Posted on 11/30/2003 5:21:17 PM PST by drstevej
|
|
||
Bruce Nolan: How do you make someone love you without changing free will?
God: Welcome to my world.
Since God isn't dead, God isn't a Calvinist.
I'm reasonably certain that was irregular. I've attended Antiochan Orthodox, and participation in the Eucharist was (understandably) reserved to Orthodox Communicants.
Then again, we "fence the Table" in the Presbyterian offering of the Lord's Supper, but any Nicene-Creed Christians in good standing at their Local Church would be permitted to participate -- so conceivably, an Eastern Orthodox could partake. Perhaps some EO parishes follow a similar rule (I really don't know)
Interesting. As best I remember, Antidoron was not offered to Non-Communicant external Attendants (such as myself) at the Antiochan Orthodox church which I attended.
I took no offense at this, of course, recognizing myself to not be an Eastern Orthodox Communicant. But perhaps customs differ from parish to parish.
You're right -- I don't think that we Protestants do have an equivalent.
It is of course, to Protestants, perfectly acceptable for Communicants to consume the excess Eucharistic bread after the Supper; but it is not offered to non-communicants. I am reminded of an anecdote which I will relate from a few years back, in my early days in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (remember, I came from a Zwinglian "symbolic memorial" non-denominational understanding of the Supper)..
I pointed him towards the post-Supper leftovers upon the Eucharist plate and said, "Sure, have a piece".
He looked at me with a curious befuddlement, as though I had suggested something very unfitting, and said "But I can't take Communion yet... and Mom says that the Bread is still under the Blessing".
I immediately excused myself, and assured him that he was a very diligent young man to honor the instruction of his mother, and got him a piece of unconsecrated matzoh from the box in the church pantry.
While I personally would prefer to extend the Supper to the Young (I myself would endorse the old Hebrew practice of offering the Passover to any child able to give the Rabbi a proper explanation of its meaning)... I can't deny that rambunctious young ten-year old -- who was suddenly so serious when it came to the Eucharist -- impressed upon me the fact that Orthodox Calvinists take the Supper a little more seriously than the "whatever floats your boat" mainstream of American Non-Denominationalism from whence I had come. "From the mouths of babes...."
The OPC church I am attending and will be going for membership in (have the Session interview Sunday) does serve the Lord's Supper but since my baptism was invalid (the Mormons don't count), I cannot partake until I am baptized.
This is proper.
The Presbyterian Church had to wrestle with the matter of Baptism and ReBaptism, and ultimately came to the conclusion that all Nicene and Trinitarian Baptisms are Valid, even when conducted in churches with whose theology we disagree. For example, we disagree with the theology of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but we respect their baptisms as being genuinely Nicene and Trinitarian, and therefore Valid -- and not requiring ReBaptism.
"Baptisms" which are neither Nicene nor Trinitarian, however, are not received as Valid -- and are considered to be but Water-washings of religious formality, not Christian Baptism... whether Unitarian, Mormon, Pagan, or what have you.
I trust that you have already received (or soon will receive) proper Trinitarian Baptism, and I heartily look forward to your reception into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church!
Though I wonder if your love for Klompen Dancing does not mark you as too sympathetic to the Dutch Reformed for our Celtic Presbyterian tastes. I am of course aware that "If it ain't Dutch... it ain't much" -- but always remember: "If eet's not Schkottisch, eet's CRAAAAAAAAP!!"
best, OP
Strictly speaking, John Calvin isn't dead either... although his corporeal body sleeps for a time.
John Calvin is even now reigning as Joint-Heir with Christ, is Royal Priest in Heaven, and shall judge the Angels themselves.
Whaddya think of them apples?
I pointed him towards the post-Supper leftovers upon the Eucharist plate and said, "Sure, have a piece".
He looked at me with a curious befuddlement, as though I had suggested something very unfitting, and said "But I can't take Communion yet... and Mom says that the Bread is still under the Blessing".
I immediately excused myself, and assured him that he was a very diligent young man to honor the instruction of his mother, and got him a piece of unconsecrated matzoh from the box in the church pantry.
While I personally would prefer to extend the Supper to the Young (I myself would endorse the old Hebrew practice of offering the Passover to any child able to give the Rabbi a proper explanation of its meaning)... I can't deny that rambunctious young ten-year old -- who was suddenly so serious when it came to the Eucharist -- impressed upon me the fact that Orthodox Calvinists take the Supper a little more seriously than the "whatever floats your boat" mainstream of American Non-Denominationalism from whence I had come. "From the mouths of babes...." ~~ OP
Re-Posted for the Commentary of the FR Catholic Caucus.
Thoughts, from the FR Romans?
Best, OP
my condolences - my reference was made not knowing your situation. We have had one.
Im still looking at John 6 - because there seems to be two things going on - and in some regard - Matthew Henrys commentary does the same thing.
Verses 1-14 John relates the miracle of feeding the multitude, for its reference to the following discourse. Observe the effect this miracle had upon the people. Even the common Jews expected the Messiah to come into the world, and to be a great Prophet. The Pharisees despised them as not knowing the law; but they knew most of Him who is the end of the law. Yet men may acknowledge Christ as that Prophet, and still turn a deaf ear to him. - (yet ive been told by woody sometime ago that I could be saved despite my arminianism)
Verses 15-21 Here were Christ's disciples in the way of duty, and Christ was praying for them; yet they were in distress. There may be perils and afflictions of this present time, where there is an interest in Christ. Clouds and darkness often surround the children of the light and of the day. They see Jesus walking on the sea. Even the approaches of comfort and deliverance often are so mistaken, as to become the occasions of fear. Nothing is more powerful to convince sinners than that word, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest;" nothing more powerful to comfort saints than this, "I am Jesus whom thou lovest." If we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, though the night be dark, and the wind high, yet we may comfort ourselves, we shall be at the shore before long.
Verses 22-27 Instead of answering the inquiry how he came there, Jesus blamed their asking. The utmost earnestness should be employed in seeking salvation, in the use of appointed means; yet it is to be sought only as the gift of the Son of man. Him the Father has sealed, proved to be God. He declared the Son of man to be the Son of God with power.
Verses 28-35 Constant exercise of faith in Christ (almost sounds like a holiness preacher here)., is the most important and difficult part of the obedience required from us, as sinners seeking salvation. When by his grace we are enabled to live a life of faith in the Son of God, holy tempers follow, and acceptable services may be done. - (There's the dicotomy & my confusion - I know its all by Gods grace - but I keep hearing these references to choice) God, even his Father, who gave their fathers that food from heaven to support their natural lives, now gave them the true Bread for the salvation of their souls. Coming to Jesus (to regurgitate the barb - "Wasn't Jesus lucky you did"), and believing on him, signify the same. Christ shows that he is the true Bread; he is to the soul what bread is to the body, nourishes and supports the spiritual life. He is the Bread of God. Bread which the Father gives, which he has made to be the food of our souls. Bread nourishes only by the powers of a living body; but Christ is himself living Bread, and nourishes by his own power. The doctrine of Christ crucified is now as strengthening and comforting to a believer as ever it was. He is the Bread which came down from heaven. It denotes the Divinity of Christ's person and his authority; also, the Divine origin of all the good which flows to us through him. May we with understanding and earnestness say, Lord, evermore give us this Bread.
Verses 36-46 The discovery of their guilt, danger, and remedy, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, makes men willing and glad to come, and to give up every thing which hinders applying to him for salvation. The Father's will is, that not one of those who were given (again, the docotomy) to the Son, should be rejected or lost by him. No one will come, till Divine grace has subdued, and in part changed his heart; therefore no one who comes will ever be cast out. The gospel finds none willing to be saved in the humbling, holy manner, made known therein; but God draws with his word and the Holy Ghost; and man's duty is to hear and learn; that is to say, to receive(note the "act") the grace offered, and consent to the promise. None had seen the Father but his beloved Son; and the Jews must expect to be taught by his inward power upon their minds, and by his word, and the ministers whom he sent among them.
I dont mean to hang the whole argument on this passage or Henrys commentary of it - I do think though - it raises a valid question that I've yet to hear addressed
On one hand we see the "elect" references - on others we see a "choice" - As one who has had the scales removed from his eyes - help this blinded arminian digest what I am reading -
In the least - pray for my discernment
Without disputing the fact that the ultimate destiny of those who die in Infancy is solely the prerogative of God's Decisioning alone, I think that there is an even better reference than that of David's son in infancy.
Let us attend to the reading of God's Word, Ezekiel 16: 20-22 --
This is no small matter.
Remember that God never, anywhere in Scripture, refers to the Reprobate as "His Children". Indeed, Jesus Christ Himself specifically states that those whom God has sovereignly Chosen to Reprobate, He regards as Children of the Devil.
And yet here we have those whom have been slaughtered in Infancy, being named by God Himself as "My Children."
This dovetails perfectly with John Calvin's teaching that those who die in Infancy, though guilty of Original Sin, are gratuitously saved by a special and Irresistible operation of Grace; whereas the Reprobate procure their own damnation.
Of course, it is not unusual for the teaching of Scripture to dovetail perfectly with that of Calvinism... for an appropriate nick-name for the teaching of Scripture is simply this: "Calvinism".
thanks for the response OP - ...help me out with my other posts - I see two issues going on in the referenced Scripture - Im interested to hear your take
rev911
No, you are thinking of the Azymes, which was the central issue at dispute with Patriarch Michael Cerularius in AD 1054.
This involved the use of leavened (Byzantine) vs. unleavened (Latin and Armenian) bread.
This didn't really start the schism. The end of communion between Rome and Constantinople developed over the dropping of the Pope from the diptychs in Constantinople around AD 1014, with the use of the Filioque liturgically at Rome by the new Frankish Popes who had ousted the ethnic Romans from this See. The end of communion between Rome and Antioch and Jerusalem occurred after the beginning of the First Crusade around AD 1100, when the head of the Normans decided to exile the legitimate Patriarchs of those Sees to Cyprus and replace them with Norman puppets after the death of the Papal Legate, who had acted as their protector from the Crusaders. The end of communion with the Patirarch of Alexandria (who was mostly titular anyway, since Egypt was Coptic and out of communion with the Catholic Church since the time of Justinian) came much later, sometime after AD 1215 (that century is also the time which sees the end of communion between Rome and Bulgaria and Serbia and Russia).
Rumble? I think most Dutch-Reformed consider the OPC to be adopted Dutchmen. When J. Gresham Machen was looking for someone to "apologize" for the OPC... he found one "Corny" dude. ;)
Again MM, he's not MY beloved Patriarch. He's your Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem in the late 17th century, stating something that your Orthodox Church says is a fundemental dogmatic document. Let me excerpt what the GOARCH site says:
Importance of Knowledge of Sources... The Orthodox Church is the only Church which has maintained from the beginning a coherent interpretation of its teaching. The Church approves of each member reading alone and in general talking about his religion. But it discourages conclusions based on the individual's personal interpretation.
"So Philip ran to him (the Ethiopian), and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I unless some one guides me?"', Acts 8:28f.
This "guide" is the Church itself, and not the individual on his own, with limited ability and lack of the full knowledge of the sources of the teachings of the Church. ...
The Orthodox Christian should know and understand these facts in order to participate fully in the activities of the Church and to defend his position with authoritative explanations in times of discussion among friends of other churches. It is imperative for the Orthodox Christian to know the sources of the teachings especially when he must counteract the propaganda of those who would proselytize members of the Orthodox Church. This happened in the early Church and in the 17th century, and happens today. In the early Church, when the dogmas and teachings of the Church were not formally developed, there were many members of the church who turned to heretics, gnostics and other groups. Also, from the fourth century on, there appeared laymen, clergymen, even bishops and patriarchs who taught falsely the Christian faith. In the ninth century when the Great Schism began to develop between the Eastern and Western parts of the Church, and especially from the 16th century on, with the rise of Protestantism, these mistaken interpretations became more explicit. Against all these factors, the Orthodox Church has fought to keep itself intact to defend the truths which had been taught it by its Founder, Jesus Christ and His Apostles, in whom the roots of the Church are to be found.
These circumstances demanded that the Church defend its teachings and set forth the sources with accurate interpretations over the centuries. It is worth stressing that the development of these sources was to counteract the false opinions of Christians themselves; opinions not based on the correct interpretation of the Church itself. These sources of the accurate teachings of the Church are herein enumerated in order to counteract false opinions based on individual misinterpretations.
Accurate Sources of the Orthodox Church
What are the sources of the One Undivided Church, the Orthodox Church, from which emerge its teachings? Why is it imperative for the members of the Church to know these sources? The mainsources of Orthodox teaching are the Bible and Sacred Tradition. The third source is the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. The fourth source is decisions of the canonical synods, local and ecumenical, and their utterances of faith, especially the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) and some of their canons pertaining to faith. The fifth source is the discourses written at the time of disputes and schisms, especially the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western parts of the Undivided Church (1054). The sixth source is the discourses written on the rise of Protestantism, its differences from and relationship to the Orthodox Church. The seventh source is the discourses written through the World Council of Churches today, mostly on its relationship to the Orthodox Church. ...
Sources Written After the Protestant Reformation ...
DECISIONS OF THE SYNOD IN JERUSALEM IN 1672
The Church in Jerusalem again felt it necessary to summon a synod to denounce the Roman and Calvinistic influences in the Orthodox Church. These decisions are also considered as sources of the teachings of the Church, restating the orthodox belief.CONFESSION OF DOSITHEOS, PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM 1672
The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching.
I don't see anything there saying its a subject of free debate, can be taken or left as one wishes, or is false.
In particulular Khomiakov characterized for us the definition of the church, which is the community, a union of souls. This idea is so essential that we teach it every year in Sunday school to the kids, even the youngest ones.
Perhaps one day you'll realize the easy distortion of this idea (not incorrect in and of itself, mind you) to the invisible Church of Protestantism vs. the visible One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
After much searching, I am compelled to admit that Hermann is absolutely right -- the quotation cited by Fr. John Maxwell is, as far as I can find, nowhere offered by John Damascene.
Father John Maxwell has inappropriately attributed his citation to John of Damascus. The actual (approximate) quotation is found in the works of another Church Father entirely:
In regard to my own misunderstanding as a Protestant, and on behalf of my mistaken friends in the Saint Gabriel OKC Mission of the Orthodox Church in America, I must apologize for Father John Maxwell's incorrect citation of John of Damascus.
The doctrine that "The substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease, but remains; just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ" should not be attributed to John Damascene, but in fact is the teaching of Pope Gelasius, the Bishop of Rome.
I plead ignorance and oversight on my part for not having corrected Fr. Maxwell's incorrect attribution of the quotation to John of Damascus. The quotation in dispute is actually the teaching of the Pope of Rome.
Mea Maxima Culpa.
Best, OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.