www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology HOW IMPORTANT IS TRUTH?

Dear OOD,

Does this not strike you as quite legalistic, rather than ontological? How can one who follows heresy *unknowingly* be in opposition to the Church? He "doesn't know". If he knew the truth, there is every possibility that he would cease and desist, and not be in opposition to the truth. How, then, can we say that those unknowingly in heresy are just as guilty as those knowingly in it?

Christ didn't condemn the pagan centurion who came to Him for the healing of his servant just as He comdemned the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees...He praised the former for his faith, greater in him than in any of the sons of Israel, while He rebuked the latter for their wretched ways, and the latter "believed" in the one God, while the centurion most probably worshipped Roman deities. Christ didn't send him away because he didn't believe in the one God...I think He recognised that he just "didn't know". Yet, grace drew him to seek out Christ for the healing of his servant, and this, for all we know, could've been the swift kick in the pants that got the centurion rethinking his ideas...or maybe not, we don't know. But we do know that He didn't send the man away because he was an unbeliever, like the Pharisees might have done, for he was an unbeliever who just didn't know.

Christ is Risen! God bless you and your dear ones.

Now that this site is loading properly on my screen...


AAAAAAAAAAMEN, BROTHA!

Once I tried to talk about the faith to this girl in my history class...a class on the history of Christianity. Much to my delight, the professor explained how the early Christian beliefs were precisely those held to this day by Catholic and Orthodox Christians, as regards the Eucharist, Baptism, hierarchy, etc.

Anyway, we were talking about original sin, and how she didn't believe it, so I tried to explain the Western view, and how it is referred to in the Bible (whether Easterners agree with their interpretation or not is not what I was getting at...girl was already too confused by her indoctrination, I figured I'd give her the Western view because she was Western).

To make a long story short, she told me (all the while very flustered and defencive...I felt bad for starting the conversation almost) that I was reading things into the text that weren't there (I explained what the verse meant based on common principles of English grammar...not fanciful interpretation). She told me that it's not right to believe in anything that's not in the Bible, to which I said "Look, I believe what the Catholic and Orthodox Church teaches about this and that, and from our history lectures, you should know that's how the early Christians believed...you're the one who has been taught something 'other than the Gospel which has been preached to us', to paraphrase Saint Paul." (Quoting the Bible REALLY threw her for a loop.)
Then I asked how she knew what was in the Bible if the Bible didn't have an inspired list of books attached to it, and how the Bible was only codified about four hundred years after the Resurrection (according to the lecture notes). She told me I was hostile, not open to the voice of the Spirit in the Word of God, and an unbeliever, and that it was better to stop this conversation before it gets more hostile. Meanwhile her friend is sitting there telling her "He isn't making this up, he just showed you where all this is in the Bible, and showed it to you from the notes how the first Christians believed this," to which her friend replied "But he's an unbeliever."

Even the Calvinist Baptists took a cheap shot at a pre-Chalcedonian...

I guess that didn't make my story too short, but that last statement says it all..."But he's an unbeliever." At least the Jehovah's Witnesses don't come to my house anymore, they know from experience how I tend to tear a few holes into their "logic".

WOW!!

THAT livened things up a bit, didn't it??

"You say that darkness and light cannot exist together. Yet, I submit that they must! God's grace exists in our world of darkness. Each of us brings some darkness to everything we do. If not, then there would be no need for theosis."

I think this is a good point. Did not St. Paul say that we now see through a glass darkly? Surely the best of us knows relatively litte in relation to the great Truth which is the Eternal God.

But......at the same time, having read as much as time allows me of the Early Fathers, I find that there are some things which are simply NOT NEGOTIABLE if one is to be considered a Christian.

For instance, we may have differing views of the Return of the Lord, (post, pre, a-mil) but I have found nothing explicit defining that return yet. The thing we must all believe in, since it is a part of the Creed, is that He WILL return bodily and at the Last Judgement to render to each man according to his deeds.

But, one may NOT disbelieve in the Blessed Trinity and consider himself Christian. This doctrine is established as truth in the councils of the Church, and as such is not up for reinterpretation.

I believe also that the Seven Sacraments of the Church are not up for any sort of discussion. We know this because we know that by and through them, God confers his life-giving grace upon mankind. Throw them away and you throw out the essence of Christianity.

So I invite further discussion on this idea:

How finely do you parse truth? I think it obvious that there is truth which is non-negotiable and which truth the Protestants have left en masse. But to me, it seems sometimes that between Catholics and Orthodox, we are at war over words rather than foundational and critical dogma.

For instance, I have never understood the firefight over the difference between the Dormition of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. To a Protestant, it looks like a silly fight, because the end result is the same thing -- She winds up in Heaven bodily (which they of course deny). In other words, the END TRUTH is the same thing -- why is there a big fight over HOW it happens? (Again, if I need to be further educated, I will respectfully receive further information presented to me).

The fact of the matter to me is this: Protestantism is serious and poisonous error. One only need look at the ecclesiastical, moral, and theological CHAOS in Protestantism to realize this!! Within the apostolic succession, I believe in a Faith which firmly unites me to Christ through the Sacrements. Protestantism has NO SUCH THING. PERIOD.

I call that error. Grave, decietful, wrong error.

I also realize that in Scripture, Christ says that His Judgement will be upon the works we have done. I may be way off on this (and you can call me on this) but I don't see that exactingly precise theological knowledge is a criteria here. For instance, I haven't studied the issue of the Old Calander vs the New Calander and quite frankly, don't have a lot of interest in doing so. To some Orthodox, no doubt this brands me as an extreme heretic. But Christ said that His Judgement would be on my deeds, not the exactitude of every detail of my belief system. so I see this as a periphial issue while the Old Calanderists see it as absolutely essential.

I would ask this: how is such not straining out gnats? (If we do want to go to a discussion of calanders, let's start a new thread, okay?) Please keep the answer within the realm of truth/untruth.

I suppose that the GRACE of God could and would cover one who was raised....oh, let's say a Jerry Falwell Baptist all his life and believed Falwell's nonsense. Ultimately, we simply don't know and trust the mercy of God. But the preaching of heresies in this country has had a severly deterious effect. While we may cut the sheep some slack, since not everyone has the same I.Q., ability to study or go to school, or other such things, we should hold those teachers and preachers of untruth to a much higher standard. It simply beyond me how a seminarian can study the Early Fathers (assuming they do) in a Baptist Seminary and come away a Landmark Baptist.

Prelest indeed!!

Random thoughts from a "newbie" a convert still seeking the path even as he walks along it.

Cordially in Christ, LORD of the Eucharist,

Brother Ed

Dear Catholicos,

Yup, sounds about right!

I was just accosted by an evangelical woman in a store over lunch!

I just rebutted some of her arguments while ignoring her offensive remarks about me being a heretic, not a believer etc.

Who did she think she was, OrthodoxyorDeath?

God bless,

Alex

Mor Ephrem,

It seems you are speaking more of the cause and I more of the effect.

Whether a person knows he is following or preaching heresy is irrelevant - they are in opposition to the Truth. Each one of them stands as a pillar of opposition and an influence to others against the will of God.

More importantly, and the reason I mentioned this, these people are equally darkened by the lie in which they live, whether they do so innocently or not.

Of the many Protestants who hand out M&M's on the Lord's Day, the undeniable result of their heresy is that they all live in darkness -- and without anything having to be said of their sincerity.

I have condemned nobody. Heretics are "self-condemned". And I say this not as you would have it: that I have some kind of joy in knowing someone is condemned, but rather that they have struck out on a path of their own that leads to darkness and misery in which we pray they will return.

In all of this, I have never pridefull or joyful that I am better than anyone else. Indeed, each person represents the Will of God and he loves each of us dearly. What I have been saying is that we need the Truth to be Christians.

And the repentent Centurion was just that - repentent. The Scribes and the Pharisees were much like heretics, unrepentant, wordly, and fixed on their own ideas.

Alex,

You are right that their are very good and maybe even very holy Protestants - I know some. But by the same token there are very good and holy Hindues.

My argument or rather my lecture is not about [if'n] - to use the word of our poor southern folks - IF'N we are competent in our respective religious cults or "good" people. But rather IF'N we by the edict of the Lord of our cult strive to remain true to that foundation of the faith we claim to hold so dear to us.

To me it is an issue more of morals and virtue then of competence under the law, or of comfort in association. -- just my opinion though.

I however do not suggest we have hatred against Protestant men and women. No, infact I think we have to accept that as it is now many people will remain Protestant. And for the vast majority it will because of the brain washing they've known in so called "Bible Churches".

But we should not act to these people as though their cult is on par with our Church. It is not. Don't be arrogant about it, but if they just have to think of you as arrogant - then so be it - kiss their daughter too (throw in a little Christian love )

Altar Boy,

The Holy Spirit will guide you [ie. the Church] into all truth (John 16:13). This does not mean members of the Church do not sin, it means that withing the Church you will find all truth. And with "all Truth", you will also find the Holy Spirit.

There is no room within the Church for non-Orthodox doctrine.

Dear OOD,

Christ is Risen!

Please don't ascribe motives to me that aren't present. I don't want to nor do I derive pleasure from viewing you as one who indulges in the heretical tendencies of others. I happen to like you.

Now that you've explained yourself a bit clearer, I understand where you're coming from, and while in a sense I don't agree with you, in another sense, I think I know where you're coming from and agree with what you say.

As far as the centurion goes, I don't recall reading anywhere in the story that the man was either repentant or desiring conversion to Judaism or Christianity. All I read is a man who does not believe in the God of Abraham, coming to our Lord and receiving what he asked for, regardless of his actual religious profession. So if the repentance factor is there, please show me where? Thanks.

Dear Maximus,

Yes, and the fact is that there always will be many holy Protestants, Hindus etc. who follow their conscience and who are accepted by God, as St Peter mentions in the Acts of the Apostles.

As for "brain-washing," ultimately we all are by our societies and there is very little that is really "our own" that is "us."

In the end, we will be judged by the standard that is love.

How's that, Dr. John?

Alex

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.

I guess this is where the Sodomy and Death Penalty thread migrated to so some of my comments carry on from there.

I agree with Alex,

St Augustine said that there are people outside the Church who, by their actions, seem to be inside it, and people inside the Church who seem to be outside it. and In the end, we will be judged by the standard that is love.

The most visible Christian that consistently advanced the principles of love and forgiveness in the 20th Century was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man as Protestant as Protestant can get. That is a man who had a doctorate in theology but didn't get all boggled up in endless scholastic debates about angels on a pinhead. He engaged in “applied theology”; he applied what his understanding of the Gospels (as well as the experience demonstrated by that other 20th century titan, Mahatma Gandhi) to real life situations and advanced Christian principles. If the 5th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew applies to anyone, for sure it applies to MLK, Jr.

Dr. John, I also agree with what you said on the other thread; we should not make character generalizations about Protestants.

But when Pentecostals have a monopoly on Christian media representation (which they do) and constantly advance erroneous and offensive hate filled messages in the name of Christ (which they do) it is sometimes hard to restrain ones self. When they are presenting themselves as a united front out to force their values, beliefs, and principles on people not in their ranks it becomes hard to make distinctions. The face of Protestantism today is represented by Jerry Farwell, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Bennie Hinn, etc. When one thinks of American Protestants one thinks of these people and Billy Graham.

These “Christians” are doing more damage than we are acknowledging. Already, civil libertarians, understandably afraid of what these people represent are writing articles like “How to stop a Christian Police State in America.” For them, the Christian Coalition represents Christianity. This misrepresentation makes life for us hard.

These people are absolutely dangerous, in his book The New World Order Pat Robertson praises the 1982-3 ruthless Guatemalan military dictator General Efrain Rios Montt. Rios Montt was a “born again” Pentecostal and a leader of the Complete Word Pentecostal Sect. In his one year reign he managed to kill 10,000 civilians; especially Indians (Natives), Catholics (liberation theologians, “communists&#8221); and employed a scorched earth policy of burning down villages. A pastor in Rios Montt's Pentecostal sect, rationalizing for this murderous campaign, said “The Army doesn't massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and the Indians are demon possessed; they are communists…” and went on to describe the General as a King David of the New Testament. Pat Robertson has the audacity to refer to the “enlightened leadership” of former General and President Rios Montt. This is the model of the “Christian” Right.

For Pat Robertson the demons in America are “radical left groups” like the ACLU (wow real militants! :rolleyes: ) and the National Council of Churches (now you know these are some card carrying Bolsheviks! ).

When John Ashcroft was being confirmed for his position as Attorney General he was asked why he accepted an invitation to speak at a school which banned inter-racial relationships. Instead of answering the obvious (which should have been “Senator, I am a racist and support this type of ideology&#8221) he instead chose to attack the Catholic Church. He said something like “well my faith (I think he said some branch of Methodist) ordains women to the ministry (in other words he supports women pastors). Now if the Catholic Church, which does not ordain women (which he implies means they are sexists), invites me to speak I would also accept the invitation.” So here he is trying to escape himself being implicated in bigotry by demonizing the Catholic Church. Orthodox need not be comfortable that he pointed to Catholics, as they say, an attack on one is an attack on all and no sooner than the “Christian” right starts persecuting Catholics they will start persecuting Orthodox and even moderate Protestants (I can't say mainstream because it seems the Pentecostals took over this position with the rise of the “Christian” Right&#8221) .

If there is ever a time to take note of Christ's adage “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” it is now. For now, what Americans who are in the Apostolic Churches should be doing is learning and appreciating more about their faith. Not taking on or countering the Bible thumpers but immersing ourselves in the traditions and culture of our faith and understand it on it's own terms.

The complicated irony is however that many former Bible thumping Protestants that converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism have imported some of the old baggage with them. They have not learned to think like Apostolic Christians beyond the books. This is what needs to be done now, then, with a firm foundation we can take on the people who misrepresent the truth. But for now, lets take of our own selves spiritually.

May God Be with you all

Aklie Semaet

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

well I've got a question,

I see where you can say that Protestants and such are following a dark path, but I'm unsure about the point raised concerning those "unknowing" heretics. OOD, you made it quite clearer that if a person is of a heretical faith and not repentant even if they do not know that they are heretical, then this would be a no-no. And you say that the Truth can be found in the Church. A heretic can read this and then run to their heretical church and expect the Truth to be there. This is my impression of what a blissfully ignorant heretic would do. These heretical religions and churches are i believe manmade, and so, imperfect. (Perhaps not the best wording, I'm not an English major, nor am I eloquent in the least.) Something that bugs me often though is the thought that perhaps we've (or I've) got it all wrong. What if I am a heretic and don't know it, because all that I have been told has been told by sinners, as we all are. What if things have been accidentally twisted throughout the years and now we are all heretics? I'm thinking that the truth may never be told to us by people, but can only be found within our relationship with God, and knowing what we are here for, the kind of people we must be, and if we think we are on the right path, yet unbeknownst to us we are heretics...if this be the case or not, we still repent for all sins and beg the Lord to lead us on HIS path, whether we've got it right or not.

Forgive my lack of knowledge of...well, everything, to put it shortly. (And my poor sentence structure )

Lord have mercy!

Kim

Christ is Risen!

When Pilate asked Christ: what is truth? He got no answer. If Pilate had asked who is the truth? He would have probably got an answer.

I always understood that the Centurion in the Gospel was a fovoumeni,i.e. a non-Jewish God-fearing believer who was allowed to stand in the outer court of the Temple. Unfortunately this is not mentioned in the Bible!

The Orthodox teaching on truth (per this discussion)is that we know where truth is to be found, but we can't always state where it ain't. The Holy Apostle Peter talks of righteous people in divers nations.

All men are made in the image of God and are enlightened by Christ, when they come into the world.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Alex,

I have no doubt their are numbers of people outside of the Catholic and Orthodox Church that do the Fathers work.

But the "brain washing" is aplicable to teaching "sola scriptora" and that the true Church of Christ was a romming ban of a cult that never accomplished or said a thing till the time of the Reformation. We must not accept this sort of revisionist history as... just the disputes that's been going on between the Orthodox and Catholics.

Protestantism has no need for sacraments like the Priesthood or confession. Nor do the great swath of them intend to drink the blood of our Lord.

***

Aklie,

I have infact prayed to Dr King in the past already. I have no problem with this, I would not have a problem praying to Mahhattma Gandhi for his assistence - if I would need to call upon it.

But it is interesting you brung up Dr King, because while he was an outstanding man in many ways, he was also a man that while married had affairs with other women. But his good conduct in other areas can't justify his infidelity in another area.

So to to me this has correlations with the Protestant "good man" and the Protestant Church - with respects to fidelity to a church outside of Apostolic Succession. The Protestant "good mans" fidelity to his Protestant Church and striving to love his neighbors as the Gospel would have him. Does not justify this "good man" in his infidelity to the Apostolic Bishops - through Christs proclimation: Your name is Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.

Note: Theologicaly we must say, and scholary with the tradition of the Church Fathers, that Christ built His Church upon Bishops of his Church and not the good works and good intentions of the broader world at large. We must acknowledge that if good works and intentions were the foundation upon which His Church was to rest - He already had the Buddhist to do that.

Kim,

In all of this time one might expect that the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ would have been studied in depth, understood, and thoroughly explained by this time. However, the presence of so many sects of Christianity proves that this is far from being the case. While in most of the exact sciences knowledge has built upon itself, becoming universalized and communicable, it appears that the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ becomes more and more fragmentary and distorted. The reason for this is not so much the difficulty of understanding the truths of Christianity as an unwillingness to grasp and accept what is most important in Christianity: why the Lord Jesus Christ came to earth, and what is the essence of His teaching.

Certainly, no one wishes to be condemned to hell. Everyone wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is crucial to understand that the Kingdom of Heaven is not so much a place as a state. When the scribes asked when the Kingdom of Heaven would be revealed, Christ answered: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here!, or Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20). Saying so, the Lord showed that salvation is intimately connected with a man's interior state. Salvation is not simply a move from the present conditions of life to different and better conditions; it is something more profound and wonderful. As Scripture says, "If favour is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals perversely and does not see the majesty of the Lord" (Isa. 26: 10). In other words, even when his exterior conditions improve, the wicked man continues to be envious, hateful, and quarrelsome, for he is tormented by a thirst for sensual pleasures; thus, he bears hell in himself. True joy, peace, and blessedness are inner states that come to a man as a result of a relationship with God, which the unrepentant refuse and do not share in. The righteous man, no matter where he is, will always have the delight of communion with God, bearing paradise within himself.

It is very important to understand that the chief purpose of Christ's coming was not to give us living conditions that are better externally, but to restore the lost paradise within us.

With this truth one holds the key to understanding Christianity. One will also be able to see for himself how Orthodoxy is superior to all other faiths; for everything that the True Orthodox Church holds and teaches is directed towards one end: union with God through transformation and deification.

From a scientific point of view, you can study history and see that the further back you go, the more the Church resembled Traditional Orthodox Christianity.

You can know truth.

(and when I say man, I of course mean women as well )

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.


Brother Maximus,

Thank you for opening up my favorite subject. I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. The Book of James is clear on this subject,

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27)

This saint and hero of Christianity spared no punches for those arguing otherwise

“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2: 19-10).

Let me quote my favorite one, excuse me for quoting it in two languages but it sounds so good in Amharic: “Wondemoche hoy “emnet aling yemel” sira gin yelela saw benor min yiTeQemewal? Eminetus leyadnew yichilalin?” (YeYaqob Melekt, meraf 2: qurter 14). The English translation of the same verse is, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?” (James 2:14, my emphasis). Yaqob (James) makes it very clear when he says “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James, 2: 26). James is my favorite book. It stands against the basic practices and beliefs of Protestantism. It is no accident that Martin Luther, Calvin, or one of the other founders of Protestantism (I forget which one) called it a book that is empty and light as a straw of hay. Luther reduced it in his chain of priority or preferred scriptures to almost last place. No wonder, because how could anyone who wanted to believe that Christianity was only about believing in God and sitting in Church but doing nothing for the poor, orphans, prisoners, and widows—ever be comfortable with the book of James?

Brother Maximus, you want to credit all this to the Buddhists?

We have our own strong tradition of Christian Monasticism and Mysticism. No Buddhist can ever take that heritage away from us, even if the “Pentey” (Ethiopian for Pentecostals) can misrepresent Christianity as the sum of incoherent screams and mumbles. Way before the paganistic “New Age” people were promoting “nutritional science” and low-fat, no-dairy diets, the Apostolic Church already had fasting seasons that make the New Agers look like they are stuck in Burger King. Before Yoga became popular in California and Brooklyn the Orthodox had the morning prostrations at the Church.
As for MLK, Jr.'s fidelity issue. I have not read any recent biography of him so I don't know. I just know that cross-dresser FBI director J. Edgar Hoover tried to implicate King in that kind of behavior and in a letter to King suggest that he take his own life if he did not want this news out. If his infidelity is true, I would not be surprised as sex and food are the greatest weapons Satan has against humanity.

Egzabiher keante gar yehun

Aklie Semaet