Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Well, if I am understanding you correctly, I think I'd have to say 'no'. The question seems to be "were non-Jews saved in the OT"? Since Abraham was the first Jew, then what about those before him? I don't think we can call Adam and Eve "Jews", but I think most agree that they were saved. I found this verse about Abel:
Heb. 11:4 : By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
So, it seems that faith trumps heritage in the OT as well as in the NT. Paul makes a distinction between "Israel" as a heritage and the spiritual "Israel". He also references election.:
Rom. 9:6-13 : 6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
So, even though Esau had the right lineage, he was not of the elect. And, this was decided before the twins were even born.
Whether you were being sarcastic or not, what you say is not correct. God can be both in full control and allow some free will. For example, after salvation I say that we have some free will to sin. This must be so since we do sin and God does not cause sin. God is still in full control because He already knows about it. He can use it if He chooses for His own purposes.
For the record, the Orthodox position does not say that the Theotokos was zapped by God with grace at age 3 without regard to her will (as is self-evidently the case in the Catholic dogma.)
She arrived at a state of theosis at the time of the Entrance as a result of a process of synergia between her will, choices, and actions and the action of God's will and grace. That state of theosis grew and intensified as her life went on.
Even from that point, she was fully capable of sinning or choosing other than the will of God. I seem to recall something in the services of Annunciation or in the writings of the Fathers that poetically says that the dead in Hades, the angels, and indeed all of creation waited in awe and silence waiting to hear how the Theotokos would respond to the message of the Archangel Gabriel. Would she assent and say that she wished this conception to proceed according to the will of God?
Please see When We Belong to Christ.
That is not at all what the verse says. Psalms says "SURELY I was sinful at birth, ..." (emphasis added). Propensity addresses a likelihood, not a guarantee. This is a guarantee. Now I suppose that "surely" no longer means "surely". At least you all are consistent. :)
Neither of your verses addresses this issue. They say that I will not be punished for the sins of my particular biological father, they do not address the original sin of Adam.
Seems this sort of dance ran in the family!
Indeed it does. David danced "with all his might"! I would pay money to see that. :)
Because three year olds, though astonishing practitioners of free will, cannot form the intent to hit or miss the Mark.
I didn't know that missing the Mark required informed intent. To intend to hit or miss the Mark, you have to know what the Mark is. Are all people sinless until they have both reached the age of reason and been presented the Gospel? That would seem to excuse some very bad people. :)
After all, He changed -- He grew from an infant into a Man in His 30's!
Adam was born without sin, but he was capable of corruption, and it was his sin that killed him. If we say that Christ was capable of corruption but not of sin, then He was not just like Adam. Unless He chose not to sin, but could have, just as Adam, then we can's peak of HIm as being "fully man" but a "superman." Just as the Theotokos becomes "superwoman" through Immaculate Conception, and therefore something more than "just human."
Christ, however, became Incarnate using Mary's flesh, which, as we noted, was afflicted by the consequence of the "original sin" (corruption and death), even though she her self did not commit any sin. So, His humanity should have been the post-fall humanity were it not for her to be cleaned of all sin, including the "original sin" — i.e. made "full of Grace" — at one stage in her life, in order to become a fitting vessel. But, if she did not sin since that moment onward, whether it was at her own conception or at the moment of Annunciation, she too would have been immortal! Which may explain why St. John Chrysostomos may have hinted at scriptural evidence that might show that she did sin after being made "full of Grace."
Finally, if God willed to die for His own reasons on the Cross, whereas He would not normally die, then He willfully ended His own life, and this is something we are taught is a sin.
I am sure there are sophisticated writings on this issue somewhere, but the Church hardly ever talks about these somewhat puzzling and open-ended appearances.
God doesn't leave even the "non-elect," FK. His arms are always open for those who wish to be saved.
Jo, God doesn't change. We do.
The distinction is that those who inherit the consequences are not guilty; only damaged and in need of healing. But in order to heal, one must cooperate with the physician, FK. One must willingly submit to the authority of the physician and trust that the physician will lead them to health. It is a conscious and a willful effort; it is not something the physician compels you to do.
I was referring to Calvinists, who cliam that this is the teaching of St. Augustine. I am fully aware that the Catholic Church does not subscribe this doctrine of theirs. Which is why we (catholic Christians) are often labeled "semi-Pelagian."
"I didn't know that missing the Mark required informed intent. To intend to hit or miss the Mark, you have to know what the Mark is. Are all people sinless until they have both reached the age of reason and been presented the Gospel?"
Age of reason, yes; presented with the Gospel, no. One needn't be a Christian in order to sin. There is an "innate" knowledge of good and evil in mankind. Its part of beng created in the "image" of God.
"But, if she did not sin since that moment onward, whether it was at her own conception or at the moment of Annunciation, she too would have been immortal!"
This doesn't follow. The Fathers are unanimous in declaring that we must join Christ in death if we are to join Him in the Resurrection.
But, in your theology, if He allows it, He wills it, and what He wills He creates.
And what kind of a "free" will is "some" free will, FK? Unless you have complete freedom to choose God or no God, you have no free will.
God left it up to us to decide which way we will go. Since He knows our choices, He knows where those choices will lead us and therefore He is never surprised. But being free means that He does not interfere, compel or force.
If we do not cooperate with God's will on our own free will, by voluntary submission, we will never reach theosis. But, what compels us to submit? Love. Unless we love God more than anything we will not be saved. Unless we love our neighbors as ourselves, we will not be saved. That, my friend, can very few say for sure, so "few shall finds the way."
As Jo says, don't be too sure...if you don't love your neighbor as yourself, and God more than anything in the world, you may just be imagining things.
Because we are all born mortal, Kolo. We can only choose to die with Christ in our hearts or without Him. But die we must. Theotokos, on the other hand, was cleansed of all sin including the consequences of Adam's sin -- or else Christ would have been no different than we are, and I think the Fathers are unanimous that He was not born with ancestral sin.
I can't know with absolute certainty, and this really isn't a hot-button issue for me. But, it is an example of infallible tradition "appearing" to conflict with infallible scripture, although it is not airtight. (I was assuming that this document by James is considered infallible teaching.)
Could you summarize, rather than pointing me to a very long pamplet/essay? Am I supposed to read that whole thing to figure out what you are trying to say?
Regards
"...she would have been another pre-Fall Eve and therefore immortal."
But we know she wasn't merely another pre-Fall Eve; she was the Second or New Eve as Christ was the Second or New Adam.
Of course, if some Catholics are right, and she never died, then that would fit into the theory you are advancing.
Perhaps we have been looking at this entirely the wrong way. Here is what +John Cassian says in Book II Chapter II of his "Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius"
"Hear then what the archangel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary. “The Holy Ghost,” he says, “shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Do you see how, when he is going to point out the nativity of God, he first speaks of a work of Divinity. For “the Holy Ghost,” he says, “shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.” Admirably did the angel speak, and explain the majesty of the Divine work by the Divine character of his words. For the Holy Ghost sanctified the Virgin’s womb, and breathed into it by the power of His Divinity, and thus imparted and communicated Himself to human nature; and made His own what was before foreign to Him, taking it to Himself by His own power and majesty. And lest the weakness of human nature should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity the power of the Most High strengthened the ever to be honoured Virgin, so that it supported her bodily weakness by embracing it with overshadowing protection, and human weakness was not insufficient for the consummation of the ineffable mystery of the holy conception, since it was supported by the Divine overshadowing. “Therefore,” he says, “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.”"
So, while Panagia had through an abundance of grace maintained a sinful existence up to the point of the Annunciation, nevertheless she had not attained a god-like theosis, otherwise there would have been no need for the action of the Holy Spirit in strengthening her and sanctifying her womb. I would further suggest that as a human living before the completion of the purpose of the Incarnation, she could not have attained theosis borne Christ without the special intervention of the Holy Spirit.
If you are referring to the Protoevangelion of James that contains some of the stories of the early life of the Theotokos, etc, these are most emphatically *not* infallible writings.
These writings, I am pretty sure, came out of heretical sects.
It is not so much that the Orthodox get these traditions from these documents as it is that this is the oldest *written* documentation of this *oral* tradition.
A common tactic by heretical writers was to do two things: first, to put an apostle's name on their writings; and secondly, to set down in writing stories from oral Christian tradition that everyone agreed were true.
They then slipped in their false teachings around these true stories. I think that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic of some sort. There are certainly parts of it that are pretty wacky, as I recall. We Orthodox take as our authority our own Synaxarion writings and the texts of our liturgical services, which reflect the Orthodox oral tradition of these matters.
The fact that heretics made use of the story is no more evidence that it isn't true than is the fact that Mormons came up with their own stories of Christ means that the Biblical stories about Christ that they also teach aren't true.
In the writings of heretics of the early centuries, the most reliable things are generally the substrate of the actual story, life of a saint, or tradition they are telling. They would stick closely to the facts that Christians believed, so they could trick them into accepting their false teachings.
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.