A Brief Evaluation of Eastern Orthodox Theology

By Fred Moritz [1]

A study of Orthodox Theology is important in our day for at least two reasons. First, in recent years several western Protestant theologians have left their communions and become Orthodox. Second, the Emergent movement shows an attraction to elements of Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox churches represent a specific tradition in theology. The Eastern Orthodox tradition developed in the countries around the Mediterranean in the eastern regions of the old Roman Empire.[2] By the fifth century there were five major “sees” or centers of Christianity in the post-apostolic world: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constan­tinople, and Rome. Over time, the Bishop of Rome amassed more power and influence, and by the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) the papacy was identifiable.

The seeds for the division between the eastern and western traditions of Christendom were sown about this time. The standard date given for this division is 1054. Eastern Orthodox historian Aristeides Papadakis calls that date “inaccurate.”[3] Papadakis points out that the “Great Schism” between east and west was “a prolonged process stretching over centuries.”[4] The unifying factor between the various regions over the first centuries of church history was the “faith and authority of the seven ecumenical councils.”[5] Papadakis lists several factors that contributed to the schism. They were:

1. The transfer of the Roman capital to Byzantium (Constantinople, now Istanbul) created jealousy and friction. “But if Constantinople, the ‘New Rome’ became the setting for this new civilization, it also became the unrivaled center of Orthodox Christianity.”[6]
2. The rise and conquests of Islam drove a physical wedge between the two regions.
3. The coronation of Charlemagne (800) further divided the two regions. “For the East, the West was acting as if the Roman Empire, with its legitimate emperor in Constantinople, had ceased to exist. The Byzantine Empire’s claims to world sovereignty were being ignored.”[7]
4. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a basic issue. “Rome began to interpret her primacy in terms of sovereignty, as a God-given right involving universal jurisdiction in the Church. The collegial and conciliar nature of the Church, in effect, was gradually abandoned in favor of supremacy of unlimited papal power over the entire Church.”[8]
5. Another core issue was theological – the procession of the Holy Spirit. “Equally disturbing to the Christian East was the western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy, this too developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of the Latin phrase filioque (‘and from the Son’) to the Creed. The original Creed sanctioned by the councils and still used by the Orthodox Church did not contain this phrase; the text simply states ‘the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father.’ Theologically, the Latin interpolation was unacceptable to the Byzantines since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone.”[9]

From our perspective the theological issue seems “inconsequential.” The verse in question is John 15:26. In it Jesus stated that he would send the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. The battle seems to have been as much political as theological.

The filioque controversy relates to the question, “Who sent the Holy Spirit?” Was it the Father or the Father and the Son? Historically, this seemingly non-consequential point has marked the difference between the Eastern and Western churches. The Greek (Eastern) church taught the “single procession” of the Holy Spirit—only the Father was involved in sending the Spirit. On the basis of John 15:26, and the fact that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, the Roman (Western) church taught the “double procession” of the Holy Spirit—both the Father and the Son were responsible for sending the Holy Spirit. At the Council of Toledo in a.d. 589 the phrase “and the Son” was added to the Nicene Creed. The Eastern church refused to accept the doctrine and this was ultimately the issue that permanently split the Eastern and Western churches in 1054.[10]

In 1054 patriarch Michael Cerularius was excommunicated by papal legates.[10] The climax of the “Great Schism” came in 1204 with the sack of Constantinople by western Crusaders.[12]

The Orthodox communions around the world are known by several names such as the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, or some other national term. Those terms designate nationalities or regions, but all of these Orthodox traditions are loyal to the Metropolitan of Constantinople. There are about 5 million members of Orthodox churches in the United States.[13]

Orthodox Theology

The Greek Orthodox Diocese of America gives a detailed statement of its fundamental teachings on its website.[14] It is a concise declaration of Orthodox theology. Several important highlights require our attention. It is my purpose to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) in this analysis of Orthodox Theology. As Bible-believing Baptists we find several profound areas of difference with Orthodox Theology. The desire of this article is to offer an analysis that is consistent with Scripture and kind in spirit.

The Church – The Depository of Revealed Truths

Orthodoxy affirms that Jesus founded the church and he is its head. It goes on to say: “Christ entrusts His own Being to the Church, handing down divine Revelation, in oral form, and later recorded in written form, to constitute Tradition at large.”[15]

The statement affirms that the church is the source of salvation. “There is nothing that contributes to the salvation of the faithful which is not contained in the Church’s ministry, its diakonia.”[16]

Eastern Orthodoxy also holds that the church may be the source of continuing revelation. Mastrantonis states:

This Church of Christ has in its nature the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and develop the truths of Revelation; it is to be delved into from time to time to find and pronounce the truths of which the Church is the Pillar. The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but it is not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world.[17]

The statement goes on to declare that these pronouncements of truth are made through synods. These synods deal with specific questions that may arise at a particular time.

Scripture

The Orthodox teaching is clear that both Scripture and tradition are its sources of authority, and that the church is the depository for Scripture and tradition. Mastrantonis states: “The teachings and the practices of the Orthodox Church are to be found in the Scriptures and Sacred Apostolic Tradition, which have been handed down to the Church of Christ in the Revelation of God.”[18] He also states: “The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, along with Sacred Apostolic Tradition are the divine Sources in which Almighty God revealed His Will and which the Church accepted as being the only depository for these truths.”[19]

Two other features of Orthodox teaching on Scripture are important. The church teaches:

The collection of books that became the Bible developed over the first few centuries of Christian history. The canon as the Orthodox Church preserves it was finalized and approved by the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393. This included the 27 books of the New Testament and the 51 books of the Septuagint.[20]

Note that the Orthodox communions accept the Apocryphal books as Scripture, and they reject the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. This website explains:

The Septuagint (often abbreviated “LXX”) is the Greek translation of the “Jewish Bible”, translated around the second century before Christ. The LXX is the oldest version of the Old Testament in existence, several centuries older than the Hebrew Masoretic Text (“MT”). The Orthodox Church considers the LXX more reliable than the MT, as there is evidence that the Masoretes tampered with the translation to make Christian claims about Christ more difficult, and removed several books. Those books and portions of books in the LXX not present in the MT (the “Apocrypha”) were removed from the Christian Bible by Protestants, who mistakenly believed the books to be uninspired.[21]

God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit: The Trinity

The Orthodox statement on the true God is consistent with biblical teaching. The statement on the Trinity is an affirmation of biblical and historic teaching on the unity of the Godhead, and on the full deity of each of the members of the Trinity. The statement clarifies Orthodox teaching concerning the procession of the Spirit. This is in contrast to the Filioque statement from the Council of Toledo in 589.

In the personal attributions of the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father begot the Son and from the Father proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, sends the Holy Spirit to guide His Church (cf. John 15:26).[22]

Several paragraphs later the statement explains the Orthodox opposition to the Filioque statement. They wanted to oppose the ideas that the Son created the Spirit or that the Spirit has two origins. Mastrantonis states:

It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the “filioque” phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The “filioque” phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. It introduces a strange teaching of a double procession of the Holy Spirit and refers to two origins of the Spirit’s existence, thus denying the unity of the Godhead.[23]

The statement on Christ identifies Mary as “Theotokos.”[24] This leads them to a “veneration” of her, although they separate themselves from the Roman Catholic teaching:

Another fundamental belief of the Orthodox Church is the faith in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, Who became “incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and became man” (Nicene Creed) for our salvation. The Virgin Mary Theotokos gave birth to Jesus, Who is the only begotten Son of God. In the Orthodox Church, the Theotokos is highly honored, as expressed in praises recorded in the Scriptures with qualities mirrored in the Magnificat (cf. Luke 1:46 ff.). Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens. The Church venerates the Theotokos as “holder of Him Who is illimitable . . . and infinite Creator.”[25]

The Fall and Regeneration

The statement on mankind’s fall into sin is consistent with Scripture and affirms that the image of God in sinners is marred, but not lost. It then describes God’s provision of salvation:

Man’s desire for salvation implies that man feels his inner emptiness and turns to God for forgiveness and redemption. Almighty God in His compassion and love prepared for this regeneration of man by sending His Son, Jesus Christ the Savior.[26]

We must point out that Scripture takes a different approach to this. Historically, Adam and Eve hid from God, and the Creator took the initiative to come seeking them after their sin (Gen 3:7-10). Paul clearly states that sinners do not seek after God. Certainly we feel our “inner emptiness,” though we aren’t able to explain it. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor 5:19). God reached out to man. No one turns to God apart from the work of God through His Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).

Baptism and Sanctification

The orthodox teaching on the saving power of baptism is clear. “By Baptism, the Church holds that all optional and original sins are cleansed by the Grace of God. The Chrismation of a newly baptized person is the confirmation of his faith which is ‘the seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’”[27]

Orthodox teaching on confession differs from Catholic teaching.

In the Orthodox Church, the priest merely reads prayers, using verbs in the passive voice, invoking the remission of sins by God. The Church states that after “one baptism for the remission of sins,” the confession of sins through the Sacrament of Repentance is considered God’s highest gift to man (cf. Matthew 18:18; John 20:22-23).[28]

Holy Eucharist

In contrast to the biblical teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice was a once-for-all work (Heb 9:28; 10:10, 12, 14); the Orthodox Church unequivocally teaches that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It calls this ceremony a “propitiatory sacrifice” and describes it as the means by which the forgiveness of sins is obtained:

This ceremony of the Holy Eucharist is both His sacrifice for the salvation of man and a sacred mysterion. The Holy Eucharist is the seal of the proclamation of the communion with God. It is the only Sacrament offered by the Church in which the elements of bread and wine not only carry the Grace of God, as a mysterion, but are “changed” into and “are” the very Body and the very Blood of Christ, being a propitiatory sacrifice. 

This awesome sacrifice has been entrusted to the Church to be re-enacted and given to the faithful for the nourishment of their faith and the forgiveness of their sins in remembrance of the Lord. [29]

Worship

This all leads very logically to the Orthodox position on worship. The church is the source of God’s grace and it bestows grace through the sacraments. Matrantonis elaborates:

The Orthodox Church, considered the depository of infallible public worship, has been entrusted with the power of God’s Grace to gather all its members, to pray and be sanctioned together, to communicate with each other as a spiritual Ecclesia and to be in communion with God and one another. The Grace of God is bestowed upon each Christian by the Word of God in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Church as well as through the sacred ceremonies, mysteria, and other divine services where the presence of every member of the church is important. 

The highest pattern of worship in the Orthodox Church is the Holy Eucharist, which is officiated as the Divine Liturgy. In the Divine Liturgy, the Grace of God is bestowed upon the communicants. The faithful partake of the very Body and Blood of Christ for their sanctification and remission of sins. All communicants participate with devotional life and spirit in the Divine Liturgy. The Holy Eucharist, the very Body and Blood of Christ, is considered by the Church divine nourishment for its members.[30]

Salvation and Man’s Sin

Orthodoxy combines its sacramental view of soteriology with the affirmation of the Nicene Creed that Christ, as the God-Man, came to save. Then speaking about sin, it states its opposition to “two extremes”:

1. The theory that in the innate sinfulness of mankind, human nature is able to practice virtue by itself, making Christ’s sacrifice only a moral example (Pelagianism);
2. The theory that the human soul is totally corrupted and man’s salvation is God’s work alone, predestining man to salvation or to perdition (Augustine).[31]

The Ecumenical Character of the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Church describes its position within Christendom and its form of church government. It claims to maintain

the dogmas of teaching and the rules of administration formulated and taught by the Synods of the One Undivided Ecumenical Church of the first millennium of the Christian era. The Orthodox Church continuously and without interruption is the true keeper of the truths of the Undivided Church, without omissions or additions.[32]

It specifically distinguishes itself from Roman Catholicism.

It does not believe in the primacy of any one leader of the Church, nor in the infallibility of any Church leader. It does not believe in the filioque (“and of the Son”) phrase inserted in the Nicene Creed by the Church in the West, nor in communion by only one element of the Holy Eucharist for the layman. It does not believe in compulsory celibacy of clergymen, purgatory, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, nor in other innovations proclaimed in the West after the separation of the Church. The Orthodox Church continues on the original road, keeping undefiled both the teaching and the type of administration of the venerable, Undivided, and Ecumenical Church.[33]

The various branches of the Orthodox Church are considered to be “autocephalous” (self-governing). They are “governed uniformly by the same canons of the Ecumenical Church.”[34]

Observations

We should note several important facts as we evaluate Orthodoxy.

Authority

The Orthodox Church views itself as a repository of truth and the source of grace for mankind. God has given His truth to the church and all that is necessary for salvation is in the church. The Orthodox Church does not view Scripture as its only rule for faith and practice, but holds to Scripture and tradition as it has been passed on to the church.

The Orthodox view of Scripture is particularly noteworthy. Not only do the Orthodox subscribe to the Apocrypha (as does the Roman Catholic Church), but it uses the Septuagint (Greek translation) in the Old Testament, not the Hebrew texts. They believe the Masoretes tampered with the Hebrew manuscripts and that the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text. They also believe that the Apocryphal books are part of the original canon of Scripture.

These positions are at odds with the position Baptists and those in the Reformed traditions have historically held. The subjects of Bibliology and Canonicity are outside the purview of this survey, but we must note that these views of Scripture are not what Bible believers have understood Scripture to teach.

Trinity

Orthodox teaching is true to Scripture as it relates to the doctrines of God, Christ, and the Trinity. Its only major difference in these areas is the historic Filioque debate, which eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054.

Sacramentalism

It is at this point that the most glaring differences between biblical teaching and Orthodox theology appear.

Scripture clearly teaches that people receive salvation by faith in Christ (Rom 3:21-26). Individuals must come to the place of personal faith in Christ. This brief overview does not allow space to argue in detail that no church is the source of grace to sinful mankind. Nowhere does the Bible teach that baptism washes away any sin, whether original sin or the sins of a lifetime (1 Pet 3:21). The New Testament clearly records that those who were baptized first put their faith in Christ and were baptized subsequent to a confession of faith. Scripture says nothing about the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table becoming the body and blood of Christ.

This article began in an irenic tone, and I want to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). We must state that the way of salvation that the Orthodox Church teaches and the way of salvation taught in the Bible are different. This is important because there is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6; Heb 7:25). The Bible makes it abundantly clear that the way of salvation is by faith in Christ, not by any work or ceremony. We face the critical issue of how one becomes a Christian and, thus, the issue of one’s eternal destiny.

Ministry

Ministry for Bible-believers is difficult in nations dominated by Orthodox communions. Fundamental Baptist missionaries have experienced difficulty in ministering in Orthodox countries. There can be subtle political pressure or overt opposition to missionaries.

In Russia the attitude of Orthodox churchmen is that “to be Russian is to be Orthodox.” They view identification with the Orthodox Church as a part of one’s national identity. Thus, several foreign national missionaries have been expelled from Russia in the last several years.[35]

A Russian Orthodox leader has recently voiced the resentment the Orthodox have felt toward the expatriate missionaries, stating:

The Orthodox felt and still feel deep resentment at the way—as they see it—evangelicals have moved in on their territory. They feel we suffered persecution in Russia for 70 years, often very severe, and we struggled to keep the faith going under immense difficulties. Now that the persecution has stopped, people move in from the West who have not suffered in the same way for their faith, and they are stealing our people from us. We feel as if our Christian brethren are stabbing us in the back. I’m putting it in extreme form, but there is this deep feeling. 

Bound up with this is the sense in Russia and other Orthodox countries of what is called canonical territory. Orthodoxy is the church of the land. Therefore, they feel if other Christians come in, they are stealing their sheep.[36]

Attraction to the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox themselves seem to identify the reason for the attraction many evangelicals have toward their communions:

An ever-growing number of persons from various backgrounds are becoming interested in the Orthodox Church. These individuals are discovering the ancient faith and rich traditions of the Orthodox Church. They have been attracted by her mystical vision of God and His Kingdom, by the beauty of her worship, by the purity of her Christian faith, and by her continuity with the past. These are only some of the treasures of the Church, which has a history reaching back to the time of the Apostles.[37]

Ecumenical Ministry

I leave this study with a two-pronged conundrum. I am perplexed by the actions of some high profile evangelical leaders, and I am also perplexed by the actions of some self-confessed fundamentalists.

In 2009 a group of religious leaders in America came together to speak on issues of public morality. Their purpose was “to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.”[38] The “Manhattan Declaration” addressed the issues of the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty. The statement ended with a courageous affirmation:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.[39]

The flaw in the declaration was near the beginning, where the signatories stated: “We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.”[40]

Understanding the teachings of the Orthodox communions concerning salvation, and thus concerning what it means to be a Christian, it is mystifying to comprehend how an evangelical Christian, who believes the biblical Gospel of grace through faith, can identify himself with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics as “Christians.” All are within the realm of Christendom, but by biblical definition, they propound different gospels. If they had come together as religious leaders to use their influence for the commendable principles for which one ought rightly to stand, that would be one thing. The statement of the Manhattan Declaration is quite another.

As a Baptist who believes the sole authority of Scripture and as one who is convinced that the Bible teaches separation from unbelief, I must turn my attention another direction. A great debate rages in certain quarters of the evangelical/fundamentalist world concerning New Testament texts. We cannot go into the history or details of that debate here.[41]

I raise that issue because there has arisen an organization called the Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text.[42] Seven men serve on the board of this organization. Two of them are well-known and highly regarded evangelical scholars and researchers. Two more of them are Eastern Orthodox priests. And two more are men who are known as independent, fundamental Baptists.

The evidence we have considered in this paper raises two issues. First, at least four of the men on this board hold to a canon of sixty-six books in the Bible, while at least two others hold to a canon of seventy-six books that includes the Apocrypha. The organization’s website identifies one of the goals of the center as “Providing an international Christian scholarly organization which holds to the Holy, inspired Word of God being preserved within the majority of manuscripts and Traditional text editions of the New Testament.”[43]

I stop to ask, how do these men hold to the “Holy, inspired Word of God” when they espouse different doctrines of Scripture and, therefore, different canons? Though they limit their studies to the New Testament where they are all agreed, there are still widely divergent doctrines of Scripture at play in the organization.

Second, the Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text states that it “holds to the Holy, inspired Word of God.” What Gospel does the Word of God teach? Two opposite Gospels are believed and preached by the members of this committee. At least one of them has invested his life in Bible translation. Another has spent his ministry teaching and training students for the Gospel ministry. Two of these men pastor churches and seek to win people to Christ and build their churches. How can men who professedly embrace the Gospel of the grace of God work together in a ministry to advance the cause of the “Holy, inspired Word of God?” The sacramental gospel is different than the gospel Paul the apostle preached. Our evangelical brethren and our Baptist brethren find themselves in an unequal yoke (2 Cor 6:14-17). In working to advance the cause of a New Testament text, they are laboring with those who preach another gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

I hold no animosity toward our Greek Orthodox friends. A year ago I was doing some research on the Greek Orthodox tradition. The dean of an Orthodox cathedral graciously received me and evaluated my work. He provided me with additional research resources. We spoke amicably, though we have definite theological differences. What is at stake here is the way of salvation.

I hold no animosity toward my Baptist brethren. I believe they have become unequally yoked, regardless of their motives.

Notes

1. Dr. Fred Moritz is Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
2. Thomas Fitzgerald, “The Orthodox Church: An Introduc­tion” http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7052, 2.
3. Aristeides Papadakis, “History of the Orthodox Church” http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7053, 8.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 9.
6. Ibid., 3-4.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 10.
9. Ibid.
10. P. P. Enns, ed., The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 434.
11. Papadakis, 8.
12. Ibid. This was during the Fourth Crusade. http://www. historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople. Accessed 23 January 2014.
13. Fitzgerald, 1.
14. Rev. George Mastrantonis, “The Fundamental Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church,” http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ ourfaith7063. Accessed 21 January, 2014.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. http://stgeorgegr.com/orthodoxy/beliefs/bible/. Accessed 21 June 2013.
21. Ibid.
22. Mastrantonis.
23. Ibid.
24. “Theotokos refers to the person who gave birth to God and Christotokos means the woman who gave birth to Jesus. Theo refers to ‘god’ and ‘tokos’ is the giving birth part. Like the spear-bearer or doryphoros, theophoros literally means god-bearer, although Theotokos is also often translated as god-bearer.” http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/christianityglossary/g/Theotokos.htm. Accessed November 15, 2011.
25. Mastrantonis.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. “The sacrament of chrismation, also called confirmation, is always done in the Orthodox Church together with baptism. Just as Easter has no meaning for the world without Pentecost, so baptism has no meaning for the Christian without chrismation. In this understanding and practice, the Orthodox Church differs from the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches where the two sacraments are often separated and given other interpretations than those found in traditional Orthodoxy.” http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/wor­ship /the-sacraments/chrismation. Accessed November 11, 2011.
28. Mastrantonis.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. I served Baptist World Mission from 1981-2009. We had one missionary with that agency expelled from the country during my tenure. Orthodox officials influenced government officials to take the action. I know of other missionaries with other agencies who experienced the same fate.
36. David Neff, “Q&A: Bishop Kallistos Ware on the Fullness and the Center,” Christianity Today (July 2011): http://www. christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/fullnesscenter.html.
37. Fitzgerald, 1.
38. http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/ read.aspx. Accessed 24 May 2012.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid. Emphasis mine.
41. For the record, I use the Majority Text when I work with New Testament Greek.
42. http://www.cspmt.org/?q=node/9. Accessed 21 January 2014.
43. Ibid.