The Confession of Dositheus Remains Authoritative

I was engaging with Orthodox believers on Twitter about the Confession of Dositheus and its prohibition on reading the Bible when someone claimed that parts of the Confession had actually been repudiated by various synods. 

https://twitter.com/JYLewis3/status/1733632063470018592

Parts of it were repudiated in later synods doesn't mean we throw everything out. It was too westernized in language. Fr. Trenham is great. He is not authoritative.

I asked him which synods repudiated parts of the Confession of Dositheus and was promptly blocked. That is par for the course for Orthobros. He also commented that the Confession of Dositheus is not "completely authoritative."

https://twitter.com/JYLewis3/status/1733625463866847372

Also per Trisgonfilms if you email them they will break it down. It isn't even completely authoritative. We don't blindly read councils and confessions etc. Outside the interpretative lens of the church.

Blindly reading scripture without spiritual guidance can be unadvisable

The fact is he is wrong. The Confession of Dositheus is both authoritative and normative. There have been no synods which have repudiated a single word of the confession. This is attested to by Michael Pomazansky in his book Orthodox Dogmatics.

The interpretations of the Symbol of Faith, or the "Symbolic Guides" (from the Greek symballo, meaning "to unite;" symbolon, a uniting or conditional sign) of the Orthodox Faith, in the common meaning of this term, are those expositions of Christian faith which are given in the Book of Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Local and Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers. The theology of the Russian Church also makes use, as symbolical books, of those two expositions of the Faith which in more recent times were evoked by the need to present the Orthodox Christian teaching against the teaching of the unorthodox confessions of the second millennium. These books are: The Confession of the Orthodox Faith compiled by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheus, which was read and approved at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and, fifty years later, in answer to the inquiry received from the Anglican Church, was sent to that church in the name of all the Eastern Patriarchs and is therefore more widely known under the name of "The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith." 

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm

Here he notes that the Confession is a symbolical book which presents an Orthodox exposition of the faith against unorthodox confessions. 

In a catechism published in 2006 His Eminence Panteleimon Lampadario notes that the Confession of Dositheus embodies Apostolic Tradition.  

Question 15: What sources embodied Apostolic Tradition?

Answer: The oral and living Teachings of the Holy Apostles that were passed down by word of mouth, began to differentiate from Holy Scripture during the second century. This comprised the Apostolic Tradition that was recorded and embodied within:

(a) The official interpretations of Scripture.
(b) The Symbols or Confessions of Faith. The interpretations of the Symbol of Faith of the Orthodox Church, in the common meaning of this term, are those expositions of the Christian Faith which are given in the:

1 - Books of Canons of the Holy Apostles.
2 - The Holy Local and Ecumenical Councils.
3 - The Holy Fathers.
4 - The Confession of the Orthodox Faith, compiled by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672.
5 - The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, compiled by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1732.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJAhPmagwm2jji1x86Es3fRCuvg3Ctzm/view?pli=1

Along with Pomazansky His Eminence Panteleimon Lampadario also calls the Confession of Dositheus an exposition of the Christian Faith. 

Likewise, Bishop Kallistos Ware lists the confession amongst the Chief Orthodox Doctrinal Statements. 

While the doctrinal decisions of general councils are infallible, those of a local council or an individual bishop are always liable to error; but if such decisions are accepted by the rest of the Church, then they come to acquire Ecumenical authority (i.e. a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumenical Council). The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in their entirety; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of local councils: in the case of the seventeenth-century councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected.

The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1. The Encyclical Letter of St Photius (867).

2. The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054).

3. The decisions of the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy. The Encyclical Letter of St Mark of Ephesus (1440 – 1).

4. The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455 – 6).

5. The Replies of Jeremias II to the Lutherans (1573 – 81).

6. The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625).

7. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642).

8. The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672).

9. The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718,1723).

10. The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX (1848).

11. The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII (1895).

  12.The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on  the ‘Ecumenical Movement' (1920, 1952).

The Orthodox Church, pg. 197.

Note that Ware writes "in the case of the seventeenth-century councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected." That would include the Confession of Dositheus but he does not indicate anywhere in his book that any section of that confession has been set aside or corrected.

If the Confession of Dositheus is a faithful exposition of Orthodoxy how could any of it be repudiated? By default it would have to be accepted by everyone. To repudiate it means the Council of Jerusalem which ratified it gave their approval to a document which does not accurately convey Orthodox beliefs. 

Benjamin Langlois is Wrong About St. Basil's Remarks on Tradition

David Patrick Harry, known as Church of the Eternal Logos, recently had a guest on his show named Benjamin Langlois, also known as Orthodox Luigi, to talk about Orthodoxy. The conversation compared Catholicism and Protestantism to Orthodoxy which led Benjamin to say something interesting. 

Finding God in the West: Leaving Catholicism with Michael Moeller and Special Guest!

1:26:30 It's like in my debate with Redeemed Zoomer right when he would quote St Irenaeus or St Athanathius or whoever. It's like all I have to do is go to this other quote, right, where they obviously, like, he tried to quote St Basil right and I'm so glad he did because I had that quote that explicitly says that there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture.

What's interesting about this is that it's not true. St. Basil does write about tradition but never says "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in Scripture." Here is the full quote from St. Basil's work On the Holy Spirit.

66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm

Basil says if we reject the customs handed down to us "we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals." He then explains himself by saying "or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." St. Basil is not saying "there are things that are part of the Gospel that aren't in scripture." These traditions and customs are not part of the Gospel they are part of public worship.

These traditions include making the sign of the cross, facing East while praying, the words of invocation over the Eucharist, words of blessing for oil and baptismal water, and triple immersion. None of those things is part of the Gospel. They are expression of worship. 

Paul defined the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Notice how Paul says the Gospel is written in the Scriptures. He does not appeal to "silent and mystical tradition" to define the Gospel but to the Scriptures. Jesus does the same thing in Luke 24.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The Gospel, ALL of the Gospel, is contained in the Scriptures.

What is interesting about Benjamin's comment is that it says a lot about him. He converted to Orthodoxy from Protestantism and posted the following comments on Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/christ_in_the_culture/p/C2nzGkJP2CP/?img_index=8

When Jesus Christ ascended unto heaven, He didn't leave a Bible, He left a Church.

What about the Scriptures? The Scriptures themselves were given to us through the Church. For the first several hundred years of Church History, there was no closed canon of Scripture. Scripture, which is the ultimate form of Apostolic Tradition, was preserved in the Church.  

Both of those statements are misleading and wrong. Jesus Christ certainly did leave a Bible when he ascended. In fact when he was born the Bible already existed. It is He who inspired it's words and it is He who is its subject. The entirety of the Old Testament proclaims Jesus Christ as He Himself proved in Luke 24 when "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

The second comment is a non sequitur. There was no closed canon of scripture therefore...what? Sola Scriptura is wrong? That is the implication yet that is certainly not the reality. Sola Scriptura: 

affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice

https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas

Echoing that sentiment Irenaeus, writing in the second century, says the Scriptures are the "ground and pillar of our faith."

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.  

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1 

Likewise Ben's claim that there was no closed canon of Scripture for several hundred years means nothing. He should read Lee McDonald's "The Biblical Canon." In this book are various canonical lists which do not all agree. McDonald on pages 216 and 217 writes the following:

There is little doubt that the core of the biblical collection of authoritative books is essentially the same collection that we no have int he Protestant OT collection. What is in question in canonical studies are book on the fringe. These fringe books included both canonical and apocryphal books, were disputed among Jews and Christians for centuries, even though many leaders in the church and synagogue freely quoted these writings in an authoritative manner, sometimes even using the designations Scripture or as it is written to refer to them. Remarkably, these disputes took place for centuries after decisions were supposedly made about its canonicity. Yet in neither group - those who accepted and those who rejected the authority of this literature - was there any noticeable change in theology.

“The decision whether to accept or reject the deuterocanonical literature is not at the core of what Christianity is all about. As the Law of Moses formed the core of the OT, so also the Gospels and Paul have been at the heart of the NT biblical canon since the second century, even though there was a great deal of dispute over the deutero-Pauline epistles (especially the Pastorals), Hebrews, the Catholic (or General) Epistles, and Revelation. The Jews and later the Christians fully accepted the Law of Moses as the core of their sacred Scriptures. Soon thereafter, most if not all of the traditional Prophets and many of the Writings were accepted as canonical, but at a secondary level of scriptural authority among the Jews. Not everyone agreed on the contents of the Writings, especially not before the time of Jesus, but the division of opinion was not over the core, but over the fringe.”

The issue, writes McDonald, is fringe books and not the core. There has always been a core of canonical scripture for both Christians and Jews. At first the Christians adopted the Septuagint. Later they held the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be central to their doctrines. The very fact that there are lists at all indicates that Scripture was being appealed to as an authoritative source of doctrine.

Contrary to Protestants and even Catholics the Orthodox actually forbid the laity from reading the Scriptures. This prohibition is found in The Confession of Dositheus. 

Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians? 

No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, tt is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Benjamin is simply wrong about the Scriptures and about St. Basil. 

Towards the end of the video David Patrick Harry says:

2:48:26 So, this is something I, I've done with one-on-ones, with young guys who, you know, go down the Ortho rabbit hole. They know all the theology, Church history, and I'm like well, ok, what parish do you go to? Oh, I haven't gone to a Church yet. It's like, why you tell, you're telling me you're Orthodox, what are you talking about? This isn't a belief system. This isn't an ideology this is a lived experience and so it's like, bro, that I'm really happy you've read all these books, um, but, go to a damn parish dude. Like, what are you doing?

Now, David did not mean to call the Orthodox Church damned but how is any Church which denies the right of the laity to read the Scriptures not damned? 

Father Stephen De Young Does not Know What Was in the Ark of the Covenant

What was in the Ark of the Covenant? Easy question answered by the Bible. 

and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, WHEREIN WAS the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant

It can't get any clearer that the pot of manna, Aaron's rod, and the tables of the covenant were inside the ark. All three of those items follow the words WHERE IN WAS which means that's where they were. Father Stephen De Young says this is an urban legend. 

Verse 4, “which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which,” that in which is… Okay, so I’m going to pause a second. Pet peeve urban legend. The pot with the manna and Aaron’s rod that budded were not in the ark. People think they were in the ark. They’re not in the ark, if you read carefully. They were put into the Holy of Holies along with the ark, whereas the The Tablets of the Torah were  inside the ark. But those are the things that were back in there in the holy of Holies.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/wholecounsel/hebrews_91_28/

This is wrong. The description of the contents of the Holy of Holies are the golden censer and the ark. Then the contents of the ark are described which include the pot of manna, Aaron's rod, and the stone tablets.  Even the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible say that.

9:4 The ark of the covenant contained the relics, as it were, of Israel: the pot of manna, Aaron's rod, and the tablets of the Law.

Are the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible perpetuating an urban legend? Is that what Father Stephen de Young, who is Orthodox, is willing to say? Of course they are not. Father de Young is misreading the scriptures which are grammatically clear.

But there is more.

When discussing the actions of the priest inside the Holy of Holies, the offering up of blood as an atonement, Father de Young denies he is offering it at all. He is merely smearing it on various objects. 

Verse seven, “But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.” So noone could go in there except that one day, and then they tied a rope to him in case he dropped dead and all that. But also, he had to, when you read the day of atonement ritual, he had to go in and set up this huge cloud of incense, because that was the day on which Yahweh the god of Israel would appear in the holy place. And if he saw him, he would die, so he had to set up this huge cloud of incense so he wouldn’t see him.

And he had to come in with the blood that he had to smear everywhere to cleanse and purify everything. Now remember, we’ve been taught to think “blood for the blood god,” he comes in and he offers the blood — God is drinking the blood or something — which is not it at all. What did he do with the blood on the day of atonement? He went in and he smeared it on the physical objects, on the furniture, on all these things that were these golden things that were just named, to purify them from the residue of the sins of the people.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/wholecounsel/hebrews_91_28/

Father de Young reads verse seven which says the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to offer blood. Then Father de young says he didn't really offer blood at all. Instead he smeared it on the objects inside the Holy of Holies to purify those objects "from the residue of the sins of the people." Objects need to be purified from the sins of the people? No. The blood is offered for the people's sins.

The blood is also not smeared everywhere but is sprinkled on the mercy seat. Of course Father de Young mocks the idea of the mercy seat.

But comment on that mercy seat: our friends the King James translators invented that whole idea, I’m guessing because their misread of the idea— So God wasn’t enthroned on the ark. The ark was the footstool of his throne. But they’re trying to translate kefir verbs in Hebrew, hilastērion in Greek, which is the word that we translate as atonement. And they come up with mercy seat for the top of the ark. So here’s the thing: kefir verbs literally mean— like Yom Kippur, the Kippur in Yom Kippur, Yom is day, Kippur is atonement— but the root meaning of those verbs is “to cover.” Like, to cover something over. So when that word is used to describe the lid of the ark of the covenant, it just means the cover. Like the lid, the cover, the cover of a book. Mercy seat is going way out of your way!

God was not enthroned on the ark? Again Father de Young contradicts the Orthodox Study Bible which says just the opposite.

https://archive.org/details/the-orthodox-study-bible-2021-medium-quality-scan/page/1663/mode/2up

God is enthroned upon the cherubim; hence, God's throne in Israel's midst, the mercy seat, has a cherub on each side (the Orthodox Christian altar is flanked by cherubim). These representations, along with the pictures of cherubim on the inner veil (Ex 26:31) and the beauty and detailed workmanship of everything made for the tabernacle, serve as the icons of the OT. This, and numerous other passages, held put to rest the fear that the Second Commandment (Ex 20:4-6) prohibits all imagery. God cannot be represented because divine nature is unknowable and hence cannot be depicted, However, when the Son becomes Man, the human nature of God the Son can be and is, imaged, 

Will Father De Young be so bold as to say the Orthodox Study Bible is wrong? 

How about his Greek and Hebrew? He says that the root word for the Greek word translated "mercy seat" and the Hebrew word "kippur" means to cover. You know, like the cover of a book. What a base way to degrade the atonement. Apparently the blood of Christ atones for our sins in the way one covers a book or places a lid on the cookie jar! A quick look at those words shows he is wrong. 

Greek:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2435/kjv/tr/0-1/

relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

Root:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2433/kjv/tr/0-1/

to render one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self

1. to render one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self

   1. to become propitious, be placated or appeased

   2. to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful

2. to expiate, make propitiation for

Hebrew:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3722/kjv/wlc/0-1/ 

1. to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

   1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch

   2. (Piel)

      1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate

      2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for

      3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites

   3. (Pual)

      1. to be covered over

      2. to make atonement for

   4. (Hithpael) to be covered

The root of this word is not given but look at that! The usage of cover here has NOTHING to do with covering a book. It has to do with pacification, propitiation, and atonement. 

Here is Father de Young and Father Stephen Damick denying blood was offered to God.

Fr. Stephen: It usually wasn’t applied to people, but, yes, in those other cases the blood was seen as this cleansing and purifying agent. It was never offered to anybody in Israelite religion. It was never offered to anybody, it was not used to pay for anything, it was not “blood for the blood god”—you’ve got to go to Mesoamerica to get that. It was either disposed of in the sacred way or used for the purpose of cleansing and purification.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, not… You don’t put it on the table and eat and drink it with your God—unless you’re a pagan.

Fr. Stephen: Or offer it to him in any other way.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/the_sacrifices_of_righteousness/

Except the Hebrews chapter 9 says the blood was offered to God by the High Priest. Blood is REQUIRED for atonement.

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have givenit to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

If blood was not offered to God by the High Priest then what of the blood of our High Priest Jesus Christ? Was that just smeared on the cross? No it was offered up to God. 

Hebrews 9:13-14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who throughthe eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It is simply mystifying how these Orthodox priests can teach the opposite of what is in the Orthodox Study Bible and how they can mock the blood offering of the High Priest by saying "it was not blood for the blood god" and it was not offered to Him in anyway. Every Sunday these men transform wine into blood which the people drink!

The fact is Orthodoxy over all has a large problem with Penal Substitution and the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. But that is an article for another day. 

St Augustine: The Helplessness of Infancy is Punishment For Sin

In Book one, Chapter 68 of On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants St. Augustine posits that the prolonged helplessness of infancy is a penal result of Adam's fall. Had Adam not sinned perhaps infants would have grown much quicker. Augustine also compares the sustained helplessness of infants with the quick growth of animals. 

The question which we are now discussing is not about Adam in respect of the size of his body, why he was not made an infant but in the perfect greatness of his members. It may indeed be said that the beasts were thus created likewise — nor was it owing to their sin that their young were born small. Why all this came to pass we are not now asking. But the question before us has regard to the vigor of man's mind and his use of reason, by virtue of which Adam was capable of instruction, and could apprehend God's precept and the law of His commandment, and could easily keep it if he would; whereas man is now born in such a state as to be utterly incapable of doing so, owing to his dreadful ignorance and weakness, not indeed of body, but of mind — although we must all admit that in every infant there exists a rational soul of the self-same substance (and no other) as that which belonged to the first man. Still this great infirmity of the flesh, clearly, in my opinion, points to a something, whatever it may be, that is penal. It raises the doubt whether, if the first human beings had not sinned, they would have had children who could use neither tongue, nor hands, nor feet. That they should be born children was perhaps necessary, on account of the limited capacity of the womb. But, at the same time, it does not follow, because a rib is a small part of a man's body, that God made an infant wife for the man, and then built her up into a woman. In like manner, God's almighty power was competent to make her children also, as soon as born, grown up at once.

But not to dwell on this, that was at least possible to them which has actually happened to many animals, the young of which are born small, and do not advance in mind (since they have no rational soul) as their bodies grow larger, and yet, even when most diminutive, run about, and recognize their mothers, and require no external help or care when they want to suck, but with remarkable ease discover their mothers' breasts themselves, although these are concealed from ordinary sight. A human being, on the contrary, at his birth is furnished neither with feet fit for walking, nor with hands able even to scratch; and unless their lips were actually applied to the breast by the mother, they would not know where to find it; and even when close to the nipple, they would, notwithstanding their desire for food, be more able to cry than to suck. This utter helplessness of body thus fits in with their infirmity of mind; nor would Christ's flesh have been in the likeness of sinful flesh, unless that sinful flesh had been such that the rational soul is oppressed by it in the way we have described — whether this too has been derived from parents, or created in each case for the individual separately, or inspired from above — concerning which I forbear from inquiring now.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Father Peter Heers Declares: "God Did Not Create Hell"

Father Peter Heers was recently on a podcast with David Patrick Harry discussing end time prophecies made by various Orthodox Church Fathers. During this discussion he declared that God did not create hell.

End Time Prophecy and Orthodox Eschatology with Fr. Peter Heers 

47:21 People will freely choose the Antichrist. They freely choose to go to hell too. Nobody's in hell that doesn't want to be in hell. 

Right 

Nobody's sent by by God to Hell. God didn't create hell. 

Nobody is sent by God to hell and God did not create hell? Really? Let us hear the words of Jesus Christ. 

Matthew 25:21 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Jesus says the everlasting fire, that is hell, was prepared for the devil and his angels. He also says the Kingdom was prepared for the saints.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Was the Kingdom created by God? Surely Fr. Heers would say yes. So what is his problem with God creating hell? Does Hell exist? Yes. Is there anything that exists that was not created by God? No. Therefore God created hell.

Everything that ever was or is or will be is created by God, including hell (Colossians 1:16). John 1:3 says, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” God alone has the power to cast someone into hell (Luke 12:5). Jesus holds the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18).

Jesus said that hell was “prepared” for Satan and the demons (Matthew 25:41). It is a just punishment for the wicked one. Hell, or the lake of fire, will also be the destination for those who reject Christ (2 Peter 2:4–9). 

https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-hell.html

While it may be true in a sense that we choose hell by our actions it is also true God weighs those actions and casts all those not found in the Book of Life into hell along with the devil.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Did they cast themselves? Did they run and jump into the Lake of Fire? No. God sent them there. He cast them into the flames. Therefore God sends people to hell. 

The problem here is that despite 2,000 years of teaching the Orthodox Church, for some reason, does not have a coherent eschatology. In fact their eschatology is completely divorced from the Scriptures and wholly reliant on what men like St. Issac the Syrian have to say. Thus there are "hopeful" universalists, there are believers in aerial toll-houses, and there are some who think hell is simply experiencing God's presence negatively alongside the saints who experience it positively. That final view is known as the River of Fire and it's a good bet Fr. Peter Heers believes that heresy. 

Here is Orthodox writer Vladimir Moss refuting that abominable teaching which essentially denies that God is just and God punishes. 

https://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/837/-river-fire-revisited/

Sadly too many modern Orthodox, including David Patrick Harry, Jay Dyer, and Father Seraphim Rose, have been hoodwinked by this heresy and other eschatological heresies including aerial toll-houses.  

Jay Dyer Falsely Claims Protestants Do Not Make a Difference Between the Holy and the Profane

It is simply amazing how Jay Dyer consistently lies about Protestantism. Let's listen in on his latest lie. 

NALA, KNOWLES, YE & Cussin! BUSINESS CHURCH: Y U JUDGIN'?? Ain't NOBODY GOT WISDOM! -Jay Dyer

1:04:05 For example in the Orthodox world you if you want to convert there is a period of time. It's not like Billy Graham's thing where he invites you down the Altar and gives you hot slices of chis pza. "Come down the altar we've got hot cheese pizza, I'll give you a slice of pizza and some Cocola if you pray the Jesus pray with me." No it's not like that you don't become a Baptist overnight and, uh, everything's cool, right, cuz you said a sinner's prayer. No. there's a period to see if after 6 months, a year, or three years, or two years that's actually the life that you want to live and the the path you want to take because there's requirements. That's the thing. But this kind of Christianity basically has no requirements except whatever you performatively display to the public. That's it. 

It's that simple. Does that make sense? And don't you see that there's a reason why there's a barrier to these kinds of things? Why is this? Because what Protestantism whether intentionally or inadvertently, what Protestantism lost is this idea of boundaries, this idea of the Holy and the profane. So, we say for example the Holy things are for the holy that means that you have to be in a pure State, confession, etc before you take the Eucharist, before you attend the Lord's Supper. However, outside of Protestantism which lost this notion of dividing the Holy things from the unholy there's no Holy objects, there's no Holy water, there's no Holy images. There's just a Holy book which is a propositional sort of rationalist faith of just worshiping a book.

Now, these words were said within the context of a video where Jay is mocking modern day evangelicalism. Has he forgotten that modern day evangelicalism is basically a creation of the Rockefellers and the World Council of Churches? He has mentioned that many times on his show. 

But not all Protestant Churches have been infected with that disease. This especially concerns the Reformed who most definitely make a difference between the Holy and the profane. They do not engage in circus antics or emotionalism but stick to a traditional liturgy with the focus being the preaching of the Word. 

And not just anyone can join either. One must go through a period of cathecism before one becomes a member and can partake of the Lord's Supper. That Jay fails to make this distinction between Liberal Protestant churches and Conservative Protestant Churches who still follow the creeds and instead groups them all together is a total misrepresentation of the facts and thus a lie. 

It is also not true that the only Holy thing these churches hold to is the Bible, or as Jay so derisively says:

There's just a Holy book which is a propositional sort of rationalist faith of just worshiping a book.

Is he that ignorant of how Protestants view the Lord's Supper? It is also not true that Protestantism is totally rationalist. There is no space to go into that here but for him to say that and deny the mystical elements of Protestantism, i.e. the Lord's Supper, is another lie. Protestants DO NOT WORSHIP the Bible. 

It is insane that Jay continues to make these kinds of intentional misrepresentations and lies but here we are. 

Testament: The Story of Moses Review - A Crime Against The Word of God

Netflix has a new three part series about the life of Moses called Testament: The Story of Moses. It blends reenactments with commentary from scholars associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That in and of itself is very bad because we don't get a real sense of who Moses is and what he really means as he is not the same man to each faith. But that is just a small part of why this series is a steaming pile of donkey manure. 

Let me give two reasons why this new series is worse than Cleopatra. While Cleopatra was awful historical revisionism the danger here is that Netflix is messing with sacred history. 

1. It's too short.

This series is hardly about the LIFE of Moses. It is basically The Ten Commandments and then at the end it skips to his death on Mt. Nebo. It could have been either longer or a lot of the reenactment cut altogether to make room for a fuller story. But thank goodness they opted for neither because what Netflix did with the material they have is utterly atrocious. 

2. The series deviates considerably from the Bible.

Because the producers have Jewish and Islamic scholars giving commentary stories from the Quran and the Midrash are included. That means we learn about Moses having to give a secret code word to Serah Bat Asher, a woman hundreds of years old who came into Egypt with Jacob, to prove he is indeed God's chosen prophet. She hears the magic phrase and sings praises to God and that's how the Israelites knew Moses was legit. 

However, for some reason the producers decided to change much of what is in the scripture and girlboss it up. That means ALL THE WOMEN have faith and ALL THE MEN are faithless. Take Zipporah. In the Bible Moses saves her and her sisters from a group of men and then opens the well and waters their flock. They then go back to their father Jethro and he hears their story and is astonished they did not invite Moses back. So they retrieve him, he eats dinner, Jethro gives him Zipporah to wife, and he serves him for 40 years. 

In this series Moses stumbles out of the desert and Zipporah allows him to drink water. Then he scares off three bandits. They then take him home to their father who is not very sure about this stranger. Zipporah convinces Jethro to allow Moses to tend his sheep. A few months later Zipporah brings Moses food in the desert and sees he has carved Egyptian hieroglyphs into a rock. She asks what it says. He says it's our story. And then they get married. 

There is a lot of nonsense like that scattered all throughout the show. Here is some more:

According to Netflix it was Moses and not God who carved the Ten Commandments into stone.

According to Netflix when the Israelites fought the Amalekites and Moses held his hands up for victory he got tired but he persevered and held them up to the end of the battle. In the Bible he gets tired, sits on a rock, and Aaron and Joshua hold up his hands. 

According to Netflix it was a total surprise to Moses that he was a Hebrew or that he had a brother and sister. 

According to Netflix Moses first met Pharaoh and performed the miracle of turning his staff into a snake at his son's birthday party. Pharaoh is disposed to grant a request on the honor of his son's birthday so Moses says "Let my people go." What is this? The Godfather??

According to Netflix Moses' adoptive Egyptian mother partook of the Passover. Actually that might be in the Midrash. Either way it's not in the Bible but it is in the show.

According to Netflix after Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the Red Sea Miriam alone sang a dirge. In the Bible Miriam and all the women dance with tambourines and sing a song of praise. 

And it goes on and on and on.

There is way too much drama and reenactment and revisionism and not enough about what it all means. Sure there are some platitudes from the commentators but of course there is no hard doctrine. There is also not enough of the Life of Moses. It would have been great to see his wars against the Ethiopians, his marriage to an Ethiopian princess, the wanderings in the wilderness, the building of the Ark and the Tabernacle, and all the rest of the story.  We don't even learn why Moses died outside the promised land. Of course seeing what Netflix did with the little they used I'm glad they did not flub it up even more. 

The whole series is a crime against the Word of God. Any believer of the scriptures cannot take this piece of junk seriously. Stay away. Stay far away.