Examining EO

[One Bad Pig]

You seem to be under the illusion that you are somehow above this interpretative process. The fact of the matter is that you engaged in exegeting biblical passages and weighing theological arguments and so forth when you converted to Orthodoxy -- which constitutes your personalized (or private) interpretative process. Make no mistake that it was you who made the decision through personal investigation and analysis.

Not really. Perhaps you missed where I said it was not my intention to convert?

Mr. Stamenkovic is being true to his ultimate authority -- the scriptures. If you can prove to him that his interpretation is erroneous through exegetical argumentation, then he should stand corrected, like a good Protestant.

I've met precious few "good Protestants" by that criterion.

Source: Stamenkovic

On the other hand, the allegation that the Apostles would omit (accidentlally or deliberately) the most important spiritual truths on which the eternal destiny of billions of people would hang is utterly inconceivable.

© Copyright Original Source

Repeating this dreck doesn't make it any better an argument. It is blatant misrepresentation compounded by argument from outrage.

But do you think that the Apostolic teaching contained within the scriptures is sufficient for life and godliness so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work?

You realize that Paul was referring to the Old Testament, yes?

Source: Stamenkovic

Any careful reader of Holy Scripture will notice at least two "sacraments" never mentioned in the New Testament. These include chrismation (performed after baptism) and anointing of the sick (e.g. sanctification through oil on behalf of a sick person). The apostolic practices of the New Testament provide no evidence for either of these practices. The first century Christians neither performed chrismation (rubbed oil) on a believer after baptism nor did they rub patients with oil to sanctify them "in the name of the Lord". Although the New Testament mentions baptism many times and refers to praying for the healing of sick people, the Orthodox sacraments of chrismation and unction are completely absent.

© Copyright Original Source

Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.

Source: Mark 6:13 NKJV

And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Luke 10:34 NKJV

So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

© Copyright Original Source

Most pertinently:

Source: James 5:14 NKJV

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

I think he would acknowledge those passages. The question he is asking: Do the Orthodox sacraments literally line up with the practices performed and decreed in the bible?

No, he's not asking that question. He made an emphatic assertion which turned out to be unequivocally wrong. You might at least acknowledge that, or there's no point in continuing this. Assuming he is asking that question, he's making an argument from silence.

If you can prove to a Protestant from the scriptures that laying on of hands ought to be practiced in order to receive the Holy Spirit, then that Protestant would be bound to adopt said practice. Eph. 1:13-14 and Gal. 3:2-3 would need to factor in here however.

You've shown abundantly that you're quite willing to handwave away any interpretation which doesn't already square with yours. In this case, you've decided, along with most Protestants, that since it's not always used, it should never be used.

Source: Stamenkovic

From studying the Bible verses earlier, we learned that the New Testament in fact does not support the Orthodox dogma of Mary's perpatual virginity.

© Copyright Original Source

Yes of course he is submitting his interpretation, in light of his personal commitment to rightly divide the word of truth.

He's not simply submitting his interpretation, he's pretending that it is OBviously the ONLY interpretation, not even bothering to interact with any others.

Source: Stamenkovic

Obviously then, this dogma derives only from apocryphal books. Furthermore, names such as "Virgin" or "Mother of God" are not found in the Bible. Such names were introduced into the church centuries after Mary's death.

© Copyright Original Source

Stamenkovic is highlighting the biblical portrait of Mary and contrasting it to the exalted status she is given in Orthodox and Roman circles. He finds no good reason to believe that such tradition has it's roots in Apostolic witness.

...because he's a priori assumed his conclusion. He also misrepresents the exalted status she is given. If he were an honest man, he would not do that. I'm confident he knows better; he'd have to, if he'd bothered to read all the Orthodox material he cites.

Source: Stamenkovic

In accordance with biblical revelation we must show respect to the Apostles and other men and women of God throughout history. Such people are respected for the lessons in piety based on their various experiences in life with the Lord. Yet, we must not engage in what the Scriptures forbid: to pray for the intercession before God and prayerful mediation of saints already deceased.

© Copyright Original Source

He sort of completely failed to prove this bald assertion.

There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years!

Of course that is demonstrably false.

My statement is only slightly hyperbolic. In my 35 years as a Protestant, I do not recall a pastor or bible study leader ever citing older than, say, Oswald Chambers or Dwight Moody. That wasn't old enough for me, so acquired Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible because it was old. On rare occasions, you might find someone citing Augustine, but that's chancy because Catholics love him so much.

Where does he make this conflation?

He doesn't so much state the conflation as ignore the Orthodox distinction completely. Again, he has to know better if he's read Orthodox sources.

Now of course Protestants have seen these verses before, and of course we disagree with The Orthodox and Roman interpreters, and believe you are reading into the text a doctrine that simply isn't there.

Then why didn't he actually deal with them? One would think that, for maximum effect, one would deal with the opponent's strongest arguments, not ignore them.

OK, but does Stamenkovic agree with everything in the book? Perhaps there is some truth to pagan influence on Marian doctrine over the centuries, and the book gets that part right(?)

Immaterial. He cites it as an authority - and the only authority - for that assertion.

In the OP I stated that refutations from Orthodox believers are welcomed.

You did. Your responses, unfortunately, do not bear that out.

Perhaps the reality of nominalism and mere cultural-belief present in all churches and denominations can help us better discern the global body of Christ...

Nice dodge.

Just as Paul opposed Peter at Antioch, it seems Stamenkovic is willing to confront fellow believers when they are not acting "consistently with the truth of the gospel".

I'd be fine with that if he did that in an honest manner. Stamenkovic is not, however, doing so, for reasons I've stated above. Get a better source. This one's not worth any more of my time.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth.

Absolutely. Yet God created sex good, too. That doesn't mean it can't be abused.

Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.

Source: Rom 6:1-2

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

© Copyright Original Source

You're dangerously confident in your ignorance.

I'll try to get to your other post in a bit.

[Scrawly]

Well though quite frankly, its silly to think that food is not meant to be enjoyed though. it should be enjoyed. My understanding of gluttony is that its a type pf greed and selfishness. It also uses food in place of other needs.

Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth. Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.

[Catholicity]

I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?

In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.

Well though quite frankly, its silly to think that food is not meant to be enjoyed though. it should be enjoyed. My understanding of gluttony is that its a type pf greed and selfishness. It also uses food in place of other needs.

[Scrawly]

This isn't about "plurality of interpretations"; this is about "private interpretation".

You seem to be under the illusion that you are somehow above this interpretative process. The fact of the matter is that you engaged in exegeting biblical passages and weighing theological arguments and so forth when you converted to Orthodoxy -- which constitutes your personalized (or private) interpretative process. Make no mistake that it was you who made the decision through personal investigation and analysis.

And, yes, Mr. Stamenkovic failed repeatedly by reading into the scriptures his private interpretation.

Mr. Stamenkovic is being true to his ultimate authority -- the scriptures. If you can prove to him that his interpretation is erroneous through exegetical argumentation, then he should stand corrected, like a good Protestant.

Sure.

Source: Stamenkovic

These facts surrounding Holy Scripture explain why the Apostles recorded everything needed for proper spiritual life and growth in the books of the New Testament.

© Copyright Original Source

This follows a 3-sentence synopsis of how the NT was written. It is wholly an argument from what he believes to be true and is unsupported by what precedes it. All he did here was baldly assert what he believes.

OK.

Source: Stamenkovic

On the other hand, the allegation that the Apostles would omit (accidentlally or deliberately) the most important spiritual truths on which the eternal destiny of billions of people would hang is utterly inconceivable.

© Copyright Original Source

This manages to combine two fallacies, burning a strawman and argument from incredulity.

But do you think that the Apostolic teaching contained within the scriptures is sufficient for life and godliness so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work?

Source: Stamenkovic

Any careful reader of Holy Scripture will notice at least two "sacraments" never mentioned in the New Testament. These include chrismation (performed after baptism) and anointing of the sick (e.g. sanctification through oil on behalf of a sick person). The apostolic practices of the New Testament provide no evidence for either of these practices. The first century Christians neither performed chrismation (rubbed oil) on a believer after baptism nor did they rub patients with oil to sanctify them "in the name of the Lord". Although the New Testament mentions baptism many times and refers to praying for the healing of sick people, the Orthodox sacraments of chrismation and unction are completely absent.

© Copyright Original Source

Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.

Source: Mark 6:13 NKJV

And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Luke 10:34 NKJV

So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

© Copyright Original Source

Most pertinently:

Source: James 5:14 NKJV

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

Anointing with oil was a standard cure in NT times. It is the height of ignorance to argue that it didn't occur.

I think he would acknowledge those passages. The question he is asking: Do the Orthodox sacraments literally line up with the practices performed and decreed in the bible?

He has something of a point with chrismation, which is merely a different way of doing the same thing - to give the Holy Spirit, which was done via the laying on of hands in NT times. Harping on the outward form is a little petty, especially as it is a practice which most Protestants have dropped entirely. It's okay to quit doing something, but not to do it in a different manner?

If you can prove to a Protestant from the scriptures that laying on of hands ought to be practiced in order to receive the Holy Spirit, then that Protestant would be bound to adopt said practice. Eph. 1:13-14 and Gal. 3:2-3 would need to factor in here however.

Source: Stamenkovic

From studying the Bible verses earlier, we learned that the New Testament in fact does not support the Orthodox dogma of Mary's perpatual virginity.

© Copyright Original Source

No, that's his interpretation of those verses. Does he imagine that the Orthodox never noticed these texts before?

Yes of course he is submitting his interpretation, in light of his personal commitment to rightly divide the word of truth.

Source: Stamenkovic

Obviously then, this dogma derives only from apocryphal books. Furthermore, names such as "Virgin" or "Mother of God" are not found in the Bible. Such names were introduced into the church centuries after Mary's death.

© Copyright Original Source

This is an argument from silence. It assumes that it cannot have come from tradition passed down orally, it equivocates somewhat in that Mary is indeed referred to as a virgin in Mat. 1:23 and Luke 1:27, and then makes another statement from silence. Yes, the oldest remaining evidence of "Theotokos" is from Origen in the third century. However, in the written instances before evidence is widely available, it is never defended - just used. The only condemnation of the term prior to modern times is by Nestorius, who was cast out as a heretic for doing so. Note that the term "trinity" is never used in scripture, yet Protestants have no issue with that. Double standard much?

Stamenkovic is highlighting the biblical portrait of Mary and contrasting it to the exalted status she is given in Orthodox and Roman circles. He finds no good reason to believe that such tradition has it's roots in Apostolic witness.

Source: Stamenkovic

In accordance with biblical revelation we must show respect to the Apostles and other men and women of God throughout history. Such people are respected for the lessons in piety based on their various experiences in life with the Lord. Yet, we must not engage in what the Scriptures forbid: to pray for the intercession before God and prayerful mediation of saints already deceased.

© Copyright Original Source

There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years!

Of course that is demonstrably false.

Second, in his arguments he deliberately conflates worship/adoration of God and the veneration of saints, which is an argument Orthodoxy has vehemently disclaimed for something like 1300 years.

Where does he make this conflation?

Thirdly, he passes over key passages in defense of prayers to the saints like Heb. 12:1 (which shows the saints are aware of what passes here), Rev. 6:9-11 (which shows the martyred saints crying out to God, and God responding), and Rev. 5:8/8:4 (showing the prayers of the saints rising like the smoke of incense before God).

Now of course Protestants have seen these verses before, and of course we disagree with The Orthodox and Roman interpreters, and believe you are reading into the text a doctrine that simply isn't there.

Stamenkovic relies on Ralph Woodrow's Babylonian Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern....

OK, but does Stamenkovic agree with everything in the book? Perhaps there is some truth to pagan influence on Marian doctrine over the centuries, and the book gets that part right(?)

Are you more interested in reading something which supports your POV, however sloppily, or finding out the truth?

In the OP I stated that refutations from Orthodox believers are welcomed.

This is hardly a problem isolated to Orthodoxy; many Protestant believers are equally "nominally and culturally religious and lack true faith rooted in the one and only gospel."

Perhaps the reality of nominalism and mere cultural-belief present in all churches and denominations can help us better discern the global body of Christ...

If he's worried about people finding the truth, he needs to stop using deceitful arguments to "help" them.

Just as Paul opposed Peter at Antioch, it seems Stamenkovic is willing to confront fellow believers when they are not acting "consistently with the truth of the gospel".

[One Bad Pig]

This is the passage I had in mind.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

Oh, The Instructor (Paedogogus). That I've read.

That makes some sense though I do struggle at times with discerning if a given exhortation is meant to be taken literally. Clement in particular seems fairly straightforward in literalness with his condemnation of spices and other ingredients.

Clement of Alexandria is complicated. As far as I can tell, he is generally not venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy. I do not often see his writings quoted as authoritative.

This isn't meant to be a stupid question, but how do you define "passion" in a religious sense? I've seen the term used here a number of times but haven't been able to nail down an exact definition. I've seen it defined as strong emotion or excitement but I suspect it may not be so straightforward. I know as a football fan, you allow yourself to get emotionally invested/excited in games, for instance, so does it relate to a moderation of said emotions?

Well, strictly speaking, I probably shouldn't. The ideal of passionlessness is to be equally unaffected by praise or condemnation. Needless to say, it's rarely met. I do get emotionlly invested in games, but not to the point of breaking something or losing self-control. Monks don't watch football.

[KingsGambit]

I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?

In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.

This is the passage I had in mind.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm

That makes some sense though I do struggle at times with discerning if a given exhortation is meant to be taken literally. Clement in particular seems fairly straightforward in literalness with his condemnation of spices and other ingredients.

This isn't meant to be a stupid question, but how do you define "passion" in a religious sense? I've seen the term used here a number of times but haven't been able to nail down an exact definition. I've seen it defined as strong emotion or excitement but I suspect it may not be so straightforward. I know as a football fan, you allow yourself to get emotionally invested/excited in games, for instance, so does it relate to a moderation of said emotions?

[One Bad Pig]

I have a question about EO.

Is it considered a sin to eat food that tastes good?

I came across this this when going through a Wiki-rabbit hole and saw that "eating tasty rather than plain food" was a cause for condemnation. I'm aware that Clement of Alexandria's "The Christian Use of Food" says similar things so I'm curious if this is a universal.

I don't recall that work by Clement of Alexandria. Where might I find it?

In any case, the reference says, "choosing," not "eating." There's a difference between going for dainties over healthful food and accepting food proffered by others. Further, it probably should not be taken strictly literally; more on that anon. In a sense, though, choosing rich foods can be considered gratification of the passion of gluttony; it is markedly easier to over-eat when one enjoys the food, after all. Also, rich foods can stir the loins, which is why ascetics in particular try to avoid them. However, marital sex certainly gratifies the flesh, and is not the slightest bit condemned in scripture. Thus, some discernment is IMO required. You don't let your kids choose dessert over the main course, do you? You may let them have dessert after cleaning their plate, but not lieu of that.

[KingsGambit]

I have a question about EO.

Is it considered a sin to eat food that tastes good?

I came across this this when going through a Wiki-rabbit hole and saw that "eating tasty rather than plain food" was a cause for condemnation. I'm aware that Clement of Alexandria's "The Christian Use of Food" says similar things so I'm curious if this is a universal.

[One Bad Pig]

Is Russian Orthodox priest Kyril Zaits a schismatic according to Orthodoxy?

As it turns out, no.

The questions he posed to the evangelical in the intro seem to stem from standard Orthodox doctrine from what I understand.

Yes. That does not make them reasoned expositions.

I believe Pastor Ivica Stamenkovic displayed sound doctrine in accordance with the word of truth. His interpretation of the scriptures is akin to a worker seeking approval from God by rightly dividing the word of truth. The plurality of interpretations shouldn't prevent one from seeking the correct one. I have no reason to believe that Ivica Stamenkovic failed in this regard, do you?

This isn't about "plurality of interpretations"; this is about "private interpretation". And, yes, Mr. Stamenkovic failed repeatedly by reading into the scriptures his private interpretation.

Please provide some specifics here.

Sure.

Source: Stamenkovic

These facts surrounding Holy Scripture explain why the Apostles recorded everything needed for proper spiritual life and growth in the books of the New Testament.

© Copyright Original Source

This follows a 3-sentence synopsis of how the NT was written. It is wholly an argument from what he believes to be true and is unsupported by what precedes it. All he did here was baldly assert what he believes.

Immediately following:

Source: Stamenkovic

On the other hand, the allegation that the Apostles would omit (accidentlally or deliberately) the most important spiritual truths on which the eternal destiny of billions of people would hang is utterly inconceivable.

© Copyright Original Source

This manages to combine two fallacies, burning a strawman and argument from incredulity.

Source: Stamenkovic

Any careful reader of Holy Scripture will notice at least two "sacraments" never mentioned in the New Testament. These include chrismation (performed after baptism) and anointing of the sick (e.g. sanctification through oil on behalf of a sick person). The apostolic practices of the New Testament provide no evidence for either of these practices. The first century Christians neither performed chrismation (rubbed oil) on a believer after baptism nor did they rub patients with oil to sanctify them "in the name of the Lord". Although the New Testament mentions baptism many times and refers to praying for the healing of sick people, the Orthodox sacraments of chrismation and unction are completely absent.

© Copyright Original Source

Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.

Source: Mark 6:13 NKJV

And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Luke 10:34 NKJV

So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

© Copyright Original Source

Most pertinently:

Source: James 5:14 NKJV

Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

© Copyright Original Source

Anointing with oil was a standard cure in NT times. It is the height of ignorance to argue that it didn't occur.

He has something of a point with chrismation, which is merely a different way of doing the same thing - to give the Holy Spirit, which was done via the laying on of hands in NT times. Harping on the outward form is a little petty, especially as it is a practice which most Protestants have dropped entirely. It's okay to quit doing something, but not to do it in a different manner?

Source: Stamenkovic

From studying the Bible verses earlier, we learned that the New Testament in fact does not support the Orthodox dogma of Mary's perpatual virginity.

© Copyright Original Source

No, that's his interpretation of those verses. Does he imagine that the Orthodox never noticed these texts before?

Immediately following:

Source: Stamenkovic

Obviously then, this dogma derives only from apocryphal books. Furthermore, names such as "Virgin" or "Mother of God" are not found in the Bible. Such names were introduced into the church centuries after Mary's death.

© Copyright Original Source

This is an argument from silence. It assumes that it cannot have come from tradition passed down orally, it equivocates somewhat in that Mary is indeed referred to as a virgin in Mat. 1:23 and Luke 1:27, and then makes another statement from silence. Yes, the oldest remaining evidence of "Theotokos" is from Origen in the third century. However, in the written instances before evidence is widely available, it is never defended - just used. The only condemnation of the term prior to modern times is by Nestorius, who was cast out as a heretic for doing so. Note that the term "trinity" is never used in scripture, yet Protestants have no issue with that. Double standard much?

Source: Stamenkovic

In accordance with biblical revelation we must show respect to the Apostles and other men and women of God throughout history. Such people are respected for the lessons in piety based on their various experiences in life with the Lord. Yet, we must not engage in what the Scriptures forbid: to pray for the intercession before God and prayerful mediation of saints already deceased.

© Copyright Original Source

There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years! Second, in his arguments he deliberately conflates worship/adoration of God and the veneration of saints, which is an argument Orthodoxy has vehemently disclaimed for something like 1300 years. This is dishonest, and shows Stamenkovic to be more interested in advancing his beliefs than being truthful. Thirdly, he passes over key passages in defense of prayers to the saints like Heb. 12:1 (which shows the saints are aware of what passes here), Rev. 6:9-11 (which shows the martyred saints crying out to God, and God responding), and Rev. 5:8/8:4 (showing the prayers of the saints rising like the smoke of incense before God).

Stamenkovic relies on Ralph Woodrow's Babylonian Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern. Let's see what Woodrow himself later had to say about this work:

Source: Woodrow

In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands which claimed paganism had been mixed into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was usually the target, it seemed other churches had also been contaminated by customs and beliefs for which pagan parallels could be found.

"The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop (1807-1862), with its alarming subtitle, "the papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife," was THE textbook on which much of this teaching was based. Over the years, this book has impacted the thinking of many people-ranging all the way from those in radical cults to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move of God and are concerned about anything that might hinder that flow. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day, in disguise, as the Roman Catholic Church and is described in the book of Revelation as "Mystery Babylon the Great"-thus, the idea of TWO Babylons, one ancient, and on modern. Because Hislop's book is very detailed, having a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted "Hislop" as an authority on paganism, jut like "Webster" might be quoted on word definitions.

As a young evangelist I began to share a sermon on the mixture of paganism into Christianity, and eventually wrote a book based on Hislop-"Babylon Mystery Religion." In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. I came to be regarded by some as an authority on the subject of pagan mixture. Even a noted Roman Catholic writer, Karl Keating, said: "Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of 'Babylon Mystery Religion'."

Many preferred my book over "The Two Babylons" because it was easier to read and follow. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other. Letters in a steady flow were received praising my book. Only occasionally would there be a dissenting voice. ONE WHO DISAGREED was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in southern California. Being a Christian, and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN. As a result, I realized that I needed to go back through Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out!

As I did this, it became clear-Hislop's "history" was often only mythology.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm sure I could too, but quite frankly I'm not sure I need to.

Are you more interested in reading something which supports your POV, however sloppily, or finding out the truth?

I believe Ivica Stamenkovic is solely concerned with the Orthodox understanding of the gospel. He is perhaps rightly concerned that many Orthodox believers are nominally and culturally religious and lack true faith rooted in the one and only gospel, and that they will never find it if they remain in the Orthodox tradition. He further sees devout Orthodox believers or "converts" as having gone astray from a pure and simple faith in Christ, latching on to unbiblical traditions of men; and I tend to agree for the most part.

This is hardly a problem isolated to Orthodoxy; many Protestant believers are equally "nominally and culturally religious and lack true faith rooted in the one and only gospel." If he's worried about people finding the truth, he needs to stop using deceitful arguments to "help" them.

[Scrawly]

Okay, I've looked (read through all of #2). The author has no shame. First, he digs up the weakest argument for Orthodoxy he can find, which is essentially an Orthodox (probably schismatic, given the source) priest whose argument boils down to, "Do you do these things Orthodoxy does? You DON'T!?! For shame!!!!!!!!"

Is Russian Orthodox priest Kyril Zaits a schismatic according to Orthodoxy? The questions he posed to the evangelical in the intro seem to stem from standard Orthodox doctrine from what I understand.

His reply mostly boils down to, "If it's not explicitly in the New Testament, as I interpret it, it's wrong!"

I believe Pastor Ivica Stamenkovic displayed sound doctrine in accordance with the word of truth. His interpretation of the scriptures is akin to a worker seeking approval from God by rightly dividing the word of truth. The plurality of interpretations shouldn't prevent one from seeking the correct one. I have no reason to believe that Ivica Stamenkovic failed in this regard, do you?

Along the way, he argues from silence, rips quotes out of context so he can misrepresent their authors, relies on outdated and/or otherwise questionable sources (pagan copycats, anywone?), avoids the best Orthodox arguments....

Please provide some specifics here.

Surely you can find something better, Scrawly.

I'm sure I could too, but quite frankly I'm not sure I need to.

Not only is this unlikely to move those not already convinced, it may cause those already convinced to rethink their convictions.

I believe Ivica Stamenkovic is solely concerned with the Orthodox understanding of the gospel. He is perhaps rightly concerned that many Orthodox believers are nominally and culturally religious and lack true faith rooted in the one and only gospel, and that they will never find it if they remain in the Orthodox tradition. He further sees devout Orthodox believers or "converts" as having gone astray from a pure and simple faith in Christ, latching on to unbiblical traditions of men; and I tend to agree for the most part.

[One Bad Pig]

Which books would you recommend a person read if you could only recommend three books, One Bad Pig?

Right now? Probably Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective [Daniel B. Clendenin], Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology [Andrew Louth], and Introducing the Orthodox Church: Its Faith and Life Paperback [Anthony Coniaris]. None of these are really apologetics books, though the last was my catechism book, and provides some apologia for Orthodox praxis and beliefs. I have books on my (ever-increasing) to-read list which may bump one or more of those. I think it's better to visit an Orthodox church than to just read about Orthodoxy.

[Leonhard]

Which books would you recommend a person read if you could only recommend three books, One Bad Pig?

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, I've looked (read through all of #2). The author has no shame. First, he digs up the weakest argument for Orthodoxy he can find, which is essentially an Orthodox (probably schismatic, given the source) priest whose argument boils down to, "Do you do these things Orthodoxy does? You DON'T!?! For shame!!!!!!!!" His reply mostly boils down to, "If it's not explicitly in the New Testament, as I interpret it, it's wrong!" Along the way, he argues from silence, rips quotes out of context so he can misrepresent their authors, relies on outdated and/or otherwise questionable sources (pagan copycats, anywone?), avoids the best Orthodox arguments....

Surely you can find something better, Scrawly. Not only is this unlikely to move those not already convinced, it may cause those already convinced to rethink their convictions.

[Cow Poke]