Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
But Peter is not making a comparison between the merits of certain books; his statement is that some people distort both. One can say that the comparison implied in "also the rest of" is not intentional. If I say "first-graders do not understand Shakespeare as they also don't understand chemistry" I assert no equivalence between Shakespeare and chemistry.
You did, but somehow it did not register the first time. I am dumber than I look.
Well, in order for humans to be in the image of God, they must have dominion through intellect (wisdom) to choose freely and judge. For humans to be moral agents, in the likeness of God, they must know what is morally good and what is immoral; so that they may be righteous, merciful and just in the exercise of their dominion, as their Father is the exercise of His.
God certainly did not intend man to be immoral and unrighteous. The whole concept of moral, repsonsible and righteous becomes meaningless unless man has free will to exercise the qualities God gave him, in the image and likeness of God.
But in order for man to be free he must be able to choose between what is right and what is not right. The only alternative is to create a man who is, like animals, driven by necessities, and has dominion over lower species by brute force alone. And that's not how God created man.
No he does not. The only specific thing he offers on Paul's letters is that they are difficult.
One of the reasons it took the Church 300+ years to put together Christian canon is precisely the fear that the books which seemed inspired may have been written by heretics. I mentioned earlier that over 200 such texts existed, all masquerading as "inspired" books. Of tese, 27 ended up in the Christian canon.
The Church fathers painstakingly researched, read and compared texts, debated their implications and message, and compared them to the teachings of Christ from texts known to be authored by the Apostles.
Anything that was written by an Apostle was considered inspired. However, the autorship of some of these was in dispute and still is. Many of the late Pauline, Petrine and other epistles were accepted on content and seamlessness of their message withr espect to the Church Tradition tat was kept alive in writing and by word of mouth from the beginning.
Thus, in your rant about traditions of men, you miss to note 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
and 2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
Apples and oranges...
The Church has made mistakes in the past
The Churhc may has engaged in some erroneous practices and beliefs and has steadfastly corrected them. The original Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, taught one and the same faith for 1,000 years and was defined by oral Tradition, the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Cuncils, all in perfect harmony. The Church of the seven councils never made an error in teaching or in weeding out what was not faith once delivered, unchanged. I can't vouch for the Latin side, but the Orthodox Church, which is the same Church of the seven councils, teaches exactly the same thing the Church taught from the beginning. The Latin side teaches some things we do not teach, but this seems to be more an issue of terminology and phronema (mindset) rather than error. I can guarantee you that if the Church, at a next ecumenical council, finds error in teaching in its ranks, the Church will reject that error, and call those who erroneously taught that which the Church did not believe from the beginning, to repent or be excommunicated.
No you are not! Kolo has a special gift for presenting things clearly and easy to comprehend, which is a big help for the Orthodox on this forum [but don't tell the Greek; his head might swell a wee bit :-) ]
"So "sending" is not the same as "procession as regards existence"? My Catholic lung feels fine. Does this satisfy my Orthodox lung?"
Always has! :) That's what the Greek says, in essence.
The Churhc may has is a spelling not grammatical error; apologies.
The original Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, taught one and the same faith for 1,000 years and was defined by oral Tradition, the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Cuncils, all in perfect harmony
This was an awkward statement by me and does not reflect what I had in mind. What I wanted to say was: The Church taught one and the same theology for 1,000 years...then separated over the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, political and social disagreemnts, etc. The Church, both Latin and Orthodox teaches the same faith, now 2,000 years after Christ, with some variations in terminology, mindset, ecclesiology, etc. and which need to be ironed out. Until such issues are ironed out, and the faith refomulated in the mutually agreeable manner, by an ecumenical council, the Orthodox Curch cannot share the Eucharist with the Latins, because the Eucharist is not the means of achieveing union but an expression of such union.
You are welcome. You may look at the New Testament canon in 2081 for reference.
Sorry that would be post 2,111
I suppose if all Christians of 100 AD could foretell the future, that would be relevant. But how does the future Church's determination have any bearing on what people from 100 AD thought? It is clear that there was disagreement on whether it was Scripture, or even written by Peter!
In fact there were very few books that were called into question. Peter considered Paul's writings inspired.
You are not correct. Not only were some books called into question, other communities considered OTHER books as inspired. For example, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was considered SCRIPTURE, read during the Sunday Masses, for over 150 years, according to writers of Liturgical history. That's well into 250 AD! Now, the Letter is NOT found to be inspired by the Church. Hmmm. What seems obvious is that the universal Church decides on such matters, not local communities - much less individuals!
Undoubtedly the early church felt the same about Peter's writings.
Wrong again, Harley. Two Peter was a controversial epistle. It was not accepted by the majority of Christian Fathers until much later - thus, it is called a New Testament Deuterocanonical (for the same reason that the OT Deuts were). I have a website link that I can send you to (if interested) that lays out which Fathers thought were Scripture regarding the NT.
Nor did the church fathers sit around scratching their heads trying to decide what books to quote from. There is no better evidence than Peter's own words which the Church has deemed "inspired".
You again provide a false dilemna. Who said that the Church Fathers HAD to quote ONLY from Scripture? The NT ITSELF quotes from Apocrypha AND from pagan philosophers! The Church Fathers would quote from whatever source they felt it was appropriate to explain the APOSTOLIC TRADITION. That is what was passed down and protected from DAY ONE. From the beginning, the Church had a particular way of looking at its held doctrine. The only reason that particular writings were "dubbed" as Scripture is BECAUSE they happen to agree with already held doctrines from Tradition.
Some would like us to believe that the Church's council got together in the 4th century and magically strung all these books together, picking and choosing. You say that Peter had the keys to the kingdom and it was handed down in succession providing a clear documented trail back to Peter. And then you tell us nobody knew what books were inspired until the 4th century. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?
Yes, if someone actually made that claim! The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it took 400 years to determine that every single book in the NT was inspired, as if NO ONE knew they were from God until the late 300's. I don't know anyone who has made that claim here. Perhaps you misunderstood. At any rate, men, led by the Spirit, can see a parallel between what they were taught and what was written by Paul to the Galatians. But was it "widely-held"? Who knows? But the very fact that people begin to compile their own ideas of what Scripture was (such as Athanasius' Easter Sermon, or Marcion) forced the Church to settle any disputes. That is what the Church heirarchy is for - to be a visible authority to settle disagreements. If the Church was not a God-protected authority recognized by the members of the Body, then what good would their declaration be? However, from the beginning, the Body has recognized that the Head speaks through the Apostles' Successors. Re-consider reading the Fathers if you don't believe me.
In truth all but a few of the writings were already validated and verified all the way back to Peter. (To deny this is to deny the inspiration of Peter.)
Validated by who? Not by itself!!! The Church did. If a writing was not in-line with the Apostolic Teachings, they would have been tossed out. There can be no doubt on this. The Bible didn't determine the Church's doctrine. It merely helped to define it. Clearly, Apostolic authorship was instrumental in determining if something was Scripture. Unfortunately, it was not so clear if something WAS written by Paul or not on the surface. Paul himself tells communities to beware of forgeries. Two Peter was an example of a book probably not written by Peter - and even the early Church had doubts about this. And finally, what about all of those other writings that DIDN'T make the Canon that were considered Scripture by some? You fail to address them.
In a letter from Pope Innocent I to a Bishop of Toulouse, 405 AD, after writing that compilation of the Canon, continues:
"Others, however, which were written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and of John, by a certain Leucius, or under the name of Andrew, by philosophers Nexocharis and Leonidas, or under the name of Thomas and such others as may be, are not only to be repudiated, but, as you know, are also to be condemned"
In the end, we can't be sure on every book of Scripture unless we rely on the witness of the early Church. Without this, how would we even know that the Gospel of Mark was inspired, while the Gospel of Thomas was not?
Regards
God neither has needs, nor is He driven by necessities. If we follow Christ, we will feel a need to confess our sins, not as a legalistic obligation, but as a realization that we have been ungrateful to Him.
I'm sorry, I meant is there a need by man to be forgiven of sin by God for salvation? I thought I remembered that actually achieving theosis is rare for someone, at least in this lifetime, but that it was still possible to be saved. I was trying to ask how integral is God's forgiveness of sins to this? I guess I mean is God's forgiving of our sins one piece of a larger salvation puzzle, or is it absolutely key?
Theosis is becoming God-like, Christ-like. It is a process, a spiritual growth to holiness through faith in God, in due time.
You may have heard people of my faith say things like they want to adopt "the mind of Christ" or that we should "conform ourselves to the image of Christ". Are these comparable? Also, theosis sounds a lot to me like what I would call sanctification. Is this right, or are there important differences?
I fully agree with you that language can get in the way here. Did God create time itself, at least in part, for us to experience? Our knowledge of Him is in the context of time, so regardless of whether He does or does not experience time, we are meant to experience it and relate to Him through it. I think God wants us to understand Him to the extent of the abilities He gave us (including in time), even though we are not capable of understanding the full picture. Therefore, I believe this is a legitimate topic.
For me, this debate has been on whether or not God "changes His mind" in the way we experience time. Does God "react" to external stimuli (human actions) and do something different? While reiterating that God is not the author of evil, I would say that everything that has been, and is yet to be was pre-ordained by God in the beginning. The idea that God alters or changes His "plan" based on what humans do implies to me an admission from God that He was wrong about something. Tongue-in-cheek, I ask is God only human? :)
FK, notice how +Palamas soundly denies that we can become united with the "essence" of God.
That is the distinction I was "hoping" for, thanks for the clarification. :) I suppose this is another, accidental, example of language getting in the way ("as gods").
This is interesting. To a person hearing this for the first time, it seems that God is content that some ants wander off. He might wish for all the ants to cross, but it doesn't appear that He is willing to do anything about it. I didn't think you thought that God stays out of our lives. I know you know all the verses about Christ leading His sheep. Does God offer a path and then stay out of it? God Himself gave the ants the ability to be curious, so when they exercise it, is that too bad for them?
Me: "was it God's original plan that all people would be born immortal on earth, but man foiled this plan?"
Maybe you should ask yourself if God made Adam and Eve in Paradise so they can become corrupt and die? Did God destroy His own crown-jewels intentionally? ... I think it makes more sense that we are the culprits of the destruction of our own blessings rather than God, Who, after, all gave them to us.
God created Adam and Eve fully knowing they would become corrupt and die, He gave them that ability (can become), so the answer to your first question is 'Yes'. (Is that bad? :)
I don't think God destroyed anything in this sense, as He is not the author of evil. God could have created us as perfection, but He didn't. He included the potential to sin. This was done for His perfect purpose, but it is nonetheless true. I would agree that we are to blame for our own sins.
I believe God's plan incorporates His perfect knowledge of our sins, AND His unwillingness, at times, to interfere with their commission. Of course, other times God prevents us from sinning through the Spirit.
It's funny you should say that because I have something similar, but on a completely different subject, the trinity. I have always "liked" the comparison to how we experience the sun. We all experience the sun's light, the sun's heat, and the sun's radiation. All three "are" the sun, but we experience them in different ways, and they have different purposes (functions). It seems like a neat little way to explain it, but I have read that the analogy is flawed. However, I've never found an explanation. Therefore, I've never used it in witnessing. Has anyone heard of this before?
Isn't it a tad bit odd to be formulating complete doctrines and policies for the Church on disputed text? What happens if someone "declares" 2/3 of the New Testament suspect. Are you going to throw out praying to the saints if that happens to be in the text? Are you guys going to shrug your shoulders and say, "Oops, guess we mess that one up."?
Honestly, this isn't some type of rant. When it comes down to it all, you really don't believe the Bible to be inspired. You have been brought up under a system that you are to listen to what the Church tells you and don't ask questions. You run back to 2 Thess and hide behind the Church fathers even through the early church fathers ran back to the scriptures. It is documented time and again in scripture about reading the text and you guy tell me you trace your lintage to Peter where the Church has forever been making all sorts of decisions; and then you tell me nobody knew what they were even preaching from. How disorganized.
The church fathers were wrong in some cases. They admitted they were wrong in some cases. But they always felt the scriptures were right. Something I hearing that you people really don't believe.
+Gregory Palamas addresses this very issue again in The Triads:
"Thus the deifying gift of the Spirit is a mysterious light, and transforms into light those who receive its richness; He does not only fill them with eternal light, but grants them a knowledge and a life appropriate to God. Thus, as St. Maximus teaches, St. Paul lived no longer a created life, but 'the eternal life of Him Who indwelt him.' Similarly, the prophets contemplated the future as if it were the present."
So we do disagree. To me, this quote describes how a prophet might come to "see". You are only giving credit to God for this part. I don't see you giving credit to God for causing those future events that the prophets saw. You can say that God saw the fulfillment of the prophecy and the making of the prophecy simultaneously. For the sake of discussion, I'll give you that.
The problem is: How did the fulfillment happen in the first place? Did God just "look up the answers" to know what prophecies to cause through the Spirit? God looked to us first for our actions, and then (simultaneously) instilled those results into the prophets hundreds of years earlier?
I would say that God had His mighty hand all over each and every fulfillment of prophecy. God made no adjustments to what the prophets said based on what He knew would happen later on. God made it all happen. He gets double credit.
I assume you're kidding, but if not, please see posts 1-2100+ for a description of how Protestants view salvation and sanctification. :) Of course, I am more than willing to return the hundreds of kindnesses done to me in answering any questions to the best of my ability.
Sin is spiritual dirt we continue to cover ourselves with no matter how much we love God. We do it daily, hourly, every waking moment. Yes, there is a need for us to become pristine in order to be in communion with Him, so the answer is yes, our sins must be forgiven; we must be cleansed of all that separates us from Him. Some of that we can do ourselves, but ultimately it is God's mercy that accomplishes that.
You may have heard people of my faith say things like they want to adopt "the mind of Christ" or that we should "conform ourselves to the image of Christ"
That's part of it FK. Theosis is a way of "life in God." It is a process, a struggle in fact (Slavonic word for it is podvig), because our sin-prone nature makes it a struggle. It involves placing God first, everywhere and all the time and denying yourself. The idea is to become pure and clean so that, to paraphrase the Scripture, His light can shine through us for others to see and know Him.
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.