The God Culture: A Closer Look at Jubilees as Cited by The Church Fathers

This is a cross-post from my other blog. It is relevant here as the subject matter is the canonical status of the Book of Jubilees and in particular how it was employed by the Church Fathers.

The Book of Jubilees is very critical to Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture's project of proving that the Philippines is the Garden of Eden and the land of creation. One of Tim's arguments for including the Book of Jubilees as canonical scripture is that many of the Church Fathers cited the book as scripture. In his annotated Book of Jubilees Tim provides a list of Fathers who cited from Jubilees.

The Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pgs 40-41

That list is quite nonsensical because there is no indication of what works exactly is being referring to. Tim has taken this list mostly from R.H. Charles but provides no link or reference where it can be found. It can be found in the introduction to his translation of The Book of Jubilees but with a whole lot more information than Tim has provided. Several of those authors are cited at length in the Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti on pages 849-864. The text is in Latin. 

In this article I propose to look at three of those sources to ascertain just how they employed the text of Jubilees. Did they cite it? Yes. But did they cite it as canonical scripture? That's what we are going to find out. I will only be looking at three of these citations because of space and lack of availability of the original sources. The three are: Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Decretum Gelasii. I believe these three sources will show a normative trend within the Church as regards the canonical status of Jubilees.

First the Decretum Gelasii. In his Torah Test Tim crows that a Pope quoted Jubilees.

Certainly the church quoted Jubilees, even a Pope.

Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, p. 41

Here is what Charles writes about what this Pope said about Jubilees.

Decretum Gelasii. — In this decree (de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis), the date of which is doubtful (see Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, ii. i. 259-267), our book is included among the writings to be rejected: Liber de filiabus Adae, hoc est Leptogenesis apocryphus.

Once again Tim does not know what he is taking about. Pope Gelasius does not quote Jubilees. The Decree of Pope Gelasius places the Book of Jubilees on the list of rejected books. Why? We are not told but the book is included in a long list with various spurious Acts, Gospels, and Revelations. There were many false gospels and other texts floating around long ago and the church needed to determine what was and was not scripture. There were many deciding factors but the canon was generally agreed upon by all before this point as seen in its liturgy and the bulk of orthodox literature. The councils which promulgated such lists only confirmed what was already widely practiced. In fact the list of canonical books in the Decretum Gelsaii actually originates with the Council of Rome in 382. The list of prohibited books is newly appended. The list of accepted and prohibited books as well as the entire decree can be read at this link. It also includes a list of approved Orthodox teachers whose writings are profitable to read. Oddly enough this list bans Eusebius's Church History. 

Tim repeats ad nauseam that the Church has no right to ban books which were accepted as scripture.  What does he do with this list? Are we to accept every book that comes along proclaiming to be a Gospel or a Revelation? Of course not. The first canon of the New Testament was promulgated by the heretic Marcion. The Church was forced to meet his challenge. Subsequent councils and theologians decreed what was and was not scripture and to be read in the Church in order to safeguard the Church from false teachers. This raises the question of how we can know what is and is not scripture. The answer is pretty simple, the witness and testimony of the Church which is Christ's body on earth and the pillar and ground of the truth.  As Augustine said:

But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

Tim shows his hate for the Church by proclaiming that it was taken over by Satan in the early first century. He blasphemes the Church with such pernicious doctrine. Once again St. Augustine takes him to task.

Let us love our Lord God, let us love His Church: Him as a Father, Her as a Mother: Him as a Lord, Her as His Handmaid, as we are ourselves the Handmaid's sons. But this marriage is held together by a bond of great love: no man offends the one, and wins favour of the other. 

What does it serve you, if you acknowledge the Lord, honour God, preach His name, acknowledge His Son, confess that He sits by His right hand; while you blaspheme His Church? 

Hold then, most beloved, hold all with one mind to God the Father, and the Church our Mother.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801089.htm

What is Timothy Jay Schwab's epistemic ground for accepting the Bible as scripture when he rejects the Church's authority to prescribe what is and proscribe what is not scripture? He has no ground except himself and his subjective "testing" which is very shaky ground to stand on. I know he will retort by appealing to the community at Qumran but they did not compile the New Testament. There were no letters of Paul or Gospels found in the caves at Qumran. Frankly he has no ground to stand on for his acceptance of the New Testament except his own opinion. Tim is fond of the Cepher Bible saying that "all in his group has one" and that he "loves it in his personal studies."  But that Bible version adds not only to the Old Testament but also the New with the insertion of Acts 29. That he would accept such a Bible as genuine shows that he does not base his canon of the New Testament on the witness of the Church.

The residents of Qumran were also not representative of some remnant of the "True Israel©" which preserved the scriptures as opposed to the Pharisees and Saducees. Jesus called out their hypocrisy but still said the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses and commanded the people to do as they say (Matthew 23:2-3). He never called them pretenders. We never find Jesus Christ arguing the doctrine Tim preaches concerning Qumran vs Jerusalem. Again, these decrees prescribing scripture and proscribing spurious books were not introducing anything new. They were confirmation of the regular practice of the Church.

The final biblical canon for both religious communities was determined not by a council so much as by widespread use of sacred literature in the communities of faith. Councils typically confirm widespread practice, and that was the case when decisions about canon were made by councils in the fourth and fifth centuries and later: they simply endorsed choices made earlier by majorities or by consensus and convenience rather than by conscious council decisions. Bruce correctly states: “It is probable that, when the canon was ‘closed’ in due course by competent authority, this simply meant that official recognition was given to the situation already obtaining in the practice of the worshipping community.”

The Biblical Canon, Lee Martin McDonald, pg. 160

The implication is that Jubilees was excluded from the canon because it was never considered to be part of the canon by the Church in her practice or doctrine and not because the Church was taken over by Satan and he used the Bishops to cover up the truth. Such thinking is anti-Christian and contradicts Jesus' saying that he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not triumph over it.

This decree was promulgated around 492 and the reason I cite it first is because any citation of Jubilees  after this date will not be cited as scripture. Any citation after this date which does so in a manner affirming the canonicity of Jubilees is out of line with the teaching of the Church. So we can dispense with those citations. That really only leaves two important citations before this decree and those are Jerome and Epiphanus.

Here is what R.H. Charles writes about Jerome:

Jerome {ob. 420). — See quotations in notes on x. 21, xi. 11-13. For other quotations see Index II.

The references Charles gives lead to Jerome's epistle 78. Here is what Jerome says about Jubilees.

This word, memory suggests, I know I never found elsewhere in holy scripture among the Hebrews, except in an apocrypha book, Genesis, which is called lepte, that is small, by the Greeks; there is it put in the building of the tower for stadium, in which boxers and athletes exercize and the speed of runners is tested.

https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/365.html

Here Jerome calls Jubilees apocryphal. He also counts Jubilees among the Holy Scripture of the Hebrews which would seem to contradict its being apocryphal. In section 26 of this same letter he draws a lesson from the Book of Jubilees where Abraham drove away the ravens from the corn.

I find in the above mentioned apocryphal volume Geneseos when the ravens who had been laying waste men’s grain are driven away, the name father Abraham written with this same word and these letters, as the one who drives away or repells them. So we may imitate Thare and be careful to keep away the birds of heaven which hasten to devour a lot of wheat beside the road. 

That he could draw a lesson from a book he considers apocryphal is not strange as he writes elsewhere in letter 107.12 that some gold could be found in the midst of the dirt of apocryphal writings.

Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001107.htm

Anyone familiar with Church history would know that Jerome is the man who gave the world the Vulgate. He lived in Jerusalem and was familiar with Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He was also familiar with all the various literature circulating in his day. It is therefore no surprise he was aware of Jubilees. But he excludes it from his list of canonical scripture despite referring to it as "holy scripture among the Hebrews." As a man who lived and breathed the scriptures it would be foolish to think he was unaware of what books belonged in the Hebrew canon as well as the traditions surrounding Jubilees and other pseudepigrapha such as Enoch. Here is his list of the Hebrew canon:

The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.

To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.

https://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-samuel-392/

The list looks like this:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah,  Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,  Daniel,1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther.

That is 22 books and it does not include Jubilees. It also predates the Drectum Gelasii to the year 392. It is in alignment with the Council of Rome from 382 except it excludes Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees and the numbering is not the same due to some books, such as the Twelve minor prophets, being counted as one. Why he does not include Jubilees in this canon despite referring to it as "holy scripture among the Hebrews" is uncertain.

That brings us to our third source, Epiphanius. Here is what R.H.Charles writes concerning his witness to Jubilees:

Epiphanius {ob. 404 a.d.), Haer. xxxix. 6, See Jub. iv. 9, 11 and the continuation of the quotation in my note on iv. 10. For passages where Epiphanius has used our text without acknowledgment see Index II.

There are actually quite a few places in his Panarion where Epiphanius cites Jubilees. I will only look at one. It is as follows:

6,1 But as we find in Jubilees which is also called “The Little Genesis,” the book even contains the names of both Cain’s and Seth’s wives, so that the persons who recite myths to the world may be put to shame in every way. (2) For after Adam had sired sons and daughters it became necessary at that time that the boys marry their own sisters. Such a thing was not unlawful, as there was no other human stock. (3) Indeed, in a manner of speaking Adam himself practically married his own daughter who was fashioned from his body and bones and had been formed by God in conjunction with him, and it was not unlawful. (4) And his sons were married, Cain to the older sister, whose name was Saue; and a third son, Seth, who was born after Abel, to his sister named Azura. 

6,5 And Adam had other sons too as the Little Genesis says, nine after these three, so that he had two daughters but twelve sons, one of whom was killed but eleven survived. (6) You have the reflection of them too in the Genesis of the World, the first Book of Moses, which says, “And Adam lived 930 years, and begat sons and daughters, and died.”

Panarion, Epiphanius, pg. 280

In this passage Epiphanius is very clearly citing from Jubilees in order to confute the Sethians a group of gnostic heretics who believed Seth was not a mere man. But does that mean he considered the Book of Jubilees to be canonical scripture? No. He never lists the book in his canon. However, he draws extensively from its pages and uses it authoritatively. Read "From Jewish Apocrypha to Christian Tradition: Citations of Jubilees in Epiphanius's Panarion" for an insightful study on his use of this book within the context of canon formation in the 4th century. Despite his usage of this text as authoritative it should be noted that one man does not make the tradition of the Church. The article covers a lot of ground and the issues it discusses are rather complex.

The second reference Epiphanius makes to Jubilees is not so direct and can be found in his book "On Weights and Measures."

And he showed Moses through an angel that there would also be twenty-two heads from Adam to Jacob, otherwise Israel, when he said: "And I will choose for myself from his seed a people more numerous than any other people.” And the heads, which are the generations, concerning whom the Lord spoke, are as follows: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu—for the Scripture omits Cainan from the number —Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, otherwise Israel —altogether, twenty-two generations. Therefore there are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, which are these…Therefore also there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament; but they are said among the Hebrews to be counted as twenty- two though they are (really) twenty-seven, because five of their letters also are double…for the books also are counted in this manner. 

On Weights and Measures, pg. 43

Epiphanius then goes on to list those books by title. They are as follows:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,  Daniel, 1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther.

That is the same list as Jerome gives and it also excludes Jubilees from the canon despite referencing it when refuting the Sethians and using it authoritatively. It is very important to understand that 1-2 Esdras is what we know as Ezra and Nehemiah. The book referred to as 2 Esdras which is part of the Christian apocrypha is not included in the Hebrew bible and was not found at Qumran as Timothy claims it was. It is also known as 4th Esdras. It was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. That means Jesus did not quote it as Tim is wont to say. Here we see Tim's astonishing ignorance on full display in this graphic from his annotated Jubilees which proclaims this massive error.

Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 22

In his notes on Jubilees 2:22-23 Charles says there might be a lacuna at verse 22. He then cites various authors such as Epiphanius, Syncellus, and the Midrash where groups of 22 are mentioned. Among these groups of 22 are 22 letters and 22 sacred books. He then fills in the lacuna as follows:

Thus we should probably restore the lacuna as follows: — As there were two and twenty letters and two and twenty (sacred) books and two and twenty heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, so there were made two and twenty kinds of work, etc. The thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are equalised to the number of letters by the following device. The twelve minor prophets count as one book, similarly Judges and Ruth, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are taken together, and the two books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are reckoned respectively as one each. Thus the thirty-nine are reduced to twenty- two. 

Charles does not supply this emendation in the text but leaves it in his footnotes. James VanderKam has this to say about the supposed lacuna:

No text of Jubilees (Hebrew, Ethiopic, Greek, Syriac) says anything about 22 letters and 22 books. These categories were added later (and in other texts) to Jubilees’ list of two groups of 22.

VanderKam, Jubilees Commentary, pg. 199

VanderKam says no known copy of Jubilees has this text and there is not even space for it in copies found at Qumran. According to him there is no lacuna in the text.

What really matters though is that Tim thinks Charles is correct and has this note in his annotated Book of Jubilees:

It is probable that at end of 22 above there is a lacuna in the text (indicated by the dotted line). Charles restores the missing words as follows: As there were two and twenty letters, and two and twenty (sacred) books [viz. in the Old Testament], and two and twenty heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, so there were made two and twenty kinds of work, etc. 

Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 60

If this verse is authentic then what it means is that the Book of Jubilees is not scripture. Here you have the author of Jubilees telling us there are 22 sacred books. It would be impossible for Jubilees to fit anywhere in a list of 22 sacred Hebrew texts. Perhaps one could pair it with Genesis and make the two one book but no list of the Old Testament canon ever has that pairing. There are always said to be only five books of Moses and Jubilees is never on that list. One of the oldest lists of the Old Testment canon comes from Melito of Sardis who lived in the 2nd century.

13. Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since you have often, in your zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and has also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.

14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

He lists 26 books. Except for the omission of Esther and the addition of Wisdom his list is identical to that of Jerome and Epiphanius. The difference is that he counts some books as separate which are counted as one elsewhere. That is very significant because it shows a continuity within the church regarding the Old Testament canon regarding the book under question. Jubilees never makes the cut at anytime whatsoever.

Origen is also on the list of men who cited Jubilees. Origen, like Jerome, was a man of letters. He was one of the most learned men of his day or any day. His output was voluminous and he was famous for making several critical editions of the Hebrew bible in both Greek and Hebrew known as the Hexapla. He knew what the Hebrew canon was and it did not include Jubilees.

1. When expounding the first Psalm, he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows: 

“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.” Farther on he says:

2. “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, 'These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” He gives these in the above-mentioned work. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

He has a 22 book canon which includes: 

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges/Ruth, 1-2 Kings. 3-4 Kings, Isaiah,  Jeremiah/Lamentations/Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, 1 -2 Chronicles, 1-2 Esdras, Esther, the Maccabees

His canon is different from Jerome in that it excludes the 12 minor prophets and includes the Maccabees. The similarities lie in that it conforms to the number 22 and it omits Jubilees. It is a point of fact that no canonical list of scripture from any Christian theologian has Jubilees or Enoch. Not even the 23 book canon of Jospehus leaves room for Enoch or Jubilees.

In his introduction to Jubilees Tim appeals to the Ethiopian church for Jubilees' canonicity. 

The Abyssinian Church, which has continued Jubilees as canon, names it the“Book of the Division of Days,” from the first words at the beginning. This also proves this book was not only in circulation but considered scripture at least by some at that time. 

Though continued in the Ethiopian canon this entire time to today, in the Western world, Jubilees appeared lost for about 400 years until it was rediscovered in the Ethiopic. Multiple English translations from the Ethiopic were released from the mid-1800s to mid-1900s before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Once discovered in Qumran as the sixth most numerous scroll, Jubilees is known to have originated in Hebrew and those fragments coalesce with the Ethiopic. This really proved this was preserved in the Ethiopic Geez language and there is no scripture which ever says that is not acceptable. That is a false paradigm in scholarship as the book is preserved regardless and a rmed in Hebrew as well.

Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 40-41

Jubilees was preserved in Ge'ez (not Geez) but so what? The canon of the Ethiopian Church adds more than just Jubilees and Enoch. If we are going to hold them as a kind of standard and accept their inclusion of Jubilees and Enoch as legitimate then why should we not adopt the other books they include? Why not adopt their heretical monophysite or miaphysite Christology? Why appeal to this group at all? Tim rejects the authority of the Church to exclude books so why would he accept the authority of this Church to include books? His argument is contradictory.

Tim makes quite a big deal out of some of the Church Fathers referring to the Book of Jubilees. He even makes unfounded claims like this:

The early church fathers quoted and used the Book of Jubilees in sermons through history until about the 14th century.

Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pgs. 39-40

That is quite an exaggeration and shows that Tim is not familiar with the writings of the Church Fathers or the scholastics at all. Reading this sentence it would appear that Jubilees was constantly and regularly appealed to in sermons until the 1300's. That is a lie. If Tim was familiar with the Church Fathers he would know that the Book of Jubilees is not cited in patristic or medieval theological writings in such a manner as he is claiming. If what he was saying were true there would be more than 26 entries on his list. Just think of all the men missing: Augustine, Basil, Athanasius, St Maximus, John of Damascus, Photius, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Gregory Palamas, John Cassian, Cyprian, and the list could go on. I would encourage Tim to take his book money and invest in a nice set of the Fathers and actually read them. He won't find them citing Jubilees. 

Tim is basing his claim that the Church Fathers cited Jubilees as scripture on the list R.H. Charles provides in his introduction without actually looking up the references to see what these theologians wrote about Jubilees and how they employed the text. The fact that Tim did not bother to research these citations is shown by the bungled reference to Pope Gelasius where he gleefully asserts that even a Pope cited Jubilees. Let's look at one more citation of Jubilees which Tim lists and that is Severus of Antioch. Tim writes:

542 Severus of Antioch discusses the death of Moses and an argument over his remains between satan and the Archangel Michael. This originates in Jubilees and no where in the Old Testament.

On it's face this is completely wrong because Jubilees does not end with the death of Moses. The story of the death of Moses is not in Jubilees. Nevertheless here is what Severus writes:

Therefore the Holy Scripture says in Deuteronomy also: ´Moses the Lord's bondman ended his life there, in the land of Moab, by the word of the Lord; and they buried him there in the land of Moab beside the house of Peor, and no man hath known the end or his grave to this day; which is also confirmed by that which the evangelist wrote, since Luke one of the evangelists said in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, ´And it happened that the poor man also died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. These same details about the burial of Moses men have stated to be contained in an apocryphal Book the more succinct title of which is 'The book of Generation or of Creation, which Moses himself wrote for us.’ 

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severus_coll_3_letters.htm

While Severus refers to Jubilees the story is likely to be found in the alleged missing chapters of the  Assumption of Moses. Like Jerome he refers to Jubilees as apocryphal. Tim gets this reference totally wrong showing once again how poor a researcher he is. He published his own version of Jubilees. Did he really forget that the story of the death of Moses does not occur in Jubilees? That is an incredible blunder.

It is quite evident that while Jubilees was cited by some theologians it was never upheld as being canonical by the normative Orthodox Church. The Ethiopian church is not Orthodox as they reject Chalcedon and teach a false Christology. The two men most familiar with the Hebrew text, Jerome and Origen, do not include Jubilees in their list of canonical scripture nor does Epiphanius, who cited the text authoritatively, or any other Christian theologian. Tim's proof for the contrary is frivolous and frangible. A citation of a text does not mean the person thinks the text is canonical scripture. As Tim says, "That's a false paradigm."

Augustine on Loving God as Our Father and the Church as Our Mother

A strong case could be made that the Roman Church is a heretical body displaying all the hallmarks of Donatism because it anathematized Constantinople and declared herself to be the Only True Church©. The charge could likewise be leveled at modern Protestants sects like the Protestant Reformed Church which was born in schism and itself has recently undergone a split by those within who claim to be the Only True Church©.

Regardless, the following observation from Augustine at the end of his commentary of Psalm 89 is rather insightful. The gist is you cannot say you honor God while you dishonor his Church and vice versa. To dishonor the Church and say it is impure or overrun by the devil is to repudiate the Body of Christ Himself. We must love God as our Father and the Church as our Mother.

41.  Let us love our Lord God, let us love His Church: Him as a Father, Her as a Mother: Him as a Lord, Her as His Handmaid, as we are ourselves the Handmaid's sons. But this marriage is held together by a bond of great love: no man offends the one, and wins favour of the other. Let no man say, I go indeed to the idols, I consult possessed ones and fortune-tellers: yet I abandon not God's Church; I am a Catholic. While you hold to your Mother, you have offended your Father. Another says, Far be it from me; I consult no sorcerer, I seek out no possessed one, I never ask advice by sacrilegiousdivination, I go not to worship idols, I bow not before stones; though I am in the party of Donatus. What does it profit you not to have offended your Father, if he avenges your offended Mother? What does it serve you, if you acknowledge the Lord, honour God, preach His name, acknowledge His Son, confess that He sits by His right hand; while you blaspheme His Church? Does not the analogy of human marriages convince you? Suppose you have some patron, whom you court every day, whose threshold you wear with your visits, whom you daily not only salute, but even worship, to whom you pay the most loyal courtesy; if you utter one calumny against his wife, could you re-enter his house? Hold then, most beloved, hold all with one mind to God the Father, and the Church our Mother. Celebrate with temperance the birthdays of the Saints, that we may imitate those who have gone before us, and that they who pray for you may rejoice over you; that the blessing of the Lord may abide on you for evermore. Amen and Amen.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801089.htm

Augustine on Common Grace?

It would be erroneous and anachronistic to insert modern debates about common grace into the works of St. Augustine. However this except from his commentary on Psalm 78 is rather interesting and touches somewhat on that topic.

But without doubt the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven was veiled in the Old Testament, which in the fullness of time should be unveiled in the New.  For, says the Apostle, they did drink of the Spiritual Rock following them, but the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4 In a mystery therefore theirs was the same meat and drink as ours, but in signification the same, not in form; because the same Christ was Himself figured to them in a Rock, manifested to us in the Flesh. But, he says, not in all of them God was well pleased. 1 Corinthians 10:5 All indeed ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink, that is to say, signifying something spiritual: but not in all of them was God well pleased. When, he says, not in all:there were evidently there some in whom was God well pleased; and although all the Sacraments were common, grace, which is the virtue of the Sacraments, was not common to all. Just as in our times, now that the faith has been revealed, which then was veiled, to all men that have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Matthew 28:19 the Laver of regeneration is common; but the very grace whereof these same are the Sacraments, whereby the members of the Body of Christ are to reign together with their Head, is not common to all. For even heretics have the same Baptism, and false brethren too, in the communion of the Catholic name.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801078.htm

Here Augustine says the Sacraments are common to all who will join the Church but the grace imparted by the Sacrament which makes it effective, its virtue he says, is not common to all as false brethren and heretics also partake of the same Sacraments. 

Irenaeus On the Perspicuity of Scripture

One of the oft repeated critiques against Sola Scriptura or scripture as the principium cognoscendi, that is scripture as our principle source of knowing theology, is that the scriptures are obscure and hard to be rightly understood. The Reformers held the opposite principle that scriptures are clear in and of themselves and could be plainly understood. Perspicuity, like inspiration, was declared to be an attribute of the scripture. 

The verse from 2 Peter is usually brought up to defend the obscurity of the scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Recourse is also made to the Ethiopian and Philip.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

No doubt there are hard places in the scriptures and this is why God has sent teachers to the church.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Perspicuity along with the rest of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is alleged by its critics to be a sixteenth century invention. But this is hardly the case. Here is Irenaeus writing about the clarity of of the scriptures in book 2 of Against Heresies.

1. A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures. And therefore the parables ought not to be adapted to ambiguous expressions. For, if this be not done, both he who explains them will do so without danger, and the parables will receive a like interpretation from all, and the body of truth remains entire, with a harmonious adaptation of its members, and without any collision [of its several parts]. But to apply expressions which are not clear or evident to interpretations of the parables, such as every one discovers for himself as inclination leads him, [is absurd. ] For in this way no one will possess the rule of truth; but in accordance with the number of persons who explain the parables will be found the various systems of truth, in mutual opposition to each other, and setting forth antagonistic doctrines, like the questions current among the Gentile philosophers. 

2. According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom Matthew 25:5, etc. comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it — those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables. They come, [in fine,] to this, that they maintain there is one Being who is proclaimed as God, and another as Father, He who is set forth as such through means of parables and enigmas.

3. But since parables admit of many interpretations, what lover of truth will not acknowledge, that for them to assert God is to be searched out from these, while they desert what is certain, indubitable, and true, is the part of men who eagerly throw themselves into danger, and act as if destitute of reason? And is not such a course of conduct not to build one's house upon a rock Matthew 7:25 which is firm, strong, and placed in an open position, but upon the shifting sand? Hence the overthrow of such a building is a matter of ease.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103227.htm

In the above section Irenaeus is writing against the gnostics who interpreted the parables in an obscure manner to fit their own views. Instead of latching onto what is clearly and unambiguously taught in the scriptures they "desert what is certain, indubitable, and true." 

For Ireaeus the scriptures are quite easily and plainly to be understood. The obscurity comes about by wicked men seeking to set up their own doctrine rather than that which is proclaimed in the scripture. This statement goes hand-in-hand with his declaration that scripture is the pillar and ground of our faith.

1. 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.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

One blogger argues that Irenaeus does not mean ALL scripture but only the Gospels are being referred to.

A careful reading of the quote reveals that St. Irenaeus is not referring to all Scripture as "the ground and pillar of our Faith;" he's referring specifically to the Gospels, and, even more specifically, to the message of the Gospels which he outlines in the paragraph that follows the quote above:

"These [the Gospels] have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God." - AH, 3, 1, 2

http://orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-irenaeus-of-lyons-sola-scriptura.html

That's good as far it goes but it does not go very far. What is the message of the Gospels? It is the same message which is in the Old Testament which Irenaeus proves in his book Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. 

THE MESSAGE OF SCRIPTURE

52. That Christ, then, being Son of God before all the world, is with the Father; and being with the Father is also nigh and close and joined unto mankind; and is King of all, because the Father has subjected all things unto Him; and Saviour of them that believe on Him----such things do the Scriptures declare. For it is not feasible and possible to enumerate every scripture in order; and from these you may understand the others also which have been spoken in like manner, believing in Christ, and seeking understanding and comprehension from God, so as to understand what has been spoken by the prophets.

            http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm

If Irenaeus is specifically referring to the message of the Gospels as the ground and pillar of our faith and if the OT teaches that same message then it stands to reason that for Irenaeus ALL scripture is indeed the ground and pillar of our faith and not just the Gospels.

Jay Dyer's Retraction of Eastern Orthodoxy

Jay Dyer is probably one of the most visible Eastern Orthodox apologists on the internet. But that wasn't always the case. Once he was Reformed. Then he was Roman Catholic. Jay's theological biography is well known to all who have listened to his podcasts or read his articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIAy4FKacmU

The article below is from Jay's old website Nicene Truth. Published in 2008 it gives insight into the questions he was asking while searching into Orthodoxy. Likely these are questions many inquirers into Orthodoxy are asking themselves. I republish it here because it is of great interest. What's interesting is that somehow Jay overcame every single one of these objections and entered the Orthodox Church.

My question is "How?" How did he overcome these objections?

Concerning predestination, I have never doubted its absolute gratuity.  I have always affirmed unconditional election, and remained within this Augustinian/Thomistic framework.  I believe this to be biblical, and my conscience is bound to it.

And I’ve read the Eastern Fathers, Symeon the New Theologian, St. John of Damascus, John Cassian, Nicholas of Cabasilas, the elders, and others on the issue, and I do not believe them to be in line with St. Paul ’s teaching in Romans 9 of election’s pure gratuity. 

In terms of “Augustinianism,” I confess that, by God’s grace, I can never leave this basic theological milieu of my master and patron.

These facts are all related to the strands in all the Orthodox: there is no predestination or unconditional election, God is not fully sovereign—maybe not even omniscient, and doesn’t eternally damn people as a punishment.  And of course, this goes hand in hand with the numerous Orthodox writers and priests I’ve met who refuse to take Scripture seriously on these points, and often impute errors to it, rather than impute errors to their own intellect!  In this regard, I feel just like St. Augustine combating the very same errors of his day (not that I am a great saint).  Why the zeal for errors in Scripture?  Because, if Scripture has manifest errors, one need not take its threats of damnation seriously, of course.  This stuff clearly borders on Origenism and in some cases is Origenism (think Kalomiros’ awful River of Fire article), and I just can’t confess this semi-pelagian nonsense, which appears to be the “mind of Orthodoxy,” since most all of them hold this, or tend in this direction.

Jay calls the mind of Orthodoxy semi-pelagian. So how did he overcome all these objections and now confess what he once called heresy? Only Jay can tell us that. 

This article can be found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20080724160848/http://nicenetruth.com/home/2008/06/my-retraction-o.html 

My Retraction of Eastern Orthodoxy

Or, Jay Refutes Jay

[Note: this post has been tweaked]

By: Jay Dyer

As some readers now know, I have decided not to become Eastern Orthodox.  Though I confessed it for the past two and a half years and was a catechumen, I chose not to be chrismated, and thus not technically becoming Orthodox.  I have, after much reflection and prayer, decided to return to Catholicism.  I was also instructed by my spiritual advisors to publish this retraction.  Let me say that also that this isn’t being posted as a subtle “challenge” to get Eastern Orthodox friends to spark a debate.  I’m just not really as interested in that as I was as a 21 year-old Calvinist.  I’m more interested in union with Christ nowadays, than debating every naysayer. 

In the debate with Josh Brisby, Josh changed his position on infant baptism (not because of me), while he likewise presented me with many quotes from key Eastern theologians concerning the papacy that I simply could not answer.  He also made the key point that I believe is ultimately correct: the Orthodox are not able to adequately deal with legal categories such as expiation, propitiation, etc.  The fact that a very learned Orthodox writer had to point us to an obscure article in a seminary journal on what exactly the Orthodox view on these concepts illustrates the point.  I have likewise changed my position.  While some of the quotes can be explained as references merely to St. Peter himself, many cannot.  I also doubt that they are all forgeries, as this is very unlikely. 

I have read Vladimir Guttee, who is largely regarded as the best Eastern writer against the papal arguments.  However, while Guettee nullifies many of the “papal” patristic quotes, I have come across others that he fails to account for that cannot be denied as Eastern acceptance of “papism.”  For example, we see in Session III of Ephesus the following quote from the legates of the Apostolic See ( Rome ):

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors.  The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.

“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests” (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223). 

It is very difficult to read this as a reference to mere “place of honor.”  In response to my aforementioned argument from Canon 6 of Nicea, where we read that the jurisdiction of Alexandria is compared to that of Rome , it may be responded that this refers to his jurisdiction as Bishop and Patriarch, and isn’t even concerned with universality, and therefore doesn’t amount to a denial.  In other words, the Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of an actual diocese and a western “Patriarch,” like that of Alexandria , but he is also the head and, when necessary, exercises universal jurisdiction.  As Vatican I says, the intention of papal supremacy is not to make the Pope the sole Bishop of all the church with all others as his assistants, but rather that, when necessary, he may exercise his office of supreme head of the Church, while others are true bishops—successors of the Apostles.  This supreme office, however, does not dissolve his duties and jurisdiction as Bishop of the diocese of Rome and “patriarch” of the West. 

Also, as most opponents of the papacy do, I argued from Constantinople III and the excommunication of Pope Honorius.  However, it’s also the case that Constantinople III unanimously received Pope St. Agatho’s Letter (linked below in entirety) which undeniably claims papal infallibility:

"This is the pure expression of piety.  This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles.  This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquillity in the Christian commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness.  Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons, that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and exultation [in Greek exaltation].  And these things I (although unworthy and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquillity is our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness.  And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle:  because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.  This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace.  For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples:  saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift 332you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not.  And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”  Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing:  of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.  For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached.  Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith.  What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words?  What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?"

If the council was opposed to infallibility, and surely this council would have been if any, it could not have accepted this letter.  Further, it’s also an interesting fact that St. Maximos the Confessor defended Pope Honorius from the charge of monothelitism (Delaney, Pocket Dictionary of Saints, 349).  If the “papal” view of itself was always wrong, then why did the East unanimously receive these undeniably papal claims at Ephesus , Chalcedon , and Constantinople III?  “Orthodox apologetics” should have immediately “kicked in,” and the “Latin heretics” been denounced.

It’s well known that Pope St. Leo made the same claim, and while Guettee attempts to deal with it, the Letter of the Council clearly calls Pope St. Leo the “chief and head of all members” and  “mouthpiece of St. Peter,” asking St. Leo to “ratify and establish” the council-keep in mind-as head of the entire body.  The Letter (linked below) of all 520 priests and bishops of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo states:

"Our mouth was filled with joy and our tongue with exultation . This prophecy grace has fitly appropriated to us for whom the security of religion is ensured. For what is a greater incentive to cheerfulness than the Faith? what better inducement to exultation than the Divine knowledge which the Saviour Himself gave us from above for salvation, saying, go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things that I have enjoined you Matthew 28:19-20 . And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have steadfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement. And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if where two or three are gathered together in His name, He has said that there He is in the midst of them , must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you [the papal legates]; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem ."

This is very difficult, I think, to construe in a "first-among equals" fashion.

Many other quotes could be given, but the question remains as to why the East for so long tolerated all this “papistry”?  A reading of the first hundred or so pages of Denzinger shows many popes making the strongest of papal statements and claims, and while we may argue that many in the East at the time did not know of these facts, why are they all regarded as “saints” and not heretics or anti-christ, as the famed 19th century Patriarchal Encyclicals call the pope?  How can St. Gregory the Diaologist (Pope St. Gregory the Great) be honored as a great saint, when he very clearly made all the papal claims as the modern papacy, in his Letters?  And I already know about the situation of him and John.  Again, everyone knows of Pope St. Victor’s attempt to excommunicate all the Eastern Quartodecimians , and while St. Irenaeus asks him not to, it must be admitted that he doesn’t deny St. Victors’ power to do so.  And everyone knows also of St. Irenaeus’ famous statement about all churches needing to be in communion with Rome :

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Or consider the statement of Eusebius in his history of the Church concerning the Quartodecimian controversy mentioned above:

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11). 

Many, many more quotes could be given, but the point is, I think, clear.  Kelly remarks that Photios never intended to deny the Roman primacy, and he, in fact, died in communion with Rome in the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes.  There are, in Pelikan’s Volume II of his history of the Christian Tradition, dozens of undeniably strong papal admissions on the part of many of the Easterns.  And, as Fr. Dvornik shows in his learned Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, the schism of Acacius is a strong admission of papal supremacy by the Easterns. What are we to make of the famous statement of St. Maximos the Confessor?:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firmand immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

I also recommend on this issue Vladimir Solovyev’s The Russian Church and the Papacy, which provides other supplementary arguments along the same lines I listed above, along with Butler, Dahlgren and Hess’ Jesus, Peter and the Keys, which, although some of the quotes are do not go as far to prove the papacy as they would like (a la William Webster’s Matthew 16), overall, the evidence is hard to deny.  What is the Orthodox person to think of Fr. Schmemann’s admission of the need for the office of the papacy?

In terms of “Augustinianism,” I confess that, by God’s grace, I can never leave this basic theological milieu of my master and patron.  I am well aware of the Eastern case against St. Augustine and the “west.”  I have tried to immerse myself in all their polemicists as well as I can.  I fully admit his failings in aspects of his Trinitarian theology.  However, his own attitude was one of humility before the Catholic Church, as he says in the beginning of Book III.  It’s a fact that many Easterns are now willing to deal with the possibility of a genuine reconciliation, with some, such as Metropolitan Zizioulas, admitting even the possibility of a kind of filioque at the level of ousia, but not of hypostasis.  These thinkers have also corrected Lossky’s error that the Spirit lacks an eternal relation to the Son, as Fr. Behr explains in his The Trinitarian Being of the Church article.  If that’s the case, then its true that the Father remains the sole source of the godhead, while the Son becomes a kind of mediating principle (St. Gregory of Nyssa), communicating to the Spirit the common essence.  According to Zizioulas, this was St. Maximus’ view.  Zizioulas writes in his article, One Single Source:

“Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a mediating role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι 'Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest? The Vatican statement notes that this is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the single cause principle to which I have just referred.

Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays on the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and processio. It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas προϊέναι was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common essence or ουσία which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς that is, with regard to the one ουσία common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία, but not of υπόστασις.

However, as the document points out, the distinction between ἐκπορεύσθαι and προϊέναι was not made in Latin theology,which used the same term, procedere to denote both realities. Is this enough to explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύσθαι but the προϊέναι of the Spirit.”

Thus, the eternal procession from a “single principle” as stated by the councils of Lyons and Florence, can be read in this manner.  This appears to be the direction the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque takes.  In short, as well as I can understand, I find this Vatican statement to be good enough.  Besides, Bulgakov and others admit that the Spirit can be understood as the love of the Father and the Son (The Orthodox Church, pg. 2).  But apart from several books and tons of articles, its evident that this cannot be the determining factor between East and West, since it becomes so obscure and drowned in questions of Liturgy, Greek and Latin, biblical texts, dogmatic decrees of councils and the writings of the Church Fathers only the best of theologians are able to sift through the masses of data (and I don’t mean myself).  Fr. Stylianopoulos admits this.

In terms of grace and nature, I don’t get Fr. Meyendorff and others’ rejection of the “Western” idea of the so-called nature/grace “dialectic.”  Even in St. Augustine they are not in “tension.”  It’s from the wellspring of Augustinianism that the classical Catholic idea of grace building on nature originates.  Is this entirely a western phenomenon?  No, inasmuch as St. Maximos clearly speaks of grace building on nature in Ambiguum 42.  We are told by the SVS Press editor in the footnote that “this is not to be confused with the western dialectic,” who is, I suppose, Fr. John Behr.  Well, how is this so different?  For example, we see the same imagery and usage in St. Cyril’s On the Unity of Christ (SVS Press edition), where over and over (pgs. 81-96 or so) he speaks of “nature” and “grace” in reference to both the Incarnation and soteriology, which are obviously linked.  In other words, if you hold to “two natures,” it follows that in salvation/deification there remain two natures, or, grace raising nature, as St. Cyril argues.  Further, Pelikan’s Christianity and Classical Culture is all about the idea of grace and natural law in the Cappadocians.  Yes, I’m sure there are subtle distinctions, but what exactly does the Eastern statement that “all nature is graced” mean?

For that matter, what is “Ancestral Sin”?  I just don’t get it.  I know what original sin is.  And, I know what Fr. Romanides says, and his book has been one of the major hang ups for me in not becoming Orthodox.  While I agree with some of his criticisms of overly-Latin thinking, some of my problems with his ‘seminal’ The Ancestral Sin are as follows:

1. Augustine is not a saint (pg. 11).

2. Romanides says many times that the parasite of death is the cause of our sins.  What is more correct is that there is a sense in which we sin because of death and that death is also the result of sin.

3. Romanides accuses all the west of teaching that man is by nature “immortal,” yet this is not true.  The Catechism of the Church states that “man is by nature mortal,” Par. 1008.

4. Romanides says that human free will is outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 33).  But the Holy Spirit says otherwise in Prov. 21:1.  How can anything be outside God’s sovereignty?  Romanides says God willed it to be so.  Now I’m reminded of my former Orthodox priest’s statement in agreement with his former Bishop: “God has chosen not to know all things.”  Supposedly this is a paradox.  No, this is a contradiction.  Scripture says that God knows the number of the hairs on our head.  Androutsos proposes this same silly idea of God knowing all things only in a general sense.  All of this to get away from sovereignty!

5. Romanides claims that the westerns fail in explaining evil as “lack of being,” yet this same idea is frequent in Eastern Fathers (pg. 34, fn. 65)!

6. Romanides follows the Synodikon of Orthodoxy in reference to condemning the analogia entis and the analogia fide, since “there is no similarity between the created and the Uncreated” in reference to God and Scripture.  Then we have no true knowledge of God and Scripture does not truly reveal Him.  If there is no true union or connection, then we fail to know Christ as truly divine.  Romanides even says sarcastically that it is “supposed that God is revealed there [in Scripture].”  How can we then have any knowledge of the ontological Trinity, since this comes only through Scripture?  It follows that we do not.  The energies that reveal God must then also be disconnected from the “hidden energies,” and even negative knowledge fails to obtain.  For example, that I know that the Son is eternally generated from the Father comes to me through the words and images of Scripture.   If there is no similarity, then I do not know that fact to be true of God, in terms of theology.  How does economy teach anything about God, theologically?

7. Romanides claims that evil is not non-being and that this is nonsense, yet this is what St. Athanasius teaches very clearly in “Contra Gentes,” along with using many juridical concepts in “On the Incarnation of the Logos,” which Romanides hates so much.

8. Romanides says that God can never remove the “freedom of evil” (pg. 75),

and that Satan’s will is completely free and outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 74)!  If this is true, then it follows that Satan and Redeemed men in the eternal state can be saved and fall again, ad infinitum.  This is pure Origenism.           

9. Romanides derides the idea that angels govern men and nations and that fallen angels desired women as mates.  If he were merely rejecting the idea of angels mating, it would be one thing, but Romanides implies that this is an error in Old Testament Scripture, quoting the liberal Abingdon Bible Commentary.

Romanides comes close to open theism in his chapter on the war between God and the Devil, since Satan’s fall really did mess up God’s plans in a sense, and as we said, God cannot touch the wills of men and angels (pg. 86).  In this he sounds like “open theist” Greg Boyd.

10. Romanides engages in a zealous attempt to eradicate the idea that death is a punishment from God, and he says this ad nauseam.  Romanides should have read more St. John Chrysostom, or been more honest with him.  But worse, he quotes Romans 8:20 , arguing that God didn’t subject the creation to death and futility, when St. Paul ’s text itself says the very opposite!  Using the flood or Sodom as examples of God’s punishment don’t work, since Romanides probably believed it never happened.

11.  Romanides seriously tries to argue that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but only the ground and the serpent (pg. 95), quoting St. Irenaeus.  This is because, he imagines, God has no wrath or desire for vengeance or need for propitiation.  All of these concepts are western heresies.  Yet they are undoubtedly Pauline!  This just goes to show that the Orthodox writers can’t deal with St. Paul .  The one’s who do, like those summarized in Gavin’s Greek Orthodox Thought must apparently be castigated as “Latinized” Greeks, since so much in their writings is “western” and juridical!

12. He claims that the fall was “not at all juridical” for the New Testament writers (pg. 112).  Can he be serious?           

13.  Romanides argues that we should not be motivated by pleasures to be saved or by fear of hell, but rather that we should obtain apatheia.  How stoic. Scripture says that in God’s hands and pleasures evermore (Ps.16).  He admits on pg. 123 that he wants to return to Jewish conceptions as opposed to Augustinian ones, since “Jews didn’t believe in God’s retributive justice.”  The prophets certainly did, and they were true Jews.  Who does he think brought about AD 70?

14. Romanides claims that monasticism declined in the west when Augustinianism prevailed (pg. 174).   Is this for real?  Is he not aware that monasticism prevailed in the medieval Augustinian West?             

What is the point of all this railing against St. Augustine and the western errors?  It’s that Romanides hates the idea of a God who punishes sin: the God revealed in Scripture.  So he was forced to run to the post-Apostolic fathers as a supposedly more faithful presentation of the Apostolic Faith.  These facts are all related to the strands in all the Orthodox: there is no predestination or unconditional election, God is not fully sovereign—maybe not even omniscient, and doesn’t eternally damn people as a punishment.  And of course, this goes hand in hand with the numerous Orthodox writers and priests I’ve met who refuse to take Scripture seriously on these points, and often impute errors to it, rather than impute errors to their own intellect!  In this regard, I feel just like St. Augustine combating the very same errors of his day (not that I am a great saint).  Why the zeal for errors in Scripture?  Because, if Scripture has manifest errors, one need not take its threats of damnation seriously, of course.  This stuff clearly borders on Origenism and in some cases is Origenism (think Kalomiros’ awful River of Fire article), and I just can’t confess this semi-pelagian nonsense, which appears to be the “mind of Orthodoxy,” since most all of them hold this, or tend in this direction.

Concerning predestination, I have never doubted its absolute gratuity.  I have always affirmed unconditional election, and remained within this Augustinian/Thomistic framework.  I believe this to be biblical, and my conscience is bound to it.  I could not bring myself to explicitly repudiate unconditional election as the older Greek Rite of Reception of Converts, based on the Confession of Dositheos mandates.  Since no Orthodox theologian has ever affirmed any election other than that based on foreknowledge of human actions, I would obviously be out of step with the “mind of Orthodoxy.”  And I’ve read the Eastern Fathers, Symeon the New Theologian, St. John of Damascus, John Cassian, Nicholas of Cabasilas, the elders, and others on the issue, and I do not believe them to be in line with St. Paul ’s teaching in Romans 9 of election’s pure gratuity. 

I also find St. Thomas ’ teaching on predilection as an equally convincing case for predestination in this sense.  In short, the best text on this is the great Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Lagrange’s book Predestination, available from TAN Books.  I would also recommend reading St. Augustine ’s works on predestination that will be linked below.  In fact, I stayed up all night last night reviewing much of this Augustinian material in the Fathers Set and feel ever more convinced of its truth.  When one compares St. Augustine with the responses of John Cassian (so admired in the East, and the well-known exponent of semi-pelagianism), it’s like comparing a mountains and mole-hills.  Imagine Benny Hinn debating Jaroslav Pelikan (though certainly Cassian wasn’t as bad as Benny Hinn.

Much more could be said about the problems of national churches and “catholicity,” as well as widespread Orthodox ambiguity on numerous points, but this is sufficient for the present.  As I said above, please don’t waste my time with emails of “heresy” and “apostasy” attacks.  I already know many of you will think this, so it’s really quite unnecessary to blast me.  I am doing what my (hopefully) informed conscience leads me to.  St. Thomas teaches that even erring reason, if not attended with an evil will, still binds (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5).

Many of my friends have opined (rightly) to me that eventually, one must rest.  Christianity is practical, and a lifetime of changing positions is very distressing and impractical, often leading to despair.  I have explored the world outside Catholicism in both Protestantism and Orthodoxy and have tasted enough different flavors.  Many of my objections to Vatican II could have been cleared up earlier, had I read more of the Eastern Fathers and councils. Are there problems?  Sure, there will always be another book, another debate, another challenge, another issue, etc.  It will never end, because, as the Eastern Fathers teach, we will be forever learning God (not that there will be difficulties in heaven, but we will always be coming to know God more and more, inasmuch as He is infinite).  I am not at all convinced of the Apocalypticism that the trads in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism fall into. All too often this is the excuse of radical groups to hole up in some obscure basement somewhere, certain that they are the last 5 Catholics left in the world.  Usually this leads to ridiculous, half-mad wandering bishops, "election" of numerous home-made "popes," false visionaries, or the ultra-splintering of traditional Orthodox groups, such as Cyprianites, Matthewites, etc.  And, all of these sects are rabid with wild apocalypticism.  All groups have their masonic infiltrators, gays, and liberals.  It is, in this fallen world, inescapable.  I don't know if we are in the last days, but I know that all the little sects that are grounded on this are also the most dubious.  Honestly, how different is this than the Montanists or the Donatists or the Circumcelliones?  Rad Trads of every flavor would do well to consider that Christ visited with the Samaritan woman at the well--a jewish schismatic of that day, along with telling the "scandalous" parable of the "good Samaritan."  Rad Trads would do well to consider whether they might be more like Christ or the Pharisees & Essenes.

If Catholicism was good enough for St. Augustine, its good enough for me, and consequently, if St. Augustine didn’t make the cut, who of us will?!  I’ve learned that the act of faith in the Scriptures is the same as the act of faith in the Church herself: I don’t know the answer to every apparent textual problem, nor do I know the answer to every “problem” of liturgics, Church History, canon law, dogma, etc.  Who can?  So, I’ll rest in communion with Rome.  I trust that in God's providence it will work out.  As St. Augustine says in the beginning of On the Predestination of the Saints, to the degree that we have attained, we must walk therein, and if I am wrong, may God correct me (Phil. 3:15-16).

Links to important articles and documents referenced:

Vatican Clarification on the Filioque: http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/06/the-vatican-cla.html

Metropolitan Zisioulas' article One Single Source: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/zizioulis_onesource.html

Pope St. Agatho's Letter to the Sixth Council: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.v.html

The Letter of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm

Session III of Ephesus: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xv.html

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

St. Augustine's works against the Pelagians & on predestination: http://newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm, 

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1509.htm, http://newadvent.org/fathers/1512.htm, 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm, http://newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm, 

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm

Questions 23 and 24 of Part 1 of the Summa on predestination and the Book of Life: http://newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm, http://newadvent.org/summa/1024.htm

A Catholic-Thomist Vs. Calvinist Debate on predestination: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/LOSS.htm

See also Jimmy Akin's article on the issue of predestination: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

And Akin's The Salvaion Controversy on a Thomistic version of the "five points": http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Controversy-James-Akin/dp/1888992182/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214424973&sr=8-1