At What Point Do You Think You Are Truly Saved?

[Saint Steven]

Says who? Like I said how many people supported Rome’s claim to papal supremacy? ZERO PEOPLE that’s how many. The bishop of Rome was completely alone in his claim. ALL of the other patriarchates rejected his claim and adopted the name Orthodox. Now between these two groups who’ve split, which one exhibited Christ’s teachings? Rome or the Eastern Orthodox Church? Here’s a hint the Eastern Orthodox Church didn’t go around forcing people to convert by arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and executing nonbelievers for 686 years. Perhaps you’d like to share some skeletons in the Orthodox closet? I looked, I can’t find any. So please be my guest.

Right. They don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Right. They don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

Most historians don't call it the dark ages. Or rather, the term is considered inaccurate and outdated.

The concept of a "dark ages" in historical studies involves a period about which not much is known, the period is considered "dark" because we don't have information about the period to know what was happening. The term was originally coined during the Renaissance to describe the period of western European history preceding it, because contemporary scholars of the time didn't know much about the period. Modern historians, however, are very familiar with what is now known as the Early Middle Ages (approximately 500-1000 AD).

The idea of "the dark ages" being a period of low civilization, barbarity, scientific regression, and being spiritually "dark" is a common and persistent popular misunderstanding that has more to do with early modern prejudices attached with the European Enlightenment Era. In the 18th and 19th centuries (and into the early 20th century) Western Europeans developed ideas based upon the notion of history as a linear progression, thus the modern Western European (including American, Australian, et al) was at the climax of history thus far. These biases and prejudices were built on the assumption that ancient people were less intelligent, less civilized, and ergo non-European societies were likewise less civilized, and therefore savage and barbaric. These were the cultural doctrines that justified European colonial hegemony, that the indigenous "savages" needed the white man to "civilize" them, and thus European dominance was viewed as a paternalistic care-taking of "lesser" peoples. It was precisely this environment that gave way to racist ideologies, pseudo-scientific nonsense. These ideas were persistent right up until World War II, as it's been said the Enlightenment died at Auschwitz.

However, in the popular consciousness, a lot of old ideas still get passed around as a kind of "common knowledge". Sort of like the "common knowledge" that everyone in the middle ages believed the earth was flat, and that Columbus set out to prove the earth was round. Or the "common knowledge" that Christians took pagan feasts and turned them into Christmas and Easter. Or the "common knowledge" that Jesus is actually a pastiche of various pagan gods and folklore figures.

But "the dark ages" weren't dark. The Early Middle Ages is a fascinating period, it was certainly a period of massive political and cultural change, due to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West in the midst of (and caused by events during) the Migration Period; thus in the power vacuum left in Western Europe was subsequently filled by coalitions of Germanic tribes such as the Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, and Anglo-Saxons. It is also in this period that the rise and spread of Islam resulted in massive power shifts in the Eastern Roman Empire and North Africa. There was less political stability, for quite some time, but history didn't come to a crashing halt, mathematical, philosophical, scientific work continued.

Indeed, most of what the Protestant Reformers would come to argue against had nothing to do with this period, but actually much more to do with much more recent things--in the Renaissance period. The Reformation didn't happen in an historical vacuum either, it was a period of many voices in the Western Church calling for change and reform. In a period just following the Western Schism and the Conciliarist Controversies.

The truth is we shouldn't be referring to any part of the Middle Ages as "the dark ages" because it's inaccurate.

There are historical dark ages, such as the Greek Dark Ages, but the Early Middle Ages certainly aren't one of them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What was "all scripture" at the time that was written?

Not sure, canon lists didn't start until after the council of Nicea.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

What is the process you see for one to be born again? Its a fair question because you included yourself within a particular moment as being born again.

In Acts 2:37 on the day of Pentecost with the crowd shouting "Men and brethren, what shall we do". Peter responded in verse 38 with "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Many responded, as required. As we see in verse 41 that 3000 were added to the church. Interesting that Peter implored the crowd to "Save yourselves" in verse 40. Do you think that the ones responding in Acts 2 were saved before they acted?

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

​

My personal testimony below.

Galatians 5:19-26
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

I once lived continually in the acts of the flesh, could not escape them no matter how much I tried. God saved me in 1980 as I pleaded with Him to forgive me for all my horrible sins and the way I treated others. I was a hater, one who used and abused drugs, a fornicator, abusive speech, behavior, fits of rage getting into fights all the time. I didn't like school/college and hated to read. I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with God and in fact was internationally running from Him. My mother was a believer as was my future mother in law. They would preach at me but I had no interest.

That evening I was born again by Gods Spirit. I knew something happened to me as I desired to seek God through His word. I couldn't put the bible down. I started going to church to learn about Jesus with my future mother in law. I no longer hated people but felt shame for all the harm I had caused to others. My hate was replaced with love for others, I quit drinking and drugs immediately. I was experiencing the fruit of the spirit in my life. For the first time I had real peace, joy and self control as I sought Jesus and learned about the Christian life. I was discipled one on one with the Pastor and joined a small group bible study. That has not changed for me since 1980. I read and study His word daily and have continued to witness to others and have led many people to the Lord through witnessing how God had changed my life through the miracle of the new birth. God had changed my life completely and I had done a 180* turn around in the opposite direction.

God promises Eternal Life as per 1 John 5:11-13. I believed Gods word and His promises. My faith and security is in Him alone and when I do stumble or sin I'm immediately convicted of my sin and repent.


We had a big blow out and we were over, I had promised many times I would get my anger under control, drug and alcohol as well. I use to get drunk and look for fights with anyone and everyone. She had broken up with me a few times before but I always talked my way back and made promises I would be different this time. Well finally my anger got the best of me and the worst of her and I won't go into details but I physically abused her and I knew it was over and I had lost who I loved most in my life.

I knew about Jesus and there were always alter calls at those seminars I had gone to over the years but I never went forward because I did not want to be a hypocrite, I was not willing to give up my life and I knew that was a requirement.

So that evening in my bedroom I was a broken young man who not only ruined my life, but her life and her families, my families because they loved her and my mother and her mother had become friends.

I wept like never before , humbled myself before the Lord and pleaded with Him to forgive me of all the horrible things I had done to others over the years. I asked Him to come into my life and change me because I know I was a complete failure and did not have the power or the will to change my life. That night Jesus gave me a new heart, new desires and my hatred for others became love for them. I started reading my bible because I actually had the desire to know Jesus and be His disciple and serve Him the rest of my days. I no longer had the desire for alcohol or drugs. My only desire was to know Him and to obey Him.

From that day until now I have studied His word every day and have not stopped. I prayed for her salvation and I started to go to church with her mother who forgave me for the horrible thing I did to her daughter. I became friends with the pastor and he mentored me and we would take walks and run together a few times a week. I was a quick learner and was a student of Gods word. I became an active member at that church.

About a year later she called me out of the blue for she had been told by several mutual friends and family that I had really changed this time and I was a different person than she knew. So we started hanging out and I was witnessing to her and after a few months she gave her life to Christ and we started dating again. Fast forward we married in 85.

We have 4 adult children who all serve the Lord in ministry as missionaries, children’s director, associate and youth pastor and professional Christian musician on Klove.

God has truly blessed my family beyond what I could ever imagined. I've seen the Lord answer so many prayers over the past 40 plus years that I could write page after page of His faithfulness in our lives.

hope this helps !

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not sure, canon lists didn't start until after the council of Nicea.

There were several before Nicea, the Muratorian Fragment is usually dated as early as about 200 AD, we also have Origen as a pretty prolific writer providing us with insights to the early patristic period. So we do get some talk about the subject, but it becomes far more common (at least in extant writings) in the post-Nicene era.

At the time of the writing of 2 Timothy, it would have meant more-or-less what we call the Old Testament, but there did not exist at the time a fixed Jewish Canon. Hence the diversity of opinions among Jewish authorities into the 2nd and possibly even 3rd centuries. Some of that diversity is pretty obvious from simply the existence of the Septuagint--which is what more-or-less early Christians used.

Which is a good reason to not take what is written in 2 Timothy as providing or even inferring a fixed canon; but is rather a rule for pastoral guidance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BNR32FAN]

Is that an encouragement or a requirement?

If it is a requirement, how are such things measured?
Were you faithful enough? (who knows?)
Could you have been more faithful? (of course)
Were you faithful enough to be saved in the end? (who knows?)

Better to measure salvation by that which can be measured.
The FINISHED work of Christ on our behalf.

We can't undo, by an act of our own will, what only God can do it the first place.

He said if you stand firmly in the faith of the gospel not if you are faithful enough to God. Standing firmly in the faith of the gospel means your trusting in the gospel not that you are being faithful to God that’s a whole different situation. You either believe and trust the gospel or you don’t. There’s no believing and trusting the gospel a little bit or believing and trusting a lot. It’s an either or situation. You either believe all of it or you don’t. How can someone have a little faith in the gospel without failing to believe all of it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There were several before Nicea, the Muratorian Fragment is usually dated to sometime in the 3rd century, we also have Origen giving witness to what is and isn't canonical.

At the time of the writing of 2 Timothy, it would have meant more-or-less what we call the Old Testament, but there did not exist at the time a fixed Jewish Canon. Hence the diversity of opinions among Jewish authorities into the 2nd and possibly even 3rd centuries. Some of that diversity is pretty obvious from simply the existence of the Septuagint--which is what more-or-less early Christians used.

Which is a good reason to not take what is written in 2 Timothy as providing or even inferring a fixed canon; but is rather a rule for pastoral guidance.

-CryptoLutheran

The earliest fragments are usually from the third century.

However, the question was at the writing of the 2 Peter 3:16 what was the canon?

Since Paul's writings were considered scripture by Peter - the question was, since Peter did not list which epistles he was referring to, we cannot know what he meant by that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you hold a similar view on the Trinity? (another late arrival)
And what about all the trappings of the orthodox churches? Did we get that from the early church?

Actually, yes, the "trappings" of the historic churches have their roots in the apostolic period. Traditional liturgical practice is based upon the liturgical practices of Judaism, which the Apostles themselves would have been familiar with. The Liturgy is divided into two parts, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Altar. The Liturgy of the Word is basically the same thing that happened in the synagogue--Scripture readings, hymns, prayers, and instruction (a homily or sermon). The Liturgy of the Altar would have been, in part, shaped by the worship in the Temple and also was the distinctly Christian elements shaped by the early morning Sunday gatherings after the Sabbath. What we observe in the New Testament is often that many of the earliest Jewish Christians continued to gather at the synagogue on the Sabbath, but then on the first day of the week gathered together for the Eucharist. When Christians were basically kicked out of the synagogues, everything happened on the Sunday morning gathering.

So by the time of St. Justin in the mid 2nd century we get this,

"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 67

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BNR32FAN]

They condemned Pelagianism first, then Orange and Carthage, and all subsequent Reformed Creeds.

Your mistaken brother. The council of Orange took place in 529AD. The council of Carthage took place in 418AD. The council in Ephesus took place in 431AD. Carthage was first refuting Pelagianism, Ephesus was second but only addressed Nestorianism according to the canons and doesn’t address Pelagianism at all, and Orange was last refuting semi-Pelagianism. Here’s the canons of the council of Ephesus. I don’t see anything here pertaining to Pelagianism. Pelagian was merely mentioned as being a heretic along with Celestius but nothing of their heretical theology was addressed or even discussed.

CANON I
WHEREAS it is needful that they who were detained from the holy Synod and remained in their own district or city, for any reason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were thereby decreed; we, therefore, notify your holiness and charity that if any Metropolitan of a Province, forsaking the holy and Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly of the apostates, or shall join the same hereafter; or, if he has adopted, or shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines of Celestius, he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the province, since he is already cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion and made incapable of exercising his ministry; but he shall himself be subject in all things to those very bishops of the province and to the neighbouring orthodox metropolitans, and shah be degraded from his episcopal rank.

CANON II
IF any provincial bishops were not present at the holy Synod and have joined or attempted to join the apostacy; or if, after subscribing the deposition of Nestorius, they went back into the assembly of apostates; these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod, are to be deposed from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

CANON III
IF any of the city or country clergy have been inhibited by Nestorius or his followers from the exercise of the priesthood, on account of their orthodoxy, we have declared it just that these should be restored to their proper rank. And in general we forbid all the clergy who adhere to the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to the bishops who have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize.

CANON IV
IF any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed.

CANON V
IF any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod, or by their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination, Nestorius (or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafter attempt, uncanonically to restore such persons to communion and to their former rank, we have declared that they shall not be profited thereby, but shall remain deposed nevertheless.

CANON VI

LIKEWISE, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.

CANON VII

WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

CANON VIII
OUR brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclessiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The earliest fragments are usually from the third century.

However, the question was at the writing of the 2 Peter 3:16 what was the canon?

Since Paul's writings were considered scripture by Peter - the question was, since Peter did not list which epistles he was referring to, we cannot know what he meant by that.

Yes and not everything that was claimed to have been written by Peter or Paul were canonized. Paul’s “epistle to the Laodiceans“ was rejected as well as “Peter’s Preaching” and “The Apocalypse of Peter”.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Keep reading, Paul says he repented and all was well.

Where does he say that?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The earliest fragments are usually from the third century.

However, the question was at the writing of the 2 Peter 3:16 what was the canon?

Since Paul's writings were considered scripture by Peter - the question was, since Peter did not list which epistles he was referring to, we cannot know what he meant by that.

Peter said in ALL his letters/epistles and equates them with the sacred OT scriptures.

other scriptures—Paul's Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as "Scripture": a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings. Men in each Church having miraculous discernment of spirits would have prevented any uninspired writing from being put on a par with the Old Testament word of God; the apostles' lives also were providentially prolonged, Paul's and Peter's at least to thirty-four years after Christ's resurrection, John's to thirty years later, so that fraud in the canon is out of question. The three first Gospels and Acts are included in "the other Scriptures," and perhaps all the New Testament books, save John and Revelation, written later. JFB

hope this helps !!!

 

[Saint Steven]

Not sure, canon lists didn't start until after the council of Nicea.

Right.
That means it was a reference to the OT. Or even just the Torah, Psalms and the Prophets.

Saint Steven said: ↑
What was "all scripture" at the time that was written?

 

[Saint Steven]

He said if you stand firmly in the faith of the gospel not if you are faithful enough to God. Standing firmly in the faith of the gospel means your trusting in the gospel not that you are being faithful to God that’s a whole different situation. You either believe and trust the gospel or you don’t. There’s no believing and trusting the gospel a little bit or believing and trusting a lot. It’s an either or situation. You either believe all of it or you don’t. How can someone have a little faith in the gospel without failing to believe all of it?

Is there consensus on what the Gospel is?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes and not everything that was claimed to have been written by Peter or Paul were canonized. Paul’s “epistle to the Laodiceans“ was rejected as well as “Peter’s Preaching” and “The Apocalypse of Peter”.

Yeah, I recall reading those, would have given a totally different conclusion than the finalized canon.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Right.
That means it was a reference to the OT. Or even just the Torah, Psalms and the Prophets.

Saint Steven said: ↑
What was "all scripture" at the time that was written?

Well, since we're referring to Peter saying Paul's writings were scripture - it's debatable what was considered scripture. Even what old testament books and what versions of those books. Is it the long version of a psalm used in a particular liturgy or the 1758 version? and so on.

 

[Dave L]

Where does he say that?

The two severest cases of discipline in the apostolic church were the fearful punishment of Ananias and Sapphira by Peter for falsehood and hypocrisy in the church of Jerusalem in the days of her first love,2 and the excommunication of a member of the Corinthian congregation by Paul for adultery and incest.3 The latter case affords also an instance of restoration.4

4; “But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;” 2 Corinthians 2:5–10 (KJV 1900)


Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 1, p. 503). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Well, since we're referring to Peter saying Paul's writings were scripture - it's debatable what was considered scripture. Even what old testament books and what versions of those books. Is it the long version of a psalm used in a particular liturgy or the 1758 version? and so on.

Jesus often referred to the writings of Moses- the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets as Scripture.

 

[Dave L]

Your mistaken brother. The council of Orange took place in 529AD. The council of Carthage took place in 418AD. The council in Ephesus took place in 431AD. Carthage was first refuting Pelagianism, Ephesus was second but only addressed Nestorianism according to the canons and doesn’t address Pelagianism at all, and Orange was last refuting semi-Pelagianism. Here’s the canons of the council of Ephesus. I don’t see anything here pertaining to Pelagianism. Pelagian was merely mentioned as being a heretic along with Celestius but nothing of their heretical theology was addressed or even discussed.

CANON I
WHEREAS it is needful that they who were detained from the holy Synod and remained in their own district or city, for any reason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were thereby decreed; we, therefore, notify your holiness and charity that if any Metropolitan of a Province, forsaking the holy and Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly of the apostates, or shall join the same hereafter; or, if he has adopted, or shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines of Celestius, he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the province, since he is already cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion and made incapable of exercising his ministry; but he shall himself be subject in all things to those very bishops of the province and to the neighbouring orthodox metropolitans, and shah be degraded from his episcopal rank.

CANON II
IF any provincial bishops were not present at the holy Synod and have joined or attempted to join the apostacy; or if, after subscribing the deposition of Nestorius, they went back into the assembly of apostates; these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod, are to be deposed from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

CANON III
IF any of the city or country clergy have been inhibited by Nestorius or his followers from the exercise of the priesthood, on account of their orthodoxy, we have declared it just that these should be restored to their proper rank. And in general we forbid all the clergy who adhere to the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to the bishops who have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize.

CANON IV
IF any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed.

CANON V
IF any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod, or by their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination, Nestorius (or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafter attempt, uncanonically to restore such persons to communion and to their former rank, we have declared that they shall not be profited thereby, but shall remain deposed nevertheless.

CANON VI

LIKEWISE, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.

CANON VII

WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

CANON VIII
OUR brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclessiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

Nice work, I think I'll copy it. But Ephesus 431 condemned Pelagianism as heresy.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus often referred to the writings of Moses- the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets as Scripture.

He sure is.