Posted on 05/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PDT by Destro
Thank you for the book titles. I haven't read those but I sure will! I love to read those kinds of books. I was just cleaning out some of my book shelves today as I am getting ready to move and found some I hadn't read in years. They are in the pile to be reread!
Excellent way to explain the Trinity.
Ping
It is the word used to describe the process found in 1 Thess 4: 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
In that verse, the word for "caught up" is the Greek word harpazo (harpgesometha). That Greek word in Latin is rapiemur....and it's obvious how the English rapture is related to the Latin "rapiemur."
So, it's inappropriate to say that "rapture" does not appear in the bible. It certainly does.
What you might want to say is that you disagree with a premillennial doctrine of the rapture, because you, as a Catholic, have been primarily taught an amillennial doctrine.
I am not Catholic and I don't accept them.
The "sola scriptura" of your average American evangelical is NOT the actual sola scriptura taught by the 16th Century Reformers.
The original sola scriptura respected and obeyed tradition--when it supported or at least did not contradict scripture. The idea was scripture alone is infallibly authoritative--which logically doesn't say scripture alone is the ONLY authority, just the only infallible one. You see this idea reflected in the more traditional of Protestant churches....Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians (especially evangelical ones) all honor various ancient traditions (the word "trinity" is one...) which are supportive of (and supportable by) scripture.
The modern Roman idea of Tradition, on the other hand, makes it into a competing "infallible" authority--which they follow many times even in spite of clear scriptural teachings to the contrary.
Modern American evangelicals however, tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water however--giving no heed or honor to tradition, ignoring what Christians have done and taught throughout the last 2000 years. This distortion of "sola scriptura" is typically what Roman Catholics criticize (often rightly).
I prefer the original definition of sola scriptura--as taught by the Reformers, and the idea taught and practiced in the patristic era of the Church.
Sorry about that.
So the rapture gets the series of events wrong and put the cart before the horse?
Ahhhhhhhh, yes, they did such a good job of that during the Inquisition.
And, they did such a good job of that during the reigns of the corrupt and immoral Popes.
And, they did such a good job of that all the times they adjusted doctrine and practices to insure more income; more political power; more land grabs; more idolatry; . . .
And that doesn't begin to get into their daring to ascribe to Mary the status of co-redemptrix as though Chris't Blood was insufficient or her life equal to His Blood shedding on The Cross.
The list of examples of their travesties in such matters is quite a long one.
I can't imagine remotely beginning to respect your logic in such matters. It's built on sand--and quicksand at that.
Oh that hurt because it is so in error. The ecumenical Those 7 councils were where the bishops of the all the churches met to discuss, debate and vote on doctrine - even those that were in the minority (like Arian) were given a chance to prove their position and put it to a vote. If they lost the vote they accepted the verdict of the majority (as Arian did). It had nothing to do with those issue you brought up.
In 784 the imperial secretary Patriarch Tarasius was appointed successor to the Patriarch Paul IV, he accepted on condition that the intercommunion with the other churches should be reestablished, that is, that the images should be restored. However, as a council claiming to be ecumenical had abolished the veneration of icons, another ecumenical council was necessary for its restoration. Pope Adrian I was invited to participate and gladly accepted.
Kind of resembles the amendments to the constitution in regard to ending prohibition does it not?
The Council numbered about 350 members; 308 bishops or their representatives signed. Tarasius presided, and seven sittings were held in Nicaea. Proof of the lawfulness of the veneration of icons was drawn from Ex. xxv.17 sqq.; Num. vii. 89; Heb. ix. 1 sqq.; Ezek. xli., and Gen. xxxi. 34, etc.
So you see to get the doctrine changed those present had to prove it using facts from the bible and convince the assembled and then put it to a vote. Very democratic - very republican.
It does not explain Trinity. Trinity is beyond our comprehension. It also does not suggest how the three Hypostases interact, the monarchy of the Father, the precedence of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Economy of the Three.
It merely states out-of-context phrases. These phrases can be read and interpreted in various ways. The fact remains that the word "Trinity" does not appear in any shape or form in the Bible and is therefore not biblical.
All the heresies that sprang up in the early 2nd century and continued onward about the nature of Christ only testify to the confusion that existed among many believers as to the nature of God, even after the Bible was canonized.
Trinity was defined by the Church, not by Rome. The Church was not ruled by Rome (better yet the Roman bishop and patriarch) as is the case with Roman Catholic churches today.
What the church canonized as scripture means nothing to me. The " assembling" of the books means nothing to me
The "assembling" was not some meanial clerical work of soemone collecting ready-made material and sowing them into one neat book. The process involved centuries of active selection of multitudes of texts and deliberately selecting those deemed inspired while rejecting those deemed profabe with equal certitude.
Those who assembled the Bible, so that you can now quote from it, knowing that it contains only true and inspired sources of knowledge, but by no means all there is to know, had to know that which is true and that which only appears true.
There were many, many "gospels" and various Gnostic and pagan works and other heresies. Somone had to distinguish betwen the heresy and the true teaching, accepting without a fail that which was orthodox and rejecting without a fail that which was not.
I don't for a minute think that all the Councils and all their actions were Spirit Led.
I believe God essentially had His way with the Canon.
But even the disciples did not vote on a new replacement for Judas. They cast lots.
I'm not at all convinced that democracy is how God's will is to be decided.
But, as you should probably know, I was not speaking of the councils particularly or only. I was speaking of a vast sweep of centuries of the actions and traditions of the Roman group. The Inquisition didn't have anything to do with the councils.
If one can't face the historical truths of one's primary reference group . . .
how on earth
can one BEGIN to discern when that primary reference group abides by GOD'S TRUTH and when it takes a flying leap into error or rank heresy???
It's a little bit like facing the truths of one's family of origin. If one grows up in a dysfunctional family [and who doesn't these days?]; One is not likely to become a full fledged adult fully functioning in reality and THE TRUTH
UNLESS AND UNTIL
ONE HAS FAIRLY FULLY FACED THE FLAWS, ERRORS, LIES, TRUTHS OF ONE'S HORRID CHILDHOOD.
Destro
Well, now that I know that you’re not Catholic (several times) you do raise an interesting point. Some people interpret the scriptures one way (those who posted on believing the rapture). Some posted on interpreting scriptures another way (those who posted on not believing the rapture). Some posted on not accepting certain traditions (like you who posted against indugents and purgatory). And I’m sure our Catholic friends would say that these traditions (indugents and purgatory) are true.
The bottom line in all of this is that there are some things which are very clear (like our Lord Jesus is the Son of God) and some things not so clear (like the rapture). Hopefully, we all have the clear things down.
AMEN!
I still believe that it is highly unlikely for an all knowing, almighty God to
make an eternal life or death issue
out of something He left ambiguous in His Word.
Just doesn't fit His nature, His character.
And people who get on their pharisaical soap boxes about how ambiguous word meanings
JUST HAVE to fall down on THEIR side of things [without any significant definitional, grammatical, linguistic support for such]
are allowing far too much of their arrogance to show.
imho, of course.
I’m sorry but I have to agree with Quix on this one. In the very early formation of the church the vote was by majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously. This is how the books of the New Testament were pass-by a unanimous vote. It was later changed to a majority rule vote-something that is not proper in the church. In fact as posted on another thread here, the Nicene Creed, something the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church has some contentions about, was passed by a majority vote as early as 350+AD against the wishes of the Eastern Orthodox.
I know only a small amount of about the Orthodox beliefs. But there is sufficient proof that many of the Council's theological decisions (especially 1000+ AD and on) were made to keep people attending and to keep the funding coming in.
That should be:
In the very early formation of the church the vote was by NOT BY majority. Everything had to be approved unanimously.
Purgatory in itself is not really different form the Partial Judgment except that it is unthinkable for an Orthodox Chirstian to think that souls of the deceased would be tortured by flames to God's "satisfaction." The Orthodox do not dwell on Jesus' suffering as much as on His triumphant Resurrection. We do not see God returning evil with evil but rather to the last breath of each human being extending a chance to save him, and so on. Indulgencies exist in the Orthodox Faith, but they are not redeemable with money. They are intended to help a person repent -- and never repeat the sins by changing his life.
There was no Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic when the Creed was put together in the 4th century. The Church was one, and catholic in its worship and teaching, not Roman Catholic as you know it today. The pope (the patriarchal title of the bishop of Rome) was one of the five patriarchs of the Church. He did not rule the Church, nor did he have juridical power over other bishops or patriarchs. He did enjoy the place of primacy of honor.
The dispute of the Creed started to take shape early. The Latin side of the Church and some Greek theologians started to refer to the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son (the famous Filioque) which was not part of the Creed as set by the first two Ecumenical Councils. There was a good reason for that: the Greek distinguishes procession from the fource (well, spirng) as opposed to proceding through. To the Greeks, the Filioque seems to suggest two causes two sources, which directly changes the monarchy of the Father, Who is the cause of all.
The Church never voted by majority against the original Creed, as it was finalized before 350 AD, as you seem to suggest. Your facts are incorrect. The practice of inserting "and from the Son" continued in the West and was made pulic at the (local, not ecumenical) Council of Toledo in the 6th century. The popes never sanctioned the use of that change of the Creed until after the Church split.
In the 9th century the 8th Ecumenical Council was held in whic, on the urging of the Frankish zealots, the Filioque was endorsed and the bishop of Constantinople (Photius) condemned. Ten years later the same Eight Ecumenical Council was held because the first one was annulled, Photius was restored and the Filioque rejected. Both the latin and the Greek side of the Church agreed on that, including the pope. To this day, theere is a Greek language Creed on the walls of the Vatican -- without the Filioque.
The Potestants often bring up Inquisition, indulgencies and papal immorality. The Church never held that its individual lay members and clergy are sinful and some gravely sinful at that. These individuals do not make the entire Church corrupt and sinful.
We disagree with the Vatican on the papal authority, which is not historically defensible. The Church Synods (Councils) were passed despite papal objections in the united Church. The princly position of the pope is unknown to the primitive and united church.
The East has not been influenced by St. Augustine (thank God!) or by humanism and/or Rennaisance. Our concept of God is different from the western, which is heavily influenced by pagan Greek philosophy, when God's "pride" is offended (!) by our unworthy transgressions. In the East we tend to see God as hurt the way a parent is hurt seeing his child, with great potential, go astray.
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.