Page 71 of 93

Tradition: Family, Friend, or Foe?

July 14, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 19 Comments

Contributed by “Nicodemus”

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes,our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. The Vindication of Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan

First, let us establish Orthodoxy’s reverence for Scripture as the inspired Word of God right up front.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book 3, 1, 1)

Without passages like this, our Protestant friends to would have little to quote when they wish to pretend the Fathers prove their notion of Sola Scriptura! Ah, but it’s not so simple as a few truncated quotes. In this same article, Irenaeus continues with this:

Even if the apostles had not left their writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches? Many barbarian peoples who believe in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink. (in Cyril Richardson’s Early Christian Fathers 1970:374-375)

Orthodoxy’s reverence for Holy Scripture does not rest upon selective quoting of the Fathers. So please stay with us as we set a context for understanding Scripture within the Tradition which eventually gave us the New Testament. In this we avoid falling for a simplistic fundamentalism which divorces Scripture from its birth and use within Church history.

Scripture

Icon – The Holy Forefathers

There was no Scripture before Moses. Though blunt and even shocking, this sentence will not likely make most of our Protestant friends uneasy. The reason is because evangelical Protestants have little problem assuming Adam began a long history of what became a carefully maintained Oral Tradition, one passed down to Noah as the truth, all the way to Moses. Nor do human frailties, like errors in memory or transcription cause Protestants to blush. This is because they trust the Holy Spirit to secure the truth in oral transmission, so Moses (via Adam’s/Noah) wrote the revelation of God. (Note: Many early OT patriarchs were contemporaries: OLD TESTAMENT GENERATIONS LISTED ADAM TO MOSES)

So what do we know of the making of the OT canon of Scripture? Like the New Testament, it did not fall from the sky one day all neat, tidy and complete. It took centuries for the books and writings to be identified. Much is learned of from the making of the Greek version of the Old Testament. I will not repeat what is found in these excellent articles. But I do commend them to you for your instruction and edification. Read them here – NT canon, here – OT canon, and here – Which Came First.

There was no broadly recognized New Testament canon of Scripture before 350 AD. I suspect this blunt sentence stirs up more squirming in our Protestant friends. Marcion’s list was likely the first listing of gospels and letters. But Marcion and his list were both too hostile and anti-Jewish for broad acceptance by the early Church. He excluded James, Mathew and others. But if Adam’s Oral Tradition handed down to Moses for a thousand+ years does not upset Protestants, why would a similar Oral Tradition upset them for the New Testament the first 350 years of Church history?

Christ did not write a book. Nor does he urgently press His Apostles to write. They waited several decades to begin writing the New Testament. But we do have His promise of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit’s presence in the Church. Meanwhile, they taught their disciples their doctrine, rule of faith, sound words, Tradition – repeatedly exhorting them to guard and protect it. Protestant are defensive, if not panicked, by the reality of there being “No New Testament Cannon before 350 AD.”

The Gospel of Mark was likely written in the early 50s, 20+ years after the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost, then soon I Thessalonians. All the New Testament books were completed by the end of the 1^st century (70 years after Pentecost). But these circulated in the early Church with a host of other gospel accounts and letters. Settling upon which Gospels and letters would comprise the New Testament, and which would be excluded, took several centuries. Protestants often instinctively obfuscate or blur the facts of historic scholarship. But simplistic fundamentalism does not stand the test of serious examination.

There is a natural unsettledness for Protestants to imagine life in the historic Church without neatly printed and bound Bibles (scrolls). Yet the Church not only existed but multiplied, flourished and covered the entire Roman world without a recognized New Testament Bible for a few hundred years. Even if you grant earlier dates to some writings, most books were local “letters” not broadly published. And when all finally became extant, they still had limited circulation, not to mention severe printing restrictions of book publishing in the ancient world. How did this early Church know what to do, and how to live without a settled New Testament?

Of course, the letters of Paul and the four Gospels (among many other writings) eventually trickled throughout Asia Minor and Palestine and eventually to Alexandria and Carthage (Egypt) and to Rome. But this took decades, and there were comparatively few copies printed by hand and quickly wore out. Fact is, few Christians, maybe even many Priests/Pastors and Bishops of the Church had a complete Bible as we know it, before 350AD. (Be it the seven decades the New Testament was being written, or the several hundred years of settling afterwards, the ahistoric nature of Sola Scriptura is inescapable during this period, regardless of how the Fathers related them to Tradition.)

Given the reverence for Holy Scripture Evangelicals have, it’s amazing how ignorant most are about the history of how the Bible (Old or New Testament) came to exist. Let me challenge my Protestants friends to read and think carefully about this by yourself. Talk with others later, after reading outside your own camp, thinking for yourself first. A good place to start is with The Emergence of the New Testament Canon.

Tradition

Frankly, one reason Protestants regard Holy Tradition as a likely enemy is because they’ve been led to believe loving Holy Tradition equals hating the Bible! But this (almost comically) is not true. Nor does Scripture itself assume all Tradition, the traditions of men, like the Pharisee tradition or worse yet, Roman Catholic tradition. Here is another simplistic fundamentalism that “would be laughable if not so tragic” situation. There are indeed traditions of men. The tradition of the Pharisees is certainly one man-made tradition.

But there is also another Tradition hidden and obscured from most Protestants – in the Bible – commended to the Church by the Apostles themselves. A good place to start is with Robert’s Blog post here: ‘IF NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA THEN WHAT? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.’ Here he patiently reviews all the biblical texts relating to holy tradition like:

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. (I Corinthians 11:2)

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care (I Timothy 6:20). What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you–guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (II Timothy 1:13-14)

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the tradition you received from us. (II Thessalonians 3:6)

There are many other passages of Scripture and Mr. Arakaki covers them all in a thorough but concise way most Protestants have never seen, much less seriously considered. I challenge you to read this article very carefully and completely alone, prayerfully asking the Holy Spirit to guide your thinking.

Holy Tradition is similar to the oral tradition Adam handed before Moses before wrote the Torah. Yet there is a difference worth noting. Holy Tradition is not only promised by Christ, it is clearly and positively commended in the text of Scripture. It is the Tradition of the Apostles, supernaturally inspired by Christ and the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to the Discipling of the Nations. We must understand Paul’s commission to Timothy in this light. (2 Timothy 2:2) What the early Church did, lived, how they worshiped (liturgy Acts 13:2), how they answered the heretic(s) in their Councils, is Holy Tradition.

This Holy Tradition has been reverenced by the Orthodox Church since the Patristic Fathers walked the earth. This Tradition can be studied, like the Greeks, Romans, Celtics, American Indians and Old South. However, there is far more here than merely the customs, habits and traditions of men.

Prof. Clark Carlton

Lessons from Prof. Clark Carlton

In his conversion Journey to Orthodoxy, Associate Professor Clark Carlton, Ph.D. makes several very important observation about the place of Holy Tradition. Reared as a Southern Baptist, he attended a Southern Baptist Seminary just as he’d begun to study Orthodoxy. There while he was at a Baptist seminary he came face to face with Holy Tradition.

Among the books I read was The Vindication of Tradition by Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan. In it Pelikan drew a distinction between the intellectual rediscovery of tradition and the existential recovery of tradition. In other words, there is a great difference between simply recognizing what has gone before and genuinely claiming it for oneself. I had discovered the Church of history, the wisdom of the Fathers, and the liturgy, but I had yet to come to grips with all that such a discovery entails. (emphasis added)

In this insightful observation Professor Carlton differentiates how we see, then embrace Tradition. First, there is an intellectual discovery. We notice a tradition that is out there. A particular tradition shows up on your mental radar, perhaps due to a college roommate, teammate or class you take. You see the tradition much like a German student might see tradition in a Spanish Latin culture. But knowing and learning about its peculiar distinctives is very different from embracing it and claiming it as you own. Professor Carlton says, “I had discovered the Church of history, the wisdom of the Fathers, and the liturgy, but I had yet to come to grips with all that such a discovery entails.” (emphasis added)

But this is not all that confronted him. Professor Carlton continues:

Actually, I would amend Pelikan’s formula slightly at this point, for a further distinction needs to be made. There is also a great difference between claiming tradition for oneself and being claimed by tradition. I, along with Webber (Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, Robert Webber) and the contributors to his book, was perfectly willing to claim the historic Church and the liturgy for my own understanding of Christianity. Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.” (From First Baptist to the First Century)

Here Professor Carlton implies more than a Christian philosophy of history being the providential unfolding of God’s plan in time, in Creation. He gives us an excellent glimpse into the modern Protestant mind when it is forced to confront Church History and Holy Tradition.

The Protestant Christian stands outside of history and Tradition. Regardless of its attractiveness to him, he observes from a safe distance. From outside he can lay selective claim to as many or as few elements of that traditions he wishes to taste and embrace. He is like a careful diner before a vast smorgasbord. He might like a bit of sacramental this, and a taste of liturgical that. Yet he will take his doctrinal cuisine from yet another table. Professor Carlton says,

“Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.” (emphasis added)

Recently, some Protestant scholars and pastors have been exposed to historical studies and critical scholarship. They have been compelled to adopt Tradition as Useful Tool. The result has been an eclectic hodgepodge in which they pick and choose as they like from the ancient church and try to blend it with the Reformed tradition. The results have often been interesting, but all too much like Professor Carlton above. They are yet in control of how Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Reformed their Churches shall be.

Professor Carlton’s observation is striking. Can tradition have a claim upon a person? We might pause to ask how this is possible. We noted Adam’s passing on Truth via oral tradition did not bother Protestants much because they assume it was preserved from error by the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here is our first hint, the unnoticeable introduction of a divine element into the passing on of Oral Tradition. If God Himself is managing, in ways we cannot see, the integrity of Oral Tradition, then those who like Moses end up writing it need not worry if they got it right. Scripture grows supernaturally, via the Holy Spirit, out of Oral Tradition.

Holy Tradition is thus the substance of divine providence. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in history. This providence and history is of a nature that we at some point can no longer hold it at arm’s length and pick and choose what has a claim upon us. If Holy Tradition is the work of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost in the Church) then it cannot be so easily ignored or jettisoned like some cultural folk lore.

Tradition in the Familial Body

Here, Holy Tradition is comprehended in a whole new light. With Pentecost as the cause, Holy Tradition changes everything. It never was merely the traditions of men. Indeed, the sure promise of Christ and the active presence of the Holy Spirit is our surety. If the Holy Spirit is the author and giver of Holy Tradition, then I am not only bound to embrace it – it has a sacred claim upon me. Like the law of God given through Moses was no take-what-you-want-of-it tradition of men, Holy Tradition is the gift of the Holy Spirit in history, our cherished joy, our wisdom and glory before the nations – and our duty to preserve and pass on! (See also this excellent article on the evangelistic nature of Holy Tradition in the Divine Liturgy.)

In sad contrast we saw recently in a Pentecost Blog where a Protestant scholar saw the Protestant view of Pentecost as BOBO theology: Blink-On, Blink-Off. The Holy Spirit comes and goes, for centuries at a time! History becomes practical Deism for hundreds if not a thousand years. Pentecost is thus series of temporary phenomena in Church History. The Holy Spirit is God with us, sometimes. Yet Christ promised He would never leave or forsake His Church, Bride and Body. By the Holy Spirit He is Emmanuel, God with us. This is why the Protestant view of Pentecost, as well as church history might be regarded as damnable. Again, Professor Carlton says:

It would take a great deal more reading and an even greater amount of prayer before I would be able to accept the historical Church on Her own terms and be judged by Her….[others] helped me to understand that the Holy Tradition of the Church is not merely historical continuity or rootedness. It is the context in which the Church lives out Her divine life and carries out Her divine mission. Tradition is, to use Vladimir Lossky’s phrase, the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. (emphasis added)

Gradually I came to recognize the fact that Holy Tradition has the same claim upon my life as the Gospel itself, for Tradition is nothing other than the Gospel lived throughout history. It is not my place to judge the Apostolic Tradition and decide how or if to incorporate it into my own religious tradition; rather Holy Tradition judges me and calls me to account for how I have handled that Good Deposit that has been committed to Christians. I finally began to understand Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians-a passage I had never heard preached on in a Baptist church-”Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (emphasis added)

Protestants rarely get this far in their thinking about history and Holy Tradition. (It’s likely many Orthodox have more caught this claim of Tradition upon them, than have been taught it?) What is particularly sad, is to see bright young Protestants come right to the edge of Holy Tradition’s claim upon them, only to lose their nerve and shy away. They see and know it well. But they fear to embrace it. They settle for holding it at a distance. What was once only intellectually unsettling has now become a crisis of moral courage. Will they follow through, or back away?

Refugees Leaving Their Homes

Honestly, it takes no small amount of courage to depart from a beloved tradition, especially one filled with many good things. Family pressures and the misunderstandings (hostility?) of friends, even the glory and name one might make for himself in the Protestant world, causes many to lose heart. So, they deny the claim upon them they know Holy Tradition and the Church has on them. They clothe themselves with what they know are spurious arguments, to only settle for far less than the full Orthodox Faith they know is the deposit of Apostolic Faith.

But what of those who do muster the moral courage to become Orthodox Christians? I’m thinking not only of Frs. Peter Gillquist (recently reposed), Jack Sparks, Richard Ballew, Gordon Walker and others who lead 2,000 parishioners into Orthodoxy in 1988. I’m also thinking of hundreds more Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed and Charismatic Pastors, Anglican Priests and the many laymen who have come to Orthodoxy since. In large measure they view their departure from Protestantism more an act of humble obedience than one of courage. The same is likely true of recent Protestant pastors, unmercifully savaged by many who do not know them, or the personal details of their departure. (Jason Stellman resigned from the PCA for reasons of conscience). These men made the wrenching decisions to switch church homes after much wrestling in thought and prayer. They deserve our prayers more than our condemnation.

It is interesting how Protestants tear up when admiring the courage of Martin Luther against the corrupt Roman Church of the late middle-ages. Luther’s plea was for the liberty to follow the dictates of his conscience: “because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.” Is it not just a tad hypocritical that sincere men leaving Protestantism are not granted the same liberty of conscience Luther claimed? This is especially so given their appeal is not to the leading of their private, jiminy-cricket, individual consciences. Rather, those leaving Protestantism are most often gripped by far broader and historic claims than their private consciences – the Scriptures speaking within the Church and Holy Tradition like Professor Carlton.

So what do we say in conclusion? Our modern world surrounds us with more and more progressive, ever Reforming Protestant and Roman Catholic theological innovations? Do these lead us to a deeper love and reverence for the Faith and Worship the Apostles once for all delivered to the Church? No, they boldly presume to lead us away from Tradition toward that forever-in-flux new & improved promised land of progress. Much could be said here, but I will conclude with an excellent and potent quote. In his Amazon review of Pelikan’s The Vindication of Tradition, ”Matt” beautifully sets the weighty place for Holy Tradition within our modern context.

“After all, is not progress, that dogma of the modern era, the antithesis of tradition? Not quite, writes Pelikan. Only within the context of a tradition that has as its hallmark the ability to both hold the person within its embrace, while at the same time pointing beyond itself, can true progress be both understood as such and achieved, connected to the past and yet living within the potential of new growth. The modern error, and that of so many of the greatest heresies, is that it fails to maintain a connection with the whole. This is the modern iconoclastic temptation- to break the image of the past in the hopes of inventing it anew. It is destined to fall short.” (“Matt”)

“Nicodemus”

Defending the Vincentian Canon “Everywhere, Always, and By All” — A Response to Outlaw Presbyterianism

July 10, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 76 Comments

On 3 July 2012 the blog site Outlaw Presbyterianism criticized the OrthodoxBridge for its use of the Vincentian Canon. It’s sad to see a friendly inquirer take a more antagonistic stance towards Orthodoxy, but a number of points were raised that can help further Orthodox-Reformed dialogue.

He writes:

The one common refrain at OrthodoxBridge is that Protestants can’t find any of their distinctives in the early Fathers of the church. This charge bothers some people. However, like a judo artist, I will redirect the blow. This will not prove that Protestantism is correct, but it will show that if the charge is correct, not only is Protestantism false, but so is Orthodoxy.

Because Outlaw criticized our use of the Vincentian Canon, this blog posting will focus primarily on the Vincentian Canon. I hope to show that the Canon reflects the historic Christian faith and as such is integral to Orthodoxy. Part I will contain my response to the criticisms made by Outlaw Presbyerianism in his posting and Part II will discuss the challenge that the Vincentian Canon poses to Protestant theology.

Background

The oft quoted “Vincentian Canon” is the Latin phrase: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). It comes from The Commonitory (ch. 2) by Vincent of Lérins.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. (Commonitory ch. II, §6; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The word “canon” refers to a standard or measuring stick. It provides three criteria by which one can determine whether a doctrine was orthodox or heretical. Vincent did not invent the “canon” named after him. He summed up in elegant Latin the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians.

Icon – Vincent of Lerins

The author of the Commonitory used the pseudonym “Peregrinus”; he was later identified as Vincent of the monastery of Lérins, a group of islands near present day French Riviera. Vincent’s living in the Western half of the Roman Empire would explain why the Commonitory was written in Latin. He lived in the fifth century and was a contemporary of Augustine. He wrote the Commonitory in protest against what he considered to be novelty of Augustine’s teaching on predestination (see Pelikan Vol. I pp. 319-324). It should be noted that Vincent lived long before there was a Protestant vs. Roman Catholic split. When Vincent wrote about the Catholic Church, he had in mind the undivided Church founded by Christ, not the later Roman Catholicism that Luther and the Reformers protested against. In its original sense, “catholic” meant “according to the whole.”

Part I.

Criticism #1: Did Pelikan Criticize the Vincentian Canon?

The OrthodoxBridge frequently cited the Vincentian Canon in its assessment of Protestantism. This approach examines a doctrine by asking three questions: (1) Was this doctrine held by early Christians? (the test of antiquity); (2) Was this doctrine widely held among early Christians? (the test of ubiquity); and (3) Was this doctrine affirmed by the church as a whole? (the test of catholicity). Many have found the Canon helpful for demonstrating the novelty of certain Protestant distinctives, e.g., sola scriptura, sola fide, and their understanding the Eucharist. For example, if the evidence for sola scriptura is found wanting among the church fathers then one has to wonder whether sola scriptura is part of the historic Christian faith or a later addition.

Apparently, this critique is having an impact among our Protestant visitors. Outlaw attempts to blunt our critique by invoking the well respected Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan, against the Vincentian Canon:

In volume 5 of his series on the History of Christian Doctrine, Jaroslav Pelikan openly challenges the adequacy of the Vincentian canon (it’s in the second to last chapter). At best it can only read, “What is [usually] believed by [many] people in [most] places.” (emphasis added)

The first thing to note is that volume five of Pelikan’s magnum opus deals with Christian doctrine in the modern era. If one wants to understand how Pelikan understood the Vincentian Canon the better place is volume one (pp. 333-339) where he discusses the Canon in its proper context.
In this particular subsection of volume five (pp. 255-265) cited by Outlaw, Prof. Pelikan was not discussing the Vincentian Canon per se but how applying the Canon was problematic for John Henry Newman (p. 258). The historian in Newman would concede that the Filioque as not a Catholic dogma in the early Church but the theologian in Newman needed to affirm that the Church always held the doctrine (p. 258). Western theologians, Protestant and Roman Catholic, were finding it increasingly difficult to invoke the Vincentian Canon in light of scholarship showing the progressive evolution of their respective doctrines. For them, the Vincentian Canon had become a “Gordian knot” with a “defect in its serviceableness” (in Pelikan Vol. 5 p. 259). It should be noted that the words in quotation marks are from Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (p. 12). In other words, it was John Henry Newman who was challenging the adequacy of the Vincentian Canon, not Jaroslav Pelikan.

I suspect that Outlaw fell victim to a hasty superficial reading of Prof. Pelikan’s profound scholarship and that he believed he found a convenient quote in support of his Protestant position. The lesson here is that in dealing with church history and patristic theology one must take care to read the text carefully and in its proper context.

The Vincentian Canon functions best as a rule of thumb, not as a precise formula that produces uniform results. If the OrthodoxBridge has (despite our best efforts to the contrary) implied that Holy Tradition is a nice neat, tidy consensus of all the Fathers in perfect unanimity — then Outlaw is right and we have grossly overstated the case. No, Church history is not so perfect. And we have never intended to pretend all the Fathers are in perfect agreement with each other.

Orthodoxy consists of Holy Tradition, a complex matrix of beliefs and practices. Because it is a living reality, it is marked by a certain messiness. Orthodox tradition cannot be reduced to a system of propositions devoid of internal inconsistencies. Understanding Orthodoxy means believing the Holy Spirit works in the messiness of history in the Church, the body of Christ.

Criticism #2: Where’s the Evidence for Catholicity?

I find Outlaw’s skeptical attitude and his expectation for evidentiary support troubling. He writes:

Evidentially, especially in the earlier days of the church, it’s almost impossible to prove that the people in India believed in the same thing as the people in North Africa. And if the evidence is missing, how can you make the case?

It would be great if a Gallup poll was conducted of the early Christians but it is not realistic, nor fair to impose modern twentieth century scientific expectations on the early Church. There is evidence but it is not overwhelming, nor exact. One supporting evidence can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons who was born in Smyrna, Asia Minor, studied under Polycarp, then moved to western frontiers of the Roman Empire in Gaul. He wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. (AH 1.10.2; Richardson 1970:360; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)

What we have here is a Christian leader who traveled from one part of the Roman Empire to another and who found a common faith across the vast Roman Empire.

Another witness can be found in Eusebius’ Church History. This fourth century work describes Christianity’s beginnings, contains lists of bishops for various areas, and describes how the early church struggled against various heresies. A broad theological consensus in the early Church can be seen in the ancient liturgies and in the creedal formulas that were ordered along Trinitarian lines. Lucien Deiss’ Springtime of the Liturgy which contains texts of early Christian worship is recommended for readers interested in examining the evidence for themselves.

Criticism #3: The Church Fathers Contradict Each Other!

In his attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of the Vincentian Canon Outlaw pits one patristic authority against another with respect to the one will versus the two will controversy. He notes how applying the Canon yields contradictory results.

Even worse, as Lars Thunberg points out, St Cyril affirmed “one will and energy” of Christ (Pseudo-Dionysius said the same thing). The whole point behind St maximus’s theology is the very opposite of this. Yet, if one were to “go to the earlier fathers,” would one necessarily come away with dyotheletism? Even worse, St Maximus himself hints that the greatest of all theologians, St Gregory Nazianzus, used language that was disturbingly similar to monotheletism.

The Orthodox response is that this controversy was resolved at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Orthodoxy recognizes that church fathers as individuals may err but as a collective witness they bear witness to orthodox truth.

Quite often the Vincentian Canon has been understood only with respect to the church fathers but it is broader in scope than that. Vincent appeals to the general councils as one important means of ascertaining doctrinal orthodoxy (ch. XXIII, §59; ch. XXIX, §78). The phrase “by all” in the Vincentian Canon had several meanings: (1) the consensus held among the bishops, (2) the decisions made at councils, or (3) the devotional and liturgical practices among the laity (Vol. 1 pp. 338-339). Pelikan notes: “A special mark of the universality and the authority of the church was the ecumenical councils” (Vol. 1 p. 335). The bishops present at the councils were mindful that they were part of the undivided Church. When they made decisions they did so conscious of their responsibility to safeguard the sacred Deposit of Faith. They did not have the liberty to cherry pick what they found useful or progressive.

Outlaw makes reference to Lars Thunberg’s Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor to bolster his argument that the church fathers contradicted each other. The book is a fine piece of scholarship but it was not written from an ecclesial point of view. This is not a criticism of Thunberg but to make the reader aware of the genre being presented. In the early Church much of the theologizing was not done through the medium of academic discourse but through the liturgical life of the churches. The majority of the church fathers were bishops, not academic scholars. Outlaw seem to be using the church fathers much like the way Protestants use the writings of the Reformers and seminary professors to resolve doctrinal controversy.

My question for Outlaw is: Why is it that your blog posting makes no mention of the Sixth Ecumenical Council? Do you accept the decisions of that Council? By what method are you going to resolve the monotheletisim controversy as an independent Protestant or as a member of the Church Catholic?

Criticism #4: Orthodoxy as Syllogism?

Outlaw attempts to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning behind the Orthodox reliance on the church fathers by presenting this approach as an Aristotelian syllogism.

The problem is this with Orthodox internet apologists:

P1: Our practice today is part of the ancient tradition of the church.

P2: We thus appeal to this church father to prove this.

Therefore, the early church taught this and this is the tradition.

What’s the problem with this argument? The problem is that there is an epistemic gap between P2 and the conclusion. How do we know that this father is the tradition, or that tradition is thus and so (and most of the time, I don’t even grant P2. A lot of times these fathers aren’t event talking about 9/10ths of the practices that are now considered “tradition”)?

Even granting P2, at best the syllogism’s conclusion only reads: one Father of the church taught this. (emphasis added)

I find Outlaw’s reduction of Orthodoxy to a syllogism simplistic and objectionable. I don’t recall making the case for Orthodoxy with the model presented above. This is a straw man argument.

One serious flaw in the syllogism presented is the minor premise which contains the assumption that citing a single church father suffices in Orthodoxy. The emphasis on church fathers in the singular in the above excerpt is striking. When it comes to citing the church fathers, Orthodox stresses the patristic consensus, i.e., plurality. It is not enough to quote a single church father. Orthodoxy has recognized that the Fathers can err in particulars and for that reason it looks to the patristic consensus as a witness to the catholic faith. It makes me wonder: Where did Outlaw get the idea that citing a single church father suffices for Orthodoxy? Furthermore, Outlaw’s complaint that all too often appeal is made a single church father for particular tradition is vague and dubious. Perhaps he can be more specific in his complaint in a future blog posting.

Summary

There are a number of problems with Outlaw’s 3 July blog posting: (1) he misreads Jaroslav Pelikan, (2) he seems to understand Orthodox tradition narrowly as arising solely from the writings of the church fathers, (3) he makes no reference to the patristic consensus, (4) he makes no reference to church councils, and (5) his bizarre syllogism misrepresents the Orthodox theological method.

Part II.

An examination of the Commonitory will show that the Vincentian Canon is rooted in a rich theological heritage. Studying the theological method described by Vincent of Lérins will enable to us to compare the theological method of Protestantism against that of Orthodoxy.

Scripture With Tradition

Icon – St. Vincent of Lerins

Vincent argues that Scripture and Tradition are both needed for distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy. He writes:

That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretic as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law (Scripture), and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. (Commonitory ch. II, §4; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132; emphasis added)

We said above, that it has always been the custom of Catholics, and still is, to prove the true faith in these two ways; first by the authority of the Divine Canon (Scripture), and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. (Commonitory ch. XXIX, §76; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 153; emphasis added)

This passage shows that the early Church was biblical but not Protestant in its theological method. It viewed Scripture as normative for doctrine but it did not follow sola scriptura. Vincent anticipated and refuted sola scriptura in a hypothetical scenario presented below.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands is words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. …. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. (Commonitory ch. II, §5; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Here Vincent anticipates the potential pitfall of sola scriptura, multiple competing interpretations of Scripture. The solution to this problem is to read Scripture not individually, but corporately in solidarity with the Church. The early Church viewed Scripture and Tradition not in tension with each other but as congruent. Prof. Pelikan notes:

It was inconceivable to the exponents of the orthodox consensus that there could be any contradiction between Scripture properly interpreted and the tradition of the ancient fathers; or, more precisely, Scripture was properly interpreted with tradition. (Vol. I pp. 336-337; emphasis added)

Orthodoxy as Catholicity

In early Christianity the premium was placed on ecclesiology, not biblical studies. This is the recognition that Scripture could only be properly understood within the true church. This is the opposite of the Protestant approach which asserts that only by Scripture alone could there be a true church. Prof. Pelikan notes:

The criterion of universality required that a doctrine, to be recognized as the teaching of the church rather than a private theory of a man or a school, be genuinely catholic, that is, be the confession of “all the churches . . . one great horde of people from Palestine to Chalcedon with one voice reechoing the praises of Christ.” (Vol. 1 p. 333)

The stricture against private theory can be levied against Luther’s innovative doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura, and Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity and double predestination.

Vincent also seems to have anticipated the Protestant tendency to split off and form new churches. Then again, it may be that Protestantism reprises the theological method of the ancient heterodox who abandoned communion with the true Church. He writes:

What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? (Commonitory ch. III, §7; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Orthodoxy as Antiquity

In the early Church antiquity was held in high regard because it indicated apostolic origins. Vincent held to a nuanced understanding of “antiquity.” Antiquity by itself was not enough. Ancient orthodoxy was to be preferred over ancient heresy (Vol. 1 p. 338). Antiquity as a standard meant the rejection of doctrinal innovation. Vincent viewed doctrinal innovation as a serious threat to the life of the church.

What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty. (Commonitory ch. III, §7; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Doctrinal innovation was understood, not just in terms of new ideas but also in terms of modifications made to a theological system, e.g., giving up or relinquishing certain teachings, or by mingling the ancient with the novel (ch. XXVIII, §58). The latter seems to stand as warning to modern day Protestants who seek to graft ancient Christian practices onto their Protestant system. He writes:

…if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors (Commonitory ch. XXVIII, §58).

Orthodoxy does not mean historical stasis. Vincent has a dynamic understanding of orthodoxy. He writes:

But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. (Commonitory ch. XXIII, §54; NPNF Series II Vol. XI pp. 147-148)

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does or lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine…. (Commonitory ch. XXIII, §58; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

Orthodoxy as Eucharist

Eucharistic unity played an important part in how Vincent understood orthodoxy. He poses a hypothetical scenario in which one is confronted with a doctrinal novelty then sketches the appropriate response.

But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. (Commonitory ch. III, §8; NPNF Series II Vol. XI p. 132)

The recommended response is that one gives weight to authorities in Eucharist communion with the Church (see also ch. XXVIII, §72 and ch. XXIX, §77). Right doctrine cannot exist apart from Eucharist union with the right Church. The implication here is that the remedy is a return to communion with the Church Catholic, not doctrinal triangulation.

The Locus of Orthodoxy – Right Doctrine versus Right Church

Protestantism has a different approach from that of the early church to identifying the locus of orthodoxy. Protestantism situates orthodoxy in doctrine, but the early Christians placed it in the church. Again Prof. Pelikan notes:

To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (οικουμενη).

This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. (Vol. 1 p. 334; emphasis added)

Just as the early Church believed that one could not be orthodox in doctrine unless one was in Eucharistic union with the true Church, so likewise the Orthodox Church today insists that doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be separated from Eucharistic union with her. It is hoped that our examination of the Vincentian Canon and its proper context, the Commonitory, shows how the Orthodox Church adheres to the three fold criteria of ubiquity, antiquity, and catholciity, and how Protestantism is found wanting on the basis of these criteria.

Conclusion

Part I argued: (1) Outlaw’s allegation that Jaroslav Pelikan criticized the Vincentian Canon is based on a misreading of Pelikan, (2) his demand for evidence of the catholicity of ancient Christian doctrine unfair and unrealistic, (3) his understanding of “by all” seems to be confined to just the church fathers and excludes other sources of tradition like early councils and the early liturgies, and (4) his reduction of Orthodoxy to an Aristotelian syllogism is simplistic and rests on an erroneous premise of his own making.

Part II examined the Commonitory showing that: (1) orthodoxy consisted of Scripture interpreted within received tradition; (2) orthodoxy consisted of Eucharistic union with the church catholic; (3) heterodoxy and schism are interrelated; and (4) while progress is allowed, innovation is forbidden.

In conclusion, the Vincentian Canon reflected the rich theological tradition of the early Church. What is amazing is how much the Commonitory anticipates the theological methods of Protestantism: (1) its tendency to doctrinal innovation, (2) its propensity for schism, and (3) its disregard for Eucharistic communion as a mark of orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church of today continues to draw on this rich tradition while Protestantism is found to be wanting in light of the three markers of: ubiqutiy, antiquity, and catholicity.

I urge Outlaw and my Protestant readers to recognize that the Vincentian Canon is truly rooted in the historic Christian Faith and as such the Canon is useful for distinguishing orthodoxy from heterodoxy.

Robert Arakaki

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

July 5, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 7 Comments

On 1 July 2012, Fr. Peter Gillquist reposed in the Lord. He is widely known as the author of Becoming Orthodox. He is also known for being part of a group former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders who led some 2000 Evangelicals into the Orthodox Church in 1987 (see video). The numerous comments on the website of All Saints Orthodox Church in Bloomington, Indiana revealed his influence on the lives of so many people in America and abroad.

There are certain people who weave in and out your life leaving a lasting impression. Fr. Peter Gillquist is one of them. Like so many others, I have been richly blessed to have known Fr. Peter. I have read many of his books but it was the personal time with him that has left the biggest impression on me. I remember this tall blonde man with a warm smile and deep soothing voice. For me and I believe for many, you left Fr. Peter knowing how much he cared about you than about how much he cared about Orthodoxy. This personal concern for the other person in many ways lies at the core of Orthodoxy.

In the reflection below I will be describing my encounters with Fr. Peter. My relationship with him is far from a simple one. We come from quite different backgrounds. His was in mainstream Evangelicalism: Dallas Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, and Campus Crusade for Christ, mine was in the Reformed tradition: conservative Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, the liberal United Church Christ, and the high church Mercersburg Theology. Eventually, our paths would converge in Orthodoxy. I close this reflection with an assessment of the contribution made by Fr. Peter and his colleagues to American Orthodoxy.

Fr. Peter’s Books

I first got to know Peter Gillquist through his books. In the mid 1970s I read Let’s Quit Fighting over the Holy Spirit. I found the book helpful and balanced giving the tensions between the Evangelicals and the Charismatics back then. Later I read Love is Now. By the late 1970s his thinking began to move in a more liturgical and sacramental direction. In The Physical Side of Being Spiritual, Peter Gillquist argues for a more traditional understanding of the sacraments and for the need for liturgical approach to worship. Fr. Peter’s The Physical Side of Being Spiritual stood alongside the Chicago Call (1977), Robert Webber’s Common Roots (1982) and Thomas Oden’s After Modernity …What? (1992).

So while I enjoyed reading Peter Gillquist’s book, he was not that influential in my theological development, mostly because we were moving along different paths during the 1980s. At the time I was reading Calvin and the Reformers, and also Mercersburg Theology. I was also deeply involved in the evangelical renewal movement in the mainline United Church Christ, while Fr. Peter was on his way looking for the original apostolic church. In 1987, I saw an odd article in Christianity Today about a group of Evangelicals joining the Orthodox Church with a picture of men in clerical suits hugging each other then forgot about it. This was a picture of Peter Gillquist and his colleagues being received into the Antiochian Orthodox archdiocese.

Personal Encounters

In 1990, I left Hawaii to study at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts. In 1993, I met Fr. Peter in person at Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Newburyport which is not far from Gordon-Conwell. He spoke about his journey to Orthodoxy in the social hall in the church’s basement. At the time I was more curious than serious about Orthodoxy. But it was more than an idle curiosity because I was coming to appreciate the value of the church fathers in combating theological liberalism. I went up to Fr. Peter and asked him: “If I were to become Orthodox would I have to give up my Calvinist theology?” Fr. Peter humbly admitted that he was not familiar with Reformed theology to answer my question. I appreciated his kind honesty but was also frustrated because it meant I would have to find the answers for myself. But I did appreciate Fr. Peter’s kindness in light of the fact that I had asked Frank Schaeffer the same question and was taken aback by his in-your-face bluntness: “Yes, you would because the Synod of Dort was off the map!”

In many ways my frustration with Fr. Peter Gillquist and Frank Schaeffer planted the seeds for the OrthodoxBridge. I want this blog to be a welcoming forum where inquiring Reformed Christians could find good solid answers to questions about Reformed theology and Orthodoxy. Looking back on Frank Schaeffer’s reply I can see the validity of his reply but still do not think this was the best way to deliver the answer. Years later I still remember Fr. Peter’s kind and humble response. I like to think that the example of his courtesy in dealing with non-Orthodox has set an example for the OrthodoxBridge.

I met Fr. Peter again in 1999. He was in Hawaii recovering from a recent cancer operation. I had just become Orthodox a few weeks earlier and found myself drafted into organizing a speaking event for Fr. Peter. It was also my introduction to Byzantine politics. We had planned to have Fr. Peter speak at the local Greek Orthodox parish but that was vetoed by the church hierarchy. In desperation I called my former home church and asked if we could hold a public event there. I can still remember the feeling of being tongue tied with embarrassment when my friend asked me: “But couldn’t you have him speak at the Greek church?” To which I could only mutter: “It’s a long story.” Fr. Peter ended up speaking at a nearby United Methodist Church.

In 2003, I met Fr. Peter at an Orthodox missions and evangelism conference at the Antiochian Village. When we met he asked me: “So Robert, when are we going to have an all English Orthodox mission on Oahu?” To which I could only reply, “I’m working on it!” At this conference I also had the pleasure of meeting his son, Peter Jon, a recent college graduate and talented musician.

I saw Fr. Peter not too long ago at the Antiochian Village for the St. Stephen Course of Study in 2009 and 2010. He was leading the class sessions on Orthodox evangelism. Afterwards we would talk briefly about the prospects for starting up an all English Orthodox mission on Oahu, the main island where over half a million people live. Although there were two ethnic parishes on Oahu, there wasn’t an Orthodox parish that could effectively reach the mainstream of Hawaii’s population. As director for the Antiochian Archdiocese Department of Missions and Evangelism, Fr. Peter was well aware of the need for an all English Orthodox parish in Hawaii.

Evangelical Pioneer

Fr. Peter Gillquist and his colleagues in the Evangelical Orthodox Church opened a path for Evangelicals to become Orthodox without laying aside their American identity. Many converts to Orthodoxy even now struggle with the ethnic orientation of the local parishes but thanks to Evangelical pioneers like Fr. Peter, Fr. Jack Sparks (+2010), Fr. Richard Ballew (+2008), and Fr. Harold Dunaway (+2012) many have come to see that Orthodoxy in America can take on an American identity. It must also be recognized that Metropolitan Philip and Patriarch Ignatius IV took a bold step of faith when they decided to welcome the 2000 Evangelical Orthodox into canonical Orthodoxy. This bold step forwards would not have been possible without the visionary courage of Orthodox hierarchs like Metropolitan Philip and Patriarch Ignatius IV. (Fr. Peter wrote an informative biography: Metropolitan Philip Saliba: His Life and His Dreams.)

An Assessment

Fr. Peter Gillquist’s ministry can be summed up in the following themes: Accessibility, Contextualization, and the Task Ahead.

Accessibility. Fr. Peter and his colleagues at Conciliar Press helped make Orthodoxy accessible to many Evangelicals. Fr. Peter noted in an interview that many Evangelicals don’t quite have the background to read scholarly introductions like Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church and the Apostolic Fathers so Conciliar Press prepared versions with notes that made Orthodoxy more approachable and understandable to Evangelicals. Many people’s interest in Orthodoxy began with their reading Fr. Peter’s Becoming Orthodox.

Contextualization. The Antiochian Archdiocese’s decision to welcome Fr. Peter and his two thousand member Evangelical Orthodox denomination into canonical Orthodoxy in 1987 marked a major advance for the contextualization of Orthodoxy in America. Orthodoxy in America is no longer viewed as only an exotic ethnic religion. Anyone who has met Fr. Peter and heard him talk comes away with the feeling that one can indeed be fully Orthodox and genuinely American at the same time.

The Task Ahead. As much as people have commented on the significance of the 2000 Evangelicals becoming Orthodox in 1987, we also need to be mindful of the limitations of this breakthrough. American society is becoming increasingly diverse ethnically and culturally. The 1987 breakthrough consisted of a mostly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) group becoming Orthodox. (The term WASP is used broadly; Fr. Peter was proud of his Scandinavian ethnicity.) I once asked him about what we were doing to evangelize America’s ethnic minorities which would soon become the majority. He admitted that they were not doing much and that this lay in the future. Again while I was disappointed with the answer, I admired his humble and kind honesty.

The Road Ahead

There is still much work for us to do. The road ahead contains a number of major challenges for Orthodoxy in America. One major challenge is raising Orthodoxy’s public profile. Even now when someone finds out you’re Orthodox, the response is a blank look or a puzzled: “Orthodoxy? What’s that?” We as Orthodox need to take more intentional steps towards raising Orthodoxy’s public profile. The public needs to be aware of Orthodoxy as the ancient Christian faith holding out the eternal truths of Christ to an increasingly post-Christian society.

Another major challenge is planting Orthodox parishes oriented to the American mainstream. Reaching out to the mainstream of American society will require the planting of Orthodox churches that worships in English and whose parish life will reflect American culture. We need to respect the contribution of the ethnic parishes and we need to support the planting of more all English American Orthodox parishes.

Another major challenge is the fact for many inquirers the nearest Orthodox parish is some distance away from where they live. We need to redouble church planting efforts around the country. This will require the dedication and hard work of laity and clergy. We will need Orthodox clergy who are equipped to do pastoral ministry with a missionary mindset. We will need more clergy who can start up missions where there has been zero Orthodox presence until now. This is different from the usual pastoral ministry where the priest works to uphold the current parish life, not start a new parish.

The Three Waves of Orthodoxy in America

Orthodox evangelism can be viewed as several waves. It has been said that the immigrants brought Orthodoxy to America, but that the time is coming when we will need to focus on bringing America to Orthodoxy. In the first wave, the immigrants began Orthodox parishes as a way of passing on to their children their Orthodox faith and their way of life from the old country. These are the ethnic Orthodox parishes. In the second wave, Whites from the American mainstream began converting to Orthodoxy. Fr. Peter Gillquist was part of the second wave bringing the Orthodox faith to those for whom America is the only home they know. What began as a small trickle is growing into a significant trend. These are the all English Orthodox parishes. The third wave involves bringing Orthodoxy to the minority groups that are rapidly becoming the new majority. This trend is just on the horizon. Glimpses of this exciting future can be found on the Ancient Faith Radio series “The Illumined Heart” which features stories by people from diverse backgrounds: New Age, Witchcraft, Judaism, Lutheran, Buddhist, Hinduism, Hare Krishna, Islam, Rastafarian etc. These are the mosaic Orthodox parishes who reflect America’s increasingly diverse society.

Let us remember Fr. Peter’s life and his dedication to the Gospel. Below is a prayer used at the Conference on Missions and Evangelism.

Outreach Prayer

You who at all times and in every hour, both in heaven and on earth are worshipped and glorified, O Christ God, long-suffering, plenteous in mercy and compassion, who love the just and show mercy to sinners, who call all men to salvation through the promise of good things to come: assist us in fulfilling Your charge to gather individuals from the highways and byways of our nation [or community] so that we might fill the banquet hall of Your Church. Grant us wisdom in our conduct toward outsiders that we might make the most of the time. Let our speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that we might know how to answer every one. Awaken all men to Your salvation, and in due time make them worthy of the laver of regeneration, the remission of sins and the robe of incorruption. Unite them to Your Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and number them with Your chosen flock.

That with us they may glorify Your all honorable and majestic Name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Robert Arakaki

Videos of Fr. Peter Gillquist:

“Finding the New Testament Church” – St. Elijah Antiochian Orthodox Church at Oklahoma City, OK in 2001.

“‘Welcome Home’ The Story of the EOC.” (You can hear Fr. Peter at 2:55 to 3:41.)

Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Page 71 of 93

Tradition: Family, Friend, or Foe?

Contributed by “Nicodemus”

Defending the Vincentian Canon “Everywhere, Always, and By All” — A Response to Outlaw Presbyterianism

Fr. Peter Gillquist: Evangelical Pioneer for Orthodoxy

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives