christmas, the ship was out steaming,

Sailors stood watch while others were dreaming.

They lived in a crowd with racks tight and small, In a 80-man berthing, cramped one and all.

I had come down the stack with presents to give, And to see inside just who might perhaps live.

I looked all about, a strange sight did I see, No tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.

No stockings were hung, shined boots close at hand, On the bulkhead hung pictures of a far distant land.

They had medals and badges and awards of all kind, And a sober thought came into my mind.

For this place was different, so dark and so dreary, I had found the house of a Sailor, once I saw clearly.

A Sailor lay sleeping, silent and alone, Curled up in a rack and dreaming of home.

The face was so gentle, the room squared away, This was the United States Sailor today.

This was the hero I saw on TV,
Defending our country so we could be free.

I realized the families that I would visit this night, Owed their lives to these Sailors lay willing to fight.

Soon round the world, the children would play, And grownups would celebrate on Christmas Day.

They all enjoyed freedom each day of the year, Because of the Sailor, like the one lying here.

I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone, On a cold Christmas Eve on a sea, far from home.

The very thought brought a tear to my eye, I dropped to my knees and started to cry.

The Sailor awakened and I heard a calm voice, "Santa, don't cry, this life is my choice."

"Defending the seas all days of the year, So others may live and be free with no fear."

I thought for a moment, what a difficult road, To live a life guided by honor and code.

After all it's Christmas Eve and the ship's underway!
But freedom isn't free and it's sailors who pay.

The Sailor says to our country "be free and sleep tight, No harm will come, not on my watch and not on this night.

The Sailor rolled over and drifted to sleep, I couldn't control it, I continued to weep.

I kept watch for hours, so silent, so still, I watched as the Sailor shivered from the night's cold chill.

I didn't want to leave on that cold dark night, This guardian of honor so willing to fight.

The Sailor rolled over and with a voice strong and sure, Commanded, "Carry on Santa, It's Christmas, and All is Secure!"

HONOR, COURAGE AND COMMITMENT

"Fetus" Becomes "Infant" and "Baby"

2004-12-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

It pains me to lump Fox News in with MSM, but Fox must be conflicted when they have to start a story about a "fetus" when uncertain whether alive, when it is found alive it is then called an "infant", and finally in good health, end the story by calling the missing child a "baby". Which is it? That is the problem with pro-abortion forces is this statusing of children according to their location and health. That is why we should keep our sick children home; they otherwise will be at risk of being labeled a "fetus" and lose all God given rights.

UPDATE: MSM STILL CONFUSED...

"Police 'Confident' They Found Stolen Fetus
AP
Bobbi Jo Stinnett DNA Test Results Pending. Baby cut out of slain eight-months-pregnant woman found in good health in Kansas and will be reunited with father...cops say; two adults found with infant..."

Wounded Soldiers In Need

2004-12-14T13:12:00.000-07:00

Recently promoted by Hugh Hewitt and deserves repeating:

Please consider the following: The number ONE request at Walter Reed hospital is phone cards. The government doesn't pay long distance phone charges and these wounded soldiers are rationing their calls home. Many will be there throughout the holidays.

They say they need an "endless" supply of these -- any amount, even $5, is greatly appreciated. Wal-Mart has good prices on AT&T cards, Sam’s Club is even better, if you are a member. Send phone cards of any amount to:

Medical Family Assistance Center
Walter Reed Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001

Lex Rex Attacked!

2004-12-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

The template of Lex Rex has been hacked, I will have re-link...

UPDATE: The hack necessitated an entire new template...Up and running for now, hopefully, this negative will ultimately prove to be a positive.

Reawakening Starting Now...

2004-12-09T07:58:00.000-07:00

Lots of hot topics being discussed on Evangelical Outpost over the last few days, from intelligent design (ID) to stem cells, I see a renewed focus on issues that drive us to our core. Lex Rex has been busy at the garrison of the outpost. These deep issues always come down to one's will. Take for example ID. Joe Carter placed a simple proposition for the evolutionary biologists/scientists: If one creature is imported from Anartica and another is created in a lab by a mad scientist, how would they tell them apart? 160+ responses later, most examining from a scientific level, could not answer, not even for a bag of cash. My own take: With the DNA double helix discoveries, we now know that there is an intricate message written as a code to "instruct" the behavior of cells. We have now found the library where the secrets of life are held, only it is written in a language we cannot decipher. So we have commenced mapping the library, which is like the Dewey Decimal system that tells us where the books are, and the subject matter they are related to, but does not disclose the contents; we have not started reading the books. Well, logic would posit that these books necessarily must have an author. Pretty good evidence of ID, don't you think? The atheists can only help explain the chemical reactions caused in the transmission of the message, but do not have a clue what the message is, who wrote it, or how it got there. Another observation is that scientific study mandates reproducible events that can be observed. The problem with a scientific approach to creationism is that the books of life have already been written, it was a historical event. Evolution theory suffers from the same flaw; there does not seem to be a process we can re-produce and observe. Historical events do not lend themselves well to a scientific approach. For example, take the Kennedy assassination. To study this scientifically, we would have to bring him back to life along with Oswald and then travel back in time and observe the event. But we have film of the event, autopsy reports, first hand witnesses etc... to study this. So for historical events like creationism, we use primary and secondary sourcing like, well, books! So with the discovery of the double helix, we discovered a primary source, a library if you will, written by God himself, of how we were created! That is not to say that science plays no role in examining creation (another common misconception), just that we cannot prove the matter by a scientific approach. It is difficult to move scientists, especially atheistic scientists, away from evolution theory towards a historical examination of creation. But what I think is going on now is a sort of reawakening of an examination of spiritual issues. I take the heated debate as a good sign.

Few RSVPs for Old Media Dinner Party

2004-12-07T07:07:00.000-07:00

I concur (not that this means anything with my vast audience) with Hugh Hewitt on Bill Bennett's excellent article, "Wither The Mainstream Media?". I recall a guest lecturer in my law school in 1992 who proclaimed how incredible the internet would become. At the time, by the end of 1991, the Internet had grown to include some 5,000 networks in over three dozen countries, serving over 700,000 host computers (now 200,000,000) used by over 4,000,000 people (about 10% or 600 million now) (interesting internet growth chart here.) How amazing it was, he mused, that sand on a beach would one day contribute to changing the way we get information forever. While MSM used to be able to control and send information with impunity to passive recipients, the internet and now the Blogosphere has provided a source for the thirsty and empowered them to actively seek out and process information on their own. In a sense, we are now "growing up" in that we no longer have to sit at the table of Old Media like prisoners gathered in the mess hall for unidentifiable grub. The Blogosphere is more akin to an upscale all-you-can-eat buffet and, naturally, information consumers are becoming better nourished. The bad news for the imploding democrats is that better informed (I didn't say educated) citizens tend towards conservatism. While I do know many intelligent liberals, I know of few wise ones. Indeed, misinformed and ignorant people make up their largest constituency. Recall, for example, Sean Hannity's man on the street interviews where the anti-Bush crowd threw their support for "Stu Pid" the democratic nominee for president.

There is a bit of irony in sand's contribution to the weakening of Old Media; the beach is where Dan Rather will likely be spending his retirement.

God's Protocol

2004-12-06T07:08:00.000-07:00

Thanks to bloggers, there is much being written on the "Groningen Protocol" and this focus has stirred some emotion at Lex Rex.

A few years ago, my wife and I received news that there was something wrong with our baby. We were told of the "options" in which case we immediately explained to the doctor that we were pro life, and that in no case would we end this child's life. The big lie in such wicked counsel is that it is "less costly" (by what calculation?) and less stressful (what comfort is there in intentionally taking an innocent life?). Subsequent visits to specialists confirmed that our baby had Epstein's Anomaly, among other problems. The prognosis in our baby's case was fatal. We prayed that his life be spared. Our baby died shortly after birth. We were able to hold him for a while. He looked like he was sleeping and indeed he was; in the arms of Yeshua. We had a funeral. We mourned. My process was not much different from when my father died. So is our temporal existence on earth; some shorter than others, but an existence nonetheless.

Through all this, I recall a name, El-Shaddai. Some scholars say that the true Hebrew meaning of this name invokes the image of a powerful God who at times changes natural laws to fulfill His purpose. Fully translated, El-Shaddai means, "The Almighty God who pours out sustenance and blessing." Translated into Greek, El-Shaddai becomes "ikanos", which means God is "all-sufficient." "Sustenance and blessing"? "All-sufficient"? How can I associate this name with the death of a baby, this seemingly unanswered prayer, or the broader questions raised by euthanasia? Well, it is quite simple for me and I only have my own experience to attest. I do not have an answer why our baby was not healed on earth. But I do know that in all of this, God never left our side. He sustained us. He blessed us. He indeed is the only nourishment we needed. God's Protocol in these situations is simple; we rely on God alone to change natural laws, and in the event he chooses not to, He sustains us anyway. Not surprisingly, given where it comes from in the spiritual sense, the Groningen Protocol is a twist of God's Protocol. It is the ultimate human intervention in natural law, the consequence of which is no different from when the laws of gravity are ignored.

There is no doubt that the supporters of euthanasia are filled with emotion, a compassion if you will, to end their suffering the sight of a questioned existence. One of the great human frailties is one of pride based on pragmatic instrumentalism. Under the Groningen Protocol, supporters argue that the end of life itself justifies the means to end it. What horrible and cruel circular reasoning! But as for me and my house, we will follow God's Protocol, El-Shaddai.

The One Thing

2004-12-03T07:14:00.000-07:00

I recall a movie, the name of which escapes me right now, wherein an old rugged cowboy turns to Billy Crystal and tells him that he must find "the one thing" in life in order for him to discover his purpose.

In today's devotional Greg Laurie asks what the purpose of our life is. What a fitting question as we approach Christmas. The Christ of Christmas came for one purpose; to save mankind for eternity! To that end, he has commanded his foot soldiers to spread the good news of hope, peace, and salvation in the name of one and only one, Yeshua. And if we took up only this one purpose in our short life here on earth, it will have been lived for Christ. We should all take up this one primary purpose during our lives, and the multitude of other perceived purposes will be sure to naturally flow.

Death by Committee

2004-12-02T08:51:00.000-07:00

What the Groningen Protocol says about our world, and where it might lead next.
by Hugh Hewitt

WHEN NEWS of the Groningen Protocol surfaced in October, it was reported in the Grand Forks Herald,though I didn't read of it, nor apparently did many others. The Groningen Protocol could have been the stuff of a fine presidential debate question, or a series of questions, but I doubt if any of the debate moderators or either of the presidential candidates had heard of it either. It is an intriguing title, but it should enter the history books as shorthand for an appalling brutality, so appalling in fact, that "The Groningen Protocol" could have been an entry on the agenda at the Wannsee Conference.

The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an "independent committee" charged with selecting babies and other severely handicapped or disabled people for euthanasia. The original article provides some of the key details:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no
hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

On Tuesday the AP carried a second story, and Drudge broadcast the news to the cyber world: The protocol was already in effect, and at least four babies had been deemed disposable, and killed.

This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch non-consenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line. Abortion, of course, has always been limited by the physical act of birth, and once out of the womb, only the most extreme "reproductive rights" advocates have argued that the baby's natural right to live can be compromised by the mother. But now the Netherlands has gone farther--much, much farther. If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.

Incredibly, the nation's elite media has turned a collective blind eye to this story, though the Los Angeles Times did, on the day following the Drudge headline, find time to put on the paper's front page, above the fold, the story that Salmon and Steelhead May Lose Protection, but not a column inch of ink for a radical leap past Kevorkian land into the regions of Mengele.

LAST WEEK I marveled at the casual manner with which the Target Corporation announced that the Salvation Army could no longer place its kettles and ring its bells outside the giant retailer's 1,500+ stores. It was a callous and Scrooge-like act, one that I and thousands of others found sufficiently appalling as to oblige us not to shop at the store this season. I noted the irony of a retailer grown fat on Christmas gift sales tossing the charity most closely aligned with the public's image of Christmas spirit.

How foolish to imagine that actions such as Target's would offend greatly when protocol's such as Groningen's pass without comment before the eyes of editorialists and talking heads. Four years into the new century, and one can only guess where it will end. I do not think it is safe to bet that these next 96 years will be less bloody that the years 1905 to 1999.

Rather Ghost Talk

2004-11-30T14:11:00.000-07:00

Some snips, needs no further comment:

It was a given that Rather had long since devolved into something of a jokey caricature, what with his homespun wisdom, his pomp-rich demeanor, his windbag-y tendencies and his overall weirdness.

Of course, the guy has always been a little bit out there. There was his decision to sign off his newscast with the word "Courage" for no apparent reason three times during a single week in 1985 as well as the bizarre 1986 incident in which Rather was roughed up by attackers who reportedly asked, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?" -- a line later immortalized in an R.E.M. tune.

It also didn't take much to prompt certain peculiarities to exit Rather's lips, such as during my interview with him last year.

Describing his love of CBS and CBS News, Rather observed in the interview last year: "In my mind and the minds of the people I work with, this is a magical, mystical kingdom -- our version of Camelot. And we feel we are working at a kind of roundtable of King Arthur proportions. Now, it may be that this kingdom exists only in our minds. But that makes it no less real for those of us who live it every day."

And then there was this: "Ed Murrow's ghost is here. I've seen him and talked to him on the third floor of this building many times late at night. And I can tell you that he's watching over us."

WMD Attack on US Inevitable, ELIs More Harmful

2004-11-29T07:21:00.000-07:00

The greatest threat to America is not a WMD attack from the outside, but ELI (Enactments of Liberal Ideology) attacks from our domestic enemies. True, WMDs have a "wow" factor that plays well on the nightly news, but arguably more misery occurs at the hand of liberals. To keep tabs on our domestic enemies, I think we should have a color coded threat matrix patterned after the Homeland Security model, only reversed. "Red" means that conservatives are in control and the threat of internal destruction is relatively low, while moving up the spectrum to "Code Blue" means that the policies and ideology of the Blue States are taking hold. An elevated blue warning would signal Americans to shift assets to tax free investments and pull their children out of public schools.

As to the WMD threat, Yossef Bodansky had this to say:

An al-Qaida attack on the US with non-conventional weapons is virtually "inevitable," and the organization is likely "tying up the knots" for such an attack, Yossef Bodansky, former director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.....

"All of the warnings we have today indicate that a major strike something more horrible than anything we've seen before is all but inevitable," he said.....

He said that al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten "the green light" to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from "the elites of the Arab world." ....

Bodansky said that while there may still be some vestiges of debate and doubt within Islamic circles, he believes that planning for such an attack is finished. "They got the kosher stamp from the Islamic world to use nuclear weapons," he said.....

Moreover, Bodansky said that America is losing the war against terrorism, noting the number of recruits bin Laden is able to count on, as his call to arms gains widespread support throughout the Muslim world.....

In the pre-9/11 world, Bodansky said, jihadists could count on 250,000 individuals trained and willing to die, and 2.5 million to 5 million people willing to help them in one way or another. He cited intelligence estimates from this summer that suggest that as many as 500,000-750,000 people are willing and trained to die, 10 million are willing to actively support them, short of killing, while another 50 million are willing to support such a movement financially.....

While I do believe that another attack is inevitable, as inevitable as it was on September 10, 2001, I take issue with the assessment that we are losing this war. In fact, it is just odd that anyone of reasonable intelligence would think we are losing. I guess it depends on what "losing" means, but given the intense pressure we have put on terrorist organizations worldwide, I don't see us "losing" any more than we were losing in the early stages of WWII. We have a plan to defeat terrorism, it doesn't happen over night, but it will happen.

Compare the enemy to America. On the enemy's side, perhaps more are willing to support terrorism, but never has it been more difficult to do so. Assets are being tracked down, confiscated, destroyed, or frozen. Meanwhile, our financing of the war goes on un-hindered and on public display, right down to the vote and location of our funding process being recorded live on television. Indeed, our assets continue to grow daily. Terrorists are increasingly on the run, forced to hide in caves and safe houses, moving from one location to the next every four hours, and filtering cryptic taped messages through stealth conduits to their media outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and of course, Al Jazeera). Our side? Our soldiers walk around freely, and malls were filled with anti-terrorist Bush supporters this past weekend. Our leaders appear publicly regularly, and live in the media. I've seen the White House and it's no cave. The only frequent movements that Bush made was during the last leg of this past election (a cuss word to jihadists) where he won the popular vote (whoops, another bad word) by a large margin.

It is inevitable in any war that numbers will increase in support of an enemy, but we now have a coalition against terrorism that is larger than the elites care to admit. They may have 500,000 willing to die, we have millions just in our own armed services that accept the dangers of the war, but would rather make the terrorists die for their cause. They may have 10,000,000 willing to support terrorism, but by the latest count, we have at least 61,000,000 in support of crushing terrorism and this number is growing.

All this said, we should brace ourselves for another attack, but in that event, the American spirit of freedom will only grow stronger. Indeed, if there was anything good that came out of 9/11, it was the rousing of patriotism and Christianity. America is now firmly a Super Power. If there is a kryptonite that would weaken our resolve, it is the complacency born during the soft non-war periods in American history. In this post-modern era, while we are not busy fighting wars, we now elect weak leaders. If the terrorists only knew that they could realize their dream of America's fall by merely sitting back and patiently doing nothing, why then, then we would be at our greatest level of danger; Code Blue.

Bloggers Force Rather Into Retirement: Replacement Selected

2004-11-26T16:00:00.000-07:00

In an effort to encourage a seamless transition between reporting styles, CBS has announced that former Information Minister to Saddam Hussein, known as "Baghdad Bob" will replace Dan Rather. CBS President Jeff Sagansky commented, "we wanted the viewers of CBS Evening News to ease into the new anchor, and quite frankly, the timing was great for the recently unemployed minister." Although several candidates were considered for the job, Lex Rex has obtained footage of BB's screening. "He's a natural. We offered use of our forged document service to him, but he really won't need it. He's that good," stated Sagansky.

Baghdad Bob Replaces Rather

Jehovah Sabaoth Emanu

2004-11-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

On the eve of Thanksgiving, we all have things to be thankful for. To those in circumstances that make it difficult to be thankful, I offer this name of God: Jehovah Sabaoth Emanu, or "The Lord of Hosts is with you."

Some excerpts from Precept Ministries:

"The Hebrew for "host" is Tsaba used 486x with most uses having something to do with warfare, armies or fighting. In general, "Host" can describe a multitude of men or army...Believers today must remember that this is the same Name that all in covenant with Him can run to, crying out in their hour of need, when all hope seems to be lost & defeat appears inevitable. May we all learn to cry out to our Warrior, the Lord of Hosts it is He, for the battle is His....In sum, Jehovah Sabaoth is God's Name for man's extremity, those times when we have reached our end, finding ourselves impotent, in turmoil, embroiled in real spiritual warfare & with no other source of help. So meditate deeply on the truth revealed in the magnificent, sufficient Name of Jehovah Sabaoth...."

I paraphrase David Jeremiah who had this to say today, "The enemy seeks to limit us to our present calamity in order to divert us from the greater works of God." His message was one of hope to the troubled, based on Psalm 46. He mentioned the hymn, often called the "Battle Hymn of the Reformation," Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress", which has been translated into almost every known language, and at least eighty different translations have been made into English. "A Mighty Fortress" so captured the spirit of the Protestant Reformation that when Protestant emigrants were forced into exile or martyrs went to their death, "A Mighty Fortress" always seemed to be the song they chose to sing.

During times when the Reformation seemed lost, Luther would say to his friend Melanchthon, "Let's sing the Forty-sixth Psalm." [Psalm 46]

A MIGHTY FORTRESS

A mighty fortress is our God,
A bulwark never failing;
Our Helper He amid the flood
Of mortal ills prevailing;
For still our ancient foe
Doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great,
And armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not His equal
Did we in our own strength confide,
Our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side,
The Man of God's own choosing;
Dost ask Who that may be?
Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His name,
From age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

So sing to the Lord of Hosts this Thanksgiving, and be joyful in all our circumstances!

Bush Aids Secret Service Agent: A Tale of Two Men

2004-11-22T07:21:00.000-07:00

While Kerry believes that the OBL tape cost him the election, he needs to look no further than the character that is within him. Contrast the story over the weekend of Bush aiding his secret service agent with that of Kerry blaming his [expletive deleted] secret service agent when he fell during an "I'm cool" photo op on the slopes of Idaho. Here is a snip:

"President Bush stepped into the middle of a confrontation and pulled his lead Secret Service agent away from Chilean security officials who barred his bodyguards from entering an elegant dinner for 21 world leaders Saturday night.

Several Chilean and American agents got into a pushing and shoving match outside the cultural center where the dinner was held. The incident happened after Bush and his wife, Laura, had just posed for pictures on a red carpet with the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, Luisa Duran.

As Bush stepped inside, Chilean agents closed ranks at the door, blocking the president's agents from following. Stopping for more pictures, Bush noticed the fracas and turned back. He reached through the dispute and pulled his agent from the scrum and into the building.

The president, looking irritated, straightened his shirt cuffs as he went into the dinner...."

BUSH STOPS WHEN HE SEES TROUBLE

BUSH ACTS WHEN HE SEES TROUBLE
They say the definition of character is what we do when nobody is looking. When you're POTUS, however, there are few un-public moments. But what a president does when there is a crisis before him is also a window into his soul. There is no question that a President Kerry [shudder omitted] would not have "stopped" and turned on the terror/Iraq war. He no more would have then walked towards the war on terror, and we can be certain he would not have defended America or others in need. The most that can be said is that Kerry would have perhaps turned his head towards the "commotion" or "nuisance" of terrorism, given a casual glance, but then quickly walked away hoping whatever it was didn't follow him. While likely not public for political reasons, a European influenced private President Kerry would have blamed [expletive deleted] America for terrorist attacks.

The difference between Bush and Kerry could not be more contrast. The difference between these two men can be compared side-by-side in two different incidents with Secret Service Agents. And I thank God we made the right choice on November 2nd.

Targeted Salvation Army Will March On

2004-11-19T06:57:00.000-07:00

As the G-rated version of the old saying goes, "it is unwise to go number two where you eat." Or maybe that's where you sleep. The Minneapolis based Target has done a lot of good for its local community, and the community has done a lot of good for Target. Which is why I am so perplexed by the decision to silence the bells. I do not think the pages of the blogosphere could contain the stories of those touched by the Salvation Army, but here are just a few examples of do-goods by Salvation Army in the Twin Cities area:

- A shelter housing work release prisoners, and homeless shelters generally.

- Local tornado relief.

- Nursing home visits and toys for children.

- Providing a place for chemical dependent mothers and health care to the uninsured.

- Administering the future Kroc Community Center

Through fiery hell andhigh water, the Twin Cities Salvation Army has put the light in the Northern Lights. Personally, I get a little melancholy when I hear that bell and see that red bucket. Memories drift back to my childhood and my mittened hand gripping the coat tail of my mother as she bee-lined towards those soldiers of Christ and dropped her change in that bucket. "It's not how much" she would say, "it's whatever you have" as she gave one-hundred percent of what was in her purse. Probably not much, but it added up. Today, I can't pass one until I do the same. But I take solace in Newton's Second Law: any loss from the forces at Corporate Target, will be made up and then some from the spirit that has kept that bell ringing. We can start here.

Expect Specter to Influence Judiciary

2004-11-18T16:39:00.000-07:00

Just a quick thought today. We have got to do something about these country club republicans who today unanimously supported Specter for the chair of the judiciary committee. He may not overtly oppose nominees, but you can be sure that signals will be sent to Bush on who he will ultimately "announce" as his picks. The easy route would have been to kill his chairmanship. Who cares if he opposes on the committee or on the floor? We have the votes anyway. More on this later.

Matt Drudge: We Salute Your Nine Years of Service

2004-11-17T13:48:00.000-07:00

Matt Drudge has taken a lot of heat over the years, but in my view he has single handedly put the "Old" in Old Media. Indeed, he is to internet news what Rush Limbaugh was/is to conservative talk radio. From his humble beginnings literally digging up celebrity garbage, he has used his powers for good. Matt, the United States is blessed to have you.

Semper Vigilanes

Media Knee Jerk

2004-11-16T07:11:00.000-07:00

CNN and other outlets report to day of the shooting of a wounded terrorist in a Fallujah mosque.

Besides the obvious fog of war and the added fact that a marine was killed the day before as he knelt to give aid to a terrorist in the same mosque, my question is simple: Why is it so important to report this story now? Such a report can only serve to inflame the Muslim world against our troops who are battling terrorist as we speak. Moreover, reporting this now can have a huge chilling effect on soldiers in combat thereby further jeopardizing troops. I am all for embedded reporters, but let's keep a muzzle on some of this until after our troops are out of harms way.

Realignment, Now More than Ever

2004-11-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

Some snips from Fred Barnes, conclusion - our children may very well grow up in a free country after all:

KARL ROVE SAID LAST YEAR that the question of realignment--whether Republicans have at last become the majority party--would be decided by the election of 2004. And it has. Even by the cautious reckoning of Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, Republicans now have both an operational majority in Washington (control of the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives) and an ideological majority in the country (51 percent popular vote for a center-right president). They also control a majority of governorships, a plurality of state legislatures, and are at rough parity with Democrats in the number of state legislators. Rove says that under Bush a "rolling realignment" favoring Republicans continues, and he's right. So Republican hegemony in America is now expected to last for years, maybe decades.

Listen to Walter Dean Burnham, professor emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, who is the nation's leading theorist of realignment, the shift of political power from one party to another. The 2004 election, he says, "consolidates it all"--that is, it solidifies the trend that has favored Republicans over the past decade. To Burnham, it means there's "a stable pattern" of Republican rule. "If Republicans keep playing the religious card along with the terrorism card, this could last a long time," he says. Burnham, by the way, is neither a Republican nor a conservative.

His definition of realignment is "a sudden transformation that turns out to be permanent." The breakthrough occurred in 1994 when Republicans shattered the 40-year Democratic grip on Congress and the statehouses. ...

Sounds like we will not be wiping the smile off our face for a while.

Blue State Misers, Cuba Dreams & Bee Gee 8-Tracks

2004-11-12T06:39:00.000-07:00

On the generosity of red states v. blue, a study done by Catalogue for Philanthropy found that red states make up eighty percent of giving. No surprise there. Just compare the giving of Kerry and Bush and Gore and Bush. To be fair, I think democrats count their taxes in their tithe since Big Government is their choice in supreme being worship. Here is a breakdown:

Reportedly on the Today Show, Lynn Cheney was describing the rag tag nature of George Washington's army when Matt Lauer interrupted and stated, "you mean like the insurgents in Fallujah?" Mrs. Cheney was quick on the comeback and responded, "with one difference Matt, we fought for freedom and they are fighting for tyranny." As evil dictators continue to fall the Matt Lauers of the world can only hold out hope for the Cuba/North Korea/China styled utopian society.

Heard on the radio that blue state ideals have finally taken root in formally Red Russia. A woman has reportedly filed suit against McDonalds for burns she received from hot coffee. This same woman not too long ago had to wait in line 4 hours to buy a loaf of bread for a bazillian rubles. This also just in, the Bee Gees are starting to catch on in Russia and 8 track sales are sky rocketing.

Terrorist & Nobel Peace Prize Winner Dead

2004-11-11T06:43:00.000-07:00

The usual suspects in Old Media (hereinafter "OM") report on the death of a terrorist as follows: CBS opens with, "Yasser Arafat, who forced his people's plight into the spotlight but failed to achieve his lifelong quest for Palestinian statehood, died early Thursday. "We will follow in your footsteps," vowed a tearful Arafat aide...." ABC begins, "Yasser Arafat, the unchallenged Palestinian leader who fought for decades for statehood but was later seen by many as an obstacle to his people's dreams, has died." And NBC, "GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Thousands of Palestinians took to the streets throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Thursday in an outpouring of grief over the death of Yasser Arafat, the enduring symbol of their nationalist cause." To his credit, Prime Minister John Howard predicts that "History will judge Arafat harshly." There is also some hope for OM, Editorials. In his article entitled "Arafat the monster" Jeff Jacoby writes:

"YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves. In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.

Couldn't sum up my thoughts better, so I won't. But suffice it to say that in a perfect world, a terrorist dying of "natural causes" could only mean a well placed RPG. One other thought. It is a good thing that I am not God, because my worldly nature shows no mercy in times like this. Whenever evil leaders die, I reflect on God's mercy, His "amazing grace." I recall that two sinners hung on a cross next to Yeshua, one received God's mercy and grace, the other spurned the same. Both stepped into eternity, but only one will spend it in Heaven. And yes, Jesus even died for Yasser Arafat, a repentant Arafat that is. And so Bush's first words, "God bless his soul" were indeed appropriate for we cannot know what fate Arafat faced, but we do know that his fate is in the hands of God. Believe it or not, God does not desire that one person perish. Arafat has escaped justice on earth, but no one escapes Justice in the hereafter.

Fat, Drunk & Stupid

2004-11-10T06:48:00.000-07:00

Last night on MSNBC I heard a RNC strategist compare the Democrats to an "alcoholic who has yet to hit rock bottom." He predicted that the DNC would hit rock bottom, around 2006. The analogy is a good one. The DNC continues in its post election stupor, staggering around in search for yet another kook theory pusher to reassure them that it was not them, rather, it was too many idiot Republicans who negligently exercised their franchise along party lines. This conclusion is illogical on its face. Republicans made more gains in traditional Democrat strong holds than in those of the party faithful; substantial gains in the minority vote (Hispanics, African Americans, and Jewish), received a majority of the catholic vote, closed the gap in the female vote, and are continuing the closing of margins in blue states generally. Indeed, the elephant is now firmly in their living room and no one of common sense in the DNC, besides Zell Miller, wants to stand up and proclaim its existence. Shortly after the Kerry/Daschle defeat, DNC Chairman Terry McCauliff boldly stated that the party was never in better shape. Remarkably, pointing to their ever fattening war chest of contributions, McCauliff then declared victory for the DNC. But fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through a political life. It is a truism that most alcoholics have to hit rock bottom in order to begin their rehabilitation. But it is also true that most who hit rock bottom fail to rehabilitate at all. In the DNC's case, there are too many drinking buddies remaining in and at the party. Truth be told, few Democrats will see success unless they appease the anti-war, big tax, big government wing of the party. My prediction is that the DNC will be off the wagon well beyond 2006. Like a drunk slurring, "I can drive - just gimme them keys", the Democrats will continue in their blue state of denial. During the sobering period between binges, Andy Griffith reserved a cell for Otis who would promptly check himself in and slumber in his false euphoria. Our party will likewise continue locking up the vote as the DNC voluntarily walks the path of destruction.

Abject Hatred

2004-11-09T07:11:00.000-07:00

I am not certain why Republican states are red and Democrat blue. Perhaps it is a backhand reference to communist dictatorships. Like early patriots who embraced the derogatory Yankee Doodle, I nevertheless proudly embrace the attempted slander. But it is mainly liberals who are red in the face when Bush invades the conversation. Why? This abject hatred appears to have no anchor in reason. What exactly is there to hate Bush for? It cannot simply be Iraq; their vitriol hatred existed long before March 2003. Never mind that unemployment is lower than the average of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Never mind that this president is the first overhaul Medicare since its inception. And forget that he joined hands with none other than Ted Kennedy to pass real educational reform that has changed how we think about young minds; soft bigotry is now in a coma. Let's also forget about how he bravely led the charge to cut taxes in a time of war, which resulted in the most shallow recession in recent memory. Of course, we shouldn't remember that this president has placed more minorities in high places than any other in history. And yes, we should forget that he calmly and resolutely has confronted more crisis situations than any other president; from the constitutional crisis of the 2000 election, to the downed plan in China within weeks of his inauguration, to the worst attack on American soil in US history, to a difficult war on terror where the enemy has no heads of state and are interspersed throughout the entire world even in our own communities. Moreover, he has remained calm and resolute through the most viscous campaign of personal attacks ever waged by MSM, Hollywood, foreign entities, politicians, judges, and even OBL himself, all united to tear down our president. Through all this, he has never uttered a disparaging word. Forget about all of this and let the liberals only remember what they hate this president for, which is....well, I forget. Liberals confuse hatred with justice. "But hatred is not justice, and revenge is inconceivable without hatred. Hatred consumes him who bears it, not against him at whom it is directed. Hatred claims the soul of man, and it is for this reason that the Apostle Paul asks of us "do not avenge yourselves, in order to make peace" (Romans 12, 19)

Welcome

2004-11-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

Well, mission accomplished, sort of. We are now as safe as we can be for another four years. With the 2004 election, Bloggers have been elevated to their rightful place of influence and honor; the so-called "New Media" will continue to relegate Big Media to its deserved "B" rating! But now is not the time to rest on our laurels! It is my vision that Lex Rex contributes in its own small way to the further reddening of America. While the Bush Country map looks like there is little work to do, the fact remains that there are many areas that are in desperate need of a conservative revolution. Indeed, urbanites within throwing distance of ground zero are still being held hostage by the left and forced into a blue world view that can only spell more suffering and turmoil. We have made gains, but ask yourself how John F. Kerry received 48% of the popular vote? There will always be a 20% radical fringe, but what of the additional 28%? It is too easy to blame Big Media alone, whether its lacking semblance of any objectivity in reporting, or its overt omission in silence, the fact remains that at least 28% of America pulled the lever for what would have been the largest disaster in presidential history. Put another way, just 70,000 changed Ohioan minds would have changed history forever, for the worst that is. So it is with this ongoing mission that Lex Rex launches into the Blogosphere! I welcome everyone into our very large red tent!