Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
It is really hard for me, with my busy schedule to try to keep up with this thread that never dies. When I don't respond to each point, it is hardly out of lack of interest, though.
As I said, the first part of that link is a very quick read, and does a very good job of describing (or at least beginning to describe) the Orthodox Church's view of Holy Tradition. It is rather subtle at points, but once one lets go of the idea that Tradition is something separate from Scripture, then it all becomes much easier to understand.
When I say that there is a hierarchy in Scripture for the Orthodox, I want to make sure that it is clear that I do not mean that we consider one part to be Scriptural and another not. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" as St. Paul writes.
The hierarchy is in many ways a practical hierarchy based on what we need in order to grow closer to God. St. Ignaty (Brianchaninov) stresses even that within the Gospels, the most important for us to read and know are the Gospels of Sts. Matthew and Luke.
Fr. John Romanides points out that this is a common theme amongst the Fathers, and the reason for the importance of these two Gospels is that they were from the earliest times used as catechetical works. They were perhaps written (and inspired by God to be written) specifically with that intention in mind. They have a parallel approach that continually contrasts, side by side, the works of Satan with the works of God, so that we can learn to discern the difference.
Part of why you are perhaps running into some problems in understanding Tradition is that the word "authority" has difference connotations and meaning to us Orthodox than it does to Catholics.
Catholicism has a tendency to dogmatize things and say that this or that must be believed if one is to be a Christian. The Orthodox Church rarely takes that approach. What one encounters in Orthodoxy is more of an attitude of "the Church has consistently passed (insert tradition) down through the centuries, and it is found in many Fathers, liturgical texts, etc... --- so why would we be inclined to disbelieve it?"
The characterization of Orthodoxy as Platonic and Catholicism as Aristotelean is a fairly commonplace one, but one that I find difficulty in understanding.
The primary person who applied Platonism (in its Neoplatonic form) to Christian theology was not an Easterner, but rather a Westerner (and indeed the Reformers' favorite Church Father, if they had to pick one): St. Augustine.
As has been discussed on other threads, when Thomas Aquinas came along, his primary detractors were Augustinians -- in a sense, it was a struggle between Platonistic Catholics and Aristotelean Catholics.
Stating that Orthodox theology is Platonistic shows more than anything else an unfamiliarity with Orthodox life and theology, which is intensely practical and Biblical. The patristic mind is not a systematic or theoretical one, but rather one that is of a piece with that of the Old Testament prophets.
How on earth one gets from theories about being and non-being or matter and unity to Orthodox ascetic practices or our teachings on theosis would really have to be explained to me. Likewise your comments on loss of individuality, the intellect as a spark of divinity, or free will as an ooze of godness.
I would encourage you to look a little more closely at Orthodoxy, and I think that you would be surprised at how much of a continuity there is from Old Testament to New Testament to Patristic writings to current day Orthodox life and belief that there is.
I will mainly touch on one aspect of this post of yours.
You really didn't answer my point -- namely that if TULIP were the clear and unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, then why don't we see it and other Reformed distinctives explicitly expounded by writers of the post-Apostolic period? If the Apostles were preaching the same things that Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Farel were preaching, then how is it that there is not one of the early Church fathers that Calvinists can point to and say: "There, now that man teaches exactly what we teach, worshipped exactly as we worship, and is one of us."
This is a fair question, in my opinion. Even if one were to claim that the Church became corrupt and only kept those writings that support its approach, this wouldn't explain why the "official Church" wouldn't have records of how it had stamped out the proto-Reformed "heresies." We have many writings that report in great detail various heresies. For many early heresies, the only record we have of their beliefs are the controversial literature written by the Church to combat them.
One would think that if the Apostles were all teaching Reformed doctrine, that we would find a trace of it somewhere.
On the other hand, your question of how key teachings about the Virgin Mary aren't in the Bible really isn't terribly on point. After all, we Orthodox have never claimed that everything we believe is explicitly spelled out in Scripture, so why would you expect to find it all there? What we do say is that there was surely a great deal more that happened that isn't recorded in Scripture (St. John explicitly says this at the end of his Gospel), and that all teachings and traditions were originally oral, only later being written down, if at all.
Finally, I will touch on one other point that you raise at the end of your post. The Orthodox Church does *not* teach "ideas of All-Time Church supremacy over the laity, and that the Spirit does not guide the laity with wisdom or spiritual understanding."
I think that you are mistaking us for some other Christian body. There is a very strong tradition within Orthodoxy for the role of the laity. The ultimate repository of Holy Tradition is in the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the entire body of the Church. This is why a bishop's election and consecration is not complete or legitimate unless the laity present cry out "Axios!" (he is worthy!)
Keep in mind also that unlike in Roman Catholicism, the vast majority of monastics in the Orthodox Church are laymen. Very few are ordained clergy -- a monastic community will generally only have enough ordained and tonsured clergy to carry out the cycle of services. Being a priest is considered by Orthodox monastics to be an impediment to the spiritual life because of its heavy demands.
In the Orthodox Church, being a member of the clergy is viewed as an act of sacrifice and service, and not one of authority. Even how we speak of our services gives one a clue. Generally, we don't say that a priest "performs" or "celebrates" a service. We say that he "serves Vespers," "serves Matins," or "serves the Divine Liturgy."
Even for the lower ranks of clergy (tonsured readers/chanters, subdeacons) we don't think in terms of who "gets to" read the Epistle or whatever. It is in terms of who has this responsibility before God and to the local community.
A monastic recently remarked, when asked about women's ordination, "why, when women have just achieved the liberty they have sought in the world, would they want to seek after servitude in the Church?"
One of the reasons why our clergy are so much more traditional as a group than are Catholic clergy is that there is a lot of pressure on them from the pious laity. There is and never has been the kind of unquestioning "pay, pray, and obey" attitudes that have traditionally been found in Catholicism.
Without that pious laity and the respect (and fear) that the clergy have of them, I fear that we would be just as susceptible in some cases to modernist silliness as are the leaders in other Christian bodies. As it is, the kinds of things that happened in the Ctholic Church after Vatican II are nigh on to unthinkable in the Orthodox Church. The laity just wouldn't stand for it. If anything, the Orthodox Church in the West has become more traditional as recent decaades has gone by.
I've got....... a temporal fever....... and the only cure is........ MORE COWBELL! :)
--------------- :)
Christ's sacrifice on the cross forgives ALL men's sins potentially, the elect and the damned.
In John 19:30, what does Christ mean by "It is finished"? I read that the Greek word means "paid in full", as opposed to potentially.
Consider the Lord's Prayer. God's forgiveness is conditional.
Very debatable, but I don't buy it. If God's forgiveness is conditional, then you are setting up a two-way covenant. Many moons ago, you burned me fair and square with the Mosaic Covenant, but you never mentioned the New Covenant as being two-way. :) I know you believe that if your sins are not forgiven that you are not going to heaven, so this IS a salvational issue. How is this reconciled?
But another point to consider, my brother, is that sin is not only a legal status, but also an ontological stance. We actually suffer, our human dignity, suffers as a result of sin. We are held slaves to it. We are wounded by its effects.
On all of this, I have no doubt. What surprises me is that I thought you had an aversion to ideas of us being either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness". Or, am I taking you out of context?
FK: "Does this mean no one is in Christ Jesus until he confesses his last sin before he dies?"
Is someone in Christ when a Christian murders or commits adultery? You be the judge. There is more to being a Christian than a name. Only those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN shall enter the Kingdom.
You mean like David, on both counts? He certainly wasn't ACTING in Christ when he did those things, but by your own statement, where is David today? Yes, David asked forgiveness. Is your view that he was damned from the time he committed all those sins until he asked forgiveness of God? Could Jesus have been the "Son of" a damned person, had David not used his free will to confess and seek forgiveness? Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post. :)
I would say most Catholics do not believe in predestination, certainly not in the "classic" sense of Augustine. And since the Catholic Church has not formally adopted any stance on Predestination, then it really doesn't matter what one Catholic may feel about predestination. It's not "official" doctrine of the Church. It makes all the Catholics into little Protestants.
I doubt any Catholic (even Augustinian Catholics) would agree with Augustine's Treatise on Predestination.
In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth, 'For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not received? Now, if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?' [1 Cor. 4.7.] (A question I repeatly have asked on this thread)
Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. (My point in posts #3153 and #3163 which jokus argued against.)
Nope, Tetelestai means "It has been finished". There is no interpretation of that word which can torture it into meaning "paid in full". Where did you get that idea?
You are making a sweeping generalization as a matter of fact, when in fact the Council of Trent (as well as other synods of the Church) defined Catholic understanding and position on predestination in quite an astounding detail.
If you want to read the whole (Roman) Catholic exposition on the predestination, consider the source before shooting from the hip.
But, if you don't want to read this lengthy work (which includes a section on, and answers to controversies), here is a Catholic dogma in a summarized form on the subject of predestination from the above referenced source:
Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).
Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321).
God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631).
Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.)."
All emphases are mine.
The Orthodox Church echoes the same belief, which is brilliantly presented by Bishop Elias Minatios.
It means that God's redemptive work in time has been accomplished, completed, finished. That God, through Divine Economy, made our salvation possible.
I have already told you more than once, FK, that God's work is finished and that He does not wait for us to make decisions to fulfill His plan.
No, I don't mean to imply that, I don't know. It just appears to me that this Mary "insertion" into Gen. 3 seems forced. I can appreciate why it helps with doctrine and all, but I just see it as a special interpretation, the same type of which is not used elsewhere to my knowledge.
It seems to me that Scripture is so full of these double and triple meanings and references that they are commonplace. But then, that is how we Orthodox read the Scripture.
Well, I can't sit here and wag my finger at you and say that I never believe that a verse has more than one meaning. :) BUT, I'm not so sure how commonplace it is. My normal stance on any random verse is to take the so-called "plain meaning". That is, unless the context directs me not to, such as in the case of a parable, or almost any verse in Revelation. :)
There was a time not so long ago when in order to become a bishop, one of the qualifications in the Orthodox Church was precisely to be able to recite the entire Gospel and Psalter from memory. It is felt by many monastics that until the Scriptures are memorized in this way, one only scratches the surface of the meanings of the Scripture, and more importantly of the process of living it.
Boy do I hear that! :) My mentor in our church was our former music minister. We were friends and we would meet once a week or so for a one-on-one Bible study. This went on for several years. He was really big on memorization of verses, so every week I had my little homework assignment to memorize a set of verses. I was so appreciative that he would take the time to teach me that I felt I couldn't let him down, so I did the work, even though I may not have understood what the right reasons were at the time. Now I know. :)
Anyway, if it wasn't for God using him to touch my heart with friendship, and to teach me, I wouldn't even be able to begin to talk with you all on a thread like this. I am so thankful. :)
Scripture memorization in any form is invaluable. Having the words of Scripture on our lips and in our hearts changes us.
Having said that, I find that the type of memorization that I did growing up (many, many individual verses) is quite different from the type of memorization that tends to be emphasized in the Orthodox Church. There are, to be sure, countless individual verses from the Psalms and other Scripture that we know because of their appearance in the liturgical services (although we wouldn't be able to name chapter and verse).
But the serious memorization that takes place in monastic settings and by pious laymen following their example involves huge swaths of Scripture, so each verse is in a very large context. I do not mean to imply that this is unique to Orthodoxy -- I know of many Protestants who do the same. But memorization of individual verses seems more common, and more prone to selectivity.
I have read this article at least twenty times. I would encourage others to as well since it is one of the most gobblygook articles I have ever laid my eyeballs on. Since you've summerized it so well as:
Predestination is defined as:
There is nothing in the definition of predestination that even hints of foreseeing something and then saying, "Yup, that's OK by me." With all due respect, if this is the Catholic "definition" of predestination then I can predetermine the baseball scores from yesterday game.
"co-". with. together. jointly. One that is associated in an action with another: fellow. partner. helper
The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth be- neath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb. Gen 49:25
And the other Eliezer: For the God of my father, said he, is my helper, and hath delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. Ex 18:4
This is the blessing of Juda. Hear, O Lord, the voice of Juda, and bring him in unto his people : his hands shall fight for him, and he shall be his helper against his enemies Deut 33:7
And the Lord is become a refuge for the poor: a helper in due time in tribulation Ps 9:9
Thou seest it, for thou considerest labour and sorrow: that thou mayst deliver them into thy hands. To thee is the poor man left: thou wilt be a helper to the orphan Ps 10:14
So that we may confidently say: The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man shall do to me. Heb 13:6
There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.
But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby?
Your wife wasn't absolutely necessary to have a child. Adam and Eve were created without mothers. God chooses to propagate His creation THROUGH the action of men and women. Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm 139
He is the primary creator of all things. But it should appear quite obvious that your wife was involved in the birth of your child - and without her actions, your child wouldn't have been born. This conversation seems to be bordering on the ridiculous. Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.
What power or authority have I to co-redeem?
??? By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.
Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?
Mary is for our benefit and God's graces are for her benefit. Doesn't she say that in Luke 1:47-48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."?
St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...
Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first?
How is there a "first" and "last" outside of time? Everything occurs at once. Think outside the box. God sees as if a bird's eye view looking down onto a mountain, seeing all of the representatives of time standing around the mountain. He sees them all in one view.
Simultaneously" is a time-related word!
If all time occurs in one moment, that means it is simultaneous. Time = change. When two events occur during the same point in time, these two events are not changing - at that moment. Now, imagine God sees everything during the same moment.
Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right?
For us, yes. Within time, that is true. But God is beyond time.
Who makes the first move?
All such questions are considered from the point of view of mankind. God makes the first move in respect to us. Our point of reference is within time. God acts upon time but is not bound by it.
To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know
More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time. But we know something based upon revelation - that God created time and is thus transcendant above it. Thus, theologians explore the total revelation He has given us - Scripture and Tradition.
Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?
There is a convergence of evidence that points to the Church and the idea that she is trustworthy and guided by God's Spirit. The community recognized particular writings as inspired from God. Do we believe them? Yes. We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead. Our belief hinges on the resurrection, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15. As to the inspired writers, it should seem apparent that the writers used different modes of writing, different styles. God did not overwhelm THEIR manner of writing - AND HIS message is found within these human words.
Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?
It is now an infallible teaching officially defined by the Magesterium. You would be on solid ground saying that "Mary was assumed into heaven" in 1949, but it was not officially defined yet. The community was already celebrating liturgically this as fact. A person could have legitimately questioned that concept - WITH GOOD REASON after exploring the issue, privately. We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption. We don't usually have such knowledge - most have not examined all of the evidence, so we couldn't legitimately privately dissent. But once it is solemnly declared as such, we assent and obey God's Will (since it is God speaking through the Magesterium).
I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. (why Adam was not included in Gen 3:15)
The Old Testament spoke of the MALE as being the bearer of the seed and it was HE whose progeny was considered, not the mother. Rarely does the Scripture speak of the mother's progeny. We are born "dead" to God because of ADAM'S sin, not Eve's.
The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?
Not Mary, but the mother of the Messiah.
Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)
First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct. BUT, prophesy also applies to men of the future. Did the prophet realize he was prophesizing? Who knows. But the Community widely recognized this prophesy as pointing to Mary the ever-virgin.
In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.
The AUDIENCE changed? So you think that Isaiah was talking about a virgin to Ahaz? Oh, no, the meaning changed, too! Do you think that Isaiah was telling Ahaz that a virgin would give birth - a literal woman who did not have sex would give birth?
Sure, if you desire, we can have God speaking to Eve and about Mary. He did it in Is 7:14, as well - speaking to Ahaz and about Mary.
Regards
Yes, it is paid in full. All we have to do now it to go to the bank and withdraw against this infinite account. We do it all the time when we ask for forgiveness. IF it was done in the sense that we no longer have to ask forgiveness or receive Christ's graces applied to us, then why would Jesus say :
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit; 23unto those whose sins ye release, they shall be released; [and] unto those whose [sins] ye retain, they shall be retained.
John 20:22-23
Or why would Paul write :
"I Paul am made a minister, who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fulfill in my flesh that which [is] lacking of the tribulations of the Christ for his body's sake, which is the church" Col 1:23-24
We require Christ's objective redemption applied to our specific selves - called subjective redemption. Christ died for the sin of ALL men. Everyone. But not everyone is saved. Thus, the subjective redemption - that person - did not apply Christ's gifts to his own self through repentance and conversion.
Very debatable, but I don't buy it. (God's forgiveness is conditional)
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel" Mark 1:15 Doesn't this imply that we have the choice to do one or the other? I don't have the energy to post all the verses that talk about those who choose to reject God's graces and NOT repent and believe... but here is one: "He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18
Thus, forgiveness of sins is based on REPENTING. It is conditional, brother.
If God's forgiveness is conditional, then you are setting up a two-way covenant. Many moons ago, you burned me fair and square with the Mosaic Covenant, but you never mentioned the New Covenant as being two-way. :) LOL! Christ consecrated the New Covenant at a PASSOVER FEAST commemorating the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites. He chose that context for many reasons. But one is that we must turn to God and ask for the forgiveness of our sins - which Jesus offers as part of this covenant. IF Forgivness was not conditional, then ALL men would be saved - no one is in hell - because Christ died FOR ALL MEN, not just the elect.
What surprises me is that I thought you had an aversion to ideas of us being either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to righteousness". Or, am I taking you out of context?
Things are not black and white. I think Paul is talking more about a general way of acting, not our each and every sin or good deed moves us in and out of being slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Does the latter become the former EVERY TIME THEY SIN, and vice versus? This would be a DAILY back and forth! Thus, one venial sin doesn't kill the soul.
Is your view that he was damned from the time he committed all those sins until he asked forgiveness of God?
We have different views of "being saved", as I have painfully told you. How could David be damned if he hadn't died yet before his contrition. He was in an "unrighteous status" with God. He was not considered righteous in God's eyes as a result of his sin. But when he returned to God, David was restored (this is from David's point of view. God already knew David would be sorrowful. But the Scripture speaks from David's view sometimes. Being that David was of the elect, God knew David would return.)
Here is where we go back to the "time" and "simultaneous" issue, so I'll hold until I read your response to my earlier post.
God saw David in his mother's womb, In the shepherd's field, slaying Goliath, committing adultery, morning over his sick infant, weeping over Absalom, and dying all at once. What's the problem? God saw David's return to Him within time.
Regards
Harley, I have given you two "De Fide" statements regarding predestination only a few days ago. They are to be believed as from God - with the same infallibility in which we believe that the Son of God rose from the dead. ALL De Fide statements are revelations from God. Thus, Catholics believe in predestination. God ACTIVELY predestines His elect. AS I said, the major difference between Catholicism and Calvinism is that we don't believe that God predestines ACTIVELY the reprobate, though He knows that some will become reprobate. There are other things that we disagree on, such as the anthropology of man after the fall.
But regarding predestination, I think you are going to have to accept that Catholics DO believe in it. Regarding St. Augustine, perhaps you should read some of his stuff on the Eucharist, the Saints, Mary, and the Catholic Church...
Regards
Gobblygook is something you should be familiar with, HD, because in your world God does everything and we do nothing. We are just tools that lie dead until God picks them up. There is no life in us whatsoever. Your theology teaches that God simply made excess of tools that He won't use or need, so some are kept and others are rejected. Gobblygook indeed!
Look at Christ and tell me that He matches the Reformed idea of God! That's because our human idea of a god is an extension of ourselves. When God became man, He was nothing like the God of the OT or the pagans. Imagine that!
I have said it before and I will say it again: Adam and Eve made a decision to disobey and fell from God's grace, and by the same token we must decide to obey God's will if we are to become redeemed. It was the disobedience of one that brought sin and death to the world as it was perfect obedience of the Son of Man that defeated death and sin. If we are to defeat death and sin we need to follow Christ in His steps. But that must be a conscious decision on a daily basis; it must be something we long for; something we do out of love and gratitude; not something we are "preordained" or compelled to do.
Without God's punishment and God's forgiveness, neither their obedience nor our repentance would be of any value. Thus, God is the ever-present key to our fall or our redemption. But it is clear that it requires our decision. Our intellect is free, HD, and it's will is likewise free to choose God or to reject God.
The Church recognizes that God knows what our (free) decisions will be, and knows that – based on decisions – we will either be damned or saved. The Church understands that God does not punish us, but rather our decisions make us subject to punishment, as was the case with Adam and Eve, just as our decision to follow Chirst make us subject to His, akways remembering that God is the final arbiter and that we are only receptients of His mercy one way or another.
Unlike your theology of complete depravity, most of the Christian world recognizes that we are more than just His tools. That much is obvious from the message of Christ.
"Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Proverbs 20:24
Now where have I read that before? 8~)
And it sounds a lot like these...
"And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation" -- Acts 17:26 "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" -- Isaiah 46:10 "Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:5-7 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." -- Psalm 65:4"The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." -- Proverbs 16:33
Here's a great book. Isn't the internet a wonder?
Besides being exquisite (Isaiah is truly exquisite!), how could this be otherwise?
Excellent link, Dr. E. Though it will take me a while to get through it.
I did catch the part on evil, how it came into the world, etc, and that's something that has been on my mind on and off again for a while now. It put things in a perspective that I understand, and I think already understood to a lesser degree, but was influenced against my own sense of things by how aghast all seem to be at the notion that God could allow it, or be, as Isaiah notes, the maker of it.
Not so long ago, PBS aired a documentary on the Holocaust. This documentary was produced in the 60s or early 70s, and all of those who were interviewed and part of the documentary were Jews who had survived the Camps. One guy said that he remembered that sometimes a pile of bodies would quake a little as a lot of the people were not dead yet. He was so visibly shaken when he was talking about it, and it made me wonder how all the survivors reconciled such a horror with the Mercy of God? It must have been anguishing beyond imagination. The thing is though, that if you've experienced tragedy, the peace you're seeking can only commence when you let go of trying to make sense of what only God can make sense of.
Left strictly to my own understanding of things, I prefer to not second guess what God allows or forbids. It seems a conceit beyond bounds to pretend to know such things. But I can't seem to accept the idea that evil was unleashed without God's knowledge or permission. No, God created it all according to his Good and Perfect Will, and I don't have the mind to unravel that Mystery, and I don't want to pursue the pretense that I do.
You are SOOOOOOOO busted! :)
And I remember reading "And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
So, God creates evil according to KJV, and yet we ask Him to deliver us from it? I thought even the Reformed would say that everything that is from God is good. If He creates evil, then evil must be good too. Then why would God Himself teach us to pray to be delivered from it?
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.