What do you think?
Rate this book
The Liturgy Trap: The Bible versus Mere Tradition in Worship
We hear all to often that someone has decided to leave the Evangelical Christian faith and to join the Church of Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or High Anglicanism. The lure is liturgy and tradition, and since the Evangelical and Reformed churches so often have such poor worship, it is not hard to understand the pull exercised by those churches that have a heritage of formality, sobriety and beauty. This cure, however, is far worse than the disease. The answer to the weaknesses of Evangelicalism is not a turn toward the fallacies and errors of Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism, but a return to Biblical patterns of worship. Just as there is true and false doctrine, so there are true and false worship patterns. In this book, James B. Jordan sorts out the true and the false in the area of worship practice, discussing the cult of the saints, the veneration of icons, apostolic succession, virginity and celibacy, the presence of Christ at His Supper, and the doctrine of tradition.
97 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
19 people are currently reading
219 people want to read
About the author
James B. Jordan
56 books143 followersJames B. Jordan is a Calvinist theologian and author. He is director of Biblical Horizons ministries, a think tank in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical Theology, and liturgy.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Jordan was born in Athens, Georgia, and he attended the University of Georgia, where he received a B.A. in comparative literature and participated in Campus Crusade for Christ. He served as a military historian in the United States Air Force and attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi but ultimately earned an M.A. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with a master's thesis on slavery in the Bible. In 1993, he received a D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion for his dissertation on the dietary laws of Moses. From 1980 to 1990 Jordan was an associate pastor of a Presbyterian church in Tyler, Texas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 9, 2018
James Jordan, like a small, but perhaps growing number of evangelicals is "sick of the anti-Biblical character of modern evangelicalism." Many are tempted to leave evangelical Christianity and defect to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy. This short book is a reflection on this temptation, and the necessity to resist such temptations. As Jordan argues, in this case the cure is worse than the disease.
Jordan laments fairly briefly at the beginning:
"For instance, I can go to almost any Presbyterian Church in America or Orthodox Presbyterian Church and perhaps hear one paragraph of Scripture read in the worship service. No Scripture will be sung at all. The only other Scripture in the service will be a line or two as a call to worship, a line or two at the “collection,” and a line or two as a benediction. But, if I go to a traditional liturgical church (Episcopal, Lutheran, Roman, or Orthodox), I will hear an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle lesson, and a Gospel lesson read. I will pray prayers that are filled with Scriptural phrases. I will sing (chant) a psalm, or at least read it responsively. So which group takes the Bible more seriously?"
He gives several more salient examples, such as infrequent communion, and church music. He rightly dismisses what passes for worship music in most churches:
"The serious Bible-loving Protestant is compelled to sing some of the worst poetry ever written to some of the most appalling music ever conceived. Nursery rhymes set to advertising jingles are the latest thing in worship, but before them came music and poetry that was no better. It is not snobbery to write this. We despise the Holy Spirit and His work if we do not take seriously His labors over the past 2000 years in providing the Church with a heritage of prayers, poetry, and music."
But he does not focus his attention here long, unfortunately. I would love to read a focused polemic against modern church worship from Jordan, but this isn't it. Instead, he focuses reasons why we must not join the cause with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
He lists five primary objections to these two churches and then expands on each. These teachings are:
"(1) Veneration of the “saints,” (2) Bowing down to created things other then human beings, (3) Confirmation as a second work of grace, (4) Exaltation of virginity and celibacy, and (5) The Misuse of the Doctrine of Real Presence."
He concludes, writing of those that have already "gone east":
"I cannot blame them, but I don’t want to follow them. I think that the cure is worse than the disease. I don’t want my children growing up in a context of major heresy and liturgical sin. We live in a time of chaos and disruption in the Church. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Out of it will come a new Church, better and stronger than before, though we may not live to see it. It is best to labor where God has put us, living in the tension between real presence and real absence. "
Jordan laments fairly briefly at the beginning:
"For instance, I can go to almost any Presbyterian Church in America or Orthodox Presbyterian Church and perhaps hear one paragraph of Scripture read in the worship service. No Scripture will be sung at all. The only other Scripture in the service will be a line or two as a call to worship, a line or two at the “collection,” and a line or two as a benediction. But, if I go to a traditional liturgical church (Episcopal, Lutheran, Roman, or Orthodox), I will hear an Old Testament lesson, an Epistle lesson, and a Gospel lesson read. I will pray prayers that are filled with Scriptural phrases. I will sing (chant) a psalm, or at least read it responsively. So which group takes the Bible more seriously?"
He gives several more salient examples, such as infrequent communion, and church music. He rightly dismisses what passes for worship music in most churches:
"The serious Bible-loving Protestant is compelled to sing some of the worst poetry ever written to some of the most appalling music ever conceived. Nursery rhymes set to advertising jingles are the latest thing in worship, but before them came music and poetry that was no better. It is not snobbery to write this. We despise the Holy Spirit and His work if we do not take seriously His labors over the past 2000 years in providing the Church with a heritage of prayers, poetry, and music."
But he does not focus his attention here long, unfortunately. I would love to read a focused polemic against modern church worship from Jordan, but this isn't it. Instead, he focuses reasons why we must not join the cause with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
He lists five primary objections to these two churches and then expands on each. These teachings are:
"(1) Veneration of the “saints,” (2) Bowing down to created things other then human beings, (3) Confirmation as a second work of grace, (4) Exaltation of virginity and celibacy, and (5) The Misuse of the Doctrine of Real Presence."
He concludes, writing of those that have already "gone east":
"I cannot blame them, but I don’t want to follow them. I think that the cure is worse than the disease. I don’t want my children growing up in a context of major heresy and liturgical sin. We live in a time of chaos and disruption in the Church. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Out of it will come a new Church, better and stronger than before, though we may not live to see it. It is best to labor where God has put us, living in the tension between real presence and real absence. "
September 17, 2021
An excellent and timely resource. In the wake of greater allurement amongst young people toward liturgical traditions, Jordan provides a breath of fresh air: dissecting between spineless evangelicalism and formalist liturgical traditions, and calling for a robust revival of the Reformation spirit. Minor disagreements here and there do not take away the merit of being one of a kind. Highly recommended!
June 20, 2024
I found this a helpful book, however at times Jordan makes strong statements without explaining or giving their rationale. Overall, probably the most helpful idea from the book was that of the "eschatological tension" in Christian worship: as much as there is a "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, there is also a "real absence," for Christ is not locally, or physically, present in the room for us to look at or bow down to—that is an event that is yet to come, and so we have to wait.
July 27, 2025
Too short to develop any themes properly. Very surface level critiques of Anglo-Catholicism, Rome, and the East.
September 19, 2020
I thought this was one of Jordan's better books. His arguments are cogent and easy to follow, and only a couple times does he lapse into his wonted flights of interpretive fancy. I especially liked his explanation of the Second Commandment. It sets good, biblical parameters for those Reformed folks who want to recover a high view of liturgy in the Lord's Day worship, and it's a good answer to those critics who think that the Biblical Horizons/Theopolis/Federal Vision crowd are on an express train to Rome or Byzantium. My only complaint is that it could have been longer.
July 28, 2024
My main issue, and the point JBJ makes clearly in this short little book, is this: some of the most trademark beliefs in the EO, RC, and Anglo Catholic Churches are built on unbiblical presuppositions and sketchy exegetical grounds. And thus, they must downplay the ultimate authority of the Scriptures in order to bolster their theological claims. As appealing as there traditions are, we must test all things according to the Scriptures.
March 30, 2023
Excellent little book exposing the liturgical sins found in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicsm
February 26, 2022
Some people (@ Lukas) might dislike Jordan because he knows Peter Leithart, but this book does a good job of arguing that evangelicals dissatisfied with tepid worship and lackluster spirituality do not need to join some lurid Jacobite church nor some weird anti-Chalcedonian sect to find genuine worship. The liturgy trap is believing that meaningful worship can only be found in these traditions. Jordan insists that one can hold to sturdy evangelical theology and have sturdy liturgical worship practices.
May 3, 2025
Bom livro. Aqui e ali algumas discordâncias, em razão de algumas defesas feitas pelo autor. No entanto, boa leitura.
February 6, 2021
Muito bom!
December 29, 2014
Originally posted at GoodWyrds.com.
Many young Americans (myself included) have become increasingly disillusioned with an American pop-evangelicalism that is an inch deep and 2500 miles wide. Like sugar, it’s fun at first, but at some point you realize if you don’t get something a little more substantial, you are going into a coma.
Enter high liturgical traditions such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. These traditions are old— defiantly old, excepting Anglicanism. They make grand claims of ancient historicity, and everything they do in worship certainly has the appearance of age, even to the point of the use of antiquated dead languages. There is unabashed acceptance of the mystical which stands in contrast to the heightened scientific rationalism of much of the reformed church, and the coarse anti-intellectualism of a lot of the non-reformed church. And apart from all of that, their worship and liturgy are downright beautiful.
My own attraction to these things I’ve had to question and hold in check. One major question I’ve had is this: is this just a fad? Am I just falling in lockstep with obvious generational cultural trends? One can purchase a device from Sharper Image that looks like an old landline phone, but connects to your iPhone. Cassette tapes are almost cool again. And rockstar musicians at the top of their game dress as though they are 19th century farm hands from the Irish countryside. The point is, though much of this “vintage attraction” has behind it some right criticisms and good desires, much of it is a facade.
In “The Liturgy Trap,” James Jordan is conciliatory to the frustrations of those in Reformed and Evangelical camps who are drawn in this direction. But “the cure,” he says, “is far worse than the disease.” The meta-point of The Liturgy Trap is that while church tradition has its proper place and should be shown a great deal of attention and respect, still it must always submit and conform to God’s Word. If it is elevated to be on par with scripture or to stand in authority over scripture then we commit the same pharisaical sins that Jesus condemned. This, of course, is not a new argument; it was at the core of the Reformation. But Jordan’s burden is not to convince Catholics, Orthodox, or Anglicans to leave their traditions.The Liturgy Trap is for Reformed and Evangelicals who are tempted to abandon their churches in search of the greener grass of ecclesial antiquity.
Jordan spends the majority of the book laying out some critical theological differences between these traditions: the veneration of Mary, saints and icons; two-stage Christianity in the rite of confirmation; sexuality and the exaltation of virginity and celibacy; and the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
The final chapter deals with another area in which Reformed and Evangelicals disagree sharply with their Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican siblings, but as previously mentioned it is really an overarching disagreement. At the end of the day, one may make biblical arguments until blue in the face, but if the ultimate trump card, Tradition, is played, then those biblical arguments don’t amount to much . The appeal to church tradition as the authority on what scripture does and does not mean subjugates an objective, infallible, unchangeable authority to a subjective, fallen, ever-changing one. This, Jordan explains, is one of the reasons these traditions have been so susceptible to the errors of the higher criticisms characteristic of liberal theology.
Rebellion is in our blood. Despite the claims of modern philosophy, we can’t control or exercise dominion over scripture. Tradition, however, we can control. Scripture has come to us objectively, passed down faithfully, protected by the Spirit. Tradition, good and helpful as it may be, is a human invention. Jordan says this: “There is a very important difference between Scripture and tradition. We cannot “obey” tradition; we can only follow it. Custom and tradition cannot come to us as law, because they are not authored by God’s voice. They are not written. In the Bible, however, we are confronted by the Person of God, and we are confronted by words He has spoken and caused to be written.”
I highly recommend this book, especially for my Reformed brothers and sisters who’s big hearts and aesthetically oriented minds sometimes lead them astray. I know full well this danger. The Reformed church desperately needs us to stick around! We see the world in a way that our churches cannot afford to lose. We are image-bearers who resemble our Father in creativity, compassion, beauty and justice. At the same time, we desperately need our black-and-white-seeing, proposition-making, truth-loving brothers and sisters to help us rein in some of our passion. They are image-bearers who resemble their Father in truth, steadfastness, and clarity. One body, different parts. The temptation is to say, “I’m an eye, and I’m not really seeing any other eyes here, and the ears are making me uncomfortable, so I’m going to go find a body made entirely of eyes.” That would be a monster! Instead, let us “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6 ESV)
Many young Americans (myself included) have become increasingly disillusioned with an American pop-evangelicalism that is an inch deep and 2500 miles wide. Like sugar, it’s fun at first, but at some point you realize if you don’t get something a little more substantial, you are going into a coma.
Enter high liturgical traditions such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. These traditions are old— defiantly old, excepting Anglicanism. They make grand claims of ancient historicity, and everything they do in worship certainly has the appearance of age, even to the point of the use of antiquated dead languages. There is unabashed acceptance of the mystical which stands in contrast to the heightened scientific rationalism of much of the reformed church, and the coarse anti-intellectualism of a lot of the non-reformed church. And apart from all of that, their worship and liturgy are downright beautiful.
My own attraction to these things I’ve had to question and hold in check. One major question I’ve had is this: is this just a fad? Am I just falling in lockstep with obvious generational cultural trends? One can purchase a device from Sharper Image that looks like an old landline phone, but connects to your iPhone. Cassette tapes are almost cool again. And rockstar musicians at the top of their game dress as though they are 19th century farm hands from the Irish countryside. The point is, though much of this “vintage attraction” has behind it some right criticisms and good desires, much of it is a facade.
In “The Liturgy Trap,” James Jordan is conciliatory to the frustrations of those in Reformed and Evangelical camps who are drawn in this direction. But “the cure,” he says, “is far worse than the disease.” The meta-point of The Liturgy Trap is that while church tradition has its proper place and should be shown a great deal of attention and respect, still it must always submit and conform to God’s Word. If it is elevated to be on par with scripture or to stand in authority over scripture then we commit the same pharisaical sins that Jesus condemned. This, of course, is not a new argument; it was at the core of the Reformation. But Jordan’s burden is not to convince Catholics, Orthodox, or Anglicans to leave their traditions.The Liturgy Trap is for Reformed and Evangelicals who are tempted to abandon their churches in search of the greener grass of ecclesial antiquity.
Jordan spends the majority of the book laying out some critical theological differences between these traditions: the veneration of Mary, saints and icons; two-stage Christianity in the rite of confirmation; sexuality and the exaltation of virginity and celibacy; and the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
The final chapter deals with another area in which Reformed and Evangelicals disagree sharply with their Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican siblings, but as previously mentioned it is really an overarching disagreement. At the end of the day, one may make biblical arguments until blue in the face, but if the ultimate trump card, Tradition, is played, then those biblical arguments don’t amount to much . The appeal to church tradition as the authority on what scripture does and does not mean subjugates an objective, infallible, unchangeable authority to a subjective, fallen, ever-changing one. This, Jordan explains, is one of the reasons these traditions have been so susceptible to the errors of the higher criticisms characteristic of liberal theology.
Rebellion is in our blood. Despite the claims of modern philosophy, we can’t control or exercise dominion over scripture. Tradition, however, we can control. Scripture has come to us objectively, passed down faithfully, protected by the Spirit. Tradition, good and helpful as it may be, is a human invention. Jordan says this: “There is a very important difference between Scripture and tradition. We cannot “obey” tradition; we can only follow it. Custom and tradition cannot come to us as law, because they are not authored by God’s voice. They are not written. In the Bible, however, we are confronted by the Person of God, and we are confronted by words He has spoken and caused to be written.”
I highly recommend this book, especially for my Reformed brothers and sisters who’s big hearts and aesthetically oriented minds sometimes lead them astray. I know full well this danger. The Reformed church desperately needs us to stick around! We see the world in a way that our churches cannot afford to lose. We are image-bearers who resemble our Father in creativity, compassion, beauty and justice. At the same time, we desperately need our black-and-white-seeing, proposition-making, truth-loving brothers and sisters to help us rein in some of our passion. They are image-bearers who resemble their Father in truth, steadfastness, and clarity. One body, different parts. The temptation is to say, “I’m an eye, and I’m not really seeing any other eyes here, and the ears are making me uncomfortable, so I’m going to go find a body made entirely of eyes.” That would be a monster! Instead, let us “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6 ESV)
November 17, 2025
Jordan is a clear and passionate writer. I’m glad that someone wrote a book on the growing numbers of evangelicals attraction to the liturgies in high-church non-Protestant churches. A number of his criticisms and insights hit home.
September 6, 2014
Jordan defines the “Liturgy Trap” as seeing worship as a technique for evangelism (xiv). Whatever else our liturgy may be, it must always be a response to the Word of God. Said another way: The Word of God comes first. The rest of the introduction explains why evangelicals would be tempted to high church traditions. Since that’s is fairly well-documented by theologians and sociologists (Christian Smith et al), I won’t belabor the point.
The Saints
Should we venerate the saints? We should at least ask, “What does the Bible say?” Critics might respond, “Yeah, well the Bible doesn’t say anything about the term T rinity, either” (this is a specific quote from Orthodox Bridge). True, but assuming the Bible to be part of tradition (which I don’t assume), shouldn’t we at least pretend it is the most important part?
Jordan first notes there is no biblical warrant to pray to saints (18). Since the disciples asked Jesus specifically how to pray, and he gave them a specific template, it is telling that venerating saints is absent. Jordan then gives the standard biblical arguments against necromancy, pointing out that Saul was condemned for talking to the dead Samuel.
Interestingly, had the early Christians talked to dead people, the Jews and Judaizers would have had a field day condemning them, yet we don’t see that.
Jordan writes,
The notion that the saints can hear our petitions means that a given saint can hear thousands of petitions coming from people all over the world. This means that the saint has become virtually omnipresent. What happens when that saint gets his resurrection body and is once again limited to being in one place at one time? (21)
Of course, and my critics hate to hear this, but this is a movement back towards chain of being and Hellenistic philosophy.
The Second Commandment
There is no problem with the actual act of bowing. The problem is “to what do we people in the context of worship and liturgy?” The second commandment is very clear that we are never to bow in giving veneration toward man-made objects (24).
The second commandment isn’t saying there should be no pictures of God (a point for another day), but that no image of anything can be set up as an avenue of worship to God and the court of heaven (24).
Only one pesel
Pesel is the Hebrew word for “carving.” Jordan neatly takes the argument a step forward by pointing out that “there is another pesel in the Book of Exodus: The Ten Words, which God carved with his own finger” (26). “The opposition is between God’s content-filled graven Words and man’s silent graven images.”
God’s pesel is how he relates to us. The relationship is verbal. It is personal. “It is God-initiated.” Jordan comments, “When men set up a pesel it is always man-initiated” (27). “The ‘veneration’ of man’s pesel is not a conversation with God, but prostration before a man-made object.” This is the one objection even the most articulate anchorite cannot answer: is conversation–words–possible?
Anchorites love to counter that “Well, God commanded Israel to make various carvings.” So he did. We say, however, “what is prohibited is the creation of a contact-point with God in the likeness of other creatures” (28).
Jordan makes an interesting observation: nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures do we see God’s people condemned for making a picture of God. Rather, they make up images of God and use them as mediators (29).
Application
“God initiates the mediation between himself and us, and He controls it” (29). “God’s mediation is verbal…God’s mediation is his pesel, the Word. Manmade mediators are images.”
Jordan concludes the chapter with a reflection on God’s 4th generation curse on image-worshipers.
Confirmation
Jordan’s specific target in this next chapter is the rite of confirmation. I want to expand the sights. If you are in the “Really True Church” and I am not, yet you are kind enough to consider me a “Christian,” then the only conclusion one can draw is that I am a second-class Christian. Yet the New Testament knows nothing of this. Jesus gives his Spirit as an arrabon to his people. Full Stop.
Two-Stage Christianity is simply an advanced form of gnosticism.
Apostolic Succession
A true apostolic succession is the royal priesthood which is succession through baptism.
If we want to wax Trinitarian, then the Church is a creation of the Spirit from eternity by procession, not succession (46).
Here is the key question: should we place Mary in the context of her Hebrew background (see Judges 11:37-40) or in the thought patters of St Jerome? The strongest argument that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus’s birth is the text itself. I know of the backbending anchorites engage in to make the text say the opposite of what it says. It simply doesn’t work.
In the bible perpetual virginity is a tragedy (47).
The strongest argument for perpetual virginity is that Joseph would have been overawed by Mary’s high calling in giving birth to God himself that he wouldn’t have “polluted” her womb with dirty sex afterwards (Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith, Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989, 118). Here are the problems with such a view:
Even if correct, it is pure speculation.
*If one partner refused sex to the other, he/she would have grounds to divorce the other (Exodus 21:10-11).
*Neither Mary nor Joseph knew that Jesus was God incarnate until after his resurrection. They would have known he was called, perhaps even Messiah, but that didn’t necessarily mean Logos Incarnate (51).
Angelic Celibacy
Roman Catholicism is guiltier of this than Orthodoxy, though both share the same unbiblical presuppositions. If we may reason analogically, the High Priest is sort of an analogue to the Bishop today. Yet the High Priest could marry. Why may not the Bishop? Why use the analogy at all if you are going to reject it when you don't like it?
Secondly, God has said that celibacy is “not good.” The entire scale of being ontology falls with those two words.
The Saints
Should we venerate the saints? We should at least ask, “What does the Bible say?” Critics might respond, “Yeah, well the Bible doesn’t say anything about the term T rinity, either” (this is a specific quote from Orthodox Bridge). True, but assuming the Bible to be part of tradition (which I don’t assume), shouldn’t we at least pretend it is the most important part?
Jordan first notes there is no biblical warrant to pray to saints (18). Since the disciples asked Jesus specifically how to pray, and he gave them a specific template, it is telling that venerating saints is absent. Jordan then gives the standard biblical arguments against necromancy, pointing out that Saul was condemned for talking to the dead Samuel.
Interestingly, had the early Christians talked to dead people, the Jews and Judaizers would have had a field day condemning them, yet we don’t see that.
Jordan writes,
The notion that the saints can hear our petitions means that a given saint can hear thousands of petitions coming from people all over the world. This means that the saint has become virtually omnipresent. What happens when that saint gets his resurrection body and is once again limited to being in one place at one time? (21)
Of course, and my critics hate to hear this, but this is a movement back towards chain of being and Hellenistic philosophy.
The Second Commandment
There is no problem with the actual act of bowing. The problem is “to what do we people in the context of worship and liturgy?” The second commandment is very clear that we are never to bow in giving veneration toward man-made objects (24).
The second commandment isn’t saying there should be no pictures of God (a point for another day), but that no image of anything can be set up as an avenue of worship to God and the court of heaven (24).
Only one pesel
Pesel is the Hebrew word for “carving.” Jordan neatly takes the argument a step forward by pointing out that “there is another pesel in the Book of Exodus: The Ten Words, which God carved with his own finger” (26). “The opposition is between God’s content-filled graven Words and man’s silent graven images.”
God’s pesel is how he relates to us. The relationship is verbal. It is personal. “It is God-initiated.” Jordan comments, “When men set up a pesel it is always man-initiated” (27). “The ‘veneration’ of man’s pesel is not a conversation with God, but prostration before a man-made object.” This is the one objection even the most articulate anchorite cannot answer: is conversation–words–possible?
Anchorites love to counter that “Well, God commanded Israel to make various carvings.” So he did. We say, however, “what is prohibited is the creation of a contact-point with God in the likeness of other creatures” (28).
Jordan makes an interesting observation: nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures do we see God’s people condemned for making a picture of God. Rather, they make up images of God and use them as mediators (29).
Application
“God initiates the mediation between himself and us, and He controls it” (29). “God’s mediation is verbal…God’s mediation is his pesel, the Word. Manmade mediators are images.”
Jordan concludes the chapter with a reflection on God’s 4th generation curse on image-worshipers.
Confirmation
Jordan’s specific target in this next chapter is the rite of confirmation. I want to expand the sights. If you are in the “Really True Church” and I am not, yet you are kind enough to consider me a “Christian,” then the only conclusion one can draw is that I am a second-class Christian. Yet the New Testament knows nothing of this. Jesus gives his Spirit as an arrabon to his people. Full Stop.
Two-Stage Christianity is simply an advanced form of gnosticism.
Apostolic Succession
A true apostolic succession is the royal priesthood which is succession through baptism.
If we want to wax Trinitarian, then the Church is a creation of the Spirit from eternity by procession, not succession (46).
Here is the key question: should we place Mary in the context of her Hebrew background (see Judges 11:37-40) or in the thought patters of St Jerome? The strongest argument that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus’s birth is the text itself. I know of the backbending anchorites engage in to make the text say the opposite of what it says. It simply doesn’t work.
In the bible perpetual virginity is a tragedy (47).
The strongest argument for perpetual virginity is that Joseph would have been overawed by Mary’s high calling in giving birth to God himself that he wouldn’t have “polluted” her womb with dirty sex afterwards (Peter Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith, Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989, 118). Here are the problems with such a view:
Even if correct, it is pure speculation.
*If one partner refused sex to the other, he/she would have grounds to divorce the other (Exodus 21:10-11).
*Neither Mary nor Joseph knew that Jesus was God incarnate until after his resurrection. They would have known he was called, perhaps even Messiah, but that didn’t necessarily mean Logos Incarnate (51).
Angelic Celibacy
Roman Catholicism is guiltier of this than Orthodoxy, though both share the same unbiblical presuppositions. If we may reason analogically, the High Priest is sort of an analogue to the Bishop today. Yet the High Priest could marry. Why may not the Bishop? Why use the analogy at all if you are going to reject it when you don't like it?
Secondly, God has said that celibacy is “not good.” The entire scale of being ontology falls with those two words.
February 22, 2020
Quick and helpful read
Some good, thought provoking points. Some more bleh. Glad to read of his commitment to protestantism in light of what is said about him in some sectors. This was my first time reading an entire JJ work. Pleasantly surprised.
Some good, thought provoking points. Some more bleh. Glad to read of his commitment to protestantism in light of what is said about him in some sectors. This was my first time reading an entire JJ work. Pleasantly surprised.
Read
August 16, 2017There are some precious gems in this book.
And dog droppings.
And dog droppings.
August 17, 2024
Short. Makes some good points, while others could have used more fleshing out.
August 18, 2016
Written in plain language, this is Jordan's caution against Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholicism. I agree with almost all of it, but the argumentation is all in broad strokes, without grappling with specific claims and counter-arguments of opponents. For this reason, it's difficult to say how accurately Jordan represents the views of the traditions he criticizes.
February 9, 2009
Here Jordan deals with that approch to worship/liturgy which is often described as a "strict regulativist" approach. But he also deals with the more "venerated" traditional liturgies (i.e., Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic and Eastern Rites). Very informative.
January 9, 2019
This book is the worst of all Jordan's books. Most of it is just plain useless for anyone who wants to be pulled back to Protestantism. This book made me want to leave Protestantism. NOT RECOMMENDED TO ANYONE.
February 25, 2016
A short warning against protestants returning to Rome, by critiquing their doctrines of 1) the saints, 2) veneration, 3) Apostolic succession, 4) Celibacy, 5) real presence, and 6) tradition. Punchy, profound, blunt. Virtually free from Jordan's typical weird interpretations.
July 21, 2025
This book gave me whiplash. On one hand, Jordan’s criticisms of catholic and orthodox traditions are reasonable; he builds his case in several areas by not just utilizing scripture at face value, but including the wisdom principles underneath the passages as well. A major point in this book is that Protestants are lacking in theological depth with the houses of worship available to them, but the author warns against trying to find that depth in the unbiblical practices that the catholic and orthodox traditions partake in. As far as this point goes, I feel that Jordan communicates his stance very well…
However, the author is not consistent in his logic. Throughout the book, he talks about the dangers of holding church tradition as closely as scripture; he details how the catholic and orthodox churches even prioritize their traditions above scripture. But Jordan appeals to Calvin throughout the book, and his conclusion is that the reformation tradition is the best avenue for rediscovering what the early church was intended to be. I would have a lot more respect for this book if the conclusion were instead that we must return to prioritizing the original context and culture of the Bible for our understanding of who God is and who we are as his people. Unfortunately, it just screams, “your European tradition is idolatrous but MY European tradition is what God really meant!”
Additionally, there are several criticisms that Jordan could have leveled against the Protestant tradition, yet a complaint of his was that they don’t specifically chant the Psalms. He even goes as far to say that they are sinful in not practicing this, and misquotes Ephesians 5:19 to defend his point: “Instead, be filled with the Spirit, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, and making music to the Lord in your hearts.”
Ephesians 5:18b-19
Nowhere in the above verse does it command chanting the psalms in corporate worship. I just found it odd that he chose to misquote scripture through the lens of his own tradition, rather than using it in its objective meaning. He just seems to not quite be free from the chains he is trying to unshackle others from.
I do have to admit, though, Jordan is a very entertaining writer. I found myself laughing out loud at some of the lines he had written in. I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water; Jordan has some really good insights in this book. I just feel that he failed to stick the landing, and his conclusion was inconsistent with the logic he had been using throughout the book.
However, the author is not consistent in his logic. Throughout the book, he talks about the dangers of holding church tradition as closely as scripture; he details how the catholic and orthodox churches even prioritize their traditions above scripture. But Jordan appeals to Calvin throughout the book, and his conclusion is that the reformation tradition is the best avenue for rediscovering what the early church was intended to be. I would have a lot more respect for this book if the conclusion were instead that we must return to prioritizing the original context and culture of the Bible for our understanding of who God is and who we are as his people. Unfortunately, it just screams, “your European tradition is idolatrous but MY European tradition is what God really meant!”
Additionally, there are several criticisms that Jordan could have leveled against the Protestant tradition, yet a complaint of his was that they don’t specifically chant the Psalms. He even goes as far to say that they are sinful in not practicing this, and misquotes Ephesians 5:19 to defend his point: “Instead, be filled with the Spirit, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, and making music to the Lord in your hearts.”
Ephesians 5:18b-19
Nowhere in the above verse does it command chanting the psalms in corporate worship. I just found it odd that he chose to misquote scripture through the lens of his own tradition, rather than using it in its objective meaning. He just seems to not quite be free from the chains he is trying to unshackle others from.
I do have to admit, though, Jordan is a very entertaining writer. I found myself laughing out loud at some of the lines he had written in. I do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water; Jordan has some really good insights in this book. I just feel that he failed to stick the landing, and his conclusion was inconsistent with the logic he had been using throughout the book.
June 2, 2020
In this short book Jordan addresses the problem in Reformed circles of some members leaving for Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglo-Catholicism. He says that there may be a large variety of reasons for each individual to leave Reformed Protestantism for one of these other options, but he offers a few reasons that seem more consistently suggested.
1) the individual is jaded by the mushy evangelical tradition and find comfort in an RC, EO or Anglo tradition.
2) they like the glory and meaning in the liturgies of these "Higher" forms of worship.
Instead of dwelling on the reasons offered for leaving, Jordan takes, in my opinion, a better approach by addressing the doctrinal problems within those traditions. He talks about veneration of the saints and images, confirmation, the eternal virginity of Mary and celibacy of priests, the Eucharist, and their claim to "tradition". I think this was a very good approach because it shows the significant errors that church tradition can influence you and your children. He constantly brings it back to "I think that the cure is worse than the disease. I don’t want my children growing up in a context of major heresy and liturgical sin". He also emphasizes that these converts may have reasonable desires to do what they do, but that they're only thinking in the short term. They may be fine as honest, Bible believing Christians, but their children and their children's children are likely going to be raised in the same tradition and when they're stuck in it, they'll gradually have their theology decay. "By bringing their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren into these superstitious churches, they doom them gradually to be less and less oriented toward God’s truth and more and more saturated in error. The first generation may be largely Biblicized, but the fourth will not be."
1) the individual is jaded by the mushy evangelical tradition and find comfort in an RC, EO or Anglo tradition.
2) they like the glory and meaning in the liturgies of these "Higher" forms of worship.
Instead of dwelling on the reasons offered for leaving, Jordan takes, in my opinion, a better approach by addressing the doctrinal problems within those traditions. He talks about veneration of the saints and images, confirmation, the eternal virginity of Mary and celibacy of priests, the Eucharist, and their claim to "tradition". I think this was a very good approach because it shows the significant errors that church tradition can influence you and your children. He constantly brings it back to "I think that the cure is worse than the disease. I don’t want my children growing up in a context of major heresy and liturgical sin". He also emphasizes that these converts may have reasonable desires to do what they do, but that they're only thinking in the short term. They may be fine as honest, Bible believing Christians, but their children and their children's children are likely going to be raised in the same tradition and when they're stuck in it, they'll gradually have their theology decay. "By bringing their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren into these superstitious churches, they doom them gradually to be less and less oriented toward God’s truth and more and more saturated in error. The first generation may be largely Biblicized, but the fourth will not be."
August 11, 2009
To be honest, when I read a review by someone else on goodreads that said this book was too short, my response was to laugh at the typical Reformed view on everything from sermons to theological treatises - longer is always better. I thought that 100 pages was a nice length to address some of the issues of liturgical denominations. I think I might have been wrong. So many of the little chapters ended just as he solidly stated his point, and more than once, I have frustrated scribbled margin notes that say Follow up on THIS point. or Here's your real argument, so run with it. (I'm assuming the brevity is because Jordan considers this short book an essay, which is sad. He should really shoot for a whole book. I think there are some more concerning elements to Orthodox theology that could be addressed. The atonement, anyone?
"Man engages in ascetic experience to lift himself up to God" (p. 27). Jordan discusses the Pelagian (original sin did not taint human nature) leanings of the liturgical traditions, but does not flesh them out. I think that the belief that humanity is stained by sin but not fatally flawed by it has so much to do with the way the Orthodox approach their worship experience. Jordan would also have strengthened his arguments about Marian doctrines if he had better explained the Platonic ideals that fed the asceticism of some of the sects of the early church (say, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who essentially nearly killed himself with his ascetism) and the rise of the celibate clergy. (The Greek traditions also have some strong roots in the mystery cults and ancient gnosticism, which it would be fascinating to delve deeper into.)
I think that Jordan has some very good points, especially about the veneration of saints and Mary, but his chapter Real Presence - Real Absence (5) is where I think he finally hit his stride. On page 63, he identifies the crux of the problem with veneration of the saints, where after a discussion about worship's very definition as "where two or three of you are gathered together" (Matt. 18.20) Jordan states that "[i:]t is a false cure, however, to substitute icons or other visible objects for the living saints." I wish Jordan would have given us a bit more about his concept about living believers as the "True Images." It should be clarified to readers of this blog that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of praying to the saints is different from our concept of praying to the saints, having more to do with petitioning believers who have gone before than worship (this is a simplification, but it will have to do for this venue.) I think that a good discussion of eastern versus western concepts of time as regards the dead would help us better understand where they are coming from.
The chapter on tradition was also particularly good. Jordan's points about how in the Old Testament, the symbols of sacrifice were animals, thus the false idols set up and worshipped in place of Yahweh were animals (Aaron's golden calf at Sinai, Jeraboam's calves in the book of Kings) whereas now, when man is called to be a living sacrifice, the danger of false idols comes in the form of men (veneration of saints, icons). If you only read one chapter of this book, let this be it. It addresses the dangers of leaning too heavily on the traditions of man while admitting freely that without the traditions of man, we would not be where we are today.
I did have quibbles on a couple of finer points - Jordan has a rather nasty habit of chucking out a startling theological opinion with nothing to back it up and then careening merrily on his way, as if nothing just happened. Perhaps I only noticed because I was reading cautiously. At any rate, I think perhaps they would have been taken care of with a little more careful editing.
The only main point I found disturbing was Jordan's failure to clearly explain his own feelings about the place of bowing in worship. On page 23 he states that "bowing down is certainly a legitimate part of worship (e.g. Ps. 95:6)". He goes on to say that the early church often bowed towards the east or the front of the church, as the symbolic direction of Christ's return. Then, on page 57, he is discussing the danger of saying that Jesus is in a corner of the sanctuary and bowing towards his invisible presence. He states that it "is very important that we refuse to bow toward anything in worship." I think I understand what Jordan is trying to say, but even to me, this required much page flipping and confusion. I thought, okay, so it's okay that the early church bowed towards the east, but it's not okay to bow towards the corner of the room to honor the presence of Jesus. Once we get that worked out in our heads, five pages later, we are told that the only acceptable bowing in worship would be the bowing of the minister to the congregation and the congregation in return, to the images of God alone - "since nothing else is...the special image of God."
I'm sorry. In the Psalm Jordan mentions on page 23, the bowing in worship is done to the Lord. "Oh come, let us worship and bow down. Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. For He is our GOD." (Ps. 95.6). This is true of other references to bowing in the Old Testament. If we are consistent with our Reformed theology of worship, the ONLY bowing that should be done during worship should be TO THE LORD. Not to any part of His creation, not even the pinnacle of His creation. Jordan himself acknowledges the strong pull to worship the visible work of the creator rather than the invisible creator himself, and I think that to bow to other believers during the worship smacks of this. I do accept that bowing to the authorities of this life is acceptable, but that is not in the context of worship. I agree, very strongly, with Jordan's assertion that we should not bow to the invisible presence of Jesus, instead we should be bowing to the omnipresent creator Himself. When reading this essay, I feel almost as if Jordan's feelings about bowing in worship developed as he wrote, and perhaps if he had articulated it more completely, in one place, he might have come to a different conclusion.
If Jordan were a student who had turned this essay in, I would have given it a B. Solid in points, off on tangents in others.
At any rate, I thought this book was an excellent beginning to a conversation. I have SO much more I could say, especially about how the draw of Eastern Orthodoxy in particular is especially strong to Platonic philosopher types, and how so many conversations with them about theology are going to end badly simply because you're starting from different assumptions about sin's effect on the world.
"Man engages in ascetic experience to lift himself up to God" (p. 27). Jordan discusses the Pelagian (original sin did not taint human nature) leanings of the liturgical traditions, but does not flesh them out. I think that the belief that humanity is stained by sin but not fatally flawed by it has so much to do with the way the Orthodox approach their worship experience. Jordan would also have strengthened his arguments about Marian doctrines if he had better explained the Platonic ideals that fed the asceticism of some of the sects of the early church (say, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who essentially nearly killed himself with his ascetism) and the rise of the celibate clergy. (The Greek traditions also have some strong roots in the mystery cults and ancient gnosticism, which it would be fascinating to delve deeper into.)
I think that Jordan has some very good points, especially about the veneration of saints and Mary, but his chapter Real Presence - Real Absence (5) is where I think he finally hit his stride. On page 63, he identifies the crux of the problem with veneration of the saints, where after a discussion about worship's very definition as "where two or three of you are gathered together" (Matt. 18.20) Jordan states that "[i:]t is a false cure, however, to substitute icons or other visible objects for the living saints." I wish Jordan would have given us a bit more about his concept about living believers as the "True Images." It should be clarified to readers of this blog that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of praying to the saints is different from our concept of praying to the saints, having more to do with petitioning believers who have gone before than worship (this is a simplification, but it will have to do for this venue.) I think that a good discussion of eastern versus western concepts of time as regards the dead would help us better understand where they are coming from.
The chapter on tradition was also particularly good. Jordan's points about how in the Old Testament, the symbols of sacrifice were animals, thus the false idols set up and worshipped in place of Yahweh were animals (Aaron's golden calf at Sinai, Jeraboam's calves in the book of Kings) whereas now, when man is called to be a living sacrifice, the danger of false idols comes in the form of men (veneration of saints, icons). If you only read one chapter of this book, let this be it. It addresses the dangers of leaning too heavily on the traditions of man while admitting freely that without the traditions of man, we would not be where we are today.
I did have quibbles on a couple of finer points - Jordan has a rather nasty habit of chucking out a startling theological opinion with nothing to back it up and then careening merrily on his way, as if nothing just happened. Perhaps I only noticed because I was reading cautiously. At any rate, I think perhaps they would have been taken care of with a little more careful editing.
The only main point I found disturbing was Jordan's failure to clearly explain his own feelings about the place of bowing in worship. On page 23 he states that "bowing down is certainly a legitimate part of worship (e.g. Ps. 95:6)". He goes on to say that the early church often bowed towards the east or the front of the church, as the symbolic direction of Christ's return. Then, on page 57, he is discussing the danger of saying that Jesus is in a corner of the sanctuary and bowing towards his invisible presence. He states that it "is very important that we refuse to bow toward anything in worship." I think I understand what Jordan is trying to say, but even to me, this required much page flipping and confusion. I thought, okay, so it's okay that the early church bowed towards the east, but it's not okay to bow towards the corner of the room to honor the presence of Jesus. Once we get that worked out in our heads, five pages later, we are told that the only acceptable bowing in worship would be the bowing of the minister to the congregation and the congregation in return, to the images of God alone - "since nothing else is...the special image of God."
I'm sorry. In the Psalm Jordan mentions on page 23, the bowing in worship is done to the Lord. "Oh come, let us worship and bow down. Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. For He is our GOD." (Ps. 95.6). This is true of other references to bowing in the Old Testament. If we are consistent with our Reformed theology of worship, the ONLY bowing that should be done during worship should be TO THE LORD. Not to any part of His creation, not even the pinnacle of His creation. Jordan himself acknowledges the strong pull to worship the visible work of the creator rather than the invisible creator himself, and I think that to bow to other believers during the worship smacks of this. I do accept that bowing to the authorities of this life is acceptable, but that is not in the context of worship. I agree, very strongly, with Jordan's assertion that we should not bow to the invisible presence of Jesus, instead we should be bowing to the omnipresent creator Himself. When reading this essay, I feel almost as if Jordan's feelings about bowing in worship developed as he wrote, and perhaps if he had articulated it more completely, in one place, he might have come to a different conclusion.
If Jordan were a student who had turned this essay in, I would have given it a B. Solid in points, off on tangents in others.
At any rate, I thought this book was an excellent beginning to a conversation. I have SO much more I could say, especially about how the draw of Eastern Orthodoxy in particular is especially strong to Platonic philosopher types, and how so many conversations with them about theology are going to end badly simply because you're starting from different assumptions about sin's effect on the world.
September 6, 2018
Bite-sized and teasing, Jordan's small collection of essay-rants are perfectly stimulating, designed to fondle the like mind into rabbit holes of delightful church criticism. His brutal emasculation of contemporary evangelical worship music ("The serious Bible-loving Protestant is compelled to sing some of the worst poetry ever written to some of the most appalling music ever conceived") left me salivating for utter deathblows. Some arrive, while other church errors and heresies dance and taunt so wildly before Jordan he can hardly tuck one into its deathbed before chasing another, bloodied axe in hand. The chases blur and swirl at blog like pace. And oh, the nuggets he drops along the way: paganism and gnosticism underneath the creaking floorboards of tradition, his appeal to the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of man, visible content v. context in worship-space, the three means of grace, eschatological optimism. Lines such as "God has said that celibacy is 'not good'" fall from the sky, like rain, like mana, like the devil, like bombs, like emergency supply kits—for the liturgically starved and deserted Protestants soiled in crumbling rags and humming, maybe without even knowing, some shimmering Hillsong melody.
May 30, 2017
A short book filled with theological accuracy and OCR errors
I am a voracious reader of James B. Jordan and most of the time think he is one of the finest minds in the theological world today. I have this book in print and thought it was one of his finest, despite it thin size. If you have anyone considering leaving the Reformed or even Protestant camp for Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism buy him this book. They may still go, but it will be with eyes opened.
However, since my Kindle goes almost everywhere I do, I purchased the Kindle version as well. Here my marks are not so high. Whoever is is charge of using OCR to convert the print to Kindle could not have even proofread it once. At times the mistakes make the text almost unintelligible. For example:
" To be sure there are diTerent callings, diTerent oUces, and diTerent degrees of maturity, but there is no category diTerence between Wrst-class and second-class believers."
After a time you can figure out the pattern to the errors (W=fi) but what a distraction!
In any case, a 5 for content and a 2 for OCR processing to the Kindle edition.
I am a voracious reader of James B. Jordan and most of the time think he is one of the finest minds in the theological world today. I have this book in print and thought it was one of his finest, despite it thin size. If you have anyone considering leaving the Reformed or even Protestant camp for Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism buy him this book. They may still go, but it will be with eyes opened.
However, since my Kindle goes almost everywhere I do, I purchased the Kindle version as well. Here my marks are not so high. Whoever is is charge of using OCR to convert the print to Kindle could not have even proofread it once. At times the mistakes make the text almost unintelligible. For example:
" To be sure there are diTerent callings, diTerent oUces, and diTerent degrees of maturity, but there is no category diTerence between Wrst-class and second-class believers."
After a time you can figure out the pattern to the errors (W=fi) but what a distraction!
In any case, a 5 for content and a 2 for OCR processing to the Kindle edition.
January 19, 2024
The Liturgy Trap explains some key differences in how the church (Catholica/Orthodox/Protestant) worships and critiques these forms from a protestant reformed perspective. Some of the issues covered are praying to the dead (saints) as they do in the Roman Catholic Church, the orthodox and the protestant church herself. I appreciated the concise explanation of why these traditions do what they do as well as providing not only critiques but contrasts of their practices against Scripture. The book is more of a glorified pamphlet (it’s about 98 pages long). The thesis is straightforward: there are better options than Rome or Eastern orthodoxy. It’s a quick read but dare I say, thought provoking. Be prepared to have your assumptions about worship, liturgy, and other liturgical practices challenged.
February 2, 2025
Definitely good. Sometimes he offers abrupt assertions as absolute, but this is an important book. I struggle with the pop-evangelicalism as he mentions. While firmly Protestant, the rock concert + Ted talk leaves much to desire. The allure of high church is definitely something I’ve felt. The emphasis on the sacraments, regularity and centrality of the Eucharist, liturgy, and frankly, the lack of 60 year old preachers wearing skinny jeans, is definitely attractive. Jordan’s point: that’s good, just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. You can easily take the above mindset too far either East or West.
September 19, 2023
I enjoyed reading this book and thinking through many of Jordan’s objections. He’s a good writer, with a sharp Calvinist wit and combative style, true to the tradition. Can’t say I agreed with or was swayed by basically any of his major points, but I appreciated the effort, and appreciated using the book as a counterweight to many of the Orthodox sources I’ve been reading lately. I was a Protestant evangelical turned Orthodox catechumen before reading the book…and I’m still one after reading it, feeling good about the path in part thanks to my meditations on Jordan’s book.
June 10, 2025
I am giving this one star, because I cannot actively give it a zero star. This was one of the worst books I have read as an apologia against Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is filled with fallacious arguments, strawmen, and wacky stuff that just isn't true. He does not actually deal with the positions of the churches he is seeking to persuade people from staying away from. This book is highly manipulative in so many places. this was a hit piece. If this book was supposed to keep us out of Rome or Orthodoxy, it failed. Ten out of ten, don't recommend.
Read
May 14, 2022Fantastic refutation of the liturgical errors of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholocism, and Catholic-Anglicanism - and those who would raise tradition above the scriptures.
One of my favorite quotes:
"While these men are in some senses the Church Fathers, in another and more important sense they are the Church Babies. The Spirit is growing the church, and to cling uncritically to all the ideas of the first centuries of the church is to cultivate infancy and reject maturity."
One of my favorite quotes:
"While these men are in some senses the Church Fathers, in another and more important sense they are the Church Babies. The Spirit is growing the church, and to cling uncritically to all the ideas of the first centuries of the church is to cultivate infancy and reject maturity."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews