Three Sections of
"An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith"
by Saint John of Damascus
Examined
April 5, 2020
G.D.O'Bradovich III
The Gentle Reader is familiar with our various attempts to demonstrate reasonable conclusions from the evidence that the alleged writings of the Church Fathers are subtly atheistic. This view is not our discovery, but originated from the erudite scholar Jean Hardouin who is perhaps best known for writing the definitive history of the church councils. Our previous attempts to verify this supposition that these writings are fraudulent were solely concerned with the works of the western Church Fathers. Since the allegations of atheism is an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence is required.
Jean Hardouin [d. 1729] stressed that the Church Fathers themselves were not atheists, however, the writings attributed to them and created by unknown authors are atheistic. These tomes are not explicitly atheistic, otherwise, they would have been burned, not preserved and studied. As a whole, the Church Fathers are well known saints whose works and faith are not questioned; Origen being the notable exception.
The fraudulent nature of these works can be detected by two facts. Firstly, the writers know history, whether ecclesiastical or secular, as well modern scholars and this fact is an indication that date of the creation of these books are more recent than generally believed. Joseph Scaliger, who died in the year 1609, is the recognized father of modern chronology and the Gentle Reader can speculate how recent these works of the Church Fathers are in reality. Secondly, the authors always digress and fill their works with unnecessary verbiage in quotations, allusions, and excursions. Oftentimes, these digressions are upon non Christian topics.
As Hardouin noted, the Roman Church has neither declared these writings as being the works of the saints nor as being dogmatically binding upon the faithful. Simply said, the writings of the Church Fathers are a tradition of unknown origin which may, or may not, be in agreement with Christian theology and where they disagree, they should be treated as personal opinions, not sanctified insights, and duly ignored. For the benefit of the Gentle Reader, we quote the entire text of the seventeenth chapter of book four:
Jean Hardouin [d. 1729] stressed that the Church Fathers themselves were not atheists, however, the writings attributed to them and created by unknown authors are atheistic. These tomes are not explicitly atheistic, otherwise, they would have been burned, not preserved and studied. As a whole, the Church Fathers are well known saints whose works and faith are not questioned; Origen being the notable exception.
The fraudulent nature of these works can be detected by two facts. Firstly, the writers know history, whether ecclesiastical or secular, as well modern scholars and this fact is an indication that date of the creation of these books are more recent than generally believed. Joseph Scaliger, who died in the year 1609, is the recognized father of modern chronology and the Gentle Reader can speculate how recent these works of the Church Fathers are in reality. Secondly, the authors always digress and fill their works with unnecessary verbiage in quotations, allusions, and excursions. Oftentimes, these digressions are upon non Christian topics.
As Hardouin noted, the Roman Church has neither declared these writings as being the works of the saints nor as being dogmatically binding upon the faithful. Simply said, the writings of the Church Fathers are a tradition of unknown origin which may, or may not, be in agreement with Christian theology and where they disagree, they should be treated as personal opinions, not sanctified insights, and duly ignored. For the benefit of the Gentle Reader, we quote the entire text of the seventeenth chapter of book four:
It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the Trinity: I am come, saith the Lord, not to destroy life law [sic] but to fulfill it[Quote]. For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me[Quote]. And the Apostle says, God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son[Quote]. Through the Holy Spirit, therefore, both the law and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles and pastors and teachers, spake.
The author knows the terms “Old” and “New Testament” which is not surprising, until until one learns the first published usage of “All of the New Testament” as a title of a book was in the year 1519 under the direction of Erasmus. The first edition, published in the year 1516, is titled “All of the New Teaching”. The commentator mentions the Trinity, as would be expected in a Christian book, and, to increase the content of the text, provides one quote from Jesus and two quotes from Saint Paul. Of course, “the Apostle” is a pseudonym for Saint Paul.
All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable [Quote]. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season[Quote], viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice. If, therefore, we are lovers of learning, we shall also be learned in many things. For by care and toil and the grace of God the Giver, all things are accomplished. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to hint that knocketh it shall be opened[Quote].
Once again, to increase the amount of the text, the commentator quotes from Saint Paul and from Jesus, both to suggest the text is wholly orthodox and to expand the text. The author states that Scripture is given so that our trained actions are pleasing to God and for “untroubled contemplation”. It seems that our untrained actions, our natural behavior, is not pleasing to God. The author suggests that “lovers of learning” will know many subjects and we agree.
Wherefore let us knock at that very fair garden of the Scriptures, so fragrant and sweet and blooming, with its varied sounds of spiritual and divinely-inspired birds ringing all round our ears, laying hold of our hearts, comforting the mourner, pacifying the angry and filling him with joy everlasting: which sets our mind on the gold-gleaming, brilliant back of the divine dove[Quote], whose bright pinions bear up to the only-begotten Son and Heir of the Husbandman[Quote] of that spiritual Vineyard and bring us through Him to the Father of Lights[Quote].
But let us not knock carelessly but rather zealously and constantly: lest knocking we grow weary. For thus it will be opened to us. If we read once or twice and do not understand what we read, let us not grow weary, but let us persist, let us talk much, let us enquire. For ask thy Father, he saith, and He will shew thee: thy elders and they will tell thee[Quote]. For there is not in every man that knowledge[Quote]. Let us draw of the fountain of the garden perennial and purest waters springing into life eternal[Quote]. Here let us luxuriate, let us revel insatiate: for the Scriptures possess inexhaustible grace. But if we are able to pluck anything profitable from outside sources, there is nothing to forbid that. Let us become tried money-dealers, heaping up the true and pure gold and discarding the spurious. Let us keep the fairest sayings but let us throw to the dogs absurd gods and strange myths: for we might prevail most mightily against them through themselves.
Scripture is described as a “very fair garden”. The above section is not subtly atheistic nor does it explain Christian theology and only serves the undeclared purpose of unnecessary expanding the text to dissuade the less persistent reader.
Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double.
The author knows there are twenty two books of the Old Testament and touches upon the basic nature of the Hebrew letters.
And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five.
The writer explains there are twenty seven books due to the five double letters [22+5=27].
For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra.
In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch.
For no apparent reason, the author creates unnecessary technical jargon in the form of the first, second, third, and the fourth Pentateuchs. The usage of numerology is not typically an explanatory device found in Christian texts.
Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch.
The commentator uses technical language: Grapheia, Hagiographa, and Paraleipomena. The titles of the “two books of the Paraleipomena” are not provided, so the curious reader must search for these books.
The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon.
The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.
The unnamed twelve prophets are to considered as one book in addition to the four named books.
Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.
The commentator states that “these” books are “virtuous and noble”, however, we cannot know on the first reading which books, exactly, are to be excluded, due to vague writing. The commentator states that “these” books were not placed in the ark. The Gentle Researcher must reread the text for the proper of understanding: after the “fourth” Pentateuch there can only two books [4 Pentateuchs x 5 books each= 20 books] and these are Esdra and Ester. Therefore, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus were not placed in the ark, which we interpret as the ark of the covenant.
The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.
We note that the wording “according to John” is correct, as the author of the fourth gospel does not identify himself, but uses the epitaph of the beloved disciple. However, this wording should be compared to “that [gospel] according to Luke”, who identifies himself at the beginning of his gospel. We are uncertain why, other than creating confusion, the identical wording would be used to describe works by both known and unknown authors.
The catholic epistles are listed, but the “fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul” are not named, while the canons of holy apostles are considered part of the New Testament.
From the above observations, there is nothing to be considered inappropriate or suspicious, except, perhaps, the inclusion of the canons of Saint Clement which are not now part of the Biblical canon. By including the canons of the Holy Apostles, the writer masquerading as Saint John of Dasmascus creates doubt in the mind of the reader to what, exactly, constitutes the proper canon of the New Testament. Further, the persistent researcher will speculate if these now omitted canons should not be “returned” to their rightful place in the Bible. One is left wondering: if this “saint” is incorrect concerning basis facts of Biblical canon, then can he be trusted on any topic touching upon Christianity and Christian teaching?
The book of Revelation is listed as a book of the New Testament and was included in Erasmus’ first edition of the “All of the New Teaching” in the year 1516. Subsequent editions were entitled “All of the New Testament”. It seems like an unsolvable conundrum that one of the most gifted scholars did not know to title his initial edition as “All of the New Testament”, to say nothing of the lesser minds of the publishers, editors, and print setters involved in this work. In the annual lectionary, the Orthodox Church quotes the entirety of the New Testament, except for a handful of verses, but no passage from the book of Revelation is found in the lectionary. This fact suggests that the lectionary of the Orthodox Church is older than the published Bible, which always includes the book of Revelation, and that the Bible is a product of the western church. If Revelation was known in antiquity, then we would expect that it would be faithfully preserved in the lectionary. However, if it were known to be a contemporaneous publication of the western church, then it is readily understood why it is omitted by the Orthodox lectionary. “Saint John of Damascene” knows that the book of Revelation is a book of the New Testament, not of the New Teaching, and this would only be true after the year 1519.
The Nicene Creed is the statement of the faithful. The purpose of the creed is to simply state the faith. We quote the entirety of second chapter of the fourth book:
The catholic epistles are listed, but the “fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul” are not named, while the canons of holy apostles are considered part of the New Testament.
From the above observations, there is nothing to be considered inappropriate or suspicious, except, perhaps, the inclusion of the canons of Saint Clement which are not now part of the Biblical canon. By including the canons of the Holy Apostles, the writer masquerading as Saint John of Dasmascus creates doubt in the mind of the reader to what, exactly, constitutes the proper canon of the New Testament. Further, the persistent researcher will speculate if these now omitted canons should not be “returned” to their rightful place in the Bible. One is left wondering: if this “saint” is incorrect concerning basis facts of Biblical canon, then can he be trusted on any topic touching upon Christianity and Christian teaching?
The book of Revelation is listed as a book of the New Testament and was included in Erasmus’ first edition of the “All of the New Teaching” in the year 1516. Subsequent editions were entitled “All of the New Testament”. It seems like an unsolvable conundrum that one of the most gifted scholars did not know to title his initial edition as “All of the New Testament”, to say nothing of the lesser minds of the publishers, editors, and print setters involved in this work. In the annual lectionary, the Orthodox Church quotes the entirety of the New Testament, except for a handful of verses, but no passage from the book of Revelation is found in the lectionary. This fact suggests that the lectionary of the Orthodox Church is older than the published Bible, which always includes the book of Revelation, and that the Bible is a product of the western church. If Revelation was known in antiquity, then we would expect that it would be faithfully preserved in the lectionary. However, if it were known to be a contemporaneous publication of the western church, then it is readily understood why it is omitted by the Orthodox lectionary. “Saint John of Damascene” knows that the book of Revelation is a book of the New Testament, not of the New Teaching, and this would only be true after the year 1519.
The Nicene Creed is the statement of the faithful. The purpose of the creed is to simply state the faith. We quote the entirety of second chapter of the fourth book:
We hold, moreover, that Christ sits in the body at the right hand of God the Father, but we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place. For how could He that is uncircumscribed have a right hand limited by place? Right hands and left hands belong to what is circumscribed. But we understand the right hand of the Father to be the glory and honour of the Godhead in which the Son of God, who existed as God before the ages, and is of like essence to the Father, and in the end became flesh, has a seat in the body, His flesh sharing in the glory. For He along with His flesh is adored with one adoration by all creation.
The author states that “we do not hold that the right hand of the Father is actual place” and we are unsure of the proper interpretation of the word “we”: we Christians, we fraudulent writes, or another group. The commentator pretending to be Saint John allegorically interprets the clear statement from the creed that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The plain meaning of the passage is perhaps the only section of the creed that could offer such a bold exegesis. The phrase “Christ sits… at the right hand of God the Father” is supposedly to be correctly understood as “the glory and honour of the Godhead”. However, the creed does not state that the Holy Spirit sits at the right hand of the Father, which suggests that either the Holy Spirit is a subordinate participant in the Trinity or that the allegorical interpretation is not correct.
Saint Paul clearly teaches, as does the Nicene Creed that “Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” and is the result of the bodily ascension of Christ [Colossians 3:1, Luke 24:51]]. By adhering to “Saint John of Damascus”, one must ignore the clear meanings both of the Nicene Creed and of Saint Paul and question whether or not the Holy Spirit is worthy of “glory and honour”. Once again, the alleged writings of the Church Fathers create doubt and uncertainty in the mind of the thoughtful reader regarding the truthfulness of the Nicene Creed, the Pauline epistles, and the gospel account.
In the third chapter of the first book, the author offers proof of the existence of God. On the surface, this seems like a laudable exercise, but long and painful experience teaches us that all such efforts are based neither on personal faith nor the teaching of the universal church, but improper reasoning and various appeals to the material realm.
Saint Paul clearly teaches, as does the Nicene Creed that “Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” and is the result of the bodily ascension of Christ [Colossians 3:1, Luke 24:51]]. By adhering to “Saint John of Damascus”, one must ignore the clear meanings both of the Nicene Creed and of Saint Paul and question whether or not the Holy Spirit is worthy of “glory and honour”. Once again, the alleged writings of the Church Fathers create doubt and uncertainty in the mind of the thoughtful reader regarding the truthfulness of the Nicene Creed, the Pauline epistles, and the gospel account.
In the third chapter of the first book, the author offers proof of the existence of God. On the surface, this seems like a laudable exercise, but long and painful experience teaches us that all such efforts are based neither on personal faith nor the teaching of the universal church, but improper reasoning and various appeals to the material realm.
That there is a God, then, is no matter of doubt to those who receive the Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament, I mean, and the New; nor indeed to most of the Greeks.
It is evident that the intended audience for this section is not Christians, but young men who like to think, as the existence of God is presumed regarding those reading a book concerning Orthodox Christian beliefs and, therefore, no proofs are necessary. But, of course, such efforts increase the amount of text. By the alleged time the death of Saint John Damasenes in the eighth century, the Greeks had been officially Christian for five centuries.
For, as we said, the knowledge of the existence of God is implanted in us by nature. But since the wickedness of the Evil One has prevailed so mightily against man's nature as even to drive some into denying the existence of God, that most foolish and woe-fulest pit of destruction (whose folly David, revealer of the Divine meaning, exposed when he said(9), The fool said in his heart, There is no God), so the disciples of the Lord and His Apostles, made wise by the Holy Spirit and working wonders in His power and grace, took them captive in the net of miracles and drew them up out of the depths of ignorance(1) to the light of the knowledge of God.
The “Evil One” is a pseudonym of Satan. We have previously commented on the fourteen Psalm and we agree it is foolish to state that one has knowledge of something one cannot know, that is, for mutable humanity to know of the uncreated and unchangeable. To be taken “captive in the net of miracles” is a strange expression. We expect to read either “from the depths of ignorance to the height of the knowledge of God” or “from the darkness of ignorance to the light of the knowledge of God”. Either the author has mixed his metaphors or there is a printing error.
In like manner also their successors in grace and worth, both pastors and teachers, having received the enlightening grace of the Spirit, were wont, alike by the power of miracles and the word of grace, to enlighten those walking in darkness and to bring back the wanderers into the way. But as for us who (2) are not recipients either of the gift of miracles or the gift of teaching (for indeed we have rendered ourselves unworthy of these by our passion for pleasure), come, let us in connection with this theme discuss a few of those things which have been delivered to us on this subject by the expounders of grace, calling on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The atheistic author grants that we, presumably other writers of the Church Fathers, have not received the gifts of either miracles or teaching. It should not be surprising that atheists do not have the gift of miracles, however, the author is too modest when he state that he does not have the gift of teaching, for all the writings of the Church Fathers are instruments of atheistic education. This section closes with the orthodox trinity which, in our opinion, attempts to provide a veneer of Orthodoxy to the text.
All things, that exist, are either created or uncreated.
We accept this premise.
If, then, things are created, it follows that they are also wholly mutable. For things, whose existence originated in change, must also be subject to change, whether it be that they perish or that they become other than they are by act of wills.
We accept the deduction that created objects undergo change as this agrees with the experiences of man.
But if things are uncreated they must in all consistency be also wholly immutable.
We are uncertain to what “things are uncreated”. The author cannot mean that matter is uncreated, as matter, through all of human experience, is mutable. It is possible that the “matter” under consideration is not molecules, but atoms. If the author means that God is uncreated and is immutable, then we are at a disadvantage, as we have no experience with, or knowledge of, things uncreated.
For things which are opposed in the nature of their existence must also be opposed in the mode of their existence, that is to say, must have opposite properties: who, then, will refuse to grant that all existing things, not only such as come within the province of the senses, but even the very angels, are subject to change and transformation and movement of various kinds?
Modern science teaches that matter does change forms, but matter cannot be destroyed, so one is left to ponder whether matter was created from nothing by God or if it is eternal and was simply rearranged to form the cosmos. The atheists who write under the names of the Church Fathers inevitably bring up the subject of rest and motion, which are properties of the physical world. Even the unseen angles are capable of transformation and movement and we recall that “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” [2 Corinthians 11:14].
For the things appertaining to the rational world, I mean angels and spirits and demons, are subject to changes of will, whether it is a progression or a retrogression in goodness, whether a struggle or a surrender; while the others suffer changes of generation and destruction, of increase and decrease, of quality and of movement in space.
The implication from the statement that “demons” are subject to “a progression … in goodness” is against the clear teaching of the church that the fallen angels, unlike man, are incapable of receiving salvation. Of course, in an atheistic worldview, there are neither good actions nor bad actions and, as a result, there is no need for redemption.
Things then that are mutable are also wholly created. But things that are created must be the work of some maker, and the maker cannot have been created.
We are uncertain why created things, whether the physical cosmos or angels, must be the product of a maker who himself cannot have been created. This statement is against human experience.
For if he had been created, he also must surely have been created by some one, and so on till we arrive at something uncreated. The Creator, then, being uncreated, is also wholly immutable. And what could this be other than Deity? [Question 1]
The near endless streams of creators or begotten beings is reminiscent of Gnostic though in which eons, sometimes numbered as 365, extend from this world to the unknown Father. The author states that the Creator must be wholly immutable, but, if that is true, then the thought of of the act of creation in the Creator is a change; a change from not thinking about creation to thinking about creation, and change, as was said before, cannot be synonymous with immutable.
And even the very continuity of the creation, and its preservation and government, teach us that there does exist a Deity, who supports and maintains and preserves and ever provides for this universe.
It is unlikely, although not impossible, that the “Deity” that actively supports and maintains this universe is the same God of the Old Testament, the God of the nation of Israel [The Gentle Reader recalling the other nations have their own national Gods] who frequently intervenes in the affairs of the world or, in the example of Job, allows interference from Satan in the mundane activities of man.
For how could opposite natures, such as fire and water, air and earth, have combined with each other so as to form one complete world, and continue to abide in indissoluble union, were there not some omnipotent power which bound them together and always is preserving them from dissolution? [Question 2]
The premise that the basic elements of fire, air, water, and earth are the foundation of the world is not presented with either evidence or arguments, so there is no reason to conclude that an omnipotent power, whether a Deity or a leprechaun, binds these supposed primal elements together in the universe.
What is it that gave order to things of heaven and things of earth, and all those things that move in the air and in the water, or rather to what was in existence before these, viz., to heaven and earth and air and the elements of fire and water? [Question 3] What was it that mingled and distributed these? [Question 4] What was it that set these in motion and keeps them in their unceasing and unhindered course? [Question 5]
Was it not the Artificer of these things, and He Who hath implanted in everything the law whereby the universe is carried on and directed? [Question 6] Who then is the Artificer of these things? [Question 7] Is it not He Who created them and brought them into existence. [sic] [Question 8]
The “law” that the author mentions is nothing more than the natural physical laws of rest and motion.
For we shall not attribute such a power to the spontaneous. For, supposing their coming into existence was due to the spontaneous; what of the power that put all in orders? [Question 9] And let us grant this, if you please. What of that which has preserved and kept them in harmony with the original laws of their existence? [Question 10]
We cannot know what “the original laws of their existence” were, as these were, by all accounts, in operation before the appearance of man. Therefore, we cannot know if the original laws were identical to the laws we experience today, for to make such a statement is an educated deduction of past events from present circumstances, not a statement of knowledge.
Clearly it is something quite distinct from the spontaneous. And what could this be other than Deity? [Question 11]
The experienced reader of the Church Fathers is not surprised that the proofs of God seem to consist entirely of eleven rhetorical questions. The inexperienced or careless reader will accept the existence of the Creator based on the fraudulent reasoning, personal experiences of the physical world, and the natural laws thereof, not on faith.
All attempts of the Church Fathers to prove the existence of God entail reasoning from the world, generally, and the created world, specifically. The phrase “the creation of the world” is ambiguous and can be understood as either a creation from nothing or as a creation from primal elements. Of course, the creations of both Adam and Eve were not creations from nothing, but from dirt and a rib.
All attempts of the Church Fathers to prove the existence of God entail reasoning from the world, generally, and the created world, specifically. The phrase “the creation of the world” is ambiguous and can be understood as either a creation from nothing or as a creation from primal elements. Of course, the creations of both Adam and Eve were not creations from nothing, but from dirt and a rib.
Hardouin was confronted with the possibility that unwary readers who blindly accept the implied atheistic writings of the Church Father would lead , step by step, to open atheism in the world and a subsequent “falling away” from the one true faith. From Hardouin’s viewpoint, atheism leads to the eternal damnation of immortal souls. We do not doubt that the modern Roman practice of sprinkling water for baptist, instead of submersion, is one result of the implementation of that suggestion from various Church Fathers.
Although the writings of the Church Fathers are known in the Orthodox Church, this ancient church, unlike its western counterpart, seems immune to ideas found on library shelves that conflict with their unwritten traditions.
The Gentle Reader may reasonably conclude that the inability of the Orthodox to change their doctrines and dogmas may be due in part to their adherence to tradition and in part to their disdain of innovation. On the other hand, the Gentle Researcher may conclude that the Orthodox Church continues unchanged through the sustaining dynamis of God.
Although the writings of the Church Fathers are known in the Orthodox Church, this ancient church, unlike its western counterpart, seems immune to ideas found on library shelves that conflict with their unwritten traditions.
The Gentle Reader may reasonably conclude that the inability of the Orthodox to change their doctrines and dogmas may be due in part to their adherence to tradition and in part to their disdain of innovation. On the other hand, the Gentle Researcher may conclude that the Orthodox Church continues unchanged through the sustaining dynamis of God.
For not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be place in Christ’s merits;
neither in epistles nor tractates, nor in discourses to the people,
nor in disputations, nowhere in fact does that dictum occur...
The hiding of so great a matter, what is it but a denial of it?
If God is simply Nature, there can be no place for merits.
But ... religion and unwritten tradition teach another doctrine.
Jean Hardouin
neither in epistles nor tractates, nor in discourses to the people,
nor in disputations, nowhere in fact does that dictum occur...
The hiding of so great a matter, what is it but a denial of it?
If God is simply Nature, there can be no place for merits.
But ... religion and unwritten tradition teach another doctrine.
Jean Hardouin