Apostasy from true Christianity

Jones continues with another "Orthodox apostasy":

Subjugation of Scripture. Christ reserved some of his most heated denunciations for that ecclesiastical body which subjugated God’s revelation to human tradition. Eastern Orthodoxy attempts to evade this charge by claiming to preserve only divine tradition. But the Pharisees made the same claim, and it in no way alleviated Christ’s condemnations. Those who attempt to suppress God’s covenantal word invite on themselves the curses of the covenant.

This is an unsubstantiated accusation. It has been answered in detail in a monograph by Fr. Deacon John Whiteford entitled Sola Scriptura: an Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology. Speaking about the fact that early Christians often did not have access to the writings of Holy Scripture, Father John writes:

So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.

This dependence upon tradition is evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, Saint Paul exhorts the Thessalonians: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle" (II Thessalonians 2:15).

The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word paradosis—which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15).

So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition—"the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments—one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not—for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination. [23]

Jones' tactic is "guilt by association." As the Pharisees were condemned for appealing to tradition, in likewise manner should the Orthodox be condemned. The inadequacy of this charge, if not evident by now, will become glaringly so after our critique of his claim that our worship is arrogant (Section VI).

Though Jones does not make this specific accusation, it is here worth highlighting the fact that the Orthodox Church has always strongly encouraged the reading of the Scriptures among the faithful. Anyone familiar with the writings of the ascetic Fathers will know that great emphasis is laid upon reading and doing the Gospels in particular. An example is the focus that is clearly evident in The Arena, the nineteenth century classic by St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov).  Bishop (then Archimandrite) Kallistos (Ware) made the following remarks apropos of our rebuttal in his Introduction:

What are the chief sources upon which Ignatius relies in presenting his picture of the Christian's path? First and foremost comes the Bible. Ignatius quotes frequently from Scripture, and he underlines with great clarity the part which the Gospels in particular should play in our ascetic training. 'From his very entry into the monastery'—such are the opening words of The Arena—'a monk should occupy himself with all possible care and attention with the reading of the holy Gospel. He should make such a study of the Gospel that it may always be present in his memory, and at every moral step he takes, for every act, for every thought, he may always have ready in his memory the teaching of the Gospel.' 'Never cease studying the Gospel till the end of your life,' Ignatius adds a little later. 'Do not think that you know it enough, even if you know it by heart'." Those who imagine that the Orthodox Church pays insufficient attention to the Bible would do well to keep these passages from The Arena in mind. No 'Evangelical' in Victorian England showed a greater reverence for God's Word than this nineteeth century Russian bishop. [24]

In another Russian Orthodox classic, The Way of Pilgrim, we read about the spiritual journey of a man who travels through Russia with only a New Testament and a copy of Philokalia. Another example among many of the emphasis given in Orthodoxy to the reading of God's word is a story found in the booklet Missionary Conversations with Protestant Sectarians. [25] In it we read that a Russian priest, after defeating a Protestant in a public debate, then proceeds to hand out free copies of the Russian New Testament to the crowd.

The Orthodox Church has also continually made the translation of the Scriptures into the native tongue the first priority when doing missionary work. Moreover, one who is familiar with Orthodox worship would know that our hymnography is almost entirely drawn from Holy Scripture.[26] To study these texts is to be rewarded with many profound insights into a variety of topological themes related to our Redemption. Various circles within the Protestant Reformed tradition have always placed emphasis on typology. It is a wonder why Jones has not seen this.

We might also add that all Orthodox Christians hear a passage each from the Gospels and the remainder of the New Testament (excluding the Book of Revelation) at every Divine Liturgy. Much of the Psalter is also chanted at this service. If one attends other Orthodox services a similar emphasis is found. One could truthfully say that the Bible is read and heard more in Orthodox worship than in any form of Protestant worship!

Jones' remarks concerning Orthodox ecclesiology were worded in such a way that it was difficult to determine what he was trying to say. He also made no attempt to substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, we have deduced several ecclesiological questions that are worth addressing.

First, Jones begins his essay with a fairly accurate presentation of some tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology, though, for example, he erroneously states:

Rejecting the infallibility of Church councils and the Roman Pontiff, Eastern Orthodoxy holds that the "decisions of an Ecumenical [worldwide] Council, formulated by the bishops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and accepted by the clergy and laity, constitute the highest authority of the Orthodox Church."

While it is certainly true that the Orthodox Church rejects the infallibility of the Pope; and while it is true that we do not vest blanket infallibility in any gathering of Bishops in Synod; it is not true that we reject the infallibility of truly Ecumenical Councils (better, "Œcumenical Synods").  In fact, quite the opposite is true. We consider the decrees of such Synods to be an infallible and inspired defense of the Apostolic Faith. But it is vitally important to understand that Œcumenical Synods do not constitute the highest authority in the Orthodox Church. Authority for us is rooted in Christ, the Head of the Church. As Jones correctly points out elsewhere,

the whole Church catholic... bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laity,... through time and space, amounts to an ongoing council.... In the long run, then, ultimate authority is vested by Him [Christ] in her.

This authority is expressed in the written and oral traditions of the Church—i.e., Holy Tradition, which could also be called the Mind of Christ. One's ability to discern the Mind of Christ grows through participation in the Mysteries of the Church, ascetic struggle leading to purification of the soul, and reading the Lives and writings of the Saints. In this way a person begins to acquire or enter into the phronema ton Pateron, or "mind of the Fathers," which enables him or her to know the will of God to an ever greater extent.  Relating this concept to our discussion of Bishops meeting in Synod we would say that when the entire Church accepts their synodal conclusions—i.e., when Her members confirm that what was stated conforms to the Mind of Christ (Holy Tradition)—then this synod is invested with authority. We might also not that this "entering into" is another aspect of the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, as discussed in an earlier section. Ultimately, then, authority is for Orthodox Christians a pneumatological concept that is not easily related to those outside of the Church.[27]

In another place Jones tosses out the following Patristic reference without sufficient explanation. It is one that would undoubtedly foster alarm in the mind of most Protestant readers:

Given this, they strongly affirm the generalization that "Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church."

This statement comes from no less than St. Cyprian of Carthage, an early Hieromartyr of the Church. It is also echoed in the writings of other Saints such as Augustine of Hippo. The reader should understand that the Orthodox Church does not teach that everyone who remains outside of Her in this life will be eternally damned. As Patrick Barnes notes in his book on this complex and subtle question:

The status of the heterodox is properly seen in two ways. When speaking of their ecclesial status—i.e., their relation to the Orthodox Church—we would say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her members because they have not been ingrafted into the one true Body of Christ through Holy Baptism. On the other hand, when speaking of their eternal status—i.e., the implications of this ecclesial separation—, we leave them to the mercy of God and do not judge them. To affirm their separation is not to imply their damnation.

The final issue Jones raises concerning ecclesiology is contained in his list of our supposed "Primary Apostasies":

Church as Emperor. With God's written revelation suppressed due to its "obscurity," the ecclesiastics take over the supreme position. Their own traditions are somehow remarkably clearer than God's word. Once supreme and unconstrained, the church becomes a magisterial authority rather than ministerial authority. That is not Christ's Church.

It is unfortunate that Jones does not elaborate further. We can only make an educated guess about what disturbs him. The accusation follows on the heels of the claim that we subjugate Scripture to human tradition. (This we have dealt with in the previous section.) In this context, what our author seems to be saying is that, having suppressed the witness of Holy Scripture, the institutional side of the Orthodox Church—i.e., the Priest, Bishops, and other authoritative "ecclesiastics"—has stepped into the silent void, bringing with it a certain unscriptural dictatorial power that squelches the ministerial side of the Church.

Here Jones is clearly viewing Orthodoxy through the lens of medieval Papal abuses. The result is a complete distortion of the true nature of Orthodox ecclesiology. The essence of the mistake is a confusion over prophecy and order. The prophetic nature of the Church has always prevailed over the administrative aspect of the Church when the need arose. Orthodoxy teaches that the entire Body of Christ is responsible as guardians of the Faith: "...because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves...." [28] Church history is replete with times when the "ecclesiastics" had fallen to heresy and the laypeople were left to defend the Faith against these wolves in sheeps clothing. In every instance the actions of heretical heirarchs were thwarted by the resistance of the laity and the true shepherds that remained.[29] This is entirely to be expected, for Christ promised that He would never leave us or forsake us (Heb. 13:5) and that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church]" (St. Matt. 16:18). This preeminence of prophecy over order reflects the Orthodox understanding that the Church is constrained by the will of Christ, which is expressed in Holy Tradition. Fidelity to Holy Tradition, which is identical to obedience to Christ, is the standard by which any ecclesial body with Apostolic Succession is judged to be Orthodox. This is an important point that is often missed by many Orthodox today who have been unwittingly influenced by the modern Ecumenical Movement and the corresponding neo-papal "officialdom" that has infected every one of the Orthodox churches involved in it.[30]

In closing our brief critique of Jones' view of ecclesial authority we must point out that, for Orthodox Christians, the Bible, Tradition, the Church, and authority are all intertwined.[31] As St. Paul taught, the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." For Protestants, it is the Bible. Orthodox accept the consensual teaching of the Saints throughout the centuries. Protestants derive their authority ostensibly from Scripture alone, apart from the consensus of the Church and almost exlusively through the interpretive framework of the pivotal Reformation figures.   The reader will do well to grasp the fact that our disagreements ultimately stem from this fundamental disagreement over the nature of authority. Everything else flows from this. Until this problem is faced squarely, debate over various points is largely futile. The reader would do well to ponder whether it can be shown that the Church has, throughout the centuries, viewed the relation of Holy Scripture and Tradition in the way that the Protestant Reformed tradition does.

Completing our author's claims:

Arrogant Worship: God forbids us to worship Him on our own terms. He sets the terms of His worship. To ignore such commands is to mock His Lordship. More than almost anything else, Israel's deterioration under its Kings is expressed by its arrogance in worshiping Jehovah as their tradition saw fit. They used all sorts of images, statues, and sacrifices to worship Jehovah, not other gods. The Lord judged their arrogance in a fearful way. Eastern Orthodoxy shows no concern for conforming any aspect of its worship to the requisites of the Lord. They rejoice in imitating the inferior worship of the Old Covenant temple and shallowly overturn the ancient prohibition on venerating images. God says that He will not be mocked.

There are two issues here: one implicit and the other explicit. Coming from the Reformed tradition, Jones would affirm what they call the "Regulative Principle of Worship." This is defined as follows:

Good and necessary consequence, or be derived from approved historical example (e.g., the change of day from seventh to first for Lord's day corporate worship). "As under the Old Dispensation nothing connected with the worship or discipline of the Church of God was left to the wisdom or discretion of man, but everything was accurately prescribed by the authority of God, so, under the New, no voice is to be heard in the household of faith but the voice of the Son of God. The power of the church is purely ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold forth the doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which Christ has given her. She is to add nothing of her own to, and to subtract nothing from, what her Lord has established. Discretionary power she does not possess."

The view commonly held among Protestant churches today is that anything is permitted in worship, provided it is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible. This was, and is, the accepted view among Episcopalian and Lutheran churches. The early Reformed and Presbyterian churches rejected this view as unscriptural. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men. . . or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." [32]

Jones charges us with worshiping "on our own terms." We thus infer from this that the Orthodox Church has violated the "Regulative Principle."

In reply we briefly note two things. First, Protestants should be the last ones to accuse anyone of worshipping God on their own terms. Most Protestant worship is demonstrably novel and dissimilar with that of the early Church, whereas Orthodox worship is undeniably continuous with it, having organically developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit from the Temple and synagogue worship to its present form today. Our worship is entirely in keeping with what we read about in the Holy Fathers of every age. Second, as with the doctrine of "sola Scriptura," the "Regulative Principle" has never been taught by the Church. Nothing like it can be found in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Moreover, the Refomed defense of it stems from the same distorted views of the Bible that they use to justify "sola Scriptura," iconoclasm, and other heresies.

The burden of proof is once again upon the Credenda writers to demonstrate that the Church has always viewed worship in the way that the Reformers did.  Our author has his work cut out for him; for passages such as the following from St. Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit abound in the writings of the Fathers. The impetus behind this passage is important to underscore. St. Basil is not attempting to defend the unwritten traditions that he lists. Rather he is appealing to unwritten traditions that even the heretics with whom he was disputing took for granted. He was appealing to the Doxology as evidence that the Holy Spirit is God. His opponents countered by stating that the Doxology was unwritten and therefore lacked authority. St. Basil then demonstrated that many aspects of the Christian faith and life stemmed from unwritten tradition, and no one disputed these things. If Jones reasons consistently then this Saint would also be "arrogant," for he clearly violates the "Regulative Principle" which requires written Scriptural proof for any element of worship.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice [i.e., by triple immersion]? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight.

Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and condemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerygma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again"; Grk. anastasin) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek those things which are above," but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called back to heaven.

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness" is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery? [33]

This passage is from one of the most important Patristic texts of the early Church. It is obvious that Credenda/Agenda loves to quote from various Church Fathers, even St. Basil the Great. But it is abundantly clear that they pick and choose the quotes that fit with their interpretive schema. There is a term for this: proof-texting.[34]

As for the charge that we "shallowly overturn the ancient prohibition on venerating images," this has been thoroughly refuted over eleven centuries ago by St. John of Damascus in his On the Divine Images. [35] The famous Orthodox iconographer, Leonid Ouspensky, summarizes the Church's reasoning concerning the Old Testament prohibition of images. This reasoning is thoroughly Biblical and logical:

The Church teaches that the image is based on the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. This is not a break with nor even a contradiction of the Old Testament, as the Protestants understand it; but, on the contrary, it clearly fulfills it, for the existence of the image in the New Testament is implied by its prohibition in the Old. Even though this may appear to be strange, the sacred image for the Church proceeds precisely from the absence of the image in the Old Testament. The forerunner of the Christian image is not the pagan idol, as is sometimes thought, but the absence of direct iconography before the Incarnation, just as the forerunner of the Church is not the pagan world, but the Israel of old, the people chosen by God to witness His revelation. The prohibition of the image which appears in Exodus (20:4) and in Deuteronomy (5:12-19) is a provisional, pedagogic measure which concerns only the Old Testament, and is not a prohibition in theory. "'Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good' (Ez. 20:25) because of their callousness," says St John of Damascus, explaining this prohibition" by means of a biblical quotation. Indeed, the prohibition of all direct and concrete images was accompanied by the divine commandment to establish certain symbolic images, those prefigurations which were the tabernacle and everything which it contained, and the smallest details of which were, so to speak, dictated by God. [36]

Jones fails to address the fact that God commanded the use of images in the Temple. Perhaps this is because he cannot explain how these images could be permissible in the light of the Old Testament prohibitions. Douglas Wilson adds to this error in his article expanding upon Jones' introductory remarks. Wilson asserts: "We know that the Jewish Temple had no images for use in prayer and worship." Have they not read the Old Testament descriptions of the Tabernacle and the Temple? We find numerous images of Cherubim in the following places:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18

On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1

On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31

Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary — I Kings 6:23

On the Walls — I Kings 6:29

On the Doors — I Kings 6:32

And on the furnishings — I Kings 7:29,36

Are the editors of Credenda/Agenda therefore asserting that the Temple itself was not used as a place of worship? Also, as we shall see, Wilson fails to deal with the actual historical data in anything beyond the most superficial ways.

Returning to Ouspensky's summary, he states that the eighth-century iconoclasts

limited themselves to the biblical prohibition and confused the Christian image with the idol. Comparing the Old Testament texts and the Gospel, St John shows that the Christian image, far from contradicting the prohibition of the Old Testament, is, as we have said, its result and conclusion, since it arises from the very essence of Christianity.

His reasoning can be summarized as follows: in the Old Testament God manifests Himself directly to His people only by sound, by word. He does not show Himself, and remains invisible. Israel does not see any image. In Deuteronomy (4:12), we read: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice." And a bit further (4:15), we read: "Therefore take good heed to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire." The prohibition comes immediately afterwards (4:16-19)....

Thus when God speaks of creatures, He forbids their representation. But when He speaks of Himself, He also forbids the making of His image, stressing the fact that He is invisible. Neither the people, nor even Moses saw any image of Him. They only heard His words. Not having seen God's image, they could not represent it; they could only write down His divine word, which is what Moses did. And how could they represent that which is incorporeal and indescribable, that which has neither shape nor limit? But in the very insistence of the biblical texts to emphasize that Israel hears the word but does not see the image, St John of Damascus discovers a mysterious sign of the future possibility of seeing and representing God coming in the flesh. "What is mysteriously indicated in these passages of Scripture?, he asks.

"It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God. But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, becomes visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared... When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant [Phil 2:6-7], thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible. Paint His birth from the Virgin, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration on Mount Tabor... Paint everything with words and with colors, in books and on boards."

Thus the very prohibition against representing the invisible God implies the necessity of representing God once the prophecies have been fulfilled. The words of the Lord, "You have seen no images; hence do not create any," mean "create no images of God as long as you have not seen Him." An image of an invisible God is impossible, "for how can that which is inaccessible to the eye be represented?" If such an image were made, it would be based on imagination and would therefore be a falsehood and a lie. [37]

In another section describing the response of St. Theodore the Studite, Ouspensky states:

The iconoclasts also said that nothing in the New Testament indicates that icons should be made or venerated. "The custom of making icons of Christ has no foundation either in the tradition of Christ, or in that of the apostles or the Fathers," they maintained. "But, St Theodore the Studite replied, "nowhere did Christ order any word to be put down; and yet His image has been traced by the apostles and been preserved up to now. What is written down on paper and with ink, is put on the icon through various colors or another material." [38]

How interesting! Jones and company take Orthodoxy to task for painting and venerating images when the New Testament does not explicitly state that we are allowed to do so, and yet they fail to see the beam in their own eye: that our Lord never commanded anyone to write down what he said or did. So much for the Bible in the light of the "Regulative Principle." Are not words a type of image? Do they not metaphorically "paint" something? Absolutely. Speaking of the decrees of the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, Ouspensky writes:

The council states that Holy Scripture and the holy image are "mutually revelatory." One single content is witnessed in two different ways—with words or with images—conveying the same revelation in the light of the same sacred and living Tradition of the Church. We read in the council's canons:

"The Fathers neither transmitted to us that it was necessary to read the Gospel nor did they convey to us that it was necessary to make icons. But if they conveyed the one, they also conveyed the other, because a representation is inseparable from the biblical account, and, vice versa, the biblical account is inseparable from a representation. Both are right and worthy of veneration because they explain one another and, indisputably, substantiate one another."

Thus, the visible image is equivalent to the verbal image. Just as the word of Scripture is an image, so is the painted image a word. "That which the word communicates by sound, a painting demonstrates silently by representation," the Fathers of the council said, referring to St Basil the Great. Elsewhere they write, "By means of these two ways which complement one another, that is, by reading and by the visible image, we gain knowledge of the same thing." In other words, the icon contains and proclaims the same truth as the Gospel. Like the Gospel and the Cross, it is one of the aspects of divine revelation and of our communion with God, a form in which the union of divine and human activity, synergy, is accomplished. Aside from their direct meaning, the sacred image as well as the Gospel are reflections of the heavenly world; the one and the other are symbols of the Spirit they contain. Thus, both the one and other transmit concrete, specific realities, not human ideas. In other words, what was asked was "How can the icon correspond to the Gospel and explain it, and vice versa?"

In the eyes of the Church, therefore, the icon is not art illustrating Holy Scripture; it is a language that corresponds to it and is equivalent to it, corresponding not to the letter of Scripture or to the book itself as an object, but to the evangelical kerygma, that is, to the content of the Scripture itself, to its meaning, as is true also for liturgical texts. This is why the icon plays the same role as Scripture does in the Church; it has the same liturgical, dogmatic, and educational meaning. [39]

It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully address the Orthodox response to iconoclasm. We can only summarize the Church's reasoning and remind the reader that this question was resolved to the satisfaction of the entire Church—East and West—more than a thousand years ago. The Orthodox teaching on Icons is readily available in English. We find it highly unlikely that Jones could have overlooked these works. Yet he fails even to acknowledge that the Orthodox explanation of why the Old Testament prohibitions no longer apply is not only firmly grounded in Scripture and the doctrine of the Incarnation, but that it is also eminently reasonable. Had he acknowledged this and simply stated that he personally disagreed with what the entire Church heartily affirmed in the Seventh Œcumenical Synod over a thousand years ago, we would have no argument with him. However, Jones and company seem only to want to rehash iconoclasm using antiquarian arguments that have already been soundly refuted. They fail to see that certain Old Testament prohibitions were temporary. The Incarnation brought many things to fulfillment. As the Holy Fathers reasoned and the Church affirmed, to be an iconoclast is to be against the Incarnation. Credenda/Agenda clearly stands outside of the Christian tradition on this matter.

In his closing, Jones ushers a summary warning:

Scripture promised us that the church would include false teachers (II Pet. 2:2), and right in the midst of apostolic tradition, Paul warns us that "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, ... they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Tim. 4:3). Eastern fables point us to Hellenistic heterodoxy not covenantal orthodoxy. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

In the following responses to the Credenda/Agenda’s attacks on the Orthodox Faith, we will see that the Apostle Paul is not referring here to the Orthodox Faith which has preserved the Apostolic Tradition, but rather refer to heretical and schismatic leaders and their followers who turn aside from that Faith. Elsewhere, St. Paul speaks of such heretics saying, "men shall arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Jones is a Calvinist, a group named for John Calvin. Other Protestants are referred to variously as Lutherans (for Martin Luther), Arminians (for James Arminius), Wesleyans (for John Wesley), Mennonites (for Menno Simmons), etc. The Orthodox are not named for any leader who has spoken perverse things and drawn us away to be his disciples. Our Faith is the Faith of the ancient Christian Church. It is Jones who has followed the novel teachings of John Calvin and other key Reformers who are outside of any Church with historical and doctrinal continuity with the Apostolic Church. It is not Orthodoxy which has betrayed Tradition, as the Credenda writers assert, but rather Papism and its offshoot, the now thirty thousand Protestant sects (and growing!).