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

Dear OOD,
Thank you for helping to clear things up
I reitorate that I'm still a kid trying to understand and learn things, so forgive me if I'm sorely uneducated about the teachings and traditions, I'm only curious and now quite intrigued.
Thank you again

Kim

Oh no, not the faith vs. works argument.

I will say only this:

The deformed doctrine of indulgences and merits, is in no way the essense or means of salvation. External acts do not take the place of an internal state.

Merits, the belief that "good works" are like a commodity and that the saints had accumulated such a store of good works that they possessed a surplus. And that these "supererogatory merits" are held in a treasury, and that they could use this wealth and share it with other members, especially for money has nothing to do with finding God.

"Good works" are the result, not the means of the inward state. And that is also different than "bearing your cross".

Kim, we are all young and learning! As soon as we can admit we have taken a step in the right direction.

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

Interesting thread of ideas.

One thing that struck me was the use of metaphor to provide a parallel to a discussion of "truth". That is: the use of "light" and "darkness" as a sign of truthfulness or error and, by extension, whatever applies to light and darkness must, ceteris paribus, apply to truth. [Klaxon sounds: WARNING! WARNING! INTELLECTUAL SEDUCTION!!]

The traditional definition of truth (by the Scholastic Theologians - al cham dudileh!!) is: "adequatio rei et intellectus". That is: "an equation between the object/reality and the intellect".

The definition is a good one. It is based upon a correlation between the human ability to perceive, organize and therefore understand, and the reality of an existing entity.

When applied to God, however, and to the realities that are implicit in the Divinity, there is a serious problem. Man's mind is finite (I don't think I have to 'prove' this), but God is understood [in Latin] as "in-comprehensible", that is: "not able to be bounded or bordered". Thus, in terms of the definition, the "truth" of God is not able to be comprehended by human beings. We may have glimmers of it here and there perforce of grace; but to claim "We have the truth" is just not in the cards. One might well suggest that "we" (whoever 'we' is) have a better or broader knowledge of divine truth than others. That might well be the case, but how can one prove such a statement?

There are those who advocate a latter-day gnosticism: we know the secrets and you don't! Nyah nyah na na NYAHHHH nah! Well, OK. But this gnostic approach not only puts an end to any discussion or interaction, but it was also condemned by the Church. No matter how 'kind' or 'tolerant' one purports to be, the fact remains that if one's theology permits one to be ecclesiologically segregationist (i.e., "WE" have the truth; and we don't know about you at all, but you aren't one of "US", so....), then the 'tolerance' or 'kindness' isn't really 'real' but rather a type of window-dressing meant to give lip-service to the mandates of the Gospel without, however, having to really love and accept all of our neighbors -- including a possibly bi-sexual Roman centurion, a Samaritan woman, a tax collector, a provincial governor or a street-walker later known as SAINT Mary of Magdala.

Sorry to get so bitchy about this, but after 50+ years of trying to live the Gospel and trying to love God and my neighbor, I get exasperated when confronted with the notion that the Gospel is in any way 'Exclusionary'. Sure, there are divisions among the baptized; and sure, there are loonies out there - including those who are 'evangelists' on TV; and sure there are people out there who do 'evil'. But where the h*** do we get the arrogance to do the 'sheep and goats divide'? That's Christ's job - NOT ours. He told us to love God and to love our neighbor to the best of our ability. There ain't Nothin' about judgement there.

I apologize to any whom I have offended by my remarks; but I cannot just sit by and allow the legalists or righteous to hijack the Church that should be founded upon the Christ's command to love unconditionally.

Christ is Risen!!!

Dr. John,

No offense taken by your post at least from - even if it was or wasn't directed at me being one of the "legalistic" or "righteous".

Actaully I liked your post. Challenged me to think. I liked your expert theological opinion (given from the Western half of your mind ) on truth. Never heard that before - but good stuff.

But I still say that the sacraments within the Universal Church are of up-most importance, and not an accidental thing Christ fumbbled on the Church or a man-made thing. And to establish something like the Lutheren Church, and for people to belong to that Church is in it's self an act of seperation from the Universal Church. I don't say this to judge the state of any mans soul. But only to what must be logical if the Universal Church is what it says it is. Otherwise everything about the Universal Church is just ceremony and dressing - to include it's line of Bishops.

Personaly I feel most humanity - Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, even OrthodoxyOrDeath will reach Heaven. But for me that is not the nature of this discussion. For me He put the sacramental Church here for some purpose and had His Apostle dispursed through out the world and martyred for some purpose. Let us not mess with that purpose. Ever since the Reformation that purpose has been messed with on a grand institutional level, or so I say.

***

Aklie,

I brung the Buddhist up because they've been around far longer then Christians, and around a lot longer to do good works and bring Heaven into their hearts - which is something Buddhist teach and do - just not your HollyWood "follow your heart" brand of Buddhist that goes on spending sprees like there was no tommorrow.

Dear Dr. John,

Amen, amen, amen!!!

Don

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

OOD,
No one said anything about works vs. faith, I have never heard of a treasury “supererogatory merits” and frankly that sounds like the beginnings of a straw man. There is no vs. here, it is a question of faith AND works; an inward state and an external acts. James makes it clear enough and I am not an interpreter:

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James, 2: 26)

and,

“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)

but I agree with you,
"Good works" are the result, not the means of the inward state.

So where did I contradict that? Social Gospel and conservative complacency both go to extremes, thank God I am neither. Again it is faith and works and not faith vs. works. I abandoned Cartesian dualism in college.

May God Bless you in this Holy Week.

Aklie Semaet

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

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

Dr. John,

I do not know exactly who your comments were or what particular post you felt was “ecclesiologically segregationist.” I agree with your emphasis on love thy neighbor 100% and enjoy reading what you post.

However, I try to stay relative but not become so relativist that I become irrelevant. Eventually the line has to be drawn. Are we to end up like those in Germany who did not understand what Nazism represented until the day the SS came knocking on the door? Where do we divide the sheep and goats divide?

The KKK are baptized and identify themselves as Christians. The Army of God believes that it is a Christian duty to bomb clinics that perform abortions. But then;

“the time is coming that whoever kills you think that he offers God Service” (John, 16:2).

Paul gives the answer,

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do not be carried away with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.” (Hebrews, 13: 8-9).

How do we prevent ourselves from being “carried away with various and strange doctrines” if we do not draw the line somewhere? We must be able to call a spade a spade. When people who call themselves Christians are spreading bigotry, then we have to one 1) emphasize the necessity to love even more and 2) inform people, who may be confused, that these hate messages are not Christianity. I do not see how that can be equated with judgment.
May God Bless You

Aklie Semaet

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Dr. John,

I think you have confused the issue.

1) To say someone is a heretic or doesn't have the truth (that is, the true deposit of Faith), is CERTAINLY NOT to say they are not loved. Has anyone said they have stopped loving someone?

2) Truth can be known. Only the demons wish us to think otherwise.

3) One doesn't *prove* they have the truth, heretics must seek it on their own with a sincere heart. Do you ever *prove* to anyone that Jesus is Lord? Yet Jesus is Lord, and the deposit of uncorrupted faith does exist. And only the Church has the deposit of uncorrupted faith.

So, with all of the following in mind...

As for all those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox Faith, but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion, if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn, you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers. (St. Basil the Great, Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)

Beware of reading the doctrines of heretics for they, more than anything else, can equip the spirit of blasphemy against you. (St Isaac of Syria)

But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?" (St Cyprian of Carthage (200 AD), "The Epistles of Cyprian," Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 388)

Caecilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: 'One faith, one hope, one baptism;' not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false, where all things are carried on by lying." ("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), September, 258 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 565)


Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God. (St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus)

Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God. (St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus.)


-------------------------
Contentions," he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?

How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned.

St John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Titus

---------------------------

Even if one should give away all his possessions in the world, and yet be in communion with heresy, he cannot be a friend of God, but is rather an enemy (Saint Theodore the Studite, PG 99:1205)

Felix of Bagai said: As, when the blind leads the blind, they fall together into the ditch; so, when the heretic baptizes a heretic, they fall together into death. And therefore a heretic must be baptized and made alive, lest we who are alive should hold communion with the dead. ("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 567)

Guard yourselves from soul-destroying heresy, communion with which is alienation from Christ. (St. Theodore the Studite, P.G. 99.1216.)

He that saith not "Anathema' to those in heresy, let him be anathema (Seventh Ecumenical Council )


Is it permissible to harshly treat those heretics who sincerely believe that they are right? We should never idealize heretics, since in the roots of their apostasy lies not piety, but passions and sins of pride, obstinacy and anger. Harsh treatment of heretics is beneficial not only for preserving (other) people from their influence, but also for their own sake. The Holy Fathers considered the most stubborn schismatics equal to heretics. Therefore, is it really right to be gentle with them as it oftentimes happens with us. And all that for the sake of pernicious, false peace...(Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky))


Just as the fishermen hide the hook with bait and covertly hook the fish, similarly, the crafty allies of the heresies cover their evil teachings and corrupt understanding with pietism and hook the more simple, bringing them to spiritual death. (Saint Isidore of Pelusium (Letter to Timothy the Reader, PG, 78:252))

Marcellus of Zama said: Since sins are not remitted saved in the baptism of the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic holds communion with a sinner." ("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 570))


Nicomedes of Segermae said: My opinion is this, that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, for the reason that among sinners without they can obtain no remission of sins.
("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 567)


Not only if one posses rank or knowledge is one obliged to strive to speak and teach the doctrines of the orthodoxy ,but even if one be a disciple in rank ,one is obliged to speak truth boldly and openly. (St Theodore the Studite )

Novatus of Thamugada said: Although we know that all the Scriptures give witness concerning the saving baptism, still we ought to declare our faith, that heretics and schismatics who come to the Church, and appear to have been falsely baptized, ought to be baptized in the everlasting fountain; and therefore, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, and according to the decree of our colleagues, men of most holy memory, that all schismatics and heretics who are converted to the Church must be baptized; and moreover, that those who appeared to have been ordained must be received among lay people.
("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), September, 258 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 565))


Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy. (St. Theodore the Studite)

St. Maximus the Confessor said: "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching. (The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor)


The desire to rule is the mother of heresies.
--St John Chrysostom

Victor of Gor said: Since sins are not remitted save in the baptism of the Church, he who admits a heretic to communion without baptism does two things against reason: he does not cleanse the heretics, and he befouls the Christians."
("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 568))

Victoricus of Thabraca said: If heretics are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins, wherefore do we brand them with infamy and call them heretics?" ("The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian," (200-258 AD), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, pg. 568) )

...can you still say, "can't we all just accept eachothers heresies" because we really don't know who is and who isn't. I suppose you can say that as a Latin, but not as an Orthodox. And heresy is cause to love the person even more.

And if anyone wishes to object to an idea of "separting the sheep from the goats", then they should start by critizing the Holy Fathers.

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

To all:

Here's one way to look at this question.

The Orthodox, the Catholics, and most Protestants belive that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a Virgin, and the second person of the Trinity. This is Truth. It does not cease to be Truth simply because a Protestant, a Catholic or an Orthodox person believs it. Thus, Truth can exist even outside of whatever one's orientation calls "the Right Church" (or, if you will, the orthodox -- right praising -- Church).

A Catholic, a Protestant or an Orthodox person can believe that salvation is made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus. Again, Truth that does not cease to be Truth because it is believed by "an outsider."

If one must have the "fullness of Truth" to be a non-heretic -- then we are all heretics for we cannot, by virtue of being creatures rather than the creator, have the fullness of Truth.

OOD, however, raises an interesting speculation: 2,000 years of teaching should have adequately defined what is Truth. And, yet, there is great disagreement among many people of good will over what the correct teaching of Jesus is. Part of this, of course, is due to language. No language can convey 100% of another language. Translation is an imperfect art.

Jesus revealed the Father in Himself. How is that revelation known to us today? Clearly, it is known through the action of grace. Yet, that grace does not operate in a vacuum -- it operates in the context of an individual.

God never ceases to reveal Himself to us. Yet how we understand God is dependent upon what we already know, and what we are willing to "unlearn." Pope Pius IX made an incredible observation when he stated that we cannot know what prevents another from understanding our Truth as we see it.

This is, I think, the basic sticking point here. OOD would put forth the teaching that one must understand the faith as he thinks the Orthodox Church understands it, and to not do so is heresy. The Latin Catholic Church has defined heresy as the post-baptismal rejection of some truth necessary for salvation. This implies a former acceptance of the truth that is now rejected. In other words, a heretic must first be a member of the Church prior to becoming a heretic.

Where is Truth in this? Truth is that God works where He will. God calls all to salvation, but not all will accept. How does one come to believe as the Orthodox Church believes if there is not Orthodox Church where you are?

I guess the bottom line question is this: Does God condemn where there is no opportunity to learn what is needed for salvation?

Edward, deacon and sinner

Faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love. Wrong faith will be forgiven. Lack of love will not. Even the demons believe Jesus is Lord. Many will say Lord when did we see you hungry or thirsty or away from home or naked or ill or in prison? Those who saw Christ in their neighbor and cared for him will be called to his right. Those who neglected their neighbor, neglected Christ, and will be sent to eternal fire.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are those who can dig through the Fathers for every mintue quote that supports their view and miss completely the words of Christ in the Gospel. Christ never said anyone was going to hell for not believing he had two natures or two wills, etc. He did say those who do not love are going to hell. He did say love God and neighbor.

I think Christ's words from last Sunday's Gospel (Sunday of the Man Born Blind for those on the New Calendar) say it all.
"If you were blind there would be no sin in that, 'But we see,'you say, and your sin remains."

Don't spend too much time looking for Christ within, or you will find you failed to see Him in your neighbor standing next to you.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

thank you lance, (forgive me, im ashamed i do not know how to address a deacon candidate properly)
i've had questions in my mind that you've telepathically answered
May we learn from the actions of those as St. John of God who rushed to do good for his neighbor impulsively, perhaps foolishly without regard for himself, but out of complete love
(i like that guy)

Pray for this sinner

Kim

Brother Lance has hit the nail on the head even more succinctly than I ever could.

It is how one lives one's life that is critical. Using quotes from this or that "Father of the Church" outside of context is not a legitimate way of defending the faith. Why? Because there are all sorts of individual "lines/statements" that can be seen in contradiction to each other. The writings of the Fathers do not constitute an organic whole, i.e., totally and completely consistent. They are not a "summa theologica". The real touchstone is adherence to the Gospel.

We must be subject to 'metanoia', the 'conversion' of our wills to conformity to the love mandate of the Father as taught by Christ. Everything else is just theater: it looks good and real, but is not the reality of our souls.

Christ is Risen!!

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

I agree with EVERYTHING that was stated by Deacon Edward, Deacon Candidate Lance, Kim, and Dr. John.

In the Divine Liturgy (Anaphora of the Apostles) it makes clear that for Jesus “his nature is un-searchable.” I was not trying to contend with anything on the nature of our Lord.

My question remains however. Where do we draw the line between a hyper-relativistic viewpoint and Christian consistency?

I would appreciate your input.

God Bless You All

Aklie Semaet

I appreciate everyone's patience with me, I realize I am not the most popular vocalist here.

I would like to add one last comment.

In the quest for the answers to the questions asked here, there is only one solution for the Orthodox Christian. It is in fact much like the meaning of Holy Scripture.

Orthodox Christians do not come up with there own ideas, they look to Holy Tradition for the answers. And in the case of "how important is truth" - I think the above quotes I cited answer nicely and clearly.

Never have the Fathers of the Holy Church think it was acceptable to teach un-truths. They always thought very negatively and these question were answered centuries ago.

It was said by FrDeaconEd that these were just my opinions, but I do not believe they were mine at all. But I have seen allot of opinions.

And lastly, FrDeaconEd asked: "I guess the bottom line question is this: Does God condemn where there is no opportunity to learn what is needed for salvation?"

God does not condemn, we condemn ourselves by ignorance and self-deception, much like a addict stuck in a crack house. For those that REALLY never had the opportunity to learn Orthodoxy, well, we can pray for them but we don't need to worry about them or redefine everything to give them a theological escape route - they are in the most capable of hands.

I simply follow the teachings of the Church from all centuries past and would suggest anyone wishing to forward an opinion backs it up with the Holy Fathers.

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear Friends,

Fr. Deacon Ed talked about Grace in the individual, and I'm sure he also meant the relationship between the individual and his or her context.

There are millions of people now and in the past who have never heard of Jesus or His Church and who followed and follow all manner of religions.

St Peter confronted this when when he had his vision about being presented with food brought down from Heaven.

The food was unclean and Peter refused to eat it, saying he never ate food that was against the Mosaic proscriptions.

He was then told not to call "profane" what God had consecrated.

Yes, this had to do with bringing the Gentiles into the Church, but later Peter said he perceived that God speaks to all peoples (via their culture).

It was Thomas Merton who included this insight into his view of what Christian mission is.

It is not bringing Christ to people who don't know Him.

In fact, Christ is already present among them.

Christian Mission is pointing out more clearly to people Him Whom they already experience in their midst.

Were it not for far-reaching visionary faith like this as demonstrated by such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius, where would we Slavs be today?

Alex