29 Questions For Elder Ephraim

By exposing Elder Ephraim, I am doing what Orthodoxy always taught me to do (defend the faith). If the information I learned about Elder Ephraim is true, then he is guilty of attacking the Eastern Orthodox Church.

1. According to Ruth's blog, A former novice named Joshua said: "The abbot predicted at that time that if I left, I would end my life, “crying in a corner” and that those tears would have “no redeeming value”. This, in effect, was damning me to hell if I left." As an Orthodox Christian, I know for a fact that Abbot Paisios' concept is heretical and unbiblical, consequently placing him into the category of what Scripture calls a false teacher, because he was contradicting the God-inspired biblical teaching on how a person is justified by God. I have several more remarks to make. First, according to biblical teaching, a person is damned for unrepentant sin and for rejecting Jesus Christ. The assumption in abbot Paisios was that it was a sin for that novice to leave the monastery; But the biblical understanding of sin is to violate God's commands. God never commanded that people be Orthodox monastics, so it was not a sin for Joshua to leave Elder Ephraim's monastery. Second, Scripture teaches that he that has the Son has life. (1John 5:12). Since Joshua still had the Son when he left that monastery, he still had life. He did not cease having the Son of God because he leaves that monastery. Third, Scripture teaches that Christians are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. (Eph. 4:30). Leaving Elder Ephraim's monastery cannot break that seal. Fourth, Scripture teaches that there is only one unforgivable sin, and that is the the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Fifth, Scripture teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, and not based on human works. Abbot Paisio's concept implicitly contradicted that teaching. Sixth, Abbot Paisios' view contradicted the Orthodox teaching of the authority of the priest to absolve sins at confession. Seventh, his view contradicted the biblical teaching that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us (see 1 John 1:9). But this is really irrelevant, since it was not a sin for that novice to leave Elder Ephraim's monastery. Eighth, Abbot Paisios' added to the apostolic kergyma, because he taught a concept which none of the apostles taught. Making a concept which the apostles never taught normative to Christian life and faith, is adding to the faith, and consequently heretical. Ninth, An Orthodox author and theologian told me that Abbot Paisios' concept is not Orthodox. If it is true that Abbot Paisios' holds to the idea stated by Joshua, then Abbot Paisios falls into the category of what scripture calls a heretic, and consequently he is unfit to be guiding souls, since his views of forgiveness, salvation, and monasticism are problematic. The issues raised in this concern are sufficient to place Abbot Paisios outside the pale of orthodoxy and unfit to be guiding souls. It's that simple. Since he does not even hold to Orthodox or biblical perspectives, he has no business guiding Orthodox Christians. His errors reflect poorly on Elder Ephraim, and his own ability to guide.

When you live in an environment where fellow human beings are constantly bowing to you, kissing you, taking your orders, and practically worshiping you, it can lead to feelings that you are above the divinely revealed teachings of Holy Scripture.

2. Ruths' blog asserts that the leaders of Saint Anthony's Monastery believe they have a license to lie. Is this true? People who lie have too much of the world in them. Saint Paul teaches: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;" (Colossians 3:9). God said, "Do not lie." (Lev. 19:11). The Book of Revelation teaches, All liars will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. (Rev. 21:8). God would never approve of a practice which contradicts the divinely revealed biblical teachings of the Holy Spirit. All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16. See also 2 Peter 1:21).

Says the Prophet Isaiah: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20).

According to Ruth's blog, a nun at one of your convents told a woman that a mop was a broom, and when she was corrected by the woman, the nun maintained the falsehood that it was a mop. Do you promote the idea that people can contradict reason and reality? Reason and reality are aspects of general revelation about God. A person is not being a bad Christian if he or she holds to the objective reality of a situation. He is being honest and truthful. The attitude of the nun harks back to the concept of "justified lying," or in this case, "justified delusion." A healthy person holds to the correspondence view of truth, which says that what is true corresponds to reality.

3. In Ruth's blog, Joshua states that the following verse was used in order to defend your concept of separating from a wife for the monastic life: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” (Lu 14:26). Why did you use this verse, when Jesus was not talking about leaving a wife for monasticism. Orthodox monasticism didn't even exist at the time Jesus uttered those words. Jesus was talking about how in the Christian life, he must take first place. Jesus was certainly not condoning the idea of separating from a spouse, since this would contradict the Holy Spirit's teaching in Scripture on the indissolubility of marriage.

 4. Is it true that you bless married people to separate in order to become monks, and teach that married couples have a slim chance of being Saved? The Bible, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, honors marriage, but doesn't say a word about monasticism and all it entails --vows, absolute obedience to a superior, etc. Your view that people can separate from their spouse is not endorsed by the Scriptures (or the Holy Spirit), and contradicts the Holy Spirit. God would never approve of someone contradicting the revelation He has already given on a topic. Marriage is a blessed sacrament of the Church, and is honored in Holy Scripture. The Bible teaches that marriage is indissoluble. The only exception is unfaithfulness. (See Matthew 19:8). Malachi 2:16 declares: "The man who hates and divorces his wife," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "does violence to the one he should protect," says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful." Jesus said "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:9). Saint Paul instructs: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:25; See also 1 Peter 3:7). He is hardly loving his wife when he separates from her and joins a monastery, which is disobedience to Scripture and a selfish act. St. Paul also instructed: "“But if any provide not for his own, especially for his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim 5:8). "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." (1 Peter 3:7).
 

St. Peter and the apostles said "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29). St. Jude 3 says, "The faith was once for all delivered to the saints ". "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:" (Hebrew 13:14). The idea that married couples have a slim chance of salvation, is totally heretical and absolutely non-christian and non-biblical--and contradicts the Gospel on how a person is justified by God. Saint Paul advised young women to marry. He wrote: "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." (1Timothy 5:14). He also said that married women will be saved in child bearing (1 Timothy 2:15). If he believed married couples had a slim chance of being saved, he never would have said these things. Do you believe you are above St. Paul?
 

In addition, the idea that married couples should not enjoy sex, is also not a biblical or apostolic concept. Ideas like this came from non-biblical heretics (Manichean's, Encratites and Gnostics) none of whom were authorized by God to teach. They were only giving their own subjective opinions, but God never said their teachings are inspired, as the Holy Scripture is. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul encourages people who burn with lust to get married. He said this because they're going to want to have sex. He did not say a word about not enjoying the sexual experience. The biblical assumption is that married people are going to have sex. Good sex promotes good mental health. (See Meier et al, Introduction to Psychology and Counseling).

Your concepts are post-apostolic, man-made, and lacking in divine authority. God gave us His commandments, and He never said enjoying sex within marriage is a sin.

St. Paul says that in the last days false teachers will be guilty of "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:3). "

"But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned..." (1Cor. 7:28).

Elder Ephraim, do you believe in continuing revelation? In this case it would be revelation that contradicts previous revelation. God cannot contradict Himself.

Married women were holy: "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:" (1 Peter 3:5).

St. Irenaeus: "Springing from Saturninus and Marcion, those who are called Encratites [a branch of gnosticism; literally means "self-controlled"] preached against marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God and indirectly blaming him who made the male and female for the propagation of the race." (Against Heresies I:28:1).

Council of Braga II (561): "If anyone condemns human marriage and has a horror of the procreation of living bodies, as Manichaeus and Priscillian have said, let him be anathema."

According to John Meyendorff, the Orthodox Church holds firmly to the decisions of the Council of Gangra (340), which radically rjected the opinion of those who were against marriage.(Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, p.60).

Says the inspired text of the Christian Bible: "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the Lord." (Proverbs 18:22). Do you agree? if not, why?
 

Says the Holy Spirit in Proverbs 5:18-19: "Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

The heretical Gnostic Cathars not only demonized marriage, but they also believed that sex within marriage was bad.

Old Testament prophets like Moses, Samuel, Ezekiel and Hosea were married; as were the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Noah and the transfigured Enoch also had wives.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "With regard to the divine and saving mysteries of our faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures...For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasoning, but from what may be proved out of the Bible."

5. As a Christian, I am very much bothered by the words of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, which you quoted in your book. He said when he met you, your words were full of grace and truth, and he referenced John 1:14, which reads in full:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

As you can see, this verse is talking about Christ the incarnate Word, Second Person of the Holy Trinity. It was wrong for Metropolitan Hierotheos to apply a biblical verse meant for the Lord Jesus, to you. And you should not have allowed him to get away with it.-- and should not have put his words in your book. Biblical passages meant for the Lord Jesus should never be applied to any other man. So my question to you is: why did you allow this? A humble person would never allow that verse to be applied to himself. This is one of the main reasons why I lost faith in Elder Ephraim. It is possible that Elder Ephraim accepted this comment in the spirit of monastic obedience; if true, then I would put the blame on Metropolitan Hierotheos.

Elder Ephraim is a sinner like the rest of humanity. If he is saved at all, it will be solely by the mercy of Christ. Isaiah taught that all our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and St. Paul said there is none righteous, no not one. (Romans 3:10).

6. The next question is about something one of your monks said in the documentary about your monastery. He said he is there trying to save his soul. Do you teach monks that they can saves themselves? The Christian Bible does not teach that man can save his soul. St. Paul said, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5).

In another place he said: "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." (Romans 11:6). And in his epistle to the Ephesians he said: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9). In Romans, St. Paul declared: "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (Romans 9:16).  Father Ephraim, do you believe in the teaching of the Apostle Paul?


7. Why do you have church services in Greek, when most of the people attending your services don't know Greek? Don't you see this as selfish, and nullifying the Word of God by tradition? (Mark 7:13). Don't you see this as a violation of the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature? (Mark 16:15). The purpose of language is to communicate and understand, not to preserve cultural customs and traditions. When St. Paul gave instructions on speaking in tongues, he said: "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1Cor.14:19). Even though he was speaking about tongues, the concept and principle is the same: COMMUNICATION and LOVE for OTHERS. Even though I am Orthodox, I totally agree with Article 24 of the Church of England, which was issued in 1571. It reads:

"It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people."

In Christianity, we always want to put the spiritual, psychological, and physical needs of other people before our own. This is the biblical teaching. Father Ephraim, do you read the Bible and New Testament? "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." (Phil. 2:4). "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 1Cor. 10:24).


8. Why do abbots and bishops sit at the front of trapiza tables, and sometimes even on whole other tables, separate from the monks, as if they are better than them? Where is the humility? It would be more humble to blend in with the monks. Christ said it was the Pharisees who "love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues." (Matthew 23:6).


9. Why do you have your monks chant the Jesus Prayer in Greek, when they speak and understand English? Again, the purpose of language is to communicate and understand, not to preserve cultural and ethnic traditions. God isn't concerned about languages and ethnic traditions, but about communication and understanding. Jesus himself spoke in Aramaic. So why not have the monks pray to Christ in Aramaic, since this was the Son of God's preferred language during his earthly sojourn?
10. A former novice of your monastery said you have two refrigerators, full of expensive imported foods all to yourself, and your own personal cook; and that you eat lobster, imported cheeses, and fine wine daily. Is any of this true?

11. Why did you decorate your monastery with beautiful walk ways and things of that nature, when so many other monasteries and sketes live on the simple dirt of the earth and in impoverished circumstances? Do you have any idea how many homeless people you could have fed and how many monasteries you could have helped with all the money you used to adorn your monastery? Christ taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:39). Christianity is about service to others. Please don't equate me with Judas Iscariot by pointing out that he asked why the ointment Mary used on Jesus wasn't sold and given to the poor. The context is different. As the Gospel of John says, Judas did not care about the poor, but was a thief, and took from the apostolic savings. (John 12:6).

12. In 1965 you, Elder Ephraim and your whole brotherhood stopped commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople because of his ecumenism. But in 1973, you were offered the position of abbot at the big monastery of Philotheou, a monastery that commemorated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and you became a commemorator yourself. Then in the 1980's you came to America and tried to start monasteries with the Greek Archdiocese, but they weren't open to this, and did not let you. You then left the Greek Archdiocese and went to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, claiming a directive from God to do that. But is that really true? Or was your true motivation to build monasteries in America? Eventually the Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius became aware that vast amounts of donations were being given to the Russian Church abroad, and he did not like that. Patriarch Demetrius than called you and summoned you to Constantinople. And the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hiliarian gave you a blessing to go. Then when you were in Constantinople, you were threatened and told to go back to the Greek Archdiocese, or all the abbots on Mount Athos who support you would be deposed, and all the faithful that you had in Greece would be excommunicated. And then it's as if you disappeared off the radar of the Russian Church abroad, and you were staying with relatives in Thessaloniki, at which time you said you were looking for a sign. Personally, I think the the threat from Patriarch Demetrius was a sign that he is not of God. You then claimed you received a directive from God to go back to the Greek Archdiocese. Then you came back to America under the auspices of the Greek Archdiocese and were permitted to build monasteries. Father Ephraim, why did God first tell you to go to the Russian Church Abroad, and then to go to the Greek Archdiocese? Do you believe God changes his mind? This reminds me of a situation in Mormonism. Historically the Mormon Church did not allow black men to be priests, but then in the 1960's, the church was criticized by civil rights advocates and religious groups; and God changed his mind in 1978: Black men were now allowed to be priests.

13. I read online that you tell people that the monks in Platina manipulated Father Seraphim Rose' body in order to make it look like he had a blessed repose, because he really died a terrible death. Is it true that you tell people this? If yes, what is your source of information?

14. Your monks claim that you can't visit zoos because the animals go crazy wanting a blessing from you. Why do you allow people to get away with exaggerated claims like this? Animals don't have any concept of blessings. They only want to be fed. They go to people for food, not blessings.

15. Why does your monastery have the practice of having monks and people in general bow before you and your priests, kissing your hands and taking blessings every time they see you? It seems to me that this can lead to a sense of self-importance and superiority in the priests. None of the apostles ever taught that laity should bow before clergy and kiss their hands taking blessings from them every time they see them. The practice of bowing before clergymen, taking their blessings, and kissing their hands, which is done more frequently in monasteries, does not come from the apostles (the apostles were humble). St. Peter did not want people bowing to him (See Acts 10:25, 26, cf. Mk. 10:43). Since the apostles did not promote this concept among themselves, the successors of the apostles should be more humble. Jesus taught: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-27).

16. Someone told me that your monastery teaches the Bible has errors in it. Is this true? The view that the Bible has historical and scientific errors in it, is called Neo-Orthodoxy, and was invented by the non-Orthodox heretics Emil Bruner and Karl Barth.

17. According to the news report "Monastery Mystery," Elder Ephraim declined the offer to speak with one of the news reporters; and one of Ephraim's supporters said "[Elder Ephraim] does not play those kind of games." Assuming this man's statement is true, why did Ephraim think like that? Why did he assume bad in the news reporter? Why didn't he humble himself and show love toward his neighbor (as Scripture enjoins) and obey Jesus' teaching to "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matthew 5:42). Jesus also told us to go an extra mile with people. (Matthew 5:41). The idea that the clergyman must be protected at all costs, and that police and media investigations should be avoided, is Roman Catholic and Kabbalistic. "Never attack superiors before inferiors." (Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises of 1548, Rule 10). There has seldom been a more pithy summation of the occult command system. The "sacred person" concept of the priest is Roman Catholic and are taught in traditional seminaries that the Kabbalistic heresy that the souls of priests are of a higher order than that of the laity, contravening the anti-kabbalistic teaching of Christ (Matt. 20:24-26). "Father" must be protected at all costs, (Ignatius) including suppression of police and media investigations. Here there is a parallel with with rabbinic doctrine concerning informants. In Orthodox Judaism, those who turn a molester-rabbi over to the police are "masor, mesirah". According to the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, "Nothing was more severelesy punished by the Jews...the sages of the Talmud compared the "moser" to a serpent."

18. According to one article I read online, one of the monasteries associated with Elder Ephraim (St. Nectarios Monastery in New York) lied about an incident. When an allegedly clairvoyant revelation from Abbot Joseph was shown to be untrue, he gave a monk the obedience to maintain the falsehood that it was clairvoyants, even though it was untrue. Assuming the article was truthful, why would a deliberate falsehood be perpetuated by an abbot?

19. Is it true that Abbot Paisios teaches that a monk spiritually benefits 13 generations of his family? If he does, please tell me which of the God-ordained apostles taught this concept and direct me to a Scripture or apostolic tradition. If Abbot Paisios' admits it is not an apostolic doctrine, then the implication is that he believes in continuing revelation, which leads to my next question. Do you believe in continuing revelation? Please note, God cannot contradict himself. The apostolic teaching is clear that salvation comes only by personal faith in Jesus Christ. People do not piggy back into Heaven. The apostles did not teach the concept of salvation by proxy.Thank you.


20. Why do you have your monks reveal literally every thought they can remember, when there is no evidence in Scripture or in oral tradition that the apostles taught this concept? Why isn't this considered abusive on the monk, since you are causing him to relive the experiences?

21. Why did Elder Ephraim title his book Counsels from the Holy Mountain, when he lives in Arizona?

22. I asked a monk at a monastery associated with Elder Ephraim (St. Nectarios Monastery) about clairvoyants, and he said that God gives revelation to all spiritual fathers about their spiritual children. I then asked him which of the apostles taught this concept. He never answered the question. I later asked an Orthodox author and theologian if this is an Orthodox teaching, and he said it is not. Elder Ephraim, do you teach the idea that God gives revelation to all spiritual fathers about their spiritual children?

23:  Your book, "The Departure of the Soul," says that people with demons go through the toll-houses quickly. Do you teach that Christians can be possessed? The Bible does not teach that Christians can be possessed. Such a notion is abusive. Jesus said the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian believer forever (John 14:16-17). The Holy Spirit lives in the believers body (1Cor.6:19; Gal. 2:20). The believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit (2Cor. 1:22;) unto the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Scripture also says we are indwelt by the Holy Trinity (Eph. 4:6; Gal.2:20; 1Cor. 6:19) How then can a demon cohabitate with God in the same body, if in fact the Orthodox teach Christians can be demon possessed? 2 Corinthians 6:15-16 states: "And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." I submit that the imprudent act of telling a Christian he has a demon, is dangerous and damaging, both spiritually and psychologically to the person hearing such superstitious and fear-based nonsense. St. Peter teaches that Christians are guarded by God through faith for the salvation to be revealed in the last time (1Peter 1:5). The word "guarded" (Greek, phroureo) can mean both "kept from escaping, and "protected from attack." The present participle that Peter uses gives the sense "You are continually being guarded." I would argue that the people getting possessed (if in fact they are possessed) are not born again believers.
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" (Romans 5:1). If the doctrine of the toll houses is true, then I don't see how we have peace with God.


24. Elder Ephraim, is it true that St. Paisios of Mt. Athos had problems with you, and that you requested that your monks take psychiatric medications? Source:
https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/mount-athos-homosexuality-addiction-to-heavy-psychotropic-drugs-%CE%AD%CF%88%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%8D%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%82-524/


25. This isn't a question; more of an observation. In your book you fault monastics who leave their monasteries for other monasteries. You said something to the effect that they leave because they lack consolation in God. I would reply by saying that is easy for you to say. You had the benefit of having direct and immediate access to Elder Joseph the Hesychast, in the very first monastery you entered. Hardly anyone has the benefit of having an elder as abbot.


26. In the recent book, "The Departure of the Soul," your monastery made the claim to the effect that Saul's experience of Christ in Acts 9 was a noetic vision. Is this actually your view? I ask this question because it was not a vision. St. Paul called this experience an appearance (Greek, ophthe). An appearance is external and visible to the naked eye; a vision is in the mind. The resurrection appearances, including Paul's, are never called "visions" (optasia) anywhere in the Gospel or Epistles. The men with Paul shared in the light phenomenon. "they heard the sound" (Acts 9:7) and "saw the light" (Acts 22:9). Paul was physically blinded by the brightness of the light (Acts 9:8-9; 22:6). Jesus's appearance to Paul was natural. The word "appeared" (ophthe) refers to a natural event. Arndt and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that the word is used "of persons who appear in a natural way." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that appearances "occur in a reality which can be perceived by the natural senses." when Paul said he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision (Acts 26:19) he was probably referring to the mandate through Anaias's vision. Much more can be said about this.


27. On page 166 of your book, "The Departure of the Soul," you exhibit a high view of St. Maximus the Confessor, and say something to the effect that he is completely Orthodox in his understanding.  St. Maximus was a westernized eastern father, and had a high view of the church of Rome. He believed the primacy of Rome was a divine primacy, so it is enduring. (See P.G. 91:137-140). He also believed the Lateran Council of 649 was equal to the Ecumenical Councils. The Lateran Council has very pro-papal language. So I would like to know on what basis you reject St. Maximus' view about the church of Rome? If he was right about Rome, then you need to be with the Roman Church today. If St. Maximus was wrong about the church in Rome (we believe he was), then he could be wrong in his view of the afterlife and aerial demons. God never said St. Maximus was an inspired teacher.

28. Is it true that you believe Christians are going to be hung on telephone poles in America? Since you are a foreigner, you probably are not familiar with U.S. history, our Constitution and the freedoms we enjoy. America is a free and civilized society and would never tolerate such an atrocity. The only way your idea could be realized would be if we were conquered by a foreign power.


29. Why do you claim that Ephesians 6 and Luke 12 teach the concept of the aerial toll houses, when (1) context and grammar do not allow it, and (2) your interpretations lack patristic support? You even claim in your book, "The Departure of the Soul," that Orthodox Christians are not allowed to interpret the Bible contrary to the interpretations of the fathers, and you reference Canon 19 of the Council of Trullo, in this regard. But this is what you have done.

SCHOLARLY COMMENTS ON EPHESIANS 6 AND LUKE 12.

I asked several New Testament scholars with Ph.D's in New Testament to comment on Ephesians 6 and Luke 12. I don't give their names because I didn't ask their permission to quote them. I don't believe Ephesians 6 and Luke 12 are referring to the toll-houses. In Ephesians 6, St. Paul is warning Christians about the coming spiritual warfare in Asia Minor, not in the afterlife.

Scholar 1. "Well in Eph 6:12 the verb "estin" is present tense, not future. And the context indicates that it refers to a present spiritual conflict. The notion of 20 houses or levels comes from somewhere other than the NT or the gospel, some kind of semi-gnostic notion of such things. As for Luke 12:20, the 3rd plural form with indefinite subject here is a known idiom substituting for the passive form, other examples in Luke = 6:38; 16:9; 23:31. There are no death-demons in view!!"

Scholar 2. (On Luke 12):  "This is not necessarily true. If you look at a broad cross-section of modern translations almost none of them translates it with “they”. The third person plural form in Greek, even as in English, can be a “place holder” without having a specific antecedent. We say things all the time like, “Can you believe it? Now they’re making us stop at yet another traffic light on Main Street.” But we have no idea who the “they” refers to or if it is really more than one person. Because of a certain Jewish reticence in certain contexts to overuse the name of God, various euphemisms developed. One was the simple passive voice: “Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted.” By whom? In context the answer has to be God, and grammarians even refer to this as a divine passive. The same could be true with “they.” Who is going to require this fool’s soul this very night? God, of course. One can’t just translate one language to another in a woodenly word-for-word way; one has to take usage, context, idiomatic expressions, and distinctive cultural and linguistic features into account. "

Scholar 3. (On Ephesians 6): " I have never heard of this interpretation before and I don't think any Pauline scholars I know would favour it. We might of course all be wrong but the passage appears to be addressed to challenges we face here rather than hereafter..."

Scholar 4.  (On Ephesians 6)." Since in Greek as well as in English the present tense of a verb may refer to a future action or state of being, the present tense in the Greek of Ephesians 6:12 does not answer your question decisively. The present tense does, however, lend greater weight to the notion of present time rather than to an anticipated future. It seems to me, then, that the context, consisting of verses 10-20, provides a strong argument for the present as opposed to the future. For example, the references to preaching the gospel in verses 15 and 20 surely relate to present activity rather than to a postmortem activity, especially since Paul refers to his present imprisonment "in a chain."  Hoping this helps,"

Scholar 5. :(On Ephesians 6): "The most straightforward answer is that Paul is speaking in the present tense. He is speaking to the church at Ephesus (and other churches in Asia Minor) about the spiritual warfare going on in their midst. I take it that Eph 6.10ff. is not dealing with an entirely different subject from what Paul was addressing in the rest of the letter. He is talking about Satan and his minions attempting to destroy our unity and how we need to stand against that in the present time."

Scholar 6. Of this passage (Luke 12), the Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson (now deceased) noted: "The rabbis used "they" to avoid saying "God." (See his Word Pictures on this passage). Robertson is considered to be the greatest New Testament Greek scholar in America at his time.

Conclusion

As far as Ephesians 2:2 is concerned, it only says that the prince of the air exists, but says nothing about death, and nothing about battling the prince of the air in the afterlife. What patristic support can you adduce for your interpretation of this verse? and what is the earliest patristic support you have for your interpretation of this verse?

According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, something must be universally held in order to be a tradition in the Church. The toll-houses were never universally held, so do not meet the criteria for being a tradition of the Church. Eliezer Gonzalez, author of the book "The Fate of the Dead in Early Third Century North African Christianity: The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas and Tertullian," wrote me this response when I asked him about the toll-houses.

"Yes, I am the author. My general view, although I have not made a specific study of this teaching within the context of Orthodox theology, is that the teaching of the aerial toll-houses is an exceptionally ancient one within Mediterranean religions, and can certainly be traced back to ancient Egyptian beliefs. It does not appear in the New Testament. In the second and third centuries, the view of aerial tollhouses doesn't seem to appear in any of the mainstream Christian writings. At this time, however, there are large numbers of very fragmented views on the fringes of Christianity, encompassing many mystical and apocalyptic traditions in a syncretistic manner. Through these, I presume, the concept of aerial tollhouses enters into Christianity. The first Christian writer who appears to refer to them is Origen, later anathematised by the Orthodox Church. Of course these antecedents of the Orthodox teaching don't call their views "aerial toll-houses" and they don't specifically conform necessarily to today's teaching in the Orthodox church. As I said, I haven't done a specific study on this, however, those is the lines along which I would explore its origins. I hope that is of help in some way.
Grace and peace" END

I believe you over state your claim when you say that the toll houses are the two thousand year old teaching of the Church. In your book, you quote the patrologist Jean Claude Larchet, who says this teaching goes back to the fourth century. If it goes back to the fourth century, it is not two thousand years old. Both these claims cannot be true, since they are mutually exclusive. Your book does not represent the official views of the pre-schism Latin Fathers, or Syriac Fathers. It is not the tradition or teaching of the Orthodox Church, because it was never universally held, nor is it Scriptural. It is a tradition among some Orthodox sources and people. That's it.

I accept the toll-houses at this point, but I do not believe Christians have the right to eisegete into the Bible their bias and presupposition. Luke 12 and Epheaians 6 are not teaching that we battle demons at death and go through toll houses.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (St. John 5:24). This passage contradicts the toll-houses concept.

The doctrine of the toll-houses is not found in the dogmatic decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, so it is inappropriate for the author(s) of the book, "The Departure of the Soul," to claim that this is "the" (definite article) teaching of the Orthodox Church.

An Orthodox author and theologian told me that he tells people to stay clear of Elder Ephraim.