The Omega Institute

Please Remember Us When You Pray

2008-04-08T15:51:00.005-04:00

We just thought we would share with you some of our more pressing prayer requests:

1) That God would provide more Monthly Supporters to the ministry.

2) That we would find a person very adept (and reasonably priced) at website coding to code and implement our future website designs. Preferably a Christian.

3) That we might meet our various schedules for the numerous projects that are currently under
way.

These are just 3 of our needs that we would be blessed to have you keep in prayer with us and seek God’s provision for.

Thanks always to those of you who have a heart for The Omega Institute and the work we are seeking to do for Christ’s kingdom.

May The Lord Bless You,
The Staff at The Omega Institute

Thanks for Sharing Our Grand Opening

2008-04-01T18:07:00.002-04:00

It was such a pleasure to see everyone who attended the Grand Opening reception of our new Omega Institute offices this past Saturday, March 29th. The afternoon seemed to fly by as our Omega Supporters came through the offices to see what their faithful prayer and financial support has helped the Institute obtain. We finally have a wonderful office suite in a very professional building and at a desirable and convenient location at 4250 Veterans Memorial Highway.

So far it has proved to be an enormous blessing, allowing us to work cooperatively together like never before, under one roof; as well as furnishing a perfect place for the launch of our newest division called Synergy- Christian Counseling and Life Issues Ministries. This reception was an event that the staff of Omega desired to put on specifically for those who have so generously supported us with prayerful support and continuing financial aid.

We hope it was as much of a blessing to all of you who attended as it was to have you here to thank personally and feel your encouraging presence with us in this ministry.

Thank you again from the entire staff of The Omega Institute.

Total Depravity Part 2

2008-03-16T17:49:00.002-04:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verse:

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
—1 Corinthians 2:14

There are just some people who don’t get it. For some reason or another, we give up trying to make them get it – perhaps it is because they lack something necessary to get it (intelligence, willingness, background) or perhaps we are not making ourselves clear enough to them. When it comes to the doctrine of total depravity, unregenerated man is not getting it because he is conditioned by his sin to reject what God has made abundantly clear. In his classic commentary, Matthew Henry remarks, “Men unsanctified receive not the things of God. The understanding, through the corruption of nature by the fall, and through the confirmation of this disorder by customary sin, is utterly unapt to receive the rays of divine light; it is prejudiced against them. The truths of God are foolishness to such a mind. The man looks on them as trifling and impertinent things, not worth his minding.” Note what Henry says here: his mind is prejudiced against the things of God – this is the essence of total depravity. Because of the effects of the fall, man’s whole disposition has been distorted and twisted, making his unwilling, totally unwilling to receive the message of the gospel with saving faith and submit his life to the Lordship of Christ. “But so many people do this!” you rightly reply. Yes, they do. But how do they?

“When the disciples heard this they were astonished and said, ‘who then can be saved?’ And looking at them, Jesus said to them, ‘With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’ ” (Matthew 19:25, 26) As believers, we are God’s workmanship (Ephesians 2:10); His masterpiece, His miracle, living testimonies of His grace, not our own wisdom or capacity to make a good spiritual decision!

The fall had tremendous effects on mankind – more than just making him sinful in the sight of God and in need of payment for the debt of his sin. In the Augsburg Confession, the early Lutherans put it well: “It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.”

The Scriptural picture of fallen man was covered in our last devotional and thus, demonstrably well summarized here in the Confession. Although the doctrine of Original Sin, or the belief as to how Adam’s transgression and thus, man’s fall in the garden affected the rest of us, has been hotly debated through the centuries, the Scriptural description of fallen man is fairly clear – the inclination of his will is clearly turned from God.

Man then is in a condition where his best works, his most laudable actions are still filthy before the eyes of his Creator. He is in desperate need of both forgiveness and cleansing and a transformation of heart and mind that does not render him perfect or sinless in action, but turned, converted, repentant: changed 180 degrees back in the right direction toward God as to the inclination of his will. This is precisely what the Spirit’s work of regeneration does in the heart of man: it turns him around once again to become alive to God and as such, capable of responding to Him in faith (which is also gifted to Him by God). He is now in a position to understand and receive spiritual things now that he is alive in this manner whereas he was once dead.

In Paul’s description of the spiritually dead in the first three verses of the second chapter of Ephesians, he says a couple of important things: (1) we walked in this deadness (v. 2) meaning that it involved an active lifestyle rather than an inert condition [like physical bodily death]; (2) we followed the leading of the world system under the power of Satan (v. 2); (3) we were all in this condition formerly, no exceptions (v. 3); (4) we followed our lusts and desires, not the prompting of the Spirit of God (v. 3).

The very next two words in the chapter are glorious: “but God …” (v. 4) Without His gracious intervention in the lives of those as utterly helpless as dead men, we could not respond to Him in faith as those now alive to Him in our human spirits. We need a new spirit and a renewed heart. God knew this, which is why He promised this in the Old Testament when speaking about the provisions of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-29; reiterated in Hebrews 8:7-13).

As sinners, we are so in need of God’s grace in forgiveness and in cleansing, but also in need of renewal and transformation. We need transforming grace. Paul spoke of this very thing in his epistle to Titus:

“He saved us; not on the basis of things we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” —Titus 3:5

There is a beautiful picture of redemption in the pages of the Old Testament that reveals the renewing dimensions of justification within the scope of God’s redemptive purpose. In the Old Testament prophetic book of Zechariah, the prophet is shown an image of the high priest at his time, standing before the angel of the LORD and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The angel, speaking for the LORD (it has always been my opinion that this is the Preincarnate Christ who is Himself the LORD yet distinguished from the Father – this passage is one of the strongest evidences of this in Scripture) rebukes the Enemy and reminds him that Joshua the high priest (representing the people of Israel) has been plucked from the fire – rescued by the gracious action of God. The sinful state of the people of God (represented by Joshua) is depicted by the filthy garments he wears as Satan is rebuked by the angel of the LORD. So, the LORD in the person of the angel of the LORD removes the filthy garments and replaces them with festal robes (see: Zechariah 3:1-4).

What I love about this picture is that it shows both the expected and the unexpected dimensions of our salvation: that our sins are removed is what we would have expected based on what Scripture promises about salvation; what we would not have expected is that this salvation given to the people as represented by Joshua dismisses the accusations of the Enemy, which he consistently and rightly fires at the people of God day and night (see: Revelation 12:10). Joshua’s position is not the only thing that is changed here, but his condition. This is the effect salvation has on the believer – like Joshua, the man or woman who is saved does not initiate the program; God does. Joshua did nothing to warrant, request or fill some precondition for receiving the grace he received in this episode – God did the transforming work on His own initiative.

The grace of God transforms from the inside out – it changes who we are before God and who God is to us. Once that happens, we are able to make a legitimate and personal commitment to God.

—Larry Carrino

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

Total Depravity Part 1

2008-03-09T16:05:00.001-04:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verse:

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them too we all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest.” —Ephesians 2:1-3

It is difficult for the human mind, particularly the American mind, to accept that there is something we cannot do – we are often up for the challenge, our pride rises up within us and we possess that burning desire to prove to the world that we can rise above the tide and emerge victorious. Challenges in life speak of the inferred inability to do something that must be proven otherwise; we are told we don’t have the “stuff” so we strive to prove that we do. This kind of pioneering spirit conquered the American west, set the Industrial Revolution in place, inspired the technological wonderland we are beholding today in this information age and lurked behind the most inspiring military victories in human history (as well as the most insidious).

When theologians speak of the term “total depravity” (also known as total inability or total corruption), they refer to a lack of ability in man to respond to God in a manner that will result in their justification. I have full sympathy for the man who immediately reacts to such a term as a challenge to his autonomy, particularly regarding his volition (will). If we were being told that we are unable to lift five hundred pounds with our bare hands, perhaps we would accept this more easily (although some might begin a serious regimen of training to prove otherwise!); but to be told what we are able to choose? Really!

It is here that the limitations of human language intersect with the mission of theology: to explain what the Word of God is really saying to us. This is the reason theological terms often possess “alternates” (such as total inability or total corruption in this case, along with more current options offered by Reformed theologians). I suppose that there is always a better way of putting something which conveys the truth of God’s revelation more accurately. Admittedly, terms like total depravity give the impression that there is absolutely nothing “good” or redeemable about man in his fallen state; that he is as bad as he can possibly be; although this is not what the doctrine of total depravity means. I suppose total inability infers the notion that man is “willing to be willing” but unable to do so in much that same way a paraplegic desires to move his legs but cannot physically accomplish the task. This too is not what the doctrine means.

The truth is: the Scripture speaks of our will in terms of what it is conditioned to want to do (because the will only knows how to do one thing: want). When theologians speak of total depravity, they are speaking about the effects of the fall on the human will and what it is conditioned to desire. These effects of original sin are clear in Scripture: from the very beginnings of God’s story in His Word, fallen man is pictured as possessing great wickedness and that “the intents of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5) David lamented to God that he was conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5) and it was the prophet Jeremiah who posed the penetrating question: “can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change his spots?” Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23) It was the same prophet who informed us of the condition of the human heart in its fallen state: it is exceedingly wicked and sick to the point that we cannot truly know it (Jeremiah 17:9).

“Alright,” you retort, “sick, but not incapacitated from doing something a benign as asking for help!” Fair enough – let’s see what Scripture says. Jesus said in Mark 7:21-23 that from the heart of fallen man come all kinds of wicked things (He lists them) and these are the things that defile us. The apostle John tells us that the reason Jesus was rejected although He was the Light of the world is that men (not certain men) loved darkness and hated light, because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).

At this point, many of you might still be objecting to such passages as speaking only of the sad, sinful state of man, but still insist that such persons can reach out and grab the lifeboat of salvation in choosing to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, while we do not have the will to do good as God would demand of us, we do have the power of choice, right?

Read the third chapter of Romans, verses 10-20 and try to maintain this position. “There is none who do good, there are none who seek God.” None who seek God … does this mean that man does not possess the power of choice? Don’t miss this: no – man does possess the power of choice – the Scripture nowhere teaches that man cannot make choices; it reveals the inner nature of fallen man as someone who will never choose to submit to God and trust Him for salvation. He is philosophically able to make the choice, meaning that he possesses a will that under different circumstances can feasibly make the choice to respond in faith to the call of salvation. We need to remove this fictitious picture in our minds of sinners going to hell kicking and screaming and crying, “We were willing but we were not chosen!” This is a twisted caricature of the Biblical picture of man who is more truly spoken of as rebellious and unwilling to follow God to such a degree that he can rightly be called “unable” due to his hard-boiled condition.

This is why the apostle Paul speaks of the unregenerate mind (the mind of the person who has not been affected by the power of the Holy Spirit to change his disposition before God) as both hostile to God and unable to subject itself to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Commentators John Walvoord and Roy Zuck make this observation about this verse in their Bible Knowledge Commentary: “The unsaved lead lives that are totally void of spiritual life and ability.” What does the unsaved lack the ability to do? They lack the ability to choose for God in submitting to His command to receive and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Does this really mean that unsaved man is so hardened in his sinful condition that he is unable to choose for God with his own twisted will? Jesus said that no one could come to Him unless it was granted them by the Father.” (John 6:65). Yes, but perhaps He was just speaking about Himself as the only way to God that men need to choose (and they are able to do so). No – Jesus said earlier in this very chapter that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws them to Christ (John 6:44). You see, while Jesus certainly claims to be the only way to God, He is equally clear that we cannot come to Christ (not the Father) who in turn brings us into a right relationship with God, unless something supernatural happens that God must do, and in view of man’s unwillingness, initiate.

“Man! What can be so hard about just choosing Jesus? It’s not like faith is a work or something so incredible that it should require an act of God!” Really? Paul said, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that we all were once “foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our lives in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” (Titus 3:3) “That wasn’t me before I was saved! I was a sinner, but I was an otherwise decent person!” Jesus too recognized that we can give good things and do things that man in his sinful and short-sighted state may consider benevolent, but He still calls us “evil” (Matthew 7:11).

Our biggest problem in accepting the doctrine of total depravity is that we have a very different standard than God does in what it means to love Him in the way a truly pure heart, like Jesus’ would. God’s overriding command, the thing upon which the law and prophets depended (Matthew 22:36-40) demands from us a love for God that encompassed the whole heart, the whole will and the whole mind. Are you willing to admit that you have never loved God this way for a split second in your entire lifetime? Every “good” action, every “pure” thought, every “fine” motive, every “sacrificial” gesture still possesses enough self, pride and personal agenda so as to make our own righteousness as filthy rags compared to what God both demands and deserves. In fact, I think He said that once (Isaiah 64:6)! It is so imperative that we possess a right, Biblical view of ourselves so that we might possess the right view of our salvation and exult in the glory of the gospel! More on that next time.

—Larry Carrino

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

Justification Part 3

2008-03-02T15:37:00.007-05:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verse:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
—Romans 3:28

Four hundred years ago on the continent of Europe a battle raged within the Roman Catholic Church (the largest and most powerful Christian body in Western Europe) over the issue of how a man is justified or made right in the sight of a holy God. The Catholic Church had long taught and believed that justification is based on a combination of God’s grace and man’s meritorious works. By the time the sixteenth century had dawned, there had already been a number of notable dissenters to this and comparable doctrines from within the ranks of Catholic leadership and ministry, many who met their demise or were severely persecuted because of their objections to these areas of Catholic teaching. These “pre-Reformers” had paved the way for others to consider such objections, based on the Word of God alone rather than the authority of the teaching magisterium or upon Holy Tradition as the Catholics had claimed. Now, such Protestant luminaries such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and others promoted the proposition that a man is not justified by grace and works but by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. These three assertions became known as the three Solas of the Reformation: Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone) and Solus Christus (Christ alone). [Add to this Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone and Soli Deo Gloria: Glory to God alone].

Now “fast forward” to the present day and we find that this debate still rages among people of faith with regards to justification. I believe that there is a very natural tendency among human beings to perceive God’s favor to men as a matter of personal merit; albeit partially [most like to believe that their meritorious works are assisted by divine help or “grace”] but nonetheless certainly [people find it difficult to conceive of favor freely given without any sense of merit]. The real issue here is whether the favor we receive from God is truly gracious or meritorious (whether it is something we receive that we did not earn or something we receive based on something we somehow deserve, even if not completely).

Having grown up playing ice hockey, I am aware of two ways of earning “points” during a season as a player: goals and assists. Interestingly enough, in hockey, the man who physically puts the puck in the net and the man who passes the puck to the man who puts it in the net (for a goal) both receive one point toward their personal average for the season. Of the millions of folks who attend many churches around the world today, I would have to say that most if not all of them desire (and pursue) the favor of God. Because every church possesses numerous worship and service activities available to its people, it is so easy to confuse these activities as being opportunities to either merit or prove one’s merit in receiving God’s favor. For those who feel tempted to do this, consider the words of our Lord Himself:

“The Pharisee stood and was praying to himself, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I pay tithes of all that I get. But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” —Luke 18:11-14

In the work of justification, there are no assists on the part of the justified. There is no boasting, there is no sense of self-satisfaction, there is no sense of accomplishment in having “cooperated with God” and hence, somehow merited the grace of being put into a right relationship with God. I love what Paul says about this dimension of justification in Romans 3:27 – he puts it into the form of a question: “where is boasting? It is excluded.” There is no place for it, no possibility for its inclusion into the whole scheme of justification.

Those who would oppose Sola Gratia or Sola Fide could say, “Although I cooperate with God in His grace, I take no credit for my part in the equation because I only receive what God has freely given me,” or “my obedience and faith does not cause me to deserve any credit.” Nice try, but this is both arbitrary and the willful forfeiture on the part of the saved. Let me explain: if someone chooses not to accept credit for their faith or their works that cooperate with the grace of God in justification (as they would claim), this amounts to a personal decision not to accept any credit for the fact that they have received God’s justifying grace; that they are in a right relationship with God. However, Paul repeatedly paints a very different picture. Human nature is consistently plagued with the penchant to feel ourselves “worthy” of something, even if it is something we feel was given us by “grace” (clearly not understanding the true nature of grace itself: something given yet utterly undeserved). Grace is not a wage that is deserved (Romans 4:4ff) but something utterly humbling to receive and miraculous to consider ours. There is nothing we have done to place ourselves in a place of “worthy receptivity;” no preconditions we choose to meet to receive the free gift of God in justification – yes, we believed the gospel, but the faith to believe itself is a free gift of God apart from our cooperation to have received (Philippians 1:29). The Scripture paints the picture of justification as wholly a work of God (Jonah 2:9). This understanding of justification alone places its recipient in a position to plead with the Creator for mercy and not demand payment for a set of conditions we ourselves have been faithful to meet on our own.

Is man capable then to receive this gift? The answer is, “yes” and “no” – in himself, he is not; with God, he is made capable through the same grace that justifies. More on that next time.

—Larry Carrino

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

NEW OMEGA RELATIONSHIP BASIC TRAINING SEMINAR on January 25th & 26th

2007-12-05T15:51:00.001-05:00

We all have some difficulties in the relationships we’re suppossed to be enjoying. Whether by cell phone, email, fax or text-messaging, we have a staggering choice of ways to communicate but are we really listening to one another?

Everyone wants to relate from the heart and be understood but our words and actions are so often misunderstood. Let’s learn how to avoid needless conflicts. We’ve all had basic training before for one reason or another but isn’t it time we were trained in how to relate biblically with each other.

The Bible’s full of enormously practical ways to maximize our relationships and avoid disputes. That’s why The Omega Institute has designed our newest seminar entitled: RELATIONSHIP BASIC TRAINING.

This seminar may not exhaust you physically, but it’s a spiritual bootcamp to challenge and strengthen your heart and mind. Be warned though! This is not pop-psychology. You’ll leave thoroughly equipped to listen, speak, and resolve conflicts with the relational skills that only the God who created us can teach. We will delve into what Holy Scripture teaches regarding the three main areas of all relationships— CHARITY, COMMUNICATION & CONFLICT.

Whether you struggle with your children, your spouse, your coworkers, or with members of your church— this training is meant for you! Invest a little time and money in a weekend that will prove to be challenging, fun and continually rewarding.

Report for duty at The Omega Institute’s RELATIONSHIP BASIC TRAINING on Friday January 25th from 7:30 pm to 9 pm and Saturday January 26th from 9 am to 3 pm. Bring a bag lunch to enjoy a lunch hour fellowship time from 12 to 1 pm.

To find out more and to purchase tickets visit this link: RELATIONSHIP SEMINAR

Justification Part 2

2007-11-26T09:02:00.001-05:00

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

Justification Part 1

2007-11-19T10:53:00.000-05:00

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

The Virgin Birth

2007-11-12T20:45:00.000-05:00

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

The Hypostatic Union

2007-11-05T20:42:00.001-05:00

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

The Difference The Trinity Makes Part 5

2007-10-29T20:36:00.000-04:00

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

The Difference The Trinity Makes Part 4

2007-10-22T20:34:00.001-04:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verse:

“For if the blood of goat and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. . .”
—Hebrews 9:13,14

We have been spending some time considering the implications of the Trinity: the doctrine which describes the very nature of our God and how His nature impacts what He does and how we as His people relate to Him. In this, our fourth installment of this series of devotionals dedicated to the Trinity, we consider the third Person of the Triune Godhead: the Holy Spirit.

It can be safely noted that the Holy Spirit is the most mysterious member of the Trinity. I am often reminded of this fact when considering the abbreviated expression of faith regarding the Spirit in the original version of the Nicene Creed formulated in A.D. 325:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.”

Note the striking difference in detail between the description of the first and second Persons and the third. This five word expression says little other than the Church’s affirmation of faith in the existence of this third Person. I find it curious that, in writing this article on my laptop, my grammar checker identified this final insertion of the creed on the Holy Spirit as a fragment!

Why is this? The early Church needed to further investigate Biblically the nature and ministry of this third Person at the time of the first Nicean Council, and by the time the Creed was expanded and updated 56 years later in A.D. 381 at the Council of Constantinople, the following addition appeared:

“And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Although the Person and Deity of the Holy Spirit is fully documented in Scripture and affirmed through the Church’s history, His role in our salvation and our daily life is often either minimized or sensationalized. It is the responsibility of the child of God to maintain a balanced, Biblical understanding of the place the Spirit of God plays in our redemption and our relationship with the Almighty. In order to appreciate this understanding, let’s consider this passage from the book of Hebrews:

“For if the blood of goat and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. .”

Hebrews 9:13, 14

Here, the author of Hebrews compares the efficacy of the Old Covenant’s sacrifices and the New Covenant’s perfect sacrifice in the Person of Christ. The phrase “how much more” is one of the reasons I believe that Paul may possibly be the author of the book of Hebrews, as he often uses this phrase to demonstrate the force of his argument when expressing the supremacy of Jesus over all He is compared to. Notice what the author is saying here: the blood of Jesus cleanses our conscience from sin in a manner that “dead works” (our own efforts to please God with the good deeds we do) can never do – but this cleansing comes about in the life of the believer through someone else: the eternal spirit. This someone else is presented to the disciples by our Lord Himself in John 14:16, 17 –

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because the world does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.”

When Jesus described the Holy Spirit as “another Helper,” He used two important words that give us a hint as to the Spirit’s nature and His relationship to the Son as well as to the believer. The word translated “another” is one of two words used in the Greek language which translate this way: allos and heteros. Allos refers to another of the same kind or of the same class – heteros refers to another of a different kind or class. Jesus uses the word allos here, positing the Spirit of God as Someone who is of the same class or kind as Himself. Being the third member of the trinity, we understand that the Spirit of God is of the same essence as the Father and the Son – He is equally divine. Jesus Himself is called our Helper by this same apostle John in his first letter:

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

1 John 2:1

The word Advocate is the same as that which translates Helper in John 14:16; and because these two Persons work together in our redemption, the author of Hebrews reveals just how they minister to us in securing our relationship with God. It is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that purchases our redemption; it is His blood that satisfies the righteous demands of God to make sinners acceptable in His sight (note that the very next verse in the 1 John 1 passage – v. 2 – speaks of Jesus being our propitiation: the very satisfaction of God’s demands on our behalf) and it is through (or by the agency of) the Spirit of God that this redemption is applied to the believer.

The Holy Spirit makes ours personally the redemption the Son of God accomplished on our behalf. Here you see the connection: the Father loves us and sends His gracious gift to us in the Person of Christ (Titus 3:4-6) who then gives His perfect life and purchases our redemption with His blood, and this redemption is made ours personally through the work of the Spirit of God who, as our Lord Himself made clear, is that Person of the Triune Godhead who most intimately relates to the Christian.

How incredible it is to consider that the entire Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit work in harmony with one another to secure our eternal destiny for those who God has chosen to be His own! The difference the Trinity makes in considering the third Person: the Holy Spirit, is that we come to appreciate the fact that this Spirit makes all that Christ gives ours, and that we are His in that He, our Lord, desires us to consistently give ourselves to Him in the most real and intimate of ways.

But more on that next week.

—Larry Carrino

New 2008 Supporter Series

2007-10-18T16:52:00.001-04:00

The New Supporter Series for 2008 is Planned!

It’s called BREAKING POINTS: Stress, Depression and the Christian

The Supporter Series is a CD Audio series of messages specially produced just for our Omega Monthly Supporters. We affectionately call those who have pledged to financially help this ministry with a monthly gift of at least $20.00 our Omega Institute "Supporters".

When you join us in giving financially to this ministry in a committed fashion by pledging your recurring monthly support we send you this series each and every month as our "Thank You" gift to you. We also furnish an attractive binder to store all your monthly installments of this series in.

This year Larry has blessed us with his treatment of The Sermon on The Mount, but in 2008 he has a terrific new series planned. Have you ever wondered why although we’re a society that enjoys a higher standard of living than any civilized nation or empire in world history, we have an awful lot of depressed and stressed out people. We all know what it feels like to be frazzled and stressed. But why are we so on the edge nowadays? Has our DNA somehow changed from years ago when life seemed so much more sedate? Do we suffer from a thinner skin? Or could it be something more subtle and insidious? This coming year, The Omega Institute tackles a subject everyone can relate to on a level that speaks to the very inner core of who we are and turns to the Scriptures for the answers to these important questions. We believe this will serve as a prescription for balance and freedom from these two great afflictions!

Join us today in supporting Omega! Become a Supporter and join the ranks of our other valued friends who enable us to continue bringing you the best in Christian educational materials.

To begin your support of Omega simply use the button on the left titled SUPPORT OMEGA and you will receive BREAKING POINTS each and every month in 2008!

P.S. FOR A LIMITED TIME and WHILE SUPPLIES LAST — We are giving away a BONUS GIFT of The Nature of Love Series to all new Supporters and to those who recommend a friend to become a Supporter. Thanks!

TO BEGIN SUPPORTING OMEGA AND BEGIN RECEIVING BREAKING POINTS visit this link: SUPPORT OMEGA

The Difference The Trinity Makes Part 3

2007-10-15T16:29:00.001-04:00

2007-10-09T17:01:00.000-04:00

Position on Divorce and Remarriage

by Dr. Lawrence W. Carrino

Senior Pastor at Grace Gospel Church, Patchogue, NY

Our consideration of this difficult issue must primarily revolve around the principle texts involved and not an undue emphasis on theological speculation. Since the concern of each participant in this divorce and remarriage debate consists of their desire for a truly "Biblical view" regarding this issue, the texts, and not logical arguments, must stand at the center of any consideration of this issue. However, it should also be said that theologizing cannot be eliminated from the process of constructing a view of Divorce and Remarriage that can truly be said to be faithful to the Scriptures. Like other difficult (and foundational)doctrines, such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc., the presuppositions one approaches the text with can substantially affect the "spin" of their interpretation. Presuppositions are unavoidable, and should not be seen as necessitating a position which is slanted or incapable of producing canonical fidelity. Presuppositions should be conformed to a number of factors that present the finest in Evangelical (and distinctly Protestant) hermeneutic tradition: a combination of historio-grammatical as well as historical-critical principles.

In my opinion, the narrow, legalistic character of the No Divorce and No Remarriage view stems from a false dichotomy between textual and cultural considerations. They over work the first and ignore the second. It is not enough to simply ask what the divorce passages (in both testaments) mean, but what they would have meant to the original hearers. Considering the inherent difficulty of the language and context which has precipitated this debate, familiarity with the culture, mores, language and traditions (considering that this moral issue was firmly set in rabbinic tradition in Palestine by the time of Christ) is necessary if we assume that the words of Christ (and their disturbing lack of clarifying commentary) would have been readily understood by those who originally heard them. The context of such passages strongly indicate that they would have been, as we shall discuss in the pages to follow.

The principle passages related to this debate have been provided under separate cover. My approach, for the sake of brevity (as well as a general commitment to the overall continuity between the testaments in both ethical and eschatological categories) shall consist of a consideration of principle New Testament passages on the subject; primarily the teaching of Jesus on divorce, with significant and appropriate treatment of Old Testaments as well as ancillary New Testament texts through the course of our study of these principle NT passages.

Pastorally, I consider this issue peripheral to essential doctrine (orthodoxy), however, critical to our testimony both within the church of Jesus Christ and without (orthopraxy). No conclusion on this matter will please all parties observing the actions of our congregation toward the divorced and the potentially remarried (or those actually having been remarried prior to their entrance into our fellowship), however, God is judge and He is the Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart -- whether individually or corporately (as a church).

The first passage under consideration shall be Matthew 5:31,32. The passage (as will all others unless otherwise noted) have been cited under separate cover [NASB] and should be consulted for easy reference.

Upon a close examination of the context of Matthew 5:32, it becomes evident that his statement is expressed in the midst of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and particularly in the midst of the so-called "Six Antitheses" whose function is equally in question. Let us first review the flow of thought in this section of the Sermon, then consider the function of these antitheses ("you have heard it said, but I say to you ...").

The Flow of Thought

(1) Antitheses One: Murder and Anger (5:21-26)

(2) Antitheses Two: Adultery and Lust (5:27-30)

(3) Antitheses Three: Divorce and Porneia (5:31,32)

(4) Antitheses Four: Vows and Swearing (5:33-37)

(5) Antitheses Five: Revenge and Committal to God (5:38-42)

(6) Antitheses Six: Enemies and Unconditional Love (5:44-47)

Nature/Function of the Antitheses

Defined by Matthew 5:17 - 19 -- Jesus is interpreting the Law, not abrogating or abolishing it!

Hence, this section is not truly "antithetical" as much as it is an expansion of the given Law (Mosaic) to the hearts and inner life of those to whom Jesus is speaking.

A consideration of Jesus’ use of hyperbole (rhetorical exaggeration) is necessary here, both within the textual as well as cultural context of the Sermon. Hyperbole was an integral part of teaching in the Jewish as well as Greco-Roman world. Its function was rhetorical effect, and was widely understood as not being interpreted in a "wooden" literalness, but as a wisdom saying (proverbial): a general spiritual principle with situation exceptions. Consider the nature of the book of Proverbs -- these inspired pithy sayings regarding a number of subjects never speak exhaustively on that given subject and involve heavy qualifications in relation to applicational considerations. Consider the fact that Proverbs often speaks of wealth as God’s blessing upon an individual, and just as often condemns it if acquired under certain (and numerous) evil means [exceptional situations!]

Consider Jesus’ use of hyperbole in the gospels --

In this context -- Matthew 5:29,30: Jesus speaks of tearing out appendages of the body which would cause someone to stumble. While the application of this principle is literal in a real sense; a wooden interpretation is not possible and contradicts not only common sense but other NT commands (see: Colossians 2:21-23).

In other passages -- Luke 18:25: Jesus speaks of the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom of heaven; as difficult as a camel entering through the eye of a needle. Once again, literal interpretation is enjoined here, and yet, a certain semblance of latitude in terms of hyperbolic expression is consistent with the normal understanding of the passage.

In other passages -- Luke 16:17: Jesus claims that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Law to in any detail. This is obvious use of hyperbole since the Scriptures uniformly state that BOTH the Scripture as well as the material (and immaterial) creation will endure.

Craig Keener notes in his work, And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (p. 24):

Calling something a hyperbole, of course, is not an excuse to ignore what it says; the exaggeration is used precisely to force us to grapple with the radicalness of what it says, to shake us into changing the way we think and live. But it does warn us not to read everything as literally as if we were reading a report by some scholar or journalist today.

Others have also suggested that Matthew 5:32 is hyperbolic, such as RH Stein (Is It Lawful for a Man to Divorce His Wife? JETS, June 1979 as well as Divorce and Remarriage: What The Bible Says, 1976. On page 57 Stein states that the purpose of the hyperbole is not the establishment of a new, legalistic rule, but to reinforce the sanctity of marriage); William Luck (Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 1987); to name a few.

Hence: the principle is stated in proverbial form; that of a wisdom saying, which the original hearers of Jesus would have undoubtedly possessed a familiarity with. A wisdom saying is a general principle stated in a succinct manner designer to gain the reader’s attention and to make a point.

Is there a legal application of Matthew 5:32, or is it merely a powerless general principle? On the contrary, if there is any antithesis in this section of six that would possess legal force it would have to be the third (although it is a misnomer to assume that divorces always required legal action in a court of law in Jesus’ day -- this was patently not the case). However, in Rabbinic Law, it was perfectly natural to suppose that any legal declaration would need to be (an customarily possess) qualifications.

What then is the meaning of the exception clause in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?

The clause "except for porneia (immorality) most likely and naturally reflects the language of Deuteronomy 24:1, which apparently permits divorce "for the matter of uncleanness". The Hebrew word for "matter" comes over into the Greek nicely in the form of "case".

It is critical for those who would wish to prohibit divorce (or remarriage) to neutralize the force of the exception clause in these two Matthean passages. There are a number of ways in which this is attempted. We have already considered one grammatical construction employed to turn this exception on its head (into an inclusion) in our Lexical Considerations. Let’s consider a few others:

(1) Some claim that this is not an exception at all. One scholar proposes that the clause means merely that a woman is not being caused to commit adultery by being remarried simply on the basis that she already has! In other words, a woman is caused to be an adulteress on the sole force of the divorce and not on the remarriage (here interpreted as porneia in light of Paul’s directives in Romans 7:2,3). Problem: this view is too "ingenious"; the original hearers would not have likely caught the pun; also -- there is no reason to state the clause if this view is correct.

(2) Some claim that this exception clause is a true exception but only applies to those not really (authentically) married. Problem: here, in this text the woman said to be "his wife" is exactly the same term as in used in the Mosaic text cited in Matthew 5:31, and the word "divorce" is the same term in both verses. This refers to those legitimately married.

(3) Still others refer to the Leviticus 18 prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" (having sex with) of relatives. This is called the "forbidden kinship view". The fatal weakness of this view revolves around the fact that there is NOTHING in the semantic range of the word "immorality" (porneia) used here that would limit the term particularly to incestuous unions, as well as a complete void of contextual support in Matthew 5 to suggest that Matthew imposes such a limitation. Some proponents of this view cite certain Rabbi’s (1st and 2nd century) who discuss the issue of divorce with regard to the Leviticus 18 prohibitions; however, this is a far cry from saying that the Midrashic writings restricted the meaning of "immorality" to incest, or even narrowed the meaning to include it. Still other proponents take the exegetical leap of comparing the Matthean exceptions with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:1, where he employs the word "immorality" (porneia) here in reference to an incestuous affair. They then connect Luke’s report of the Jerusalem Council’s deliberations in Acts 15:20 (porneia is used here as well and translated "fornication") as well as in 15:29 (same usage and translation) and in Acts 21:25 (Paul’s notification of the apostle’s position on Gentile converts: porneia is again used and translated "fornication"). The alleged connection derives from the presupposition that Gentile culture bred incestuous relationships, and that the usage of porneia by Paul in the 1 Corinthians 5:1 passage with reference to an incest warrants the imposition of such a restrictive definition on the other passages; including the Matthean accounts.

Problem: the evidence for this usage does not warrant such a restriction upon the word in other texts (which are not even parallel texts). It ignores the etymological realities of interpretation, particularly the wide semantic range of the word porneia as well as its contrasted usage with the more specific word for adultery (moicheia). This view also ignores the immediate context of the alleged root passage: Paul states here that such immorality (specifically: incest) does not exist in the manner in which this individual expresses it among the Gentiles! (1 Corinthians 5:1a) Luke (the author of Acts) was certainly familiar enough with Greco-Roman society that he would have been aware of such an epidemic (as would have been Paul; his traveling companion); however, this view of Greco-Roman society is a misconception. There is also a logical inconsistency here -- those who advocate this view claim that the "one flesh" nature of marriage (which Jesus Himself appeals to in His discussion of divorce -- cf: Matthew 19:5 and Genesis 2:24) creates not only an indissoluble union (which cannot be defended contextually or grammatically) as well as creates a kinship between the husband and wife equivalent to that of "blood relatives". This is the explanation offered for the prohibition against remarriage of these former mates following divorce and subsequent remarriage. The "defilement" in verse 4 refers to the woman’s initial marriage (not her remarriage!) which makes her ineligible to marry her first husband due to their "blood relation" created by their initial union. At this point, the discrepancy should be obvious -- if marriage creates this "blood relationship" such that to enter into conjugal union would amount to incest; one would have to consider all sexual activity among married couples incestuous, since the nature of the relationship occurs at the point of marital union (one flesh)! This is not only illogical, but it undermines the sanctity of marriage as well as its sexual union (said to be kept holy in Hebrews 13:4).

What about porneia? How are we to understand its meaning?

Greco-Roman society viewed adultery as a breach of covenant; in fact, BOTH Roman and Jewish law compelled the husband to divorce his wife if she was found to be in adultery. James Efird (Marriage & Divorce: What The Bible Says, 1985) states on p. 40 that it has often been noted that "uncleanness" should mean more than adultery since adulterers were stoned (see: Leviticus 20:10 and related passages) and thus, need not be divorced.

This was most likely the driving force behind Joseph’s intended actions as recorded by Matthew in 1:18,19 (note: that it was Joseph’s piety that led him to quietly divorce his wife, Mary, on suspicion of breach of betrothal vows!)

Why is the specific word for adultery (moicheia) not used in either Matthean passages?

The School of Shammai [one of the two most influential rabbis by the early 1st century along with Hillel; and generally the stricter of the two] took the Hebrew term erwat dabar (Deuteronomy 24:1) to translate: "some unseeming thing"and to mean literally: "some uncovered thing" -- thus, they extended this beyond the actual act of adultery (specifically in light of the Mosaic command to execute the adulterers!) To refer to ANYTHING that showed immodesty, or that directly led to a suspicion of adultery or indiscretion. This view was also held by Philo, a diaspora Jew in touch with Greek thought. The broad use of the term "immorality" (use of porneia) seems, then, to fit the context best as extending beyond the physical act of adultery (note: Jesus’ words on adultery and lust).

Which brings us to an important consideration in interpreting Matthew 5:32. So many who pompously advocate a "Biblical" application of this passage neglect the fact that this statement is found in the context of the other five antithesis. The hard literalness and narrow interpretive scheme they apply to this passage is inconsistently (and may I say, whether unwittingly or not: hypocritically) avoided when considering the application of related passages such as Matthew 5:28 as well as Matthew 5:30). Are we to exercise the same discipline and censure to the adulterer who has lusted or exact the literal penalty of verse 30 on those who find themselves "offended" by their flesh? The pathetically general and benign applications of these principles ("well, just do whatever you can to avoid temptation" in relation to verse 30 and "well, this sin is too common among men to really censure them as adulterers!" in regard to verse 28 falls far short of the rigid inquisition their view imposes upon the victim of divorce: not the perpetrator but the partner who has not either instigated the divorce action or caused the action to be necessary.

Our second New Testament text under consideration is Matthew 19:9, where Jesus once again repeats His teaching on divorce with a more extended discussion (in His debate with the Pharisees who had intended to trap Him once again) of the basis for understanding the nature of marriage as well as the Mosaic concession of divorce. Jesus follows the traditional Jewish principle pf interpretation (that the more original the weightier) which assumes a progressive nature to the revelation encoded within the Scriptures, and hence affords foundational status to earlier writings. Jesus quotation of Genesis 2:24 (as well as 1:27) functions as part of His exposition on the sanctity of marriage -- but nowhere in Scripture (including these passages from Genesis) does the LORD explicitly state that marriage is an indissoluble union. However, the “one flesh” nature of the marriage bond, according to the design by God is stated in unequivicably positive terms (see: Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, p. 47); no provision is made by God for the dissolution of marriage in His original provision of the union. Hence: this fact should function as a guiding principle in understanding Jesus’ view on divorce (since His deliberate appeal to these passages would warrant such a conclusion) -- divorce was NOT commanded, it was allowed, not ultimately by Moses but by God Himself; the very Creator who designed marriage to be permanent (but not indissoluble). Divorce is not only an exception but a concession due to the falleness of man (note that the commentary on Moses’ part in Genesis 2:24 is both pre-fall; and yet is also parenthetical. It speaks to man after the fall as the continuance of the divine desire and intent for marriage, however does not exclude, but it can be argued, almost anticipates further revelation in light of the ramifications of the fall). The concession is made, according to Jesus, because of the “hardness of heart”; our Lord recognizing that there are cases in which the sinfulness which can reign in a marriage relationship is so vile that divorce is morally and spiritually preferable to the continued sin or “indecency”. The Old Testament text at issue here is Deuteronomy 24:1-3. Moses permitted divorce for erwat dabar (used only one other time in the OT in reference to excrement -- see: Deuteronomy 23:14). The translation of this Hebrew term is “something indecent” or “uncovered”. The NASB translates it “indecency”.

In light of the concessional nature of the divorce exception, it has been noted (correctly in my opinion) that this passage (as well as Matthew 5:32 by inference) must be interpreted in light of the principle of mercy that Jesus repeatedly posited as necessary to a proper interpretation of the Law (interestingly enough in Matthew’s gospel as well as in the context of Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees). Consider the two passages in context:

But go and learn what this means: I desire compassion and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Matthew 9:13

But if you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not a sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matthew 12:7

For the sake of brevity, we shall state simply that both instances find Jesus pitted against the Pharisees, and in both instances disputing with Him regarding the proper interpretation and application of the Law (eating with sinners, and hence associations in chapter nine, and picking grain on the Sabbath in chapter twelve). Time will permit only a consideration of chapter twelve (however, in both instances, our Lord appeals to the same OT passage: Hosea 6:6) and Jesus interpretation of the situation of David in regard to the consecrated bread as well as the situation of the Levitical priest’s ritualistic breaking of the Sabbath. In the disciples’ case, they also could claim an exception -- (v. 6) “someone greater than the temple is here.” A casual examination of the fifth and sixth chapters of Hosea will reveal that Jehovah is calling the people’s apostasy to task, and inviting them to move out of their empty ritual and into the healing relationship of restoration He has for them.

In understanding the words of Jesus in His interpretation of the Law; compassion and mercy (set within the context of the violations of God’s ideal which is so characteristic of sin) must become our guiding principle.

The absence of this exception clause in Mark 10:12 is closely related to the absence of the qualifier to the Pharisee’s question in Matthew 19:3 (for any reason at all?) The qualifier is missing in the question as well as the exception in the answer. While there is no explicit reason given for the variance in Matthew and Mark’s account, the culture and audience of each gospel should be considered. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience; a group of people bitterly divided over the details of the obtaining of a divorce -- the Romans (to whom Mark wrote) had no stigmatization attached to divorce (unlike the Jews). Marriage was understood to be a union of mutual consent; when either party no longer consented to the relationship, either could declare the relationship ended and obtain a divorce (unlike the right of initiation reserved solely for the man in Jewish culture). The presence of the exception to Matthew’s Jewish audience would have been all the more necessary in light of the question of the Pharisees and the stigmatization of the woman who is divorced. Although no position can be posited dogmatically, it is never a sound hermeneutic principle to play one passage in canonical Scripture against another. In no way, can Mark’s exclusion of the exception clause be brought to bear on the meaning of Matthew’s account of the same event. Specifically in the gospels, but throughout the Scriptures, the absence of a detail in one passage is never normatively set against the presence of a detail in another. The passages of Scripture need to harmonize into a coherent whole -- not cancel one another out as advocates of the No Divorce, No Remarriage view often resort to.

Finally, a brief consideration of Paul’s teaching on divorce in order. This section shall be briefer due to the conviction that Paul’s teaching is built upon Jesus’, not in contradiction to it. It is critical to consider Paul’s teaching on marriage and divorce within the context of the specific epistle (and hence: specific church which he is addressing) as well as the culture of that church, since the epistles of Paul are intensely situational. Paul’s consistent referral to issues of concern written to him by the Corinthians (we need to look no further than 7:1) indicate the nature of the epistle; it is heavily pastoral. What I mean by this is that the content of the book is dictated strongly by specific instances of concern which were occurring within the Corinthian Church. There are two historic factors that precipitate Paul’s discussion on marriage in general and then divorce in particular:

(v. 1) -- an imbalance toward asceticism required Paul to address the issue of marriage and the importance of the sexual relationship between husband and wife (vv. 1-9)

(v. 10) -- the issue of mixed marriages [unbelievers wanting to leave their believing mates] precipitated the discussion on “what do you do if your mate no longer wants to be married to you ...” (vv. 10 - 17)

Craig Keener comments;

The Corinthians who looked to spiritual incompatablity as an excuse for divorce may have built their case on arguments already available in their culture. In the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, Ezra’s holy decree compelled Israelites who had married pagan wives to divorce them. The passage uses the same word Paul uses for breaking the marital union here and describes this breaking of the union as “God’s will”.

And Marries Another ... p. 57

There are a number of textual notations regarding this passage that warrant consideration:

(1) Paul’s comments on the sanctification of the children and the mate of the believer has to do with the status of the children in Roman society (which could have been significantly compromised upon the dissolution of a mixed marriage according to Roman law) as well as the benefits of that family’s exposure to the gospel and Christian witness on the part of the believing mate -- and NOT the spiritual status of the relatives (see: verse 16).

(2) Verse 15 states that the believer is “not bound” or “under bondage” to the unbeliever is he chooses to leave. The language here strongly points to the freedom from the relationship as well as a freedom to remarry. In light of the Deuteronomy 24 dictates, this was the normal course of action sought after a legal divorce. In fact, according to Rabbinical law, the essential phrase on the “bill of divorcement” referred to here by the Pharisees and affirmed by Jesus was, “Thou art free to any man.” In the Mishnah (Gittin 9:3) it reads;

The essential formula in the bill of divorce is, “Lo, thou art free to marry any man.” R Judah says; “Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt.” The essential formula in a writ of emancipation is, “Lo, thou art a freedwoman: lo, thou belongest to thyself.”

If Paul intended to prohibit remarriage, (considering the significant Jewish population in the Church at Corinth) he stated the exact opposite of what he meant. The language was clear in the mind of the first century reader in this respect: the right to divorce naturally issued the right to remarry.

Perhaps the most important feature of this passage on divorce from Paul in 1 Corinthians is that he introduces a new apostolic reason for divorce not previously mentioned in the New Testament: desertion. Once again, “leaving” (verse 15) will likely be understood in the context of one’s presuppositions about the nature of marriage. And hence, we come to the Pastoral considerations regarding this issue.

Pastoral Considerations:

The issue of divorce and remarriage is a difficult one indeed. One’s position on this matter is more determined by the presuppositions one brings to this study as well as the approach one employs in the midst of it. While this position paper in no way expresses my view exhaustively (it would require a book-length manuscript to accomplish that) -- it does present representationally the salient points of my position. I have purposely stayed away from “theologizing” this issue or merely offering “proof texts” devoid of biblical or cultural context. The major issues determining our position on this matter involve the following points:

(1) The meaning and validity of the exception clause in Matthew’s accounts.

(2) The meaning of and Jesus’ usage of the Old Testament texts cited in these accounts.

(3) The question of the dissolubility of marriage: is it a conditional covenant or a permanent, unbreakable bond?

(4) The meaning of porneia in Jesus’ exception clause and the breadth of meaning and application.

(5) The relationship between the right to divorce and the right to remarry.

(6) The practical application of these determinations Pastorally.

While these elements do not tell the whole tale (there are more that I could cite), it is this final consideration that I would like to address before concluding this document. The questions arises in light of all that has been considered here: are there other exceptions that the Scripture affords in reference to the allowance of divorce or remarriage?

Consider the following factors: [reiteration of some main points]

(1) The teaching of Jesus is primarily hyperbolic and takes the form of a wisdom saying (principled statement with legal applications albeit with anticipated exceptions).

(2) The teaching of Paul builds upon the teaching of Jesus (as is typical with the epistles) and adds a second explicit exception: desertion.

(3) The word upon which Jesus’ exception clause hinges (porneia) is deliberately vague and historically broad in its meaning.

(4) The initial encounter in the New Testament canon with Jesus’ teaching on divorce takes place in the context of the “six antitheses” -- whose intention was to drive at the heart of the law; emphasizing the inner life. This context (Matthew 5) requires a broader and more “spirit of the law” approach to the divorce issue and its exception if our interpretation of the rest of the chapter is to remain consistent.

(5) The possibility exists (and would be likely if these factors are the case) that these exceptions are not a “complete list” of exceptions to divorce and hence remarriage. A caution needs to be issued here -- I do not see any warrant for adding new exceptions explicitly (the addition of the desertion exception in 1 Corinthians 7 required apostolic authority to do so!) but strongly infers the broadening of our understanding of the two mentioned. The apostolic addition on Paul’s part reveals more than “apostolic license” -- it must conform to already standard (and revealed) aspects of the spirit of the teaching of the Old Testament as well as Christ on this matter. Could it be that our application of these truths should also be considered in Pastoral deliberations? It is important to note that cultural issues such as abuse, (of any sort), child endangerment, etc. were not addressed in the relatively scant passages on this issue of divorce and remarriage; does this infer that such pastoral applications are prohibited?

(6) Is the nature of our interpretation of the law to be based upon the principle of mercy as Jesus commanded in similar context to the divorce passages (Matt. 9:13 and 12:7)? If not, what basis will our interpretation of the law (which ultimately becomes our final court of arbitration since Jesus appealed to Moses and Paul implicitly appeals to Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:10)? What implications does this have for Pastoral practice today?

(7) How does the issue of 2 Corinthians 5:17 relate to this issue of divorce and remarriage? Are the technical considerations of one’s marital history to determine the actions of the church in regard to believers, or is the current status of one’s discipleship to make that determination? Is the stigma of divorce so prevalent in Jesus day (specifically toward women) to remain in the Church of Christ?

(8) Considering the debatable nature of this issue and the fact that it must be viewed as non-essential to the faith (meaning non-salvific); how do Paul’s principles for the handling of debatable issue of conscience in Romans 14 and 15 relate to this topic? In my view, the believer has only two options in regard to the nature of his or her approach to this issue practically: passing judgement on the opinions of others (Romans 14:1) or being fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5). I am convinced that this section of Romans contributes more to the construction of a Biblical policy regarding this issue than even the so-called “divorce passages” reviewed in this section. They are, albeit inspired, circumstantial; this section is transcendent.

When Jesus was confronted by these same Pharisees with the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery, (John 8:3-11), the merciless interpreters of the Law reminded our Lord of the capital punishment demanded by the Law. Remembering that Jesus had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, He issues a rebuke which, on face value would seem to contradict the severe penalty imposed by Moses in the Pentateuch. When Jesus then confronts the woman after her accusers were gone, He tells her that He would not accuse her either. On what legal basis could He make this claim?

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.

Isaiah 53:4,5

The directives of this merciful Savior to the woman caught in adultery was this:

I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on, sin no more.

John 8:11

Not ... marry no more.

I believe that the issues surrounding the tragedy of divorce are as unique as the individuals who suffer from its hurtful consequences. That it would be so easy to possess a “clean” and cut & dry formula for determining the fitness of any given individual for divorce or remarriage! This is, in my estimation, the attractiveness of the “graceless view” of No Divorce and No Remarriage. However, mercy is much messier. It involves the care and investigation of the circumstances of the divorce and takes into consideration the current status of the individual in reference to the heart issues that culminated in divorce. It is critical, in my estimation, to distinguish between imperfect mates and instigators of the death of a marriage. Many claim that there is no victim of divorce. Often, there is not. Often, there is. Being an “imperfect mate” that affords the other to claim their right to abuse, sexual immorality, neglect, and divorce is not the same as the breach of the covenant vows taken on the part of that individual which included and anticipated those imperfections.

The innocent party in a divorce is that individual whose heart was intent on the preservation of the marital vows, but was either deserted or given no option but to declare the death of a marriage through the action of a divorce proceeding. Is it the place of the church to impose the penalties so naturally associate with the pain and rejection of divorce, or is this in the hands of a sovereign God?

I conclude with the words quoted by Jesus during His confrontation with the Pharisees;

Come, let us return to the LORD, for He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him. For I delight in mercy rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:1,2,6

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Romans 2:4

The Difference The Trinity Makes Part 2

2007-10-08T16:27:00.001-04:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verses:

“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”
—Hebrews 5:8

After the first three centuries of sporadic but considerable persecution, the Christian Church finally enjoyed the opportunity to deliberate over the Scriptures without fear of reprisal. The 318 overseers who attended the first Ecumenical (Church-wide) Council at the Emperor Constantine’s winter palace in Nicaea in modern Turkey) deliberated over the Scripture’s teachings on the nature of God (among other things) as it pertained to the relationship between the Father and the Son mentioned in the New Testament: were they one in mere purpose (but singular in person) or in essence (what it means to be God)? In declaring that the Father and the Son are of the same essence (against the Arian party who postulated that the Son was created by the Father and lesser in glory and essence), the deity of the Son was confirmed as He was affirmed as co-equal and co-eternal. The Holy Spirit is mentioned as an object of belief in a manner inferring equality but later formulations of the creed would clarify this fact further.

Those who believed that the Son was of the same essence as the Father (hence, co-equal and co-eternal) defended their position on the basis of passages like John 10:30 where Jesus states that He and the Father are one. The Arians defended their position (that Jesus was less than God and of a different essence) by appealing to the Scriptures as well, in claiming passages such as John 14:28 where Jesus declares that the Father is greater than He.

Were these men splitting theological hairs or is there something more important at stake? Since Jesus clearly said that the Father was greater than He was, we need to understand this statement in light of Scripture’s intent – in other words, we need to discern Jesus’ meaning as consistent with the rest of what Scripture reveals about He and God and the relationship between them. In what sense is He and the Father one?

Let’s first appreciate the fact that what is at stake here is the identity of Jesus Christ. Since Christianity is all about Jesus, the issue the bishops at Nicaea had to tackle was how to reconcile the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, presented in the pages of the New Testament as the Father is clearly a distinct Person from the Son, who knows, loves, is sent by and relates to this first Person (the Father). They both appear to be divine but they are clearly distinct from each other. How do we understand this relationship and how it reflects on the identity of each?

There is a passage in the book of Hebrews that, at first glance, may seem to add to the complexity of this important issue, but upon understanding it, sheds significant light on who Jesus is and why it matters.

“Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”

Hebrews 5:8

We tend to think of folks learning something by way of discovering how to do something – but there is a second option here – one that harmonizes with both the context of the passage as well as with what the Scriptures say about the nature of Christ. The fifth chapter of Hebrews is all about the credentials of Jesus Christ in being our Perfect High Priest: how He is exceptionally qualified to function as our go-between for men with the Almighty. These impeccable credentials include His ability to sympathize with the weaknesses of the folks He intercedes for; not for the same reasons the mere human high priests did (they were sinful themselves: vv. 2, 3); but because of a greater reason: He is a High Priest of a different order: an indestructible one (see: 7:1-17); He was heard by God because of His “piety” (His sinlessness – v. 7; compare with 4:15) and by means of His physical sufferings, His experience to become our Perfect High Priest was completed (the word “perfect” here means, “made complete). Thus, He is able to perfect all of us who rely on Him by faith.

Jesus learned obedience, not by learning how to obey but by experience, learning what obedience would involve for those who He interceded for. Jesus would experience what it would take for us to obey and follow God. Even though He did not need to do this (as the Son of God, He is in a position to receive worship and service, not give it), He did so as to become a High Priest who can literally feel along with us as we encounter the obstacles to serving God: human weaknesses such as temptation, hunger, need, tiredness, etc. Because Jesus condescended during His thirty-three years to live as a human being, veiling the full glory of His deity and choosing to lay aside many of the prerogatives that belong to being God (see: Philippians 2:5-8), He could say to His disciples that the Father was “greater” than He; but this was spoken in the context of speaking of the promised Holy Spirit and their cause for rejoicing since, from the perspective of Jesus’ humbled state (John 14:25), the Father who He returns to is “greater” than what they have witnessed in Jesus thus far; not because they are unequal, but because the Son’s glory was veiled and the Father’s was not. Jesus’ very prayer to the Father to restore the glory He had with Him before the world began (prior to His humbled state) in John 17:5 confirms this truth.

So, how does this shed light on the true identity of Jesus and why it matters? First, it demonstrates that passages which appear to teach that the Son is inferior to the Father are only relating elements of Jesus’ voluntary humiliation (kenosis: emptying) as reflected in passages such as Hebrews 10:5-10. There is no substantive (pun intended) inequality here; if we postulate that the second Person of the Triune Godhead incarnated and suffered and died for our sins in a state of humility, then there must be references both on Jesus’ part as well as references to Him by the Biblical authors to this humility and the differing expressions of glory between the condescended Son and the exalted Father. How interesting that this very passage which extols the condescension of the Son (Philippians 2) affirms that God the Father will Himself exalt the Son and grant Him the title, Lord: above every other Lord of King (Revelation 19:16) – that of God Himself (Hebrews 1:6).

Second, it reveals the character of God’s redeeming love through the role of the Son in our redemption. That Jesus experienced as God all we endure for the sake of righteousness, His commitment to the relationship He has with us as a faithful High Priest, as a true refuge in our war against sin, as our loving harbor amidst the seas of temptation and finitude, is dramatically shown. He really knows our pain: not merely in theory, but experientially: He has been there. That the Father sent Him and that He gladly went and that the Spirit reveals to us intimately this kind of love only deepens the extent to which our God would go for us to both understand and enjoy the love He demonstrated to us in saving us.

Why does Jesus’ equality with the Father matter? It tells us that the One who died to save us was no one less than God Himself. It tells us that the One who entered our world of sin and pain was no one less than God Himself. It tells us that the One who understands us better than any human friend can is no one less than God Himself; the One who transforms Himself from Judge to Refuge as we turn to Him for salvation.

—Larry Carrino

The Difference The Trinity Makes Part 1

2007-10-01T16:25:00.001-04:00

Our purpose at the Omega Institute is to help the believer understand and appreciate the doctrines of Scripture in a way he or she can truly digest and apply. This series of devotionals cover the spectrum of Evangelical biblical doctrine in such a way that the Christian can meditate each week on a different truth from Scripture so as to master the essentials and better know and serve his or her Lord.

Key Verses:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”
—2 Corinthians 13:14

There is a concluding remark, a doxological statement penned by the apostle Paul in the latter part of his second letter to the Church at Corinth which may, at first glance, seem unremarkable:

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

2 Corinthians 13:14

How often do we find in Holy Writ precious gems buried within seemingly benign text? There are three distinct Persons mentioned in this benediction: (1) the Lord Jesus Christ, (2) God and (3) the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these Persons are spoken of side by side with equal honor and in the most intimate of terms. Here, Paul does not say “may the grace and love and fellowship of God be with you all.” He certainly could have … theologically, all three of these persons are God; this much can be more than proven by the Scriptures. It is the distinction between these three that I pray you, the reader, do not miss. It is specifically the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the second person of the triune Godhead, that Paul has in mind here as he prays it upon his fellow brethren at Corinth. This grace is spoken of in this very same epistle by the very same apostle Paul:

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.”
—2 Corinthians 8:9

This love of God (the Father: θε?s is consistently used in Paul’s writings to designate the Father) is also spoken of elsewhere by the apostle John, in his gospel:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
—John 3:16

… as well as in his first epistle:

“See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called the children of God; and such we are. —1 John 3:1

Likewise, this fellowship of the Spirit is spoken of by Jesus Himself as recorded in John’s gospel:

“But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and disclose it to you.” —John 16:13

Is it that the Father has no grace, the Son no fellowship or the Spirit no love? Of course not, but this benediction points up the importance of what theologians refer to as the economic trinity: our consideration of how the members of the Godhead work with one another in securing our redemption. Although these qualities are not exclusive to these three members of the Trinity, there is something specifically gracious our Lord Jesus did in expressing the heart of God, just as there is something specifically loving the Father did and something specifically personal (sharing: fellowship) the Holy Spirit did and does in conveying God’s heart to His people. This is one of the many reasons that understanding the doctrine of the Trinity matters. There is a sense in which we relate to each of these distinct Persons with an awareness of how they accomplished the salvation we so enjoy.

The Son is the One who is sent: as the writer of Hebrews records in 10:5-10 so dramatically, He clearly offers Himself as the sacrifice for sin to the Father in view of our utter helplessness to save ourselves. He is the Hero who sacrifices Himself for the sake of the damsel in distress (that damsel is the Church whose salvation He does more than make possible, but secures: John 6:37-40). We rightly apply our awe to the very level of deity when we proclaim with Wesley, “amazing love, how can it be, that Thou my God shouldst die for me?”

The Father is the One who sends: as a father, I can identify with the pain that grips one’s heart at the very thought of either of my children suffering harm in any way. To lose a child has to be the very height of human pain and grief. Yet, when we consider that our human relationships with our children are imperfect and sinful, how much more must the Father’s heart have been broken to witness His perfect Son with whom He enjoyed a relationship of infinite love and unity, take on the sin and guilt of an unworthy people? This kind of love is of the highest and noblest sort. A loving Father is a precious thing – I have known the want of it as a son and I have known the joy of it as a father: my dad never loved me and I adore my two sons. However, as believers, what I and my sons have in common is that we have a heavenly Father who has already demonstrated the noblest traits of a devoted parent.

The Spirit is the One who secures: it must not be forgotten that Jesus entered the world in time and space and lived and died according to the same dimensions. The Father sent the Son to live and die for us and although this decision was made in eternity, it happened at a specific moment. The incarnation, life, death and resurrection of God the Son is something that happened outside of us. It affects us because the Holy Spirit applies the grace and the power and the benefits to us by mystically uniting us with the Son and by bestowing on His people all of the graces to live out the reality of our salvation. It is the Spirit of God who takes what was done in time and space and places it securely inside the deepest part of us. He makes it ours: we now own it because He shares it with us.

By understanding the nature of our God, we understand what this divine Being has done for us and how He relates to us; not as a single Person shuffling multiple tasks, but as a loving trio working in unison to affect the totality of a salvation that is literally mind-blowing.

This is why I can say that I love my Lord Jesus and what He did for me, and I love my Father in heaven and His magnanimous heart in giving so much for me and I love the Holy Spirit for taking all that is precious about God and intimately bequeathing it to me. I love my Lord by following Him and focusing on Him; I love my Father by seeking to do His will and I love my Lord the Spirit by submitting to His leading and choosing to have Him fill me and empty me of flesh and sin.

Yes, the Trinity matters and in the weeks ahead, we will discover just how much. The Athanasian Creed opens with these words: “We worship one God in trinity and trinity in unity…” Let us love Him as trinity as well, for that is what He is.

—Larry Carrino

Soli Deo Gloria— Saved For God’s Glory Alone

2007-09-25T00:30:00.001-04:00

Solus Christus— Salvation By Christ Alone

2007-09-18T00:27:00.001-04:00

Sola Fide— Salvation Through Faith Alone

2007-09-11T00:24:00.001-04:00

Sola Gratia— Salvation By Grace Alone

2007-09-04T00:22:00.001-04:00

Sola Scriptura— The Sufficiency of Scripture

2007-08-28T00:20:00.001-04:00

The Task of Theology

2007-08-21T00:14:00.001-04:00

Our Confession of Faith and Doctrine

2007-07-03T16:47:00.001-04:00

What We Uphold To Be True and Trustworthy as Revealed in the Bible

1. The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.

2. In one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He died on the cross, a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

4. That the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and, during this age, to convict men, regenerate the believing sinner, and indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living and service.

5. That man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is, therefore, lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.

6. That the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection provide the only ground for justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ are born of the Holy Spirit and, thus become children of God.

7. That water baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances to be observed by the Church during the present age. They are, however, not to be regarded as means of salvation.

8. That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head.

9. That only those who are, thus, members of the true Church shall be eligible for membership in the local church.

10. That Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of the Church and that every local church has the right, under Christ, to decide and govern its own affairs.

11. In the personal and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.

12. In the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

Welcome To The Omega Institute

2007-07-02T16:41:00.001-04:00

IT IS OUR PRIVILEDGE TO MINISTER TO YOU

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your interest in The Omega Institute. Please take some time to thoroughly peruse our website and become acquainted with who we are and what our mission is. As an introduction I would like to say that The Omega Institute is a Christian ministry whose sole purpose is to provide unique training and educational materials for believers of all ages. We hope you will find our teaching materials and live events to be cherished resources in your life as you seek to grow in God's Word. It is our desire to be used by God to assist our local churches here on Long Island and countless others across the United States and the world. We are not a church nor do we desire to in anyway compete or impede the work of the local ministry of the church.

The Omega Institute is a Para-church ministry. Our goal is to come alongside the local church and assist it's ministry in ways that a local church may not be equipped to do. The Omega Institute believes in the local church. We thank God for every Bible-believing congregation around the world that promotes the Name and the glory and the truth of Jesus Christ and we believe it is The Omega Institute's mission to provide the kinds of educational materials and live events by which every person in the pew, every person behind the pulpit, and every child in the Sunday school may achieve needful spiritual growth.

We hope you will become acquainted with the ministry of The Omega Institute. We trust that through the materials we make available to you and through our live events that we will have many opportunities to encourage, edify and educate you in God's Word. If you can understand, find new excitement and enthusiasm, and retain these eternal truths then we will all play a part in being and raising a new generation of Christians who are on fire for Jesus Christ and go into the world and speak those life-changing truths with power and conviction.

Thank you and God Bless,

Dr. Larry Carrino
Educational Director

Our Mission Statement and 501 (C) 3 Status

2007-07-01T16:34:00.002-04:00

THE REASON THE OMEGA INSTITUTE EXISTS

The Omega Institute is an evangelical, religious education ministry designed to help believers to grow in their understanding of the Scriptures.

The Omega Institute will seek to accomplish its ministry goals through the production and distribution of media materials and by conducting live events (seminars, conferences, etc.) The purpose of our materials and events is to assist the Christian in understanding, retaining and applying the truths of God’s Word to their daily lives so that the life of the Church would benefit as a whole.

While we are not affiliated with any individual church or denomination, we seek to serve the whole Christian community in providing innovative educational materials which aid in the effective and efficient internalization of divine truth so as to enrich the personal and corporate lives of the people of God.

The Omega Institute is constituted as a 501-C3 Tax-Exempt corporation and as such may solicit and receive donations from members/supporters, those donations being eligible for tax deduction(s) to those giving. The Omega Institute accepts donations of monies as well as real property, annuities, goods, and services. Goods and services will be recognized at fair-market value.

The Homegoing of Reverend Falwell

2007-05-19T17:18:00.001-04:00

The Reverend Jerry Falwell died this week. It made the national headlines, if in a begrudging manner those members of the media reluctantly recorded the details of his physical demise. This man, the chancellor and founder of a great Christian University, the Pastor and founder of a great church in Virginia, and the founder and President of the now-defunct Moral Majority, was hated amongst the liberal press for his outspoken views against the “freedoms” liberal America values: pornography, abortion, legalization of certain drugs, etc. The liberal bias in the established media and the lack of moral restraints on what Americans watch on television was also part and parcel of Falwell’s message and mission, only further endearing him to the left.

While watching one broadcast in particular this week that covered his death, I was stricken by the way this nationally televised report described Falwell: “the man who divided America.” Mention of his controversial style and message filled the television screen along with purposely unflattering images of Falwell in his less-than-greatest moments (i.e. sliding down the water-slide at Heritage U.S.A. fully clothed shortly after what many considered a hostile-takeover and the like). Yet, this was hardly what the man was about— Oh, except for the part about dividing America, that is.

It is so tempting to view such a remark as pejorative— and yet, consider the very words of Jesus:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”
—Matthew 10:34-39

Falwell’s words were always uttered in grace and respect, the very kind of attitude that 1 Peter 3:15 commands of us when we are fervently defending the faith—he spoke out against sin but did so in a Biblical manner. I am not deifying the man, don’t get me wrong, but certainly we have lost a great saint this week in Jerry Falwell; and for me, I am proud that he was a man who divided, because this is precisely what the gospel of our Lord is designed to do—to seperate the wheat from the chaff and to do so in an unfailing and untiring manner.

Congratulations Jerry,— you lost your life— but today, you have certainly found it!

Soli Deo Gloria,

Larry Carrino

Articles and Radio Interview on Eastern Orthodoxy

2007-05-08T14:10:00.000-04:00

Here are two articles and one audio interview from
Dr. Larry Carrino pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern

Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox

Audio from Radio Interview on Eastern Orthodoxy

An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern Apophaticism

2007-05-07T15:59:00.001-04:00

“Just Say No”

By Dr. Larry W. Carrino

Dr. Larry Carrino is Sr. Pastor of Grace Gospel Church, an Evangelical Free Church on Long Island, New York, where he has served in that capacity for 20 years. Dr. Carrino is also the founder and Educational Director of The Omega Institute, a 501C3 Educational Foundation. An avid student of Eastern Orthodoxy, Rev. Carrino holds a Bachelor's Degree in Bible and Theology and a PhD in Historical Theology with a special emphasis on Patristics. Larry lives on Long Island with his wife Jacalyn and his two sons, Daniel and Stephen.

Material for this article is derived from a series of papers delivered at an Orthodox Conference on Evangelism.

Among the various distinctives of Eastern theology, apophaticism is perhaps among the most compelling and distressing. It is compelling because it employs a principle familiar, even intrinsic, to special revelation, but distressing because it takes this principle out of its enscripturated and enculturated context. The employment of apophatic methodology within the Eastern theological tradition addresses once again the age old issue of the “knowability of God” as well as the ramifications for one’s approach to this issue.

Apophatic theology is the theology of negation. It is an attempt to express knowledge of God in the negative, by affirming what He is not rather than what He is. Apophasis (negation) is evident early in the history of the Church’s witness (particularly in the writings of the Cappadocian fathers in the fourth century). However, apophaticism, as a full-orbed approach, with all of its attendant applications is more distinctly Byzantine than most Eastern writers care to admit. Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff explains the apophatic approach to theology this way:

The whole of Byzantine theology—and particularly its “experimental” character—would be completely misunderstood if one forgets its other pole of reference: apophatic, or negative theology...By saying what God is not, the theologian is really speaking the Truth, for no human word or thought is capable of comprehending what God is (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes, pp. 11,12).

That God is transcendent does not pose a problem to the Evangelical looking in on this characteristic feature of Orthodox (or should I say, Byzantine) theology—God’s transcendency has always been a part of theology proper for Western Christians; Catholic and Protestant alike. In fact, the controversies circulating in the 1960’s regarding “God talk” express recent Protestant considerations of the difficulties of understanding a transcendent deity who is also immanent and has revealed Himself both personally and propositionally to men in terms they can understand and relate to. When John of Damascus wrote that “God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, nay, even above existence itself,” he stands shoulder to shoulder with the general consensus of Western theological confessions and formulations on this issue. What concerns this Evangelical, and, rightly so, all who stand within the tradition of the Reformation, is the apophatic construct leading from God’s transcendency, (and the customary adjective “utter” or “wholly” on the part of Eastern writers when modifying God’s transcendency) as well as the ramifications such a construct has upon the Christian experience. Orthodox theologian, Timothy Ware, provides a popular explanation of this issue when he writes:

This emphasis on divine unkowability might seem at first sight to exclude any direct experience of God. But in fact, many who have used the apophatic approach saw it, not just as a philosophical device for indicating God’s utter transcendence, but also, and much more fundamentally, as a means for attaining union with him through prayer. The negations, as well as serving to qualify positive statements about God, acted as a springboard or trampoline whereby the mystical theologian sought to leap up with all the fullness of his or her being into the living mystery of God (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 63,64).

In the overall scheme of things pertaining to man’s relationship with God, what place does this issue occupy? A casual glance at Jesus’ High Priestly prayer in John 17 provides us an answer:

And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3).

What then does it mean to know God? Within the apophatic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy, knowing God consists of an ascent which first involves “unkowing” then union with the divine energies. Vladimir Lossky recounts the opening of Pseudo-Dionysius’ seminal work on Eastern Mystical Theology in his own work on the same subject with the following summary of such an ascent:

It is necessary to renounce both sense and all the workings of reason, everything which may be known by the senses or the understanding, both that which is and all that is not, in order to be able to attain in perfect ignorance to union with Him who transcends all being and all knowledge. It is already evident that this is not simply a question of a process of dialectic but of something else: a purification, a kaqarsis, is necessary. One must abandon all that is impure and even all that is pure. One must then scale the most sublime heights of sanctity leaving behind one all the divine luminaries, all the heavenly sounds and words. It is only thus that one may penetrate to the darkness wherein He who is beyond all created things makes His dwelling (Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 27).

Sound esoteric to you? I must stress that, to the Western reader, the temptation to label such an approach as subjective and esoteric must be tempered by first taking the time to understand the whole of such an apophatic template for theology as well as the particulars of its dynamics and experimental consequences for Christian living. There are two extremes to be avoided here—the hyper–critical extreme of quickly labeling Eastern spirituality with a pejorative before truly taking time to understand it and appreciate its noble elements. The other is the non–critical extreme of celebrating Orthodox spirituality as innately superior and whole in fear that to criticize it would evoke the typical, “well, you just don’t understand it” defense from Orthodox apologists. The purpose of this short article is to provide a critique of Eastern apophaticism which appreciates its nobler aspects while addressing concerns pertaining to dogmatic and practical theology.

Whatever position one ultimately decides to take regarding Eastern apophaticism, it cannot be denied that concerns about the influence of Greek philosophy on such an understanding of the nature of man’s relationship with God will be a vital part one’s investigation of this Byzantine distinctive. The very defensiveness evident in the writings of Eastern Orthodox theologians on this subject, and the hostile reactions by Orthodox faithful whenever charges of “neo–Platonism” are leveled against any facet of Eastern theology demonstrate that this is a “sore subject” within Orthodox camps. For instance, Lossky’s attempt at mediating this difficulty is evident in his comments about apophaticism:

Despite the undeniable fact that the negative elements of a progressive divesting of the mind along Christian theologians are in general linked, in the their elaboration, with the speculative technique of Middle and Neo-Platonism, it would be unfair necessarily to see in Christian apophasis a sign of the Hellenization of Christian thought. The existence of an apophatic attitude – is implied in the paradox of the Christian revelation: the transcendent God becomes immanent in the world, but in the very immanence of his economy, which leads to the incarnation and to death on the cross, he reveals himself as transcendent, as ontologically independent of all created being (Vladimir Lossky, In The Image and Likeness of God, p. 14).

Throughout this volume, Lossky takes heroic (albeit unconvincing) steps in assuring the reader that, although the seminal works of Eastern Apophaticism (which he identifies with Clement of Alexandria and most importantly with Pseudo-Dionysius) contain considerable parallels with neo–Platonism (particularly with Plotinus and his famous work, the Enneads), the Dionysian product differs from Plotinus “where it counts” and grants Eastern theology an apophaticism that corresponds with true Trinitarian theology. His complimentary insistence that an “apophatic attitude” is implicit within the paradox of Christian revelation fails to take into consideration the more cataphatic (theology of affirmation) nature of Western or Latin theology, which also commutes with this same alleged paradox, as well as the absence of any such apophaticism within the Hebrew religion, which affirms God’s immanence as well as predicts its ultimate expression through the incarnation. While it is true that the tension between God’s immanence and His transcendence is both real, and potentially complicated (for our finite minds) through revelation, can we forget that the very advantage the Jews possess, according to the apostle Paul is that they were the first to receive “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:1,2)? Can we simply discount natural revelation as part of this epistemic tension (Romans 1:18-25)? If an “apophatic attitude” is implicit within the paradox of Christian revelation, how does the Old Testament revelation, as well as the function of natural theology exist independent of it?

Yale scholar Jaroslav Pelikan ‘s penetrating analysis of the golden age of Greek philosophy’s encounter with Christian thought and its synthesis through the lives and works of the Cappadocian fathers demonstrates the tenuous and highly interpretive nature of this distinctive evolution and its impact on the Eastern Church (See: Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 1993, Yale University Press). Pelikan’s insistence that the Cappadocians effectively integrated Hellenistic philosophy into the formulation of Christian doctrine is admirable and certainly insightful on many points, however, in the end, fails to fairly consider the overarching issue that guides one’s interpretations on this matter, giving what this author believes, an unbalanced “benefit of the doubt” to the Cappadocians in regard to the Biblical (revelatory) fidelity of such an integration. Historical Theologian W.H.C. Frend provides a realistic assessment of the challenge associated with the Hellenization of Christian thought in this general period of Church History. Commenting on the cultural mileu of the empire in the third century, a period preparatory for the work of the Greek apologists in general and the Cappadocians in particular, he observes:

In the West, Rome, its institutions, and its language had been imposed, whereas the cities in the Greek East had tended to absorb Roman values and to transform them into a common Greco-Roman culture in which the Greek element predominated. In much the same way, we find Christianity tending to absorb Greek philosophical values, until by the end of the third century the line between the beliefs of the educated Christian and the educated pagan in the East would often be hard to draw. After the conversion of Constantine, the empire now directed from New Rome (Constantinople) moved with astonishing ease from the patronage of the immortal gods to that of the supreme God (W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p. 368).

Roger Olson expresses well the Evangelical’s concerns regarding the roots of Eastern apophaticism in his discussion of the second century apologist Athenagoras, the Greek philosopher turned Christian. Regarding Athenagoras’ description of the Christian God in his apology to Emperor Marcus Aurelius entitled, A Plea for the Christians (c. A.D. 177). Olson observes that:

Athenagoras described God primarily with negative attributes. This is, he explained what God is not rather than what God is. Later Christian theologians labeled this approach “apophatic theology,” and it became a major part of the story of Christian theology. Apparently Athenagoras and later apophatic thinkers assumed that God’s perfection means being unlike anything created. Thus God can only be truly described by saying what He is not rather than what He is. He is not imperfect, and to change or suffer or even be comprehensible to the human mind is to be tainted by creaturely imperfection. The result, of course, was a gradual diminishing of the Biblical God’s personal nature. Of course, neither Athenagoras nor any other Christian thinker rejected God’s personal being, but some of the ways in which they began to describe God seem to be more like the transcendent origin and ground of all things (arche) in Greek philosophy, which is rather abstract, than the very concrete, personal and interactive God of the Hebrew Bible and apostolic writings (Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, p. 63).

Olson concludes his discussion of the second century apologists with this helpful historical insight:

The apologists’ use of Greek philosophy has been hotly debated among Christians. Seventeenth-century French Christian thinker Blaise Pascal declared, “The God of the philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!” Many critics accuse the apologists of unwittingly creating a hybrid of Hebrew and Christian thought about God with Greek — especially Platonic — notions of deity. The influential Protestant church historian Adolf Harnack called this the “Hellenization of Christianity” and traced its course from the apologists on through later church fathers. Other church historians defend them and their theologies against such accusations. Perhaps Robert Grant is closest to the accurate assessment of the apologists when he writes that “in spite of their inadequate semi philosophical theology, the apologists did maintain much of the biblical teaching. Their tendency toward an overemphasis on God’s infinity and perfection — defined in Greek philosophical terms — contributed to difficulties Christians later experienced in understanding and explaining the incarnation — God in human flesh experiencing human sufferings, limitations and even death. And yet one finds many gems of Christian truth and great insights into Christian living in their writings (Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, pp. 66,67).

The overarching issue guiding one’s assessment of Greek philosophy’s encounter with Christian theology on any point must principally concern itself with what I call the “hermeneutical substrata” of the given system. Is the theological system consistent with, and hence, faithful to the fundamental presuppositions and interpretive schema of the culture and language in which it was enscripturated? Although the content of [special] revelation is, of necessity, transcultural (or better, hyper cultural, as it transcends the linguistic and epistemic categories of any given culture) it must be meaningful within the confines of the culture which God sovereignly determined for it to be revealed. The author’s greatest difficulty with the apophaticism of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is not that it is foreign to Protestantism, but that it is foreign to the Hebrew culture of the Old Testament. The essential continuity between the Testaments provides a fundamental framework through which one may gauge the appropriateness of theological and linguistic contextualization. Paul was not a Greek, he was a Jew (a Pharisee) who spoke Greek. Peter and John were Jews who spoke Greek, and who, like Paul and the other New Testament writers, were conversant with the Greco–Roman world in which they lived. This fact does not discount the usefulness of ALL Greek etymological (and even epistemic) categories within the New Testament revelation (one can hardly discount their existence) but modifies our hermeneutical application of such to the overall redemptive message. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob IS the God of the New Testament as well, and although He can be expressed propositionally through the Greek language within New Testament revelation, the foundational concepts for all Christian revelation (which cannot ontologically be separated from Hebrew revelation) are clearly rooted in a Hebraic setting and must conform to that general scheme if faithfulness to the Biblical message is to be maintained. Comments such as Pelikan’s opening statement in his monumental work on “Christian Hellenism” resonate with this triumphalistic oversight:

It remains one of the most momentous linguistic convergences in the entire history of the human mind and spirit that the New Testament happens to have been written in Greek—not in the Hebrew of Moses and the prophets, nor in the Aramaic of Jesus and his disciples, nor yet in the Latin of the imperium Romanum, but in the Greek of Socrates and Plato, or at any rate in a reasonably accurate facsimile thereof, disguised and even disfigured though this was in the Koine by the intervening centuries of Hellenistic usage (Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, p. 3).

While one can appreciate the profundity of God’s choice of the Greek language to express the revelation in the New Testament, this must not be appreciated at the expense of the Hebrew of Moses and the prophets. Nor should it be forgotten that the Aramaic of Jesus and His apostles and the Latin of the Roman empire in which Christianity grew and flourished provide a diversity linguistically and culturally which should diffuse any attempts at making Jehovah the God of Socrates or Plato, or of the imperium Romanum. The genius of Protestantism, and particularly Evangelical Protestantism (despite its many flaws) is that it does not seek to promote a deity in accordance with Eurocentric tendencies (despite some Orthodox claims to the contrary!) but to consistently reform itself to present to the world the God of Scripture as faithfully as humanly possible—within the boundaries of the culture in which it operates, but aware of the dangers of undue cultural accommodation in its mission to properly contextualize the message. Any instance of failure to do so is seen as such within Evangelical circles, and not proclaimed as evidence of some divine culture which transcends the whole of the Bible itself. Orthodoxy cannot be Eastern or Western, it must be both, operating in concert with the fundamental emphases and categories of the language in which its principle concepts were revealed. Jesus said that “salvation is from [of, through] the Jews” (John 4:22). Paul said that the Jews had the advantage of receiving the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). When one considers the highly concrete and personal emphasis in the Old Testament’s revelation of Jehovah, and that the Son is also presented as such, and that His nature and acts are predicted within its pages, the abstract, mystical description of God endemic to Eastern apophaticism and its ancillary doctrines demonstrate a considerable discontinuity with this essential characterization. Olson’s comment regarding later difficulties with understanding the incarnation due to the overemphasis on God’s infinity and perfection [may I add, His transcendence] defined in Greek philosophical terms, is clearly expressed in Maximus the Confessor’s theandric vision of reality and its relationship to Eastern apophaticism. Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff correctly notes that:

In fact, Maximus can be called the real father of Byzantine theology. Only through his system, in which the valid traditions of the past found their legitimate place, were the ideas of Origen, Evagrius, the Cappadocians, Cyril, and Pseudo-Dionysius preserved within Eastern Christianity (John Meyendorff, Christ In Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 131,132).

Maximus developed what is called a “theandric” view of reality. This ontological premise depends on the assumption that everything in the created order is an expression of the Logos. When the Logos became human (John 1:14) through the incarnation, this introduced an entirely new relationship between God and the created order, particularly man. Whereas creation was originally established to become eventually united with God through the Logos (united with His being through His uncreated energies), the fall of man in the garden held this process (theosis) off until the original plan of God was fully reinstated through the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. The incarnation of Jesus Christ did more than send man a Savior who was the God–Man, it affected the whole of the created order as God participated in creation by becoming man by setting into motion the salvation of the whole cosmos—a salvation understood not in terms of guilt or righteousness, but in terms of metaphysical union and participation in the divine. Through man’s free choice to cooperate with God in the union of the cosmos with God through Christ (His incarnation) the goal of theosis (deification—not becoming a god by nature, but by becoming unified with the energies of God; a distinction popularized by another Orthodox theologian, Gregory Palamas, in the fourteenth century) can be attained. Man’s sin does not bring guilt (principally), as much as it brings death and corruption; most tragically, it introduces passions that are directed away from God and one’s unification with Him (His energies). Salvation then, is set in a “cosmic” context, and becomes, by nature, mystical union with the Unknowable through the mediatory organ of God’s energies. Although the distinction between God’s essence and energies predates Palamas, (as in Basil quoted below) the theological justification for the “knowledge of the Unknowable” which is the essence (no pun intended) of Eastern Orthodox soteriology, is systematized. Basil the Great makes this observation:

The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach (St. Basil, Letter 234.1).

The connection with apophaticism should be clear: God’s unkowability profoundly affects man’s “relationship” with/to Him, and is definitive for one’s doctrine of redemption. Celebrated Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff concedes that the Hesychast controversy which precipitated Palamas’ famous distinction:

At the beginning [of the controversy], the issue was the doctrine of man’s knowledge of God and the nature of theology (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 76).

The ramifications of this theandric view of reality and cosmic redemption are spelled out by Meyendorff when expressing Palamas’ essential theological distinctives:

Knowledge of God is an experience given to all Christians through Baptism and through their continuous participation in the life of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. It requires the involvement of the whole man in prayer and service, through love for God and neighbor; and then it becomes recognizable not only as an “intellectual” experience of the mind alone, but as a “spiritual sense,” which conveys a perception neither purely “intellectual” nor purely material. In Christ, God assumed the whole of man, soul and body; and man as such was deified. In prayer — for example, in the “method” — in the sacraments, in the entire life of the Church as a community, man is called to participation in the divine life; this participation is also the true knowledge of God (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 77).

Timothy Ware explains:

When we say that the saints have been transformed or “deified” by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They know God – that is to day, God in His energies, not in His essence (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 68).

There are so many problems with this outworking of Eastern apophasis that one hardly knows where to begin. Most importantly, this distinction between essence and energies reduces “salvation” to an impersonal encounter. Evangelical scholar Paul Negrut explains why this is so:

Since the divine energies express what the persons are, without being themselves persons, the three divine Persons are removed a step back from the economy of salvation (Paul Negrut, Ph.D. Dissertation, p. 25).

If man is to have “relationship” (note: the idea of “union” is more abstract and impersonal than the relational categories of the Old Testament revelation, or the New for that matter) with the “energies” of God, which on one hand are said to be inseparable from His essence, and on the other, only relate or mediate the Persons of the Triune God, then it is something less than God Himself that man is in relationship with. Christ did not say to the Father that eternal life is to be “in union with Our energies” in John 17:3; He speaks of a meaningful and direct knowledge with the Person of God. Secondly, and perhaps most ironically, this mystical ascent to God, based on the foundations of apophaticism is said to be achieved through the vehicle of the Church. To restate Meyendorff’s words:

Knowledge of God is an experience given to all Christians through Baptism and through their continuous participation in the life of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist.

However, it is this apophatic–inspired mysticism that undermines any true concept of community within the redemptive scheme for the Orthodox. As Negrut perceptively notes:

Lossky’s view of revelation as mystical union does not constitute a solid foundation for communion. The Church’s dogma and sacraments are only the starting points of the mystical journey. The higher the ascent of the mystic, the more isolated he becomes, until eventually, in total separation from other human beings, he reaches that point of “total ignorance” when he knows only that he knows nothing (Paul Negrut, Ph.D. Dissertation, pp. 36,37).

If man’s ultimate purpose in “knowing God” is unknowing, or releasing himself from all creaturely forms of knowledge (for God is above all rational understanding or comprehension), then this “ascent” toward God through theosis will of necessity alienate men from one another, and plunge them into this nebulous abyss where propositional truth knows no place. However, if sanctification is akin to theosis in terms of ascent or progression toward God’s goal for man (which Orthodox concede to) then the very words of our Lord prayed for the believer, pose a serious problem to this approach:

Sanctify them in the truth; Thy Word is truth (John 17:17).

His Word is also propositional, and enculturated. Remember Peter’s response to Jesus’ query as to whether they (the apostles) would abandon him too:

Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life” (John 6:68).

And even Moses, whose ascent to the mountain of God has been a favorite analogy for the mystical ascent upwards to God, said to Jehovah, “show me Thy glory!” (Exodus 33:18) and was not given mystical instruction on how to achieve theosis through sacramental effort. Orthodoxy’s explanation for this (the soteriological and eschatological dimensions of man’s relationship to God prior to the incarnation) are even more frightening (and are too detailed to examine here) as they only greaten the chasm between the Testaments and undermine the essential continuity within God’s redemptive program. These narratives from the Testaments express the reality of both personal and propositional dimensions of knowing God; not out on the periphery, nor in some preliminary function (to which Orthodoxy would assign them) but as central to its nature. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this mystical theology produced by Eastern apophaticism is that its internal inconsistency demands that the mediating agent (allegedly the energies of God) put on a more personal, and dare we say, human face. John Meyendorff quotes Macarius the Egyptian (4th century Eastern writer):

Divine grace arranged things in such a way that everyone participates in spiritual growth as he chooses, according to his own will, his own labor, and his own effort, in proportion to his faith and zeal. The more one loves, the more one gives oneself to the fight, in one’s body and in one’s soul, in order to accomplish the commandments, the greater the communion one achieves with the Spirit into the spiritual growth of the renewing of the mind; acquiring salvation by grace and divine gift, but receiving by faith, by love, and by the effort of free choice, progress and increase in the measure of the spiritual age. Thus eternal life will be inherited by grace [note: in the East, grace is defined as “communion or participation in/with divine life” not a created gift as in Western Catholicism], but also in all righteousness, since it is not only through the divine grace and power without human collaboration (sunergia) and effort that progress is made; nor is it only by one’s power, one’s own effort and one’s own strength, without the collaboration and help of the Holy Spirit, that the perfect accomplishment of the divine will and the full measure of all freedom and purity shall be reached (John Meyendorff, Christ In Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 124,125).

Meyendorff’s feeble attempts at avoiding a tag of Pelagianism (or Semi-Pelagianism) through his employment of the Eastern concept of grace (not something God gives us but participation in His life through His energies) accomplishes nothing. The categories are distinct, but not different. This is synergy: man coming to know God (not knowing Him now) through God’s help and his own efforts and will (ascent implies unattained relationship); it is the tragic error of moving toward relationship with God, not from it. What is even more concerning is this “human face” which the apophatic system of Byzantine theology requires. The spirituality of the Eastern Church, which is a logical outgrowth of apophatic suppositions, inevitably necessitates a “mystical vehicle” through which this ascent is achieved. Timothy Ware writes:

First, it is presupposed that the traveller on the Way is a member of the Church (emphasis his)... Secondly, the spiritual Way presupposes not only life in the Church but life in the sacraments (emphasis his) (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Way, pp. 107,108).

He then elaborates:

Earlier we noted, with St. Mark the monk how the whole of the ascetic and mystical life is already contained in the sacrament of Baptism: however far a person advances upon the Way, all that he discovers is nothing else than the revelation or making manifest of baptismal grace. The same can be said of Holy Communion: the whole of the ascetic and mystical life is a deepening and realization of our Eucharistic union with Christ the Saviour. In the Orthodox Church Communion is given to infants from the moment of their baptism onwards ... So his experience of Holy Communion extends over the whole range of his conscious life. It is above all through Communion that the Christian is made one with and in Christ, “christified”, “ingoded” or “deified”; it is above all through Communion that he receives the first fruits of eternity (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Way, p. 109).

This ecclesio-centric view of “salvation” through mystical ascent is necessitated through the apophatic foundations of Byzantine theology. God is known through His energies, which are, ultimately, distinguished from His essence (and, this author believes, His Person). Russian Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky explains the Eastern Orthodox concept of grace, which relates clearly to the concept of God’s energies, which the Christian is to allegedly participate in:

First, by the grace of God, the grace of Christ, is to be understood as the whole economy of our salvation, performed by the coming of the Son of God to earth, by His earthly life, His death on the cross, His resurrection, and His ascension into heaven...Secondly, grace is the name applied to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which have been sent down and are being sent down to the Church of Christ for the sanctification of its members, for their spiritual growth, and for the attainment by them of the Kingdom of heaven (Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, pp. 257, 258).

John Meyendorff clearly asserts:

Grace is participation...“Participation” in God—as we have shown—is the very nature of man, not its abolition. This is the key to Eastern Christian understanding of the God-man relationship (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 153).

Orthodox literature is filled with references to the necessity of the sacramental life of the Church as the vehicle through which the grace of God (defined as the energies of God in which the Christian participates), positing the institutional Church, with all of its “mysteries” (sacraments) as the divinely appointed dispenser of all “graces.” Although the precise meaning of this phrase is distinct from Western Catholicism, in the end, it is a distinction without a difference. O.C.A. priest, Theodore Bobosh, explains:

In the sacraments, we personally experience the sacrifice of Christ which saves us. In Holy Communion and in Baptism, we participate in the reconciliation with God that Jesus Christ has obtained for us. Thus, the Church, our faith, the sacraments, and our membership in the Church, should all be instruments of reconciliation for the whole world (Theodore Bobosh, Am I Saved? pp. 34,35).

The Reformed view of the Church, and its place in the life of the believer, is that of the communion of the saints which shares in the means of sanctifying grace, not justifying grace. Growth in Christ is based on a mystical union with Him (defined very differently than that of the mystical categories of the Eastern Church), but not characterized by a mystical ascent through the agency of a sacramental system. “The Way” that Timothy Ware speaks of is not a mystical ascent, but a Person (John 14:6). Hence, Evangelicals reject any form of sacerdotalism or sacramentalism precisely because grace is understood in Biblical terms: relationally. Grace is God’s unmerited favor toward man. It expresses itself through His many “benefits” (Psalm 103:2ff) to those who are united to Christ through faith, and through faith alone. Since grace is not a metaphysical dynamic (as it is a metaphysical substance or entity in Western Catholic theology) but a relational dynamic, the sanctification of the believer is firmly distinguished from his justification, and is defined as a growth in a grace obtained, not attained, a growth from grace fully received, not toward a grace hopefully (and cooperatively) merited. The lack of assurance in the Orthodox system of salvation is both distressing and tragic. The insistent caricature among so many Orthodox of Biblical assurance (most clearly explained through the classic Reformed confessions and works) reduces this blessed element of God’s salvation in Christ to a “formula” or “arrogant assumption” in their minds. Biblical assurance is not careless or built on some external religious experience”—it is based on the sure and complete work of Christ who makes us more than “savable,” but saves us completely in His once for all propitiatory sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. While the sacraments celebrate this complete work accomplished through Christ, they do not function as the vehicle through which the quasi–personal energies of God are extended to us for the sake of metaphysical and abstract union with them.

Before this article draws to a close, it must be said that there are most certainly noble elements of Eastern expressions of apophasis. The transcendency of God and His holiness both in their ethical and ontological considerations are certainly faithful to God’s self–disclosure through the revelation of His Word. The necessity of human interaction with God within the economy of salvation is also admirable, since salvific categories are intensely relational and must, of necessity, contain reciprocal elements. The failure of human reason and language to contain God or comprehend Him, and the repulsion for any enthronement of human reason or resource in the sight of God so intrinsic to Eastern theology must be commended. The desire for and the recognition of the importance of the mysterious can be conducive to proper reverence for God which is too often lacking in Western (and particularly Evangelical) communions.

However, these noble elements are subject to an excess that warps them and distorts the powerful revelation of who God is and how He is known. I am sorry, but all of the Orthodox insistence to contrary will not expunge the reality of the neo–Platonic influence that contributes significantly to this distortion. While there are certainly differences between pagan neo and Middle Platonism and the early Christian apologists and theologians of the East, the excessive reliance upon these categories have confined the Byzantine vision of God to a pseudo–philosophical “box” that eclipses the rich personal dimensions that free Him of the need for an institutional and hierarchal apparatus to be known, under the guise of mystical encounter.

The internal inconsistencies of this apophaticism for community—the propositional affirmation of such and the practical expectations to the contrary—can create a spiritual schizophrenia in the life of the Orthodox faithful who seriously seek “ascent” toward God. The most serious flaw in apophaticism is the “ism”—the unwarranted reliance of negation and hence mysticism for the whole of Eastern theological vision. Yes, God is known analogically, yet He is Personally and meaningfully known. Yes, He is unapproachable light, but He makes Himself approachable in a meaningful sense without the need to reduce His relationship with man to the quasi–personal dimensions of Palamite distinctions between “essence” and “energy.” How is God known? He is known personally. The epistemological details of such are not ventured into by the Biblical authors—however, the affirmation that men and women who believed on Him had a real, personal, and conscious relationship with Him is unmistakable throughout its pages. The tragedy of apophatic mysticism is that the surrogate becomes the truest mate—the vague deity who hides behind the thick veil of darkness is most practically known through the host of intermediaries that rush to the foreground in “assisting” the eager seeker to know God, be they sacraments, saints, icons, or the institution that “dispenses the graces.”

The distinction between Eastern Orthodoxy’s foundation for knowledge of God and Evangelicalism’s are most clearly expressed by two selected quotations representing the “hermeneutical substrata” of each tradition respectively. These expressions speak to the foundation upon which one’s relationship with the Almighty is based. You be the judge:

If Orthodoxy is characterized by a single trait, that would surely be the apophatic orientation of its entire theological tradition. “All true Orthodox theology is at its root apophatic; apophaticism is the fundamental characteristic of the whole theological tradition of the Eastern Church” (Daniel Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, p. 55, Quoting Vladimir Lossky in Mystical Theology).

I would propose that the subject of the ministry of this house, as long as this platform shall stand, and as long as this house shall be frequented by worshipers, shall be the person of Jesus Christ. I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, “It is Jesus Christ.” My venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill, has left a [theological heritage] admirable and excellent in its way. But the [legacy] to which I would pin and bind myself forever, God helping me,...is Jesus Christ, who is the arm and substance of the gospel, who is in Himself all theology, the incarnation of every precious truth (C.H. Spurgeon, first words in the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London).

Posts are available as content for your newsletter, website, or blog with permission and terms. Contact Michael Rotolo mrotolo@theomegainstitute.com for details.

Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox

2007-05-05T13:52:00.001-04:00

“Coming Home”

Material for this article is adapted from a series of papers delivered at an
Orthodox Conference on Evangelism by Dr. Larry Carrino ©2007

Having been a student for some time of Church History in general and Historical Theology in particular, I have been forced to develop an appreciation for the complexities involved with the growth of the Christian religion since the first century. When one considers the Judaic heritage from which the Christian movement sprung, the Hellenistic influence on first century Judaism, the diverse cultural context(s) in which the New Testament church flourished, the development of the New Testament canon, the early church's understanding of apostolic tradition, and the hermeneutical considerations regarding that tradition/Scripture, a plethora of corresponding issues and questions come to the fore. It is for this reason that I stand amazed at the rather simplistic and profoundly naive assertions made by otherwise enthusiastic converts to Eastern Orthodoxy of late. In his book "Coming Home," the now "Bishop Peter Gillquist" of the Antiochian archdiocese provides the reader with testimony after testimony of former Protestants who are grateful that they have finally found "the True Church." As a Pastor, I can appreciate their enthusiasm over the importance of truth and their desire to be "where God wants them to be" (if I can phrase it in such a distinctly "evangelical manner"). My concern for these individuals however, and those who read their stories, is that, in their minds, the Church of Jesus Christ seems to have gained some historical or geographic center, somewhere around Constantinople (or is that Istanbul?), or for those with Slavic sympathies, Moscow ("the third Rome"); or has it since moved again? Forgive the coy manner in which I relate this concern, but it is intentional. At a seminar given by a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy a few years back (Fr. Timothy Cremeens), we both agreed that when it comes to the doctrine of the Church, I was a minimalist and he a maximalist; conversely, when speaking of the doctrine of salvation, I was a maximalist and he a minimalist.

This is not to say that Fr. Cremeens (or Orthodox people in general) do not have a great appreciation for the doctrines relating to man's redemption, or that Evangelicals such as myself lack an appreciation for the Church. The central concern here involves the nature of the Church of God and how that affects one's understanding of the gospel of God. The issue can be just as validly stated the other way around; "... or is it the gospel that affects our understanding of the Church?" Historically speaking, which is the proverbial "chicken" and which is the "egg?" And which came first?

In assessing the testimonies of converts to Orthodoxy, I am stricken by limitations of testimonials. They are so ... human. It does not take one long to realize that when one "becomes this" when he was "once that;" there is a certain shock value which is too often employed by the convert as some evidence of the veracity of that which he now promotes. "I became Orthodox because Protestantism was too fractured." "I became Orthodox because Evangelicals were too historically disconnected." "I became Orthodox because I longed for a deeper sense of the holy." Yes, reasons abound. Among Evangelical communions, there are local churches who act as if the Church began when their particular congregation was founded. For these people, the effective "start date" for Christianity can be discovered by simply checking out the numbers decoratively inscribed on the cornerstone of their church building. It is true that Evangelical worship can be shallow and man-centered. It is also true that doctrinal aberrations exist among some Evangelical teachers and ministries. It is true that a balanced appreciation for the value of beauty and aesthetics in the worship of God is lacking among many of the folks who bear the name "Protestant." These are human realities. Equally human are the realities of nationalism or liturgical triumphalism within Orthodox communities. Equally fallible are the ethnic enclaves that too many Orthodox parishes have become. Equally concerning is the abject Biblical illiteracy among both laity and clergy within Orthodox ranks. Equally confusing is the American jurisdictional nightmare that flies in the face of both canon law as well as Orthodoxy's stated beliefs about the visible dimension of the church and the need for "one bishop in one city."

It does not logically follow that the existence of fallacies or inconsistencies within a faith communion should justify one's departure into another. The unsettling fact that the word "conversion" can refer to either a work of the Spirit (hence, legitimately leading to one's baptism into the Body of Christ) or a sociological phenomenon (hence, illegitimately leading one to identify them self with a particular group) should only remind us of what Jesus meant when He related the parable of the wheat and the tares (see: Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). People enter into the wrong churches for the right reasons and the right churches for the wrong reasons. As the Orthodox are so fond of saying, "God gave the right faith to the wrong people." But aren't the people the Church?

The purpose of this article is to prompt the reader to serious thought about the issues which relate to the claims of Orthodoxy. A more detailed analysis of these various issues will follow in subsequent articles. It should suffice to say at this point that while people in churches are imperfect (we all know this) there is a perfection, a "trueness," a "rightness" about the Church to which Christians from Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic traditions gravitate. This "rightness" goes by many names theologically, but ultimately refers to the Biblical portrait of the Church as the Bride of Christ, which the Apostle Paul comments on in the most profound of ways when he writes:

...that He (Christ) might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:27).

The fact that it exists is common to all three communions. The nature of what that "rightness" is has been the subject of debate for many a century. However, it is this very distinction that determines whether the "church" with which one unites is truly "home" from heaven's point of view.

This series of articles are dedicated to those who are truly seeking. Those who hold to their "traditions" with the arrogant tenacity that only carnality can produce will hardly be helped by this series of written discourses. I do not advocate any form of relativism when it comes to the truth of God, but an open honesty that grapples with the issues instead of asserting the old apologetic "party line." Frankly, this does not impress me; and I suspect, does not satisfy the honest reader. God's truth is objective and knowable, but it cannot be understood apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit and cannot be "proof texted" by either passages of Scripture or by quotations from the Church Fathers or our favorite theologians. The tenacity with which I hold to the gospel is a result of the tenacity with which God holds me by His grace. As I encounter any system that undermines the revealed nature of that grace, I offer a passionate polemic rather than a defensive diatribe. Paul expressed these same sentiments when he wrote to the Galatians:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel; which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-8).

Paul did not hate the Judaizers, who were, historically, the culprits behind this disturbance among the churches of Galatia. His concern was passionate of heart and pastoral in purpose. The condemnation upon those who rejected the truth of the gospel was not something he had the power to pronounce but the authority to announce; for the gospel is not a matter of confusion; it is the clear, perspicuous message of the grace of God to sinners. And it is at the core or heart of the Christian message. It is pointless to dispute the nature of the Church or to proclaim to others that you have "found it" if the very truth of what brings one into the very Body of Christ is obscured. I have found that the Achilles heel of the Orthodox presentation of theology (not merely the propositional truths rightly deduced from Scripture, but the truth about God, His work and His world in its dynamic outworking as well) whether in the written word or the celebrated liturgy, is its assignment of the substance of the saving gospel of God to the periphery of its concerns. Redemption is simply not at the top of Orthodox theology's priority list. In response to the critic, this is not to say that Orthodoxy relegates redemption to an unimportant status, but to a functionally secondary status due to the constructs of its theology of man, and subsequently, the Church. These issues will be examined more closely in upcoming articles.

In the midst of the apologetic dogfight in which many Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox writers engage, I have found it beneficial to "step back from the forest to be able to see all of the trees." Obtaining a sense of the bigger picture more responsibly sets the issues in their proper context, taking the human dimension relating to the claims of Orthodoxy (or Evangelicalism for that matter) into consideration alongside the Biblical and historic dimensions. In this spirit, I would like to offer some issues for consideration before we engage in the particulars (and sometimes the minutiae) of answering the question; "have those who converted to Orthodoxy really come home?"

ISSUE ONE: The Demonizing of the West

Whether one is reading the classic works of Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, Sergei Bulgakov, Georgii Florovsky, or prominent Orthodox thinkers writing in the West such as John Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, or Timothy Ware, the vilification of anything Western (or Latin) permeates the assertions and assumptions found on every page. Converts to Orthodoxy such as Frank Schaeffer repeat this refrain in warning against a "western captivity" of the Church. The deleterious effects of the Enlightenment upon the now "depraved" Western culture and the harmful fallout of the Reformation on religion, viewed as nothing more than the bastard child of "Age of Reason," is the Orthodox's historical "I told you so" for unsuspecting westerners. This gross caricature of western culture is as offensive as it is lopsided. One cannot seriously call it naive or misinformed, specifically on the part of "cradle Orthodox," for that would be too kind in light of the facts they demonstrate a sufficient awareness of.

The contributions of the Latins in the formative centuries of the Christian Church, as well as their continued testimony substantively to the very things which count as foundational Christian doctrine as well as to those things which the Orthodox to this day count dear cannot be discounted. Have Western confessions denied the trinity; the very core of Orthodox belief? Oh yes, reply the Orthodox, for the inclusion of the filioque clause has distorted the Western understanding of the essence of the godhead. However, this depends on who in the Orthodox Church you ask. Opinions on this matter differ from the extreme position of Lossky who extends the adverse effects of this "heresy" of double procession to ecclesiastical considerations, to the more moderate position which views double procession as possessing the potential to lead logically to all sorts of doctrinal difficulties, despite the "blessed inconsistencies" on the part of Latins to affirm an otherwise orthodox understanding of the godhead. Yet, it must be remembered that the initial inclusion of the clause has a historical context.

The response of the Western Church to the Arian and Sabellian heresies has, even in the minds of some Orthodox scholars, justified such an expression. Anyone familiar with the development of Christian theology must honestly admit that the reactive nature of initial dogmatics has required further clarification in subsequent periods. Unfortunately, the proper considerations for such historical context has been granted by and large to Eastern Fathers but has been withheld from their Western counterparts with occasional violence. It is often either overlooked or minimized on the part of Orthodox writers, that Eastern Fathers such as Epiphanius and Cyril of Alexandria can be fairly understood to have supported the filioque, in fact, Maximus the Confessor writes in his letter to Marinus of Cyprus that the Latins do not make the Son the Spirit's "cause," but that they are aware that the Father is the sole Source of the Son and Spirit. Augustine, who has been the target of much attack by Eastern writers regarding his adherence to the doctrine of the double procession of the Spirit is careful to retain the principality of the Father's role in the Spirit's procession and is in essential agreement with the Cappadocian understanding. In regard to seminal matters pertaining to the ontological trinity, have we forgotten that it was Hosius of Cordova (a Spaniard) who first proposed the term homoousios at Nicaea to define the relationship between the Father and the Son? Although this term had a "shadier" history prior to Nicaea, it gained full acceptance through the collateral efforts of the Cappadocians, Athanaisus and Hilary of Poitiers (another Latin!) and is now a standard for Nicene orthodoxy. This incident demonstrates the shared contributions of Latin and Greek Christians in the development of Christian doctrine in its formative period.

For those who would protest at this point and claim that this example arises from Christian history prior to the emergence of a distinctive Byzantine theology (which Meyendorff correctly states is post-Chalcedonian); two responses are in order. First, the purpose for the above illustration is to promote the sorely needed concept of a "shared theological tradition" of doctrinal development and historic orthodoxy, and that, both within, prior to, and following the critical fourth century, such mutual contributions to the shaping of that which "has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone," as the Vincentian Canon declares, speak loudly against this functional denial of all things western. Second, there are enough examples of later western contributions and theological traditions which testify of doctrinal fidelity both equal and superior to Eastern traditions that earlier and more seminal illustrations can be afforded in such a presentation. For example, let us consider the issue of mystery in theology (and particularly, theology proper); specifically the apophaticism of the Eastern Church. The principle of negation in Orthodox theology has long been touted as central to its understanding of God, as His absolute transcendency reduces human speculations about Him into idols, unless our contemplation of Him takes on a mystical dimension. Lossky comments on this perspective when he writes:

No one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian. The way of the knowledge of God is necessarily the way of deification. He who, in following this path, imagines at a given moment that he knows what God is has a depraved spirit, according to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Apophaticism is, therefore, a criterion: the sure sign of an attitude of mind conformed to truth. In this sense all true theology is fundamentally apophatic (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 39).

While Lossky admits (as does Orthodoxy theology as a whole) a function to cataphatic theology, he describes it as a necessary reversal to the function of apophaticism: the former being a condescension of God through energies by means of "analogical theophanies" culminating in the incarnation of God in Christ, who embodies the supreme eminence of these manifestations of God in creation, and the latter being a path to union with those energies which is the very purpose for man's existence.

However, the Orthodox continue their condescending and historically exaggerated attack on "western confessions" citing the exaltation of reason and the elimination of mystery as intrinsic aspects of the Latin theological heritage. Consider Khomyakov's rantings:

Since the conflict between the Western confessions has been conducted on the soil of rationalism, one cannot even say that faith has been its real subject. Beliefs and convictions, no matter how sincere and passionate, have yet to deserve the name of faith (Aleksei Stepanovich Khomyakov, On The Western Confessions of Faith. In Ultimate Questions, Alexander Schmemman, editor, p. 64).

Speaking specifically of the Protestants, he writes:

A criticism that is serious but dry and imperfect; a learning that is broad but unsubstantial because of its lack of inner unity; an upright and sober morality worthy of the first centuries of the Church, combined with a narrowness of vision set within the limits of individualism; ardent outbursts of feeling in which we seem to hear a confession of their shortcomings and their lack of hope in ever attaining atonement; a constant lack of depth scarcely masked by a fog of arbitrary mysticism; a love of the truth combined with an inability to understand it in its living reality; in a word — rationalism within idealism: such is the fate of the Protestants (Aleksei Stepanovich Khomyakov, On The Western Confessions of Faith. In Ultimate Questions, Alexander Schmemman, editor, p. 64-65).

Such preposterously lopsided caricatures of western confessions (in this case, Protestantism) fail to consider the rich sense of mystery contained within both Catholic and Protestant figures and systems of thought and practice. In the midst of the Scholastic period, Aquinas' systematization of the contemplative life with respect to the mystical dimension of the faith, as well as his assertion of the via negativa in correlation to the apophatic emphasis in the East, demonstrates a serious acknowledgment of these two dimensions of theology. Although scholars like Jaroslav Pelikan attempt to solidify the superiority of Cappadocian apophaticism in regard to their usage of the via eminentia (although this is Thomas' term); it can be argued that Thomas' restriction of this apophatic function to the uniqueness of God avoids the undue skepticism that too often prevails in Orthodox epistemology, and more naturally leads to the necessary analogical function of theological language (which is richly expressed in the language of Scripture). As Timiadis insightfully comments:

Exaggerated mysticism could lead to the conclusion that God is so far removed from humanity that desperate efforts are required to obtain His intervention. We are then far from the OT promise to make us God's people, the New Israel, the redeemed heirs of His kingdom, endowed with Pauline paresia, brothers of one another by grace and bearers of the Spirit (pneumatophoroi) incorporated into Christ's Body and enjoying all the spiritual gifts that membership in the Church provides (E. Timiadis, God's Immutability and Communicability, in T. F. Torrance (ed) Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Reformed Churches, p.47).

Paul Negrut, in considering the extent of the mystical and apophatic elements of Lossky's theology comments:

Lossky's belief that the intellectual faculties and conceptual reason cannot participate in the process of knowing God, not only gives a death blow to language as an epistemic tool and as a valid means of communicating the divine revelation, but actually upholds a reductionist view of anthropology and soteriology (Paul Negrut, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, London, 1994, p. 36).

Donald Bloesch issues a similar warning when he writes;

We must, of course, avoid the temptation of the neo-Platonic type of mysticism where God is so far beyond the categories of the understanding that he can be described only in terms of negation (as in pseudo-Dionysius). Though he does, of course, transcend human understanding, he does not totally elude rationality but instead embodies it. Because of the illumination of faith there can be a partial conformity of our ideas to the mind of God; this is an analogical, not univocal, knowledge, but a true knowledge (Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 281,282).

The Western theological tradition has never denied wholesale the mystical component of the Christian faith, in fact, it has striven to harmonize the rational and mystical dialectic into an epistemic template which best corresponds to the revelation of these categories Biblically. Evangelicals (particularly in the Reformed tradition) do not sense the need to resort to rationalism in order to seriously grapple with the issues of the mind's interface with the Holy. Nor does it sense the need to adopt a wholesale mysticism in order to consider the mystical features of walking with God. Although the history of western Christianity has demonstrated a proclivity toward an overemphasis on the rational to the expense of the mystical, the East has equally demonstrated an opposite tendency. Perhaps these two traditions can learn something from one another on this issue in seeking to properly balance these two poles.

However, the consistent appeal to rationalism as the devilish foundation of the West's departure ignores the careful distinctions men like Aquinas (I purposefully use him as an example for he embodies the very medieval scholasticism that Orthodox apologists carelessly caricature) made regarding the power of reason to understand the mysteries of faith. Like Augustine (a figure equally derided in Orthodox circles), Thomas believed that faith was based in God's revelation in Scripture. He asserted that although God's existence is provable by reason (consistent with Paul's argument in Romans 1) sin obscures man's ability to know and believe in God. He further contends that there are mysteries such as the Trinity (which speaks to the very essence of God and not His energies, to use a Cappadocian distinction) and the incarnation of Christ which cannot be known by reason but by faith alone.

The Western expositions of the use and limits of reason and the categorization/systematization of doctrine is typically assumed to constitute an abject embracing of reason as the basis for our knowledge of God and is an unwarranted and assumptive leap. This post hoc fallacy which has gone largely unchallenged by Western Christians (and Evangelical Protestants in particular) illustrates the need for a more even-handed historical treatment that Orthodox defenders demand from westerners who charge certain characteristics of Orthodox theology (such as their apohaticism) of neo-platonism. If Eastern Fathers and writers used neo-platonic categories (which they undoubtedly did) and it does not stand to reason that their theology is by nature neo-platonic (and it does not), is it possible that such distinctions were made by later Western Fathers, doctors and theologians despite the polemical and categorical context in which they operated?

This issue represents a sorely needed reassessment of the West on the part of the Orthodox. The "adverse" affects of the Enlightenment should not be expounded without an equal consideration of the beneficial aspects of the Latin use of Natural Theology within this context, which would protect against the popular Orthodox conclusion that the social, moral and intellectual evils which permeate Western Christian communities are of necessity endemic to them. Would it be fair to assert that Byzantine political intrigue, Marxism, Communism or any of the cultural nightmares that have plagued the East are endemic to Orthodoxy? Since Eastern Orthodoxy did not grow up in a vacuum, is it really credible to function under the assumption that Eastern culture following Byzantium was this theologically pristine incubator for the preservation of the apostolic faith? Many honest Orthodox question this functional assumption so prevalent in Orthodox literature and ecumenical dialogue. As one Orthodox leader confided at a recent conference, "Eastern Orthodoxy is more a Byzantine relic than the apostolic Church." Although this comment may be a bit extreme, it does identify a triumphalism that undermines the credibility of Orthodox apologetics within the larger sphere of Christendom.

ISSUE TWO: The Recovery of A Biblical View of and Place for Soteriology

Since the gospel is the heart of the Christian message; and the issue of justification is, as Luther rightly put it, "the article upon which the Church stands or falls," no meaningful assessment of Orthodoxy from a truly Evangelical perspective, or meaningful dialogue between the two communions can exist without an in-depth treatment of this issue. J.N.D. Kelly summarizes the dilemma relating to a historic consideration of soteriology in general and the atonement in particular when he wrote:

The student who seeks to understand the soteriology of the fourth and early fifth centuries will be sharply disappointed if he expects to find anything corresponding to the elaborately worked out synthesis which the contemporary theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation presents ... Instead he must be prepared to pick his way through a variety of theories, to all appearance unrelated and even mutually incompatible, existing side by side and sometimes sponsored by the same theologian (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 375).

Kelly goes on to note that, from his point of view, the "clue" to soteriology is not to despair, as some scholars have in seeking to find a "unifying theory" on redemption in this formative period, or to discover the so-called "patristic mind" on this critical subject. Although these theories appear incompatible, they are in fact complimentary in that they view the atoning work of Christ and the work of redemption from a number of different angles. In Orthodox - Protestant dialogue (as well as dialogue with Roman Catholics) it has long been the contention on the part of Eastern Christians that the "Augustinian scourge" of original sin, and the subsequent distortions of the Scholastics have placed the issue of justification particularly, but soteriology in general, in unduly forensic categories. The two views of the atonement salient to our discussion here is that the of "classic" or "incarnational" view more prominent in the Christian East, and the "Latin" or "juridicial" view which prevailed in the Christian West. The first view (also known as the "physical" or "mystical" view) emphasizes the connection between the redemption and the incarnation. The second view (also know as the "realist" view) views the atonement as primarily a penal substitution for the debt of sin owed to God.

It is critical to note that both theories appear in the writings of Greek and Latin Fathers, and that the cultural milieu of each segment of the empire affected the emphasis which each tradition would embrace. Kelly is correct in stating that the incarnational view "cohered well with the Greek tendency to regard corruption and death as the chief effects of the Fall." Moreover, the Latin insistence upon order and law are, arguably the historically guided direction in which the atonement and its collateral mechanics were perceived by those in the West.

Although these views exist contemporaneously in the Patristic literature, a number of issues need to be considered. First, the question of the perspicuity of Scripture on this issue. Paradox is not foreign to the Word of God, by any means, and yet, the Scriptural record is replete with over arching themes in regard to the core issues of God's message to man. There are few doctrines which are not viewed Scripturally from a number of complimentary angles. This is endemic to Hebrew literature and literary structure, (considering that the Old Testament constituted the "Scriptures" for the apostles and New Testament writers) and demonstrates the dimensional richness of God's revelation to man. An Evangelical student of Orthodoxy, Don Fairbairn issues this caveat for understanding the nature of Orthodox theory on the atonement:

As a result of the Orthodox emphasis on the idea of victory over death, evangelicals are likely to be critical of the Orthodox understanding of the atonement, since it seems to ignore the substitutionary, juridical elements which we believe are central to the work of Christ. However, it is not completely accurate to assert that the Orthodox ignore these elements. Orthodox theology does recognize the substitutionary aspects of the atonement which are so critical to evangelical thought, although it does not strongly emphasize them. The major difference between evangelical and Orthodox atonement theory lies not in the exclusive adherence to a single view, but in the way Eastern Christendom links the atonement to humanity's purpose of deification (Don Fairbairn, Partakers of the Divine Nature, p. 50).

This point is well taken, and is applicable to both communions since the Orthodox also exaggerate the view of Westerners in claiming either that their view of the atonement is solely juridicial, or so principally so that it effectively ignores the more "cosmic" or "incarnational" realities of Christ's work. However, what cannot be avoided even in the most balanced appreciation for the multi-dimensional approach to the atonement in the Patristic era, is that a prevailing notion of the work of Christ will surface and act as an interpretive grid as to the essence of what it means to come into relationship with God. This fact is also clear in the Biblical record. The heavy emphasis on the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice within the pre-Mosaic period as well as in the Levitical system is not only clear, but essential to any proper understanding of the earlier covenants. For instance, in his discussion of Orthodox worship, former Protestant minister Benjamin D. Williams, now a convert to Orthodoxy, expresses very telling comments:

Worship begins in heaven. The Holy Scriptures record numerous instances of the drama of the heavenly adoration taking place before the very throne of God. It may be that for the person familiar with Scripture, some of these are so apparent they are overlooked (Benjamin D, Williams, Harold B. Anstall, Orthodox Worship, p. 89).

He cites examples from the book of Isaiah (chapter six) where the seraphim cry "holy, holy, holy;" he cites the Apostle John's vision of the heavenly throne room in Revelation 4 and 5, and even makes mention of the coal taken from the altar and placed on Isaiah's lips, taking away his sins (which he claims the early fathers to understand as the eucharist), as well as the Son of God pictured as the Lamb having been slain (Rev. 5:11,12). Later in this same discussion, he notes:

By extension, then, it is only natural that our worship should be in keeping with the nature of worship in heaven. The constant struggle both in Israel and in Christendom has been to avoid affirming the methods which mankind proposes as the means to approach and worship God, and to accept that revelation which God Himself has given us, and to act on it. That is true theologically, and it is true liturgically as well. Our worship is based on revelation. The early Christian Church used the Old Testament revelation as its starting point, and fulfilled it with the new and final revelation in Jesus Christ (Benjamin D, Williams, Harold B. Anstall, Orthodox Worship, p. 90).

As Evangelicals, we agree in principle with what Williams is claiming. However, even a cursory examination of the passages he is citing as a basis for worship (which by nature is based upon and responsive to who God is and what He has done) presents grave difficulties for a former Protestant who has "come home" to a communion which sees "ascent to heaven" through theosis rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ as the basis for approaching God and worshiping Him!

Isaiah 6:1-7 sets a very juridical scene considering three things which comprise the passage:

(1) the proclamation of the holiness of God by the seraphim, which speaks of the purity and perfections of His Being and character as opposed to sinful man. Bloesch acutely comments on this when he writes:

Holiness connotes separation from all that is unclean (from the Hebrew qad osh), and this applies to God par excellence. Rudolf Otto has trenchantly observed that the concept of the holiness of God leads to the assertion that God is "Wholly Other," since man is both a creature and a sinner. Indeed, man is separated from God not only by ontological fate but also by historic guilt. Our iniquities have made a separation between God and ourselves (Isa. 59:1,2), and therefore God can only be approached via a Mediator whose righteousness is acceptable to divine holiness, namely, Jesus Christ (Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 1, p. 33). (Emphasis mine).

(2) This is expressed dramatically in the prophet's response, where he does not claim to be "unrealized" (a concept more akin with theosis), but "undone," precisely because both he and his people are "unclean" in the totality of their being (the proper application of the Hebrew idiomatic usage of "lips) and speaks of guilt and debt if considered within Hebraic categories.

(3) Finally, the touching of the prophet's lips with the coal from the altar cannot cryptically refer to some later sacramental conferring of grace through the eucharist, since the cleansing is viewed as complete in verse 7 and not in process, and the latter verses of the chapter (vv. 8-13) speak to the inability of men to respond rightly to the divine message, which would be a necessity if sacramental overtones are intended here.

The Revelation passages reveal more trouble for the Orthodox attempt to base worship on a conformity to the principal concept of theosis rather than a juridical model. In Revelation chapter 5, the Apostle John reports his vision of the heavenly throne room by introducing the issue of worthiness in verses 2-5. The One who is said to be "worthy" is the Lamb, who is slain, who takes the book from the hand of the One who sits on the throne (vv. 6,7). The angelic choir then sings a song to the Lamb in verse 9:

And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals (this book is clearly tied to the concept of judgement, once again a legal category); for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Williams' appeal to the Hebrews passages only compounds his troubles here. One hardly knows where to begin in considering the wealth of passages in this epistle which bear out the juridical nature of the author's themes. However, for the sake of brevity, I will cite two passages which speak directly to Williams' concerns for heavenly worship and the alleged eucharistic connection to Isaiah's vision in the Fathers:

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgement; so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to bear sin, to those who eagerly await Him, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28 (emphasis mine)

Calvin comments on this passage thus (specifically verse 24):

But it is Christ who really presents himself before God, and stands there to obtain favour for us, so that now there is no reason why we should flee from God's tribunal, since we have so kind an advocate, through whose faithfulness and protection we are made secure and safe. Christ was indeed our advocate when he was on earth; but it was a further concession made to our infirmity that he ascended into heaven to undertake there the office of an advocate. So that whenever mention is made of his ascension into heaven, this benefit ought ever to come to our minds, that he appears there before God to defend us by his advocacy. Foolishly, then, and unreasonably the question is asked by some, has he not always appeared there? For the Apostle speaks here only of his intercession, for the sake of which he entered the heavenly sanctuary (Calvin's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Emphasis mine)

As to alleged eucharistic connection or to any external substance to the "mysteries" connected with the atonement, I offer the following passage:

Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefitted. We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hence, let us go to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name (Hebrews 13:9-15).

Calvin makes this observation regarding verse 10:

"We have an altar", &c. This is a beautiful adaptation of an old rite under the Law, to the present state of the Church. There was a kind of sacrifice appointed, mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, no part of which returned to the priests and Levites. This, as he now shows by a suitable allusing, was accomplished in Christ; for he was sacrificed on this condition, that they who serve the tabernacle should not feed on him. But by the "ministers of the tabernacle" he means all those who performed the ceremonies. Then that we may partake of Christ, he intimates that we must renounce the tabernacle; for as the word "altar" includes sacrificing and the victim; so "tabernacle", all the external types connected with it. Then the meaning is, "No wonder if the rites of the Law have now ceased, for this is what was typified by the sacrifice which the Levites brought without the camp to be there burnt; for as the ministers of the tabernacle did eat nothing of it, so if we serve the tabernacle, that is, retain its ceremonies, we shall not be partakers of that sacrifice which Christ once offered, nor of the expiation which he once made by his own blood; for his own blood he brought into the heavenly sanctuary that he might atone for the sin of the world" (Calvin's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Emphasis mine).

These realities make astonishing the bold assertion by Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff:

In the East, the cross is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which satisfies a transcendent Justice requiring a retribution for man's sins. As Georges Florovsky rightly puts it: "the death of the cross was effective, not as a death of an Innocent One, but as the death of the incarnate Lord." The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into the vicious cycle of sin and corruption (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historic Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 161).

What is truly concerning (particularly for Protestant converts to Orthodoxy) is that despite the wealth of Biblical evidence for man's salvation set primarily in terms of substitution and satisfaction; hence the imputed righteousness of Christ being the basis for man's approach to God in relationship or worship, the foundation moves to a process which is set in more neo-Platonic categories than Hebraic, and is built on scanty textual support. In fact, a careful examination of 2 Peter 1:4 (one of the two principle passages upon which theosis is built in explicit terms, along with John 10:34,35) demonstrates the need for "hermeneutical gymnastics" to yield the interpretation that Orthodox theology requires to substantiate the concept of "divination."

I hold to the Reformed view of salvation because it is Biblical. It permeates every page of Scripture, and beautifully ties the covenants together in a tapestry of fulfillment which Jesus claimed He would accomplish through His substitutionary death on the cross (Matthew 5:17), which Paul reminds us, the gospel is the message of (1 Corinthians 1:18). In having "come home;" have you traded in the very Word of the Cross? Consider well the words of the Apostle Paul:

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith (Philippians 3:8,9 (emphasis mine)

This issue is not an academic discussion, but a matter of eternal life or death. The Scripture is clear on that matter upon which all other points are meaningful. If we do not know how to come into a relationship with God, all other considerations are terribly moot. I write this because I love and care for my Orthodox friends. This is not motivated by hatred or a desire to engage in needless disputations. There is much to appreciate and admire about Eastern Orthodoxy. However, on this essential point, the official teaching of the church is about as unorthodox as it gets, when measured by the standard of the Word of God, and not the varied opinions of men, whether they be Greek or Latin, ancient or contemporary.

Do not forget that the Roman Catholic Church, with its allegedly "juridical" emphasis, has still not escaped the error of confusing justification with sanctification. I find it ironic that distinctions within the godhead are considered reasons for schism within the Eastern Church; but the most important of distinctions is held in contempt.

Undoubtedly, the soteriological themes resident within Orthodoxy are important. Mystical union with God (in Christ), the process dimension of salvation (albeit in sanctification), the cosmic scope of God's salvation of men; these and other points deserve attention from the Evangelical community pertaining their balanced inclusion into our collective consciousness of the richness of God's grace to us. Nonetheless, the overarching themes of salvation are certainly in tact according to Evangelicalism which has remained faithful to the Reformed tradition.

ISSUE THREE: A Biblical Resolution for the Issue of Authority in the Church

Although there are other issues to consider of great importance, I shall content myself in discussing a third and final point which addresses a major concern for those who have converted to, or are presently part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is the issue of authority. It is clear that Western and Eastern traditions view authority in a contrasting manner, and that many Orthodox writers have asserted that an external source of authority is not the issue but the internal authority of God's revelation through the operation of the Spirit within the community of the Body of Christ. This concept of Living Tradition or Holy Tradition is common within the Orthodox community. Kallistos Ware quotes Georges Florovsky in expressing the Orthodox conception of Tradition:

Tradition is the witness of the Spirit; the Spirit's unceasing revelation and preaching of good tidings ... to accept and understand Tradition we must live within the Church, we must be conscious of the grace-giving presence of the Lord in it; we must feel the breath of the Holy Ghost in it ... Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is, primarily, the principle of growth and regeneration ... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words (Timothy "Kallistos" Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 198, 199)

The understanding of "tradition" in the history of the Church is complex and far from unanimous. In fact, four principle views of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition have been discovered in the church's historical record. The "coincidence view" teaches that Scripture is materially sufficient (it contains all that is necessary) but formally insufficient (it needs an authorized interpreter), but that the interpretation does not add to the written record. The "supplementary" view holds that Scripture is both materially and formally insufficient, and that oral or unwritten Tradition adds to the written Scripture. The "ancillary" view holds that Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient, and that Tradition neither authoritatively interprets Scripture nor supplements it. The "unfolding" view expresses the material insufficiency of both Scripture and Tradition, and that the Church can develop new dogmas as long as it can demonstrate that these were implicit in earlier teaching.

The position held by the Reformers is most certainly that of the ancillary view, which, while denying the equality of Tradition with Scripture (hence, the principle of Sola Scriptura), does view Tradition as helpful in understanding Scripture. Calvin speaks of his respect for and familiarity with the writings of the Fathers in this ancillary fashion when he writes in his prefatory address to King Francis:

Then, with a frightful to-do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval. Yet we are so versed in their writings as to remember always that all things are ours [1 Cor. 3:21-22], to serve us, not to lord it over us [Luke 22:24-25], and that we all belong to the one Christ [1 Cor. 3:23], whom we must obey in all things without exception [cf. Col. 3:20] (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Prefatory Address, 4)

In contrast, the Orthodox position is expressed by Florovsky;

It was in this sense that in the well known Encyclical Letter of 1848 the Eastern Patriarchs wrote that "the people itself (laos), ie: the Body of the Church, "was the guardian of piety." And even before this the Metropolitan Philaret said the same thing in his Catechism. In answer to the question. "Does a true treasury of sacred tradition exist?" he says, "All the faithful, united through the sacred tradition of faith, all together and all successively, are built up by God into one Church, which is the true treasury of sacred tradition, or, to quote the words of St. Paul, "The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, p. 53. Emphasis his).

The problem here is that there are conflicting views of tradition in the history of the Church, and the position consistent with the Reformation principle of sola Scritpura is present even in the earliest periods of the Church. Iraneus writes the following concerning authority and the transmission of authoritative knowledge concerning God and His gospel:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.1)

Not to be misunderstood regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, he adds:

For it unlawful to assert that they [the apostles] preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1.1).

In regard to the perspicuity of Scripture, he writes:

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all , although all do not believe them ... those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]...(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 27.2).

To further compound issues, the nature and content of Tradition is not unanimous amidst Orthodox theologians. Firstly, Orthodox scholars do not speak with one mind when relating the nature of Tradition: do Scripture and Tradition form a single source of authority or are they distinguished from one another? Konstantinidis holds to a "Two-Source" approach, while Ware holds to a "Single Source" view, which sees the Scripture as living and understood within the Church and not a source external to it, nor equally complimentary to Tradition, but as part of it. Secondly, the content of Tradition is also an issue to which Orthodox scholars and spokesmen speak in contrasting voices. For example, these same two scholars differ in terms of what they see as constituting Holy Tradition (see: C. Konstantinidis, The Significance of the Eastern and Western Traditions, p. 224 and T. Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 199-207). A careful examination of these two men's position on Tradition's content is certain to reveal substantial, and not semantical or peripheral differences.

Thirdly, no authorized canon of the Church Fathers exists. Although there were attempts to list approved leaders of the Church as pertaining to their faithfulness to the Apostolic faith, no council or canon has ever been officially accepted as forming a complete or current list of Church Fathers by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Since the Fathers are unanimously admitted to be a critical part of Holy Tradition, the vague and sometimes contradictory nature of Orthodoxy's appeal to "the Fathers" leaves this communion without an objective source of authority.

John Meyendorff admits to the apparently subjective nature of the Orthodox concept of Tradition;

In a way that is often puzzling for Western Christians, the Orthodox, when asked positively about the sources of their faith, answer in such concepts as the whole of Scripture, seen in the light of the tradition of the ancient Councils, the Fathers, and the faith of the entire people of God, expressed particularly in the liturgy. This appears to the outsiders as nebulous, perhaps romantic or mystical, and in any case inefficient and unrealistic (John Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, p. 100).

While such comments can be appreciated within the context of Meyendorff's (and Orthodoxy's) assertion that Tradition is living and dynamic, and is the function of the life of the Spirit within the Church, it cannot be denied that this definition leaves Orthodoxy without an objective source of authority to which it can appeal.

Of graver concern is the connection between issues two and three; the gospel and the concept of authority for the Church. Harold O.J. Brown makes this penetrating observation:

In Matthew 15:9, citing Isaiah 29:13, Jesus warns against teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. In many respects the gospel message is, if we may say so reverently, too simple for us: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). Once I have believed, what then? Consequently we fill out and amplify the gospel message with the mandata hominum, the commandments of men. This is inevitable and necessary, as we have argued. But this is also dangerous. When tradition proliferates to trust in some human idea – a holy relic or particular pious devotion, for example – rather than in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, they may imperil their own salvation. This is the personal danger of tradition (Harold O. J. Brown, "Proclamation and Preservation", in Reclaiming the Great Tradition, p. 84).

The Reformed Protestant position does not eschew tradition as useless, as Brown rightly states, it simply rejects it as authoritative. "Traditions" are necessary in terms of the particulars of living out our faith, and may even express themselves in the distinctives of denominationalism (within the pale of orthodoxy with the small "o") but the essence of the faith is clear and centered on the Biblical truth of the gospel. The Orthodox Tradition obscures the gospel, for it is itself obscure and contradictory, subjective and mutable. It solves nothing that it claims to solve, for the presence of Tradition as an Interpreter of Scripture only serves to set back the problem one step: if the Bible needs an infallible Interpreter, who interprets the Interpreter?

The essence of Evangelical Protestantism is that the gospel and the God who it speaks of are knowable. God is not prostrate before reason, He transcends our intellects' ability to contain Him, as the famous axiom states, finitum non capax infinitum (the finite cannot contain the infinite), but we, as Evangelicals, do not prostrate ourselves before the altar of rationalism simply because we "reason through the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2,3,17) in the great tradition of the Apostle Paul, and "examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11). We subject our reason to the revelation of God and humbly trust in our Creator and Lord to grant to us the sufficient understanding of His Word to, as Paul said to Timothy,

give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).

No wonder that the very next two verses in this epistle read:

All Scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos: "God-breathed"] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God [not the Church of God corporately] may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16,17)..

So, we return to our original question, somewhat restated: "what does it mean to truly come home?" Is "facing East" really necessary to belong to the true Church, or is it a matter of being "in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3ff)? I contend that in discovering the gospel the New Testament speaks of as clear and unambiguous, and embracing it by faith through a work of God in our hearts, we do more than find a Church, we become the Church. As the gospel transcends all cultures, so does the Church. God has not vested the East with catholicity (or the West for that matter), He has vested the Scriptures with it (2 Timothy 3:16,17), for in it we find propositionally all the fullness of knowing God as He has designed His people to, and through His Spirit, we dynamically live out that fullness. I urge all of you who have embraced Eastern Orthodoxy to drop the "Eastern" and the capital "O" and "come home" by trusting in the righteousness of Christ alone to bring you into the household of faith. For it is only by the "putting on of Christ" [hence, His righteousness] by the baptizing work of His Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27) [and not the chrism of the priest] through faith alone (Galatians 3:26) that we cry "Abba Father" (Galatians 4:6). It is then that we have truly "come home."

Get A Blog Like This...

2007-05-01T09:25:00.000-04:00

You too can set-up and maintain a blog like this one. What’s a “blog” you ask? A blog, which is short for “web-log” is a website where you log your entries (like a journal, or a ship-captains log book) onto the world-wide-web. If you have something you want the world to know about, then you should have a blog site in order to be able to promote your unique ideas.

A blog can give you the flexibility to not only express in writing your important ideas but also to post photos, video, and audio onto the web.

Contact Michael Rotolo, www.rotolomedia.com, for more details and help establishing your blog website!