Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, indeed.
First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ.
Thank you very much for the kind words, and for your questions about our beliefs. I appreciate your answer, and I've noticed that there have been several times when we both look at a certain passage and I see it as being directed toward all believers, and you may see it as being directed to the clergy. This is a perfect example. It seems to me that the key here is, who is "us" or "we"?
2 Cor. 5:17-21 : 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
If in this passage "we" and "us only refer to the clergy, consider what that means for the layman. First, the ministry of reconciliation is only for the clergy because it was given to only "us", the clergy. Paul is specifically EXCLUDING all other believers in this whole passage.
Second, this is bolstered by the fact that the message of reconciliation was ONLY given to the clergy. Other believers cannot have the message from God or His word, they must get it from the one and only source, the Church.
Third, only the clergy are Christ's ambassadors. Laymen are unfit. This is so because of the key word "therefore" in v. 20. That relates to the exclusive giving of the message of reconciliation to the clergy.
Fourth, only the clergy can become the "righteousness of God". Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
I still admit that I don't get the exact relationship with Mary. You said in the earlier post that Mary was the "co-metiatrix of Christ's graces". That appears to be a unique title. :) It's funny, I believe I heard on the news earlier that the author of the famous book "God Is My Co-Pilot" croaked. Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course).
Here is the famous "abortion" passage, and BTW I am very thankful to Catholics for the great work you all do in this area :) :
Ps. 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (emphasis added)
(I had to throw in 16, just for fun :) But, does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
I thank you and appreciate your explanation, but the reason I copied the entire paragraph is that it jumped right out at me that there is one thing missing. :)
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
---------------
Thanks for the difference between Ecclesiastical Tradition and Apostolic Tradition. I do need to be reminded. :)
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings?
Sure, the oral teachings had to come first for the NT. I think I was thinking of all the teachings that has been declared infallible across time, including the one about Mary in 1854. I'm asking the following because I don't know, :) are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
... Note in verse 15 [Gen. 3:15], it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not referring to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either.
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan, AND SEPARATELY, between their respective offspring. In 15 God says "And I will put enmity...", future tense. So what if Eve just sinned? Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she? :) If you asked me today if there was enmity between myself and satan, I would say absolutely 'YES'. Under your view, then, there was only enmity between satan and Jesus? satan didn't hate the rest of us? My experience has been different. :) Perhaps this is God saving Eve right here, to make her hate evil.
Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this certainly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Well, how unusual could it be if one verse ago, "woman" meant His mother?! :) Seriously, I see some pretty sophisticated gymnastics going on here with the Fathers. In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought. In 12, "the man", Adam, speaks directly about Eve, "the woman". In 13, God speaks directly to Eve, "the woman". In 14, God then speaks to the serpent and references "the woman" in 15. Then, in 16, it is specifically noted that God is now speaking TO "the woman" again. Then, in 17, God then turns and speaks to "the man", Adam. It's all in the same thought. How could only verse 15 break this train of thought? How could the same word have such completely different meanings for one and only one verse in a long chain of usage?
A few posts back I said exactly the same thing — God is Existence, His essence (nayture) is existence, and everything exists because it is from Him. That's why evil exists only by our choice, and not by God's will (think about it: absolute Love can not create evil; there is no "room" for evil is somehting that is all love).
I was not aware of that. I have talked with many different Protestants, and they all seem to believe "once saved -always saved" theology. On this thread, the gentleman is a Baptist, not of the Reformed side. (I don't know if Baptists fit on either side of classical Protestantism). Could you please explain a bit your beliefs on this subject so that I am able to better qualify my statements on this subject in the future.
Thanks and sorry for my generalizations on your own beliefs.
Regards
Most definitely they are not the same. The Greek word for "begetting" (as Kolo demonstrated in one of his posts, using Greek alphabet) is rooted in the word to "generate." Your words are generated, energized, projected reflections of your mind. Because it is a one-way process, it is akin to sonship. The Word does not generate the Wisdom, but rather the Wisdom generates the Word. In the case of God, that generation, like the well and water, is eternal and transcendental. It is true yesterday, today and forever before all times and beyond. So, one can not ascribe a "moment" to the Wisdom generating the Word. It can never be an accomplished or initiated
You are still bound by physical and temporal chains and think of God in human terms. We can only think of God in human terms when we think of Jesus Christ.
Like I said before, brother, we have a different definition of "saved". Yes, we are "saved" at Baptism, but it is in the sense that we are healed. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean we won't get sick again. This would preclude free will! Thus, our idea of "saved" does not include "eternal heaven". When we discuss eternal heaven, we realize we (Catholics) individually do not know - it is God's choice and we do not know absolutely His mind on the subject. We can have a good idea today, and that's about it. Thus, there is no problem with a person Falling Away/Never was saved to begin with concept. I am of the mind that even people who say the sinner's prayer SINCERELY and would give their life to God at that moment, doesn't mean it will matter to them when they run into something that rocks their faith 5 years into the future.
To us, Baptism is for the remission of all sins. It makes us children of God. It grants us sanctifying grace - if we were to trip and fall and die while leaving the altar, we'd end up in heaven! Baptism does NOT eliminate concupiscience, however! We still can be tempted to sin, although God offers His aid during such times (which we CAN ignore). Thus, a person, despite being Baptised, can still fall away, can still require God's graces again - just as the Prodigal Son needed his father's healing touch again to "know" he was welcome in his father's home. Just like the young man, we need to know we are back in our father's good graces and restore our relationship with him. Sin destroys this relationship. Reconciliation restores it. Thus, we don't have this idea of "healed/never healed to begin with".
Our view is that, for the elect, the first installment DOES guarantee the future actions.
This is God's view, a view that we will never know until our subsequent judgment. Thus, there is no point in placing yourself falsely into such a group with absolute assurance. Yes, the elect will persevere. The problem is that HUMANS place THEMSELVES into this group without considering that they MAY fall away. Men too easily convince themselves of things that are beyond their ability to know.
Regards
Thanks very much, Kolo, that was very beautiful! I can definitely see how one could get into a very spiritual mood listening to it. I don't think I've ever heard a real chant in English before. :) Thanks again.
FK, You are using the human idea of begeting a human son and applying it to the Word of God. Look to the Creed: "{the Son is} Eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, light from light, true God from true God - Begotten, not made"
The Son is eternally being "begotten". His being begotten transcends time, because "eternally" doesn't mean a really long time - it means ALL time in one moment. As to the Spirit, also, there never was a time when the Father and Son were and the Spirit was not! Proceeding and begeting are human terms that attempt to describe what occurs within the Divine Godhead - which is outside of time and man's experience.
Regards
The Church most definitely rejects the so-called Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic, along with a multitude of other heretic texts of similar kind.
This is precisely why it took the fathers of the Church hundreds of years to sift through all these texts and reject or accept them in forming the Christian canon (New Testament).
Typically, Gnostic and other "gospels" use actual Gospel material (verses) and introject in between their own satanic verses, or even just single words! Thus, many appear as genuine "inspired" text when in fact they are devil's deception par excellence!
Boy, if so, then the History channel really let me down because I could have sworn they portrayed it as mainstream extra-Biblical teaching
The History Channel is a major source of satanic lies. If I were the devil, I would certainly use it to disseminate lies and make them appear as "mainstream extra-Biblical teachings" because it reaches so many people and because people generally believe what they see on TV.
But they only appear balanced, and their presentation gives an air (a deceptive one for sure) of credibility. They favor certain myths and lies and pass on inaccurate information as "fact" which most people take on faith alone and never check.
Thus, I noticed that they will spend inordinate amount of time on interviews with such satanic ambassadors as Elaine Pagles (the author of the book "The Gospel of Thomas") and her small but vociferous crowd on the History Channel as well as the Learning Channel (I believe both are owned by the same global satanic network). At the same time, genuine Church sources are interviewed in passing and barely skimming the surface of an issue. Usually, it is a lower-ranking clergy member or, preferably for the editors of Satanic TV, a dissident clergy member.
Everything you've written contain elements of truths which I wouldn't disagree with. But if this was the Father's will as you acknowledged in the Lord's prayer, what part of the cruxifition was God's involvement? If our Lord Jesus chose His disciples knowing ONE of them was a bad egg, wasn't He setting Judas up-putting him in a position of which He knew Judas would fail and succume to temptation? Is this how you see God working?
Catholic Scripture interpretation does not stop at one level, the literal sense, but also notes a spiritual sense to many verses, some having multiple meanings and senses. Thus, we agree that Scriptures do not ONLY speaking to the clergy, and Jesus is not ONLY speaking to the Apostles in Mat 28:20. The literal sense is "they are indeed speaking about themselves" (clergy/Apostles). It is through them that God intended His message to be given throughout the world. God did not deliver revelation to all men, but to a small group of men. However, WE TOO share in the priesthood of Christ as part of our Baptismal promises and obligations. WE TOO are to spread the Gospel by our witness. WE TOO offer our own sacrifices in union with Christ when we participate in the Mass, the representation of Christ's Paschal Mystery. WE TOO offer forgiveness of wrongs done to us - foreshadowing God's own forgiveness to others. OF COURSE we are to do all of these things. But this does not overthrow the initial literal sense of the Scripture - that the Apostles and their successors are primarily tasked by God to be His most visible works in the world today - and through them, the Truth can be known by men.
Laymen cannot become the righteousness of God, because the "we" and "us" only referred to clergy. The only time Paul references "the world" is in v. 19. All other times he says "we" or "us", so it must be exclusive. Either Paul means only clergy and no one else, or he means all believers, and no one else.
We, all Christians, share in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, we can also become righteous and so forth. But Christ still established a new ministrial priesthood. Such a "system" existed in the OT as well. The Jews were a priestly people, as Moses said - yet there still were ministerial priests who were men's official guides, men who offered sacrifice and were responsible for teaching the people. Today, priests continue this role, participating in Christ's priesthood by visibly teaching and preaching, offering God's healing, and visibly representing Christ's offering of Himself to the Father and to the community.
Concerning people, red flags always go up for me whenever I hear co-"anything" associated with God.
"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary? The mother choose to include the daughter in her work, not because the daughter was needed, because the mother loves the daughter and wants to share her work with the child. God does the same thing with all of us. Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)
does it really sound like David is talking about a cooperative effort here, especially in 13? Does it occur to David to refer to his parents as secondary causes? Or, does it appear that David is giving God full credit for being the only cause of his existence?
Why are you messin' with my favorite Psalm? ;)
Again, you are trying to place God on a linear time scale. The Scripture is often written from the point of view of man, which APPEARS that God has lined up everything in advance. Day 1, this will happen. Day 2, that will happen. However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.
Co-redemptive? I just can't accept this. God might use me as I would use a hammer to pound a nail. Since God loves me, He lets me experience being a very "happy hammer" if He saves someone after I have spoken to Him. But, I did not swing myself, and the nail (IN THIS EXAMPLE! :) did not get driven because of me.
Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".
(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)
You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...
are you saying that each and every Tradition that has been declared infallible by the Church over the last 2000 years has also been declared to have been taught by the Apostles during their time on earth?
Not by the Apostles, but by the Church that followed. We don't have the transcripts of what the Apostles orally taught. We have to go to the writings of men who followed them, the Church Fathers. To Liturgical and Sacramental celebrations. To the prayers of the Church. When we see the "sense of the faithful" leaning in a particular way on a subject, one that seems to have existed for a long time throughout the Church ("always, in every place, by all men" St Lerins), a consensus within the Church, we believe that the Spirit is speaking through the entire Church on a particular belief. The Church identifies this belief among the faithful, one that existed "back to the apostles" and defines something, putting this belief into words and definitions for the faithful (the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).
My version actually has the enmity being between Eve and Satan
The bible doesn't seem to mention any sort of enmity between the two after the Garden event. Eve is never mentioned personally again in this regards. God appears to be talking about a particular person who will spring from Eve - the Church recognizes this as Mary in 150 AD in writings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Irenaeus in 180 AD, and Tertullian in 200 AD.
Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?
If only refering to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM? The Jews and the Catholic Church see it refering to someone else.
In my Bible, the term Jesus used for His mother in John was "dear woman", a common term of respect.
Sorry, that is the NIV, not the Greek version. The NIV is notorious for such "paraphrases".
In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought
Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother? Prophesy is hidden with the literal sense or historical sense of the Scripture.
Regards
"Thanks very much, Kolo, that was very beautiful! I can definitely see how one could get into a very spiritual mood listening to it."
In part, it was just such chanting that so impressed the envoys of Prince Vladimir when they first attended a Divine Liturgy at Agia Sophia in Constantinople. That impression lead directly to the conversion of Kiev to Christianity.
"I don't think I've ever heard a real chant in English before. :) Thanks again."
You are very welcome. Over the coming 7 weeks of Great Lent, I'll be posting a number of links to various chants in both English and Greek.
I have done that numerous times on this thread. Since you are not reading all of the posts, you can start with post 2483. But here is a cut and paste of that first post on this subject to save a little time:
The majority of Methodists believe in free will, including the many churches derived from Methodism, such as Pentecostals and Assemblies of God. The same is true of those churches derived from the Brethren and Anabaptists movements in Europe. This includes churches as diverse as Mennonite, Amish, Church of the Brethren, and Quaker.
The situation is more complex among Baptists, but many do believe in free will, including General Baptists and Free Will Baptists. As for those churches founded on the theology of Luther and Calvin like Lutherans and Presbyterians, some members do believe in free will. And whatever the beliefs of the early churchmen of the Church of England, today many Anglicans--perhaps a majority--believe in free will (mainly I think from the influence of Methodism on the one hand and the Oxford Movement on the other.)
In Protestant theology, a belief in free will is called Arminian, named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch Reformed churchman who rejected much of Calvin's theology, including predestination. In Arminianism, grace is a gift that can be accepted or rejected. It can also be lost without a renewal of the will.
You might find it interesting to note that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and an Anglican priest who never left the Church of England, took much inspiration from the theology of the Orthodox Church.The majority of Protestants today subscribe to a belief in free will.
So, the majority of Protestants don't believe in predestination or once saved, always saved.
Could you please explain a bit your beliefs on this subject so that I am able to better qualify my statements on this subject in the future.
It is not just my beliefs. I am talking about the majority of Protestants. You can also speak to Forest Keeper, HarleyD, and kosta50 about this.
By the way, since that first post I have done a little more reading on the history of the Church of England. I had forgotten about the Laudians (anti-Calvinists.) Whatever influence the Puritans (Calvinists) may have had at the beginning of the Reformation in England, the Laudian party came to dominate the Church of England early on. So, I want to revise my previous statement--the vast majority of Anglicans believe in free will.
"Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence?"
Hey, I think I already said that! :-)
The passage in Genesis is certainly an example of that -- God is simultaneously speaking of both Eve and of the Theotokos in the one verse.
I was doing some reading about the book of Revelation, which the Orthodox Church treats in a way that is unique within its treatment of Scripture. The Wikpedia article had a short passage about the Eastern Orthodox view of that book that nicely encapsulated it and Orthodox readings of prophecies in general, pointing out that it didn't fit into any of the traditional interpretations that were mentioned earlier in the piece:
"Eastern Orthodoxy has an interpretation that does not fit well into any of the above classifications. It treats the text as simultaneously describing contemporaneous events and as prophecy of events to come, for which the contemporaneous events were a form of foreshadow."
"Everything you've written contain elements of truths which I wouldn't disagree with. But if this was the Father's will as you acknowledged in the Lord's prayer, what part of the cruxifition was God's involvement? If our Lord Jesus chose His disciples knowing ONE of them was a bad egg, wasn't He setting Judas up-putting him in a position of which He knew Judas would fail and succume to temptation? Is this how you see God working?"
I want to be very careful in how I answer this question, and right now, I have to say that I can't answer it -- or rather would rather not shoot from the hip and then have to undo something. (Something that happens to me entirely too much on FR.)
I am going to scan all of the relevant Lenten Triodion texts in the Holy Week services (and as Kolokotronis can tell you, that is quite a project) to see if this is addressed anywhere in our liturgical corpus. In general, if we believe it, we sing it at some point in the yearly cycle.
I do know that the liturgical texts that I can recall off the top of my head make no mistake about the fact that Judas is doing something that he shouldn't do, and that if he had been "paying attention," so to speak, he wouldn't have done so.
A strong subtheme of the services (or at least that is how I experience them) of Holy Week is for us to identify ourselves with Judas to a certain extent -- to see how what Judas did is so much like what we do all the time through our sins. We betray Christ through our actions and inattention. We do so because we have not joined ourselves to him and have not participated in his life and "gotten it" to the extent that we would not betray him. It is a very moving, even crushing experience.
What I expect that I will find is that the texts will be silent about this mystery -- Christ choosing a disciple who he knows will betray him. That would enter into the realm of speculation that Orthodoxy just isn't big on.
God does choose and act in creation (and Christ choosing Judas was one of those acts) -- I certainly don't want to give the impression (which I perhaps may have) that God is a passive participant in the world. Far from it. But God does not compel our actions and choices to choose or reject him.
I'll get back to you with more thoughts if I come on anything. Otherwise, I'll have to rely on the usual Orthodox "cop-out" for those things where we seem to hold mutually exclusive views simultaneously: "It's a mystery."
We try not to go beyond revelation (or ignore any of it), and we don't come up with theories to try to force incomprehensible parts of revelation into a unified and systematic whole.
While I do agree that most Protestant believe in free will (and Catholics do believe in predestination, by the way, as well as free will), I was refering to salvation. The idea that once a person either recites the "sinner's prayer" or is Baptised, that person cannot lose his salvation in heaven. As far as I know, your post doesn't address that - free will is only indirectly involved with salvation and losing it. Can you fill me in on what Methodists and others believe on the subject?
As to "majority", I am not in the know of which theology in Protestantism is dominant or the majority. All I can do is generalize, trying to come up with common beliefs that you all share but are different from Catholicism, such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Eternal Salvation for the Protestant.
Correct me if I am wrong, please.
Regards
That's the other excellent example in Scripture about multiple uses for the same verses. Such as Rev 12 and the "woman" (the same from Genesis 3:15!), who represents Israel, the Church, and Mary. I think Catholics would agree with the Orthodox's interpretations of the book of Revelation.
Regards
"It is a very moving, even crushing experience."
"Crushing" is exactly the right word!
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.