Webmaster's Note: Father John Whiteford is a = former=20 Nazarene Associate Pastor who converted to the Orthodox = Faith soon=20 after completing his B.A. in Religion at Southern Nazarene=20 University in Bethany, Oklahoma. He first encountered = Orthodoxy as a=20 result of his involvement in the local Pro-Life (Rescue) = movement,=20 which also included Father Anthony Nelson and several of his = parishioners. After over a year of searching the Scriptures = and the=20 writings of the early Church; and through the love, prayers = and=20 patience of Father Anthony and the Parishioners of St. = Benedicts,=20 Fr. John was received into the Holy Orthodox Church. When he = wrote=20 this article he was serving as a Reader at St. Vladimirs in = Houston,=20 Texas and is continuing his studies. He has since been = ordained a=20 Priest and serves St. Jonah of Manchuria Orthodox Church = (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), in Houston, = Texas.

AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING

Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?

Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the = Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many = of those=20 who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be = converted.=20 This is not because they are uncertain about their own = faith,=20 usually they are just amazed that anything could break = through a=20 Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have = come to=20 understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and = limited=20 grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are = coming=20 from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their = run-ins with=20 Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they = do not=20 generally communicate because they do not speak the same = theological=20 language =E2=80=94 in other words, they have no common = theological basis to=20 discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the = some=20 twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now = exist=20 (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming = that it=20 rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly = sympathize with=20 those that are a bit confused by them.

Despite all that stands in their way, there definitely is = hope=20 for Protestants. Protestants in search of theological = sanity, of=20 true worship, and of the ancient Christian Faith are = practically=20 beating on our Church doors (of course to those who are not = paying=20 attention, this may sound like a strange claim). They are no = longer=20 satisfied with the contradictions and the faddishness of=20 contemporary Protestant America, but when we open the door = to these=20 inquirers we must be prepared. These people have questions! = Many of=20 these inquirers are Protestant ministers, or are among the = better=20 informed laymen; they are sincere seekers of Truth, but they = have=20 much to unlearn and it will require informed Orthodox = Christians to=20 help them work through these issues =E2=80=94 Orthodox = Christians who know=20 where Protestants are coming from, but even more = importantly, who=20 know what they believe themselves!

Ironically (or providentially) this surge in interest in=20 Orthodoxy among Americans from Protestant backgrounds has = come even=20 as the opening of the doors of the former Communist-block = has=20 brought upon its Orthodox people an unprecedented onslaught = from=20 every religious sect and cult. At the spearhead, American=20 Evangelicals and Charismatics have been stumbling over each = other =E2=80=94=20 with each of its sects seeking to gain the prestigious boast = that=20 they too have established themselves even among the Godless=20 Russians! So we Orthodox are now presented with a double = urgency =E2=80=94=20 on the one hand, there is the missionary task of presenting = the=20 Faith to Protestants here in the West; but on the other hand = we must=20 earnestly combat the spread of heresies among the Orthodox, = both=20 here and in traditionally Orthodox lands. In either case, = the task=20 at hand is to equip ourselves with sufficient knowledge and=20 understanding of the issues that confront us.

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism = =E2=80=94 the feature=20 which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is = its=20 numerous differences and contradictions. Like the the = mythical=20 Hydra, its many heads only multiply, and though it is a = worthy task=20 to seek to understand and confront these heresies = individually, this=20 is not the key to their defeat. In order for one to = understand the=20 unique beliefs of each individual sect, it requires a = knowledge of=20 the history and development of Protestantism in general, a = great=20 deal of research into each major stripe of Protestant = theology,=20 worship, etc., as well as a lot of contemporary reading in = order to=20 understand some of the more important cross-trends that are=20 currently at work (such as liberalism, or emotionalism). = Even with=20 all this, one could not hope to keep up with the new groups = that=20 spring up almost daily. Yet for all their differences there = is one=20 basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob = of these=20 thousands of disparate groups into the general category of=20 "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor = qualifications)=20 believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, = and=20 though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they = generally=20 do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible =E2=80=94 on = your own! =E2=80=94 apart=20 from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this = belief,=20 why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the = Scriptures,=20 then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with = understanding.=20 Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs = Witnesses=20 are really not as different as they outwardly appear once = you have=20 understood this essential point =E2=80=94 indeed if you ever = have an=20 opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue = over the=20 Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they = simply quote=20 different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they = are=20 equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in = the=20 discussion because they both essentially agree on their = approach to=20 the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying = common=20 assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed = approach to=20 the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this = Hydra=20 of heresies =E2=80=94 pierce its heart and its many heads at = once fall=20 lifelessly to the ground.

Why Scripture Alone?

If we are to understand what Protestants think, we will = have to=20 first know why they believe what they believe. In fact if we = try to=20 put ourselves in the place of those early reformers, such as = Martin=20 Luther, we must certainly have some appreciation for their = reasons=20 for championing the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or = "Scripture=20 alone"). When one considers the corruption in the Roman = Church at=20 that time, the degenerate teachings that it promoted, and = the=20 distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend = itself=20 -along with the fact that the West was several centuries = removed=20 from any significant contact with their former Orthodox = heritage =E2=80=94=20 it is difficult to imagine within those limitations how one = such as=20 Luther might have responded with significantly better = results. How=20 could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these = abuses, when=20 tradition (as all in the Roman West were lead to believe) = was=20 personified by the very papacy that was responsible for = those=20 abuses. To Luther, it was tradition that had erred, and if = he were=20 to reform the Church he would have to do so with the sure=20 undergirding of the Scriptures. However, Luther never really = sought=20 to eliminate tradition altogether, and he never used the = Scriptures=20 truly "alone," what he really attempted to do was to use = Scripture=20 to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were = corrupt.=20 Unfortunately his rhetoric far outstripped his own practice, = and=20 more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to = its=20 logical conclusions.

PROBLEMS WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

A. IT IS A DOCTRINE BASED UPON A NUMBER OF FAULTY=20 ASSUMPTIONS

An assumption is something that we take for granted from = the=20 outset, usually quite unconsciously. As long as an = assumption is a=20 valid one, all is fine and well; but a false assumption = inevitably=20 leads to false conclusions. One would hope that even when = one has=20 made an unconscious assumption that when his conclusions are = proven=20 faulty he would then ask himself where his underlying error = lay.=20 Protestants who are willing to honestly assess the current = state of=20 the Protestant world, must ask themselves why, if = Protestantism and=20 its foundational teaching of Sola Scriptura are of God, has = it=20 resulted in over twenty-thousand differing groups that cant = agree on=20 basic aspects of what the Bible says, or what it even means = to be a=20 Christian? Why (if the Bible is sufficient apart from Holy=20 Tradition) can a Baptist, a Jehovahs Witness, a Charismatic, = and a=20 Methodist all claim to believe what the Bible says and yet = no two of=20 them agree what it is that the Bible says? Obviously, here = is a=20 situation in which Protestants have found themselves that is = wrong=20 by any stretch or measure. Unfortunately, most Protestants = are=20 willing to blame this sad state of affairs on almost = anything =E2=80=94=20 anything except the root problem. The idea of Sola Scriptura = is so=20 foundational to Protestantism that to them it is tantamount = to=20 denying God to question it, but as our Lord said, "every = good tree=20 bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth = evil fruit"=20 (Matthew 7:17). If we judge Sola Scriptura by its fruit then = we are=20 left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to = be "hewn=20 down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 1: The Bible was intended to be the = last word=20 on faith, piety, and worship.

a). Does the Scripture teach that it is "all = sufficient?"

The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine = of=20 "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that = is needed=20 for everything that concerns the Christians life =E2=80=94 = all that would be=20 needed for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The = Scripture=20 that is most usually cited to support this notion is:

...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, = which are=20 able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is = in=20 Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, = and is=20 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for=20 instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be = perfect,=20 thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy = 3:15-17).

Those who would use this passage to advocate Sola = Scriptura argue=20 that this passage teaches the "all sufficiency" of Scripture = =E2=80=94=20 because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make = the pious=20 man perfect... then, indeed to attain completeness and = perfection,=20 there is no need of tradition."1 But what can really be said = based=20 on this passage?

For starters, we should ask what Paul is talking about = when he=20 speaks of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since he was = a=20 child. We can be sure that Paul is not referring to the New=20 Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been = written when=20 Timothy was a child =E2=80=94 in fact it was not nearly = finished when Paul=20 wrote this epistle to Timothy, much less collected together = into the=20 canon of the New Testament as we now know it. Obviously = here, and in=20 most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New=20 Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this = passage=20 is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, = not=20 only will Tradition be excluded but this passage itself and = the=20 entire New Testament.

In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition = as not=20 also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses=20 non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The = names=20 Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet = in II=20 Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is = drawing=20 upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most = prominent=20 Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were = "Jannes" and=20 "Jambres."2 And this is by no means the only time that a=20 non-biblical source is used in the New Testament =E2=80=94 = the best known=20 instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from = the Book=20 of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).

When the Church officially canonized the books of = Scripture, the=20 primary purpose in establishing an authoritative list of = books which=20 were to be received as Sacred Scripture was to protect the = Church=20 from spurious books which claimed apostolic authorship but = were in=20 fact the work of heretics (e.g. the gospel of Thomas). = Heretical=20 groups could not base their teachings on Holy Tradition = because=20 their teachings originated from outside the Church, so the = only way=20 that they could claim any authoritative basis for their = heresies was=20 to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and to forge new = books in the=20 names of apostles or Old Testament saints. The Church = defended=20 itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the = apostolic=20 origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, = i.e. the=20 fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can = historically=20 demonstrate their direct descendence from the Apostles), and = by=20 appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. = that the=20 Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians = have=20 always accepted throughout its history and throughout the = world).=20 The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical = books by=20 establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were = received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired = and of=20 genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.

By establishing the canonical list of Sacred Scripture = the Church=20 did not intend to imply that all of the Christian Faith and = all=20 information necessary for worship and good order in the = Church was=20 contained in them.3 One thing that is beyond serious dispute = is that=20 by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was = in its=20 faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the = Church of=20 later periods =E2=80=94 this is an historical certainty. As = far as the=20 structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops = together in=20 various councils who settled the question of the Canon = =E2=80=94 and so it=20 is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of = doctrine=20 or discipline has to be settled.

b). What was the purpose of the New Testament = Writings?

In Protestant biblical studies it is taught (and I think=20 correctly taught in this instance) that when you study the = Bible,=20 among many other considerations, you must consider the genre = (or=20 literary type) of literature that you are reading in a = particular=20 passage, because different genres have different uses. = Another=20 consideration is of course the subject and purpose of the = book or=20 passage you are dealing with. In the New Testament we have = four=20 broad categories of literary genres: gospel, historical = narrative=20 (Acts), epistle, and the apocalyptic/prophetic book, = Revelation.=20 Gospels were written to testify of Christs life, death, and=20 resurrection. Biblical historical narratives recount the = history of=20 God's people and also the lives of significant figures in = that=20 history, and show God's providence in the midst of it all. = Epistles=20 were written primarily to answer specific problems that = arose in=20 various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and = understood by=20 all, and not considered problems were not generally touched = upon in=20 any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were = generally=20 disputed or misunderstood doctrines,4 matters of worship = were only=20 dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I = Corinthians=20 11-14). Apocalyptic writings (such as Revelation) were = written to=20 show God's ultimate triumph in history.

Let us first note that none of these literary types = present in=20 the New Testament have worship as a primary subject, or were = meant=20 to give details about how to worship in Church. In the Old = Testament=20 there are detailed (though by no means exhaustive) = treatments of the=20 worship of the people of Israel (e.g. Leviticus, Psalms) = =E2=80=94 in the=20 New Testament there are only meager hints of the worship of = the=20 Early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they = had no=20 order in their services =E2=80=94 liturgical historians have = established the=20 fact that the early Christians continued to worship in a = manner=20 firmly based upon the patterns of Jewish worship which it = inherited=20 from the Apostles. 5 However, even the few references in the = New=20 Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church = show that,=20 far from being a wild group of free-spirited "Charismatics," = the=20 Christians in the New Testament worshiped liturgically as = did their=20 fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts = 3:1); they=20 worshiped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:26); and they = worshiped=20 in Synagogues (Acts 18:4).

We need also to note that none of the types of literature = present=20 in the New Testament have as their purpose comprehensive = doctrinal=20 instruction =E2=80=94 it does not contain a catechism or a = systematic=20 theology. If all that we need as Christians is the Bible by = itself,=20 why is there not some sort of a comprehensive doctrinal = statement?=20 Imagine how easily all the many controversies could have = been=20 settled if the Bible clearly answered every doctrinal = question. But=20 as convenient as it might otherwise have been, such things = are not=20 found among the books of the Bible.

Let no one misunderstand the point that is being made. = None of=20 this is meant to belittle the importance of the Holy = Scriptures =E2=80=94=20 God forbid! In the Orthodox Church the Scriptures are = believed to be=20 fully inspired, inerrant, and authoritative; but the fact is = that=20 the Bible does not contain within it teaching on every = subject of=20 importance to the Church. As already stated, the New = Testament gives=20 little detail about how to worship =E2=80=94 but this is = certainly no small=20 matter. Furthermore, the same Church that handed down to us = the Holy=20 Scriptures, and preserved them, was the very same Church = from which=20 we have received our patterns of worship. If we mistrust = this=20 Churchs faithfulness in preserving Apostolic worship, then = we must=20 also mistrust her fidelity in preserving the Scriptures. = 6

c). Is the Bible, in practice, really "all sufficient" = for=20 Protestants?

Protestants frequently claim they "just believe the = Bible," but a=20 number of questions arise when one examines their actual use = of the=20 Bible. For instance, why do Protestants write so many books = on=20 doctrine and the Christian life in general, if indeed all = that is=20 necessary is the Bible? If the Bible by itself were = sufficient for=20 one to understand it, then why dont Protestants simply hand = out=20 Bibles? And if it is "all sufficient," why does it not = produce=20 consistent results, i.e. why do Protestants not all believe = the=20 same? What is the purpose of the many Protestant study = Bibles, if=20 all that is needed is the Bible itself? Why do they hand out = tracts=20 and other material? Why do they even teach or preach at all = =E2=80=94why not=20 just read the Bible to people? The answer is though they = usually=20 will not admit it, Protestants instinctively know that the = Bible=20 cannot be understood alone. And in fact every Protestant = sect has=20 its own body of traditions, though again they generally will = not=20 call them what they are. It is not an accident that Jehovahs = Witnesses all believe the same things, and Southern Baptists = generally believe the same things, but Jehovahs Witnesses = and=20 Southern Baptists emphatically do not believe the same = things.=20 Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists do not each = individually=20 come up with their own ideas from an independent study of = the Bible;=20 rather, those in each group are all taught to believe in a = certain=20 way =E2=80=94 from a common tradition. So then the question = is not really=20 whether we will just believe the Bible or whether we will = also use=20 tradition =E2=80=94 the real question is which tradition = will we use to=20 interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the = Apostolic=20 Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and = modern,=20 traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the = advent of=20 the Protestant Reformation.

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2:

The Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, = whereas=20 Tradition is simply a "human corruption" that came much = later.

Especially among Evangelicals and so-called Charismatics = you will=20 find that the word "tradition" is a derogatory term, and to = label=20 something as a "tradition" is roughly equivalent to saying = that it=20 is "fleshly," "spiritually dead," "destructive," and/or=20 "legalistic." As Protestants read the New Testament, it = seems clear=20 to them that the Bible roundly condemns tradition as being = opposed=20 to Scripture. The image of early Christians that they = generally have=20 is essentially that the early Christians were pretty much = like 20th=20 Century Evangelicals or Charismatics! That the First Century = Christians would have had liturgical worship, or would have = adhered=20 to any tradition is inconceivable =E2=80=94 only later, = "when the Church=20 became corrupted," is it imagined that such things entered = the=20 Church. It comes as quite a blow to such Protestants (as it = did to=20 me) when they actually study the early Church and the = writings of=20 the early Fathers and begin to see a distinctly different = picture=20 than that which they were always led to envision. One finds = that,=20 for example, the early Christians did not tote their Bibles = with=20 them to Church each Sunday for a Bible study =E2=80=94 in = fact it was so=20 difficult to acquire a copy of even portions of Scripture, = due to=20 the time and resources involved in making a copy, that very = few=20 individuals owned their own copies. Instead, the copies of = the=20 Scriptures were kept by designated persons in the Church, or = kept at=20 the place where the Church gathered for worship. = Furthermore, most=20 Churches did not have complete copies of all the books of = the Old=20 Testament, much less the New Testament (which was not = finished until=20 almost the end of the First Century, and not in its final = canonical=20 form until the Fourth Century). This is not to say that the = early=20 Christians did not study the Scriptures =E2=80=94 they did = in earnest, but=20 as a group, not as individuals. And for most of the First = Century,=20 Christians were limited in study to the Old Testament. So = how did=20 they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how = to=20 worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? = They had=20 only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Sure, = many in=20 the early Church heard these things directly from the = Apostles=20 themselves, but many more did not, especially with the = passing of=20 the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later = generations had=20 access to the writings of the Apostles through the New = Testament,=20 but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost = entirely for=20 its knowledge of the Christian faith.

This dependence upon tradition is evident in the New = Testament=20 writings themselves. For example, Saint Paul exhorts the=20 Thessalonians:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions = which ye=20 have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or = our=20 epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).

The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word = paradosis=20 =E2=80=94 which, though translated differently in some = Protestant versions,=20 is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking = of=20 Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute = this=20 meaning. The word itself literally means "what is = transmitted." It=20 is the same word used when referring negatively to the false = teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when = referring=20 to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, = Second=20 Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the = Pharisees=20 false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made = clear=20 what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when = He=20 called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul = on the=20 other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I = praise=20 you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold = fast to=20 the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a = verbal=20 form of paradosis] them to you" (First Corinthians 11:2), = but where=20 did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received = from the=20 Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (first = Corinthians=20 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it = speaks of=20 the Apostolic Tradition =E2=80=94 "the Faith once delivered = [paradotheise]=20 unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was = delivered=20 personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said = and did,=20 which if it all were all written down, "the world itself = could not=20 contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The = Apostles=20 delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the = Church, being=20 the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and = ground=20 of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this = point: the=20 early Christians had both oral and written traditions which = they=20 received from Christ through the Apostles. For written = tradition=20 they at first had only fragments =E2=80=94 one local church = had an Epistle,=20 another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were = gathered=20 together into collections and ultimately they became the New = Testament. And how did these early Christians know which = books were=20 authentic and which were not =E2=80=94 for (as already = noted) there were=20 numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics = to have=20 been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic = Tradition that=20 aided the Church in making this determination.

Protestants react violently to the idea of Holy Tradition = simply=20 because the only form of it that they have generally = encountered is=20 the concept of Tradition found in Roman Catholicism. = Contrary to the=20 Roman view of Tradition, which is personified by the Papacy, = and=20 develops new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such = as Papal=20 Infallibility, to cite just one of the more odious examples) = =E2=80=94the=20 Orthodox do not believe that Tradition grows or changes. = Certainly=20 when the Church is faced with a heresy, it is forced to = define more=20 precisely the difference between truth and error, but the = Truth does=20 not change. It may be said that Tradition expands in the = sense that=20 as the Church moves through history it does not forget its=20 experiences along the way, it remembers the saints that = arise in it,=20 and it preserves the writings of those who have accurately = stated=20 its faith; but the Faith itself was "once delivered unto the = saints"=20 (Jude 3).

But how can we know that the Church has preserved the = Apostolic=20 Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has = preserved=20 it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ = said that=20 He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would = not=20 prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the = head of=20 the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body = (Ephesians=20 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, = then the=20 Truth would have to cease being the Truth =E2=80=94 for the = Church is the=20 pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). The = common=20 Protestant conception of Church history, that the Church = fell into=20 apostasy from the time of Constantine until the Reformation=20 certainly makes these and many other Scriptures meaningless. = If the=20 Church ceased to be, for even one day, then the gates of = Hell=20 prevailed against it on that day. If this were the case, = when Christ=20 described the growth of the Church in His parable of the = mustard=20 seed (Matthew 13:31-32), He should have spoken of a plant = that=20 started to grow but was squashed, and in its place a new = seed=20 sprouted later on =E2=80=94 but instead He used the imagery = of a mustard=20 seed that begins small but steadily grows into the largest = of garden=20 plants.

As to those who would posit that there was some group of=20 true-believing Protestants living in caves somewhere for a = thousand=20 years, where is the evidence? The Waldensians 7 that are = claimed as=20 forebearers by every sect from the Pentecostals to the = Jehovahs=20 Witnesses, did not exist prior to the 12th Century. It is, = to say=20 the least, a bit of a stretch to believe that these = true-believers=20 suffered courageously under the fierce persecutions of the = Romans,=20 and yet would have headed for the hills as soon as = Christianity=20 became a legal religion. And yet even this seems possible = when=20 compared with the notion that such a group could have = survived for a=20 thousand years without leaving a trace of historical = evidence to=20 substantiate that it had ever existed.

At this point one might object that there were in fact = examples=20 of people in Church history who taught things contrary to = what=20 others taught, so who is to say what the Apostolic Tradition = is? And=20 further more, what if a corrupt practice arose, how could it = later=20 be distinguished from Apostolic Tradition? Protestants ask = these=20 questions because, in the Roman Catholic Church there did = arise new=20 and corrupt "traditions," but this is because the Latin West = first=20 corrupted its understanding of the nature of Tradition. The = Orthodox=20 understanding which earlier prevailed in the West and was = preserved=20 in the Orthodox Church, is basically that Tradition is in = essence=20 unchanging and is known by its universality or catholicity. = True=20 Apostolic Tradition is found in the historic consensus of = Church=20 teaching. Find that which the Church has believed always, = throughout=20 history, and everywhere in the Church, and then you will = have found=20 the Truth. If any belief can be shown to have not been = received by=20 the Church in its history, then this is heresy. Mind you, = however,=20 we are speaking of the Church, not schismatic groups. There = were=20 schismatics and heretics who broke away from the Church = during the=20 New Testament period, and there has been a continual supply = of them=20 since, for as the Apostle says, "there must be also heresies = among=20 you, that they which are approved may be made manifest"=20 (ICorinthians 11:19)

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3:

Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or = herself=20 without the aid of the Church.

Though many Protestants would take issue with the way = this=20 assumption is worded, this is essentially the assumption = that=20 prevailed when the Reformers first advocated the doctrine of = Sola=20 Scriptura. The line of reasoning was essentially that the = meaning of=20 Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by = simply=20 reading it for oneself, and thus they rejected the idea that = one=20 needed the Churchs help in the process. This position is = clearly=20 stated by the Tubingen Lutheran Scholars who exchanged = letters with=20 Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople about thirty years = after=20 Luthers death:

Perhaps, someone will say that on the one hand, the = Scriptures=20 are absolutely free from error; but on the other hand, they = have=20 been concealed by much obscurity, so that without the=20 interpretations of the Spirit-bearing Fathers they could not = be=20 clearly understood.... But meanwhile this, too, is very true = that=20 what has been said in a scarcely perceptible manner in some = places=20 in the Scriptures, has been stated in another place in them=20 explicitly and most clearly so that even the most simple = person can=20 understand them.8

Though these Lutheran scholars claimed to use the = writings of the=20 Holy Fathers, they argued that they were unnecessary, and = that,=20 where they believed the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers = conflicted,=20 the Fathers were to be disregarded. What they were actually = arguing,=20 however, was that when the teachings of the Holy fathers = conflict=20 with their private opinions on the Scriptures, their private = opinions were to be considered more authoritative than the = Fathers=20 of the Church. Rather than listening to the Fathers, who had = shown=20 themselves righteous and saintly, priority should be given = to the=20 human reasonings of the individual. The same human reason = that has=20 led the majority of modern Lutheran scholars to reject = almost every=20 teaching of Scripture (including the deity of Christ, the=20 Resurrection, etc.), and even to reject the inspiration of = the=20 Scriptures themselves =E2=80=94 on which the early Lutherans = claimed to base=20 their entire faith. In reply, Patriarch Jeremias II clearly = exposed=20 the true character of the Lutheran teachings:

Let us accept, then, the traditions of the Church with a = sincere=20 heart and not a multitude of rationalizations. For God = created man=20 to be upright; instead they sought after diverse ways of=20 rationalizing (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Let us not allow = ourselves to=20 learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the = tradition of the=20 Holy Fathers. For the Divine apostle says, "if anyone is = preaching=20 to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him = be=20 accursed" (Galatians 1:9).9

B. THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT MEET ITS OWN=20 CRITERIA

You might imagine that such a belief system as = Protestantism,=20 which has as its cardinal doctrine that Scripture alone is=20 authoritative in matters of faith, would first seek to prove = that=20 this cardinal doctrine met its own criteria. One would = probably=20 expect that Protestants could brandish hundreds of = proof-texts from=20 the Scriptures to support this doctrine =E2=80=94 upon which = all else that=20 they believe is based. At the very least one would hope that = two or=20 three solid text which clearly taught this doctrine could be = found =E2=80=94=20 since the Scriptures themselves say, "In the mouth of two or = three=20 witnesses shall every word be established" (II Corinthians = 13:1).=20 Yet, like the boy in the fable who had to point out that the = Emperor=20 had no clothes on, I must point out that there is not one = single=20 verse in the entirety of Holy Scripture that teaches the = doctrine of=20 Sola Scriptura. There is not even one that comes close. Oh = yes,=20 there are innumerable places in the Bible that speak of its=20 inspiration, of its authority, and of its profitability = =E2=80=94 but there=20 is no place in the Bible that teaches that only Scripture is = authoritative for believers. If such a teaching were even = implicit,=20 then surely the early Fathers of the Church would have = taught this=20 doctrine also, but which of the Holy Fathers ever taught = such a=20 thing? Thus Protestantisms most basic teaching = self-destructs, being=20 contrary to itself. But not only is the Protestant doctrine = of Sola=20 Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures =E2=80=94 it is in = fact specifically=20 contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already = discussed)=20 that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians = (II=20 Thessalonians 2:15; I Corinthians 11:2).

C. PROTESTANT INTERPRETIVE APPROACHES THAT DONT = WORK

Even from the very earliest days of the Reformation, = Protestants=20 have been forced to deal with the fact that, given the Bible = and the=20 reason of the individual alone, people could not agree upon = the=20 meaning of many of the most basic questions of doctrine. = Within=20 Martin Luthers own life dozens of competing groups had = arisen, all=20 claiming to "just believe the Bible," but none agreeing on = what the=20 Bible said. Though Luther had courageously stood before the = Diet of=20 Worms and said that unless he were persuaded by Scripture, = or by=20 plain reason, he would not retract anything that he had been = teaching; later, when Anabaptists, who disagreed with the = Lutherans=20 on a number of points, simply asked for the same indulgence, = the=20 Lutherans butchered them by the thousands =E2=80=94 so much = for the rhetoric=20 about the "right of an individual to read the Scriptures for = himself." Despite the obvious problems that the rapid = splintering of=20 Protestantism presented to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, = not=20 willing to concede defeat to the Pope, Protestants instead = concluded=20 that the real problem must be that those with whom they = disagree, in=20 other words every other sect but their own, must not be = reading the=20 Bible correctly. Thus a number of approaches have been set = forth as=20 solutions to this problem. Of course there has yet to be the = approach that could reverse the endless multiplications of = schisms,=20 and yet Protestants still search for the elusive = methodological=20 "key" that will solve their problem. Let us examine the most = popular=20 approaches that have been tried thus far, each of which are = still=20 set forth by one group or another

APPROACH # 1

Just take the Bible literally =E2=80=94 the meaning is = clear.

This approach was no doubt the first approach used by the = Reformers, though very early on they came to realize that by = itself=20 this was an insufficient solution to the problems presented = by the=20 doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Although this one was a failure = from the=20 start, this approach still is the most common one to be = found among=20 the less educated Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and = Charismatics =E2=80=94=20 "The Bible says what it means and means what it says," is an = oft=20 heard phrase. But when it comes to Scriptural texts that = Protestants=20 generally do not agree with, such as when Christ gave the = Apostles=20 the power to forgive sins (John 20:23), or when He said of = the=20 Eucharist "this is my body.... this is my blood" (Matthew = 26:26,28),=20 or when Paul taught that women should cover their heads in = Church (I=20 Corinthians 11:1-16), then all of a sudden the Bible doesnt = say what=20 it means any more =E2=80=94 "Why, those verses arent = literal..."

APPROACH # 2

The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.

When presented with the numerous groups that arose under = the=20 banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their=20 interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second = solution to=20 the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would = guide the=20 pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of = course=20 everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided = by the=20 same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group=20 de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if = this=20 approach were a valid one, that would only leave history = with one=20 group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the = Scriptures.=20 But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of = course=20 the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. = One=20 thing we can be sure of =E2=80=94 he or she probably thinks = his or her group=20 is it.

Today, however, (depending on what stripe of Protestant = you come=20 into contact with) you are more likely to run into = Protestants who=20 have relativized the Truth to some degree or another than to = find=20 those who still maintain that their sect or splinter group = is the=20 "only one" which is "right." As denominations stacked upon=20 denominations it became a correspondingly greater stretch = for any of=20 them to say, with a straight face, that only they had = rightly=20 understood the Scriptures, though there still are some who = do. It=20 has become increasingly common for each Protestant group to = minimize=20 the differences between denominations and simply conclude = that in=20 the name of "love" those differences "do not matter." = Perhaps each=20 group has "a piece of the Truth," but none has the whole = Truth (so=20 the reasoning goes). Thus the pan-heresy of Ecumenism had = its birth.=20 Now many "Christians" will not even stop their ecumenical = efforts at=20 allowing only Christian groups to have a piece of the Truth. = Many=20 "Christians" now also believe that all religions have = "pieces of the=20 Truth." The obvious conclusion that modern Protestants have = made is=20 that to find all the Truth each group will have to shed = their=20 "differences," pitch their "piece of Truth" into the pot, = and=20 presto-chango =E2=80=94the whole Truth will be found at = last!

APPROACH # 3

Let the clear passages interpret the unclear.

This must have seemed the perfect solution to the problem = of how=20 to interpret the Bible by itself =E2=80=94 let the easily = understood=20 passages "interpret" those which are not clear. The logic of = this=20 approach is simple, though one passage may state a truth = obscurely,=20 surely the same truth would be clearly stated elsewhere in=20 Scripture. Simply use these "clear passages" as the key and = you will=20 have unlocked the meaning of the "obscure passage." As the = Tubingen=20 Lutheran scholars argued in their first exchange of letters = with=20 Patriarch Jeremias II:

Therefore, no better way could ever be found to interpret = the=20 Scriptures, other than that Scripture be interpreted by = Scripture,=20 that is to say, through itself. For the entire Scripture has = been=20 dictated by the one and the same Spirit, who best = understands his=20 own will and is best able to state His own meaning.10

As promising as this method seemed, it soon proved an=20 insufficient solution to the problem of Protestant chaos and = divisions. The point at which this approach disintegrates is = in=20 determining which passages are "clear" and which are = "obscure."=20 Baptists, who believe that it is impossible for a Christian = to lose=20 his salvation once he is "saved," see a number of passages = which=20 they maintain quite clearly teach their doctrine of "Eternal = Security" =E2=80=94 for example, "For the gifts and callings = of God are=20 without repentance" (Romans 11:29), and "My sheep hear my = voice, and=20 I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them = eternal life;=20 and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck = them out of=20 my hand" (John 10:27-28). But when Baptists come across = verses which=20 seem to teach that salvation can be lost, such as "The = righteousness=20 of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his=20 transgression" (Ezekiel 33:12), then they use the passages = that are=20 "clear" to explain away the passages that are "unclear." = Methodists,=20 who believe that believers may lose their salvation if they = turn=20 their backs on God, find no such obscurity in such passages, = and on=20 the contrary, view the above mentioned Baptist "proof-texts" = in the=20 light of the passages that they see as "clear." And so = Methodists=20 and Baptists throw verses of the Bible back and forth at = each other,=20 each wondering why the other cant "see" what seems very = "clear" to=20 them.

APPROACH # 4

Historical-Critical Exegesis

Drowning in a sea of subjective opinion and division, = Protestants=20 quickly began grasping for any intellectual method with a = fig leaf=20 of objectivity. As time went by and divisions multiplied, = science=20 and reason increasingly became the standard by which = Protestant=20 theologians hoped to bring about consistency in their = biblical=20 interpretations. This "scientific" approach, which has come = to=20 predominate Protestant Scholarship, and in this century has = even=20 begun to predominate Roman Catholic Scholarship, is generaly = referred to as "Historical-Critical Exegesis." With the dawn = of the=20 so-called "Enlightenment," science seemed to be capable of = solving=20 all the worlds problems. Protestant Scholarship began = applying the=20 philosophy and methodology of the sciences to theology and = the=20 Bible. Since the Enlightenment, Protestant scholars have = analyzed=20 every aspect of the Bible: its history, its manuscripts, the = biblical languages, etc. As if the Holy Scriptures were an=20 archaeological dig, these scholars sought to analyze each = fragment=20 and bone with the best and latest that science had to offer. = To be=20 fair, it must be stated that much useful knowledge was = produced by=20 such scholarship. Unfortunately this methodology has erred = also,=20 grievously and fundamentally, but it has been portrayed with = such an=20 aura of scientific objectivity that holds many under its = spell.

Like all the other approaches used by Protestants, this = method=20 also seeks to understand the Bible while ignoring Church = Tradition.=20 Though there is no singular Protestant method of exegesis, = they all=20 have as their supposed goal to "let the Scripture speak for = itself."=20 Of course no one claiming to be Christian could be against = what the=20 Scripture would "say" if it were indeed "speaking for = itself"=20 through these methods. The problem is that those who appoint = themselves as tongues for the Scripture filter it through = their own=20 Protestant assumptions. While claiming to be objective, they = rather=20 interpret the Scriptures according to their own sets of = traditions=20 and dogmas (be they fundamentalists or liberal = rationalists). What=20 Protestant scholars have done (if I may loosely borrow a = line from=20 Albert Schweitzer) is looked into the well of history to = find the=20 meaning of the Bible. They have written volume upon volume = on the=20 subject, but unfortunately they have only seen their own=20 reflections.

Protestant scholars (both "liberals" and "conservatives" = have=20 erred in that they have misapplied empirical methodologies = to the=20 realm of theology and biblical studies. I use the term = "Empiricism"=20 to describe these efforts. I am using this term broadly to = refer to=20 the rationalistic and materialistic worldview that has = possessed the=20 Western mind, and is continuing to spread throughout the = world.=20 Positivist systems of thought (of which Empiricism is one) = attempt=20 to anchor themselves on some basis of "certain" knowledge. = 11=20 Empiricism, strictly speaking, is the belief that all = knowledge is=20 based on experience, and that only things which can be = established=20 by means of scientific observation can be known with = certainty. Hand=20 in hand with the methods of observation and experience, came = the=20 principle of methodological doubt, the prime example of this = being=20 the philosophy of Rene Descartes who began his discussion of = philosophy by showing that everything in the universe can be = doubted=20 except ones own existence, and so with the firm basis of = this one=20 undoubtable truth ("I think, therefore I am") he sought to = build his=20 system of philosophy. Now the Reformers, at first, were = content with=20 the assumption that the Bible was the basis of certainty = upon which=20 theology and philosophy could rest. But as the humanistic = spirit of=20 the Enlightenment gained in ascendancy, Protestant scholars = turned=20 their rationalistic methods on the Bible = itself=E2=80=94seeking to discover=20 what could be known with "certainty" from it. Liberal = Protestant=20 scholars have already finished this endeavor, and having = "peeled=20 back the onion" they now are left only with their own = opinions and=20 sentimentality as the basis for whatever faith they have = left.

Conservative Protestants have been much less consistent = in their=20 rationalistic approach. Thus they have preserved among = themselves a=20 reverence for the Scriptures and a belief in their = inspiration.=20 Nevertheless, their approach (even among the most dogged=20 Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the same = spirit of=20 rationalism as the Liberals. A prime example of this is to = be found=20 among so-called Dispensational Fundamentalists, who hold to = an=20 elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in = history God=20 has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," = such as=20 the "Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the = "Mosaic=20 dispensation," the "Davidic dispensation," and so on. One = can see=20 that there is a degree of truth in this theory, but beyond = these Old=20 Testament dispensations they teach that currently we are = under a=20 different "dispensation" than were the Christians of the = first=20 century. Though miracles continued through the "New = Testament=20 period," they no longer occur today. This is very = interesting,=20 because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural basis) this = theory=20 allows these Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the = Bible,=20 while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in = their=20 everyday life. Thus, though the discussion of this approach = may at=20 first glance seem to be only of academic interest and far = removed=20 from the reality of dealing with the average Protestant, in = fact,=20 even the average, piously "conservative" Protestant laymen = is not=20 unaffected by this sort of rationalism.

The great fallacy in this so called "scientific" approach = to the=20 Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical=20 assumptions to the study of history, Scripture, and = theology.=20 Empirical methods work reasonably well when they are = correctly=20 applied to the natural sciences, but when they are applied = where=20 they cannot possibly work, such as in unique moments in = history=20 (which cannot be repeated or experimented upon), they cannot = produce=20 either consistent or accurate results.12 Scientists have yet = to=20 invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit world, = and yet=20 many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science = the=20 idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been = disproved.=20 Were the Devil to appear before an Empiricist with pitch = fork in=20 hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be explained = in some=20 manner that would easily comport to the scientists = worldview.=20 Although such Empiricists pride themselves on their = "openness", they=20 are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they = cannot=20 see anything that does not fit their vision of reality. If = the=20 methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would = discredit=20 all knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is = conveniently=20 permitted to be inconsistent by those who hold to it = "because its=20 ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high = reputation for scientific severity that its prestige = overrides the=20 defectiveness of its own foundations."13

The connections between the extreme conclusions that = modern=20 liberal Protestant scholars have come to, and the more = conservative=20 or Fundamentalist Protestants will not seem clear to many = =E2=80=94 least of=20 all to conservative Fundamentalists! Though these = conservatives see=20 themselves as being in almost complete opposition to = Protestant=20 liberalism, they nonetheless use essentially the same kinds = of=20 methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, = and=20 along with these methodologies come their underlying = philosophical=20 assumptions. Thus the difference between the "liberals" and = the=20 "conservatives" is not in reality a difference of basic = assumptions,=20 but rather a difference in how far they have taken them to = their=20 inherent conclusions

If Protestant exegesis were truly "scientific," as it = presents=20 itself to be, its results would show consistency. If its = methods=20 were merely unbiased "technologies" (as many view them) then = it=20 would not matter who used them, they would "work" the same = for=20 everyone. But what do we find when we examine current status = of=20 Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the = "experts"=20 themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. = 14 In=20 fact this crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the = admission of a=20 recognized Protestant Old Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel = [in his=20 survey of the history and current status of the discipline = of Old=20 Testament theology, Old Testament Theology: Issues in the = Current=20 Debate], that during the 1970s five new Old Testament = theologies had=20 been produced "but not one agrees in approach and method = with any of=20 the others."15 In fact, it is amazing, considering the=20 self-proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant = biblical=20 studies, that you can take your pick of limitless = conclusions on=20 almost any issue and find "good scholarship" to back it up. = In other=20 words, you can just about come to any conclusion that suits = you on a=20 particular day or issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who will = advocate=20 it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as = mathematics=20 or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of = learning that=20 presents itself as "objective science," but which in fact is = a=20 pseudo-science, concealing a variety of competing = philosophical and=20 theological perspectives. It is pseudoscience because until=20 scientists develop instruments capable of examining and=20 understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical = interpretation is an impossibility. This is not to say that = there is=20 nothing that is genuinely scholarly or useful within it; but = this is=20 to say that, camouflaged with these legitimate aspects of = historical=20 and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog machines and = mirrors=20 of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant = methods of=20 biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant = of=20 Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions.16

With subjectivity that surpasses the most speculative = Freudian=20 psychoanalysts, Protestant scholars selectively choose the = "facts"=20 and "evidence" that suits their agenda and then proceed, = with their=20 conclusions essentially predetermined by their basic = assumptions, to=20 apply their methods to the Holy Scriptures. All the while, = the=20 Protestant scholars, both "liberal" and "conservative," = describe=20 themselves as dispassionate "scientists."17 And since modern = universities do not give out Ph.D.s to those who merely pass = on the=20 unadulterated Truth, these scholars seek to out-do each = other by=20 coming up with new "creative" theories. This is the very = essence of=20 heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and = self-deception.

THE ORTHODOX APPROACH TO TRUTH

When, by God's mercy, I found the Orthodox Faith, I had = no desire=20 to give Protestantism and its "methods" of Bible study a = second=20 look. Unfortunately, I have found that Protestant methods = and=20 assumptions have managed to infect even some circles within = the=20 Orthodox Church. The reason for this is, as stated above, = that the=20 Protestant approach to Scripture has been portrayed as = "science."=20 Some in the Orthodox Church feel they do the Church a great = favor by=20 introducing this error into our seminaries and parishes. But = this is=20 nothing new; this is how heresy has always sought to deceive = the=20 faithful. As Saint Irenaeus said, as he began his attack on = the=20 heresies current in his day:

By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly = allure=20 the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they=20 nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them = into=20 their blasphemous opinions....

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, = lest,=20 being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is = craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its = outward=20 form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as = the=20 expression may seem) more true than truth itself.18

Lest any be mistaken or confused, let me be clear: the = Orthodox=20 approach to the Scriptures is not based upon "scientific" = research=20 into the Holy Scriptures. Its claim to understand the = Scriptures=20 does not reside in its claiming superior archaeological = data, but=20 rather in its unique relationship with the Author of the = Scriptures.=20 The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ, the pillar and = ground of=20 the Truth, and it is both the means by which God wrote the=20 Scriptures (through its members) and the means by which God = has=20 preserved the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church understands = the Bible=20 because it is the inheritor of one living tradition that = begins with=20 Adam and stretches through time to all its members today. = That this=20 is true cannot be "proven" in a lab. One must be convinced = by the=20 Holy Spirit and experience the life of God in the = Church.

The question Protestants will ask at this point is who is = to say=20 that the Orthodox Tradition is the correct tradition, or = that there=20 even is a correct tradition? First, Protestants need to = study the=20 history of the Church. They will find that there is only one = Church.=20 This has always been the faith of the Church from its = beginning. The=20 Nicene Creed makes this point clearly, "I believe in... one = Holy,=20 Catholic and Apostolic Church." This statement, which almost = every=20 Protestant denomination still claims to accept as true, was = never=20 interpreted to refer to some fuzzy, pluralistic invisible = "church"=20 that cannot agree on anything doctrinally. The councils that = canonized the Creed (as well as the Scriptures) also = anathematized=20 those who were outside the Church, whether they were = heretics, such=20 as the Montanists, or schismatics like the Donatists. They = did not=20 say, "well we cant agree with the Montanists doctrinally but = they=20 are just as much a part of the Church as we are." Rather = they were=20 excluded from the communion of the Church until they = returned to the=20 Church and were received into the Church through Holy = Baptism and=20 Chrismation (in the case of heretics) or simply Chrismation = (in the=20 case of schismatics) [Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII]. = To even=20 join in prayer with those outside the Church was, and still = is,=20 forbidden [Canons of the Holy Apostles, canons XLV, XLVI]. = Unlike=20 Protestants, who make heros of those who break away from = another=20 group and start their own, in the early Church this was = considered=20 among the most damnable sins. As St. Ignatius of Antioch [a = disciple=20 of the Apostle John] warned, "Make no mistake brethren, no = one who=20 follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of = God, no=20 one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the = passion"=20 [to the Philadelphians 5:3].

The very reason there arose a Protestant movement was = that they=20 were protesting Papal abuses, but prior to the Roman West = breaking=20 away from the Orthodox East these abuses did not exist. Many = modern=20 Protestant theologians have recently begun to take a second = look at=20 this first millennium of undivided Christendom, and are = beginning to=20 discover the great treasure that the West has lost (and not = a few=20 are becoming Orthodox as a result).19

Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) = there is=20 no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail = against the=20 Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are = in error;=20 or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its=20 ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible = "vicar of=20 Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church = founded by=20 Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. = So the=20 choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or=20 Orthodoxy.

Most Protestants, because their theological basis of Sola = Scriptura could only yield disunity and argument, have long = ago=20 given up on the idea of true Christian unity and considered = it a=20 ridiculous hypothesis that there might be only one Faith. = When faced=20 with such strong affirmations concerning Church unity as = those cited=20 above, they often react in horror, charging that such = attitudes are=20 contrary to Christian love. Finding themselves without true = unity=20 they have striven to create a false unity, by developing the = relativistic philosophy of ecumenism, in which the only = belief to be=20 condemned is any belief that makes exclusive claims about = the Truth.=20 However, this is not the love of the historical Church, but=20 humanistic sentimentality. Love is the essence of the = Church. Christ=20 did not come to establish a new school of thought, but = rather, He,=20 Himself said that He came to build His Church, against which = the=20 gates of hell would not prevail (Matthew 16:17). This new = community=20 of the Church created "an organic unity rather than a = mechanical=20 unification of internally divided persons."20 This unity is = only=20 possible through the new life brought by the Holy Spirit, = and=20 mystically experienced in the life of the Church.

Christian faith joins the faithful with Christ and thus = it=20 composes one harmonious body from separate individuals. = Christ=20 fashions this body by communicating Himself to each member = and by=20 supplying to them the Spirit of Grace in an effectual, = tangible=20 manner.... If the bond with the body of the Church becomes = severed=20 then the personality which is thereby isolated and enclosed = in its=20 own egoism will be deprived of the beneficial and abundant = influence=20 of the Holy Spirit which dwells within the Church. 21

The Church is one because it is the body of Christ, and = it is an=20 ontological impossibility that it could be divided. The = Church is=20 one, even as Christ and the Father are one. Though this = concept of=20 unity may seem incredible, it does not seems so to those who = have=20 gone beyond the concept and entered into its reality. Though = this=20 may be one of those "hard sayings" that many cannot accept, = it is a=20 reality in the Orthodox Church, though it demands from = everyone much=20 self-denial, humility and love.22

Our faith in the unity of the Church has two aspects, it = is both=20 an historic and present unity. That is to say that when the=20 Apostles, for example, departed this life they did not = depart from=20 the unity of the Church. They are as much a part of the = Church now=20 as when they were present in the flesh. When we celebrate = the=20 Eucharist in any local Church, we do not celebrate it alone, = but=20 with the entire Church, both on earth and in heaven. The = Saints in=20 heaven are even closer to us than those we can see or touch. = Thus,=20 in the Orthodox Church we are not only taught by those = people in the=20 flesh whom God has appointed to teach us, but by all those = teachers=20 of the Church in heaven and on earth. We are just as much = under the=20 teaching today of Saint John Chrysostom as we are of our own = Bishop.=20 The way this impacts our approach to Scripture is that we do = not=20 interpret it privately (II Peter 1:20), but as a Church. = This=20 approach to Scripture was given its classic definition by = St.=20 Vincent of Lerins:

Here, perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the = Scripture=20 is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it = necessary=20 to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? = As a=20 matter of fact, [we must answer,] Holy Scripture, because of = its=20 depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same = sense. The=20 same text is interpreted differently by different people, so = that=20 one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many = different meanings as there are men.... Thus it is because = of the=20 great many distortions caused by various errors, that it is, = indeed,=20 necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the = prophetic and=20 apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule = of the=20 ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.

In the Catholic Church itself, every care should be taken = to hold=20 fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by = all. This=20 is truly and properly Catholic, as indicated by the force = and=20 etymology of the name itself, which comprises everything = truly=20 universal. This general rule will be truly applied if we = follow the=20 principles of universality, antiquity, and consent. We do so = in=20 regard to universality if we confess that faith alone to be = true=20 which the entire Church confesses all over the world. [We do = so] in=20 regard to antiquity if we in no way deviate from those=20 interpretations which our ancestors and fathers have = manifestly=20 proclaimed as inviolable. [We do so] in regard to consent = if, in=20 this very antiquity, we adopt the definitions and = propositions of=20 all, or almost all, of the Bishops.23

In this approach to Scriptures, it is not the job of the=20 individual to strive for originality, but rather to = understand what=20 is already present in the traditions of the Church. We are = obliged=20 not to go beyond the boundary set by the Fathers of the = Church, but=20 to faithfully pass on the tradition we received. To do this = requires=20 a great deal of study and thought, but even more, if we are = to truly=20 understand the Scriptures, we must enter deeply into the = mystical=20 life of the Church. This is why when St. Augustine expounds = on how=20 one should interpret the Scriptures [On Christian Doctrine, = Books=20 i-iv], he spends much more time talking about the kind of = person the=20 study of the Scripture requires than about the intellectual=20 knowledge he should possess:24

2. Is motivated to seek the Knowledge of God's will by = faith and=20 reverence, rather than pride or greed,

3. Has a heart subdued by piety, a purified mind, dead to = the=20 world; and who neither fears, nor seeks to please men,

With such a high standard as this, we should even more = humbly=20 lean upon the guidance of holy Fathers who have evidenced = these=20 virtues, and not delude ourselves by thinking that we are = more=20 capable or clever interpreters of God's Holy Word than = they.

But what of the work that has been done by Protestant = Biblical=20 scholars? To the degree that it helps us understand the = history=20 behind and meaning of obscurities, to this degree it is in = line with=20 the Holy Tradition and can be used.

As Saint Gregory Nazianzen put it when speaking of pagan=20 literature: "As we have compounded healthful drugs from = certain of=20 the reptiles, so from secular literature we have received = principles=20 of enquiry and speculation, while we have rejected their=20 idolatry..."25 Thus as long as we refrain from worshiping = the false=20 gods of Individualism, Modernity, and Academic Vainglory, = and as=20 long as we recognize the assumptions at work and use those = things=20 that truly shed historical or linguistic light upon the = Scriptures,=20 then we will understand the Tradition more perfectly. But to = the=20 degree that Protestant scholarship speculates beyond the = canonical=20 texts, and projects foreign ideas upon the Scriptures = =E2=80=94 to the=20 degree that they disagree with the Holy Tradition, the = "always and=20 everywhere" faith of the Church, they are wrong.

If Protestants should think this arrogant or naive, let = them=20 first consider the arrogance and naivete of those scholars = who think=20 that they are qualified to override (and more usually, = totally=20 ignore) two thousand years of Christian teaching. Does the=20 acquisition of a Ph.D. give one greater insight into the = mysteries=20 of God than the total wisdom of millions upon millions of = faithful=20 believers and the Fathers and Mothers of the Church who = faithfully=20 served God, who endured horrible tortures and martyrdom, = mockings,=20 and imprisonments, for the faith? Is Christianity learned in = the=20 comfort of ones study, or as one carries his cross to be = killed on=20 it? The arrogance lies in those who, without even taking the = time to=20 learn what the Holy Tradition really is, decide that they = know=20 better, that only now has someone come along who has rightly = understood what the Scriptures really mean.

CONCLUSION

The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy = Tradition=20 of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the = Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it = rests.=20 Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid = rock of=20 Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into = whatever=20 shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the = Scriptures=20 to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name = of=20 exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is = God's Holy=20 Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the = feet of=20 the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and = not=20 hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their = lives=20 worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those = who knew=20 the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and = Polycarp, if we=20 have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us = inquire=20 of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.

Endnotes

1. George Mastrantonis, trans., Augsburg and = Constantinople:=20 the Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and = Patriarch=20 Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession=20 (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982), = 114.

2. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 = (Wheaton:=20 Tyndale House Publishers, 1980), "Jannes and Jambres," by A. = F.=20 Walls, 733 -734.

3. Indeed this list did not even intend to comprise all = the books=20 which the Church has preserved from antiquity and considers = part of=20 the larger Tradition. For example, the book of Enoch, though = quoted=20 in the canonical books, was not itself included in the = canon. I will=20 not pretend to know why this is so, but for whatever reasons = the=20 Church has chosen to preserve this book, and yet has not = appointed=20 it to be read in Church or to be set along side the = canonical=20 books.

4. For example, there is no place where the question of = the=20 inerrancy of the Scriptures is dealt with in detail, = precisely=20 because this was not an issue of dispute. In our present = day, with=20 the rise of religious skepticism, this is very much an = issue, and if=20 the epistles were being written today, this would certainly = be dealt=20 with at some point. It would thus be foolish to conclude = that since=20 this issue is not dealt with specifically, that the early = Christians=20 did not think it was important or did not believe in it.

5. Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical = Theology=20 (Crestwood NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1986), 51 = ff.

6. And in fact, this is what Protestant scholarship has = done.=20 Though Protestantism was founded on its claim of believing = the Bible=20 to be the only authority for faith and practice, modern = Protestant=20 scholarship is now dominated by modernists who no longer = believe in=20 the inspiration or inerrancy of the Scriptures. They now = stand above=20 the Bible and only choose to use those parts that suit them = and=20 discard the rest as "primitive mythology and legend." The = only=20 authority left for such as these is themselves.

7. The Waldensians were a sect that was founded in the = 12th=20 century founded by Peter Waldo which in some ways = anticipated the=20 Protestant Reformation. Due to persecution by the Roman = Catholic=20 Church this sect survived primarily in the mountainous = regions of=20 northwestern Italy. With the advent of the Protestant = Reformation,=20 the Waldensians came under the influence of the Reformed = movement=20 and essentially joined forces with it. Many early Protestant = historians claimed that the Waldensians represented a = remnant of=20 "true" Christians that had existed prior to Constantine. = Though=20 today no credible historian would make such an = unsubstantiated=20 claim, many fundamentalists and cults like the Jehovahs = Witnesses=20 continue to claim descent from the early church through the=20 Waldensians =E2=80=94 despite the fact that the Waldensians = still exist to=20 this day, and they certainly do not claim the Jehovahs=20 Witnesses.

8. Mastrantonis, 115.

9. Ibid., 198.

10. Ibid., 115.

11. The term positivism comes from the French word = positif, which=20 means sure, or certain. This term was first used by Auguste = Comte.=20 Positivistic systems are built upon the assumption that some = fact or=20 institution is the ultimate basis of knowledge =E2=80=94 in = Comtes=20 philosophy, experience or sense-perception constituted that = basis=20 and thus he was the forerunner of modern Empiricism [See=20 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1914 ed., = s.v.=20 "Positivism," by S.H. Swinny; and Wolfhart Pannenburg, = Theology=20 and Philosophy of Science, trans. Francis McDonagh=20 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 29].

12. For example, one method for determining the reality = of past=20 events, among empirically minded scholars, is the principle = of=20 analogy. Since knowledge is based on experience, then the = way one=20 understands what is unfamiliar is by relating it to = something that=20 is familiar. Under the guise of historical analysis they = judge the=20 probability of a supposed past event (e.g. the resurrection = of=20 Jesus) based upon what we know to take place in our = experience. And=20 since these historians have never observed anything which = they would=20 consider supernatural they determine that when the Bible = speaks of a=20 miraculous event in history that it merely is recounting a = myth or a=20 legend. But since to the Empiricist, a miracle entails a = violation=20 of a natural law, then there can be no miracles (by = definition)=20 because natural laws are determined by our observation of = what we=20 experience, so were such an Empiricist to be confronted with = a=20 modern analogy of a miracle it would no longer be considered = a=20 miracle because it would no longer constitute a violation of = natural=20 law. Thus empiricists do not produce results that falsify=20 transcendent reality, or miracles; rather their = presuppositions,=20 from the very outset, deny the possibility of such things. = [see G.=20 E. Michalson, Jr., "Pannenburg on the Resurrection and = Historical=20 Method," Scottish Journal of Theology 33 (April = 1980):=20 345-359.]

13. Rev. Robert T. Osborn, "Faith as Personal Knowledge," = Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (February 1975):=20 101-126.

14. Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic = Issues in=20 the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing = Company,=20 1982), p. 9.

15. Ibid., p. 7.

16. I have discussed Liberal Protestantism only to = demonstrate=20 the fallacies of "Historical" exegesis.

An Orthodox Christian is much more likely to be = confronted by a=20 conservative Fundamentalist or a Charismatic, simply because = they=20 take their faith seriously enough to seek to convert others = to it.=20 Liberal Protestant denominations have their hands full = trying to=20 keep their own parishioners, and are not noted for their=20 evangelistic zeal.

17. For a more in-depth critique of the excesses of the=20 Historical-Critical Method, see Thomas Oden, Agenda for=20 Theology: After Modernity What? (Grand Rapids: = Zondervan, 1990)=20 pp 103-147.

18. A Cleveland Coxe, trans., Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. = i,=20 The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus = (Grand=20 Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p 315.

19. In fact a recent three volume systematic theology, by = Thomas=20 Oden, is based on the premise that the "ecumenical = consensus" of the=20 first millennium should be normative for theology [see, = The=20 Living God: Systematic Theology Volume One, (New York: = Harper=20 & Row, 1987), pp ix =E2=80=94 xiv.]. If only Oden takes = his own=20 methodology all the way, he too will become Orthodox.

20. The Holy New Martyr Archbishop Ilarion (Troitsky),=20 Christianity or the Church?, (Jordanville: Holy = Trinity=20 Monastery, 1985), p. 11.

21. Ibid., p. 16.

22. Ibid., p. 40.

23. St. Vincent of Lerins, trans. Rudolph Morris, The = Fathers=20 of the Church vol.7, (Washington D.C.: Catholic = University of=20 America Press, 1949), pp. 269-271.

24. St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine," A = Selected=20 Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series = 1, vol.=20 ii, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, (New York: Christian, = 1887-1900), pp. 534-537.

25. St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Oration 43, Panegyric on = Saint=20 Basil," A Selected Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene = Fathers=20 of the Christian Church, series 2, vol. vii, eds. Henry = Wace=20 and Philip Schaff (New York: Christian, 18871900), p. 398f.=20

From Volume 3 of The Christian = Activist (now=20 defunct). It is now a monograph published by Conciliar=20 Press.

Sola Scriptura

In the Vanity of Their Minds

Webmaster=E2=80=99s Picks

Google Results

by Fr. John Whiteford