2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to His apostles and preserved by the Orthodox Christian Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, from one generation to the next without addition, subtraction, or alteration. The crown of Holy Tradition is Holy Scripture, which is understood by Orthodox Christianity to be those books written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit and collected, edited, and canonized by the Church. As such Holy Scripture is incomplete and inseparable from both the Church and Holy Tradition.
Holy Scripture is both the word of God and about the Word of God — Jesus Christ. Within Orthodox Christianity the books of the Holy Bible are interpreted as being fundamentally about Jesus Christ and indeed the whole of the Holy Bible is understood as presupposing the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as the faith of its readers. Unlike Islam, Holy Scripture is understood within Orthodox Christianity to be unbound from any language. It is, instead, the Church in its role as the Body of Christ which provides preservation of meaning.
The apostles preached Christ’s message before the writing and collation of the New Testament and so it is understood that the New Testament is another iteration of that preaching. The Church serves as the communal context for Holy Scripture — the organizational memory which provides interpretation and meaning.
Holy Scripture is not considered the entirety of all written works inspired by the Holy Spirit nor even the entirety of everything written by the apostles or prophets. Instead it is those works selected (canonized) by the Church to provide meaning and insight within the Church while not leading readers into serious error when properly understood. This is particularly clear when one compares the Old Testament of Protestantism and Restorationism versus the Septuagint, the most common Scriptures used by the apostles.
First, I am not sure that it is consistent to quote scripture in reference to the authority of tradition when also claiming scripture is part of tradition and subject to the church. If scripture is subject to the authority of the Church then scripture can not be used in support of the authority of the Church. How then do you know that the Church holds authority and will never fall? If you reference scripture or tradition then that is self referential and therefore doesn’t address the question being asked.
Next, how does the Church determine which pieces of the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are parts of tradition that should be kept and which are not parts of tradition if they are both inspired and from the same source?
What do you say of Jews that claim that you are interpreting the Old Testament completely wrong and going against the Oral Law and Holy Tradition of Judaism as codified in the Talmud with the Mishnah, Midrash, Tosefta, and so forth?
Those questions are trying to “get at” some of the main problems I see with what you have written. That is the Orthodox position, similar to the Roman Catholic, attempts to remove scripture from the realm of discussion in terms of evaluating the correctness of teaching and practice of the Church. However in doing so it appears that the same position that Judaism takes is taken, leading to the question of how one answers Judaism.
Also, it not only removes scripture from the realm of criticism of the authority, teaching, and practice but also moves it out side of the realm of support; If scripture is as is claimed then it can’t be used in saying that Orthodoxy is right just as much as it can’t be claimed to say that Orthodoxy is wrong, the claim is a double edged sword. This leaves open the question of how one determines that the Orthodox is correct as opposed to Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Restorationist, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, tribal religion of Africa, etc. I think I know how part of this answer will go which, if I am correct, will lead to more questions, and if I am wrong, it will be very interesting.
We really are exploring some of the basic assumptions of each others beliefs, which I know can be some of the hardest and most frustrating things to articulate and ask questions about.
I’m not certain that I apprehend your meaning. When you write that Holy Scripture is subject to the authority of the Church what do you mean?
I was trying to pack in a lot of information in a relatively brief post while keeping as much speculative theology out of it as possible so any confusion caused undoubtedly finds its origin with me. The root of the problem I suspect is this, Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ founded a Church rather than wrote a book. The Orthodox Christian Church is understood as a direct and unbroken continuation of the ministry of Jesus Christ. As such, the Church does not look look backwards into the past because the past is in some way better than the present or the future but rather it is intent upon preserving Christ’s message — which it so happens occurred at a particular point in the past while He was incarnate.
With this in mind, the Church is not (nor am I for that matter) trying to prove anything with reference to Holy Scripture but instead we are suggesting that Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are consistent because they are part-and-parcel of one another. If you remove Holy Scripture from Holy Tradition you irreparably damage Holy Scripture and the same is true if you remove Holy Tradition from Holy Scripture as Protestants and Restorationists are wont to do.
For some, maybe much, of what Orthodox Christianity teaches you have to imagine how Orthodox Christians perceive the Church. Those letters, poems, gospels, and other documents that came to be canonized as the New Testament are the internal faith documents of an existent Church. The Church was not as large nor defined as it is today but it still existed. It was only over time that the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, found that it needed to collect and canonize Scripture for the same reasons that it found it necessary to define dogma — to limit misinterpretation of God’s message in so far as an accurate understanding of that message was pertinent to salvation.
If you are asking how they became parts of the Holy Tradition called Holy Scripture, then it was through Ecumenical Council and acceptance by the Church as protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
I say that they are mistaken. Much as I assume you would. Rabbinic Judaism uses a substantively different Hebrew Bible than the Orthodox Christian Church does and they have (to our mind mistakenly) determined that Jesus was not the foretold Messiah but was perhaps a prophet or some other man. As such there is no need for a second look at the LXX (or MT) or any of their other Scripture in light of Jesus Christ’s life and words because he was not a fulfillment of the old covenant and the start of a new.
Christianity is the flowering of Judaism from an Orthodox Christian perspective. Certainly from a modern Jewish perspective this would be borderline (if not outright) offensive and blatantly false. I don’t know enough about Rabbinical Judaism to discuss where the divisions between it and Orthodox Christianity occur other than to assume believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God is probably where the divisions start.
I apologize, but I’m not certain what answer is needed. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God or He is not. If He is not then Judaism is less wrong than Orthodox Christianity. I think that you might be asking, how do you falsify Orthodox Christianity? If so, I don’t know that I have a practical answer.
For instance, if I told you that over 25 years ago I obtained the Book of Mormon (I no longer recall how) and read it and prayed to God as to its truthfulness, then if I say that my answer was that it was false does that falsify the LDS? The same is essentially true of Orthodox Christianity. If you read some of the Fathers and attend Divine Liturgy for a month or two and still find Orthodox Christianity false then what could I possibly write to convince you otherwise?
I never said that the other faiths that you mentioned are wrong. I would claim that they are incomplete in their understanding and reception of the truth. The only position that I have on their journey towards theosis would be that it would be harder and more hazardous than that of a devout Orthodox Christian — which is not to say that either or neither will successfully complete that journey.
Orthodox Christianity does not place the same premium on reason and philosophy that, for example, Roman Catholicism or Presbyterianism does and doesn’t make any efforts to prove via math, the sciences, or logic Jesus Christ’s message to His Church.
To appropriate from a parish website,
I must say the answers are so very different then what one gets when speaking with a Roman Catholic.
” When you write that Holy Scripture is subject to the authority of the Church what do you mean?”
That one can not find the meaning of Scripture without the Church.
“The only position that I have on their journey towards theosis would be that it would be harder and more hazardous than that of a devout Orthodox Christian ”
How does this relate to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” and/or John 14:6, John 3:5, or how do you interpret those scriptures and that saying in regards to this?
“then if I say that my answer was that it was false does that falsify the LDS? ”
That would depend on what sort of “false” answer was gotten. If it were specific that it was indeed false and not just not the right thing for you at that time, or something similar, then it would certainly seem to falsify the claim completely.
There is unfortunately no way to verify the other persons experiences, meaning it is as impossible for you to demonstrate that you know by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is false as it is for me to demonstrate that I know by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true. The only possibility is that one of the two of us is deceived, and some other verification to determine which one is would be needed.
“then what could I possibly write to convince you otherwise?”
I would quote scripture here but the usage of scripture is a point in dispute. Convincing can’t be the objective as someone convinced does not know from God that something is true. In terms of logic or explanation the best that can be obtained is the convincing of the possibility of the other party being right leading to action to test the same. However, words given by the power of the Holy Spirit do have the ability to pierce the soul.
“I say that they are mistaken.”
Then how do you use their Scripture as your own? Would you try and show using their Scriptures, which you accept, that they are missing vital parts of the truth? When they bring in their traditions which are claimed unbroken from Moses to say that you are incorrect in seeing Jesus as Messiah then how would you respond?
“protected from error by the Holy Spirit.”
How do you know it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit? And how does that manifest? Are your beliefs free from error? if so how do you know? if not how do you know that the Church as a whole is, has been, and will be free from error? Is you local congregation free from error? How do you know that it is the Orthodox that are promised to be free from error and not the Roman Catholics, or even some other group that perhaps no longer exists?
Again this goes back to the understanding of Jesus as Christ from the basis of the Old Testament. The Oral Law contradicts, and was flat out broken on many occasions, the claim that Jesus is the Christ, yet the Jews claim that the Oral law is needed in order to understand the scriptures. This would appear to leave you in precisely the same position with regards to the Old Testament as I am in regards to Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture, and not just you but the early Christians as well such as Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles.
I should probably answer with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s words from his book, The Orthodox Church,
Hopefully that makes sense.
We are in agreement.
This is going to sound pert, but we don’t use their (Rabbinic Jews) Scripture. We use our (Orthodox Christians) Scripture. Orthodox Christians believe that we are the true heirs to Biblical Judaism and that modern Rabbinic Judaism is effectively a schism that refused to accept Christ.
Judaism does not accept the LXX, but I understand your overall point. Undoubtedly there are some Orthodox Christians that would do so and even more Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Restorationists that would try. I believe this to be a futile exercise. I will happily explain the Orthodox Christian faith to them and hope to influence them by the life that I lead but there is really very little that I can do to convince someone of a truth that he doesn’t want to see.
I can only show them the path to the Church. I don’t believe that a person can be convinced into an authentic relationship with God. I can show them that Orthodox Christianity is probably not what they think and I can open the door for them but I can’t make them walk in.
Faith.
In the conciliar nature of the Church. The Roman Catholic abandonment of this conciliar nature is the root from which almost all of their heresies sprout.
No, nor are the beliefs of the Patriarchs. Are your or the LDS prophets beliefs free from error.
It is essentially a matter of faith. There are other points that I could argue but they would be essentially meaningless to someone that is not an Orthodox Christian and not everyone has the same experiences.
I don’t know that I understand your question. The Church is free of error – which is not code for it has never made a mistake. What it means is that it has not dogmatized any error that would lead to damnation.
It is the Church which is free of error not the Orthodox. If the Roman Catholic Church is the Church (as of course it claims) then the Orthodox Christian Church is in fair shape as it teaches nothing that the Roman Catholic Church by its own admission did not at one time teach. Indeed some Roman Catholics refer to the Orthodox Christian Church sneeringly as the primitive or undeveloped Church. We gladly accept these labels with honor.
As to everything else, we clearly have a different understanding of the meaning of faith. Orthodox Christians believe that they have a relationship with God. A relationship implies that both sides are communicating with one another. Is this so different from the LDS?
If Jesus Christ is God he is not bound by any law, oral or otherwise. Jesus made the same argument about the law and the Jews that elevated it that the Orthodox Christian Church now often makes about the law and the Roman Catholic Church that elevates it. Essentially that they have focused on the wording rather than the spirit or intent.
I’m not sure if you are implying that Holy Tradition is in someway a reformation of some Mosaic law, but it isn’t.
I enjoyed reading this.
Re: outside the church no salvation:
Your answer corresponds well to some ideas found in LDS scripture, obviously we have baptisms for the dead and the preaching to the dead making the subject in large part a moot point, not entirely but in large part. While we are commanded to share the gospel with everyone it has been recognized that not everyone is actually supposed to accept it right away or in this life. There are those like the Jews that, for now, can just as validly gather to Israel as they can to the LDS Church, as well as those that for whatever reason God wants outside of the church, Thomas L. Kane being a prominent example from my churches history.
This is perhaps tangential, but what you said appears to be similar to replacement theology, perhaps. What is the Orthodox position on the Jews, Israel, Jerusalem, and etc.?
Pieces of the truth appear to have been retained in Orthodox Christianity that were lost everywhere else.
The creeds stem from the councils and are the things that Jesus condemned when talking to Joseph Smith.
No; For instance, in terms of belief Joseph Smith was given line upon line, precept on precept so that there are sermons and statements made in the early 1830′s which later revelations rendered false, especially about the nature of God for instance. Brigham Young was very clearly a true prophet but also very clearly potentially one of the worst places to look to in order to gain correct beliefs about a very large number of things.
If the LDS Church is to grow in grace, in truth, and in charity as we are commanded then I don’t think the Apostles and Prophets are excluded from that.
As for me, I try to keep my beliefs as free from error as possible; there may be things that I think I know which further revelation from God will revise and in so far as belief is tied to righteousness then there is plenty for me to continue to try and improve.
” Is this so different from the LDS?”
No they are similar, covenants are two way promises between God and man and continuing revelation both individually and as a church is the very premises upon which the Church is founded:
“If Jesus Christ is God he is not bound by any law, oral or otherwise”
And here is something where we disagree a lot. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. In the process of creation God makes unalterable decrees and promises and when we make covenants with God they bind God to us and us to God. No word can leave God’s mouth except it will be fulfilled and God’s promises are sure, which is to say that God is bound by law just as much as we are bound by law, and a lawless god is no god at all.
Jesus didn’t follow the Oral Law because it was not a Law which He had given. Likewise, I see the Tradition of Orthodox and Catholicism as being a similar situation as the Oral Law; Something that God is not bound to and which He doesn’t recognize as His. In both the Oral Law and Tradition are found pieces of the truth made clearer perhaps then they are found in the respective scripture but also many doctrines of man being taught as commands from God.
This is not to say that the Orthodox (or Roman Catholic or Jew) may not be faithfully transmitting what they have received but that without continuing revelation and Prophets then “the people perish”.
Had it not been the revelations given to Peter (and Paul) then all Christians would be circumcised. Just as the early Church members brought in that belief from Judaism I also believe they brought in many other beliefs from Judaism and Paganism which are not correct, and without revelation from God then there is no way to correct where they are wrong or say which is a vital true belief and which is a irrelevant, misguided, or even evil holdover from where the people are coming from.
I don’t know what replacement theology is so I’m not certain if what I am about to write will answer your questions. Also, we have strayed into theologoumena so please bear that in mind.
Essentially within Orthodox Christianity it is common to find the understanding that there were numerous Jewish sects in the First Century and that what were to become modern Rabbinic Judaism and Orthodox Christianity were two of them. In other words, Christianity does not derive from modern Judaism and has not “appropriated” any of their Scriptures or traditions but instead both are heirs, if you will, of Temple Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism believes that it is the legal heir and Christianity granted godhood to a Rabbi or a prophet while Orthodox Christianity claims that it is the legal heir while Judaism denied the arrival of the Messiah.
In many ways the process of schism between Judaism and Christianity was not unlike the schism between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
I don’t know what you meant by the Orthodox Christian position on Jews, Israel, and Judaism.
You will understand I hope if I find this unlikely. At any rate, that is the key theological difference between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism: Collegial Tradition versus Papal Monarchy.
In many ways this might be how we would describe Church Fathers and other saints. How do the LDS discover that a revelation is false or is rendered false? By saying rendered you seem to be suggesting that revelation that is true one year might be false the next, is that accurate? If so, it seems to be at odds with what you write later about God not changing decrees.
Unlike many Roman Catholics I am loathe to enter into a discussion as to what God can and cannot do. To steal lines from an Orthodox priest,
All of that said, my poor word smithing may have caused some confusion. The Orthodox Church believes that many people had perverted the law and did not understand it — and this continues to this day. To take the case of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), men had perverted the Sabbath to make it something that it was not and was not intended to be. The purpose (telos) of man was always to become like Jesus Christ (theosis) and not to abstractly follow laws. Theosis however is impossible without God and you must ask Him to help before He will — and even then it is an ongoing struggle.
I don’t know enough about the Oral Law to engage this so we may be in agreement or, as I mentioned earlier, it could be that the Oral Law was being misused/misinterpreted. Over time this has become an issue between Orthodox Christianity whose preference is to analogize God as a physician versus Roman Catholicism whose preference is to analogize God as a Judge.
This is not unlike how an Orthodox Christian might describe LDS Scripture.
“I don’t know what you meant by the Orthodox Christian position on Jews, Israel, and Judaism.”
Do Jews yet retain the covenants and promises that God made with Abraham? Do the promises in Deuteronomy of their gathering to the land of their fathers still hold? Is the current nation of Israel part of that gathering? Or did the Church completely supplant and replace the Jews as Gods chosen people so that they are no longer chosen and have no promises from God?
“You will understand I hope if I find this unlikely.”
If you found it likely then you would probably be a Latter-Day Saint.
” How do the LDS discover that a revelation is false or is rendered false?”
Sorry, I was unclear. The revelation is not rendered false but sermons and statements that are not revelation were. Revelations are in no way the same things as statements from a prophet: that is a prophet can receive and communicate revelation but not everything that the prophet says is revelation. Further revelation then can show that non-revelatory statements made by a prophet or apostle were the mistaken beliefs of that individual.
” To steal lines from an Orthodox priest,”
This is very close to what the LDS believe, though one transfigured by the power of the Holy Ghost, operating through the priesthood, can see God and speak with Him face to face as man speaks with another man.