Heretics and Heresy

[Anti-Fear]

Who knows, maybe they did throw out good things from the Bible that should have been there? How can you know?
Even if they did assemble the Bible the Bible is words of the apostles, the other things aren't words of the apostles.

That's strange, they are credible when they assemble the Books of the Holy Scripture into a Bible, and toss out heretical writings that were in current use by various Churchs, defeated numerous heresies and codified doctrine that is held by all orthodox believers today, yet on other matters they are not credible. Sounds like picking and choosing what you want to believe.

 

[Lotar]

In fact no saint was perfect and most turned away from heretical teachings before their repose in Christ, and returned to the Orthodox Church.

St. Augustine was a "western Saint" a saint of Roman order but also a saint in the eyes of the Orthodox Church.

It seems that the only reason you recognize him is that he was declared so well before 1054. You would become a famous historian indeed if you could prove that he ever changed his teachings that you now call heretical. These teachings are infact the reason he is so revered and called a saint.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspx

Pope Vigilius [†555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among "...our Fathers," of the "blessed Augustine" for his willingness to retract and correct various among his "writings" and "sayings" ("Decretal Letter," The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).

The whole article and attached articles are very enlightening

Forgive me....

 

[Oblio]

Who knows, maybe they did throw out good things from the Bible that should have been there? How can you know?

How can I know ?? Christ left us a Church, not a Bible. If you do not trust the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, how can you trust the Bible she canonized ? Who threw out books from the Bible to produce the abridged Protestant Bible ? Under who's authority ? And why is his Tradition not of man ??

Even if they did assemble the Bible the Bible is words of the apostles, the other things aren't words of the apostles.

So the Bible is simply the written words of the Apostles ? Why are the OT books kept ? Which ones ? Why do you not keep all the books of the OT including the ones that Christ and His Apostles considered Scripture ? Please provide Biblical evidence of your assertions !

 

[Lotar]

From http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspx

Pope Vigilius [†555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among "...our Fathers," of the "blessed Augustine" for his willingness to retract and correct various among his "writings" and "sayings" ("Decretal Letter," The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV).

The whole article and attached articles are very enlightening

Forgive me....

He did make many retractions, but, what you declare heretical, he did not. For more information, you can easily just read what Augustine wrote, retractions and all.

All I see is a persistant need within EO to preserve your pelagianistic views of work-righteousness.

 

[Kripost]

And what credibility does that council have? Why should anyone believe that those men in that council had the right idea?

They have the same authority as the men who met in Jerusalem in the 1st century to discuss about circumcision, and agreed not to impose it on the Gentiles.

 

[Oblio]

He did make many retractions, but, what you declare heretical, he did not. For more information, you can easily just read what Augustine wrote, retractions and all.

All I see is a persistant need within EO to preserve your pelagianistic views of work-righteousness.

A Saint does not have to have 100% flawless theology to be considered a Saint.

I think you misunderstand the EO view of salvation, but then again you are Lutheran so I would suspect that, if you really understood it, you would be Orthodox not Lutheran

 

[Anti-Fear]

Yes, but somehow it was decided that the writings that our Bible does include ARE spirit inspired, while various other writings are not spirit inspired.

How can I know ?? Christ left us a Church, not a Bible. If you do not trust the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, how can you trust the Bible she canonized ? Who threw out books from the Bible to produce the abridged Protestant Bible ? Under who's authority ? And why is his Tradition not of man ??



So the Bible is simply the written words of the Apostles ? Why are the OT books kept ? Which ones ? Why do you not keep all the books of the OT including the ones that Christ and His Apostles considered Scripture ? Please provide Biblical evidence of your assertions !

 

[Oblio]

Yes, but somehow it was decided that the writings that our Bible does include ARE spirit inspired, while various other writings are not spirit inspired.

Somehow ??

Who, when and how ?

With Scripture references please

 

[Lotar]

A Saint does not have to have 100% flawless theology to be considered a Saint.

Of course not, otherwise we would not have a single saint on the Church calender, but neither can one be a heretic.

I think you misunderstand the EO view of salvation, but then again you are Lutheran so I would suspect that, if you really understood it, you would be Orthodox not Lutheran

Oh, I understand it quite well, or at least 4 or 5 of the hundered different versions.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Without tradition, and without the Church, the Bible is just another book. How do we know any of it is inspired? Because the Bible says that all scripture is the inspired of God? Well then who determines what IS and IS NOT scripture? Did the people who first read Paul's letters think that they held scripture in their hand? Or did the Church later decide that they were inspired? The Bible didn't just fall out of heaven in one piece. It had to be assembled by......wait for it......the Church! If you don't hold tradition, how do you know which canon contains ALL of God's word? How do you know the deuterocanon isn't inspired? Because some guys in the 1500's suddenly decided it's not? So many people are claiming that our traditions are unbiblical. They are only unbiblical because the books that supported the practices were taken out during the so-called Reformation. You would trust a man who said of the book of James that we should "throw Jimmy into the stove" because it was written by "some Jew?" The man who said that reason is a "damned harlot?" Who said that we are "at fault for not slaying them" about the Jews? You would trust the judgement of such a man as to what is and is not inspired? I will frankly place my faith in the authority of the Church to decide such things.

 

[Anti-Fear]

Bible is the word of God isn't it?
Those by whom the Bible was written communicated with God.
Old testament was written by those to whom God spoke.
New Testament was written by apostles who met Jesus personally and heard him speak.

Whatever other things added can never trusted with as much certainty as things in the Bible itself.

Somehow ??

Who, when and how ?

With Scripture references please

 

[InnerPhyre]

Bible is the word of God isn't it?
Those by whom the Bible was written communicated with God.
Old testament was written by those to whom God spoke.
New Testament was written by apostles who met Jesus personally and heard him speak.

Whatever other things added can never trusted with as much certainty as things in the Bible itself.

So who is to say that the books that were taken out 500 years ago weren't inspired? Under what authority?

 

[Anti-Fear]

I have no way to know if those books were or were not inspired, but I can say that if they were written long after Jesus death by someone who haven't seen Jesus they may likely be not inspired.

So who is to say that the books that were taken out 500 years ago weren't inspired? Under what authority?

 

[InnerPhyre]

From the book of Wisdom (removed from the Bible)....shall we decide if maybe this is inspired....since it was written long before Jesus was born? It's from the Old Testament. Let's have a look:

" 'Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for our transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us, he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whther his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the Son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.' These were their thoughts, but they erred, for their wickedness blinded them, and they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent soul's reward."

Well golly....now I'm no expert, but that just about sounds like a prophecy to me....


*edit to add* That's Wisdom 2: 12-22 by the way

 

[Anti-Fear]

Why are you asking me? As I said I have no way to know whether some removed books were inspired or not. Its possible mistakes were made by the church leadership when this was done.
If something sounds credible and makes sense to you doesnt necessarily mean it was spirit inspired or is true word of God. Once again some of the council writigs may have been truly from God, others may not have been.
I mean, anyone can sit now and come up with many ways how Christians should behave so that it "makes sense", will that mean that its the word of God? I dont think so.

From the book of Wisdom (removed from the Bible)....shall we decide if maybe this is inspired....since it was written long before Jesus was born? It's from the Old Testament. Let's have a look:

" 'Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for our transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us, he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whther his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the Son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.' These were their thoughts, but they erred, for their wickedness blinded them, and they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent soul's reward."

Well golly....now I'm no expert, but that just about sounds like a prophecy to me....


*edit to add* That's Wisdom 2: 12-22 by the way

 

[InnerPhyre]

So what you just read....written before Jesus was born.....doesn't sound inspired to you? Did the author just have a really lucky guess?

 

[Anti-Fear]

How can I, or you, or anyone else, be the judge of whether it is inspired or not? For some reason some people cedided that it wasn't inspired. How do you know for sure? Once again, anyone can write something that will make perfect sense, and it doesn't make it inspired.
How much and what kind of sense does it have to make to be considered inspired?
With the old testament it might sometimes be harder to verify than the new because the new testament has different people describing the same event and the individuals involved.

So what you just read....written before Jesus was born.....doesn't sound inspired to you? Did the author just have a really lucky guess?

 

[InnerPhyre]

How can I, or you, or anyone else, be the judge of whether it is inspired or not? For some reason some people cedided that it wasn't inspired. How do you know for sure? Once again, anyone can write something that will make perfect sense, and it doesn't make it inspired.
How much and what kind of sense does it have to make to be considered inspired?
With the old testament it might sometimes be harder to verify than the new because the new testament has different people describing the same event and the individuals involved.

That's my point....you....I....Martin Luther....can't judge it. These books were in the original canon though, and were used for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That's good enough for me.

 

[Anti-Fear]

Well I understand that they were books and that many people like them, but it doesnt make the practices they advocate right practices.

Martin Luther for example didn't advocate practices as much as philosophy, and he could support some of it through the Bible.

That's my point....you....I....Martin Luther....can't judge it. These books were in the original canon though, and were used for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That's good enough for me.