InChristAlone's Blog

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

http://www.stnicholasdc.org/files/Or...en-Warfare.pdf

Please read the book, get some ideas and we will have more things to discuss.

Large parts of the Philokalia have been translated into English; however, it must be said that these writings are not for the beginner, nor even for the average Orthodox Christian. There is even a danger in their being read "out of season" and without proper guidance.

What if I'm not worthy, or it's the wrong season ... and then danger, danger, danger?

[awareness]

Another quote:

"But if this is the hardest of all wars... victory in it is the most glorious of all .... If you really desire to be victorious in this
unseen warfare and be rewarded with a crown, you must plant in your heart the following four dispositions and spiritual
activities, as it were arming yourself with invisible weapons, the most trustworthy and unconquerable of all, namely:

a) never rely on yourself in anything;Unseen Warfare
b) bear always in your heart a perfect and all-daring trust in God alone;
c) strive without ceasing; and
d) remain constantly in prayer.

So we don't rely on ourself ... but we "bear," "strive," and "remain." Sounds paradoxical to me.

Why does God require paradox to come close to him? Is He playing games with us?

And while I'm at it, if Theosis requires silly hats and habits, count me out.

And what's a Schemamonk?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Another quote:

So we don't rely on ourself ... but we "bear," "strive," and "remain." Sounds paradoxical to me.

Why does God require paradox to come close to him? Is He playing games with us?

And while I'm at it, if Theosis requires silly hats and habits, count me out.

And what's a Schemamonk?

Another paradox is that we are saved by grace but we still have to cooperate with God and fight our passions. Probably, Christianity is a religion of paradoxes: the cross, a symbol of death, that becomes the symbol of life, or God becomes man or a virgin gives birth, or God who loves the world, and man who becomes first only by making himself last.

However, in that context, the meaning of "never rely on yourself in anything" is quite clear. The explanation must be in the same or next chapter where St. Nikodemos and Theophan the Recluse explain what it means. If I am not mistaken, the main point is "rely on God only", i.e. always remember the Lord in everything you do, pray unceasingly, and ask Him for guidance. In other words, don't say, "I am so great, therefore I can make it by myself." Say "Lord, I can't achieve anything without You. Please help me." And when you attain something, especially spiritual gifts, don't be proud, saying, "I achieved it thanks to my own strength, endurance, and wisdom". Always remember the words: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing". (John 15:5)

I don't think that God is playing with us. Probably, it's our mind that is so small and limited that we can't really see how weak we are. I like the words of Fr Seraphim Rose (he was an American convert who became a monk) which he addressed to the Orthodox Christians. I think Fr Seraphim's words can be applied to all Christian believers: "Orthodox Christians! Hold fast to the grace which you have; never let it become a matter of habit; never measure it by merely human standards or expect it to be logical or comprehensible to those who understand nothing higher than what is human…"

In our context, I would say that we should not measure God by our human standards or expect it to be logical or comprehensible to us who understand nothing higher than what is human. We know that God is love. And He loves us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins. What more or higher than that do we need to know to understand God better?

I think one of the dangers for us human beings is to believe in God that suits us the most. We are seeking God, maybe even find Him but if He doesn't correspond to our own imagination, or our own image, then we create our own "god". This "god" may fit us like a glove and we may be faithful to him till the end of our days but at the end we may hear 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:23) You know, I wanted to mention WL when I was talking about the glove and god that we create for ourselves. But then I thought that it was very stupid of me. I don't need to read all those Bible Studies, Crystallizations, and Morning Revivals to know that God is love but I sill have my own personal imagination about Him. I imagine Him so merciful that I hope that He will save and forgive me even if I still continue to live a sinful life. Who is playing with who? God - with me or I - with Him? Then how about: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". (Matthew 7:21) If I ask myself "Do I do the will of the Father? Do I fulfil commandments, fight my passions, love God and my neighbor?" then there can be only one sincere answer: "Not really" -- and if I take out the last word from my answer; the outcome can't be clearer than that. Sorry, I have carried away again. I think I could blame WL for the lack of love, strength, and faithfulness in me, but I must admit that it's all my fault. God is always here. And no man can deprive us from Him. And no man can stop us from doing His will. But I am still weak. That's why I want to get back to my EO background. Will the EO church give me strength? I believe it is God who gives it, not a church. In the church but through the Holy Spirit. Anyway, I feel the EO church gives me a good guidance and shows a path to the Lord. At least I see it clearly in the books of St. Nikodemos, Theophan the Recluse, Alexander Schmemann, and Anthony Bloom. I don't want to call myself a "prodigal son"; to me, it sounds like a title. I am just a sinner who wants to get back home.

Ok, let's change the topic. I am not very familiar with monastic ranks. I just know that schemamonk can be an ordinary monk; it depends on the vows he takes. Schemamonk must be one of the most ascetic.

BTW, I downloaded an EO application for my smartphone. It's mainly about prayers. But there is some info about the church and clergy. That info supports my knowledge about the EO clergy: "Clergy are those in the Eastern Orthodox Church who have been called by God to fulfill specific functions of service and leadership in the church. Clergy are not inherently higher or better than laity in the Church, who are also ordained to a specific ministry as the Royal priesthood of Christ." Actually, I have read about some significant differences between the EOC and the RCC clergy. For example, If I am not mistaken, in the RCC, a priest is always a priest, even if he is retired. In the EOC, if a priest is retired, he is no more a priest but a layman.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...ss.prayersfree

PS About Eastern Orthodox monasticism:

Orthodox monasticism is inconceivable without its loftiest step - the Great Schema. The Holy Fathers of the Church regarded it as the culmination of monastic life. Monks find in the Great Schema the complete expression of their vocation - the attainment of the Gospel ideal of holy perfection. A man ascends to this level only gradually - according to his strengththrough life-long effort.

Monastic life elevates a monk to spiritual perfection in the spirit of Christ's love and, by living in this love, bears light and spiritual warmth to the world.

By withdrawing from the world, a monk does not express contempt for it, but, on the contrary, acquires a perfect love for the world, a pure love in Christ which is alien to worldly passions. By turning away from vanity the monk strives to perceive himsell and his impotence, and to fortify himself spiritually through prayer to God.

There are three monastic ranks: the Rassaphore, the Stavrophore, and the Schema-Monk (or Schema-Nun). Each of the three degrees represents an increased level of asceticism. In the early days of monasticism, there was only one level—the Great Schema. In the Russian tradition, whose abbot feels they have reached a high level of spiritual excellence reach the final stage, called the Great Schema.

A Schemamonk is a rare step taken in monastic life and is seldom approved by the Abbot or Bishop. The Schema, goes beyond carrying the Cross of Christ. Like our Lord Jesus Christ, he must be willing to surrender his life to totally save peoples souls. He must in fact be willing to be nailed to the cross he has been carrying. The Schemamonk is in essence, an Elder among the monastic, He is a monk who has aspired to a spiritual level that transcends worldly desires. It is a life of constant prayer. He is a walking icon of our Lord Jesus Christ. A Schemamonk is sought after by religious of all ranks, monastic and lay people for spiritual advice and comfort, as well as other Spiritual and religious matters. The Schemamonk will again take a new Name in Christ to show he has totally given up his worldly life.

Monastic Ranks

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Monastic_Ranks
http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/article.php?id=25

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

What if I'm not worthy, or it's the wrong season ... and then danger, danger, danger?

You are worthy. The danger may come if you start building fantasies and imaginings about your achievements before you have attained them. The practice must be done with humility. Arrogance and pride can lead to self-delusion. For example, you may have some visions of light, angels, or Jesus, or pray longer than anyone else and therefore start thinking that you are better than others, while your visions are just illusions and your prayer is a vain repetition. So one needs a spiritual guide or director that may help him not to be fall into temptations.

In order not to fall into illusion, while practicing inner prayer, do not permit yourself any concepts, images, or visions. For vivid imaginings, darting to and fro, and flights of fancy do not cease even when the mind stands in the heart and recites prayer: and no one is able to rule over them, except those who have attained perfection by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and who have acquired stability of mind through Jesus Christ.

St Theophan the Recluse

Some other errors:

http://livingorthodoxfaith.blogspot....us-prayer.html

More about the Jesus prayer:

http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodox...usprayerGB.htm
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodo...e-jesus-prayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
http://www.svots.edu/content/rossi-jesus-prayer
http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Jesus%20Prayer.html
http://www.pravmir.com/the-jesus-prayer-3/
http://www.antiochian.org/node/25485
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/ignaty_jesus.aspx

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

So one needs a spiritual guide or director that may help him not to be fall into temptations.

"In order not to fall into illusion, while practicing inner prayer, do not permit yourself any concepts, images, or visions."
St Theophan the Recluse

Sure sounds eastern to me ... with master/student. Must be Hindu influenced. Even prayer is instructed the same as quieting the mind in Hindu meditation.

These are not bad practices ... Hindu or not.

But I'm broken. I can't do the master/student/devotee thing ... either as the student or the master. I don't abide such systems or arrangements. If anything I'm a pointer, at the real master ... not of flesh.

We believers seem weak to me, to require a leader in the flesh, like Nee or Lee. It seems a fleshy need to me ... and not truly spiritual ... a falling short ... like arrows when shot that can't reach the target.

But then again, as the story goes, God became flesh.

But who knows the Logos? Methinks the Logos has its arms open to all who open and turn their hearts ... even if they don't know what they are doing ... and has been so active since its inception ... being the creative force of everything ... even this moment, right here and now.

But like I say, I'm broken. So don't listen to me.

And thanks for this discussion ICA. Really great stuff. Can't keep up. Me brain is overwhelmed with all the info, homework, and study.

Are you trying to convert me to EO?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sure sounds eastern to me ... with master/student. Must be Hindu influenced.

You look at Christianity through eyes of a man who lives in America in the 21st century. But don't forget that Christ and His apostles have never been American citizens. Besides, Christianity did not start in Europe with Luther. It began in the Middle East in the 1st century AD and it has a long and rich tradition.

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you trying to convert me to EO?

No. Do I need to explain why? First, I don’t see a reason to do that. Second, I believe it’s not a fruitful work. It’s a waste of time to convert someone who doesn’t share your experience. I have two best friends who are atheists. I can talk to them about God but if they don’t feel any reality behind my words, then my talk is useless. They can’t prove me that there is no God. And I can’t prove them that there is God. Our views are based on different experiences. Third, doing is better than saying. To me, conversion is not about what someone says but what he does. And I do nothing inspiring. So I just want to help you clear stereotypes about the EO Christians and convert nobody but myself to the Eastern Orthodox beliefs and practices.

Anyway, Awareness, thanks. It was nice talking to you. God bless.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

You look at Christianity through eyes of a man who lives in America in the 21st century. But don't forget that Christ and His apostles have never been American citizens. Besides, Christianity did not start in Europe with Luther. It began in the Middle East in the 1st century AD and it has a long and rich tradition.


No. Do I need to explain why? First, I don’t see a reason to do that. Second, I believe it’s not a fruitful work. It’s a waste of time to convert someone who doesn’t share your experience. I have two best friends who are atheists. I can talk to them about God but if they don’t feel any reality behind my words, then my talk is useless. They can’t prove me that there is no God. And I can’t prove them that there is God. Our views are based on different experiences. Third, doing is better than saying. To me, conversion is not about what someone says but what he does. And I do nothing inspiring. So I just want to help you clear stereotypes about the EO Christians and convert nobody but myself to the Eastern Orthodox beliefs and practices.

Anyway, Awareness, thanks. It was nice talking to you. God bless.

Excuse me, but unless you are killing yer blog, I don't think we're done talking.

Likely there will be more to discuss ... you are right EO is interesting.

And I didn't intend to put the brakes on.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Excuse me, but unless you are killing yer blog, I don't think we're done talking.

I see. I thought you had more important things to do when you said:

Originally Posted by awareness

And thanks for this discussion ICA. Really great stuff. Can't keep up. Me brain is overwhelmed with all the info, homework, and study.

But if you want more interesting stuff, please check out this article:

Patriarchates, Bishops, and Popes - Is the Catholic Church the direct line from Peter?

http://wellthoughtoutlife.blogspot.c...-popes-is.html

(I think it's easier to click the link and read the article at the original website, since my post does not have pictures).

The Five Patriarchates of the Early Church

As early church spread like a wildfire from Jerusalem through the Roman world (above), the need for organized leadership eventually led to Bishops being appointed in the five leading cities with Christian populations (all appointments happened in the first 150 years of the church). As we see in Acts, initially the disciples were based in Jerusalem (see the Council of Jerusalem in Acts), but perhaps because of persecution the leadership quickly moved to Antioch. The church in Antioch is said to have been founded by Peter.

The other early Bishops were in Alexandria (center of Hellenistic culture and learning for a long period of time - and the early heritage of African Christianity), and Rome. Roman was the capitol of the Roman world and Paul refers to a growing church there. History tells of the great persecution of the Christians under Nero. Initially these were the three governing church patriarchates: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. The patriarchates were each led by a Bishop. Rome did not lead the other Patriarchates - each Bishop was the Patriarch who led his own Patriarchate.

At the time of the early council of Nicaea and Chalcedon, Constantinople and then finally Jerusalem were accepted as patriarchates. Constantinople, was the head of the Byzantine empire, and with this growing political leverage it began to go head to head with Rome in terms of pure influence in the Church as a whole. The council of Constantinople confirmed this growing authority, and a quiet power struggle between the two Bishops began. To quote the Catholic New Advent website: "So we have the new order of five patriarchs — Rome, Constantinople,Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — " [see (ibid., 46-47) the letter of Peter III of Antioch, c. 1054].

As the church grew and spread things became more complicated. Theology was developed, councils began to publicly define doctrine and condemn heresy. Christianity spread to distant lands out of the direct reach of the patriarchates (what Patriarchate heads up the suprisingly early rise of Christianity in Ireland??). There was also a growing cultural rift between the East and the West. The Latin-speaking Western church was generally under the leadership and influence of Rome. The Greek-speaking East included all of the other Bishops, with Constantinople as the largest. They began to develop seperate traditions and practices. Rome had long thought of itself as the leader of the other Patriarchates, though this is not always clear or shared by others.

Eventually Islam grew and Muslim rulers took over the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, leaving the Church with Bishops in Constantinople and Rome. Thus... the stage is set for a clash of power.

Some distinct differences that led up to the Great Schism between the East and the West, drawn from the New World Encyclopedia:

The Filioque—Traditionally, the Nicene Creed spoke of the Holy Spirit "proceeding" from the Father only, but the Western Church began using the filioque clause—"and the Son"—an innovation rejected by the East and later declared by the Orthodox Church to be a heresy.

Iconoclasm—The Eastern Emperor outlawed the veneration of icons, which was accepted by some and resisted by others in the East. Rome firmly objected to this policy.

Jurisdiction—Disputes in the Balkans, Southern Italy, and Sicily over whether the Western or Eastern Church had jurisdiction.

Authority and Power—Disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs, or whether he should be considered merely primus inter pares, "the first among equals." Rome objected to the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himself the Ecumenical Patriarch, which Rome felt insinuated his leadership of all Patriarchates.

Ceasaropapism - initially the Emperor of Byzantium was in Constantinople and exercized heavy influence over the Church, which Rome objected to. This is ironic because eventually Constantinople fell and the Church became counter-cultural in the East, whereas in Rome the Church became THE political power and became deeply entertwined with the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages.

Liturgical practices—The East objected to Western changes in the liturgy, such as the Western Athanasian Creed, with its use of the filioque.

Clerical celibacy—The practice of celibacy began to be required for all clergy in the West, as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married if their marriage had taken place when they were still laymen.

Eventually, the underlying tension came out into the open as the Bishop of Rome (now known as the Pope) demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople recognize Rome as the head of all of the Church, and the Bishop of Constantinople (now known as the Patriarch) refused. In fits of anger and resentment, both Bishops excommunicated the other, and so in 1054 the Church ceased interacting as a single body. Thus... the Great Schism.

So. How do we perceive this? There are side issues involved, but the real core is that Rome wanted authoritative supremacy and Constantinople wouldn't give it. It comes down to ecclesiology. Rome believes that authority was given by Jesus to Peter to rule the Church, and Peter as the first Bishop passed his authority from Bishop to Bishop (which eventually became known as Pope in Rome). Constantinople, on the other hand, believes that all of the Bishops are ontological equals, and the Bishop of Rome is merely the "first among equals". To give full authority of the whole church to one man was not okay with them.

Okay. I have to be honest and say that as I read history, the claims of the Bishop of Rome do not sound reasonable. If Peter was given the keys to rule the Church, why does Rome conclude that authority was passed directly to Rome, despite the fact that Peter also started the Church in Antioch and Jerusalem? If the church should have one supreme leader, why not have it be the Bishop of Antioch? To me, it doesn't make sense - and it hints at a hunger for power.

Perhaps it's just that I'm an American and I have that "balance of power" idea built into me, so the Eastern Orthodox idea of "first among equals" sounds much better than the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

There's also the filioque clause, which was the theological disagreement that sort of was the straw that broke the camel's back and began the final separation. The Pope decided to insert a new clause into the Nicene Creed. He changed it from "The Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father" to " the Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father and the Son." It's a small or large point, depending on how you look at it. The Eastern Orthodox have never accepted this change, and although it seems to be a fuzzy line, I find it rather difficult to argue with the Eastern position, considering it is nearly a direct quote from John 15:26.

The Fourth Crusade

In any case, my discomfort with the demands of the Pope that caused the Great Schism are sort of exacerbated by the actions of Rome following the Schism. Although the East and the West were officially separated in 1054, they were still thrown together as Christian people and lands against the massive threat of Islam. There were friendly relations between the two Churches, they simply existed as two separate bodies and reunion attempts were made several tiems. What is really horrifying is what happened in the Fourth Crusade. Generally the Crusades were seen as a broadly "Christian" project (of course, very misguided). During the Fourth Crusade the troops recruited by the Pope planned to invade Jerusalem but instead (without the Pope's instructions) switched tracks and sacked Constantinople.

Did you hear that? Western Christians sacked the capitol city and center of the church of their allies. When I was marveling over this to Isaac he said that it would be like American troops heading to Europe in WWII to help fight the Germans, and instead sacking and taking over London. Just horrible, unthinkable violence. What had been separate churches with friendly relations and and attempts for reunification became two enemy churches with deep grievances between them.

It's such a shame. These are the words of the Pope during the ill-fated Fourth Crusade, Innocent III.

"How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks...return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."

So - ultimately after having looked at that history, I do not understand how the Catholic Church can claim to be the ONE holy apostolic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church has equal if not greater stake in this claim, at least from what I see.

Oh, and in defense of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II finally reestablished a line of communication with the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch and formally apologized for the Fourth Crusade.

http://wellthoughtoutlife.blogspot.c...-popes-is.html

[InChristAlone]

“Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?” If someone asked me that question a few months ago, I’d say “the Church”... thinking hard for 5 minutes. Then if someone asked me “Do you know that the Scriptures were not what was being taught in Jesus' day?” I’d say “Hmmm.... Are you sure?” I knew that the NT was a compilation of several Christian books but somehow it never crossed my mind that there were a few hundred years between Jesus and the compilation of the books. Besides, I never thought that for the apostles, the Scriptures were the Old Testament only. When you take something for granted, you don’t try to analyze and understand what stands behind it.

I believe Fr. James Bernstein’s article “Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?” may answer all the questions. (The article is quite long, so I'll share a few excerpts).

http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

THE BIBLE OF THE APOSTLES

My initial attitude was that whatever was good enough for the Apostles would be good enough for me. This is where I got my first surprise. As I mentioned previously, I knew that the Apostle Paul regarded Scripture as being inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). But I had always assumed that the "Scripture" spoken of in this passage was the whole Bible-both the Old and New Testaments. In reality, there was no "New Testament" when this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity. As I studied further, I discovered that the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon. In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books-although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. The concept of "Scripture" was much less well-defined than I had envisioned.

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

The second big surprise came when I realized that the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian community there, and the threatened loss of continuity in the oral tradition probably also contributed to the sense of the urgent need for the Church to standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During this period of the canon's evolution, as previously noted, most churches had only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them. The books of the Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at great expense of time and effort. Also, because most people were illiterate, they could only be read by a privileged few. The exposure of most Christians to the Scriptures was confined to what they heard in the churches-the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the Apostles' memoirs. The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire and the existence of many documents of non-apostolic origin further complicated the matter. This was my third surprise. Somehow I had naively envisioned every home and parish having a complete Old and New Testament from the very inception of the Church! It was difficult for me to imagine a church surviving and prospering without a complete New Testament. Yet unquestionably they did. This may have been my first clue that there was more to the total life of the Church than just the written Word.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO WHOM?

Next, I was surprised to discover that many "gospels" besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the first and second centuries. These included the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter, to name just a few. The New Testament itself speaks of the existence of such accounts...

OTHER CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS

My favorite New Testament book, the Epistle to the Hebrews, was clearly excluded in the Western Church in a number of listings from the second, third, and fourth centuries. Primarily due to the influence of Augustine upon certain North African councils, the Epistle to the Hebrews was finally accepted in the West by the end of the fourth century. On the other hand, the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, written by the Apostle John, was not accepted in the Eastern Church for several centuries. Among Eastern authorities who rejected this book were Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third century), Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea (fourth century), John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta (fourth century), and Theodoret (fifth century)... Interestingly, the sixteenth-century father of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, held that the New Testament books should be "graded" and that some were more inspired than others (that there is a canon within the canon). Luther gave secondary rank to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, placing them at the end of his translation of the New Testament. Imagine-the man who gave us sola scriptura assumed the authority to edit the written Word of God!

WHO DECIDED?

With the passage of time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several times in council...

HUMAN AND DIVINE

Deeply committed, like many evangelicals, to belief in the inspiration of Scripture, I had understood the New Testament to be God's Word only, and not man's. I supposed the Apostles were told by God exactly what to write, much as a secretary takes down what is being dictated, without providing any personal contribution. Ultimately, my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture was clarified by the teaching of the Church regarding the Person of Christ. The Incarnate Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not only God but also man. Christ is a single Person with two natures-divine and human. To de-emphasize Christ's humanity leads to heresy. The ancient Church taught that the Incarnate Word was fully human-in fact, as human as it is possible to be-and yet without sin. In His humanity, the Incarnate Word was born, grew, and matured into manhood. I came to realize that this view of the Incarnate Word of God, the Logos, Jesus Christ, paralleled the early Christian view of the written Word of God, the Bible. The written Word of God reflects not only the divine thought, but a human contribution as well. The Word of God conveys truth to us as written by men, conveying the thoughts, personalities, and even limitations and weaknesses of the writers-inspired by God, to be sure. This means that the human element in the Bible is not overwhelmed so as to be lost in the ocean of the divine. It became clearer to me that as Christ Himself was born, grew, and matured, so also did the written Word of God, the Bible. It did not come down whole-plop-from heaven, but was of human origin as well as divine. The Apostles did not merely inscribe the Scriptures as would a robot or a zombie, but freely cooperated with the will of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

...The New Testament is about real churches, not ethereal ones. Could I now accept the fact that God spoke authoritatively, not only through the Bible, but through His Church as well-the very Church which had produced, protected, and actively preserved the Scriptures I held so dear?

THE CHURCH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

...As Paul writes, the Body is "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The Church is the Living Body of the Incarnate Lord. The Apostle does not say that the New Testament is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth because the New Testament was built upon her life in God. In short, she wrote it! She is an integral part of the gospel message, and it is within the Church that the New Testament was written and preserved.

WHICH CAME FIRST?

What confronted me at this point was the bottom line question: Which came first, the Church or the New Testament? I knew that the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, had called the Apostles, who in turn formed the nucleus of the Christian Church. I knew that the Eternal Word of God therefore preceded the Church and gave birth to the Church. When the Church heard the Incarnate Word of God and committed His Word to writing, she thereby participated with God in giving birth to the written Word, the New Testament. Thus it was the Church which gave birth to and preceded the New Testament. To the question, "Which came first, the Church or the New Testament?" the answer, both biblically and historically, is crystal clear. Someone might protest, "Does it really make any difference which came first? After all, the Bible contains everything that we need for salvation." The Bible is adequate for salvation in the sense that it contains the foundational material needed to establish us on the correct path. On the other hand, it is wrong to consider the Bible as being self-sufficient and self-interpreting. The Bible is meant to be read and understood by the illumination of God's Holy Spirit within the life of the Church. Did not the Lord Himself tell His disciples, just prior to His crucifixion, "When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come" (John 16:13)? He also said, "I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Our Lord did not leave us with only a book to guide us. He left us with His Church. The Holy Spirit within the Church teaches us, and His teaching complements Scripture. How foolish to believe that God's full illumination ceased after the New Testament books were written and did not resume until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, or-to take this argument to its logical conclusion-until the very moment when 1, myself, started reading the Bible. Either the Holy Spirit was in the Church throughout the centuries following the New Testament period, leading, teaching, and illuminating her in her understanding of the gospel message, or the Church has been left a spiritual orphan, with individual Christians independently interpreting-and often "authoritatively" teaching the same Scripture in radically different ways. Such chaos cannot be the will of God, "for God is not the author of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

[awareness]

Great and informative link ICA.

One comment after reading it:

Christians killing Christians, or killing anyone, prove that they aren't Christians at all.

Thanks ICA.