07 April 2009
What a Protestant!
There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. -- St. John Chrysostom, (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles [NPNF1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
But I thought the early church was so much more unified than we are nowadays? :)
Great quote! Thanks Pastor Weedon.
Yes, but he was a member of the Orthodox Church, so there, right?
; )
Heap it on, Father.
--goose
Why would the Orthodox Church be surprised at Saint John's words. Of course, we embrace the teaching here fully. We love the Holy Scriptures; we wrote them :-)
From the Communion prayers of Saint John Chrysostom (though I need not indicate this to Pastor Weedon, as he's expressed great love for Saint John's Communion prayers elsewhere):
"And through the intercession of the all pure and ever virgin Mary, your Mother, who conceived you without sin, my only hope, protection, and salvation, count me worthy, uncondemned, to partake of your pure and immortal and life giving Mysteries, for the remission of sins, for eternal life, for sanctification and enlightenment . . ."
***Thoroughly and completely biblical, the whole lot of it. I can agree with my Lutheran brothers on this one. O, most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
I hope everyone here can sense the fun-spiritedness of my post. I'm not pecking a fight. I saw all the smiley faces :-) ;-) and they inspired me to participate :-)--+
Atychi,
This is one Protestant who rejoices that "Sancte Maria, Mater Dei, ORAT pro nobis peccatoribus." I've got no beef with that. But I DO think you might want to reconsider your claim that the Orthodox wrote the Scriptures; the Scriptures teach us rather that the Holy Spirit is their author. :)
Sancta. Sorry bout that. As Jon said before - German endings slip in!
Pr. Weedon:
Sed lingua Germania est lingua pulchra. So the endings must slip in.
Jon
In the same volume of NPNF (p.338)we read in St John Chrysostom's epistle to the Romans:
[Regarding Jesus Christ] It was not with oil that He was annointed, but with the Spirit. And Scripture has instances of calling such "Christs"; inasmuch as THE SPIRIT IS THE CHIEF POINT OF THE UNCTION, and that for which the oil is used. And wherre does it call those "Christs" who are not annointed with oil? "Touch not", it says, "Mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (Ps. cv. 15), but at that time THE INSTITUTION OF ANNOINTING WITH OIL DID NOT YET EVEN EXIST.
Here the Saint shows forth first that Christ Himself was annointed directly by the Spirit. Second he reminds us that in times past others were annointed in similar fashion. But then he speaks of the unction, the chrisma in which "the Spirit is the chief point". This "annointing with oil" was "instituted" says the apostle.
Thus St. John Chrysostom describes his "Scriptural" faith as one that practises Chrismation as having been instituted and with the effect that the "Spirit" is "that for which the oil is used".
A blessed Holy Week.
Daniel,
You could multiply the example many times. It doesn't take away from what he thought about the Sacred Scriptures: they are "simple and true" and accessible to even the unbeliever who is honestly inquiring into the faith. His advice to such a person was: read them and compare. [And, of course, there is nothing inherently unbiblical about anointing - shoot, we anoint all those we baptize.]
No, the Lutherans wrote the Scriptures. Read them--St Paul and the Evangelists were obviously Lutherans.
"Yes, but he was a member of the Orthodox Church, so there, right?"
Actually, "Is" a member not "was" but yes he is, thank you.
Go visit Hagia Sophia where he was Bishop sometime, although it’s now a museum, they have kept the beautiful Voters Assembly Hall that St. John constructed during his Protestant reign.
Trent
Bill,
You said,
"And, of course, there is nothing inherently unbiblical about anointing - shoot, we anoint all those we baptize."
But by way of reminder there were other annointings in the Old Testament. But what specific annointing was John Chrysostom speaking about when he said,
"But at that time [when the Psalm was written] THE INSTITUTION OF ANNOINTING WITH OIL DID NOT YET EVEN EXIST"? The answer was and is-Chrismation. Not just any annointing, but the "seal of the Spirit".
Perhaps this is why the now "old" Lutheran Worship Rite of Confirmation used to have the words, "Recieve the Spirit" in its. A reminder of what confirmation [Chrismation]really is being part and parcel with the tri-partite rites of initiation (baptism, chrismation and eucharist). The new hymnal simply describes Confirmation as a "blessing". And yes I am aware that the older TLH Rite (in good Anglican fashion)gave the option between the two; this pleased both the "reformed" and "catholic" elements at that time.
Next, we know from the Bood of Concord that Luther equated this Rite [Confirmation] to the "blessing of bells" and the like as "human tradition". But the good reformer did not have access to the same amount of patristic data that we have today. We are held to a higher standard, "for unto whom much is given, much is required".
And just as many good, godly LCMS and other Protestants lament that modern exegetical scholarship has yet to unshakle itself from eighteenth and nineteenth century Liberal Critical arguements; in the same way it may be that Confessional Lutheranism is bound to to its sixteenth century milieu (without even the benefit of such important works as the Didache {found in 1873 in a Constantiniple library} and the Epistles of Igatius of Antioch).
Finally,the key question regarding St. John's statement on Scripture is whether we see Scripture as within Tradition (that which has been handed down to us including sign of the cross, apostlic succession, etc), or if we see the Bible as detached from the Church- and entity in and of itself.
I speak these things in sincere love. If I am wrong, time or eternity with be that out. But at least I care enough to respond with whatever pittance of thought and spirit that I do possess.
You are approaching your Maundy Thursday, so if you do reply I will give you the last word on this. However if you wish to delay, this is understandble at this holy time for your tradition.
Forgive my many spelling errors!
Daniel,
I take it I'm talking to my Woodring buddy? The curious thing is that Lutherans *liturgically* have never lost the confirmation AT Baptism. For immediately following every Baptism, hands are laid upon the baptizand (and oil may also be used) and the blessing: "The Almighty Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the new birth of water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, STRENGTHEN you with His grace to life everlasting. Amen."
THIS is "confirmation" in the true sense of the word, or Chrismation, if you prefer. And we have ever done it immediately with the Baptism itself; and the other rite of Confirmation hearkens right back to this one.
An appeal to the Scriptures hardly makes Chrysostom out to be a crypto-Protestant. There is alot more to sola scriptura than an appeal to the Scriptures.
Take for example Aquinas or the high church Anglicans in the Laudians. They held Scripture to be the only infallible rule of faith but yet they denied sola scriptura. Why? Because they thought tha the church was the only infallible judge to apply the rule.
2nd, it is one thing for a person to judge for himself what he will or won't believe, it is another to think of oneself in a position to make a judgment of sufficient normative force for the whole church and that this is available to all professing Christians. I think you'd have a hard time showing that the right of private judgment in terms of the second was professd by Chrysostom.
Acolyte,
Lighten up! :) The "Protestant" was entirely in good fun. St. John Chrysostom was nothing of the sort; but nor was he one to run along the lines one hears these days from modern Orthodox.
William,
I am wondering what we would need to add to Chrysostom's teaching or practice to make him a "modern" Orthodox. What exactly do you have in mind, seeing that we use practically every sunday his liturgy and other services written by his own hand. So please, tell me, what would we need to add? I'd really like to know.
I am sorry but this kind of "no one can claim the fathers" stuff is nonsense.
Acolyte,
I never said no one can claim the fathers. I was pointing out that St. John Chrysostom gave an example of speaking to an inquiring heathen who wanted to know which Christian group was true in a different manner than one hears from the Orthodox in this day. He invited the heathen to read the Scripture and compare it with the competing teachings and to conclude that the one that follows that rule is Christian. He turned to the authority of the Word rather than to the claims of authority of the Church per se. That's what's different.
Post a Comment