Posted on 02/24/2004 12:46:27 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
Rebecca Hagelin asks, "Can you handle the Truth?" in today's, WorldNetDaily. "If you only go to the movies to be entertained, don't go see The Passion of the Christ," she said, adding "but if you want to experience an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine, you must see The Passion of the Christ.
If the portrayal of death and suffering are now, "an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," Sadam Hussein and the Taliban have been greatly misjudge. They were only misunderstood artists. Instead of having our stomachs turned at the images of Taliban atrocities and Sadam's sadistic tortures we should be exulting in these images of such artistic importance.
The only real difference between glorying in the portrayal of suffering and death in Gibson's film, or the actual images of its modern day counterpart, is that Gibson's is a fake. That does not deter the superstitious masses who hold suffering, pain, and death as their highest ideals, however. It is what their God, whom they believe condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal torment and suffering, teaches them. Of all the things one might place a value on, the thing their God values above all others is suffering and death.
Of all the things their God might have accepted as payment for man's salvation, it was not Jesus' healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, that was valued. Their God would settle for nothing less than the most excruciating pain, pointless suffering, and agonizing death possible as "payment." What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
Rebecca describing the experience of 5000 people who watched the film, said, "We were not entertained. We did not laugh. We did not leave relaxed." In other words, they did not enjoy the film, they suffered it. Rebecca regards suffering a virtue. She said about her discomfort watching the film, "the flogging scene didn't end quickly ... so why should it end quickly for me as a mere observer?"
Because, Rebecca, suffering is evil. Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
We have no doubt, Rebecca is correct to say, "The Passion is powerful – it is reality," because the world is full of suffering and brutality, made possible by the very kind of perverted psychology that not only accepts suffering, but positively worships it.
Some Protestant churches consider the bread and wine symbolic of Jesus' blood and flesh. Nonetheless, Jesus made it clear that even symbolic sin is sin.(Matthew 5:28)
"One of the most unfortunate developments took place when men began to debate the reality of Christ's Body and Blood in the eucharist. While some said that the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine were the real Body and Blood of Christ, others said that the gifts were not real, but merely the symbolic or mystical presence of the Body and Blood. The tragedy in both of these approaches is that what is real came to be opposed to what is symbolic or mystical.
The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.
On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself." The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).
Now, Christians are really good at rationalizing everything to make every "apparent" contradicting fit perfectly, but the OT (which most Christians don't even read except for a few select passages) is very clear as to what is allowed and what is not.
Read my post #97. The only way I can understand our teaching is by the fact that by the time the gospels came out Paul has already had his arm-twisting duel with the Jewish Christians who refused to abandon the Law and physical circumcision, and the gospels were largely intended for the Greek and Latin audiences who were expressly ignorant of Torah.
Once Christianity took hold as a non-Jewish religion, an average believer did not have access to the gospels, did not know Torah, and had no grounds to question, compare or doubt. I am convicned that the Church Fathers truly believed that any contradictions with the OT were "apparent" and beyond our comprehension.
Even St. Augustine of Hippo, who was a doubter until he was 33, could not reconcile why would God allow evil. He admitted that was beyond his ability to reason. In Judaism, evil is part of God's creation. In Isaiah 45:7 God says that He creates evil. In Job 1, God recruits Satan to test Job, and so on. The OT is full of death and destructions, violence against women and children condoned or caused by God. These "contradictions" are rationalized or simply dismissed as "above our ability to reason."
The whole idea of a passover lamb being sacrificed for the atonement of sins for all generation is completely contrary to everything that is written in the OT regarding sacrifice.
The very idea of eating blood or meat with blood, especially human flesh, would be unthinkable within the Law. The Law is proclaimed eternal and perfect in the OT. It is unchangeable.
I don't pretend to be an "expert" on these issues, but it is clear that our experts are not addressing these issues, riding on the fact that most people don't dwell on biblical readings and expect the experts to provide necessary information -- as much as needed. Such information is usually restricted to select passages, often just out-of-context verses that, when read in their entirety, give a different impression.
Our churches should as a matter of weekly sermon pick a topic to explain these issues rather than avoiding them. Nothing wold serve the church better -- if it is indeed telling the truth -- then to aggressively explain these "apparent" contradictions.
When you ask your spiritual leader such 'tricky' questions they respond with something like "We don't teach anything like that; you are quoting our of context." Wrong answer! Wrong because it's not convincing. In fact they are insults to one's intelligence and have a negative effect. Instead of helping those who question, they push them away -- because the experts don't have an answer. When cornered, they get angry. That's when real doubt begins to set in.
One reason I have a lot of respect for the Calvinists is because they try to stick to their formula of "Sola Scriptura," but even they can't always find explanations in the Bible and have to use profane knowledge and sources when all else fails. In other words, human corruption is in all things human, including religion.
Kosta, that's a thoughtful observation on your part.
Don't get me wrong, I would LIKE to believe that the Calvinist-Presbyterian theology of the ordo salutis corresponds to the Eastern Orthodox theology. I really would.
It is an historical Fact that at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, there was definitely a Protestant interest in striking a Reformed-Orthodox alliance against the Papal-Catholic Rome Uber Alles diktats of the Vatican and her Jesuit storm-troopers.
Saint Martin Luther desperately sought a rapprochement with the Eastern Churches, always defending the Greeks against Roman calumnies; reminding the Romans that "The Greeks are one-half of the Bride of Christ; and in my opinion, they are the better half" (from whence we derive the English marriage expression).
I have observed before that if Patriarch Cyril Lukaris had ruled Constantinople in Luther's day, there would have never BEEN a "Protestant Reformation" -- as Lukaris' theology was largely acceptable to Lutherans in theory, while being entirely Eastern Orthodox in form and practice. There would instead have been a vast re-alignment of English, German, and Nordic territories away from Rome and towards Constantinople.
But it wasn't to be. Patriarch Lukaris came on the scene one hundred years too late to serve as a Grand Ambassador between the Orthodox and the Reformed. The Turks (acting, according to some reports, in co-operation with the Jesuits) strangled Patriarch Lukaris and threw his body in the Bosporus. And though the Greeks venerate the memory of Lukaris to this day, he remains a Pro-Protestant anomaly amongst the Eastern Church, theologically speaking. His Orthodoxy is unquestioned, but he was certainly more Pro-Augustinian than is the Eastern Orthodox mainstream.
And we must trust that God, in His Providence, knew what He was doing. God did not see fit to provide a rapprochement between Orthodoxy and the Reformation, at that time.
Because there ARE differences. While both Eastern Orthodox and Presbyterians do Baptize Infants, we do so for different reasons.
I honestly do not understand why the Eastern Orthodox believe that God deals differently with one class of Men, from another -- why they make Him a respecter of persons, according to Age.
The Calvinist believes of the Race of Adam that "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", Infant, Child, and Adult. The whole Race is Spiritually Dead; therefore, any member of the Race must be spiritually regenerated in order to believe. And so Calvinists treat the Whole Race of Man -- Infant, Child, and Adult.
Why do the Eastern Orthodox treat Adults differently, as though the case of Adults -- God waits for Belief before He grants Regeneration? Genesis makes no such distinction.
Why do not the Eastern Orthodox admit that the Whole Race of Man is Spiritually Dead??
When it comes to the Biblical Description of the Natural Condition of the Race of Man, with whom do the Eastern Orthodox agree?? Dead, or Not Dead? God, or Satan?
With whom do the Eastern Orthodox agree?
best, OP
Let's lay aside all this "Calvinist", "Thomist", "Catholic" and "Aquinas" balderdash, pseduo-justin.
All very useful in its own right, as Labels are useful in identifying File Folders.... but let us dispense with it, for now.
When we talk of Human Nature, let us speak only of that which Scripture describes. I propose two specific Scriptures for examination:
When we speak of "Human Nature", we do only speak a-rightly when we describe Human Nature as Infallible Scripture has described it. And so therefore, I ask you:
We do only correctly describe HUMAN NATURE, when we describe it as Scripture has declared. You do NOTHING to benefit an Insane Man, when you pretend that he is Sane. You're only making yourself part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Scripture has declares that the Nature of Man, HUMAN NATURE, is Spiritually Dead, Full of Evil, Spiritually Insane. Do you BELIEVE what Scripture has declared?
best, OP
I didn't ruin my evening before, and it doesn't now. I continue to be happily gratified at the breadth of God's Providence, far beyond what a Theological Brawler like myself could ever intend.
If I, in a spirit of (well-meant) Argumentation, have somehow managed to say anything which is in any way beneficial to the Edification of my Eastern Orthodox sisters and brethren... well, then I guess that God must have Predestined it for the Good.
There's "profane", and then there's "profane".
If I say that an apple falling from a tree will progress on its course until it impacts the ground, that's not "profane knowledge". That's the Physical Law of God in action -- specifically Gravity, which He has ordained.
That's not "profane". That's the Law of God.
It's His World. He designed it. It's workings are not necessarily "profane". To call the world "profane", is to diminish the Creator's Majesty.
Natural Knowledge is not necessarily "profane". What's "profane", is what Man has done to the World -- not the Created World in and of itself; and not all forms of Natural Knowledge.
(I'm not here speaking GreenPeace-environmentally, but rather Sin-Cosmologically). best, OP
The Eastern Orthodox and Calvinists share
Trying to explain Orthodox sacrament of baptism, even if I had the time, space and expertise to do so, is best served by directing you to numerous Orthodox sites such as this one. Suffice it to say that there is no difference between the baptisms of a child and an adult. In Orthodoxy, baptism is regeneration. One cannot be saved without baptism.
The only difference between an adult and an infant is that the infant’s sponsors, in addition to being the witnesses, also recite the necessary words of rejecting and cursing Satan, and all the words the adults would have to say during baptism. The sponsors are under obligation to raise the child as his God parents in proper faith. The baptized person is also confirmed with oil, changed into clean clothes and immediately receives the Holy Eucharist.
Some adults who are not baptized at birth must express the desire to be baptized, which implies their awareness of God more than faith. In His love for mankind, God makes the first step of knocking on someone’s door so to say, and once aware of this the adult either makes the second step or doesn’t. Unlike Calvinsists, we believe that God wants to save as many of us as possible. We believe that God never rejected us but rather that mankind rejected God.
A person who is to become baptized is asked to read about the faith so that he or she knows what this is all about. EO do not baptize in order to believe. They baptize in order to make it possible to be saved. Our doctrines of Grace are different. Our version was acceptable to Church Fathers. We trust in their wisdom and teachings. If you really want an in depth theological basis for Orthodox teachings, I recommend St. John of Damascus, the 8th century writer.
With whom do the Eastern Orthodox agree?
With Jesus Christ, of course. :-)
As for similarities, I think your bondage of the will of man is closest to Hassidic Jews and Muslims, as it represents complete submission of our wickedness to God‘s will.We Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that human nature is defeated not by His will but by His love.
To call this a “theological dissimilarity” is an understatement. That doesn’t mean I can’t admire Calvinist devotion to God.
God's work is not profane. Human work is. By "profane" sources I mean uninspired. Sola Scriptura is either true or not true. Either everything in the Bible can be explained throught the Scriptures or not. Justifying the use of non-Scriptural sources to explain the Bible is rationalization, and violates the principle of Sola Scriptura.
If Sola Scriptura allows for uninspired sources to explain the inspired work, how can we be sure that it remains free from human corruption?
Ahem... thou dost presume too much ;-).
This particular Calvinist does not subscribe to the filioque as it is generally rendered in English, "From the Father and the Son", being very uncomfortable with that Formula (I'm uncomfortable with that Formula, because I can't find it in the Bible. Sola Scriptura, et cetera).
Instead, I subscribe to the rendering of the Formula as "From the Father through the Son", a rendering which - unless I am mistaken - has been accepted by pretty much all Eastern Orthodox authorities everywhere as a permissible understanding (and well they should accept it, such rendering of the Formula being entirely Biblical).
Just a nit-pick on my part (grin). I'll address the rest of your post as I am able.
best, OP
Apologies. I didn't realize it was a personal decision. It was my understanding that Calvinist/Presbyterian churches use the Filioque form of the Creed.
The reason it is not in the Scriptures is because it was inserted in the 6th c. AD by Spanish clergy to counter Arianism, thereby combating heresy with heresy!. The clause was explicitly forbidden by Pope Leo III, although he did not attempt to force the Spanish church to stop using it. His decision was reversed by a pope in the 12th century AD (can two mutually exclusive papal decrees be infallible?).
Scripturally, the form you use is substantiated, but it is not part of the Nicene Creed as it was formulated by the united Church in the 4th century. This "semi-Filioque" statement "through the Son" is not part of any official Creed as far as I know, or is it?
Ultimately, any change to the Nicene Creed imputes that the Creed is theologically deficient. Obviously, one would have to prove that before making any changes.
And, of course, that's what we're talking about here also -- English translations of the original Creeds. The Latins maintain that the filioque can be found in some very early Latin Texts of the Creed, even pre-dating it's final formulation... whereas the Greeks say No, It Wasn't...
And so it goes.
Eventually (as I understand it), the Greek Orthodox patriarchs resolved that if the filioque could indeed be found in any early Latin Texts of the Creed, it could be legitimately understood in the sense "through the Son" and that would be acceptable to Eastern Orthodoxy.
That's my (possibly incorrect) understanding of the EO view on the matter.
I think the concept of eating/flesh and drinking/blood is a pagan/heathen concept.
Exodus 34:17
Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
Deuteronomy 32:17
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Isaiah 42
8 I am YHWH, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.
Isaiah 42
17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.
graven image from the Hebrew
6459 pecel peh'-sel from 6458; an idol:--carved (graven) image.
1) idol, image
6458 pacal paw-sal' a primitive root; to carve, whether wood or stone:--grave, hew.
1) to cut, hew, hew into shape
a) (Qal) to hew, hew out, quarry
molten image from the Hebrew
4541 maccekah mas-say-kaw' from 5258; properly, a pouring over, i.e. fusion of metal (especially a cast image); by implication, a libation, i.e. league; concretely a coverlet (as if poured out):--covering, molten (image), vail.
1) a pouring, libation, molten metal, cast image, drink offering
a) libation (with covenant sacrifice)
b) molten metal, molten image, molten gods
2) web, covering, veil, woven stuff
Ezekiel 33
25 Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?
I remember, back in the days when I was a Catholic, taking communion. Opening my mouth to receive the host and as I did so, my eyes being raised and there on the wall behind the altar, a large crucifix with the molten/graven image of Yehoshua upon it. Catholics believe that the eucharist becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. Yet, we are warned in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and in the New Testament, to NOT drink/eat blood.
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Jeremiah 7
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
(JPS) Isaiah 1
(10) Hear the word of YHWH, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. (11) To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith YHWH; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. (12) When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
(13) Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations -- I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. (14) Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. (15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.
(16) Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith YHWH; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (19) If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; (20) But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of YHWH hath spoken.
They were going through the motions. Making animal sacrifices but not changing their behaviors. They weren't contrite. They were misusing the ceremony. They were thinking the ceremony alone was enough, but it wasn't, YHWH expected them to show their contrition, by their actions, and how they lived their lives. They'd perform the ceremony and then go right back to sinful behavior. They placed ceremony above morality.
Kind of like going to the confessional, confessing to a sin, stating that you would try to not commit that sin in the future, but as soon as you leave church, you start right into that sin again. No real effort was put forth in trying to 'overcome' sinful behavior.
YHWH didn't want blood sacrifices, animal NOR HUMAN. YHWH wants obedience.
I also think it is very telling that when Solomon dedicates the Temple he nver mentions blood sacrifices for the atoning of sins, instead he always mentions prayer:
First Kings Chapter 8
(22) And Solomon stood before the altar of YHWH in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; (23) and he said: 'O YHWH, the God of Israel, there is no God like Thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath; who keepest covenant and mercy with Thy servants, that walk before Thee with all their heart; (24) who hast kept with Thy servant David my father that which Thou didst promise him; yea, Thou spokest with Thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with Thy hand, as it is this day. (25) Now therefore, O YHWH, the God of Israel, keep with Thy servant David my father that which Thou hast promised him saying: There shall not fail thee a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel, if only thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me as thou hast walked before Me.
(26) Now therefore, O God of Israel, let Thy word, I pray Thee, be verified, which Thou didst speak unto Thy servant David my father. (27) But will God in very truth dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have builded! (28) Yet have Thou respect unto the prayer of Thy servant, and to his supplication, O YHWH my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer which Thy servant prayeth before Thee this day; (29) that Thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place whereof Thou hast said: My name shall be there; to hearken unto the prayer which Thy servant shall pray toward this place.
(30) And hearken Thou to the supplication of Thy servant, and of Thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place; yea, hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place; and when Thou hearest, forgive. (31) If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath be exacted of him to cause him to swear, and he come and swear before Thine altar in this house; (32) then hear Thou in heaven, and do, and judge Thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his own head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness. (33) When Thy people Israel are smitten down before the enemy, when they do sin against Thee, if they turn again to Thee, and confess Thy name, and pray and make supplication unto Thee in this house;
(34) then hear Thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of Thy people Israel, and bring them back unto the land which Thou gavest unto their fathers. (35) When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, when they do sin against Thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess Thy name, and turn from their sin, when Thou dost afflict them; (36) then hear Thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou teachest them the good way wherein they should walk; and send rain upon Thy land, which Thou hast given to Thy people for an inheritance. (37) If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting or mildew, locust or caterpillar; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities; whatsoever plague, whatsoever sickness there be;
(38) what prayer and supplication soever be made by any man of all Thy people Israel, who shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house; (39) then hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and forgive, and do, and render unto every man according to all his ways, whose heart Thou knowest -- for Thou, even Thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men -- (40) that they may fear Thee all the days that they live in the land which Thou gavest unto our fathers. (41) Moreover concerning the stranger that is not of Thy people Israel, when he shall come out of a far country for Thy name's sake --
(42) for they shall hear of Thy great name, and of Thy mighty hand, and of Thine outstretched arm -- when he shall come and pray toward this house; (43) hear Thou in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all the peoples of the earth may know Thy name, to fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel, and that they may know that Thy name is called upon this house which I have built. (44) If Thy people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatsoever way Thou shalt send them, and they pray unto YHWH toward the city which Thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Thy name; (45) then hear Thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.
(46) If they sin against Thee -- for there is no man that sinneth not -- and Thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far off or near; (47) yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn back, and make supplication unto Thee in the land of them that carried them captive, saying: We have sinned, and have done iniquitously, we have dealt wickedly; (48) if they return unto Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray unto Thee toward their land, which Thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; (49) then hear Thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven Thy dwelling-place, and maintain their cause;
(50) and forgive Thy people who have sinned against Thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against Thee; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them; (51) for they are Thy people, and Thine inheritance, which Thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron; (52) that Thine eyes may be open unto the supplication of Thy servant, and unto the supplication of Thy people Israel, to hearken unto them whensoever they cry unto Thee. (53) For Thou didst set them apart from among all the peoples of the earth, to be Thine inheritance, as Thou didst speak by the hand of Moses Thy servant, when Thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord YHWH.'
(54) And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto YHWH, he arose from before the altar of YHWH, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread forth toward heaven. (55) And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying: (56) 'Blessed be YHWH, that hath given rest unto His people Israel, according to all that He promised; there hath not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by the hand of Moses His servant. (57) YHWH our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; let Him not leave us, nor forsake us;
(58) that He may incline our hearts unto Him, to walk in all His ways, and to keep His commandments, and His statutes, and His ordinances, which He commanded our fathers. (59) And let these my words, wherewith I have made supplication before YHWH, be nigh unto YHWH our God day and night, that He maintain the cause of His servant, and the cause of His people Israel, as every day shall require; (60) that all the peoples of the earth may know that YHWH, He is God; there is none else. (61) Let your heart therefore be whole with YHWH our God, to walk in His statutes, and to keep His commandments, as at this day.'
YHWH didn't want 'human' sacrifices. That's why YHWH, in Genesis 22, replaces Isaac with a Ram! What more 'visual' does one need? YHWH wanted to see if Abraham would 'obey'. When YHWH knew that Abraham meant to follow through and sacrifice his only son, YHWH called out to Abraham, and stopped him. Then YHWH brought forth a Ram, to be sacrificed.
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 12
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
Isaiah 1:11
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Psalm 51
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
1 Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
Hosea 6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Psalm 40
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the prophets declared that repentance and charity are more pleasing to God for atonement than a blood sacrifice.
Hosea 3
4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.
Hosea 14
2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.
Sacrifices were to be replaced with PRAYER!
God tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice, Jesus tells us that he doesn't want sacrifice
Micah 6
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
YHWH didn't approve of sacrificing one's offspring.
Leviticus 20
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Molech from the Hebrew
4432 Molek mo'-lek from 4427; Molek (i.e. king), the chief deity of the Ammonites:--Molech. Compare 4445.
Molech = "king"
1) the god of the Ammonites and Phoenicians to whom some Israelites sacrificed their infants in the valley of Hinnom
Deuteronomy 12
31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Deuteronomy 18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
Throughout the Bible this kind of sacrifice is hated by YHWH.
YHWH knew we would not be perfect, so He gave a means of atoning, when accompanied with contrition. YHWH knew it would be difficult, but He also said 'it could be done'! For those difficult times, confession, repentance, prayer and wiping away of former sins was given.
Here are just a couple of versions of a particular verse.
(NASB)
Deuteronomy 30
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.
(MSG)
Deuteronomy 30
11 This commandment that I'm commanding you today isn't too much for you, it's not out of your reach.
(NLT)
Deuteronomy 30 The Choice of Life or Death
11"This command I am giving you today is not too difficult for you to understand or perform.
(CEV)
Deuteronomy 30
Choose Life, Not Death
Moses said to Israel:
11 You know God's laws, and it isn't impossible to obey them.
The church does not deny this possibility, though, Kosta. And we have only to recall the thief on the cross next to Christ as an example. Our priest says this is arrogance.
Worth repeating. So lovely and true.
That's interesting because that's the first time I hear of such a thing. Any leads on that?
At any rate, the form you use is Scripturally substantiated and is therefore not wrong to say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son -- but it's not part of the Creed.
Your Calvinist elders are wise people. They know that the Greek word for proceed implies origin (i.e. proceeds from). The Latin verb used is simple procedere which is independent of the origin.
The Greek Fathers observed that the Greek term correctly maintains the monarchy of the Father, from Whom everything proceeds, and that the Filioque is undoubtedly wrong -- because Latin simply did not develop sufficiently to translate a Greek concept faithfully, which is also true.
The Latins were saying that the Son is cosubstantial with the Father and any implication that He is anything less than the Father was heresy, which is true, but the Creed does not do that. That impression was gained from the deficient essence of Latin at that time. The Latin Christians did not speak Greek. Even St. Augustine had difficulty translating because of that and, in at leats one case, made a major error saying that Gos created the world "at once" instead of "in common" as the koine Greek original reads.
The Creed correctly maintains the Divine economy of the three Persons, as understood by the Church, with no implied or expressed inferiority of either.
Finally, the Roman bishop as well as the rest of the Church accepted the Creed as was formulated in Nicenae.
Comparing which verison of the Bible you use to the Creed is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Obviously the original sources are preferred. If that's not available -- many different versions for comparison. The EO uses the Septuagint and the NT, with Apocryphal books (as beneficial but not for dogmatic formulation).
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.