NT contents and is authority needed?

[Radagast]

Claiming it's a later distinction doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does. When the NT canon was settled, there was only one Church.

 

[JM]

Yes it does. When the NT canon was settled, there was only one Church.

So I'm asking you to identify it today without using anachronisms.

 

[Radagast]

So I'm asking you to identify it today without using anachronisms.

If you mean the 4th century Christian church, I identify it as the 4th century Christian church.

 

[JM]

Your argument is based on identifying State recognized ecclesiastical bodies, based in secular history and your personal human ability to judge what is true.

Thanks for proving my point.

By the way, your very honest to admit your church started in the 4th century, that was a common criticism made by Christians called Protestants.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Claiming it's a later distinction doesn't answer the question.

At least Anastasia admits they are all valid, equal options...even if you deny appealing to authority by appealing to authority. lol

Once I ask what makes one "catholic" you must appeal to some authority for a definition. It could be sacred or profane history but it's still an outside authority.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I don't understand your question. Or maybe you don't understand what I'm saying?

The Church was the authority. At the time the books of Scripture were being established and recognized (meaning they were being accepted and read in local churches everywhere) ... Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, and far-flung churches such as Egypt, east, west .... all were included. This WAS the one Holy catholic and apostolic Church. She was THE authority.

We know the history of who left when, and why. But at the time letters and writings were being circulated and either recognized, accepted, and read - or else rejected - there had not yet been any major schism.

So no, I'm not saying by that to mean that any and all purported authorities today are automatically equal. I mean there was as yet only a single authority.

One can debate the claims to authority after schisms but as yet there had been none. So I don't see how I'm saying various authorities today are equal.

I'm not interested in arguing, but just don't wish to be misrepresented.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you mean unfavourably? I know Origen preached on the epistle, but he seemed uncertain of its canonicity.

Eusebius writes: "It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."

I was going by memory, and so may have been incorrect. Also Eusebius there is referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Doing a bit of digging I found this from St. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus,

"The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of," -De Viris Illustribus, ch. 2

Thus at least by Jerome's reckoning Origen made use of it, according to the Wiki article on the GoH,

"The Alexandrian Fathers – Clement, Origen, and Didymus the Blind – relied directly on the gospel to provide prooftexts as a supplement to the canonical gospels." - Gospel of the Hebrews - Wikipedia

Which comes across less that it was considered possibly canonical, and more that some made use of it on occasion to back up statements from the Canonical Gospels.

Of Eusebius, he describes it as notha, "spurious",

"Among the rejected [νόθοις, nothois, "spurious" "counterfeit"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. [ἀντιλεγομένων antilegomenon]" - Church History, Book III, Ch. 25:4-5

For Eusebius, these are all classified as both spurious and disputed, it would seem.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JM]

I don't understand your question. Or maybe you don't understand what I'm saying?

The Church was the authority.

No, I understood.

Like Rag, your argument is based on identifying State recognized ecclesiastical bodies, based in secular history and your personal human ability to judge what is true. None of these bodies could be recognized as "Orthodox or Roman" until the 4th century. Sure, that's old, but you are still appealing to an outside authority based on your personal preferences (a priori).

 

[ViaCrucis]

By the way, your very honest to admit your church started in the 4th century, that was a common criticism made by Christians called Protestants.

Anastasia's Church didn't start in the 4th century. Historically minded and traditional Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, recognize that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The history of that Church is, to put it mildly, complicated.

As a Lutheran I confess one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; as a Lutheran I do not regard Lutheranism to be a break-off from the catholic Church or a new church, but a continuation of the historic catholic Church. That is asserted in the Lutheran Confessions themselves (specifically Article XXI of the Augsburg Confession). The reason for a division between Lutherans and Catholics is part of that very messy, complicated history; and that division is not something that should be celebrated, but mourned. Division in Christ's Body is tragic, this lack of communion we have is a bad thing, Christ wants His people to be united.

Your statement concerning "that was a common criticism made by Christians called Protestants" isn't really true outside of the most radical and extreme sects; this certainly isn't a criticism of the Reformers themselves, or of the historic Protestant bodies. Neo-Protestant anti-Catholicism frequently appeals to this criticism which is made without merit. No new church began in the 4th century, the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire does not a new church make.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, I understood.

Like Rag, your argument is based on identifying State recognized ecclesiastical bodies, based in secular history and your personal human ability to judge what is true. None of these bodies could be recognized as "Orthodox or Roman" until the 4th century. Sure, that's old, but you are still appealing to an outside authority based on your personal preferences (a priori).

Your argument is historically invalid. The Church of the 4th century is no different than the Church of the 3rd century, or the Church of the 2nd century, or the Church of the 1st century. The historical revisionism entertained by Neo-Protestantism has no foundation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

Your argument is based on identifying State recognized ecclesiastical bodies, based in secular history and your personal human ability to judge what is true.

Huh?

By the way, your very honest to admit your church started in the 4th century

Didn't say that. But the 4th century was about when the NT canon was finally 100% settled.

And you have no idea what "my church" is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And you have no idea what "my church" is.

Seems to be a case of "Roman, until proven innocent".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

I was going by memory, and so may have been incorrect. Also Eusebius there is referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Oh, my mistake. I misread your post. Afaik it's hazy what the name "Gospel according to the Hebrews" refers to, since no such gospel survives.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, I understood.

Like Rag, your argument is based on identifying State recognized ecclesiastical bodies, based in secular history and your personal human ability to judge what is true. None of these bodies could be recognized as "Orthodox or Roman" until the 4th century. Sure, that's old, but you are still appealing to an outside authority based on your personal preferences (a priori).

No, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding me. Or reading everything through an overlay of your particular opinion.

No offense intended. I'm talking about how the Church functioned historically and the organic process through which Scripture (NT) was recognized.

I'm not interested in arguing though. What either of us say won't change what actually happened, and how.

I see others are filling in with facts as well, thankfully.

I am a bit curious what your basic point is ... if you question the authority by which we receive Scripture, are you questioning Scripture's authority as well?

 

[JM]

Anastasia's Church didn't start in the 4th century. Historically minded and traditional Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, recognize that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The history of that Church is, to put it mildly, complicated.

As a Lutheran I confess one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church...

Actually you missed my point. As a Lutheran you are mixing the two ideas of the invisible church and the visible church. Anastasia's church was given authority in the 4th century. It is during this time we have the Marian dogmas, liturgical developments, etc. That is what I was referring to.

https://wels.net/gods-church-invisible-yet-visible/

Augustine Collective | The Visible and Invisible Church

Church invisible - Wikipedia

Lutheran Theology Study Group: Luther's Concept of the True/Hidden and Visible Church

Trinity Lutheran Church - Austin, TX - Living With an Invisible God and Visible People (5/28/00)

Your argument is historically invalid. The Church of the 4th century is no different than the Church of the 3rd century, or the Church of the 2nd century, or the Church of the 1st century. The historical revisionism entertained by Neo-Protestantism has no foundation.

-CryptoLutheran

"So we confess the church hidden and visible. Apology VII states that “the church is not only an association of external ties and rites like other civic organizations, but it is principally an association of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the people” (Ap VII:5). Further: “If we define the church only in terms of an external government consisting of both the good and wicked, people will not understand that the kingdom of Christ is the righteousness of the heart and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead they will think that it is only the external observance of certain religious rites and rituals” (Ap VII:13). The church is not a creature of the law but a creature of the gospel."

Are you a Lutheran or not? Why the 'crypto?'

Recently I was asked, “why do you refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a denomination and former State Church?”

When I refer to the Eastern Orthodox denomination as such I honestly mean no disrespect. I am trying to deal honestly with history as I have come to understand it and help others to understand the development of the denomination over time. One simply has to look at the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches to find evidence of this. Both Eastern Orthodox Church bodies were tied to the secular State and influenced by the State.

Unfortunately, faith in a Church hierarchy can create blinders to the truth and many Orthodox Christians fail to see what seems obvious to others. In Philip Jenkins book on the First World War titled The Great and Holy War he explains;

“The Orthodox church operated in intimate alliance with the imperial authorities, from which it drew its power and wealth. From the time of Peter the Great, in the 1700’s, the church’s ancient patriarchate ceased to function, leaving the church as a virtual arm of the government. It was supervised by a Holy Synod appointed by the Tsar and under the authority of a cabinet-level imperial official.”

“For many Orthodox thinkers, moreover, rival Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, were only in the most technical sense fellow believers or brothers, and as such they deserved little more political consideration than did Muslims or Jews.”

“The causes of the monarchy, empire, and church were all one, and they merged into a messianic vision of the Tsarists regime…”

Many examples can be found throughout history where the Eastern Orthodox Church worked hand in hand with the State to accomplish the States goals. I have already detailed how that played out in the Controversy Over Images. The State continuously waged a war for the use of Icons until the Church relented and this happened only after murdering their opponents and replacing the Patriarch with a layman.

Even today Russian President Vladimir Putin is using the Eastern Orthodox Church to rally neo-nationalism while the Orthodox Church receives benefits from the government. After much reading on the matter, using secular and Christian sources, I have to concluded that Eastern Orthodoxy is a former State Church that carries a lot of historical baggage linked with Byzantine and other political intrigue. This often affected doctrine and relations even if the outward ritual and ceremony remained the same. If Putin has his way the Eastern Orthodox might become a State Church once again.

Yours in Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Those who speak of a holy tradition or deny scripture as the only rule of faith speak as if traditions is a living thing, and it was recently pointed out recently by Pope Francis, something that can change. Anyone who tells you they have a living tradition doesn’t really have a tradition at all. If we sat down to play a game of Cribbage and the rules of the game are living rules, meaning that under certain circumstances 15 now equals 10 instead of 2, you would find it unsettling. There would be no restraint on the changing of the rules just as there is no restraint on tradition. What we have in place of scripture is a Pope and/or majority vote. I do not agree with Eastern Orthodoxy and find it to be as false as Roman Catholicism but it’s critiques of Romanism are useful to see how traditions become muddled and confused.

The Papacy: Its Historic Origins

Which Tradition? Orthodoxy or Roman?

Tradition Wars (not EO but worth a look)

Differences

Orthodoxy is not off the hook either. Why is a static authority needed you may ask?

Most Protestants have never heard of “Aerial Toll Houses.” The idea of Aerial Toll Houses are built upon some personal revelations of Eastern Orthodox saints, Tradition and a verse or two from scripture. Father Thomas Hopko stated on an episode of The Illumined Heart that virtually every church Father held some form of this doctrine. According to Eastern Orthodox Tradition the soul, when it leaves the body, must go through a series of “Aerial Toll Houses” which are essentially check points and the last chance demons have to encourage you to sin. Eastern Orthodoxy believes these check points are spiritual, not literal, and will affect how one receives Particular Judgement. It is believed that a departed soul awaits The Last and Final Judgement of Christ in a conscious blessed or tormented state, depending on your deeds and moral behaviour. Justification is always a future event for the Orthodox. When the soul and body separate it is believed, that demons have 20 “last ditch” efforts to rob you to your merit (so to speak) after physical death. The most detailed vision of Aerial Toll Houses was given to Gregory of Thrace in the 10th century which include:

• At the first aerial toll-house, the soul is questioned about sins of the tongue, such as empty words, dirty talk, insults, ridicule, singing worldly songs, too much or loud laughter, and similar sins.
• The second is the toll-house of lies, which includes not only ordinary lies, but also the breaking of oaths, the violation of vows given to God, taking God’s name in vain, hiding sins during confession, and similar acts.
• The third is the toll-house of slander. It includes judging, humiliating, embarrassing, mocking, and laughing at people, and similar transgressions.
• The fourth is the toll-house of gluttony, which includes overeating, drunkenness, eating between meals, eating without prayer, not holding fasts, choosing tasty over plain food, eating when not hungry, and the like.
• The fifth is the toll-house of laziness, where the soul is held accountable for every day and hour spent in laziness, for neglecting to serve God and pray, for missing Church services, and also for not earning money through hard, honest labor, for not working as much as you are paid, and all similar sins.
• The sixth toll-house is the toll-house of theft, which includes stealing and robbery, whether small, big, light, violent, public, or hidden.
• The seventh is the toll-house of covetousness, including love of riches and goods, failure to give to charity, and similar acts.
• The eight is the toll-house of usury, loan-sharking, overpricing, and similar sins.
• The ninth is the toll-house of injustice- being unjust, especially in judicial affairs, accepting or giving bribes, dishonest trading and business, using false measures, and similar sins.
• The tenth is the toll-house of envy.
• The eleventh is the toll-house of pride- vanity, self-will, boasting, not honoring parents and civil authorities, insubordination, disobedience, and similar sins.
• The twelve is the toll-house of anger and rage.
• The thirteenth is the toll-house of remembering evil- hatred, holding a grudge, and revenge.
• The fourteenth is the toll-house of murder- not just plain murder, but also wounding, maiming, hitting, pushing, and generally injuring people.
• The fifteenth is the toll-house of magic- divination, conjuring demons, making poison, all superstitions, and associated acts.
• The sixteenth is the toll-house of lust- fornication, unclean thoughts, lustful looks, unchaste touches.
• The seventeenth is the toll-house of adultery.
• The eighteenth is the toll-house of sodomy: inappropriate behavior with animals, homosexuality, incest, masturbation, and all other unnatural sins.
• The nineteenth is the toll-house of heresy: rejecting any part of Orthodox faith, wrongly interpreting it, apostasy, blasphemy, and all similar sins.
• The last, twentieth toll-house is the toll-house of unmercifulness: failing to show mercy and charity to people, and being cruel in any way. (source Wikipedia)

To better understand the Eastern Orthodox position I have read two titles, one that should be foundational for anyone interested in understanding Orthodoxy, the second deals with the subject of Aerial Toll Houses specifically. They are, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky and The Soul After Death by Seraphim Rose (often considered a Saint). I’ve read through both titles making plenty of notes along the way but for the sake of this blog post I’ll keep it short and simple.

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky on the subject of toll-houses from Orthodox Dogmatics:

“Due to the availability of the Lives of Saints, the account of the toll-houses by the righteous Theodora, depicted by her in detail by Saint Basil the New in his dream, has become especially well known. Dreams in general express the state of soul of a given man, and in special cases are also authentic visions of the souls of the departed in their earthly form. The account of Theodora has characteristics both of one and the other. The idea that good spirits, our guardian angels, as well as the spirits of evil under heaven participate in the fate of man (after death) finds confirmation in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus immediately after death was brought by angels to the bosom of Abraham. In another parable the unrighteous man heard these words: “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee” (Luke 12:20); evidently, the ones who “require” are none else than the same “spirits of wickedness under the heavens.”

In accordance with simple logic and as also confirmed by the Word of God the soul immediately after its separation from the body enters into a sphere where its further fate is defined. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement,” we read in the Apostle Paul (Heb. 9:27). This is the Particular Judgement, which is independent of the universal Last Judgement. [end quote]

We see an argument being made from selected traditions, upon a dream and poor eisegesis and use the above example as a typical misuse of the Bible. Let me point out the portion from Hebrews where we read of the result of Christ’s atonement:

“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

The offering Christ made on behave of His people always results in the perfection and sanctification of them. In contrast to the Eastern Orthodox teaching scripture states we are sanctified by Christ alone through faith.

“…with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised”

For a more detailed response A. W. Pink’s Exposition on Hebrews is to be recommended. Using the text of Hebrews Pink demonstrates the fallacious use of Hebrews 9.27 for the shameless proof-texting it is.

First, that the “offering” (verse 25) and “suffering” (verse 26) of Christ are inseparable. It was in and by His suffering that the Lord Jesus offered Himself unto God, and that because He was Himself both the Priest and the Sacrifice. Aaron “offered” repeatedly, yet he never once “suffered,” for he was not the sacrifice itself. It was the bullock which was slain, that suffered. But Christ being both Priest and Sacrifice could not “offer” without “suffering,” and herein does the force of the argument principally consist. The very especial nature of Christ’s offering or sacrifice, which was by the shedding of His blood in death, precluded a repetition thereof.

Second, the apostle’s argument here is also built on the fact that there was a necessity for the expiation of the sin of all that were to be saved from the foundation of the world. Sin entered the world immediately after it was founded, by the apostasy of our first parents. Notwithstanding, numbers of sinners, as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and the spiritual remnant in Israel had their sins pardoned and were eternally saved; yet no sacrifice which they offered could remit moral guilt or redeem their souls. No; their salvation was also effected by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence it follows unavoidably that unless the merits of His own one offering extended unto the taking away of all their sins, then either He must have suffered often, or they perish. Contrariwise, seeing that elect sinners were saved through Christ “from the foundation of the world,” much more will the virtues of the Great Sacrifice extend unto the end of the world.

“But now,” not at the beginning of human history; “once,” that is, once for all, never to be repeated; “in the end of the world,” or in “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). This expression “end of the world” or more literally, “consummation of the ages” is here used antithetically from “since the foundation of the world” which usually has reference to the first entrance of sin into the world. and God’s dispensation of grace in Christ thereon; as “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4, etc.) expresses eternity and God’s counsels therein. The Divine distinctions of time with respect to God’s grace toward His Church, may be referred to three general heads: that before the law, during the law, and since the incarnation of Christ unto the end of the world. This last season, absolutely considered, is called the “fullness of times” (Eph. 1:10), when all that God had designed in the dispensation of His grace was come to a head, and wherein no alteration should be made till the earth was no more.

“Hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” He “appeared” here on earth (the Greek word is quite different from the one used in verse 24): of old He had been obscurely shadowed forth in types, but now He was “manifest in flesh” (1 Tim. 3:10). The end or purpose of this appearing of Christ was to “put away sin”—the Greek word is a very strong one, and is rendered “disannuling” in Hebrews 7:18. Let it be carefully noted that this declaration is made only as it respects the Church of Christ. He made a complete atonement for all the sin of all His people, receiving its wages, expiating its guilt, destroying its dominion. The results are that, when God applies to the penitent believer the virtues of Christ’s sacrifice, all condemnation is removed (Rom. 8:1), and its reigning power is destroyed (Rom. 6:14).

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (verses 27, 28). In these verses the apostle concludes his exposition of the causes, nature, designs and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, wherewith the new covenant was dedicated and confirmed. In them a three-fold confirmation is made of the uniqueness and sufficiency of the Savior’s atonement. First a comparison is drawn: pointed by the “as” and “so”. Second a declaration is made as to why Christ died: it was to “bear the sins of many.” Third, the resultant consequence of this is stated at the end of verse 28. [end quote]

In “The Soul After Death” Seraphim Rose relies on similar argumentation for Aerial Toll Houses. A few quick points:

1. Rose explains the “out of body” or after death occult experiences and, using descriptions of the accounts, explains how they are similar to Eastern Orthodox teaching. He struggles to create differences between the two beliefs but they are very similar.
2. Rose (and Pomazansky) rarely quote scripture and when they do it’s out of context.
3. Eastern Orthodox experiences of Toll Houses are accepted without criticism. The occult experiences are outright denied even when strikingly similar. One troubling detail, the Orthodox are surrounded and attacked by demons, while the non Orthodox are usually at peace and rest.
4. Rose accepts the teaching on Toll Houses without attempting to provide argumentation for it. It’s accepted without pause.
5. The emphasis throughout both works is the sinner and the sinners ability to perform works and to live morally, almost as if training to outrun their attacks after death, thus escaping the snares of demons.
6. St. Mary, Guardian Angels and Saints are viewed as guiding and guarding the soul after death with the prayers of the faithful living relieving the suffering of departed souls. These are the means by which God is said to save a soul, through St. Mary, Angels and the intercession of Saints, what is often lacking is an emphasis on Christ alone to save. There is an edifice built around Christ that obscures Him.
7. Christ is mentioned in the “out of body” occult experiences more often than in Rose’s account of the Eastern Orthodox description. That is the impression.
8. The final court of appeal for both Rose and Pomazansky are the subjective experiences recorded in Eastern Orthodox tradition.

In chapter 10, Rose uses the letters of John of Shanghai and San Francisco (St. John Maximovitch) as an authority to provide more details of this teaching.

According to John of Shanghai and San Francisco the soul is hindered by the body and becomes more active after death. This struck me as a Gnostic holdover. It is admitted that all cultures have after death or “out of body” experiences and again, the Eastern Orthodox teaching is not examined but stated and believed without criticism. In the letters we read that a soul has two days to linger on earth, visiting places that were special to the individual when alive, but on the 3rd day the soul moves into “another spheres” and “passes through legions of evil spirits which obstruct its path and accuse if of various revelations…”

According to The Soul After Death the soul visits heavenly habitations and hell for 37 days, still not knowing where it will end up… On the 40th day the soul will stop in heaven or hell until the Last or Final Judgement. This is considered a taste of blessedness or torment. The Priest may offer a Liturgy (similar to the Roman Catholic Mass) and prayers on behalf of the deceased resulting in a change in the departed soul.

A word in closing:

I’m left haunted by this seemly pagan teaching founded on a dream, a nightmare and forced upon the scriptures. It maybe true, that this doctrine of Aerial Toll Houses is not considered universally “orthodox” by the Orthodox, but it is still embraced by millions of Eastern Orthodox believers. It is considered “dogma” by a large portion of the Eastern Church. It’s soul shaking to think that for 1,500 years Christians in the East have believed in such a doctrine, one that utterly lacks confidence in Christ to save, that places such emphasis on fallen sinners to evade demons and find rest for their wicked souls. It’s haunting to think that even after death we have to struggle to prove our faithfulness to Christ before we can enter our eternal rest. There is no rest in Christ for the Orthodox. The idea that demonic powers are seeking to “devour the soul of the spiritually weak,” even after death, robs Christ of His promises to save by faith alone. Simple, heartfelt faith in Christ’s work on the Cross is almost never in view. For the Orthodox the sinner is on a constant hamster wheel of merit and faith, faith and merit never finding rest.

I will end with 1 John 5.11-13 and with an old prayer:

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Let us prayer:

O God, most high, most glorious, the thought of Your infinite serenity cheers me, for I am toiling and moiling, troubled and distressed, but You are for ever at perfect peace. Your designs cause You no fear or care of unfulfilment, they stand fast as the eternal hills. Your power knows no bond, Your goodness no stint. You bring order out of confusion, and my defeats are Your victories: The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I come to You as a sinner with cares and sorrows, to leave every concern entirely to You, every sin calling for Christ’s precious blood; revive deep spirituality in my heart; let me live near to the great Shepherd, hear His voice, know its tones, follow its calls. Keep me from deception by causing me to abide in the truth, from harm by helping me to walk in the power of the Spirit. Give me intenser faith in the eternal verities, burning into me by experience the things I know; Let me never be ashamed of the truth of the gospel, that I may bear its reproach, vindicate it, see Jesus as its essence, know in it the power of the Spirit.

Lord, help me, for I am often lukewarm and chill; unbelief mars my confidence, sin makes me forget You. Let the weeds that grow in my soul be cut at their roots; grant me to know that I truly live only when I live to You, that all else is trifling. Your presence alone can make me holy, devout, strong and happy.

Abide in me, gracious God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

No, I'm afraid you are misunderstanding me. Or reading everything through an overlay of your particular opinion.

We all do that, read or understand what's in front of us through our own presuppositions. I mentioned that in my response above.

No offense intended. I'm talking about how the Church functioned historically and the organic process through which Scripture (NT) was recognized.

I'm not offended and I hope I do not offend. I'm pressed for time and post rapidly. Protestants including Lutherans wouldn't point to a historical church body and say, "that is THE church" rather, we would say the church has always existed and functioned from the beginning, believers being apart of the church invisible.

I'm not interested in arguing though. What either of us say won't change what actually happened, and how.

That's like saying, "I'm entrenched in my views so it doesn't matter what you post." lol that's ok.

I see others are filling in with facts as well, thankfully.

Crypto is hiding something. It's in his name! lol He's actually not posting what Lutherans believe so please see the links.

I am a bit curious what your basic point is ... if you question the authority by which we receive Scripture, are you questioning Scripture's authority as well?

My point is simply thus...Traditionalists are not in a better position than Protestants because all our appeals to authority are circle.

(I've used bold to show where I've altered the original for posting purposes.)

Both RC and EO based their authority what they they can infer, their respective bodies, infer, "from historical observations, and its private biblical interpretations, that it alone has the note of infallibility. Using so-called spiral reasoning, it is then a simple matter to conclude that whatever an infallible church infers, its inference must be more than just that - it must be infallible fact."

"In addition, outside opinions which state that the Church... is not infallible are held up as the erroneous conclusions that are inevitable without the divine insight that (EO/RC) alone enjoys. This is the groundwork by which the Church... genuinely perceives its obligation to control all biblical translation and interpretation."

So yes, it doesn't matter what I post, it's all false based on your circle reasoning.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, JM, you have taken a particular doctrine of the Orthodox Church (and yes it is a doctrine) and yet confused and misunderstood it terribly. There is a reason why we handle such topics with EXTREME caution, especially for newly Orthodox, let alone those who don't have the context of the Church teaching as a whole to fall back on.

Of course there are different kinds of beliefs in Christianity.

If one believes that they can say a prayer, and by that become "saved" and then go on to live a life of depravity, satisfying their own flesh, robbing widows and orphans, and when they die God is going to see if they checked off that prayer box and then be OBLIGATED to allow them into heaven, even if they despise God in their hearts as well as their fellow man - then they might as well stop reading now. We aren't going to agree on anything. However, I have thankfully found very, very few to believe such nonsense.

On the other hand, if you believe SAVING FAITH must be real, can be shown by one's life as St. James writes, and that we must persevere in the faith as St. Paul admonishes, and will serve to transform us into Chrustlikeness as St. Paul also writes, well, that's what we believe.

Tollhouses - no there are no literal boxes in the sky manned by demons who must be paid off. It is safest to say that the soul is vulnerable to temptation by demons throughout life ... and life includes the process of death. We understand that demons can approach and why would they give up their last chance to try to get a soul to apostatize? It is their final opportunity, and at the same time we are potentially at our weakest, if we fear death or are suddenly overcome with the realization that by losing our bodies we are going to lose our ability to enjoy certain freshly pleasures, and so on. It's a perfect opportunity for temptation, for some. It is foolishness and perhaps unpreparedness to think it cannot happen as one dies, the temptation to doubt God.

But I fear you read various things that we ourselves do not read without guidance, confuse spiritual with literal, and presumably your motive appears to be to discredit Orthodoxy (I still have to wonder why, given the thread topic of authority to establish Scripture, given that it WAS recognized and canonized by the Church ... I never saw you as wishing to undermine Scripture, so what's your point here?)

But this one needs to not go unanswered. You have confused yourself, but it is a disservice to confuse others.

Those who speak of a holy tradition or deny scripture as the only rule of faith speak as if traditions is a living thing, and it was recently pointed out recently by Pope Francis, something that can change. Anyone who tells you they have a living tradition doesn’t really have a tradition at all. If we sat down to play a game of Cribbage and the rules of the game are living rules, meaning that under certain circumstances 15 now equals 10 instead of 2, you would find it unsettling. There would be no restraint on the changing of the rules just as there is no restraint on tradition. What we have in place of scripture is a Pope and/or majority vote. I do not agree with Eastern Orthodoxy and find it to be as false as Roman Catholicism but it’s critiques of Romanism are useful to see how traditions become muddled and confused.

The Papacy: Its Historic Origins

Which Tradition? Orthodoxy or Roman?

Tradition Wars (not EO but worth a look)

Differences

Orthodoxy is not off the hook either. Why is a static authority needed you may ask?

Most Protestants have never heard of “Aerial Toll Houses.” The idea of Aerial Toll Houses are built upon some personal revelations of Eastern Orthodox saints, Tradition and a verse or two from scripture. Father Thomas Hopko stated on an episode of The Illumined Heart that virtually every church Father held some form of this doctrine. According to Eastern Orthodox Tradition the soul, when it leaves the body, must go through a series of “Aerial Toll Houses” which are essentially check points and the last chance demons have to encourage you to sin. Eastern Orthodoxy believes these check points are spiritual, not literal, and will affect how one receives Particular Judgement. It is believed that a departed soul awaits The Last and Final Judgement of Christ in a conscious blessed or tormented state, depending on your deeds and moral behaviour. Justification is always a future event for the Orthodox. When the soul and body separate it is believed, that demons have 20 “last ditch” efforts to rob you to your merit (so to speak) after physical death. The most detailed vision of Aerial Toll Houses was given to Gregory of Thrace in the 10th century which include:

• At the first aerial toll-house, the soul is questioned about sins of the tongue, such as empty words, dirty talk, insults, ridicule, singing worldly songs, too much or loud laughter, and similar sins.
• The second is the toll-house of lies, which includes not only ordinary lies, but also the breaking of oaths, the violation of vows given to God, taking God’s name in vain, hiding sins during confession, and similar acts.
• The third is the toll-house of slander. It includes judging, humiliating, embarrassing, mocking, and laughing at people, and similar transgressions.
• The fourth is the toll-house of gluttony, which includes overeating, drunkenness, eating between meals, eating without prayer, not holding fasts, choosing tasty over plain food, eating when not hungry, and the like.
• The fifth is the toll-house of laziness, where the soul is held accountable for every day and hour spent in laziness, for neglecting to serve God and pray, for missing Church services, and also for not earning money through hard, honest labor, for not working as much as you are paid, and all similar sins.
• The sixth toll-house is the toll-house of theft, which includes stealing and robbery, whether small, big, light, violent, public, or hidden.
• The seventh is the toll-house of covetousness, including love of riches and goods, failure to give to charity, and similar acts.
• The eight is the toll-house of usury, loan-sharking, overpricing, and similar sins.
• The ninth is the toll-house of injustice- being unjust, especially in judicial affairs, accepting or giving bribes, dishonest trading and business, using false measures, and similar sins.
• The tenth is the toll-house of envy.
• The eleventh is the toll-house of pride- vanity, self-will, boasting, not honoring parents and civil authorities, insubordination, disobedience, and similar sins.
• The twelve is the toll-house of anger and rage.
• The thirteenth is the toll-house of remembering evil- hatred, holding a grudge, and revenge.
• The fourteenth is the toll-house of murder- not just plain murder, but also wounding, maiming, hitting, pushing, and generally injuring people.
• The fifteenth is the toll-house of magic- divination, conjuring demons, making poison, all superstitions, and associated acts.
• The sixteenth is the toll-house of lust- fornication, unclean thoughts, lustful looks, unchaste touches.
• The seventeenth is the toll-house of adultery.
• The eighteenth is the toll-house of sodomy: inappropriate behavior with animals, homosexuality, incest, masturbation, and all other unnatural sins.
• The nineteenth is the toll-house of heresy: rejecting any part of Orthodox faith, wrongly interpreting it, apostasy, blasphemy, and all similar sins.
• The last, twentieth toll-house is the toll-house of unmercifulness: failing to show mercy and charity to people, and being cruel in any way. (source Wikipedia)

To better understand the Eastern Orthodox position I have read two titles, one that should be foundational for anyone interested in understanding Orthodoxy, the second deals with the subject of Aerial Toll Houses specifically. They are, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Michael Pomazansky and The Soul After Death by Seraphim Rose (often considered a Saint). I’ve read through both titles making plenty of notes along the way but for the sake of this blog post I’ll keep it short and simple.

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky on the subject of toll-houses from Orthodox Dogmatics:

“Due to the availability of the Lives of Saints, the account of the toll-houses by the righteous Theodora, depicted by her in detail by Saint Basil the New in his dream, has become especially well known. Dreams in general express the state of soul of a given man, and in special cases are also authentic visions of the souls of the departed in their earthly form. The account of Theodora has characteristics both of one and the other. The idea that good spirits, our guardian angels, as well as the spirits of evil under heaven participate in the fate of man (after death) finds confirmation in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus immediately after death was brought by angels to the bosom of Abraham. In another parable the unrighteous man heard these words: “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee” (Luke 12:20); evidently, the ones who “require” are none else than the same “spirits of wickedness under the heavens.”

In accordance with simple logic and as also confirmed by the Word of God the soul immediately after its separation from the body enters into a sphere where its further fate is defined. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement,” we read in the Apostle Paul (Heb. 9:27). This is the Particular Judgement, which is independent of the universal Last Judgement. [end quote]

We see an argument being made from selected traditions, upon a dream and poor eisegesis and use the above example as a typical misuse of the Bible. Let me point out the portion from Hebrews where we read of the result of Christ’s atonement:

“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

The offering Christ made on behave of His people always results in the perfection and sanctification of them. In contrast to the Eastern Orthodox teaching scripture states we are sanctified by Christ alone through faith.

“…with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised”

For a more detailed response A. W. Pink’s Exposition on Hebrews is to be recommended. Using the text of Hebrews Pink demonstrates the fallacious use of Hebrews 9.27 for the shameless proof-texting it is.

First, that the “offering” (verse 25) and “suffering” (verse 26) of Christ are inseparable. It was in and by His suffering that the Lord Jesus offered Himself unto God, and that because He was Himself both the Priest and the Sacrifice. Aaron “offered” repeatedly, yet he never once “suffered,” for he was not the sacrifice itself. It was the bullock which was slain, that suffered. But Christ being both Priest and Sacrifice could not “offer” without “suffering,” and herein does the force of the argument principally consist. The very especial nature of Christ’s offering or sacrifice, which was by the shedding of His blood in death, precluded a repetition thereof.

Second, the apostle’s argument here is also built on the fact that there was a necessity for the expiation of the sin of all that were to be saved from the foundation of the world. Sin entered the world immediately after it was founded, by the apostasy of our first parents. Notwithstanding, numbers of sinners, as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and the spiritual remnant in Israel had their sins pardoned and were eternally saved; yet no sacrifice which they offered could remit moral guilt or redeem their souls. No; their salvation was also effected by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence it follows unavoidably that unless the merits of His own one offering extended unto the taking away of all their sins, then either He must have suffered often, or they perish. Contrariwise, seeing that elect sinners were saved through Christ “from the foundation of the world,” much more will the virtues of the Great Sacrifice extend unto the end of the world.

“But now,” not at the beginning of human history; “once,” that is, once for all, never to be repeated; “in the end of the world,” or in “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). This expression “end of the world” or more literally, “consummation of the ages” is here used antithetically from “since the foundation of the world” which usually has reference to the first entrance of sin into the world. and God’s dispensation of grace in Christ thereon; as “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4, etc.) expresses eternity and God’s counsels therein. The Divine distinctions of time with respect to God’s grace toward His Church, may be referred to three general heads: that before the law, during the law, and since the incarnation of Christ unto the end of the world. This last season, absolutely considered, is called the “fullness of times” (Eph. 1:10), when all that God had designed in the dispensation of His grace was come to a head, and wherein no alteration should be made till the earth was no more.

“Hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” He “appeared” here on earth (the Greek word is quite different from the one used in verse 24): of old He had been obscurely shadowed forth in types, but now He was “manifest in flesh” (1 Tim. 3:10). The end or purpose of this appearing of Christ was to “put away sin”—the Greek word is a very strong one, and is rendered “disannuling” in Hebrews 7:18. Let it be carefully noted that this declaration is made only as it respects the Church of Christ. He made a complete atonement for all the sin of all His people, receiving its wages, expiating its guilt, destroying its dominion. The results are that, when God applies to the penitent believer the virtues of Christ’s sacrifice, all condemnation is removed (Rom. 8:1), and its reigning power is destroyed (Rom. 6:14).

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (verses 27, 28). In these verses the apostle concludes his exposition of the causes, nature, designs and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, wherewith the new covenant was dedicated and confirmed. In them a three-fold confirmation is made of the uniqueness and sufficiency of the Savior’s atonement. First a comparison is drawn: pointed by the “as” and “so”. Second a declaration is made as to why Christ died: it was to “bear the sins of many.” Third, the resultant consequence of this is stated at the end of verse 28. [end quote]

In “The Soul After Death” Seraphim Rose relies on similar argumentation for Aerial Toll Houses. A few quick points:

1. Rose explains the “out of body” or after death occult experiences and, using descriptions of the accounts, explains how they are similar to Eastern Orthodox teaching. He struggles to create differences between the two beliefs but they are very similar.
2. Rose (and Pomazansky) rarely quote scripture and when they do it’s out of context.
3. Eastern Orthodox experiences of Toll Houses are accepted without criticism. The occult experiences are outright denied even when strikingly similar. One troubling detail, the Orthodox are surrounded and attacked by demons, while the non Orthodox are usually at peace and rest.
4. Rose accepts the teaching on Toll Houses without attempting to provide argumentation for it. It’s accepted without pause.
5. The emphasis throughout both works is the sinner and the sinners ability to perform works and to live morally, almost as if training to outrun their attacks after death, thus escaping the snares of demons.
6. St. Mary, Guardian Angels and Saints are viewed as guiding and guarding the soul after death with the prayers of the faithful living relieving the suffering of departed souls. These are the means by which God is said to save a soul, through St. Mary, Angels and the intercession of Saints, what is often lacking is an emphasis on Christ alone to save. There is an edifice built around Christ that obscures Him.
7. Christ is mentioned in the “out of body” occult experiences more often than in Rose’s account of the Eastern Orthodox description. That is the impression.
8. The final court of appeal for both Rose and Pomazansky are the subjective experiences recorded in Eastern Orthodox tradition.

In chapter 10, Rose uses the letters of John of Shanghai and San Francisco (St. John Maximovitch) as an authority to provide more details of this teaching.

According to John of Shanghai and San Francisco the soul is hindered by the body and becomes more active after death. This struck me as a Gnostic holdover. It is admitted that all cultures have after death or “out of body” experiences and again, the Eastern Orthodox teaching is not examined but stated and believed without criticism. In the letters we read that a soul has two days to linger on earth, visiting places that were special to the individual when alive, but on the 3rd day the soul moves into “another spheres” and “passes through legions of evil spirits which obstruct its path and accuse if of various revelations…”

According to The Soul After Death the soul visits heavenly habitations and hell for 37 days, still not knowing where it will end up… On the 40th day the soul will stop in heaven or hell until the Last or Final Judgement. This is considered a taste of blessedness or torment. The Priest may offer a Liturgy (similar to the Roman Catholic Mass) and prayers on behalf of the deceased resulting in a change in the departed soul.

A word in closing:

I’m left haunted by this seemly pagan teaching founded on a dream, a nightmare and forced upon the scriptures. It maybe true, that this doctrine of Aerial Toll Houses is not considered universally “orthodox” by the Orthodox, but it is still embraced by millions of Eastern Orthodox believers. It is considered “dogma” by a large portion of the Eastern Church. It’s soul shaking to think that for 1,500 years Christians in the East have believed in such a doctrine, one that utterly lacks confidence in Christ to save, that places such emphasis on fallen sinners to evade demons and find rest for their wicked souls. It’s haunting to think that even after death we have to struggle to prove our faithfulness to Christ before we can enter our eternal rest. There is no rest in Christ for the Orthodox. The idea that demonic powers are seeking to “devour the soul of the spiritually weak,” even after death, robs Christ of His promises to save by faith alone. Simple, heartfelt faith in Christ’s work on the Cross is almost never in view. For the Orthodox the sinner is on a constant hamster wheel of merit and faith, faith and merit never finding rest.

I will end with 1 John 5.11-13 and with an old prayer:

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Let us prayer:

O God, most high, most glorious, the thought of Your infinite serenity cheers me, for I am toiling and moiling, troubled and distressed, but You are for ever at perfect peace. Your designs cause You no fear or care of unfulfilment, they stand fast as the eternal hills. Your power knows no bond, Your goodness no stint. You bring order out of confusion, and my defeats are Your victories: The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I come to You as a sinner with cares and sorrows, to leave every concern entirely to You, every sin calling for Christ’s precious blood; revive deep spirituality in my heart; let me live near to the great Shepherd, hear His voice, know its tones, follow its calls. Keep me from deception by causing me to abide in the truth, from harm by helping me to walk in the power of the Spirit. Give me intenser faith in the eternal verities, burning into me by experience the things I know; Let me never be ashamed of the truth of the gospel, that I may bear its reproach, vindicate it, see Jesus as its essence, know in it the power of the Spirit.

Lord, help me, for I am often lukewarm and chill; unbelief mars my confidence, sin makes me forget You. Let the weeds that grow in my soul be cut at their roots; grant me to know that I truly live only when I live to You, that all else is trifling. Your presence alone can make me holy, devout, strong and happy.

Abide in me, gracious God.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Well, JM, you have taken a particular doctrine of the Orthodox Church (and yes it is a doctrine) and yet confused and misunderstood it terribly.

I used Orthodox sources.

Of course there are different kinds of beliefs in Christianity.

If one believes that they can say a prayer, and by that become "saved" and then go on to live a life of depravity, satisfying their own flesh, robbing widows and orphans, and when they die God is going to see if they checked off that prayer box and then be OBLIGATED to allow them into heaven, even if they despise God in their hearts as well as their fellow man - then they might as well stop reading now. We aren't going to agree on anything. However, I have thankfully found very, very few to believe such nonsense.

That's a hideous doctrine...we agree.

On the other hand, if you believe SAVING FAITH must be real, can be shown by one's life as St. James writes, and that we must persevere in the faith as St. Paul admonishes, and will serve to transform us into Chrustlikeness as St. Paul also writes, well, that's what we believe.

This is where we differ. Salvation is based on Christ alone and our justification is not partial based on what we do. John Piper was called out for essentially teaching that we are made right by Christ but must complete our justification with our actions.

With respect I disagree. I actually like icons, incense and prayer ropes but don't see any of it as proving I'm faithful to Christ and helping me avoid awaiting judgement in a nicer place.

But I fear you read various things that we ourselves do not read without guidance, confuse spiritual with literal, and presumably your motive appears to be to discredit Orthodoxy (I still have to wonder why, given the thread topic of authority to establish Scripture, given that it WAS recognized and canonized by the Church ... I never saw you as wishing to undermine Scripture, so what's your point here?)

But this one needs to not go unanswered. You have confused yourself, but it is a disservice to confuse others.

I've read and quoted Eastern Orthodox sources including a Dogmatic used in a Russian Orthodox seminary.

For the interested reading one of the sources I used can be read online and is linked below.

On the question of the “Toll-Houses”

• Our war is not against flesh and blood.
• Here we approach the subject of the toll-houses.
• The signs of the Second Coming of the Lord
• The second coming of the Son of Man.
• The resurrection of the dead

All of this points to the inability of Tradition to sort out matters clearly. Some believe Toll Houses are real and literal, others do not and yet, a third position exists that would have us believe the Orthodox do not teach it.

Who is correct? Anastasia or His Eminence, the Most Reverend Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa?

I'll struggle with scripture thank you.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, my desire not to argue doesn't mean what you think it means. It is a spiritual discipline. Who was ever won, or even listened, when arguments become strident and vitriolic? It poisons the soul and does not honor God, nor present a picture of disciples of Christ loving one another as we are supposed to do.

I will leave the rest to you ... if you actually want to discuss, I am happy to. If you only want to continue with the current trend, then I don't see it as profitable.

However, you are mistaken in your blanket comments about history and the Church. "Marian dogmas" are mostly a product of the west, and a recent one. And a common Liturgy stretches further back. It's simple truth that the Church (which yes, consisted of believers) recognized the truth of the documents which became Scripture and ratified them.

As for knowledge the EO possesses, well, yes, we use the writings of 15 centuries of Christians before the reformation, relying especially heavily on those taught directly by the Apostles. It's not as though we keep it locked in a vault somewhere though. Protestants are freely welcome to the same wisdom. It just seems they mostly like to reinvent things, sometimes getting them right, sometimes not. But it's available to anyone who wants to study it.

We all do that, read or understand what's in front of us through our own presuppositions. I mentioned that in my response above.



I'm not offended and I hope I do not offend. I'm pressed for time and post rapidly. Protestants including Lutherans wouldn't point to a historical church body and say, "that is THE church" rather, we would say the church has always existed and functioned from the beginning, believers being apart of the church invisible.



That's like saying, "I'm entrenched in my views so it doesn't matter what you post." lol that's ok.



Crypto is hiding something. It's in his name! lol He's actually not posting what Lutherans believe so please see the links.



My point is simply thus...Traditionalists are not in a better position than Protestants because all our appeals to authority are circle.

(I've used bold to show where I've altered the original for posting purposes.)

Both RC and EO based their authority what they they can infer, their respective bodies, infer, "from historical observations, and its private biblical interpretations, that it alone has the note of infallibility. Using so-called spiral reasoning, it is then a simple matter to conclude that whatever an infallible church infers, its inference must be more than just that - it must be infallible fact."

"In addition, outside opinions which state that the Church... is not infallible are held up as the erroneous conclusions that are inevitable without the divine insight that (EO/RC) alone enjoys. This is the groundwork by which the Church... genuinely perceives its obligation to control all biblical translation and interpretation."

So yes, it doesn't matter what I post, it's all false based on your circle reasoning.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Anastasia, forgive me if I seem short or rude, I'm pressed for time.

Yours in Christ who saves to the uttermost!

jm