Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The Bible was never in God's explicit plan. Humanity was without the written word of God for most of its history and even the last 1600 years or so when the Bible was around, by far most of the people could not read, let alone understand or afford it.
Judaism was passed on as oral tradition until 500 BC. From Adam until approximately 6th century BC there was nothing in the form of inspired writing. Are you willing to believe that the Hebrew oral tradition was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another in the exact and unaltered form for centuries? If you do, historical facts do not support your belief.
Hebrew Scriptures do not agree en toto. Judaism was not monolithic. The Sadducees, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and some smaller groups deviated from each other in their beliefs and their Scriptures reflected that. Modern (rabbinical) Judaism was pretty much formed after Jamnia in 100 AD.
The Septuagint (LXX), the Qumran fragments, the Masoretic text all vary, in length, quantity and content, so it is really difficult to believe that humans could have passed on unaltered Scriptures from generation to generation by word of mouth if their written Scriptures differ.
The Bible became affordable to the majority of the people only in the latter half of the 20th century, and literacy levels still prevent at least 50% of the people to have any real comprehension and appreciation of the Bible.
Translational errors, linguistic limitations, understanding of historical context, colloquial use of terms, and original-language complexities reduce the number of people who can really appreciate the Scripture to almost a trickle.
There is absolutely no substance to support Luther's naive idea of sola scriptura as part of God's plan or as an inerrant source of faith. It's not the word of God that was revealed that is in error or contradiction, but rather it is our interpretation and understanding of it.
That is why we rely on the writings of not just the Apostles, but all those who followed in their steps, and compare their understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, starting with the people who were with the Apostles in person, who were taught by them, who knew the reality of the earliest Christian world, in context and cultural setting, and could therefore correctly interpret what was passed on.
In doing so, we are assured that our understanding is not lost or corrupted. We can never achieve that simply by reading the Bible.
I am willing to listen to St. Ignatius and take his interpretations a little more seriously than say, the private interpretations of someone completely removed in time an culture and context from original Christinaity, just as I would take more seriously any impressions and interpretations of America of those who actually knew America and not some individual half way around the world who only read about it!
St. Ignatius was ordained bishop by St. Paul, the Apostle, in person! And St. Polycarp's words carry the same weight for the same reason, having been a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. If other bishops' writings and interpretations agree with those of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I would say that they have safeguarded the truths passed on by the Apostles and that what the Church believed then is what the Church believes now.
disregard, experimental error.
I believe that our "position" of righteousness in God's eyes is made secure at the single moment of salvation. Our "condition in" righteousness improves throughout our lives via sanctification. All of the elect enter heaven in a blameless state, because of what Christ did. So, when we are saved we are not perfect people. But, when we die and enter heaven we enter as "perfect" because of Jesus. Sanctification is useful to become better Christians and better witnesses. It also helps us to love God more and to understand better His love for us. Sanctification does not save, it is a pre-ordained process following a true salvation. This is the work that Christ began in us and will carry on until completion.
I see faith in different degrees. There is faith of the intellect, faith that speaks of trusting in God to fulfill His promises, and faith that obeys the Lord out of love. When the Scriptures speak of "walking in faith", I see a fully-formed faith, a faith with love added to it, as in James.
I agree, and that true faith has love.
I suppose what I am trying to understand is that you seem to believe that one must have faith and love to enter heaven, but it should be perfectly clear that some do not have both, and others who believe they do, at one point will admit that they didn't. Thus, there is a time where our love is insufficient to allow us to call our faith "saving faith". Yet, how many Protestants do you know, honestly, that think that their faith is not saving yet? See what I am trying to say? At what point do you have "saving faith", enough to die that instant and go to heaven?
You raise an excellent issue. :) I do agree that some professing faith in Christ do not have both faith and love. I am one who admits that at the time of my salvation I did not know how to love God as I should. I also agree that I don't know any Protestant who doesn't believe his own faith is already sufficient, as that Protestant defines faith. IOW, no one who assumes himself saved can also believe himself wanting in faith.
So, was I still saved when I said my sinner's prayer, even though at that moment I had not done a single good work in God's eyes? YES. Here is how I look at it: you are either a member of the elect or you are not. God determines this, we have nothing to do with it. So, if I had died the day after saying the sinner's prayer, then I'm still in because there was no time to fall away and reject God.
As it turned out in my case, soon after my sinner's prayer I fell away during college. Now, what if I had died during that time? I would say that if that had happened then I wouldn't have been a member of the elect in the first place. God promises to keep His own so if I died in a permanent state of rejection, then I'm toast because God doesn't lie. Wonderfully for me that did not happen, and I have since appropriated the love for God that we are talking about. Of course, this isn't the case with everyone, I'm sure many have been saved with the whole package in tact. The whole point is that if you are on the list, then you are on the list. God uses a million different ways to bring those on the list to where they need to be. There is no set formula.
I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward. The Scriptures point to either eternal happiness, or an everlasting grinding of teeth in hell. There doesn't seem to be any mention about our judgment being used to determine the square footage of our plot in heaven (or other such talk).
I'm gunning for cloudfront property myself. :) Here are a couple of verses:
Matt. 5:10-12 : "10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
So, for those who are persecuted like the prophets were, AND STAND UP, it appears that their reward will be greater than a "regular" reward. That makes sense to me, as the martyrs had purer faith. Many good Christians of today would cave under torture, etc.
Matt. 16:27 : "27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."
This "clearly" indicates varying degrees of reward. Those who have done more, get more. I realize that your take on this is going to be to say that the reward spoken of is salvation itself. I found some verses that do lead in that direction. So, we'll just disagree. :)
I believe that the Church teaches that men will have different rewards in heaven, but this is more based on Tradition then Scripture (LOL - you are following Tradition!).
Yeah, yeah, yeah. :)
Well, I understand your point of view, although I still am not so absolutely confident that my name is in the Book of the Elect right now. I have a moral confidence of it, but not absolute - that would seem to take away God's Freedom, in case I decided to just start sinning whenever I felt like it - although then you'll say "I never was saved to begin with"! Which then we go in circles by me saying "then how can we know WE are saved in 5 years?"
OK, then the first question to ask is: "From God's point of view, does He constantly sit there erasing and adding new names to the Book of Life? Does God say: "Look, there's Jim Miller, I just wrote his name back in after he confessed two hours ago, but now he has sinned again. Where's that eraser?" :) I honestly don't believe it works like that. Does God work like Beethoven, whose original works were filled with cross-outs and corrections, or does He work like Mozart, whose originals did not have a single correction?
If we get passed this, then we only need to look at God's many promises on the subject. You already know all the verses I can quote that "appear" to assure salvation. If you believe that the Book of Life is not subject to reprintings, then you can know for sure.
FK: "Yes, I believe that I am of the elect and my name cannot be blotted out. I would replace "cannot fall" with "will not fall".
Scripture clearly states we CAN fall: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Cor 10:12
YES, that is exactly why I wanted to make a change. ("Cannot fall" was your term.) We CAN fall but we (the elect) WILL NOT fall because of God's promise to us of protection.
"True faith"? I suppose that means faith with love? It appears that Protestants have an aversion to the word "love" preferring to "hide" it in the definition of "faith". Does a faith without works of love save?
We don't have any aversion to the word "love", we have an aversion to the appearance of believing in a works-based salvation. We do not "hide" anything. We just see the definition as inclusive. Works are a natural fruit of true faith, so they will happen.
So YOUR intent of sincerity determines your eternal salvation? Doesn't that sound like a "work", something you earned?
From God's point of view, my intent of sincerity is irrelevant, I am either on the list or I am not. The sincerity is what helps ME to KNOW it. When I said my sinner's prayer I know that I gave everything there was inside me to give at that time. If the TRUTH is that I was still full of baloney then I am toast, but I'm not going to live my life worrying about it. I'm going to live my life in the joy and confidence of my salvation, based on God's grace and His promises to me in scripture. This is what I think it means when we "rest" in Him.
-----------------
I also appreciate your answers. I believe that through our conversation, sanctification is happening! It has been a wonderful and very educational experience for me. :)
No, not particularly, He doesn't care for some. He cares for all. Sun shines on all, equally. But if some choose to shut their eyes or hide from it, the Sun will not force their eyes open or pull them out of their dark hiding places! They all know the Sun is out there, whether they like it or not. It's their choice to be in its light or to shun away from it.
OK, just so I understand you: You say God cares for all, equally. If God cares for all equally, then He must offer His grace to all equally, is that right? Then, after that, some choose Christ and some do not, all of whom know that "the Sun is out there". (I know what you mean.) Therefore, if God doesn't particularly care which of us makes whatever choice, as you said, and if God treats us all equally, then how is this not a man-determined salvation?
From what you said, we choose, we determine, if everything else is equal to God. You say that God makes the same offer to us all, but the determinative factor is what our response to it is, by our free will. I know that you don't believe that man has the power to save himself, but here you believe that ultimate salvation is based on the decision of the individual to accept or reject. AND, that God just takes it in stride. It sounds like you are saying that God sits back and waits to see who chose wisely. Is this right?
Oh,please, don't flatter yourself! Just how do you know it was the Spirit? Everyone uses that phrase. I think it's using the Lord's name in vain, as some kind of warranty.
Really??? I'm full of myself because I dare to say that the indwelling Spirit of God leads me??? Words just fail me.
How do you know it wasn't Satan distorting your views? The answer is plain and simple: you don't know.
I'm going to take a wild guess here and go way out on a limb. I am actually going to say that satan did not lead me to want to know my God better. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but the scripture holds me to it. I cannot serve two masters. Therefore, I know, and I know for sure. :)
It's a process, not an instantanous event. It involves a lot of steps, the first one comes from God. If we accept His grace, we can only follow Christ. The only other choice is no longer valid. We don't have but two choices and one is a sure loss!
Christ is our Shepard. He provides the light that illuminates the way to the truth; He is the Truth, the Light and the Way. If we are to re-acquire the likeness of God that was lost with Adam, we must follow Chirst. Who else can we follow? Therefore, it is not your own doing, and by following Him we hope to attain salvation -- i.e. we hope that our hearts will change and that at the moment of our death we will have some similitude to Him to be saved.
The heart is changed when we accept Christ. But our nature requires that it be actively maintained, lest it slips back. It's a cooperative process, with God leading and us following, willingly in both cases. For only those spiritually blinded can choose evil over God, the corruptable, over incorruptable, things that shall pass over eternal life with God.
God is the driver, but we have to step on that bus, FK!
Your enemies lead you to God, FK. Evil sends us to God when it shows its true ugly face. As St. Nikolai (Valdimiriovich) says:
"Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not Enemies have driven me into Thy embrace more than friends have. Friends have bound me to earth, enemies have loosed me from earth and have demolished all my aspirations in the world.
Enemies have made me a stranger in worldly realms and an extraneous inhabitant of the world. Just as a hunted animal finds safer shelter than an unhunted animal does, so have I, persecuted by enemies, found the safest sanctuary, having ensconced myself beneath Thy tabernacle, where neither friends nor enemies can slay my soul.
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them. They, rather than I, have confessed my sins before the world. They have punished me, whenever I have hesitated to punish myself. They have tormented me, whenever I have tried to flee torments. They have scolded me, whenever I have flattered myself They have spat upon me, whenever I have filled myself with arrogance."
To use the wisdom of Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony, who says: "The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice."
Humility, FK, humility.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but your spelling of satan with a lower case "s" is usually how the Orhtodox write it, to show their complete disdain for him, although it is a proper name.
The Catholic Church believes that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. They give us what God wants us to know - through human writers. The human writers, though, use their own conventions and theological points (guided by God) to say what God wants said. So in one Gospel, we have one angel at the tomb, another has two. Luke has two because it is a common theme of his - discipleship in pairs. Now, if God was directly dictating to men, would we have slightly different stories? Would the Words of Christ be slightly different in parallels of the Synoptics? No, they don't contradict, but they differ - for theological reasons - because we are not talking CNN here.
Much of God's literal word requires interpretation.
So if God says "Do this", you will first have to interpret "what does He really mean"? A literal meaning doesn't require spiritual thought - you follow exactly what is written.
I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.
I am merely reporting the chronological history of the teaching of the Gospel. First, it came orally. Can you deny that? The Scripures recorded the oral words of the Apostles for later generations. They became revered because of their connection to these Apostles. Future generations knew the Apostles were given authority by Christ to teach - so their words were the Gospel - even if an angel should come to teach another Gospel, Paul told the Galatians, they were not to heed it. The Scriptures, though revered, are not ABSOLUTELY necessary to convey the Christian message. For example, many men of the Middle Ages knew the stories of the Bible from stain glass windows in cathedrals. The preachings of priests. The passed down traditions that reminded them of Christ. The Bible is not the only way that God speaks to men. Nor does the Bible call itself the sole source of Christian teaching. That is a man-made tradition.
To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.
We see authority as a three legged chair - Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the teaching Church). We believe they all come from God and are guarded as such. So I suppose that Catholics hold more in higher regard.
All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?
Sure, we agree for the most past on James and Romans - but we have discussed the issues quite extensively. We have the experience of many other people before us who have read and expounded on faith and salvation and love. But Luther and the Catholic Church had a large disagreement over these verses, so much so that Luther wanted to get rid of James from the Bible altogether. He called it an Epistle of straw. My point is that two different people can come up with two strongly-held positions that completely contradict each other. The Bible doesn't clearly interpret itself. Look at Acts 8 and the Ethiopian. "Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me?" (Acts 8:30-31).
I have certainly given ample evidence that two people can read different meanings from the same Bible, not, the same VERSES! We are not talking about the existence of angels, or something like that. We are talking about Salvation. The Eucharist. Baptism. The role of the Church. These are important issues that we disagree on. Ask yourself - what good is a teacher if He leaves His students confused on what He meant? Was Jesus that poor of a teacher? That no one knew if Jesus was God, or whether Jesus was really present at the Eucharist? I find this as a ridiculous assertion. Thus, it should seem quite obvious that Christ left a Body of Teaching to an inner group of men who would be able to explain it to all. Later, this group of men wrote down SOME of these teachings - but not FULLY explaining it all - they left THAT job to the men they commissioned to continue the bringing of the Kingdom of God to men.
Is that such a difficult thing to understand or believe? The evidence clearly shows that is exactly what happened. History as we know it clearly points to the forming and development of the Church.
I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine
Sure, we agree on much. That is because Protestantism has not moved THAT far from its CATHOLIC roots! You probably continue to hold to the vast majority of the Nicean Creed, put together in 325 by the Catholic Church. But there really are a number of important issues where we differ. As far as I know, these are the pillars of Protestantism (most hold them): The Bible is the sole source of the faith. Man is saved by faith alone. Man is subject to his own private interpretation of Scripture as his ultimate authority.
As I have mentioned before, there is NO concept of these ideas until the Reformation. They were unheard by Christianity. And what about the sacrament? To us, they ARE God's graces coming to us through visible means. To you, they do not possess any grace. We believe that without love, we cannot be saved. We believe that men CAN fall away from the faith and NOT be saved for eternal life. We believe in Purgatory and intercessionary prayers to the saints. We believe that Mary has a special place in salvation history that exceeds her earthly position as the recepticle for the Word of God. We believe that man does have free will and can reject God's Graces. We FULLY believe in the Incarnation of Christ and all of its implications for US - we participate in Jesus' continuing work here on earth through this participation. We believe in the Real Presence of the Lord during the Eucharist, AND we believe that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary, allowing us in time to participate in receiving these graces. We believe in a ministrial priesthood in where Christ acts through these men to forgive sins or offer up His sacrifice to the Father.
Oh, there are some essentials that we disagree on, brother! And many Protestants do hold to some of the above teachings that you do not. Lutherans and Anglicans, for example.
I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right!
In matters of a "dogmatic teaching", how would one know which of two Protestants was correct? The "holier" one? LOL! Being holy doesn't necessarily make one more correct! Only God can give us the truth WITHOUT DOUBT. He does this through the Church.
i don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)
We are still talking past one another. There are two levels of knowledge that the Spirit imparts. I agree on the first level, that we attain to know more about Christ as we become more holy, remove attachments, and follow His Word. However, their is a second level that the Spirit does NOT speak with us in. ONLY the Apostles and their successors were given the power to bind and loosen, to give the Teachings of Christ without error. Even the holiest of saints individually CAN be wrong. ST. Augustine AND St. Thomas Aquainas, to of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, were wrong on at least one issue...Thus, we cannot rely on our OWN selves to determine God's Revelation to MANKIND in its entire Truth. It is impossible to determine whether the Spirit is speaking or ourselves or the devil on such matters. No, I am sorry, but I don't trust ANY individual man on his own merits, nor do I trust a man who claims the Spirit to teach ALL of the Truth, because God doesn't act that way anymore. He teaches through a Body of men, the Bishops in unity with the Pope. THEY (not individually) are protected by the Spirit, as per Scripture.
I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes
So you rely on an error-prone guide to tell you what God teaches mankind? This is odd. I think God did better than that with the Apostles and their successors. God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. How can we do this depending on the "Spirit" alone? How do we KNOW the Holy Spirit is speaking to us? If even the greatest of saints CAN be wrong, what hope do I have that I will become more holy, and thus more "correct" in "knowing" God? Is this not a reliance on yourself? I prefer to trust in the Church, the Body of Christ, to infallibly tell me God's teachings. I don't have to rely on my own sanctification to "know" if I am right or not about the Eucharist, or about Mass, or about Confession to Priests.
God used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time.
Illogical. Something perfect cannot come from imperfection. This is basic logic. Either God MADE these men to understand infallibly His teachings, or we cannot trust that these men put to paper God's Word. Let's face the cold, hard facts. How do you REALLY know the Bible is the Word of God, but not the Koran? Because we trust the witness of the Apostles and their successors. If we didn't believe them - we would not be convinced that the Bible on its own merits, is God's Word. Often times, individual books do not even make that claim. Thus, we either trust the men who put it together (that God was guiding them, of course) or we don't. Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book in a language that no one could understand? Does it make sense that God would write an infallible book that no one could truly know what a given verse meant? If our American Forefathers knew enough to create a living interpreter, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, the Law of the Land, what makes you think God wasn't smart enough to duplicate that? Did God leave us orphans, not really knowing what His Book meant? Being holier doesn't mean we will know we are right on every issue.
In the end, a Protestant Pastor can NEVER REALLY know he is teaching his congregation what God intended to teach when he expounds on a Scripture. This is nearly UNAMINOUS among Protestant pastors who convert! That is what they all say! That is what primarily leads them back home. Because they know they are not infallible and they realize that they will never be. Thus, they cannot know if they are even teaching the truth about key essential matters of the faith. Good feelings inside of us do not mean that the Spirit is teaching us that the Eucharist is a symbol only.
The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself.
Many would disagree with that. Have you considered reading the Old Testament, and then the New Testament? Many Christians have thought that there were two different "Gods" found in these two sections of Scriptures, called Gnostics. What makes you think they are wrong, from Scripture ALONE?
The Bible is totally self-contained
What does that mean?
Regards
That's semantics -- it basically means you cannot fall because God will not let you. And the non-elect, again by God's will, fall and are damned.
How can you do anything on your own when you deny free will? Whether you fall or not fall is God's will according to your belief, so it is wholly irrelevant and indeed meaningless to even speak in terms of what you can or cannot do -- for it is obvious that Protestants believe that man cannot do anything on his own; in other words a captive robot used for one or the other end.
Yes, that sounds fair enough to me. I don't know the subtleties of who gets the credit for salvation. I always think that "Christ saves". So whether it is the Holy Spirit or Christ or the Father or all, I believe I know where you are coming from and agree.
I also notice that you use the words "process of sanctification" seemingly as an equivalent with "salvation".
If I have given you that impression, then I have been in error, and I apologize. I believe that the process of sanctification is very distinct from salvation. I see the truth of salvation as a single moment in time, from our point of view, with future included events (works). I believe sanctification only begins after salvation is accomplished. Sanctification, in part, teaches us how to love God, and appreciate His love for us more. Sanctification is a lifelong process (after salvation) and brings us closer to God. Salvation, according to me, is what gets us into heaven.
My curiosity forces me to ask how I suggested that salvation and sanctification are the same thing (even if I regret it)? :) I just want to know if I'm not framing my positions correctly.
[From +Symeon the New Theologian: ] When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."
I am laughing at myself for the instinctive reaction this saying gives me. You have to know how something like this must sound to the average listener. However, since I (stroking chin) have read from you and Kosta, I know better how to interpret a statement like this. :)
[+Thalassios taught:] ..."But once the battle is over and it [the intellect] is found worthy of spiritual gifts, then it becomes wholly luminous, powerfully energized by grace and rooted in the contemplation of spiritual realities. A person in whom this happens is not attached to the things of this world but has passed from death to life."
Does this mean that spiritual gifts are not bestowed until after physical death? (Maybe I am misinterpreting "battle is over"?) Regarding the last sentence, does this mean that man is spiritually dead until theosis? If so, then most people spend their entire lives spiritually dead?
[+Gregory Palamas :] "Through this life it [the soul] makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."
Sorry for coming up with such a weird question here, but does this mean that a soul doomed to hell will be without body? (From the context, I'm assuming that a lost soul will not make the body immortal.) In that case, how can there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?
The next verse, from John, is interpreted to mean that while no one can "snatch" us from the hand of God, we can "fall" out of it. As +John Chrysostomos writes in Homily VI on Phillipians:
"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost,...
This is another good point that I haven't been able to understand. Isn't it clear in this passage that we are stronger than the hand of God? God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires? To me, interpreting "no one" into "no one except me" renders the whole verse useless. It completely negates the point of the verse. This is a perfect example of my "protestation". Why should I trust another fallible man to throw out what this verse is actually saying?
The final quote from Romans is repeated time and again by the Fathers for two purposes. One is to demonstrate how God's love falls on all, the good and the evil equally...
I know it sounds very harsh from me when I say that I don't think God loves us all equally. I suppose I am making a sovereignty argument along the lines of:
Is. 29:16 : "16 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?"
I know both that God IS love and that God's ways are not our ways. With my own children, if I see that one of them is about to make a bad decision, I will sometimes allow it because I believe that experience will be beneficial. I certainly learned many things "the hard way"! :) I believe God does this with us. If, however, my child's bad decision involved any kind of physical danger, then of course I would step in. What you seem to be saying is that God will not do that for us. God loves us all equally and He will just let some of us walk right off a cliff in His plain sight, and under His power to prevent. I struggle with this nature of love.
Tell me, what do you believe happens after the death of the body? BTW, sorry for being so long winded.
I, Forest Keeper, master of brevity, King of the concise, and prince of the succinct, hereby forgive you, Kolo, for being long winded. :))
As for the body after death, I must admit I've never given it a tremendous amount of thought. I suppose I would just go with :
2 Cor. 5:6-8 " 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."
So, after death, (for those who are saved) the spirit immediately goes into the presence of God. Once Christ returns, they will be reunited with their new and perfect bodies to spend a time on earth under Jesus' rule, and then we will all be taken into heaven permanently.
Thank you for that confirmation. I remember when you first taught me about PotS I slapped my forehead and said "Eureka!, that's it!". PotS really is the only view that satisfies all scripture, and includes Godly good deeds (not for pay) in their proper context. Thanks also for the link :)
Very well said, and thank you for your very kind words. This thread has definitely rid me of many presumptions, and my hope is strengthened. Glory be to God.
Imagine a Protestant and an Orthodox shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean with nothing around them but water as far as they can see, helplessly floating on choppy waters. I think it is reasonable that the moment of truth should come to both right there and then -- that they are lost and will perish, unless nothing short of a miracle rescues them.
Then, suddenly, against all hope or probability, you see a ship on the horizon. The Protestant would scream "Praise the Lord! We are saved! " The Orhodox would say "Glory to God in the highest! Let's try to swim as hard as we can to get as close as possible to the ship so that we can be spotted, and then saved." In other words, you are not saved until you are plucked out of that ocean.
The sight of the ship is not being saved, but a reasonable hope that you might be saved. And, while nothing you did brought the ship your way, you can do a lot to make your salvation a greater certainty by deliberately moving closer to the ship and cooperating with its crew.
Having been a parachute jumper at one time in my life, I always remember people saying "why would anyone jump out of a perfeclty safe airplane?" To which I would say (in my Orthodox mindset) "It's not a perfectly safe airplane until it lands safely."
So, you are saved from death first and then purified? That's a new one! I think your logic is reversed.
This is like being on a job one day and saying "I got my retirement." No Sir, you've got to show something and work to get there!
But it is becoming clear to me why you think the way you think. The biblical tense of a word "saved" is one of future, of something that has not occurred yet, and not of an accomplished act. Yet the English term in most English-language bibles is one of something that has already been accomplished!
This is only one small example of how just reading the Bible "cold" can lead to misconceptions and error, and how dangerous it is to assume that what you read in English is the same as it was in the original. Your whole theology, which begins rather than ends with salvation, is founded on a term interpreted in a wrong tense.
Well, it's not only harsh, but it's nothing what Jesus taught. God does not hate His creation.
I know both that God IS love
Yes, and that is His essence, His nature, and not His characteristic. So, then, can Love hate? Can absolute and pure Love find room for evil? Can pure Love return evil with evil? No! Because God is unchanging. So love is then always love.
I know, the Bible babblers will quote a passage where it says that God hated. Again, reading the Bible "cold" (literally) is just that. It leads to error. There are numerous sites one can find that show biblical "errors" and "contradictions" which one can "prove" by reading the Bible "cold." It's for simple minds.
At the Final Judgment, all bodies are resurrected and re-united with their souls, for life-everlasting. The doomed will live forever too, but separated from God.
God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires
You Protestants are so Pharisaical! Your arguments are like those of the High Priest on Golgotha telling Christ "If You are the Son of God, step down from that Cross and we shall believe in you." Or words to the effect "What kind of a God is He if He can't smite these Romans who are flogging Him?"
It's a humanistic vision of God, made in our image, FK.
The only thing that is secure is from GOD'S point of view. We don't know God's point of view, as the Scriptures clearly point out. There are numerous verses that talk about falling away from God, of losing salvation: For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries (Heb 10:26-27)
Moreover, brothers, I would that ye not ignore how our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and did all eat the same spiritual food and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was the Christ. But with many of them God was not pleased; therefore, they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things became types of us, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed and fell [dead]: in one day, twenty-three thousand. Neither let us tempt the Christ, as some of them also tempted and perished by the serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured and perished by the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Therefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor 10:1-12
No, we DO NOT know our "eternal position" with God at any point in our lives - it is only upon our death will we know ultimately our true stance with the Father in heaven. We cannot have absolute assurance. Even Paul did not have such absolute assurance, in the verses immediately following the above: I therefore so run, not as unto an uncertain thing; so I fight, not as one that beats the air; but I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate. (1 Cor 9:26-27)
IF you truly believe that the Scripture is the WORD of God, literally, how can you explain away such verses? How can they be reconcilled with OSAS? Christ carries out His work until its completion - sure. But how do you know that YOU are one of His works that He will complete? We rely on the grace of God and His mercy that we are of the sheepfold, but we NEVER presume that we are among the Elect until our judgment.
So, was I still saved when I said my sinner's prayer, even though at that moment I had not done a single good work in God's eyes? YES
I presume when you mean "saved" above, you mean initial justification, not saved for eternal life. We are healed (saved) of our sins. But we are not "saved" for eternal life until we are further sanctified. Otherwise, sanctification has no utilization, as I have made great pains to explain. If we are saved for eternal life with no possibility of losing this salvation, or can add nothing (love) to it, there is NO need for this 'being made holy', since Christ already will cover us.
Here is how I look at it: you are either a member of the elect or you are not. God determines this, we have nothing to do with it. So, if I had died the day after saying the sinner's prayer, then I'm still in because there was no time to fall away and reject God.
That's true. But you sinner's prayer does not make you of the elect, God does. Here we tread the mysterious interaction between God and man.
Now, what if I had died during that time? I would say that if that had happened then I wouldn't have been a member of the elect in the first place
That is an interesting admission. I guess my point still is quite valid: How do you know your sinner's prayer is "effective" in granting you the position of the elect? In what you have said, you really can't know - since we can't see the future (although God does). We cannot KNOW that we will continue to remain in Christ. Thus, the "sinner's prayer" is in of ITSELF not determinitive of one's status with the Lord. Only faith working through love can give us a "confirmation" of our status - presuming we don't die the evening of our "sinner's prayer"/baptism. I think your statement is evidence that one is NOT absolutely assured of salvation.
But fear not, we can have a good moral assurance of our destiny if Christ is abiding within us. He abides within us through the Eucharist, and proven through our faith working with love. We cannot obey the commandments in love unless He abides within us. Thus, we have our CURRENT evidence. Not absolute, but relatively assured. But this says NOTHING of our acts in 2007.
I wrote : I don't see in Scriptures where our judgment upon our death will determine a good or better reward
Mat 5:12 - consider reading the entire context of the Beatitudes. Every single "blessed" grants the reward of eternal heaven. The reward itself is summarized in Mat 5:12 in that we will have heaven. Those who do not do what Christ lays out in the Beatitudes will NOT receive this reward. Thus, the reward is heaven, the punishment is hell. There is nothing about a person "just getting in" because they said the sinner's prayer but didn't do the Beatitudes receiving a lesser reward then those who continue and achieve the contents of the Beatitudes and receive a greater reward. Their is no such contrast betweeen greater or lesser reward, but only ONE reward - God Himself, as explained in various ways by : "theirs is the kingdom of the heavens; for they shall be comforted; for they shall inherit the earth; for they shall obtain mercy", etc... All of these are different ways of saying - "you'll enter heaven". Mat 16:27 While it is possible to interpret that verse to mean what you say, there are others who do not. According to Barnes, he writes about this verse:
"Reward. The word reward means recompense, or do justice to. He will deal with them according to their character. The righteous he will reward in heaven, with glory and happiness. The wicked he will send to hell, as a reward or recompense for their evil works"
Again, the vast majority of the time, the Scripture talks about judgment as either being eternal heaven or eteranl hell. This is clear from the many parables of Christ. Over and over, He tells about those who obey and are rewarded with the Banquet, while those who do not are NOT given lower rewards, but are expelled and "grind their teeth" in eternal darkness.
Examples? Mat 22:2-14, the Wedding Banquet; Luke 14:16-24, the Large Dinner; Mat 25:1-13, the Ten Virgins; Mat 25:14-30, the Talents, and Mat 25:31-45, the Sheep and the Goats
OK, then the first question to ask is: "From God's point of view, does He constantly sit there erasing and adding new names to the Book of Life
No. God sees all as one now. He views Creation, the Incarnation, and my life as one event in the present. Thus, He doesn't need to "erase" anything - He sees me in one view. However, the Scripture speaks as if God erases people's name from the Book of Life because it is written from the point of view of men - within time. Men operate in time. We move into and out of God's graces.
If you believe that the Book of Life is not subject to reprintings, then you can know for sure
We don't have access to reading God's Book of Life. Thus, we can only HOPE we are of the Elect. We don't know, since God's ways are not our ways. Everything about God saving His elect is true. The problem is "are you of the elect"? As our conversation above has stated, we MAY fall away. Thus, if our "sinner's prayer" might not have been effective (since you say we might not have been saved to begin with!), you can't possibly KNOW you are of the elect irrefutably and without possibility of falling.
We CAN fall but we (the elect) WILL NOT fall because of God's promise to us of protection
I hope it is becoming clear that God will protect HIS ELECT, not all who take the sinner's prayer. As you have stated, the sinner's prayer does not equate with salvation in heaven. Only God's Elect are prevented from falling into hell. But we cannot know if we are one of them elect. Even Paul, as I have quoted above, was fearful of being of the reprobate. Paul, for heaven's sake!
The sincerity is what helps ME to KNOW it
I can sincererly believe 2+2=5. That doesn't make it correct. Our sincerity doesn't save us. That puts the onus of salvation on your own good feelings and emotions...
When I said my sinner's prayer I know that I gave everything there was inside me to give at that time
Yet, you fell away (as I did after my Baptism). You yourself admit that an untimely death before your re-conversion would not have saved you. Thus, your emotions and good will of 1995 or whatever have nothing to do with your status with God in 2006 or 2010.
If the TRUTH is that I was still full of baloney then I am toast, but I'm not going to live my life worrying about it.
Work out your salvation in fear and trembling...I don't think a true Christian will ever presume that they are saved and no longer need to worry about their status in God's eyes. It is not something we are anxious about, true. We should have confidence in the Lord's promises. But I have found that as soon as one believes they are "OK" in God's eyes, that is when pride begins to seep into our actions. By maintaining a humble attitude, one where we rely totally on God's mercy and not presuming ourselves to already have run the race, I believe is closer to what God has shown us through Jesus Christ.
Regards
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.