Replies

FTD, God established the New Covenant for all the reasons given in Heb 8. People have ever-so-slowly accepted, with much doubt and wondering, what God was revealing to us, even to this day, going back-and-forth. But the Faith God delivered once has not changed. People's perceptions have.

God has used progressive revelation to unfold His Plan.

Thus, God hasn't changed, but His dealings with man has.

29. How did God prepare men to receive the Saviour? Through gradual revelations, by prophecies and types.

Well according the Catechism that I cited, they at least rejected the Apocrypha books because they were not in Hebrew It's not an official Orthodox Catechism. There is no such an entity. Maybe the Tsarist Russia issued something "official," but it certainly is no more Orthodox than a 17th century Calvinist Ecumenical Patriarch was. It's an aberration if it truly says what you claim it says. No Orthodox Church Rejects Apocrypha because it is part of the Orthodox Scriptures, even less so because they are not in Hebrew

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament? St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

Those are Greek Fathers that are being cited, not Latin ones.

III. THE LONGER CATECHISM OF THE ORTHODOX, CATHOLIC, EASTERN CHURCH. Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.) [The large Russian Catechism of Philaret, approved by the holy Synod (although omitted by Kimmel in his Collection, and barely mentioned by Gass in his Greek Symbolics), is now the most authoritative doctrinal standard of the orthodox Græco-Russian Church, and has practically superseded the older Catechism, or Orthodox Confession of Mogila. Originally composed in Slavono-Russian, it was by authority translated into several languages. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.html

We may divide them into three classes:

I. Primary Confessions of public authority:

(a) The 'Orthodox Confession,' or Catechism of Peter Mogilas, 1643, indorsed by the Eastern Patriarchs and the Synod of Jerusalem.

(b) The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Dositheus, 1672.

To the latter may be added the similar but less important decisions of the Synods of Constantinople, 1672 (Responsio Dionysii), and 1691 (on the Eucharist).

(c) The Russian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret (Metropolitan of Moscow), published by the synodical press, and generally used in Russia since 1839.

(d) The Answers of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to certain Lutheran divines, in condemnation of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, 1576 (published at Wittenberg, 1584), were sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem, but are devoid of clearness and point, and therefore of little use.

His longer Catechism (called a full catechism) is, upon the whole, the ablest and clearest summary of Eastern orthodoxy, and shows a disposition to support every doctrine by direct Scripture testimony. It follows the plan and division of the Orthodox Confession of Mogilas, and conforms to its general type of teaching, but it is more clear, simple, evangelical, and much better adapted for practical use. In a number of introductory questions it discusses the meaning of a catechism, the nature and necessity of right faith and good works, divine revelation, the holy tradition and Holy Scripture (as the two channels of the divine revelation and the joint rule of faith and discipline), the Canon of the Scriptures (exclusive of the Apocrypha, because 'not written in Hebrew'), with some account of the several books of the Old and New Testaments, and the composition of the Catechism.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.ix.html

Maybe it is you who needs to do some homework.

Now, I am not saying that the Orthodox Church believes that today, but it was taught as dogma by your own theologians, so it is not a 'Protestant bias'.

You are using exceptions as the rule. Pat. Philaret is an exception, the way Pat. Cyril Lucas of Alexandria was (he actually ambraced Calvinism).

Using three Fathers as the "rule" (Cyril, John Damascene, etc) is ignorant because the Orthodox Church functions on consensus patrum, and not on individual teachings. The Orthodox Church, as a WHOLE, never, ever, said or wrote what Philaret wrote about the OT canon, nor did the Orthodox Church as a whole accept only 22 books of the OT, rejecting Apocryphal books. His teaching on this is profoundly Protestant and un-Orthodox.

You are reading these aberrations out of context and with a mindset that is alien to Orthodoxy, the way a Russian may form opinions about America without ever having been in America or knowing the American mindset.

I also know that you have copied Philaret's staments in your previous posts as your arguments without referencing them (regarding OT and NT).

In another one of his works, he states "The only pure and all-sufficient source of the doctrines of the faith is the revealed word of God" [(Ware), Praying With the Orthodox Tradition. SVS Press, 1996, xi.] which is in stark contrast to the fundamental Orthodox/Catholic unbroken teaching on the Holy Tradition (Bible, Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils) as being the source.

Your claims, out of context, are as if someone were to try to 'prove' that Armenianism is the only true form of Reformed theology.