addai

c) Is the Bible, in practice, really "all sufficent" for Protestants? Protestants frequently claim they "just believe the Bible", but a number of questions arise when one examines their actual use of the Bible. For instance, why do Protestants write so many books on doctrine and the Christian life in general, if indeed the Bible was sufficent for one to undertand it, then why don't Protestants simply hand out Bibles and let it go at that? And if it is "all sufficent", as they suggest, why do Protestants not all believe the same? What is the purpose of Sunday School, or the many Protestant study Bibles, if all that was needed was the Bible itself? Why do they hand out tracts and other material? Why do they even teach or preach at all - why not just read the Bible to people? Though they usually will not admit it, they instinctively know the Bible cannot be understood alone. And in fact, every Protestant sect, has its own body of traditions, though again they probably will not call them by this name. It is not an accident that Orthodox Presybterians all believe the same things, and United Pentecostals generally beleive the same things, but Orthodox Presybeterians and United Pentecostals emphatically do not beleive the same things. Orthodox Presybterians and United Pentecostals do not each individually come up with their own ideas from an independent study of the Bible. Rather, those in each group are all taught to beleive in a certain way - from a common tradition. Thus the question is not really whether we will just believe the Bible or whether we will also use tradition. The real question is, WHICH tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted - The Apostolic Tradition of the historic Church, or the modern and divergent traditions of Protestantism, which have no roots deeper than the advent of the Protestant Reformation?

Let no one misunderstand the point that is being made. None of this meant to belittle the importance of the Holy Scriptures. God forbid! In the Orthodox Church the Scriptures are believed to be fully inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. But the fact is that the Bible does not contain teaching on every subject of importance to the Church. As already stated, the New Testament gives little detail about how to worship - and this is certainly no small matter. Furthermore, the same Church that handed down to us the Holy Scriptures, and preserved them, was the very Church from which we have our patterns of worship! If we mistrust this Churches faithfulness in perserving apostolic worship, then we must also mistrust her fidelty in perserving the Scriptures. (ft7) FT7 And in fact, this is what Protestant scholarship has done. Though Protestantism was founded on its claim of beleiving the Bible to be the only authority for faith and practice, contemporary Protestant scholarship is dominated by modernists who no longer beleive in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Scriptures. They now place themselves above the Bible and only choose to use those parts that suit them, disacrding the rest as "primitve mythology and legend." The only authority left for such as these is themselves.

Interestingly, none of these literary types present in the New Testament has worship as a primary subject, nor was any of them meant to give details about how to worship in church. In the Old Testament there are detailed, though by no means exhaustive, treatment of the worship of Israel (Exodus, Leviticus, and Psalms). In the New Testament, there are only the meagerest hints of the worship of early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they had no order in their services - Liturgical historians have established that fact that the early Christians continued to worship in the manner firmly based upon the the patterns of the Jewish worship, which they inherited from the Apostles. (ft6) FT6 Alexander Schmemann, Introdction to Liturgical Theology (crestwood, NY: St. Vladmimir's Seminary Press, 1986), pp. 51ff. (New Page) However, even the few references in the New Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church show that New Testament Christians worshiped liturgically, as did their fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1); they worshiped in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:26); and they worshiped in synagogues (acts 18:4). We also need to note that none of the types of literature present in the New Testament has its purpose to comprehensive doctrinal instruction. The New Testament contains neither a catechism nor a systematic theology. If all we need as Christians is the Bible itself, why does it not contain some sort of comprehensive doctrinal statement? Imagine how easily all the many controversies could have been settled if the Bible had clearly answered every doctrinal question. But as convenient as it might have been, such things are not found among the books of the Bible.

B ) what was the purpose of the New Testament writings? In Protestant biblical studies,it is taught (and I think correctly) that when studying the Bible, among many other considerations, one must consider the genre (or literary type) of a particular passage; different genres have different uses. Another consideration is the subject and purpose of the passage. In the New Testament we have, broadly speaking, four literary genres:Gospel, historirical narrative (Acts), epistle, and apocalyptic/prophetic (Revelation). The Gospels were written to testify of Christ's Incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection. Biblical historical narratives recount the history of God's people and also the lives of significant figures in history, and show God's providence in the midst of it all. Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in the various churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems, were not addressed in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines. (ft5) Matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related to problems (for example, ! Corinthians 11-14). Apocalyptic writings, such as Revelation, were written to show God's ultimate triumph in history. FT5 For example, there is no place where the question of the inerrancy of the Scriptures is dealt with in detail, precisely because this was not an issue of dispute. In our present day, with the rise of religious skeptiscism, this is very much an issue, and if the epistles were written today, this would certainly be dealt with at some point. It would be foolish to conclude that since this issue is not dealt with specifically, that the early Christians did not think it was important or did not believe in it.

The primary purpose in the Church establishing an authoritative list of books which were to be received as sacred Scripture was to protect the Church from spurious books which claimed apostolic authorship, but were in fact written by heretics, such as the "Gospel of Thomas." Heretical groups could not base their teaching on Holy Tradition because their teachings originated from outside the Church. So the only way they could claim any authoritative basis for their heresies was to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and to forge new books in the names of the Apostles of the New Testament. In establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received by all as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origon, the Church did not intend to imply that all of the Christian Faith and all information necessary for worship and good order in the Church was contained in these writings. (ft4) In fact by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture, it was already, in faith in worship, essentially indistinguishable from the Church in later periods. This is an historical certainty. As for the structure of Church authority, it was the Orthodox bishops, gathered together in the various councils, who settled the question of the canon. The Church as we know it was in place BEFORE the Bible as we know it was in place. FT4 Indeed this list did not even intend to comprise all the books which the Church has perserved from antiquity and considers part of the larger Tradition. For example, the Book of Enoch, though quoted in teh canonical books, was not itself included in the canon. I will not pretend to know why this is so, but for whatever reason the Church has chosen to perserve this book, and yet has not appointed it to be read in Church or to be set alongside the canonical books.

To begin with, we should ask what the Apostle Paul is talking about when he speaks of the "Holy Scriptures" Saint Timothy has known since he was a child. We can be sure that Saint PAul is not refering to the New Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been written when Saint Timothy was a child. In fact, only a few of the books of the New Testament had been written when St. Paul wrote to Timothy. They certainly had not been collected together into the canon of the New Testament as we know it today. Obviously here, and in most references to the Scriptures that we find in the New Testament, Saint Paul is speaking of the Old Testament. Therefore, if this passage is going to be used to set the limmits on inspired authority, not only will Tradition be excluded, but this passage itself - and the entire New Testament! In the second place, if Saint Paul meant here to exclude Tradition as not being profitable, then we would wonder why he uses the oral tradition in this very chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in 2 Timothy 3:8 Saint Paul refers to them opposing Moses. The Apostle is drawing here upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian magicians in the Exodus account (chapters 7;8) were Jannes and Jambres. (Ft3) And this is by no means the only time a nonbiblical source is used in the New Testament. The best known instance is in the Epistle of Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude14,15;cf Enoch 1:9). FT3 A.F. Walls, "Jannes and Jambres", The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol2 (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980).pp.733-734

FALSE ASSUMPTION #1: The Bible was intended to be the final word on faith, piety, and worship. a) Do the Scriptures themselves teach that they are "All sufficent" apart from Church Tradition? The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine of "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that is needed for the Christian life - for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The passage that is most often cited to support this notion is: ....From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2nd Timothy 3:15-17). Those who would use these verses to advocate sola Scriptura argue that this passage teaches the "All sufficency" of Scripture - because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make the man pious man perfect......then, indeed to attain completeness and perfection, there is no need of tradition" (ft2) But is this really what this passage teaches? FT2 George Mastrantonis, trans., Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubigen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augburg Confession (brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982, p.114

Section I PROBLEMS WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA A. It is based On False Assumptions An Assumption is something that we take for granted from the outset, usually quite unconciously. As long as an assumption is a true and valid one, all is well. But a false assumption obviously leads to false conclusions. One would hope that even when someone has made an unconcious assumption, if his conclusions are proven faulty, he would then ask himself where his underlying error lay. Protestants who are willing honestly to assess the current state of the Protestant world, for instance, must ask themselves, "If Protestantisms foundational teaching of sola Scriptura is of God, why has it resulted in the formation of over twenty thousand something differing groups that can't agree on the basic aspects of what the Bible says, or even what it means to be a Christian? If the Bible is sufficent apart from Holy Tradition, why can a Baptist, a charismatic, a Methodist, and even a Jehovahs Witness all claim to believe what the Bible says, yet no two of them agree on what it is that the Bible says? Clearly, here is the situation in which Protestants find themselves, which is without a doubt at odds with the Church we find in the New Testament. Unfortunately, most Protestants, are willing to blame this sad state of affairs on almost anything except the root problem. Mind you, the problem here is not the integrity of the Bible. The Bible is the inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is received by the Church as the Word of God. We are not arguing here the inspiration of Scripture, but rather its proper use. The idea of sola Scriptura is so foundational to Protestantism, to them it is tantamount to denying God even to question it. But as our Lord said, "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree brings forth evil fruit (Matthew 7:17). If we judge sola Scriptura by its fruit, then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be "hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).

WHY SCRIPTURE ALONE? If we are to understand what Protestants think, we will first have to know why they believe what they believe. In fact, if we try to put ourselves in the place of the early reformers such as Martin Luther, we must certainly have some appreciation for their reasons for championing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or "Scripture Alone"). When one considers the corruption in the Roman Church at the time, the degenerate teachings it promoted, and the distorted understanding of Tradition that it used to defend itself - along with the fact that the West was several centuries removed from any contact with its former Orthodox heritage - it is difficult to imagine within those limmitations how one such as Luther might have responded with signifcantly better results. How could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when Tradition (as all in the Roman West had been led to believe) was embodied in the very papacy that was responsible for these abuses? To Luther, it was Tradition that had erred. And if he were to reform the Church, he would have to do so with the sure undergriding of the Scriptures. However, Luther never really sought to eliminate Tradition altogether, and he certainly did not use the Scriptures truly "alone". What he really attempted to do was to do was to use Scripture to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt. Unfortunately, his rhetoric far outstripped his own practice, and more radical reformers took to the idea of sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.

Well this thread actually is mostly a copy of another I have on the ooze.com (An American, mostly Protestant evangelical website). But I figured some folks here might like and find it helpul. Years ago, (actually six years or so,) when I was first looking into Orthodoxy, I got this book Sola Scriptura, An Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology By Fr. John Whiteford So anyway I'm going to do "the Deacon Raphael thing" Namely, type in an entry or two, in the morning, and maybe some more late at night. Until I have all the salient points covered in the book. I like the book a lot. It does cover that Credo from most of the hermaneutics used by Protestants. The only thing I think would change is its style. So its a little more pomo friendly But anyway that is the basic plan of the thread. And of course I will be answering comments, both in the positive and of course in the negative as well. If nothing else, I'm sure some may gain some insight in why we (Orthodox) think the way we do....

I was happy to hear your background Arpa. I was part of an east syrian church group for a few years, and still have an interest in Aramaic (but never learned it, only studied Aramaic to English Bible translations and other helpful texts). I think for the most part the assyrians missed their shot. (Not getting their own nation when Britain gave up the middle eastern territories in World War II). I think the most to hope for is for them to get perhaps some small territories in reconstructed Iraq. Also I think Assyrians (East Syrians aka Nestorian descendants), and the more Western Syrians (Syrian Church of Antioch) might try to lobby more affectively Washington and the Western nations, concerning civil rights, freedom etc. in Turkey and the middle east.

Uh Jesus had no wife. The only place I know that states he did was in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas which is not accepted by any know Christian Church.

Thanks Ludwig. Are you asking about non-Armenians as individuals I was asking about how the Church relates non Armenians in particular. I see myself as a "3rd generation convert" Before I became interested in Orthodoxy there were really two generation of non-Orthodox coming into orthodox. 1st generation. There weren't many in this one. But the famous English (Greek Orthodox) Bishop Kallistos Ware. Who is a very famous writer and speaker came in during the late 1940s (I think). Alexander Schmemann (not sure on spelling) was also another high profile writer, speaker, teacher. who I beleive is also English, and joined the Greek Church. 2nd Generation. You have the "evangelical Orthodox Church", (x-campus crusade for christ folks), most notable Peter Quilquist. Also there was a group of Pentecostals from Oral Roberts who converted after being exposed to a Russian Orthodox priest who taught systematic theology there. And a number of others, all of which have written on the subject. Many of these folks became aware of the potential for being Orthodox after reading works by Kallistos Ware, and Schemman and realizing that they too were once converts. 3) rd Generation (Me and Others). In my area the folks who were part of the "Evangelical Orthodox Church", who joined the Antiochian church (and became priests in it), made a large church and bookstore (Concilliar press, Ben Lomond). And a few years before I converted also a Vineyard Church, actually switched from being a non-denominational Charsimatic Church, to being Antiochian (Syrian Melkite). Anyway, in reading up on Orthodoxy etc. I've already seen that non-ethics have actually joined the "Church establishement" and made a signiifcant impact for the faith and in representing the Faith for the rest of the non-Orthodox Christian world. So I was exploring what the Armenian Churches's position. My guess was for the time being it was more focused on their own ethnic group. I was interested in the potential in the distant future of possibly bieng a missionary priest, for nonethics (especially Protestants) who are interested in Orthodoxy. So far the Antiochain Church is the most set up for that (on the west coast, their churches are largely populated by converts to Orthodoxy). And theres a few more, Orthodox Church of America (Basically an Americanized Russian ORthodox Church), and the Greek church to a lesser extant. The Coptic Church has made a big effort to reach out to non-Copts since the 1990s(one of the reason I feel so welcome there). I am however unaware of any non-Egyptain ethnic, priests (Although this could simply be a matter of time) I however have taken a shine to the Armenian Church and would have that be my "first pick" I I would ever to something like this.

I don't have a problem with Chalcedon for or against. I'm Oriental Orthodox, because I was part of an east Syrian (Nestorian) church for a while, but also studied East Orthodox theology. And found the Armenians a good place to be. But I'm inclined to eventually go "Full concilliiar" just because after being with a narrow sect, It's really good to have Catholicy and affiliation with a large body of believers world wide. Besides that in reading East Orthodox books on theology, I really can't find anything wrong with it. It's generally well thought out, defended, articulated, supported etc. The main objections I think over Chalcedon were the "behind the scenes stuff", as far as the emperor, and how it was conducted. Although I've heard some good arguments how Chalcedon is re-instuting Nestorianism etc. I do like the Soorp Badarak quite a bit, that is very different than the Eastern churches. Things like the curtain, instead of the iconstasis, those metal fan instruments (don't know the name), the kiss of peace, the organ music by Komatas etc. All that and more really gives your Church a lot of Character. And I hope would all be retained.

hhhhhmmmmm well what would that mean exactly in "uniting". Would they simply formerly "Accept" the seven Ecumenical counsels (Which I don't think would be a bad thing). Or would they have to conform in all the other ways? As far as rite etc. goes? One thing I like as an outsider, visiting the Armenian Church is how interesting and distinctive it is. Some of the Byzantinized churches seem pressed out of the same mold, (iconostasis, same liturgy, icons etc.). In fact, all the Non-Chalcedonian churches are more distinctive than the Fully Concilliar ones. I like the national character and personality of them that shines through. I would hate for your churches heritage to be lost by becoming just another Byzantine franchise.

Have you ever heard of the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches? There 4 others in fact, 6 total if you count Eritrea seperate from Ethiopia. Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) Aremian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean ORthodox Church, and Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch There's other so called "momophyte" churches out there as well. Infact, the Ethiopians in terms of numbers are quite big. At least 26 million people or so, last time I checked

Well being a Non Armenian here, but reading the different church writings online etc. I understand that the Armenian Church emphasizes the "Apostolic", because some people try to insinutate (possibly some Catholics), that the Church itself was started by St. Gregory the Illuminator. Who of course converted, officiallly speaking the nation of Armenia to being an official Christian Nation (beating Rome by 20 years). But some would like to imply that the Armenian Church did not really exist before then (implying it doesn't have true Apostolic Succession, and is less legitimate). So emphasiizng the term Apostolic is one way of dealing with this, besides citing Thadeus and Barnabas, along with the other nation saints, Mesrob, Vartan, Kriokor, etc.

Yes thanks for that article. I think when I was a Protestant, I learned that the Gospel was for the entire world (part of the Great Commision). And now that I'm Orthodox I realize that many also feel that the Church is to carry its message to all that are in the their community (Even though it doesnot actively prosletyze like the Protestant groups frequently do). I know a number of Orthodox Churches have really changed a lot in the last few decades. The antiochains are the best example, but the Coptics since the 90s also have done so, as well as the Greek and Russian Orthodox. Have taken in non ethics, as well as had ethnic priests and monks. I think the question is will Church continue to see its mission purely in hanging on to and perserving its established territory. Or will it see its mission also in gaining ground. Given the fact that a nice chunck of your people don't seem to appreciate their Church (by attending church infrequently, or actually have converted to Catholicism or Protestantism). I think spending some time and energy on folks who appreciate it, the ever growing number of Protestants interested in converting over to Orthodoxy, would yield some very substantial dividens. Anyway thanks for the info!

Thanks for your Reply Arpa. You know I studied church history (from the church fathers, church historians etc.), and the topic of "church growth" (in the Protestant or at least Western context). Usually there is one point that comes from studying the Church. If churches don't evangelize others outside their ethnic group they sually go into a state of decline. Some of the stuff I've read on the Armenian Church also backs this up. I know for instance that the Armenian Evangelical Church is a very real threat, and also that quite a few Armenians can marry American Protestants and Catholics and leave the Church as well. Still another problem is Armenians and (ethnics of othe orthodox churches as well) not learning their liturgical tongue as well as they should (Thus necessitating more English used in Church). And also adding to the problem of people leaving the Church over a more Americanized Protestant or Catholic one. In terms of the second problem (Americanized Armenians) I really think that adopting a more open policy towards more non ethnics is beneficial. Because many converts to orthodoxy are very active and really breath a lot of life to the Church. I also think that there would be less problem retaining 2ndm 3rd, and 4th generation Armenian Americans (By having non ethnic clergy, who are more fluent in English etc.).

LOL actually your close... My screen name comes because for a few years I was a member of an East Syrian (origianlly Nestorian, but reformed somewhat later) church. They got their apostolic start in Edessa, by saints Thadeus and barnabas. That actually was one of the things that caused me to check out the Armenian Church; because I realized after I had been studying Church history that they had got their Apostolic start from the same place and apostles. So I was curious to see if their might be any similarities, or commonalities. Besides that after studying the Chalcedonian books, and reading the East Syrian stuff I was somewhere in between on the issues. And found the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenians in particular seemed to fit pretty well (from the stuff I read from places like Sain.org etc.).

Hello Everybody! I wanted to post this thread to answer some personal questions I had on the Church and non-Armenians. I'm pretty new to the Oriental Orthodox church (I was formerly Protestant for 30 years, then began studying and attending orthodox churches off and on for the last 6 years or so). I joined the Coptic church a few months ago. But previously, I had been attending the local Armenian parish previously. My introduction into Orthodoxy actually came from attending an Antiochain parish for a time (Syrian, Chalcedonian) and reading the book "Becoming Orthodox" by Peter Quilquist (who is also Antiochain). (I was formerly Protestant). Anyway, I was interested in how Non-Armenians fit into your church. I know the Antiochian church, for instance has a lot of priests who were formely Protestant pastors who converted over to Orthodoxy. During my life I have been very active with Church and theology. I think the priesthood could also be in my future, but don't believe I'm called to be an unmarreid priest, so I'm deleiberately waiting to get this matter settled in my life before exploring this any further. I am however very active in talking to Protestants and agnostics about Orthodoxy as a kind of layman evangelist and apologist. Anyway in attending your Church, it really appealed to me a great deal. I've also read articles by father Vasken Mosevian and others and I really feel like I agree and fit in with what the Church teaches and stands for. But when attending the local Aremnian parish, it seems like unless your Armenian, or married to an Armenian your out of luck.... (The church seems oblivious the outsiders would be interested in it. And when they do find out, they seem confused why any outsider would want to come to it). Anyway I figured I would bring this to your attention and get your feedback.