Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I say that because I believe in a personal God who is active in our lives. Therefore, He does prevent some sin from ever being committed by His elect. The regenerated heart is a changed heart. Some sin I committed before I was saved I no longer commit and I give God the credit for that, not me. I was just trying to be consistent. :)
...if you don't love your neighbor as yourself, and God more than anything in the world, you may just be imagining things.
This may surprise you, but I completely agree with this. You describe a regenerated heart, so a saved person will look like this. I just believe the Bible is full of promises that allow us to also be able to know it.
These writings, I am pretty sure, came out of heretical sects.
Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. And to be fair, I don't think the person who showed it to me claimed it was infallible, I think I just assumed, so that's on me. :) Thank you for setting me straight.
They [heretics] 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.
Therefore, it would be completely unfair of me, as an outsider, to say that Catholics believe in such and such based on the Protoevangelion because I can't possibly know what part is heretical.
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.
Point well taken, thanks.
I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" here or anything, but I have one person saying that Holy Tradition is infallible, one person saying the Protoevangelion is Holy Tradition, and one person saying the Protoevangelion is heretical. My poor little mind is lost. :)
After our conversations, I am still wondering at WHAT POINT are you considered "regenerated"? Since you don't believe in Baptism as being "born from above", and we have both concluded that your "sinner's prayer" does not necessary indicate that one is of the elect - and that it might not have taken (to be determined by Monday morning QB's in the future, I presume), how does a Protestant of your bent know he is "regenerated"? Is it a subjective feeling? Is it a certain number of good works that makes you conclude you are of the elect? What objective criteria can you use to say "I am absolutely saved and of the elect"?
Thanks for trying to clear this up...
Regards
Neither, because suicide is self-murder, FK, and therefore one of the worst sins one can commit. I don't think Jesus committed suicide. But, obviously, God allowed His execution because it was necessary that He die in order to resurrect. And without resurrection there would be no Christianity.
Forest, I recently tried to describe what process the Church undergoes before it declares an Apostolic Tradition infallible. Just because something CLAIMS to come from an apostle doesn't make it APOSTOLIC. Most scholars date the Infancy Gospel of James to the second half of the second century, most likely not written by the Apostle James. What we have here is likely an Apocryphal book that the Church certainly was aware of - BUT CHOSE NOT TO CALL IT SCRIPTURE. If the Church believed it was from James, the writing would have been likely included at least as a NT Deuterocanonical.
With that said, though, there can be parts within the Infancy Gospel that do come from James or an Apostle. As far as I know, I am not aware of a Church Council using this Gospel as a background in declaring any Tradition to be an Apostolic - and thus - an infallible Tradition (such as infant baptism). Certainly, there may be some truth found within the story itself, and there may even be infallible truth. However, I am not aware of the Church ever making this declaration on anything found within - although an underlying theme of Mary's virginity certainly seems to be stressed, which IS Apostolic Tradition that is considered infallible. Perhaps the Council of Ephesus used this story to show Mary's Virginity?
My Orthodox brothers - any comments?
The point, Forest, is that entire writings are NOT Apostolic Tradition. They would be called "Scripture".
Regards
Besides, not every time one willingly acts in a way that brings about his own death, it is a suicide. A soldier in a war, for example, is not committing a suicide when bravery causes him his life.
The parallel here is not valid, annalex, because Christ could not die unless He willed Himself to die. But He did not commit the act of self-murder! And neither does your soldier. A soldier who dies in an act of heroism does not want to die even though he probably realizes he will.
Jesus' death, however, was necessary in order for it to be followed with a Resurrection, without which there would be no Chrisitanity. This is a tricky thing — for if we are to take it literally, people would be committing suicide all over the place! Christ died like any ordinary human being would die — from the wounds inflicted on Him, by His own permission.
"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.
Yes, that's the one I'm referring to."
I have read that the Protoevangelium is from a heretical even Gnostic source, but I have never read that The Church took that position. The Fathers quoted quite liberally from it and of course in Orthodoxy, we have several feasts commemorating events spoken of in it as well as the names of Panagia's parents. As Agrarian says, it isn't scripture as such nor is it per se an "infallible document", of course neither are any given writing of any given Father so far as Orthodoxy is concerned, but it is certainly part of the Holy Tradition which the Fathers drew upon.
" My Orthodox brothers - any comments?"
Like I said earlier, its not that any particular writing, even one with an excellent pedigree, is "infallible" or is "Holy Tradition" Writings may contain pieces of Holy Tradition, may be expressions of Holy Tradition but they themselves are not what is infallible. What is an infallible expression of The Faith is the consensus patrum, what is often called Apostolic Tradition or Holy Tradition.
Neither the acts of Christ or a soldier are positive (in the context of suicide) as they did not cause their own death by either self-crucifixion or by self-targeting in a war. Nore are they direct because neither Christ or the soldier desire to be dead as the primary goal. On negative indirect suicide (of an ordinary human) the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:
The soldier, engaged in an act of war likely to end up with his death, is not suicidal as long as he does attempt to survive, e.g. by taking cover when possible. In the case of Christ, since He intended to rise again and destroy death in general, but also His own death, the analogy holds inasmuch as He willed not only His death but also His resurrection. Naturally the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means of survival, contemplated in the article, do not apply to Christ.D. Negative and Indirect Suicide
Negative and indirect suicide without the consent of God is also an attempt against the rights of the Creator and an injustice towards Him whenever without sufficient cause a man neglects all the means of preservation of which he should make use. If a man as usufructuary is obliged in justice to preserve his life, it follows that he is equally bound to make use of all the ordinary means which are indicated in the usual course of things, namely:
- he should employ all the ordinary means which nature itself provides, such as to eat, drink, sleep, and so on;
- moreover, he should avoid all dangers which he may easily avoid, e.g. to flee from a burning house, to escape from an infuriated animal when it may be done without difficulty.
In fact to neglect the ordinary means for preserving life is equivalent to killing one's self, but the same is not true with regard to extraordinary means. Thus theologians teach that one is not bound in order to preserve life to employ remedies which, considering one's condition, are regarded as extraordinary and involving extraordinary expenditure; one is not obliged to undergo a very painful surgical operation, nor a considerable amputation, nor to go into exile in order to seek a more beneficial climate, etc. To use a comparison, the lessee of a house is bound to take care of it as becomes a good father of a family, to make use of the ordinary means for the preservation of the property, for instance, to extinguish a fire which he may easily extinguish, etc., but he is not bound to employ means considered extraordinary, such as to procure the latest novelties invented by science to prevent or extinguish fire.
I'm not sure it can be said whether it is consistent or inconsistent. As far as I know, the Bible is neutral on this issue, and really doesn't mention it. I'm not familiar with scripture that says that the Spirit is passed from one human to another. Perceived authority may be passed along, but I'm not aware of how a person may pass along the Spirit Himself.
My belief is that the Spirit indwells each person at salvation. Surely knowledge and teaching are passed on, but the supernatural powers part (infallibility, forgiveness of sins, etc.) is what concerns me.
If you believe that the Holy Spirit never leaves the elect, then you must believe that the same Holy Spirit indwells in the Church to this day and that the Church is made up of the elect.
I can never speak to the election of anyone else with certainty, only myself. Certainly the Holy Spirit indwells many Catholics and Orthodox, however, I think it must also be true that there are some, who claim to be Catholics or Orthodox in faith, who are actually going to wind up in hell, JUST AS the same is true with some Southern Baptists.
Which means that no one is marked "of the elect" by Baptism or the "Sinner's Prayer" for eternal heaven. Apparently, God judges us on things that happen in our lives BESIDES that one event...The first installment doesn't guarantee future ones.
Regards
Apropos of your comments on the Theotokos, here's a link to the Doxastikon of Matins for this coming Sunday, the Sunday of the Last Judgment. Its about her and expresses a bit of Orthodox theology/Mariology. Its a real audio link and the chant is in English:
http://realserver.goarch.org/ram/en/Doxastikon-LastJudgement.ram
Hey Bohemund, thanks very much for those translations. It was fascinating to read through them all. I noted that even the Today's NIV was included, which as I understand, is pretty new. I don't know much about it, so until I have time to look into it, I'm going to stick with my regular NIV. Thanks again.
Exactly, and correctly, Kolo!
There never was a time when the Son or the Spirit was not. We cannot speak, or limit God in the constraints of time. That does not mean that there is no precedence in Godhead. The Father is the source of both the Son and the Spirit from eternity.
I still can't reconcile these two counterintuitive ideas. "Beget" is an action verb, not a state of being. Therefore, there was a time before the action took place. How can it be that the Father is unbegotten, but the Son is begotten? That would seem to say that the Father was before the Son, but you say there was no time when that was the case. What does "beget" mean then?
If one wants to know what the Orthodox Church teaches about the early life of the Theotokos, etc., then all one needs to do is to read the lengthy accounts of the relevant feasts in the Synaxarion, St. Dimitri's Lives of Saints... and the texts of the liturgical services.
Anything found in the Protoevangelion that is not reflected in these primary Orthodox sources may be suspect.
I haven't researched this in a long time, but my recollection, which may be faulty, is, as I wrote earlier, that there are divergences between the Orthodox accounts and what is written in the Protoevangelion. It strikes me as similarities born out of a common source in Holy Tradition, rather than the Protoevangelion being a part of Holy Tradition in the same way that, say, the writings of St. John Chrysostom are.
Kolokotronis may, however, be more right on this than I am. Wouldn't be the first time.
Ditto from me!
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.