Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Quote by St. Abba Dorotheos ~ Falsehood
In the Scriptures it is written that falsehood is from the evil one, and that He is the "Father of Lies" (John 8:44), while God is truth, for He Himself says, "I am the way, the truth and the life." (John 14:6). Thus you see from whom we estranged ourselves and to whom we are united by a lie. So then, if we really want to be saved, we must love truth with our whole hearts and guard ourselves from all falsehood. There are three different types of lies: in thought, in word, and in life itself. A man lies in thought when he accepts as true his own imaginations, that is his vain despite of his neighbor. Such a one, when he sees that someone is conversing with his neighbor, makes his own estimation and says, "They are talking about me." If someone say a word, he considers that it was said to grieve him. Never believe your own guesses and interpretations, for a crooked measurement makes even the straight to be crooked. Human opinion is false and harms those who are given to it. The one who sins in word is one who, for example, when out of despondency he has not gotten up for the service, does not say, "Forgive me, I was too lazy to get up," but says, "I had a fever, I had too much work, I hadn't the strength to get up, I was sick," and says ten false statements, rather than make a single prostration and be humbled. And if he should be rebuke is such a situation, he changes his words and argues, in order not to be rebuked. One who lies by his life is one who, if he is defiled, pretends to be chaste, or if he is avaricious, praises almsgiving, or if he is proud praises humility. Thus, in order to escape falsehood and be delivered from the part of the evil one, let us strive to appropriate truth, in order to have union with God.
(St. Abba Dorotheos, Soul-profiting Teachings, 9)
Source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Monday, June 26, 2017
Quote by St. Gennadius of Constantinople,Ancient Patericon & St. John of the Ladder ~ Vainglory
Do not seek earthly glory in any matter, for it is extinguished for him who loves it. In its time it blows on a man like a strong wind, and then quickly, taking from him the fruits of his good works, it goes away from him, laughing at his foolishness.
(St. Gennadius of Constantinople, The Golden Chain, 35)
Abba Pimen said, he who fervently desires the love of men is deprived of the love of God. In is not good to be liked by everyone, for it is said, "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you." (Luke 6:26)
(Ancient Patericon, 8:16)
Often the Lord heals vainglory by dishonor.
(St. John of the Ladder, Ladder, 22.38)
[It is possible to struggle against love of honor and vainglory in this way:] When you hear that your neighbor or friend has reproached you in your absence or presence, then show love and praise him.
(St. John of the Ladder, 22:15)
Source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Friday, June 23, 2017
Quote by St. Silouan the Athonite,St. John of the Ladder,St. Mark the Ascetic & St. Photius the Great ~ The Snares of the Devil
Love for that which is earthly makes the soul empty, and then there she is sad, and grows wild, and does not want to pray to God. The enemy then, seeing that the soul is not in God, shakes her and freely places in the mind whatever he wants, and he drives the soul from one thought to another, and thus the whole day the soul remains in such disorder and cannot purely gaze at the Lord.
(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, IV.5)
Our inhuman enemy [the devil, in drawing a Christian to defilement] inspires the thought that God loves mankind, and that He quickly forgives this sin. But when we observe the guile of demons, then we see that after the commission of the sin, they suggest to us that God is a righteous and implacable Judge. The first they say in order to lead us to sin, the second, in order to weigh us down in despair.
(St. John of the Ladder, Ladder, 15:33)
The devil makes small sins seem smaller in our eyes, for otherwise he can't lead us to greater evil.
(St. Mark the Ascetic, Homilies, 2:94)
When anyone goes into sin, his thoughts are is it were enchained and his vision is changed for the worse through that by means of which the evil one, instigating and flattering, weakens and darkens us. But after the sin has been committed he sets before our eyes what we have done and cruelly reveals that to which he has drawn us with much guile and, condeming the severity of the deed, endeavours by the same to draw the sinner into despair.
(St. Photius the Great, Amphilochius, 14)
Source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Quote by Gautama Buddha ~ Happiness minus "Ego" & "Desire"
“A man asked Gautama Buddha, "I want happiness."
Buddha said, "First remove "I," that's Ego, then remove "want," that's Desire.
See now you are left with only "Happiness.”
Gautama Buddha
Source:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/718299-a-man-asked-gautama-buddha-i-want-happiness-buddha-said
Monday, June 19, 2017
Ancient Patericon, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Mark the Ascetic,St. Silouan the Athonite ~ Sinful Thoughts
A certain monk asked one of the elders, "Why are my thoughts always inclined to defilement, so that they give me no rest even for an hour, and my soul is troubled?" The elder said to him, "If the demons inspire thoughts in you, do not give in to them." It is their nature to tempt constantly. And even though they never leave off this temptation, they cannot force you to sin. It depends on your will to listen to them or not to listen." The brother said to the elder, "What should I do? I am weak and the passion is conquering me." The elder answered, "Guard against them, and when they begin to speak to you, do not answer them, but pray to God: Son of God, have mercy on me!"
(Ancient Patericon, 5.35)
If a man does not argue with the thoughts that the enemy secretly sows in us, but by prayer to God uproots conversation with them, this is a sign that his mind has attained wisdom, and that he has found a short path.
(St. Isaac the Syrian, Homilies, 30)
A man who is enticed by sinful thoughts is blinded by them, and he sees the action of sin in himself, but he can not see the cause of this action.
(St. Mark the Ascetic, Homilies, 1.168)
It is impossible to keep spiritual peace if we do not take care of the mind, that is if we do not drive out thoughts that are displeasing to God and, on the contrary, keep thoughts which are pleasing to God. It is necessary to look into the heart with mind and see what is done there. Is it peaceful or not? If not, then find out in what you have sinned.
(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, XIV.8)
When bad thoughts are planted in you, then cry to God: "Lord, my Maker and Creator. You see that my soul is in agony from bad thoughts. Have mercy on me." Teach yourself to root out thoughts immediately. But when you forget and don't root them out immediately, then offer repentance. Work on this, so that you get a habit.
(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, XVII.4,6)
Source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Quote by St. Mark the Ascetic ~ Not by means of disputing
Do not try to decide a difficult matter by means of disputing, but that which is enjoined by the spiritual law, namely patience, prayer, and thoughtful hope.
(St. Mark the Ascetic, Homilies, 1:12)
source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Friday, June 9, 2017
John Adams ~ Government needs morality and religion
We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
source of quote :
http://www.equip.org/
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Hank Hanegraaff and his wife entered into Orthodox Christianity at St. Niktarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Last Sunday, 67-year-old Hank Hanegraaff and his wife entered into Orthodox Christianity at St. Niktarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The former Protestant is well known among evangelicals as the Bible Answer Man. Since 1989, Hanegraaff has been answering questions on Christianity, denominations, and the Bible on a nationally syndicated radio broadcast.
A champion of evangelical Christianity, he’s best known for arguing against cults, heresies, and non-Christian religions. His 20 books include titles like Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, and The Kingdom of Cults [revised with Walter Martin].
Part of being the Bible Answer Man also includes running the Christian Research Institute (CRI), an apologetics ministry that Hanegraaff has been president of since 1989.
This week, Hanegraaff spent some of his airtime answering questions about his decision to leave Protestantism for Orthodoxy.
“People are posting this notion that somehow or other I’ve walked away from the faith and am no longer a Christian,” Hanegraaff said on his Tuesday broadcast. “Look, my views have been codified in 20 books, and my views have not changed.”
Hanegraaff and his wife Kathy have been attending the Orthodox church for more than two years, he said on his Monday broadcast.
His journey to Orthodoxy began with a trip to China, when “I saw Chinese Christians who were deeply in love with the Lord, and I learned that while they may not have had as much intellectual acumen or knowledge as I did, they had life,” he said.
On the flight back, Hanegraaff wondered if he was even a Christian. “I was comparing my ability to communicate truth with their deep and abiding love for the Lord Jesus Christ.”
He began to study the work of Watchman Nee and the idea of theosis (the Eastern Orthodox teaching on seeking union with God), which led him back to the early Christian church.
“I’ve been impacted by the whole idea of knowing Jesus Christ, experiencing Jesus Christ, and partaking of the graces of Jesus Christ through the Eucharist or the Lord’s table,” he said. “Nothing has changed in my faith.”
CT reported in 2009 how CRI critiques of Watchman Nee in the 1970s (prior to Hanegraaff’s tenure) led other theology watchdogs to label the Chinese Christian’s “local churches” movement a cult, but Hanegraaff acknowledged “we were wrong” and endorsed the movement’s orthodoxy in 2008. (The Local Church sued over the cult label in 2003.)
Hanegraaff’s move to Orthodoxy took a decade, and has put him and his wife on the same spiritual page, he said Tuesday.
“I have been typically more skewed toward truth and, quite frankly, Kathy more skewed towards life,” he said on air. “But today we are on precisely the same page in life and in truth, and we’re loving it. Daily we thank God that he has saved us by grace alone through an active faith in our dear Lord Jesus Christ.”
Hanegraaff’s move was welcomed by Rod Dreher, author of The Benedict Option and an Orthodox Christian.
“What astounding news,” he told The Christian Post. “Many evangelicals seek the early church; well, here it is, in Orthodoxy.”
The Eastern Orthodox Church is divided into 14 separate branches; last summer they attempted their first meeting since 787. Not everyone came; some boycotted over items missing from the agenda. (In more than 1,200 years, a lot of issues cropped up; the original list stretched to more than 100 items.)
Another historic meeting—between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill—also took place last summer, as the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches met at an airport in Cuba to discuss record levels of Christian persecution.
Meanwhile, Hanegraaff’s conversion gives evangelicals one more bridge to Orthodoxy after the loss of two leaders in 2012. Evangelical-friendly Metropolitan Jonah resigned under pressure, and Peter Gillquist, who led around 2,000 Protestants into Eastern Orthodoxy in 1987, passed away.
Source:
Hank Hanegraaff ~ Hank Becomes Orthodox Q and A
For additional in-depth information, please visit
Ask Hank: Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy.
Ask Hank: Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy.
Through Christian Research Institute staff and friends, I’ve become aware of chatter on the Internet—the gist of which is that I’ve walked away from the Christian faith. Amid Holy Week I pray that those forwarding this notion may have an ever-deeper encounter with our crucified and resurrected Lord. May they and their loved ones be blessed and their faith strengthened. If I have caused any to stumble, I humbly ask forgiveness.
My purpose in this post is not so much to respond but to reassure. As I have never been more in love with my wife and family, so, too, I have never been more in love with the Lord Jesus and His body the church. As such,
I confess my faith in the deity of Jesus Christ — “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made.”
I affirm the doctrine of original sin — “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).
I am deeply committed to “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and to the Holy Scriptures, the only infallible repository of redemptive revelation (2 Timothy 3:15–16).
I love the Holy Trinity — one God revealed in three Persons eternally distinct. And am deeply grateful that the true and living God invites us to participate in the loving relationships that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have enjoyed throughout eternity.
I hold to the glorious reality that Jesus “rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”
I am grateful to the Lord Jesus “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.”
I thank God daily that I am a new creation in Christ. For by grace I have been saved through faith, and that not of myself; it is the gift of God, not of works lest I should boast. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (see Ephesians 2:8–10).
“I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.”
While there are many secondary issues genuine believers will continue to debate this side of eternity, I have and will always champion what C.S. Lewis called mere Christianity. “In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”
Hank Hanegraaff
Holy Week 2017
Holy Week 2017
For additional in-depth information, please visit
Ask Hank: Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy.
Ask Hank: Questions and Answers About Orthodoxy.
Over the past several weeks, there has been more than a little stir regarding my spiritual condition (as on Palm Sunday I became Orthodox) and my physical condition (as I recently had a bone marrow biopsy).
During a recent staff meeting, I answered questions in our CRI board room on these and other topics. Thereafter I thought it appropriate to share the answers I gave that day with my dear friends and supporters. Thankfully, my staff added appropriate verses and quotations to my impromptu remarks.
Lord willing, fuller detail regarding my journey will be forthcoming on future broadcasts, vlogs, and in a book titled, Truth Matters, Life Matters More.
During a recent staff meeting, I answered questions in our CRI board room on these and other topics. Thereafter I thought it appropriate to share the answers I gave that day with my dear friends and supporters. Thankfully, my staff added appropriate verses and quotations to my impromptu remarks.
Lord willing, fuller detail regarding my journey will be forthcoming on future broadcasts, vlogs, and in a book titled, Truth Matters, Life Matters More.
Q. What led you to become Orthodox?
A. In a word, it comes down to “theosis” (union with God) — my growing realization through prolonged prayer and extensive reflection that this transformative process — and ultimate transformation — is the very purpose of human life. What’s more, I’ve come to realize that we can experience the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That Holy Communion, rightly understood and administered, is vastly more than memorial. It is the primary means by which we may become by grace what God is by nature. Or as Peter puts it, become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Increasingly, I’m yearning to know not only about Jesus Christ as the way and the truth but also Jesus Christ as the way and the life (John 14:6).
Moreover, my orientation toward worship has been radically rearranged. The moment I enter church, the engagement of my senses alerts me to the reality that I am there to worship the one true and living God. Orthodoxy, of course, makes use of earthly perceptible means to set our sights on spiritual verities. Also, I am blessed to live near an Orthodox community of believers that has been impacted by the work of the Christian Research Institute. Reciprocally, this community has impacted my life and that of my family greatly.
It is worth noting that I have been studying, memorizing, and publicly teaching Scripture for more than thirty years. My view of Christianity — in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity — remains steadfastly the same. I will and have always championed mere Christianity and am well aware that God has His people in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox communities.
Nonetheless, we live in an age of rapid change and, frankly, hermeneutical chaos — an age in which the evangelical church indulges in what may best be described as interpretive free-for-all with respect to the teachings of sacred Scripture. The broader culture imposes its illiberal sexual values on the Christian community, and all too often Christians capitulate.
From within the Christian community, radical elements impose bizarre notions that deny central teachings of the historic Christian faith, including escapist end-time scenarios that have dramatic geopolitical ramifications, counterfeit revivalism, unbridled subjectivism, and the idea that a Christian must never confess sins and seek God’s forgiveness. Moreover, “moralistic therapeutic deism” and biblical and historical illiteracy increasingly characterize the declining spiritual and intellectual state of the American church. Although Orthodoxy is not a panacea, the local body of believers I have connected with has provided a welcome refuge and respite for my family and me in both teaching and practice.
Moreover, my orientation toward worship has been radically rearranged. The moment I enter church, the engagement of my senses alerts me to the reality that I am there to worship the one true and living God. Orthodoxy, of course, makes use of earthly perceptible means to set our sights on spiritual verities. Also, I am blessed to live near an Orthodox community of believers that has been impacted by the work of the Christian Research Institute. Reciprocally, this community has impacted my life and that of my family greatly.
It is worth noting that I have been studying, memorizing, and publicly teaching Scripture for more than thirty years. My view of Christianity — in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity — remains steadfastly the same. I will and have always championed mere Christianity and am well aware that God has His people in Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox communities.
Nonetheless, we live in an age of rapid change and, frankly, hermeneutical chaos — an age in which the evangelical church indulges in what may best be described as interpretive free-for-all with respect to the teachings of sacred Scripture. The broader culture imposes its illiberal sexual values on the Christian community, and all too often Christians capitulate.
From within the Christian community, radical elements impose bizarre notions that deny central teachings of the historic Christian faith, including escapist end-time scenarios that have dramatic geopolitical ramifications, counterfeit revivalism, unbridled subjectivism, and the idea that a Christian must never confess sins and seek God’s forgiveness. Moreover, “moralistic therapeutic deism” and biblical and historical illiteracy increasingly characterize the declining spiritual and intellectual state of the American church. Although Orthodoxy is not a panacea, the local body of believers I have connected with has provided a welcome refuge and respite for my family and me in both teaching and practice.
Q. Does this mean that your positions have changed? Will CRI be changing?
Does this mean that your positions have changed? Will CRI be changing?
A. None of my positions on the essential or core doctrines of the historic Christian faith have changed. My positions are clearly outlined in over twenty books — I’ve not rescinded any of my writings — and my commitment to “mere Christianity” remains unshakeable (see “Have I ‘Left the Christian Faith’?” and Memorable Keys to Essential Christian D-O-C-T-R-I-N-E). CRI’s positions likewise remain unchanged. There will, of course, be changes in CRI’s increasing efforts to expand its outreaches through digital and social media channels to equip Christians at home and abroad to think and live Christianly.
Let me acknowledge one significant shift in emphasis. The core message of CRI has been that we do what we do “because truth matters.” Several years ago, we changed the motto to we do what we do “because life and truth matter.” While in no way diminishing the criticality of truth, this shift underscores the importance of the abundant life — the life that is truly life (I Timothy 6:19). Too many apologetically minded Christians in their quest for truth have embraced an arid rationalism and intellectualism that tragically mistakes the map for the territory, the symbol for the Reality to which symbols merely point.
Put another way, they have mistaken the menu for the meal. The lamentable outcome is that with millions of Christians hungrily searching for the Bread of Life, instead of real spiritual meals, they are handed menus. Is it any wonder, then, that so many starving for “the real thing” are leaving the church spiritually famished?
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis tells the story of a “hard-bitten” Royal Air Force officer who had little patience for reading the Bible. From his perspective, anyone who has experienced God alone in the desert has little need for the rubbish of reading things about Him. On one hand, the officer had a point. As the territory is more real than the map that portrays it, so an experience with God in the cool of a desert night is far more viscerally authentic than just reading things about Him in the Bible.
Likewise, looking at the Atlantic Ocean from the vantage of a beach is far more real than merely looking at a map of the Atlantic. “Turning from something real to something less real; turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper.”
But here is what needs to be understood. The map is based on the experience of hundreds of thousands of people who have had an experience with the Atlantic. Not isolated experiences — innumerable experiences. Moreover, “if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary.” After all, writes Lewis, “The map is going to be of more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.”
The Bible is like that map. Merely reading it is less real than the R.A.F. officer’s experience in the desert. But without it, one is bound to get lost. While the territory may be more significant than the map, the map nonetheless matters.
As the map is not the territory, so the Bible is not God. As someone has well said, “The Bible is the cradle in which we find Christ, and it is a serious error to attribute to the cradle the honor due its occupant.”
What the Bible entails is “the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God — experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused.” You won’t get anywhere by just looking at a map. But you will likely not get to where you’re going without one. While the life that genuinely matters is ultimately dependent on truth, both life and truth matter. We do well to recall that Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
This truth was made poignant for me during my travels in Asia. While visiting with persecuted Christians, who are among the most Christ-like and joyful people I have ever met, I began to ponder the meagerness of my own Christian experience. I had become a master at dotting the “I’s” and crossing the “T’s” of doctrinal correctness. Yet, the notion of redemption as a profound and radical transformative experience with the very energies of God (Colossians 1:29) was largely lost on me. I recognized life without truth to be a dangerous doorway into deviant doctrine. But I had failed to perceive truth without life to be a slippery slope toward spiritual malnourishment. Simply put, to know about and to know are not the same. To know doctrine as a set of logical truth propositions is not the same as the “empirical immediacy” of knowing the One from whom those logical truth propositions are derived and to Whom they point. Once again, critically, the menu is not the meal. The map is never the territory.
Today the moniker “life and truth matter” is far more than a mere logical truth proposition. For me, it is a daily experiential reality. So much so, that it has radically altered the course and trajectory of my life and ministry.
Let me acknowledge one significant shift in emphasis. The core message of CRI has been that we do what we do “because truth matters.” Several years ago, we changed the motto to we do what we do “because life and truth matter.” While in no way diminishing the criticality of truth, this shift underscores the importance of the abundant life — the life that is truly life (I Timothy 6:19). Too many apologetically minded Christians in their quest for truth have embraced an arid rationalism and intellectualism that tragically mistakes the map for the territory, the symbol for the Reality to which symbols merely point.
Put another way, they have mistaken the menu for the meal. The lamentable outcome is that with millions of Christians hungrily searching for the Bread of Life, instead of real spiritual meals, they are handed menus. Is it any wonder, then, that so many starving for “the real thing” are leaving the church spiritually famished?
In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis tells the story of a “hard-bitten” Royal Air Force officer who had little patience for reading the Bible. From his perspective, anyone who has experienced God alone in the desert has little need for the rubbish of reading things about Him. On one hand, the officer had a point. As the territory is more real than the map that portrays it, so an experience with God in the cool of a desert night is far more viscerally authentic than just reading things about Him in the Bible.
Likewise, looking at the Atlantic Ocean from the vantage of a beach is far more real than merely looking at a map of the Atlantic. “Turning from something real to something less real; turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper.”
But here is what needs to be understood. The map is based on the experience of hundreds of thousands of people who have had an experience with the Atlantic. Not isolated experiences — innumerable experiences. Moreover, “if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary.” After all, writes Lewis, “The map is going to be of more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.”
The Bible is like that map. Merely reading it is less real than the R.A.F. officer’s experience in the desert. But without it, one is bound to get lost. While the territory may be more significant than the map, the map nonetheless matters.
As the map is not the territory, so the Bible is not God. As someone has well said, “The Bible is the cradle in which we find Christ, and it is a serious error to attribute to the cradle the honor due its occupant.”
What the Bible entails is “the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God — experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused.” You won’t get anywhere by just looking at a map. But you will likely not get to where you’re going without one. While the life that genuinely matters is ultimately dependent on truth, both life and truth matter. We do well to recall that Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
This truth was made poignant for me during my travels in Asia. While visiting with persecuted Christians, who are among the most Christ-like and joyful people I have ever met, I began to ponder the meagerness of my own Christian experience. I had become a master at dotting the “I’s” and crossing the “T’s” of doctrinal correctness. Yet, the notion of redemption as a profound and radical transformative experience with the very energies of God (Colossians 1:29) was largely lost on me. I recognized life without truth to be a dangerous doorway into deviant doctrine. But I had failed to perceive truth without life to be a slippery slope toward spiritual malnourishment. Simply put, to know about and to know are not the same. To know doctrine as a set of logical truth propositions is not the same as the “empirical immediacy” of knowing the One from whom those logical truth propositions are derived and to Whom they point. Once again, critically, the menu is not the meal. The map is never the territory.
Today the moniker “life and truth matter” is far more than a mere logical truth proposition. For me, it is a daily experiential reality. So much so, that it has radically altered the course and trajectory of my life and ministry.
Q. Why are critics saying that you have “abandoned the faith”?
A. Some simply don’t know better. They are more eager to “sound off” than they are genuinely to understand what they are criticizing. Others who should know better are reacting from a stance of doctrinal tribalism; unless others embrace their narrow notions of what constitutes orthodoxy, they can’t be “true” believers or believers in any sense.
Here is an analogy. The LGBTQ employs an iron boot to grind dissenters, as it were, into the pavement. Frequently, there is no opportunity for the free exchange of ideas. We are no longer allowed even to ask if homosexuality is abnormal, but rather objections to it are now considered abnormal. We used to talk about gender identity disorder, but now gender is determined by feelings instead of one’s biology. And those who dare question the LGBTQ narrative are silenced as bigots.
I mention this by way of analogy to point out that, lamentably, there is a similar Christian fundamentalist intolerance that raises its head whenever its parochial doctrinal interpretations are questioned. In some sectors, if you do not swear to a pretribulation, premillennial eschatological perspective, you are considered suborthodox at best and heretical at worst. There is no need to name names, but the informed reader will understand what I am talking about.
Throughout more than three decades of ministry, my commitment to truth has required me to go against the grain in many ways. I wrote Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, The Millennium Bug Debugged, The Prayer of Jesus, The Apocalypse Code, and all of these volumes went decidedly against the grain of a Christian politically correct culture. CRI has repeatedly paid a tremendous price for that, but truth is not for sale. The simple reality is that error is error even if everyone believes it, and truth is truth even if no one believes it. Yet despite the repeated hits we have taken, we have seen tremendous dividends in that people’s lives have been revolutionized for Christ and testimonies to the glory of God are legion.
Here is an analogy. The LGBTQ employs an iron boot to grind dissenters, as it were, into the pavement. Frequently, there is no opportunity for the free exchange of ideas. We are no longer allowed even to ask if homosexuality is abnormal, but rather objections to it are now considered abnormal. We used to talk about gender identity disorder, but now gender is determined by feelings instead of one’s biology. And those who dare question the LGBTQ narrative are silenced as bigots.
I mention this by way of analogy to point out that, lamentably, there is a similar Christian fundamentalist intolerance that raises its head whenever its parochial doctrinal interpretations are questioned. In some sectors, if you do not swear to a pretribulation, premillennial eschatological perspective, you are considered suborthodox at best and heretical at worst. There is no need to name names, but the informed reader will understand what I am talking about.
Throughout more than three decades of ministry, my commitment to truth has required me to go against the grain in many ways. I wrote Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, The Millennium Bug Debugged, The Prayer of Jesus, The Apocalypse Code, and all of these volumes went decidedly against the grain of a Christian politically correct culture. CRI has repeatedly paid a tremendous price for that, but truth is not for sale. The simple reality is that error is error even if everyone believes it, and truth is truth even if no one believes it. Yet despite the repeated hits we have taken, we have seen tremendous dividends in that people’s lives have been revolutionized for Christ and testimonies to the glory of God are legion.
Q. Does the Orthodox Church believe in the authority of Scripture?
A. Of course. Orthodox Christians embrace the authority of Scripture as defined in the first seven ecumenical councils in which Christianity assumed much of its historic shape that has persisted for 2,000 years.
I am deeply committed to “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and to the Holy Scriptures, the only infallible repository of redemptive revelation. Both our Lord and His apostles viewed Scripture as the unerring word of God:
Regarding such corruption, said Luther, was the idea that Scripture could be interpreted solely through the teaching Magisterium (the Pope and his bishops). This promoted the notion that written and oral repositories were inaccessible to the average person in the pew. Roman Catholics and Protestants began to view the oral and written repositories of the faith once for all delivered to the saints as distinct and separate sources of Christian faith and practice.
Orthodox Christians do not engage the debate in such terms. Instead, they see the church as the pillar and ground of truth in accord with 1 Timothy 3:15. Because the church is the body of Christ, it is instrumental in dispensing the precious grace of the Holy Spirit. But Scripture is the final authority for teaching and practice (faith and morals).
The people of God must properly interpret the Scriptures according to sound principles of biblical interpretation in conjunction with community memory. Why favor a sixteenth-century Latin speaker over the interpretation of a first- or second-century speaker of secular Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written? An example of such communal memory is found in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:
And even that last statement requires qualification in that when we make such statements we have in mind the original writings, not the manuscript copies or translations.
Note also that even in our day when every household owns one or more Bibles, translation remains an obstacle. Just as a scientist brings his or her presuppositions into the laboratory such that experimental results are inevitably colored by those presuppositions, the same is true with biblical translation. One advantage in Greek Orthodoxy is the emphasis on teaching the Greek language with the result that translation issues are significantly mitigated.
I am deeply committed to “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and to the Holy Scriptures, the only infallible repository of redemptive revelation. Both our Lord and His apostles viewed Scripture as the unerring word of God:
“The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35);When Christ disputed with the Pharisees concerning their view of tradition, Jesus said, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore stands over and judges tradition. But the reality is that pitting apostolic oral tradition against written tradition was unheard of for the first 1500 years of church history. In fact, what precipitated this aspect of the sixteenth-century Reformation was the corruption those such as Martin Luther saw within the medieval Roman Catholic Church.
“Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything has been accomplished” (Matthew 5:18);
“It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17);
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35).
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
Regarding such corruption, said Luther, was the idea that Scripture could be interpreted solely through the teaching Magisterium (the Pope and his bishops). This promoted the notion that written and oral repositories were inaccessible to the average person in the pew. Roman Catholics and Protestants began to view the oral and written repositories of the faith once for all delivered to the saints as distinct and separate sources of Christian faith and practice.
Orthodox Christians do not engage the debate in such terms. Instead, they see the church as the pillar and ground of truth in accord with 1 Timothy 3:15. Because the church is the body of Christ, it is instrumental in dispensing the precious grace of the Holy Spirit. But Scripture is the final authority for teaching and practice (faith and morals).
The people of God must properly interpret the Scriptures according to sound principles of biblical interpretation in conjunction with community memory. Why favor a sixteenth-century Latin speaker over the interpretation of a first- or second-century speaker of secular Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written? An example of such communal memory is found in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:
“What I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15:3–8, emphasis added)The community of Christians following the death of Christ communicated the gospel itself in oral creedal form, which Paul codified in this epistle. Indeed, prior to the closing of the canon of Scripture, the church functioned on the basis of community memory. To say that the Scriptures are the only means by which we can know about Christ and the life and practices of the early church would be short-sighted and historically inaccurate. Indeed, the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ was itself safe-guarded and originally passed on through community memory. Again, however, I do hold that the Scriptures are the only infallible repository of redemptive revelation on which the church bases faith and practice.
And even that last statement requires qualification in that when we make such statements we have in mind the original writings, not the manuscript copies or translations.
Note also that even in our day when every household owns one or more Bibles, translation remains an obstacle. Just as a scientist brings his or her presuppositions into the laboratory such that experimental results are inevitably colored by those presuppositions, the same is true with biblical translation. One advantage in Greek Orthodoxy is the emphasis on teaching the Greek language with the result that translation issues are significantly mitigated.
Q. How does the Orthodox Church respond to the notion of sola fide?
A. I have a great appreciation for taking the complex and making it simple. But sound bites can be dangerous. I would feel much more comfortable using biblical rather than manmade designations. For example, if you want to know about sola fide (faith alone), it’s very helpful to memorize Ephesians 2:8–10:
As Paul put it in Romans, “Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God” (5:2 NKJV).
Moreover, the Eastern Church saw true faith not as a momentary transaction but rather as a transformational way of life. Through His great kindness toward us, we are justified by faith and empowered by the Trinity to give the cup of water and the piece of bread to those in need and, as such, bring glory to God.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”And reread the Epistle of James. It’s short, pithy, and profound, and it lets one know that Christianity is not merely transactional but also transformational in the sense that we are saved by God’s grace through faith on account of Christ, and something happens to us such that we no longer live according to the ways of the world and the desires of the flesh. Now we are building on the foundation of Jesus Christ:
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.” (1 Corinthians 3:11–13)For context, think back to Western Europe before the Reformation. Eastern Christians had no context for the polarization of faith and works. The great ecumenical Councils had long settled this conundrum through the recognition that salvation comes through faith in Christ who fulfills the law.
As Paul put it in Romans, “Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God” (5:2 NKJV).
Moreover, the Eastern Church saw true faith not as a momentary transaction but rather as a transformational way of life. Through His great kindness toward us, we are justified by faith and empowered by the Trinity to give the cup of water and the piece of bread to those in need and, as such, bring glory to God.
Q. I occasionally hear references to the “real presence of Christ.” What is that?
A. Stay tuned. I’m touching on that in the forthcoming book Truth Matters, Life Matters More: Discovering the Authentic Christian Life. But let me give you a hint. There are different views depending on different traditions, but essentially, the “real presence of Christ” means that in the Eucharist (from the Greek for thanksgiving) — or what many Protestants would refer to as “Communion” or “Holy Communion” — Christ is really (and not just symbolically or metaphorically) present.
For the vast majority of church history, all Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even Martin Luther, who wanted badly to disagree with the papists at this point, believed with all his heart in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And so this is not a novel idea. In fact, the idea that communion is solely an occasional remembrance or memorial is the view that is new. As I’ve often said on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, if something is new, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not true. But if something is new, we ought to examine it carefully.
As Timothy Ware has well said:
For the vast majority of church history, all Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even Martin Luther, who wanted badly to disagree with the papists at this point, believed with all his heart in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And so this is not a novel idea. In fact, the idea that communion is solely an occasional remembrance or memorial is the view that is new. As I’ve often said on the Bible Answer Man broadcast, if something is new, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is not true. But if something is new, we ought to examine it carefully.
As Timothy Ware has well said:
“The chief place in Christian worship belongs to the sacraments or, as they are called in Greek, the mysteries. ‘It is called a mystery,’ writes St. John Chrysostom of the Eucharist, ‘because what we believe is not the same as what we see, but we see one thing and believe another….When I hear the Body of Christ mentioned, I understand what is said in one sense, the unbeliever in another.’ This double character, at once outward and inward, is the distinctive feature of a sacrament: the sacraments, like the Church, are both visible and invisible; in every sacrament there is the combination of an outward visible sign with an inward spiritual grace….At the Eucharist he or she receives what appears from the visible point of view to be bread and wine, but in reality is the Body and Blood of Christ.”Ware’s point is that in the Eucharist, believers frequently encounter the mysterium tremendum et fascinans — the mystery that makes us tremble and yet attracts us. The Orthodox community — the early Christian church — never attempted to explain the mystery of the Eucharist any more than they attempted to explain the other two great mysteries of the Christian Faith: The Trinity and the Incarnation. In saying that they did not attempt to explain these mysteries, I simply mean that while there are words to state the doctrine conceptually — read the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed to apprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Creed of Chalcedon to apprehend the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ — we cannot automatically or fully comprehend these mysteries.
Q. What’s with the icons in Greek Orthodox churches? Aren’t they “idols”?
A. Just the other day, an acquaintance walked up to my son Hank Jr. as he was working on his golf routine. In the ensuing conversation, this friend suggested (much to the chagrin of my son) that by worshipping in an Orthodox church, I was in danger of idol worship.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Icons have been used since the earliest days of the Christian church and were commonly found in places of Christian worship. Including symbols such as the cross, the fish, and the lamb, icons have been used to help teach the faithful about God and to aid in prayer and meditation.
In fact, in a very real sense, every church is filled with icons — because every church is filled with people who bear the image and likeness of God and, therefore, are icons of Christ. Icons are windows into another world — windows through which we can glance, as it were, at those who have gone on before. The Christian church does not believe in dead people — for God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matthew 22:32). We hold that Christ, by His resurrection, parted the veil between this world and the next. I think Christians often underappreciate this aspect of the Resurrection, such that in Scripture we see that the great cloud of witnesses — both heavenly saints and earthly saints—in some mysterious sense have been united (Hebrews 12:1–2, 22–24). And thus while we would never pray to saints, we most certainly hope that the saints are praying for us. They are in God’s presence. I ask my family and friends to pray for me — why would I not hope that the saints in the presence of God are praying for me as well?
As I have said many times, when you get to heaven, you will not have less knowledge but more knowledge. Icons are another example for me of God using earthly perceptible realities to point to spiritual verities. These are the windows by which we see the martyrs who have gone on before us. By which we see those saints who have lived exemplary Christian lives we want to emulate.
In Orthodoxy, one may not worship an icon — that would be a grave sin, an abomination. But we can venerate the persons to whom the icons point. My personal favorite icons are of Jesus and Mary. I look at an icon of Mary and think I want to be like her, a meek and lowly servant of the Lord, even though she was chosen to be the one person in all of human history — out of all the billions of people who have lived on the planet — Mary alone was sovereignly selected by God to undo what the first woman did. The first woman was deceived; the second woman conceived the Son of God. And Mary was the instrument through whom God brought His Son into the world in order to redeem the world. What that means is she is an icon or image of Christ so filled with Christ that she becomes the person I most want to emulate.
Also, given the Orthodox perspective on Mary, no one can ever accuse the Church of being patriarchal. The Orthodox chose Mary as the number one icon of Christ, and, as such, the number one person to be venerated (i.e., regarded with great respect). I want my life to reflect the Christ-likeness of Mary, for multitudes the most “God-ized” person in the world.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Icons have been used since the earliest days of the Christian church and were commonly found in places of Christian worship. Including symbols such as the cross, the fish, and the lamb, icons have been used to help teach the faithful about God and to aid in prayer and meditation.
In fact, in a very real sense, every church is filled with icons — because every church is filled with people who bear the image and likeness of God and, therefore, are icons of Christ. Icons are windows into another world — windows through which we can glance, as it were, at those who have gone on before. The Christian church does not believe in dead people — for God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matthew 22:32). We hold that Christ, by His resurrection, parted the veil between this world and the next. I think Christians often underappreciate this aspect of the Resurrection, such that in Scripture we see that the great cloud of witnesses — both heavenly saints and earthly saints—in some mysterious sense have been united (Hebrews 12:1–2, 22–24). And thus while we would never pray to saints, we most certainly hope that the saints are praying for us. They are in God’s presence. I ask my family and friends to pray for me — why would I not hope that the saints in the presence of God are praying for me as well?
As I have said many times, when you get to heaven, you will not have less knowledge but more knowledge. Icons are another example for me of God using earthly perceptible realities to point to spiritual verities. These are the windows by which we see the martyrs who have gone on before us. By which we see those saints who have lived exemplary Christian lives we want to emulate.
In Orthodoxy, one may not worship an icon — that would be a grave sin, an abomination. But we can venerate the persons to whom the icons point. My personal favorite icons are of Jesus and Mary. I look at an icon of Mary and think I want to be like her, a meek and lowly servant of the Lord, even though she was chosen to be the one person in all of human history — out of all the billions of people who have lived on the planet — Mary alone was sovereignly selected by God to undo what the first woman did. The first woman was deceived; the second woman conceived the Son of God. And Mary was the instrument through whom God brought His Son into the world in order to redeem the world. What that means is she is an icon or image of Christ so filled with Christ that she becomes the person I most want to emulate.
Also, given the Orthodox perspective on Mary, no one can ever accuse the Church of being patriarchal. The Orthodox chose Mary as the number one icon of Christ, and, as such, the number one person to be venerated (i.e., regarded with great respect). I want my life to reflect the Christ-likeness of Mary, for multitudes the most “God-ized” person in the world.
Q. Why have significant numbers of Protestants joined the Orthodox Church?
A. Over the last several decades, substantial numbers of Protestants have joined different liturgical churches, including the Orthodox Church, because of the richness of their traditions and worship and the “groundedness” of their history. While literally thousands of Protestant churches have splintered into a doctrinal “free for all” that ranges from soggy liberalism to the prosperity gospel, Orthodoxy continues in unity to adhere to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Q. Is the Greek Orthodox Church really all that different from Roman Catholicism?
A. First, I should say that some of the greatest logical minds and finest Christian apologists have hailed from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That said, there are a number of important differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
I’ve said consistently that the RCC is a true church with what I believe to be significant error. Neither I nor the Christian Research Institute have ever said that the RCC is a false church with some truth. No, it is a true church.
For the first millennium of church history, there was essentially one orthodox New Testament faith rooted in seven ancient ecumenical councils. This may well have remained so had it not been for the Bishop of Rome assuming dominance and, apart from an ecumenical council, altering the universal creed of the church. Since the Great Schism (1054), Catholicism has deviated from Orthodoxy in significant ways. For example, Roman Catholicism forwards the notion that in the intermediate state after death, there are certain sins that can be atoned for by way of temporal punishment in purgatory. Orthodoxy considers the notion of purgation — defined by the Council of Florence (fifteenth century) and defended by the Council of Trent (sixteenth century) — to be a late innovation lacking precedence in both Scripture and the teachings of the Fathers. In distinction to the Catholic idea of purgatory, the Orthodox community views the intermediate state as a foretaste of either eternal reward or eternal punishment, both of which are ultimately fixed on the Day of Judgment.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are also divided on the validity of papal infallibility (the idea that when the pope speaks ex cathedra — “from the chair” — he does so infallibly). Case in point: in 1950, Pope Pius XII dogmatized the widely held view that Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Orthodoxy resists such unilateral dogmatization. From the Orthodox perspective, papal infallibility — defined during the first Vatican council in 1870 — has no basis in the creeds and confessions of the historic Christian faith.
Likewise, Orthodoxy considers the Immaculate Conception — defined by Pope Pius IX in the 1854 bull Ineffabilis Deus — an unwarranted innovation. According to this Catholic dogma, from the moment of conception, Mary was kept free from the stain of all original sin. While Orthodoxy venerates Mary, they hold that she was born with the same broken nature as all other human beings.
In sum, unlike Protestantism, which shares a common history and geography with Catholicism, Orthodoxy was not a part of the Western narrative. They did not have a Reformation, did not participate in the selling of indulgences, and did not subscribe to such dogmas as limbo or the celibacy of the priesthood.
I’ve said consistently that the RCC is a true church with what I believe to be significant error. Neither I nor the Christian Research Institute have ever said that the RCC is a false church with some truth. No, it is a true church.
For the first millennium of church history, there was essentially one orthodox New Testament faith rooted in seven ancient ecumenical councils. This may well have remained so had it not been for the Bishop of Rome assuming dominance and, apart from an ecumenical council, altering the universal creed of the church. Since the Great Schism (1054), Catholicism has deviated from Orthodoxy in significant ways. For example, Roman Catholicism forwards the notion that in the intermediate state after death, there are certain sins that can be atoned for by way of temporal punishment in purgatory. Orthodoxy considers the notion of purgation — defined by the Council of Florence (fifteenth century) and defended by the Council of Trent (sixteenth century) — to be a late innovation lacking precedence in both Scripture and the teachings of the Fathers. In distinction to the Catholic idea of purgatory, the Orthodox community views the intermediate state as a foretaste of either eternal reward or eternal punishment, both of which are ultimately fixed on the Day of Judgment.
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are also divided on the validity of papal infallibility (the idea that when the pope speaks ex cathedra — “from the chair” — he does so infallibly). Case in point: in 1950, Pope Pius XII dogmatized the widely held view that Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Orthodoxy resists such unilateral dogmatization. From the Orthodox perspective, papal infallibility — defined during the first Vatican council in 1870 — has no basis in the creeds and confessions of the historic Christian faith.
Likewise, Orthodoxy considers the Immaculate Conception — defined by Pope Pius IX in the 1854 bull Ineffabilis Deus — an unwarranted innovation. According to this Catholic dogma, from the moment of conception, Mary was kept free from the stain of all original sin. While Orthodoxy venerates Mary, they hold that she was born with the same broken nature as all other human beings.
In sum, unlike Protestantism, which shares a common history and geography with Catholicism, Orthodoxy was not a part of the Western narrative. They did not have a Reformation, did not participate in the selling of indulgences, and did not subscribe to such dogmas as limbo or the celibacy of the priesthood.
Q. As Christians, we seem to have mastered the art of rejecting those who don’t agree with our often rigid doctrinal formulations or denominational traditions? What’s up with that?
A. As an old proverb puts it, “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” Simply put, we are to a significant degree the products of our upbringing, our personal histories, and our highly subjective experiences — be those narrow or broad. Heeding Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17, CRI seeks to judiciously avoid the divisions and rancor wrought by a misguided focus on nonessentials. We have always embraced the axiom “In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”
Everyone approaches facts with a set of presuppositions, and we all need to be mindful of our paradigms — that set of beliefs we hold about the nature of reality along with corresponding community habits.
One of the persistent and pervasive problems associated with paradigms is that given the transactional nature of perception, we don’t think about them nearly as much as we think with them. Paradigms function unconsciously as frames and filters. That is, paradigms often serve as a set of blinders, limiting our peripheral vision and screening out data incompatible with our existing conceptual structures and values.
In short, we generally see only what our paradigms allow us to see. And unless we are unusually alert, there is a predictable tendency, sadly, to confuse our psychological certainty with epistemological validity. Left to ourselves, we tend to cloister within our own socio-psycho-epistemological echo-chambers.
When we are able to more objectively and dispassionately evaluate our presuppositions and paradigms, we often discover they are faulty. Unfortunately, no human being enjoys the gift of “immaculate perception.”
Everyone approaches facts with a set of presuppositions, and we all need to be mindful of our paradigms — that set of beliefs we hold about the nature of reality along with corresponding community habits.
One of the persistent and pervasive problems associated with paradigms is that given the transactional nature of perception, we don’t think about them nearly as much as we think with them. Paradigms function unconsciously as frames and filters. That is, paradigms often serve as a set of blinders, limiting our peripheral vision and screening out data incompatible with our existing conceptual structures and values.
In short, we generally see only what our paradigms allow us to see. And unless we are unusually alert, there is a predictable tendency, sadly, to confuse our psychological certainty with epistemological validity. Left to ourselves, we tend to cloister within our own socio-psycho-epistemological echo-chambers.
When we are able to more objectively and dispassionately evaluate our presuppositions and paradigms, we often discover they are faulty. Unfortunately, no human being enjoys the gift of “immaculate perception.”
Q. To better understand Orthodox beliefs, can you suggest some reading?
A. For starters, try Frederica Mathewes-Green, Welcome to the Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity (Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2015) and
Michael Shanbour, Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2016).
Michael Shanbour, Know the Faith: A Handbook for Orthodox Christians and Inquirers (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2016).
Being a perfectionist, I do not normally allow my private impromptu answers to be put in print. However, given that there are so many that are asking questions regarding my place of worship, I was willing to provide my preliminary thinking on the questions raised above. Again, I am grateful to my staff for adding biblical citations and quotations. If there is one final thought I would like to leave you with for now, it is this: the entirety of my perspective is ultimately governed by a deep desire to order my life and that of my family around the divine. Blessings, dear friends.
—Hank Hanegraaff
Source:
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Quote by St. Silouan the Athonite ~ Regarding Understanding
There are people who, when they encounter inability to understand, do not ask the Lord. But one must immediately say, "Lord, I am a sinful man and I don't understand as I should. But give me understanding, merciful One, as to how I must proceed." And the merciful Lord then inspires them as to what to do and what not to do.
(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, XX.4)
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Quote by St. Theophan the Recluse ~ Sincere Faith
Sincere faith is the renunciation of your own mind. It is necessary to make your mind naked and present it like a clean chalkboard to faith, so that she can draw herself on it like she is, without any without any admixture of foreign sayings and attitudes. When the mind's own attitudes remain within it, then, after the attitudes of faith are written on it, there appears a mixture of attitudes. The mind will be confused, encountering contradictions between the actions of faith and the sophistries of the mind. Thus are all who approach the region of faith with their own sophistries... They are confused in the faith, and nothing comes of it but harm.
(St. Theophan the Recluse, Thought for Every Day of the Year, 11.04)
source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)