Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Spot on, Jo.
Yes, that helps. Thanks. So, Holy Tradition includes both oral and written teachings. The oral part goes pretty much all the way back to the beginning and the written works of the Fathers are subject to the "consensus patrum". Am I getting closer? :) I think I'm still a little fuzzy one something. At the beginning you said that Holy Tradition goes all the way back ("always believed"), but later the consensus is considered part of the Tradition?
Wasn't Adam created in the image and likeness of God, without the taint of sin, concupiscence, or clouded intellect and will?
Pro 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
The Scriptures clearly state that it is MAN'S will that makes the decision - guided by God, instructed by Him, created and even moved by God. Genesis 3 doesn't mention anything about God's will in Adam, but ADAM'S decision to eat the fruit. Just because God created Adam's will doesn't mean it was perfect. You are again presuming that God created us without love in mind.
I wrote : they obviously followed Him - but they were having a difficult time in changing their paradigm based on faith.
You responded : That's not what Luke 9:44-45 states. It plainly states that God commanded and God concealed the matter from them.
Why are you saying that? The Scriptures don't say anything about GOD hiding something!
"But they did not understand this word, and it was hid from them that they should not understand," Luke 9:45.
You are presuming that God ACTIVELY HID SOMETHING. However, the fact that the world was the third planet revolving around a star was ALSO "hidden" from them - meaning that it was UNDISCOVERED yet - as I said, their paradigm couldn't comprehend a Risen Suffering Servant. I don't find anything REQUIRING one to think that GOD HIMSELF would actively hide knowledge. Again, God allows us to figure things out in science AND theology, under His guidance.
Here is what Barnes says about it: ...In this way it was hid from them--not by God, but by their previous false belief (triumphant savior, not suffering servant - my addition). And from this we may learn that the plainest truths of the Bible are unintelligible to many because they have embraced some belief or opinion before which is erroneous, and which they are unwilling to abandon.
You'll find even the Catholic Church interprets the meaning here to be symbolic for God covering the sins of Adam and Eve.
That's one interpretation, a spiritual one, certainly. I wasn't sure what you meant.
Now where did he get this wisdom from? To help you; Pro 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Of course we get Wisdom from the Lord. But receiving knowledge and understanding DOES NOT mean that my WILL will follow it! That doesn't mean WE don't make decisions. The parable doesn't mention anything about God FORCING the man back to his father. If the parable is about the Kingdom, wouldn't you think Christ would have mentioned that God FORCED the man (since he was of the "elect") back home? God doesn't work that way. He places wisdom within us. But we can refuse that wisdom. We can deny it. We can follow our will that tells us to NOT follow God's will - to suffer, to sacrifice, to turn from sin. God will reward us based on HOW we listen to this wisdom. What would be the point of judgment if God moved us irrestibly to do His will? There is no justice there.
The parable clearly says that the man made the choice, not God. God put within the man the ability to repent, but it is the man who is repenting, it is the man who is returning home - under his own volition.
Regards
St. Lerins "rule of thumb" (always believed, by everyone, everywhere) is an indication to people years later that something MUST be from the Holy Spirit and was an original Apostolic Tradition. The Consensus is OUR way of knowing that the Spirit of Truth has taught and always taught something when we have such a consensus.
Regards
Spot on, Jo.
One of the many verses that are flat out ignored by our separated bretheren. You'd think Christ would at least mention that our righteousness was meaningless! Another anti-Biblical teaching...
Brother in Christ
Sounds a lot like Baptism, and not the "Sinner's Prayer" that regenerates someone, doesn't it? I believe the model in this subject, as in other Christian subjects, is Christ's own Baptism.
I KNEW you were going to say that. :) That's why I included the author's view of Baptism being symbolic. I think both of us take parts of Christ's baptism, but not all. I say that the Spirit indwells before the ritual of Baptism, and you say that a non-believer should be Baptized. Neither of these views exactly matches Christ's Baptism.
[From the article:] Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit.
Of course it is. But it doesn't follow that we are not expected to respond to God's gift by repenting and converting. God gives us the ability to do it - we are told we are to do it (Jesus said: "{YOU} REPENT and BELIEVE" - Not "God Repents for you" or "God believes for you", or "Don't worry, your God has chosen all people standing among us as the elect. ...
I would say from God's POV it is more than expected for the elect, it is guaranteed. But of course from our POV, we cannot take a "no worries" attitude. We experience the choosing of belief and repentance.
Protestants make the claim that they know that THEY are IRRESISTIBLY SAVED! Men CANNOT EVER LOSE their salvation, no matter what they do! However, in case something in the future, say 40 years from now, happens to make them reject the faith, well, naturally, they weren't saved to begin with! That's your side's argument. Frankly, it isn't Biblical.
Part of this sounds like a OSAS position, which I do not subscribe to. I don't believe a person can claim salvation and then do whatever he wants. If he is saved, he will want to do what God wants. I rely only on God's promises in the Bible (as detailed in the earlier article) for my assurance. We just disagree on who the intended audience is for much of the Bible. I think that the whole Bible was written for the benefit of all believers. When you throw out all of the passages in the article because no one can know if he is of the elect, then you render all of the passages completely useless to the average believer. They have no value.
[From your example of a person who loses faith:] But after seeing the war, the famine, the starvation, the little kids dying in their mothers' arms daily, up close in person, you begin to question whether God really cares about man. Why should a little child have to die? Starve to death? What kind of God allows that?
I think everyone has questions like this once in a while. That's why we have each other in the faith, to be of ministry to us in dark times. God seems to have fully designed it that way, and it seems to me to be working pretty well. If you ever felt weak in the faith, you would know to go to your priest, right? That is as it should be. We also have the Bible that can answer many of our questions. A mature Christian also knows there are some questions we might have that are unanswerable, and we just have to have faith in God's guiding hand.
[Continuing...] It is enough to shake the faith of many people. You might deny this, but only because you haven't seen it in person and up close. You might not like this scenario, but I have seen people who have undergone this very thing. They fell away from Christianity altogether because of what they saw while trying to be Christian missionaries.
Fortunately, I have been spared from witnessing things like that first hand, and I am very sorry about the people you have seen. I am sure that this kind of thing must be common enough that there must be some sort of support system set up with counseling, etc. I would be really surprised if there was no help available to them.
Are you now going to try to tell me that this person WAS NEVER SAVED TO BEGIN WITH??? See where this leads you, brother?
Well, if they stay away and die shaking their fists at God, then it certainly appears that way. But it also doesn't surprise me that such a thing happens to people of all Christian faiths. I just don't believe that man is strong enough to overpower God and snatch himself out of His hands. God is too strong to be overcome.
I suppose it was parts of both. The key for me was when (I think) you said that they CHOSE to kill Him. I thought you meant so against His will and I saw this as in opposition to the idea that Christ freely gave up His life for us.
From your perspective, this would take away from God's sovereignty if these men voluntarily chose to crucify Christ, as opposed to God forcing them to do it in a grandly predestined pageantry about which they had no alternative. It would also take away from Christ's sovereignty if humans caused his death, as opposed to Christ deciding to die and just doing it at that particular moment.
Yes, if these men had the power on their own to enforce their decision to do this it would take away from God's sovereignty. However, the only alternative is not that God forced them to do it. God did not enter into Judas and force the betrayal, satan did. God allowed it because it was part of His plan to save His elect, but God was not the author of the evil.
The hymnology of the Orthodox Church is clear. It speaks of Christ "voluntarily ascending the Cross" (an obviously poetic way of saying that Christ was not helpless, and could, as the Scriptures say, have called down legions of angels.)
That is great to hear. OK, I'm not nuts anymore. :) Thanks much for the hymn.
The question is this: did Christ have a real human body, i.e. that would die if he was crucified -- that he would die if you did something to his body that would kill any other human being *unless* he used his power as God not to die? Did he have a human body like ours? Was he really fully human as well as fully God? ... How about "an all-powerful Christ freely allowed men to kill him by choosing not to stop them or fight back"? ... Christ voluntarily allowed humans to torture and kill him. Does that make him helpless? Hardly.
I agree with this view. I would answer all of your questions here, except the last one, 'Yes'. I do think that the man Jesus really did suffer and His body really did die. The Passion was real. He was 100% God and 100% human.
Since humans were unable to kill him, according to your argument, then it would stand to reason that humans were incapable of inflicting injury or pain on him either.
I believe that humans were unable to kill Him against His will. God allowed the evil to take place because it was part of His plan that Christ would be the sacrifice for the elect.
Furthermore, Christ in his human will did not want to die.
I agree, being fully human it is a built-in instinct to want to live.
We certainly do not believe that God is the cause of suffering, torture, pain, and death -- either by direct action or by making other humans do those things to him or to each other.
I really had to think about this one. I think we agree that God does not cause "evil", but is all "suffering, torture, pain, and death" really evil? (Maybe leave out torture :) Let's take the easiest example I can think of. Given your above statement, how do you explain Job? Yes, it was satan who did the actual dirty work, but not only was this with God's "blessing", but it was at God's suggestion!
Another thing I considered is that God does correct those He loves. I can attest that this sometimes involves things that were "painful" to me. Of course it wasn't "evil", it was for my own good, and I thanked Him for it. That is, I thanked Him LATER for it. :)
Finally, there is the consideration of whether God causes our physical deaths. About the deceased, we've all heard it said that "God called him home". Not only that, but there are countless examples in the OT where God did actually cause the deaths of many. How about the flood? :)
Amo 8:11 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord GOD, "When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD.
Luk 10:21 At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
I know you don't like to be inundated with scripture but verses like these are scattered all over the Bible.
What precisely is G-R-A-C-E? Is grace something that God just casually tosses around or is it much more valuable than that? God didn't give grace to the Egyptians. God gave grace to the Israelites.
This is the part that I'm struggling with. How is one to know what is or is not infallible Church teaching? How is one to know what is or is not infallible Church Tradition? You said that Tradition is what is delivered, and is the manner of delivery. I'm trying to figure out where you all hang your hats. :)
For example, if I said to my friend Jack Bauer, "Jack, the Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Protoevangelion is part of their Holy Tradition, take a look." Then, if he read it he might very well think that you all believe every word of it. I have been told that this is not the case, although it does contain elements of truth that you do believe in. I feel I would be misrepresenting you if I said that you all fully believe in all Holy Tradition. I don't want to misrepresent you, which is why I keep harping on this. :) If you show me something and say that it is Tradition, I just want to know whether I can safely assume that you believe in it fully, partially, or to what degree.
I have been assuming through this whole thing that you think that all real truth is infallible, just from a common sense standpoint. Am I missing something there?
God's Revelation is given to us in three ways: ... 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God's Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures.
OK, this I didn't know, or didn't remember. So, to be one of the three legs of authority, any Tradition must have come directly from one of the Apostles. Good enough.
The selling of indulgence was once an "infallible" Church teaching. After two hundred years it was condemned. One has to wonder how a infallible teaching could go bad.
I didn't realize you believe there is a sort of hierarchy within scripture, thanks for pointing that out and for your answer. If you'd like to see the Catholic view of authority, Jo gave it to me in his 3053 including comments on Tradition. My answer is in 3170. If you read them you will see that I'm struggling with how to see infallibility within the context of Tradition.
Even here, you said that Holy Tradition was authority. I have been told that the Protoevangelion is part of Holy Tradition. I have also been told that it is not infallible and it is not authority, although it contains elements of truth. I don't know, I'm starting to think that maybe my mind is in some kind of a mental rut that I can't seem to shake, that the answer is easier than I'm making it, but I'm just so focused down one path of thinking that I can't see it. :)
Thank you for the link. I will take a look at it.
That's a pretty solid rejection! :)
I think I can basically agree with this. I know that God is not to blame for any evil, but if evil "exists only by our choice", then how does satan fit in? I would say that satan actively attacks us, fools and tricks us into doing things against our better selves. Maybe I'm splitting hairs on what you mean by "exists".
OK, so is the difference that in this context "beget" means "to generate" (outside of time), and "proceed from" means "He who already exists is sent"? (I had never heard of the filioque before this thread :)
"The selling of indulgence was once an "infallible" Church teaching. After two hundred years it was condemned. One has to wonder how a infallible teaching could go bad."
The selling of indulgences was never part of Holy Tradition. It was a practice in the West. In fact, the whole concept of indulgences is essentially Western. The idea existed in the East in a few places but it never gained any traction.
"OK, so is the difference that in this context "beget" means "to generate" (outside of time), and "proceed from" means "He who already exists is sent"? (I had never heard of the filioque before this thread :)
Here's a link to the Agreed Statement of Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians on the subject of the filioque clause. It wil explain a good deal of what we are talking about.
http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp
I hadn't thought of looking at it that way before, thanks for the perspective. I know you've said that you can have a "good idea" of your ultimate salvation, which shows some confidence. Do you ever worry about it? I'm just trying to imagine how I would feel without assurance. I think I would lie awake at night, wondering about it. :) I know we disagree on the "fear and trembling" verse, but I think you don't believe it means that we are supposed to go through our lives shivering in fear, right?
To us, Baptism is for the remission of all sins. It makes us children of God.
Don't you mean foster children? :) True children are children forever, regardless of anything they do. Foster children are only children for a time, and can come and go.
I would say that the Spirit is working in the person before Baptism, as well, as least in the adult. I work with adults preparing for Baptism, and I see His work first hand. The Catholic Church says that it is God who prepares the individual to receive Baptism. But where exactly does the Bible say that an infant CANNOT be baptised?
But of course from our POV, we cannot take a "no worries" attitude. We experience the choosing of belief and repentance.
I agree. We do not take the no worry attitude because WE may reject God in the end - He will not reject us. We do experience freedom of the will.
I think that the whole Bible was written for the benefit of all believers. When you throw out all of the passages in the article because no one can know if he is of the elect, then you render all of the passages completely useless to the average believer. They have no value.
As I said before, I agree that the Scripture is written for all believers. But Scripture has multiple meanings. We can't disregard the literal and intended sense so that you can have your spiritual meaning ONLY. Many passages are addressed to the leaders of the Church. Mat 28:20 is Jesus addressing His Apostles ONLY. Not the crowds of believers. By denying the literal, intended sense of Jesus' Words, you do injustice to the passage. We do not deny that Christ ALSO intends for us to participate in His priesthood that results from Baptism. We, TOO, are priests, prophets, and kings. We offer ourselves to God, we preach the Word to others. These are priestly functions in the OT. But none of this does away with the ministerial priesthood that continues to offer Christ's sacrifice visibly through the Mass. Nor does our priesthood resulting from baptism destroy the need for authority within the community. The ministerial priests are a clear visible sign of the visible "Christ" in the world, the man dedicated to God and His Word.
I think everyone has questions like this once in a while
My point is that an extreme experience CAN lead to a person falling away from the faith - even a missionary who believes they are strong in the faith. That is why we shouldn't take our faith for granted (or our salvation - which we HOPE for).
I just don't believe that man is strong enough to overpower God and snatch himself out of His hands. God is too strong to be overcome.
Your concept of God is different then mine. I believe God is LOVE. Love does not force. God gives us the tools to come to Him, to respond to His initiatives. But He doesn't force us to love Him. You may say "but why would someone choose not to come to God"? The answer is obvious - because God can be denied. He is denied and turned away from all the time. God desires our FAITH in Him. There is no faith when one is forced against their will. If God came down in glorious form right now, who would disbelieve? God does not overpower our nature. He grants us graces to turn to Him, but He also expects us to Repent and Believe the Gospel. Mark's Gospel clearly shows the idea that MAN is being told to reach inside and come to faith in the Lord. When Christ announces the Good News in Mark 1, nowhere is it implied that God forces someone to repent or to believe.
We don't believe God works that way. Certainly, God is active in our decision-making, but we are the one who will sin - or do good while in Christ.
Did you force your wife to love you, or did you prove your love to her and allow her the opportunity to turn to you? Even though you "knew" it was in her best interest to marry you?!
Regards
You are using the human idea of begetting 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"
OK, that's a great idea. With your explanation, now I think I actually get it. Thanks Joe!
God Bless.
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.