Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I agree. But I also believe it is a grave error to not recognize the two different PORTRAYALS of God in the two Testaments. We are to read the OT in light of the NT. It is a grave error to read the OT as if it contained our full revelation of Who God is.
But God does not contradict Himself.
This is not at issue. It is man reading God's Word incorrectly that is at issue. MAN who refuses to see that the OT is incomplete and imperfect are in danger of missing out on the Gospel message.
Seems Jesus was much more specific that you give Him credit for.
What are you talking about? What does John 8 prove about the Old Testament? By Jesus saying "they could not hear Him", doesn't this make it obvious that men were misinterpreting the "plain text" of the Scripture???
Salvation is not earned. Salvation is given by the free grace of our merciful God. Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Yes, thank you. Who here disagrees with that?
Regards
That doesn't stop some Protestants from making a "canon within a canon" by placing Romans and Galatians above and beyond what Jesus says in the Gospels so as to maintain the false idea of salvation by faith alone. As a result, verses that are from "outside" this "higher canon" get little press.
In order to reduce my error rate might I suggest you refer to Calvin's Institutes or his commentaries. While I don't agree with everything he has to say I find him to be a little more easier to read than some of the early church fathers.
I am not interested in a dead heretic's thoughts, but a live Christian's opinion. There are many more worthy things to attend to then Calvin's false presumptions. As you admit, you don't agree with everything he writes. Thus, what would be the purpose of culling through Calvin's writings to find your opinions? As to being easier to read, I think the problem is that SOME of the Church Fathers were writing to different audiences, who understood the nuances of neo-Platoism and other pagan philosphies. But many of the Fathers are pretty clear about what they write.
It would cause me greater concern if 5 Cardinals came up with 8 different interpretations and then told me that I had to live by one of them. Especially if I knew it to be wrong.
So how do you "know" you are right? Again, you appear to be claiming infallibility for yourself. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but to "know" they are wrong???
Regards
"Acquaint now thyself with Him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee." Job 22:21.
Amen, AG. The path of your faith is a glorious example of God's steady hand guiding His sheep homeward.
Work has been stressful lately, and I've spent too much time worrying. But I'm reminded that true faith means knowing, really knowing, that everything will work for our benefit and His glory.
"The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms" -- Deuteronomy 33:27
"All events are under the control of Providence; consequently all the trials of our outward life are traceable at once to the great First Cause. Out of the golden gate of God's ordinance the armies of trial march forth in array, clad in their iron armour, and armed with weapons of war. All providences are doors to trial. Even our mercies, like roses, have their thorns. Men may be drowned in seas of prosperity as well as in rivers of affliction. Our mountains are not too high, and our valleys are not too low for temptations: trials lurk on all roads. Everywhere, above and beneath, we are beset and surrounded with dangers. Yet no shower falls unpermitted from the threatening cloud; every drop has its order ere it hastens to the earth. The trials which come from God are sent to prove and strengthen our graces, and so at once to illustrate the power of divine grace, to test the genuineness of our virtues, and to add to their energy. Our Lord in His infinite wisdom and superabundant love, sets so high a value upon His people's faith that He will not screen them from those trials by which faith is strengthened. You would never have possessed the precious faith which now supports you if the trial of your faith had not been like unto fire. You are a tree that never would have rooted so well if the wind had not rocked you to and fro, and made you take firm hold upon the precious truths of the covenant grace. Worldly ease is a great foe to faith; it loosens the joints of holy valour, and snaps the sinews of sacred courage. The balloon never rises until the cords are cut; affliction doth this sharp service for believing souls. While the wheat sleeps comfortably in the husk it is useless to man, it must be threshed out of its resting place before its value can be known. Thus it is well that Jehovah trieth the righteous, for it causeth them to grow rich towards God." -- Charles Spurgeon.
My only regret is that Spurgeon wasn't a Presbyterian. 8~)
And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." -- Acts 5:39-442"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Not worthy by our own righteousness (of which we have none), but made worthy by Christ's righteousness alone. Who can overthrow it?
Thank you for all the additional info. I would agree that Paul did not appear to be the biggest fan of marriage. I never got the impression that Paul thought marriage was "bad", just not optimal in a spiritual sense.
Given what Catholics say about clerical celibacy, is this a matter of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, and did it play a role in the split?
(And the Orthodox Church in general discourages anyone from attempting life-long celibacy outside of the structure of a monastic life.)
Does that mean you actively encourage singles toward marriage? I ask because I know several singles in our church, some of whom are even my age, and I know that no one thinks "less" of them because of it. (I'm not saying that you do.) While we are very "pro-marriage", there is no expectation of it.
Our bishops are required to be completely celibate, and are generally drawn from the ranks of monastics, although widowers are sometimes chosen to be bishops.
Then what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?
I don't see how it could have been. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not dogma, in the Latin rite. When a married Orthodox or Anglican priest converts, he is allowed to continue as priest in the Latin rite and, of course, married. Married (once) men can be ordained in the Eastern Catholic rites.
Neither Catholic or any rite, or Orthodox allow one who is a priest already to marry, or a married priest to divorce and re-marry, or allow married bishops.
The differences between the Latin rite and the Orthodox disciplines regarding priesthood may have been used in the "kitchen sink"-type argumentation on both sides, but they are not substantial by themselves. The differences in communion bread are probably more substantial.
Yes it was, to a small extent. Frankish monks who came to Bulgaria, which was ecclesiastically under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, taught that the Greeks were in error for having married clergy, having long beards, and long hair, and for having "removed" the Filioque from the Creed. They came to Bulgaria because the Bulgarian king wanted to be crowned an Emperor and was shopping for a Church that would crown him, so he invited the Franks.
Incidentally, one of the reasons for the anathema given that makred the unofficial split between the east and the west in 1050 cited that Greeks refused to shave and look like the Latin priests, thereby causing disunity!
Then what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?
Well, they are limited, of course. A priest has no power outside of a bishopric. He is bishop's assistant, lieutenant, proxy, etc. The ecclesiastical authority rests with the hishop, which was the problem with Luther's rebellion. He, as a priest, had no authority in the Church unless the bishop granted it to him.
I know this wasn't pinged to me, but I thought I would "spice" up the answer a bit. Hope none of you minds.
In the Catholic Church, not all monks are priests, and not all priests are monks, but there are some monks who are also priests.
I agree with you, Alex. I would add that evil can't come from God because it is not in His nature and He doesn't have it to give.
Much has been posted here that is in itself inobjectionable for all, but spun as countering Catholicism/Orthodoxy, and at the same time the Catholic/Orthodox position on free will and the problem of evil is spun to present us as deniers of sovereignty of God.
Please see 3,597 for a very precise, I think, treatment from the authoritative Catholic source.
In the Orthodox Church, not all monks are priests and not all priests are monks, but there are some monks who are also priests. :)
I must disagree. satan's efforts certainly lead to evil in our world. We are fooled all the time into making bad decisions. Just like with Harley's point about Eve. If Eve made an informed free will choice to disobey God, then why did Adam get all the blame? Scripture does not support, without a wild interpretation, that Eve and Mary are mirrors in the way that Adam and Christ were. Scripture is clear that sin came through only Adam. (More on your quote later.)
Thus, scripturally, there is no need to specifically qualify our will as free any more than there is a need for the Bible to specifically use the term Holy Trinity for both to be true and obvious to all (except to Calvinists).
I appreciate your position of necessity to say that an evidence of truth is that something is NOT in the Bible. :).
No, Calvinists fully believe that we must reject God. You confirmed that in the very next sentence "In fact, we're born to do it." If we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. That much we agree. But once made aware of God, you continue to believe that, by virtue of our nature, we must reject Him unless He compels us otherwise. At no point do Calvinists admit that man, by virtue of his intellect, chooses God or chooses to continue to reject God.
We are born with a sin nature, through Adam. On our own, we are doomed and have no chance of salvation. No manner of intellect is enough to freely choose God on our own. If you believe that it is our intellect that makes the difference (final decision), then you believe in a man-centered theology. More power in man, less power in God. We reject that and believe in a God-centered theology. God is sovereign and He ordains the nature of the universe and all of its inhabitants (including their actions), according to His good, pleasing, and perfect will.
You say that if we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct. Generally speaking, we act according to our nature. IIRC, you do not believe in the sin nature of man, but the Catholics and the rest of us do.
The sin nature IS the absolute will to reject God. It cannot be overcome on our own, and an offer is still not enough. To believe that man's intellect can overcome it is, again, a man-centered theology.
Our intellect, as opposed to our nature, to choose to sin comes into play after salvation, for sin happens, even though we have a regenerated heart, and God is not the author of evil. So, the intellect comes into play, but it is not for good. We experience our intellect working for good after salvation, but the root of it all is still God.
Now, we are born without the knowledge of God but, when God knocks (repeatedly) on our hearts, by virtue of our nature we tend to reject God, but by virtue of our intellect, we are free to either reject or accept His love, a decision we make freely because He endowed us with that freedom.
As of the post I am responding to, no one has yet to answer my question about whether this free will choice is done with full information. Does God knock on everyone's heart equally, since God loves everyone? If so, then whose intellect would choose hell over heaven? It doesn't make sense.
I look at it as I would look at an addiction. ... But help can come only when you, in your mind, freely decide, by virtue of your intellect, that the addiction (no matter how good it feels) is wrong, and wish to overcome it. You then seek help because it is impossible to overcome on one's own. It is only then that we realize that help was always there.
What percentage of addicts, do you suppose, use their intellect to decide they need help, and then accept it? Not very many, right? Is that how you see the narrow path, based on intellect? Who gives us our intellect? Doesn't God bless some more than others with intellect? Is this God's love for all?
This all goes back to my original objection to Calvinism, namely that denying free will by necessity denies the possibility of evil (and makes evil, sin, and the need for our redemption meaningless). By necessity, our actions, then, are simply an extension of God's will. Since God cannot choose evil, the fact that evil exists, proves that theory false.
No, the false part is your assertion that denying free will denies the possibility of evil. You won't distinguish between free will to do good in God's eyes, and free will to do evil. God is only good, not evil. Therefore, God can cause us to do good, whether it is in our salvation, or good works thereafter. God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things. This view is perfectly consistent within itself.
"Thank you for all the additional info. I would agree that Paul did not appear to be the biggest fan of marriage. I never got the impression that Paul thought marriage was "bad", just not optimal in a spiritual sense."
You are right that he didn't say that marriage is bad. You are also very correct that he didn't view it as optimal in the spiritual life. This is an important distinction, since many non-Orthodox tend to look at things in black and white -- something is either great or it is a terrible sin. Things usually aren't that simple.
I would point out that a great deal of St. Paul's time discussing these matters involve issues of remarriage. He very specifically encourages widows not to remarry. The Orthodox Church just follows this. Again, as I said before, it is far easier to live a celibate life when one is older and has had more years to work on controlling the passions than it is to do so from a young age. No great mystery there. Interestingly, the Orthodox monastic tradition has tended to be to have boys/men become monastics quite young -- the theory here is that the sooner they get into the structured life of a monastic community, the easier a time they will have of it.
Starting the day at 3 AM with Midnight Office and Matins in the Church has a way of dampening the passions...
"Given what Catholics say about clerical celibacy, is this a matter of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, and did it play a role in the split?"
As annalex says, Catholic clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, not dogma. I would say, though, that I have had a number of lengthy encounters on FR with Catholics who are followers of a new and aggressive historical school within Catholicism that states that the ancient and apostolic tradition was clerical celibacy from the earliest New Testament times -- clergy, according to this interpretation, were married, but completely stopped all sexual activity with their wives once they were ordained.
This school of thought maintains that it is the Eastern/Orthodox tradition of married clergy that is the deviation from apostolic norms. The Orthodox Church obviously maintains just the opposite (as does most Catholic scholarship).
This might not seem like much, but saying to Orthodox Christians that they are going against apostolic tradition is like throwing sand in our faces. Interestingly, some of the most vehement opposition to this school of historical thought (which arose to try to shore up Catholic clerical celibacy) has come from Uniates (Catholics who follow Eastern traditions). They have just been recovering from centuries of second-class citizenship within Catholicism, and take great exception to the implication from their western Catholic brethren that their traditions are a deviation from apostolic norms.
The Orthodox Church does not claim that universal clerical celibacy is wrong, it just maintains that it is unwise. You have to believe me when I say that there is no schadenfreude involved in the Catholic sexual abuse scandals. But we definitely look at Catholic norms and say, "what did you expect would happen?"
As I said, the standard of the Orthodox Church is that celibacy is best lived in a monastic setting. There are certainly unmarried priests serving in parishes, but they are an uncommon exception, and most are monastics that have been called to meet parish needs, or are unmarried clergy who later take on monastic vows, perhaps because they realize that this will help them.
"Does that mean you actively encourage singles toward marriage? I ask because I know several singles in our church, some of whom are even my age, and I know that no one thinks "less" of them because of it. (I'm not saying that you do.) While we are very "pro-marriage", there is no expectation of it."
In "the old countries," celibacy outside of monastic settings is relatively uncommon. I remember having a friend tell me that he talking to his father-confessor after confession, and his father-confessor said "so what are you going to do? Get married or become a monastic? It is not good for man to live alone." He is now married, quite happily. So yes, there is definitely some pressure to marry, primarily because of acknowledging how difficult it is to live a chaste life outside of marriage or monasticism. In practice the expectations come from families and the old match-making women.
"...what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?"
Two separate questions. A married priest can become the dean of a diocese or the chancellor or an archdiocese/metropolia (i.e. be the bishop's right-hand guy in administrative matters.) But that's it. A priest shouldn't be thinking in terms of career advancement, anyway (not that that stops some of them.) Being a priest is a responsibility and a service, not a perk or honor.
Sacramentally, bishops are to be unmarried, although this is a matter of discipline that wasn't put into formal canons until the Council in Trullo, relatively late.
The ideal is for a bishop to be an experienced monastic. As an experienced monastic, he will have the tools (and wisdom that comes with age) needed to deal with living a celibate life out in the world (which is where bishops have to live and work to care for their flocks.) The responsibilities of a bishop are huge. It would be very difficult to be a good bishop and be married. It would also put the priest's wives into competition with each other and introduce a level of competition between priests that is just unhealthy.
In Orthodox monasticism, very few monks are ordained clergy. A monastery will have as many ordained clergy as are necessary to serve the full cycle of services, and no more. Being a priest is a service, not a privilege. Good monastics don't *want* to be ordained, and tend to avoid it, since it has a tendency to distract from the prayer and ascetic life of a monastic. They view themselves as having given up something to become priests.
"God does not cause us to do evil, although He remains in control of all things."
In other words, he is in control of all things other than whether we do evil or not. We agree with that. :-)
Sorry for my delay, AlbionGirl. Prayers have been sent up from here for both your mother and for you. You are a wonderful witness for the power of prayer and how it matters so much. God Bless you and your family.
And what if it was your insanity?
God knows my inner thoughts, satan doesn't. God knows exactly what buttons to press in me to get what He wants. He's done it many times before. :) He would convince me in such a way that I would be sure. OTOH, if I truly was insane, then I'm insane and am capable of anything, I suppose. I really hope that doesn't happen. :)
The word "hades" actually does appear in my Bible as well. I suppose the difference is over whether it is a place from whence someone could be rescued. Do you equate hades with purgatory?
Hey! We Baptists don't have many Calvinists but what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality. :O)
Well, this continues for several more years. She reads the Bible daily, is active at her community, attends Bible studies and is becoming more Christ-like. To all people, especially herself, Pat is DEFINITELY of the elect. She volunteers to be a missionary in a foreign country. She [has a terrible experience, witnessing death and disease, she falls away, and effectively turns her back on God.]
My question to you addresses the failure of your theology. During those five years of Christianity, Pat was considered by ALL to be of the elect. She showed the fruit of being elect. She had a firm belief in the Lord, was knowledgeable about Scriptures, and gave of herself to others. (bolded emphasis added)
Before I answer, I just want to say that I am not answering on behalf of all Protestants. As Harley and Stripes have both pointed out, my view and Harley's are in the minority among Protestants.
First, as to the sections I bolded, we would never, ever, say that. We might "think" it, as you do of yourself, but we would never presume about another person. There is no scripture I am aware of that gives us assurance about other people.
Second, I have never met, or even heard of, someone like Pat before. I have heard of people who appeared like Pat, but that is very different. If you are presuming for the sake of your hypo that she really DID "walk strongly in the Lord", did actually grow in her sanctification, read the Bible in earnest daily, really did become more Christ-like, showed true fruit, had a firm belief in the Lord, etc., then I would say that Pat is an impossibility. Who on earth could possibly know if any of those things you listed was really, actually true of Pat other than herself? No one. Remember my Billy Graham story? He called out to pastors to come forward at the invitation. He knew that outward appearances had nothing necessarily to do with the true inward heart. The Pat of your hypo doesn't really exist.
It was clear that God HAD TO BE WORKING IN HER! And here is the crux of the matter : WHAT CAUSED PAT TO CHANGE SO MUCH DURING THOSE FIVE YEARS?
It could only be clear to you as the author of the hypo. Lost people do deeds we normally would consider "good" all the time. But it is not righteousness to them. Lost people who are drug addicts go into rehab, get straight, and are reunited with their families. They undergo a huge change. Good for them! Really. But it does not count towards heaven in God's eyes. They are still lost. The same happens on the opposite side of the tracks.
"She never was saved to begin with" is plain dishonest and shows the fallacy of claiming to BE of the elect forever. All of our conversation returns to this presumption. All Scripture you give me. It is meant for the elect - however, we cannot KNOW we will be elect until judgment day.
It is not dishonest, it is what the scripture says. As I said, the Pat of your hypo does not exist. In the real world you cannot assume all those qualities about her as another person. You see evidence, just as you do within yourself, but even with yourself, you are unsure. We say we can be sure about ourselves, but not other people. AND, if all the scripture you were given is only for the elect, and no one can know if he is of the elect until after death, then what use is any of it to anyone TODAY? If we can snatch ourselves out of God's hands, then what use is it to try to live up to any standards, if, as you say, it could all be gone in a heartbeat 5 years down the road, if there is no reason to have confidence?
I would also like to address another of your faulty religious beliefs that contradict itself:
You wrote : "I'm not sure what part of my paragraph you find contradictory. ... we are saved by grace through faith alone. ... no one on my side believes that we enter heaven without love."
Well, I don't understand how I can make this any clearer to you, but you contradict yourself... Either you are saved by faith alone, or you are saved by faith WITH love. If you have faith ALONE, then you don't have love. One can have faith WITHOUT love. Read James 2, for example, and see the character who has faith without love.
Sorry, no contradiction here. :) Why do you reject the truth that real faith comes with real love for God? James 2 refers to a false faith. But, I suppose you need that passage to separate faith from love so that the love can only come from within us, independently of God. James 2 is talking about all the people who were never saved to begin with. It is a claimed and false faith. My view of God is one who provides fully for His children. Your view of God appears to be of one who gives His children half a meal, and then tells them to go out and scrounge for the rest. :)
"In "the old countries," celibacy outside of monastic settings is relatively uncommon."
Traditionally, this is true, but I have noticed over the past 15 years or so that it is becoming more common with people in their thirties being unmarried. Frankly they seem a bit sad and there is definite pressure to get married. It is more common among professional people than otherwise and there is a certain deperation among most of them after they hit, say, 30+. Monasticism is still considered a viable option for these people. I saw this in my own family over there but we've got all but two of them married off now, and one of those became a nun. :)
"So yes, there is definitely some pressure to marry, primarily because of acknowledging how difficult it is to live a chaste life outside of marriage or monasticism. In practice the expectations come from families and the old match-making women."
And match-making old men? :) Contrary to popular Western belief, sometimes such matchmaking is a good thing. Older, married people have the knowledge to spot a good match in terms of compatible personalities/mindsets, family backgrounds, and here, religious belief. Lets face it, being married is better than not being married, at least for those of us not headed for a monastery and a good spouse who brings strengths to the marriage which might be lacking in the other party helps in making for a good family and married life. In our community this sort of thing goes on almost continually and there is a great prayer component in all of 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.