Replies

you guys now have a major Catechism with the truth in it so you are 'without excuse'(Rom.1) That catechism is not Lucas's but Philaret's. You are mixing apples and oranges. No Orthodox follows that 19th c. Catechism, at least not as far as Philaret's assertion concerning OT canon is concerned. Like Cyril Lucas, and numerous heresies before him, it was short-lived.

I know what the Orthodox follows, but once again, you have access to a major catechism that states the truth and leads you to the scriptures.

I expect to see Cyril at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom.14:10) which is for saved people. I expect many from the Orthodox faith who read and believed what he taught in his Catechism will be there as well So being saved is now tied to a paritcular Protestant sect (Calvinism), or (Pharisaical version of the) Jewish canon? And here I go thinking all along that Protestants tie being saved with just plain faith in Christ, theology notwithstanding!

And that is what I am tying it to since that is what the catechism expresses.

The Calvinist view of election is not relevant to the issue of being saved by faith alone.

As for the Canon, that is the same one that the Greek Church Father Athanasius was supporting, rejecting the Apocrypha books as part of the sacred Canon.

I wish you guys would make up your minds. Or does it change with the days of the week and the medications taken

The only thing that changes are your excuses for rejecting the truth.

But I think that you have just about run out of them.

Your final appeal is only that the Orthodox church doesn't believe it.

I am sure Christ will find that a very convincing argument at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev.20)

As for the Canon, that is the same one that the Greek Church Father Athanasius was supporting, rejecting the Apocrypha books as part of the sacred Canon

Well, in the strictest sense, he is not a "Greek" but a western Father (Alexandrian), but I will agree that he had many things in common with the 16th century Protestants.

His remains celebrated in the Church both east and west, solely because of his stance an Arianism. The Church is willing to shove all his other "Protestant" characteristics aside -- instigating riots, and forcefeeding his views to the peope.

He was certainly "Protestant" in insisting that what matters is not theology (yet he was the one who used force and every other means to shove his down everyone throat) but salvation.

More importantly, his view of the OT is not what the Church as a whole accepted, although his canon is what the Church pretty much finalized as catholic (universal).

That's important, because the Church operates on the basis of the consensus and not individual truisms, as is the case among Protestants.