David Patrick Harry Says: First Century Christians Did not Have a Bible

I have written several articles about David Patrick Harry who goes by the name Church of the Eternal Logos and, as long as he continues to say dumb things, I will continue to do so. In a recent livestream comparing The Church of Christ with The Orthodox Church David got into a discussion about Sola Scriptura. David actually says Christians in the first century did not have a Bible. 

Early Christians Were Protestants? Deconstructing the Church of Christ (Sponsored Stream)

1:49:20 Was Sola Scriptura present in the Old Testament? Was Sola Scriptura present in the first century? So, right, like that's a fundamental problem for them. So, they're first century Christians basing their faith on scripture. Did first century Christians have a Bible to use? No. No. Absolutely not. So, so what, what role did scripture in the Bible have for first century Christians? Well, it was tradition. The Apostles, they knew what the teachings were, they knew which Epistles, they knew which Gospels, you know, out of all the Gnostic Gospels that began to emerge in the second century. First, the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter. You know, it's the tradition, it's the church, it's the hierarchy that which protected it from all this fallible nonsense.

That David could say something so dumb is mind boggling. Does he not know what the Septuagint is?  It's the Bible of the first century Christians! Jesus stood up in the Synagogue and read from it Himself. Jesus is always referring to the Septuagint when he speaks of Himself and His mission. The Apostle Paul also cites copiously from the Septuagint in his letters. 

Perhaps David means first century Christians did not have a full Bible including both Old and New Testaments. His own statement undercuts that interpretation. 

So, so what what role did scripture in the Bible have for first century Christians? Well, it was tradition. The Apostles, they knew what the teachings were, they knew which Epistles, they knew which Gospels

According to David first century Christians knew which were the inspired and authoritative epistles and Gospels. That means they had a written collection of documents from which they drew their teaching. 

The fact that there was no official, that is canonically defined, list of books until well after Marcion forced the Church's hand by drawing up his own list is no barrier to Sola Scriptura. The Church has always had a Bible.

In Lee McDonald's book "The Biblical Canon" there are various canonical lists which do not all agree. David would have us think that this proves there was no fixed canon and because there was no fixed canon sola scriptura is invalid. This is actually wrong and McDonald on pages 216 and 217 writes the following:

There is little doubt that the core of the biblical collection of authoritative books is essentially the same collection that we no have in the Protestant OT collection. What is in question in canonical studies are book on the fringe. These fringe books included both canonical and apocryphal books, were disputed among Jews and Christians for centuries, even though many leaders in the church and synagogue freely quoted these writings in an authoritative manner, sometimes even using the designations Scripture or as it is written to refer to them. Remarkably, these disputes took place for centuries after decisions were supposedly made about its canonicity. Yet in neither group - those who accepted and those who rejected the authority of this literature - was there any noticeable change in theology.

“The decision whether to accept or reject the deuterocanonical literature is not at the core of what Christianity is all about. As the Law of Moses formed the core of the OT, so also the Gospels and Paul have been at the heart of the NT biblical canon since the second century, even though there was a great deal of dispute over the deutero-Pauline epistles (especially the Pastorals), Hebrews, the Catholic (or General) Epistles, and Revelation. The Jews and later the Christians fully accepted the Law of Moses as the core of their sacred Scriptures. Soon thereafter, most if not all of the traditional Prophets and many of the Writings were accepted as canonical, but at a secondary level of scriptural authority among the Jews. Not everyone agreed on the contents of the Writings, especially not before the time of Jesus, but the division of opinion was not over the core, but over the fringe.”

The issue, writes McDonald, is fringe books and not the core. There has always been a core of canonical scripture for both Christians and Jews. At first the Christians adopted the Septuagint. Later they held the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be central to their doctrines. The very fact that there are lists at all indicates that Scripture was being appealed to as an authoritative source of doctrine. Not merely appealed to but actually built upon. Irenaus says this very thing:

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.  

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 

The Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our faith. That is the very essence of sola scriptura. 

The reason David is wrong is because as a member of the Orthodox Church he places his faith in the hierarchy and unwritten nebulous traditions, not in the Scriptures. David Patrick Harry does not have the same faith as St. Irenaeus who said the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our faith. 

"The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity" on The Confession of Dositheus

It should not be a controversial thing to say the Confession of Dositheus absolutely forbids the reading of Scripture by all laymen. The words of the confession are quite plain on the matter. The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity mentions the Confession of Dositheus on this matter in two places.

Dositheos also expanded the biblical canon, and imitating the Council of Trent, he called the Septuagint additions canonical books (Pentiuc 2014, 128). He also responded to the Loukarean thesis regarding the private reading of the Scripture by claiming that Divine Scriptures:

should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. (Karmires 1953, 768; translation: Leith 1963, 506)

Recently, Belezos (2020, 68) has stressed that the Dosithean confession does not introduce a general prohibition of the private reading of the Scripture in the vernacular. Instead, Dositheos promotes three criteria for a properly Orthodox interpretation and transmission of the Bible: (1) the respect to the patristic interpretation, (2) the ecclesial experience, and (3) the illumination of the Spirit. Accordingly, the exclusive priority belongs neither to Scripture (sola scriptura) nor the ecclesial authorities (magisterium) but to the Holy Spirit that inspired the biblical authors and holds the Church together. Belezos’s claims demonstrate that Dositheos not only imitated Tridentine Catholicism but also tried to consider the traditional Byzantine theology (Russell 2013, 82). However, Loukaris also stressed the role of the Spirit. Therefore, the emphasis on the role of the Spirit in Dositheos’s strange position does not solve its problematic character. This prohibition can be explained only from the perspective of Dositheus’s passion for defending Orthodoxy. This passion led him to a decision with no parallel in the history of eastern Christianity (Georgi 1941, 56).

pg. 283

The author of this essay, Athanathios Despotis, calls this prohibition "problematic" and "with no parallel in the history of eastern Christianity."

The second place where the Confession of Dositheus' prohibition of the Christian laity reading Scripture is discussed says the following. 

In the wake of the Protestant Reformation and an emphasis on individual reading and study of Scripture, the Orthodox Church issued several official pronouncements against private biblical study. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem issued what is commonly known as the Confession of Dositheus as a rebuttal to various Calvinist positions. One particular issue that was raised in the Confession of Dositheus is directly relevant to the discussion of critical study of Scripture among Orthodox. The following appears in the form of a question and answer in the Confession of Dositheus:

Question #1: Should the Divine Scriptures be read commonly by all Christians? 

Response: No. We know that all Scripture is divinely inspired and beneficial, and in this way has in it what is necessary, so that without it, it is impossible to be pious at all. Nevertheless, it should not be read by all, but only by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read. But to those who are not trained and indifferent, or who understand only literally, or in any other way what is contained in the Scriptures that is foreign to piety, the catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage caused, does not permit its legitimate reading. It is permitted to every pious person to hear the Scripture so that that person may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation. But to read certain parts of Scripture, and especially the Old Testament, is prohibited for the aforementioned reasons and others similar to them. To order untrained persons not to read all of sacred Scripture is the same thing as restricting infants from touching solid food.

This statement on the reading and interpretation of Scripture was repeated almost verbatim in 1723 in An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by prominent bishops, among whom were Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Patriarch Athanasius IV of Antioch, and Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem. These Church pronouncements prohibited the reading of Scripture generally by all Orthodox Christians, except “by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read.” The Confession of Dositheus and the Exposition of 1723 also give special emphasis to Orthodox Christians being prohibited from reading “certain parts of Scripture, but especially the Old Testament.” These Church pronouncements assert that Orthodox Christians in general are permitted to hear the Scriptures in church where they are to “believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation.” In their approach to Scripture, these Church pronouncements emphasize that it is essential for Orthodox Christians to hear, believe, and confess, but not to read Scripture. Moreover, nothing is said about the necessity of Orthodox Christians understanding the Scriptures. Indeed, in the response to Question #2 in the Confession of Dositheus as well as in the Exposition of 1723, it is asserted that only those “trained in wisdom and holiness” can understand the content of Scripture.

Despite these restrictions, the desire for general reading of Scripture by Orthodox and the influence of historical criticism began to be felt slowly in Greece in the 1830s.

pg. 323-324

This author, John Fotopoulos, notes that Dositheus' approach to scripture was an emphasis on the laity hearing and believing without reading or understanding the Scriptures being of any necessity. The prohibition of reading the Scripture "was repeated almost verbatim" in An Orthodox Exposition of the Faith published in 1723. Here is a translation from 1865. The citation is on pages 87 and 88.  

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lI0QAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP15&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fotopoulos then goes on to note that "these restrictions" have basically been ignored. A long dissertation follows unpacking that observation. 

Is it any wonder Dositheus' prohibition of reading Scripture by the laity has been ignored? It is not only utterly absurd to deny the laity the right to read the Word of God but, as previously noted, it is without precedent in the history of Eastern Christianity. One only needs to read Chrysostom, the great preacher of Constantinople, to see he constantly berated his parishioners for being ignorant of the Scriptures and implored them to read them.

And yet, not only was this prohibition repeated at least twice in official and confessional Orthodox documents, it has never been overturned. The Confession of Dositheus, along with its prohibition of the laity from reading Scripture, remains in force to this day.

The Stupidest Q & A Ever From Church of the Eternal Logos

David Patrick Harry, who goes by the handle Church of The Eternal Logos, is an intelligent guy who is also pretty dumb. His intelligence shines when he talks about subjects in which he is well versed such as psychedelics. His dumbness comes through when he talks about subjects in which he is not well versed such as Protestantism and the Gospel.  

During a recent livestream someone asked a rather interesting question about how the Protestants interpret the Bible.

Satan's Kingdom: History of Christian Persecution From Rome to Today (1st Half)

17:06 We also had a super chat over on Streamlabs by Storm The Cat who throws in $10 and says "Do you think modern society and Technology affects the way Evangelical Protestants interpret the Bible and theology. It is hard to explain but the way they interpret the Bible seems mechanistic and soulless whereas Orthodoxy is more in harmony with nature?" 

What the heck does this question even mean? What does it mean to interpret the Bible mechanistically and soullessly? What does it mean to interpret the Bible "more in harmony with nature?" The questioner admits "it is hard to explain" and does not even attempt an explanation. The proper immediate reaction should be to ask, "What do you mean?"

David does not do that. Listen to his answer. 

Well, my immediate response, Storm The Cat, is yeah.

Let's stop here. What is he saying yeah to? The questioner has not explained his terms which are quite vague and meaningless. How can David agree or disagree if he does not know what the question means? Already David is off to a bad start. 

I think that Evangelical or Protestantism generally speaking is uh informed by Enlightenment values and in fact when we look at the French Revolution today unfortunately many Protestants were an advocate, were advocates for the killing of various Catholics. Uh, they saw this as sort of Revenge potentially for the 30 Years War but also their belief that the pope was the Antichrist and that Catholic Church of Authority was something that needed to be undermined and destroyed in France.

What is this nonsense? Protestants advocated for the slaughter of Catholics during the French Revolution as revenge for the Thirty Years War? Citation please. How exactly is Protestantism "informed by Enlightenment values?" The Enlightenment was a rejection of all things Christian and came about two hundred yearss after the Protestant Reformation. One of its chief proponents was Voltaire who wished to stamp out Christianity. 

David is talking out of his butt here. He does this all the time. Because Protestants separated from the Catholic Church David thinks that means they are revolutionaries who sought to not only undermine the authority of the Catholic Church but also divorce themselves from the Church so completely as to start something brand new. That is an incorrect interpretation of the Protestant Reformation. 

And so you can't help but notice that Protestantism, especially in the western world, one, it's failed. There is no Protestant nation that is still majority Christian. I mean historically it was Northern Europe and Northern Europe is the most secular atheist places in the world and then when you look in America, America was generally considered the most Christian of the Protestant Nations but it's kind of hard to say that we're still still a Christian Nation especially given the things that people celebrate coming out of Hollywood. 

And, uh for example there's a, I just found out, that there was a Methodist minister or Pastor in the US who does his services in drag and so that's going to definitely connect with our, our website conversation on the Paris Olympics opening ceremony and the sort of Carnival and bacchanalia mixture of opposites the, again we've talked about Baphomet and I'm going to be bringing Baphomet up over on the website, this blending of opposites, this henosis the neoplatonic, uh, understanding of pure Unity, the bringing of opposites to create a sort of unified structure that we can see that this is the way in which Satan is operating. 

And so are there good Christians that are evangelicals and Protestants? Absolutely. Um, and, and they're limited in maybe their understanding of church history, their historical context whatever it may be their geography and so they you know they're, they're a Protestant to some degree and obviously we're not endorsing Protestantism it's a failed experiment as we see that it, it constantly concedes morality and concedes aspects of culture. 

And yeah it is more mechanistic it is more rationalistic. I would argue that protestantism is an ideology more so than a sacramental theology because sacraments are just symbolic within the Protestant Faith. Now, you you have high Church aspects Lutheranism and stuff like that within Anglicanism but look at the Anglican Church. Look at the high Lutheran Churches they have lesbian pastors now and so they can't really conserve anything because they don't have a true tradition. 

And so when you're talking about Orthodoxy seems to be more in harmonious alignment with nature and creation I would say that's because it's the tradition of the Apostles. It's the tradition of saints and Witnesses and Protestantism just doesn't have that and Protestantism from its get-go was a was part of the sort of revolutionary spirit I would argue. Now, did they did they have, uh, accurate criticisms of the Catholic churches and the selling of indulgences and all this stuff? Absolutely. But then that revolutionary Spirit of divorcing itself from Apostolic succession and and creating new interpretations and hermeneutics and Theological understandings of scripture I mean this is a revolutionary spirit and so you can't help but notice that communism, socialism, Nazism, whatever ISM that you want to apply to it, um, I think these are in a way sort of outgrowth of the collapsing of protestant Faith. So that's my general take maybe you guys have a different opinion that's fine but I want to thank Storm The Cat for the $10 Super Chat. Really appreciate that my man.

The question was about the interpretation of the Bible and David does not even touch on that subject. Instead he links Protestantism to communism, socialism, Nazism, the French Revolution, the acceptance of homosexuality, and the Spirit of Revolution. What a load of malarkey. At no time did Protestants seek to subvert either the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or the Crown. They did seek to separate themselves from both to worship in peace. For instance when English Protestants were persecuted by Mary Queen of Scots they fled to the Netherlands and Switzerland. French and English Protestants both fled to the New World to avoid persecution. 

To say Protestantism is informed by Enlightenment values and the Spirit of Revolution is completely a-historic and without foundation. This argument has been making the rounds by people like David Patrick Harry, Jay Dyer, and Rebecca Wilson who claims feminism, Satanism, and basically doing one's own thing is an outgrowth of Protestantism. As if the men who claimed we are saved by faith alone through the grace of Jesus Christ alone would condone Satanism, feminism, or the French Revolution. Such a claim is quite a stretch. A much firmer connection would be between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. 

David also claims that Protestants don't even have a sacramental theology because the sacraments for them are merely symbolic. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

The Westminster Confession says the following about the sacraments. 

1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him:  as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other.

3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/chapter-27/

The Heidelberg Catechism says the following about the sacraments. 

Q & A 65

Q. It is through faith alone that we share in Christ and all his benefits: where then does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.

Q & A 66

Q. What are sacraments?

A. Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals.They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and seal that promise. And this is God’s gospel promise: to grant us forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace because of Christ’s one sacrifice accomplished on the cross.

https://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/lords-days/25.html

Does that sounds like Protestants teach the sacraments are empty symbols? Of course not. It is mind boggling that anti-Protestants such as David Patrick Harry never look at the confessions when discussing what Protestants allegedly believe. Instead they make it up as they go. 

David should never have answered the question. Instead he should have tried to figure what the question meant. Is he aware that Protestants practically invented Patristsics? This notion that Protestants rejected "the tradition of the Apostles" and divorced themselves "from Apostolic succession" and created "new interpretations and hermeneutics and Theological understandings of scripture" is pure, unadulterated horse manure and betrays a total ignorance of Protestant Biblical exegesis. Read the writings of Protestants and you will see a litany of citations from the Church Fathers. Protestants have never conceived of themselves in the caricature of "me and my Bible alone."

The question should have been rejected from the start. Not only is it loaded but the terms given are undefined. If you cannot explain your own question because its to hard to explain then you are not asking a question, you are expressing a feeling. 

God Saved Donald Trump and Killed Corey Comperatore

Apparently it is odd and freakish to believe God saved Donald Trump's life from an assassin's bullet. It does not help that some who believe that idea are odd and freakish themselves. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/29515265/donald-trump-chosen-by-god-pastor-sean-moon-usa/

Last Wednesday, as Trump took to the stage at the gigantic Bojangles Coliseum in Charlotte, North ­Carolina, Hyung Jin “Sean” Moon would not have been ­anywhere else.

The pastor runs the Rod Of Iron Ministries — also known as the MAGA, or Make America Great Again, church — and his sect worships with AR-15 rifles by their sides.

Speaking to The Sun on Sunday as the excitement was building among the large crowd, moments before the 78-year-old took to the stage, he told us: “We believe that God has chosen Donald Trump and he preserved his life during that terrible assassination attempt that the whole world saw.

“He dodged that bullet by God’s grace, that 15-degree turn to the right saved his life and was God’s hand.

Moon — who has followed Trump around the country and has condemned the Biden government as “a satanic cult of power” — is the son of Korean businessman Sun Myung Moon, who founded the Unification Church, whose followers are dubbed Moonies.

Moon Junior has set up his own offshoot and carved a name for himself among gun rights advocates.

He doesn’t wear the MAGA red cap, while his usual uniform is military-style cargo pants, matching shirt and crown of polished bullets — often with a gold AR-15 rifle, which he says is his firearm of choice, because “it’s a fine weapon”.

Rod of Iron Ministries is an offshoot of the Unification Church which was founded by Sun Myung Moon who proclaimed himself to be the Messiah! Clearly this is not a Christian group and should be avoided by anyone with a lick of sense. That does not negate the truth of the statement, "He dodged that bullet by God's grace."

Other religious and political leaders have said the same thing only to be mocked by leftist publications like Rolling Stone. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-god-spared-maga-leaders-believe-1235060168/

The notion of divine intervention itself raises uncomfortable questions — including why a just deity would allow a local former fire department leader to perish in the same attack, while shielding his wife and daughter. Or why such a God, for example, didn’t spare the school children of Uvalde from a similar deadly shooter with an AR-15.

But such qualms did not appear to trouble MAGA stalwarts, whose blind faith in the righteousness of far-right American politics continues to rival, if not trump, any genuine faith in Jesus. 

That is how the Rolling Stone article ends. 

The issue is not divine intervention per se but God's Absolute Sovereignty. God does not divinely intervene in history, he actively guides it to its final end which is the second coming of Christ and the manifestation of the Sons of God.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

The fact is God saved Donald Trump and killed Corey Comperatore. After all, God kills and makes alive. 

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

All that comes to pass is a result of God's will.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will

Head 1 of the Sum of Saving Knowledge sums up the Bible's teaching about God's covering direction of history. 

I. The almighty and eternal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in the one and the same undivided Godhead, equally infinite in all perfections, did, before time, most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatsoever cometh to pass in time: and doth most holily and infallibly execute all his decrees, without being partaker of the sin of any creature.

https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/the-sum-of-saving-knowledge/

It's as simple as that. Believe it or not. It's not up to you anyway as God opens the eyes of those he will and blinds the rest. 

The Orthodox Study Bible Contradicts the Confession of Dositheus

The Confession of Dositheus, which is an authoritative document of Orthodoxy, defines faith as "a right notion of God and divine things." The Catechism of Philaret defines faith as trust, distinguishing it from knowledge. How does the Orthodox Study Bible define faith?

The OSB's definition of faith can be found in the note on Romans 5:1.

Faith in Christ makes us justified, an ongoing state of communion with Him. Because of this ongoing communion we have peace with God which is also ongoing. The Greek word pistis, here translated as faith, can also be rendered "faithfulness." Faith is more than the conviction that something is true. Genuine faithfulness is continuous loyalty and obedience to God. Such faithfulness justifies a person through God's grace. 

Look at the sleight of hand in this note.

1. Faith can be also be translated faithfulness.

2. Faith is more than conviction something is true.

Now here is the switch up.

3. Genuine faithfulness is continuous loyalty and obedience to God. 

4. Such faithfulness justifies a person before God.

The author went from discussing faith to discussing faithfulness in the blink of an eye. The problem is the author has not defined faith. Faithfulness presupposes faith. But what is faith? The author has merely changed terms rather than define it. This note is horrendously misleading. 

The Orthodox Study Bible contains a whole article about the doctrine of Justification which confirms this defintion of faith as faithfulness. 

 

For most of church history, salvation was seen as comprehending all of life: Christians believed in Christ, were baptized, and were nurtured in their salvation in the Church. Key doctrines of the faith centered around the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the atonement.

In Western Europe during the sixteenth century and before, however, justifiable concern arose among the Reformers over a prevailing understanding that salvation depended on human works of merit, and not on the grace and mercy of God. Their rediscovery of Romans 5 lead to the slogan sola fides: justification by faith alone.

This Reformation debate in the West raised the question for the Orthodox East: Why this new polarization of faith and works? It had been settled since the apostolic era that salvation was granted by the mercy of God to righteous men and women. Those baptized into Christ were called to believe in Him and do good works. An opposition of faith versus works was unprecedented in Orthodox thought.

The Orthodox understanding of justification differs from the Protestant in several ways.

1Justification and the new covenant. When Orthodox Christians approach the doctrine of salvation, the discussion centers around the new covenant. Justification—being or becoming righteous—by faith in God is part of being brought into a covenant relationship with Him. Whereas Israel was under the old covenant, in which salvation came through faith as revealed in the law, the Church is under the new covenant. Salvation comes through faith in Christ, who fulfills the law. We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, leading us to the knowledge of God the Father. Rather than justification as a legal acquittal before God, Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ (Rom 6:1–6).

2 Justification and God’s mercy. Orthodoxy emphasizes it is first God’s mercy—not our faith—that saves us. “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1, 2). It is God who initiates or makes the new covenant with us.

3 Justification by faith is dynamic, not static. For Orthodox Christians, faith is living, dynamic, continuous—never static or merely point-in-time. Faith is not something a Christian exercises only at one critical moment, expecting it to cover all the rest of his life. True faith is not just a decision, it’s a way of life. Thus, the Orthodox Christian sees salvation in at least three aspects: (a) I have been saved, being joined to Christ in Holy Baptism; (b) I am being saved, growing in Christ through the sacramental life of the Church; and (c) I will be saved, by the mercy of God at the Last Judgment.

Justification by faith, though not the major New Testament doctrine for Orthodox as it is for Protestants, poses no problem. But justification by faith alone brings up an objection. It contradicts Scripture, which says, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). We are “justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28), but nowhere does the Bible say we are justified by faith “alone.” On the contrary, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (Jam 2:17).

As Christians we are no longer under the demands of the Old Testament law (Rom 3:20), for Christ has fulfilled the law (Gal 2:21; 3:5, 24). By God’s mercy, we are brought into a new covenant relationship with Him. We who believe are granted entrance into His Kingdom by His grace. Through His mercy, we are justified by faith and empowered by God for good works or deeds of righteousness that bring glory to Him.

Faith here is defined as a way of life, i.e. faithfulness.

While the notes on the various usage of faith in the Orthodox Study Bible would make for a necessary inquiry I will only look at two passages from James cited in the article on justification. 

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

The note is as follows:

The faith that saves is a complete faith, not just the mind and the tongue but the whole man trusting in the living God. This means our faith and our relationship with God—our justification—are dynamic and living, Our faith grows and affects our actions, or it dies. “Faith alone” (by itself, v. 17), static faith, does not save. We must nurture our faith in God and love for Him through our works. “Do not say you are the temple of the Lord, writes Jeremiah [see Jer 7:3]; nor should you say that faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ can save you, for this is impossible unless you acquire love for Him through your works. As for faith by itself, ‘the devils also believe, and tremble’” (MaxCon).

First of all the citation from St. Maximos the Confessor is of no use because it is not clear what he means by faith. Is it trust? Is it faithfulness? Is it a correct notion of God and divine things as the Confession of Dositheus says? 

Secondly there is now an element of trust added to the definition of faith. No longer is it loyalty and obedience or a way of life but "trusting in the living God."

The article also cites James 2:24.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

The note on this verse and the preceding section which is about Abraham is as follows:

The faith of Abraham is living and active.

(1) In Gn12:1-3, when Abraham is 75 years old, he receives a call to forsake all and follow God

(2) In Gn 15:6, when Abraham is almost 85, after he has proven his faith through years of renouncing his land, family, property, and privileges, God promises him that he will ultimately regain everything he has given up. Abraham's faith in God's promise is “accounted to him for righteousness." God fulfills Abrahams faith by making a covenant with him, an OT liturgical and sacramental act.

(3) In Gn 22:1-19, Abraham is at least 110. He has been tested for years concerning God's promise of a son, Now, after the covenant sacrament of initiation (circumcision) has been given in Gn 17, comes Abraham's supreme test: the sacrifice of Isaac, his son of promise (Gn 15:6).

James reveals that Gn 15:6 is fulfilled in Gn 22. This is a crucial lesson for us in our understanding of justification by faith. Neither Abraham’s faith nor his justification is merely momentary, static, or once-and-for-all. It is dynamic, a growth process that finds its natural and normal realization in good works. Far from being just point-in-time, Abraham's justification covered at least 25 years after God first declared him just. It is living and active faith that saves!

According to this note Genesis 15:6, "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness" finds fulfillment in Genesis 22 where Abraham was tempted to offer up Isaac. James 2:21 says:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

What exactly is being fulfilled? Genesis 15:6 is not a promise but a declaration of righteousness based on Abraham's faith. The offering up of Isaac did not make Abraham righteous but it did prove he was a man of faith. As Hebrews 11:17-19 says:

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

There is no note on this passage but there is a note on verses 8 - 12 which describes the nature of Abraham and Sarah's faith.

Faith is simple, but it becomes many-splendored in our lives. For Abraham and Sarah it became a venturesome action (v. 8); obedience (v.8); patience (vv.9,10); trust (v.11); and confidence (v.11). Faith moves from the impermanence and discomfort of living in tents made by man (v.9) to the permanence and solace of the city built by God (v, 10).

Clearly the Orthodox Study Bible utilizes the word faith in many senses. Let's end with the glossary definition. 

FAITH Belief and trust in Christ as one’s Savior, or a reference to Orthodox Christianity as “The Faith.” The effects of this faith are freedom from the power of the DEVIL, the growth and maturity in VIRTUE, and progress toward perfection and union with God. One is saved by faith through GRACE—a living faith manifested by a righteous life. (See article,, “Justification by Faith,” at Rom 5; see also Rom 3:28; Gal 2:1; who have sinned against them (Mt 6:14, 15; Eph2:8; Jam 2:14—17.)

Here faith is defined as "trust in Christ as one's Savior." But this definition also says "one is saved by faith through GRACE—a living faith manifested by a righteous life." That makes faith not trust in Christ only but faithfulness as in loyalty and obedience as the notes on Romans 5 said. There are two contradicting definitions in this definition. 

The notes of the OSB warrant closer scrutiny but the point is it does not define faith as knowledge like the Confession of Dositheus.

Benjamin Langlois is Wrong About St. Basil's Remarks on Tradition

David Patrick Harry, known as Church of the Eternal Logos, recently had a guest on his show named Benjamin Langlois, also known as Orthodox Luigi, to talk about Orthodoxy. The conversation compared Catholicism and Protestantism to Orthodoxy which led Benjamin to say something interesting. 

Finding God in the West: Leaving Catholicism with Michael Moeller and Special Guest!

1:26:30 It's like in my debate with Redeemed Zoomer right when he would quote St Irenaeus or St Athanathius or whoever. It's like all I have to do is go to this other quote, right, where they obviously, like, he tried to quote St Basil right and I'm so glad he did because I had that quote that explicitly says that there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture.

What's interesting about this is that it's not true. St. Basil does write about tradition but never says "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in Scripture." Here is the full quote from St. Basil's work On the Holy Spirit.

66. 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? 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?

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm

Basil says if we reject the customs handed down to us "we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals." He then explains himself by saying "or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." St. Basil is not saying "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture." These traditions and customs are not part of the Gospel they are part of public worship.

These traditions include making the sign of the cross, facing East while praying, the words of invocation over the Eucharist, words of blessing for oil and baptismal water, and triple immersion. None of those things is part of the Gospel. They are expression of worship. 

Paul defined the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Notice how Paul says the Gospel is written in the Scriptures. He does not appeal to "silent and mystical tradition" to define the Gospel but to the Scriptures. Jesus does the same thing in Luke 24.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The Gospel, ALL of the Gospel, is contained in the Scriptures.

What is interesting about Benjamin's comment is that it says a lot about him. He converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism and posted the following comments on Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/christ_in_the_culture/p/C2nzGkJP2CP/?img_index=8

When Jesus Christ ascended unto heaven, He didn't leave a Bible, He left a Church.

What about the Scriptures? The Scriptures themselves were given to us through the Church. For the first several hundred years of Church History, there was no closed canon of Scripture. Scripture, which is the ultimate form of Apostolic Tradition, was preserved in the Church.  

Both of those statements are misleading and wrong. Jesus Christ certainly did leave a Bible when he ascended. In fact when he was born the Bible already existed. It is He who inspired it's words and it is He who is its subject. The entirety of the Old Testament proclaims Jesus Christ as He Himself proved in Luke 24 when "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

The second comment is a non sequitur. There was no closed canon of scripture therefore...what? Sola Scriptura is wrong? That is the implication yet that is certainly not the reality. Sola Scriptura: 

affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice

https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas

Echoing that sentiment Irenaeus, writing in the second century, says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith."

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.  

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 

Likewise Ben's claim that there was no closed canon of Scripture for several hundred years means nothing. He should read Lee McDonald's "The Biblical Canon." In this book are various canonical lists which do not all agree. McDonald on pages 216 and 217 writes the following:

There is little doubt that the core of the biblical collection of authoritative books is essentially the same collection that we no have int he Protestant OT collection. What is in question in canonical studies are book on the fringe. These fringe books included both canonical and apocryphal books, were disputed among Jews and Christians for centuries, even though many leaders in the church and synagogue freely quoted these writings in an authoritative manner, sometimes even using the designations Scripture or as it is written to refer to them. Remarkably, these disputes took place for centuries after decisions were supposedly made about its canonicity. Yet in neither group - those who accepted and those who rejected the authority of this literature - was there any noticeable change in theology.

“The decision whether to accept or reject the deuterocanonical literature is not at the core of what Christianity is all about. As the Law of Moses formed the core of the OT, so also the Gospels and Paul have been at the heart of the NT biblical canon since the second century, even though there was a great deal of dispute over the deutero-Pauline epistles (especially the Pastorals), Hebrews, the Catholic (or General) Epistles, and Revelation. The Jews and later the Christians fully accepted the Law of Moses as the core of their sacred Scriptures. Soon thereafter, most if not all of the traditional Prophets and many of the Writings were accepted as canonical, but at a secondary level of scriptural authority among the Jews. Not everyone agreed on the contents of the Writings, especially not before the time of Jesus, but the division of opinion was not over the core, but over the fringe.”

The issue, writes McDonald, is fringe books and not the core. There has always been a core of canonical scripture for both Christians and Jews. At first the Christians adopted the Septuagint. Later they held the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be central to their doctrines. The very fact that there are lists at all indicates that Scripture was being appealed to as an authoritative source of doctrine.

Contrary to Protestants and even Catholics the Orthodox actually forbid the laity from reading the Scriptures. This prohibition is found in The Confession of Dositheus. 

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians? 

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, tt is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Benjamin is simply wrong about the Scriptures and about St. Basil. 

Towards the end of the video David Patrick Harry says:

2:48:26 So, this is something I, I've done with one-on-ones, with young guys who, you know, go down the Ortho rabbit hole. They know all the theology, Church history, and I'm like well, ok, what parish do you go to? Oh, I haven't gone to a Church yet. It's like, why you tell, you're telling me you're Orthodox, what are you talking about? This isn't a belief system. This isn't an ideology this is a lived experience and so it's like, bro, that I'm really happy you've read all these books, um, but, go to a damn parish dude. Like, what are you doing?

Now, David did not mean to call the Orthodox Church damned but how is any Church which denies the right of the laity to read the Scriptures not damned?