Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
This was a very incisive statement. First, sola scriptura is in itself not scriptural; all it is, is a self-serving attempt of various failed theologians to get from under the authority of the Church in reading the Scripture, much like amateur science is done outside of the academia for fear of professional criticism.
Second, the scripture is not read by the prooftexters, period. Isolated verses are taken out of context -- both historical and literal context, -- and slapped together to fit one theological speculation or another. Often the context shows the meaning that is the exact opposite of what the quote is intended by the prooftexter to prove. For example, the oft-quoted "all scripture is profitable" from Timothy actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.
It would be much easier on everyone if the Protestant prooftexters dropped their habit of dragging along into every conversation scores of single-liners from the scripture that they do not understand, and instead quoted something that at least amounts to a complete thought from Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon.
There is no crow. It is specifically stated in the confessions and I would be remiss not to mention it. We don't understand God's purpose in all of this. All we know is that this is God's plan.
However I would not be so brass as to say man has a predetermined right to refuse anything God desires!
Harley, I am glad to find something that we can agree on. But Forest Keeper disagrees with you.
" Ah, but it is in the very earliest creeds of the Church attested to by many of the Church fathers."
Which is precisely the point, HD. Sola Scriptura just doesn't cut it.
The day such tome appears is the day the Church is not longer Catholic. Sure, there are levels of understanding, from the Creed to the Catechism, to the Summa, and to the entire writings of the Fathers and the popes, but the Church is a living body of Christ and not a document. She cannot be reduced to any set of statements. To understand Catholicism is to participate fully in the sacraments of the Church, nothing less and nothing more.
Harley wrote : Ah, but it is in the very earliest creeds of the Church attested to by many of the Church fathers. I'd like to know if our Orthodox and Catholic friends are in agreement that Jesus is God.
Harley, I believe brother Kosta is making a statement that "Jesus is God" is never mentioned in the Gospels - and thus, we rely on Apostolic Tradition (the Creed) to interpret the Scripture. Sure, we believe that Jesus is God. But that is because of HOW we read the Scriptures, (despite all of those subordinate verses, or Prov 8:28 that Arius thought pointed to a time when the Logos was not) understanding them to mean unequivocaly that Jesus is God, not an angel, not a demi-god, but of the divine essence - light from light, true God from true God.
Regards
That would be a good start.
much like amateur science is done outside of the academia for fear of professional criticism.
I wish you had chosen a different analogy. Much first-rate science has been done outside academia. For example, Einstein wrote his paper on special relativity when he was working as a postal clerk. He indead received much criticism from academia, but it was academia that was wrong.
Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant scientist. His experiments on electricity were ground-breaking. Academics took notice and adopted his terms for electric charge--positive and negative.
Many other examples exist. I would recommend finding another analogy to support your argument. But I very much agree with your main point.
I was merely putting the point across. I realize that first-rate science can be done outside of the scientific establishment, and likewise, for example, St. Francis reformed the Church outside of her formal structures. But it is one thing to be an outsider due to a circumstance, the other to deny the legitimacy of the established order because of insufficiency of professional merit.
Luther invented sola scriptura because it allowed him to spin the scripture every which way he wished outside of the rigor of the Church, just like a failed scientist, unable to get a positive peer review, self-publishes on the Internet.
I know that the darwinists would use the scientific establishment in a self-serving way, but that is one rare example. Typically, self-published science is just second grade.
I’m not sure what FK has been stating nor do I have time to go back and review these posts. I know him to be a very strong person in the monergistic view and he is consistent with original Protestant teachings. Sadly most Protestants have lost this western view of the church and they don’t understand their Bible or doctrine like FK. Their view, like the Roman Catholics, is now Orthodox.
It doesn’t surprise me to see posts upon posts of evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox getting together to share a “common” faith at ecumenical pot lucks. The agreements out on this board are often between Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants (in general). It’s only us Reformers who gives everyone fits-and everyone think we’re loony. I have to keep repeating to myself, “This is all ordained by God. This is all ordained by God.”
I know many would disagree but IMO, the Orthodox never had the western view of the Church as near as I can tell. The western view of the original Catholic Church was compromised around 600AD and finally rejected at Trent but picked up by Protestants. Today that western view has all been but extinguished within Protestantism in the fires of “free will”.
It is no exaggeration to say that to me it was like King Josiah finding the lost word of God sealed in the Temple. When I read the words I wept over what we have lost.
You support my observation that most Protestants--that's what "in general" means--and Catholics, and Orthodox have similiar ideas about free will.
I disagree with your Calvinist point of view. But where have I called you a loon? As hot as these debates can get, where has anyone who disagrees with you called you loony?
I suppose implied in that "everyone" is EVERYONE. Poor choice of words or misinterpretation? It's like the terms, "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of ALL the inhabited earth." or "God wants ALL men to be saved". Rather broad but not intended to be interpreted literally.
Twenty years ago, what were the peer reviews of string theory in physics? Most physicists wouldn't give it the time of day. Today, this is the most exciting thing going on in physics. Physicists did have access to the Internet over the past 20 years. In my opinion, this has helped speed the acceptance the this new theory.
The World Wide Web was invented by a scientist working at a physic lab so his fellow scientists could exchange information more easily. It takes time to change peer opinion, but the Web is helping to accelerate the advancement of theory in the sciences.
Surely you can come up with a better analogy.
Sorry, but I cannot follow your argument at all.
Except for timing of assurance (now vs. later) I would agree with all of this. I am just as surprised at your post :) I would not have expected you to say that (from God's POV) the elect cannot blow it, because I wasn't sure if we had relative definitions on who the elect were. I'd say that problem is solved. :) Now I feel that we're only an inch apart on this.
The point of this cross-examination was to get you to realize this key part of our faith - that from our POV, we must continue in humility, always working out our salvation in fear and trembling. It is NEVER a done deal until the day of our particular judgment. Thus, our sanctification is REAL. We ARE changing, being transformed. What God's Word says, He puts into action.
I agree that God's word is put into action. He will carry on to completion the good work He began in us. It's a promise. We count on it and it gives us assurance. Sanctification is very real, both from our POV and from God's.
[On someone who has fallen away after a personal tragedy:] We can judge "the person was never saved". I would say the person was never of the elect - but he didn't realize that. But the point I am making is that who knows what God has planned for us or whether we are going to be with God in heaven. ...
If the falling away proves permanent I would absolutely agree with you that the person was never of the elect. I also agree that we can never know what God has planned for us, but doesn't He make promises to us about who goes to heaven? I think maybe you and I look at these promises from two vantage points. One, as from a present condition met, and one as a future condition met. In either case it seems we agree on the premise, just not the assurance. That is a thousand times better than the reverse! :)
I personally have realized, the more I come closer to Christ, the more I realize those little minor sins, the things I blew off previously as no big deal, are more serious in keeping Jesus and myself from a closer union.
Ain't it the truth, brother! A little knowledge does carry its consequences. :)
You are DAILY given literally dozens of choices, those little things that you don't even think about, choices For or Against the Will of God.
I completely agree, and we DO experience making those little, but important, choices for or against God. My side's position is just that even for those little things, the real credit still goes to God. Part of the gift is our experience when we do good. The blessing is not only on the recipient of the good deed, but also to ourselves.
Note...EVERY REGENERATED HEART does NOT follow that path [to make Godly choices on smaller issues]. Some believe that "if I don't kill anyone, cheat on my wife, etc." I will be fine. But love is much more than that. Sure, God will guide us, but we must actively seek to "whether in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord". This is NOT automatic! It is a long process that must be attended to, with God's grace.
"IF" I am reading you correctly, why do you believe that a person, who basically "signs" John 3:16 and then goes and does his own thing, has a regenerated heart? Sure, this happens on a temporary basis in some cases, but it can't be permanent if the salvation was real.
I also agree that love is much more than that. I just believe that love comes only from God, not from within us. We don't have it to give. I still hold that from God's POV it is automatic to a truly regenerated heart. Of course, from our POV, we get to enjoy the struggle. :)
It's funny, I have already admitted my opinion that had I died while I was fallen away in college that I would not have been of the elect. Given my belief that my original salvation was secure (from my POV) when I said the sinner's prayer at 16, the only consistent corollary is that I was unknowingly INVINCIBLE during college! LOL! Believe me, based on some of the crap I pulled, this actually makes sense! :)
God bless.
Our Triune God as W WN, is the ultimate of everything and then more than that. As such He is the ultimate in Free Will. If our created purpose, the potential attainment of which we lost at the Fall and regained by the Incarnation, is that men become "wholly gods", that is to say that we attain not only the image, but also the likeness of God, then our actions perforce are the result of our exercises of our divinely bestowed free will and that free will can be used to become like God, or to turn away from God in favor of mortal pleasures and pursuits. As Kosta says, God doesn't force anything on us and allows us to be completely free, free even to reject Him. Without the Incarnation, our free will could not be exercised in such a fashion as to attain theosis because we were in bondage to hades and death. Once that power was broken by the Incarnation, we were able to respond (yes, I know!) to the uncreated energies of God which had been raining down on us from the day of creation and futilely since the Fall, and by the exercise of our free will, choose to obey God and thereby receive the fire of the Holy Spirit in our souls. That fire leads to knowledge of God Who is The Truth, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Jn 8:32) Free to do what? To beome "wholly gods". But +John's use of the word "free" implies a true freedom, not simply a transference from a bondage to death to a slavery to some sort of divine puppet master. Again, it all comes back to two things. What was and is our created purpose and what really is meant by the English word "sin". The answers to those questions determine quite literally everything we believe about our role in Creation and our relationship to God both now and for eternity.
Yes it is, Jo. I was merely pointing to a different way of looking at sin in our traditions, but the Western Chruch understand sin the same way as we do. I would say the Latin expression of feeling abandoned by God is a profoundly human experience (our tendency is to blame someone else, always). The Orthodox take is Patristic and therefore not something an individual will automatically understand.
I am always amazed when I read that Jesus experienced being abandoned by the Father before He expired. It shows that He was fully Human as well.
You'll be happy to know that since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church has been moving away from that
The Vatican has steadily been moving back to Patristic ways and nothing makes me happier, believe me.
Ah, but that is different. It is very hard to get a revolutionary view across. It is a good thing that it is hard. But the string theorists persevered and proved themselves right in the peer-review format. They did not give up on organized science and start their own schismatic scientific establishment. The road to an orderly process of theological innovation was open to Luther as he presented his theory to Cardinal Caetan. When he failed to convince anyone on the solidity of his views as a whole (some aspects of his theology were deemed acceptable) he bolted, and reinvented the rules with sola scriptura.
It's funny, my worm can opener was sitting quietly on a shelf just a few feet away from me until just after I read this. Then it started vibrating uncontrollably, even though it wasn't plugged in! :) So, I'll just ask, what is the deal with Jesus going down into Hades, and is Hades the same as Hell? Is there any scriptural support for this?
[In the same list:] Why did He [Jesus] rise on Great and Holy Pascha? Was it part of some divine farce, a show put on to entertain God? That's what predestination and a denial of free will would seem to require one to believe. If we have nothing at all to do with our own damnation or salvation, or if all we have to do since the greatest event in the history of the world is say the "sinner's prayer" and we're "in", then the conclusion is inescapable that God is a great impressario putting on shows for His own entertainment and really nothing more. But The Church doesn't teach that at all.
Why does predestination imply a divine farce? I read your explanation, but it doesn't make sense to me. On temporal physics I think it was Kosta who gave us the image of God standing on a mountain top, looking down and around the mountain, and seeing all time occur simultaneously. I have no problem with this.
I have questioned before that if God already knows everything that is going to happen, as we experience time, then why does He bother to get out of bed in the morning? How boring. The answer is that I have no idea and I am sure that I could not comprehend the true answer. I am saying it is the same with predestination. If I am paraphrasing Kosta correctly then God does not wait around to see what will happen with our "free will" decisions. He already knows, so that appears to shoot the theory of God putting on any "shows". We just can't know what God's motives are for the way He ordered the universe.
+John says:
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
The whole world, FK, not just the "elect", assuming even for a moment that the sins of the "elect" need atonement which seems, well, a bit of a contradiction.
I would agree that the sacrifice that Jesus made was sufficient to save all of mankind, but it was only efficacious to the elect. Why wouldn't the sins of the elect need atonement? I would say they do. I also say that God will make sure that it happens. :)
---------------
Thanks for the quote from +John Chrysostomos on Adam and Eve being banished from the garden. I really was just guessing, so it's nice to see I wasn't pulling something out of my, ... umm ... ear. :)
The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree that had death in it, as some think, but the disobedience which had death in it; for there was nothing else in the fruit but knowledge alone; but knowledge is good when one uses it properly.
That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not aware of a teaching which says that death was in the tree.
Yes. I will say that WE cannot know we are of the ELECT, although we can know that we "think" we are. Those whom God has specifically chosen (and we don't know if WE are) cannot falter in the end. If we "know", then the whole concept of faith and hope is worthless - there is no hope when we "know" already.
If the falling away proves permanent I would absolutely agree with you that the person was never of the elect.
Which does a lot of damage to your idea of salvation "now" vs. my idea. Again, a person whose falling away is "permanent" did not think he would do that 5 years ago, do you? Thus the danger of presumption.
My side's position is just that even for those little things, the real credit still goes to God.
We don't deny God is the primary mover. We believe, however, that God expects us to use the gifts He has given us. Thus, we are secondary movers - God enables us to do things, such as give birth to children and bring people to God for the purpose of salvation. I think you need to broaden your view of love. Love is a sharing of one's self. Why would God jealously not allow us to participate in His work? Is He that insecure? Of course not. We know He is the cause of all, both natural and supernatural. Our participation doesn't take anything away from God! HE MADE US!
"IF" I am reading you correctly, why do you believe that a person, who basically "signs" John 3:16 and then goes and does his own thing, has a regenerated heart? Sure, this happens on a temporary basis in some cases, but it can't be permanent if the salvation was real.
Because we don't see Baptism as the final step in coming to God. We can blow it, from our point of view! Thus, we don't look to that date on the calendar as the day we were guaranteed heaven. There are many Christians who will say "Lord, Lord" and Jesus will respond - "I never knew you". That is a scary thought for those who think they are "saved" already...
I also agree that love is much more than that. I just believe that love comes only from God, not from within us.
We believe that EVERYTHING comes from God. I don't remember anyone saying that love is self-generated. It is from God just as much as faith is from God. When He abides within us, most substantially in the Eucharist, we ARE ABLE TO LOVE for the sake of the other person! What a joyous thing! It is not I, but Christ who lives within me!
I still hold that from God's POV it is automatic to a truly regenerated heart.
Well, I think you are placing God on some time-line. Being eternal doesn't mean God has lived for a long time. It means He sees EVERYTHING with ONE VIEW. Thus, our cooperation is seen at the same time as His decision to elect us. In this mystery, then, I see God calling us and we respond simultaneously (in His POV). Of course, we don't know the end of the story in our case. But we can see our progress of sanctification.
when I said the sinner's prayer at 16, the only consistent corollary is that I was unknowingly INVINCIBLE during college!
I think this again points to our limited knowledge of today has little to do with five years down the road. I think it is our definitions that probably make this more confusing then it needs to be. We view salvation from our point of view - thus, we can't know for certain if we will inherit heaven in the end. You appear to view salvation from God's point of view - the elect - who can never lose their salvation. Where I see the problem with your POV is that you assume you are of the elect because you have done the Sinner's prayer. I think we agree that it is more than that. Just recall the parable of the cockle and the wheat. They all look the same - until the harvest!
Regards
I'm sure you can't.
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.