Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"The New Testament was compiled by the Church and officially canonized in 397 A.D."
The canonization added nothing to the authority and inspiration of the books of the New Testament. The churches had already decided they were the Word Of God. All the the Councils did was distinbuish the legitimate from the uninspired.
Exactly my point. There wasn't anything added or deleted that wasn't suppose to be where it was.
Jews do not read John. You should learn about Judaism and what it believes. You will find that their idea of the messiah and ours is like night and day and that they do not believe a man needs to be saved but rather than man needs to make himself righteous in the eyes of God by good works.
Summarize it, then.
However, one needs to consult Jewish sources as to why thye think there is no seamless connection. We think we are one and the same faith yet we don't have synagogues but churches.
The Apostle's Creed, for starters. David, Job, the Psalmists all went to the Hades (Sheol). Perhaps Genesis 37:34-35
My Bible says "grave". The footnote says that Sheol most often means "grave" in the normal sense, but can also be taken to mean "the place of departed spirits", both of the righteous and wicked (heaven or hell). Even in the latter sense, in your Genesis verse, the place here would have been heaven. The same applies to Job 14:13.
According to you, only those who believe in Jesus can be saved. That means that those who were OT righteous could not be saved, which is why they were in the Sheol and had to be rescued by Christ. But if they were righteous, why did they need rescuing?
Well, that would only be true if ALL of your assumptions and conclusions were correct. I respectfully disagree with most or all of them. I disagree with your interpretation of Sheol, and the entire idea that anyone goes down to hades, and later needs rescuing. That is an invention of the Church, and some very agenda-filled interpretation. I don't even think you and the Catholics agree on the whole "after-life but before judgment" thing. I believe the righteous Jew of the OT was saved in the normal, for me, way. No need for any purgatory or hades.
Good. :)
I thought that you believed that Baptism was absolutely instrumental to salvation. When is it that righteousness is infused? After death?
"The sacrament of Baptism is the door into the Church, the Kingdom of grace. It is with Baptism that Christian life begins. Baptism is the frontier that separates the members of Christ’s Body from those who are outside it. In Baptism the human person is arrayed in Christ, following the words of St Paul which are sung as the newly-baptized is led around the baptismal font: ‘For as many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal.3:27). In Baptism the human person dies to his sinful life and rises again to new spiritual life." (Orthodox Catechism)
As for when is a man saved, we would say when we are in harmony with the sacraments, when we live and walk with the Spirit, when we have attained the likeness of Christ through faith. Where else can we learn to wali and live with the Spirit but in the Church? Therefore, baptism is the first step in the salvific journey in faith.
Jews for Jesus is a Baptist abomination shunned by all, even liberal Christian organizations. They are not considered Jews by any of the known sects in Judaism. They are even denied by the so-called Messianic Jews.
Study Judaism, study what Judaism says about the messiah, what Judaism has been saying about the messiah all along. read why all three forms of Judaism stand united in rejecting Christ as a Messiah.
They are the ones who practcie Judaism; they ought to know. We don't practice Judaism; we practice Christianity. It's apples and organges.
I don't look at the OT righteous as having gone to hell. Their faith allowed them to be covered in the righteousness of Christ.
Well, that's where they were when Jesus went "down" there -- he broke the gates of Hell (not Hades) and pulled out the righteous. If they were righteous, why were they in hell?
Of course they didn't add anything to them! It is an oversimplification to say the least when you write that the "churches have already decided they were the Word of God." Just HOW did these "churches" decide this and based on what? HOW did the "churches" (do "churches" think or do fallible men who make up the Church think and decide?) do this deciding? All they had were individual scrolls with an Apostolic signature that could have been written by an Apostle or someone impersonating an Apostle.
You need to think 2nd century AD. There were no copyright laws in those days. And when there are hundreds of such scrolls around being read liturgically by what magic formula other than the knowledge of the faith that already lived in the Church could they have known what is correct and what is not?
It's like grammar. Do you know all grammatical rules? Most of us don't. But we know what is "correct" English, although we don't always use it. If someone tried to pass a piece of historical find as an American document and used such words as "tyres" and "petrol" or "colour" you'd immediately know that it wasn't an American document.
The church fathers had to have an intrinsic knowledge of what was genuine and inspired and what was false -- and that knowledge did not come from "Bible alone" i.e. the sola scriptura farce.
The gnostic "gospels" sound an awful lot like the real ones, so the task was not as simple as my example with English words or spelling, but a formidable one. This was especially true with the Revelation of John, which took the longest to approve. It took the "churches" over 300 years to "simply" decide to collect all the Word of God. You make it sound like they went to Barnes and Noble and placed their order for "Collected works of God!" Get real.
The compilation of the New Testament is in itself a testament of the Church Tradition, the knowledge of the faith contained in the liturgical life of the Church that pre-existed the New Testament. To put it otherwise: there was never even a possibility of a "sola scriptura" before the end of the 4th century AD.
I don't believe anyone is damned BECAUSE he has no access to a Bible. My concern was about "knowing" Christ. How can one accept what one does not know? If you say that any love is the same as knowing Christ, then I would disagree. "Love" has been given as the reason for multitudes of ungodly acts. I don't believe that anyone can choose to do God's will or to love on his own, whether he knows of the scriptures or not. God will touch those whom He chooses, and they will obey and love. If we can put aside the free will issue for just this point, then we might be pretty close.
Okay, good point. There is no biblical evidence fo any of what the Orthodox call and depict in icons as the Harrowing of Hell, the resurrection of the Dead, the Anastasis. The source is the Apostle's Creed (of uncertain date, legendary; used by western Christians, including Western Orthodox, Latin-Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many Baptists but not Southern Baptists).
The Creed or Symbol is believed to have been composed to guard against and resist Gnosticism, and the legend has it that the each of the Apostles contributed to it. This Creed referrs to Hell ("He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again...") not Hades.
There is also a 2nd century apoctyphal Gospel of Nicodemus (this is before the NT was compiled). It describes Christ entering the Hades but the broken gates are those of Hell, and the keys of the door are falling into the abyss of Hell, and raising Adam and Eve (depcited in the Orthodox icon known as Anastatsis or "Raising").
The weak NT evidence of any of this can be found in 1 Peter (one of those scrolls that was not easily accepted as inspired), where it says that Jesus "went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah." [3:19-20] , and again in 1 Peter 4:6 in a similar fashion.
The famous "Harrowing of Hell" is credited to +John Chrysostom (5th century AD) who suggested it was a "necessary paradox". The OT righteous were in what was known as the Limbo patrum which no longer exists after Christ rescued them. Earlier, Tertullian and Origen taught the Harrowing of Hell (their later heresies notwithstanding) and St. Ambrose (4th century).
Some cite Eph 4:8-10, but it takes a "stretch" to see the same thing described by Necodemus or the Apostle's Creed. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote "when Christ descended into hell, by the power of his Passion he delivered the saints from this penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory." So, the "paradox" of the OT righteous being enslaved by death and in need of salvation.
I have asked why were the OT righteous captives of Hell? The answer is because even the righteous die, even they are enslaved by death, our last enemy, and only Christ can unchasckle us from the bonds of death. They couldn't do it on thier own or on their own merit. Even Theotokos did not resurrect on her own, but was resurrected according to our beliefs. Thus, being righteous does not automatically free us from the shackles of death; therefore no one goes to heaven until resurrected.
Thus, other than the NT reference that Chris proclaimed the Gospel to those who died before His coming, the rest of the Church belief in His entering Hades/Hell (actually "underworld") to resurrect or take the righteous appears to be non-scriptural as FK asserts, i.e. a Church invention. Interestingly John Calvin very much believed that Christ's descent into Hell was a necessary "paradox" if you will of our atonement (although there is no strong scriptural support for this).
Interestingly, we do not assert any of that in the Nicene Creed (we simply say that He suffered, died and was buried, and on the third day rose again); the Nicene Creed carefully avoids making such pronouncmeents.
So, we have a statement here by FK who claims to be a Calvinist but by his Southern Baptist tradition does not surbscribe to Creeds, who says quite convincingly that the Church simply invetnted the whole idea that Christ went to Hades to rescue the OT righteous from the bonds of the grave.
Any thoughts? Did the Church make this inventiontion and is it yet another invention that is nonbiblical and subject to doubt?
I jumped into this thread to make some comments about the Gnostic "Gospels" and their relationship to the New Testament writings (seemingly unnecessarily.)
With regard to the argument of continuity vs. discontinuity of Old and New Testament, Kosta and I have hashed this one out in great detail in the past and I see no need to bore the thread with continued reiterations of our respective views, since neither of us is going to convince the other (nor is agreement necessary). I will make a few comments, and then give Kosta the last word in this particular exchange.
First, I have never said that Judaism as we think of it today (or even as the Christian apologists of the early centuries thought of it) and Christianity are the same faith. One couldn't read the New Testament and come away with that idea. What I have stated is the rather unremarkable assertion that the Church viewed and views itself as in direct continuity with the faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Or, as Annalex has put it (quoting Catholic apologists), that Christianity is, at root, Messianic Judaism. One can disagree with this with as many permutations as desired, but I find it hard to see any other self-understanding in evidence in the New Testament or the patristic writings.
Second, in the Beatitudes, Christ is quoting or paraphrasing Old Testament passages in pretty much every case.
St. John Chrysostom gives, as OT sources for Christ's "blessed are the poor in spirit" the LXX texts of Isaiah 66:2, Psalm 50:17, and vs 16 of the Song of the Three Children.
For "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth", he points out that this is a direct quotation from Psalm 36:11. Etc. The fathers have often done a marvelous job, surprisingly enough, of detailing the continuity between Old and New Testament, showing that the message was there in a form that allowed devout Jews like St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathaea to recognize Christ -- and more importantly, of demonstrating that Christ is the very same "He Who Is" of the Old Testament (and as our iconographic tradition makes clear in every single icon of Christ.)
When it comes to loving one's enemies, St. Theophylact in his commentary on this verse from St. Matthew actually uses Moses as a prime example of someone who did exactly that in his life, and says that all saints (intentionally encompassing both Old and New Testament saints) have always done this. The Pentateuch itself (Numbers 12:3) says that Moses was the meekest man in all the earth, doing so in the context of an event where his own brother and sister were speaking against him with enmity. In this event, as in many others, Moses prayed to God for those who had spoken and acted against him.
St. John Chrysostom, writing about the text "think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets" that follows directly after the Beatitudes asks: "Why, who suspected this? or who accused Him, that He should make a defense against this charge? Since surely from what had gone before no such suspicion was generated. For to command men to be meek, and gentle, and merciful, and pure in heart, and to strive for righteousness, indicated no such design, but rather altogether the contrary."
Regarding David, there are a number of examples of his specifically doing good to his enemies. In fact, one of the direct criticisms that his own "second in command" general levels against him in a particular episode of his life was that David was loving his enemies rather than hating them. The seeds even of this idea and attitude are there in the holy ones of the OT.
Third, as another example of the Messiah being referred to as God in the OT, perhaps the most interesting example is Isaiah 9:6. I wanted to check the details of the LXX before mentioning it, since this is an interesting passage. Most translations of the Hebrew include "Mighty God" as one of the titles for the child who will be born. Brenton's does not have this phrase, so I was curious as to what the various manuscripts indicate. I won't bore anyone with too many of the details, but multiple manuscript traditions, including the Lucianic (i.e. official Byzantine Orthodox) rescension do include the phrase that includes "Mighty God", etc...
Something that I found particularly interesting, given his favorable view of the Hebrew texts is Origen's rescension, where the primary LXX version he was using apparently did not contain this phrase that includes "Mighty God." But, Origen inserted it, marking it with an asterisk -- which was his symbol for a passage that he was drawing from another LXX manuscript, specifically in order to include a Hebrew reading that his primary LXX manuscript had, in his opinion, omitted!
Of course, modern Judaism has their own explanations for the meaning of this passage, as is understandable, so it "proves" nothing. The question, again, is rather whether Christian belief and doctrine was present in nascent but clear forms in the Old Testament, waiting to flower into clarity when Christ actually did appear.
Certainly it was the Resurrection that sent the Apostles back to the Old Testament Scriptures with newly opened eyes -- but when they did, they did not arrive at the conclusion that they had to reject the faith articulated in the Old Testament Scriptures in order to be Christians. They rather came to the conclusion that Christ came to fulfil, not destroy, the Law and the Prophets.
Anyway, this is one that will continue to go on in circles, so I will stop there.
"Any thoughts? Did the Church make this inventiontion and is it yet another invention that is nonbiblical and subject to doubt?"
I think that you have already done a good job of mentioning a couple of Scriptural passages that the Church sees alluding to what is portrayed in our icon of Holy Saturday (commonly referred to as the icon of the Resurrection.)
Hades would not have been referred to in the original Apostles Creed, since it was a purely Western creed written in Latin, and was, as far as I know, never in liturgical use in the East in Greek.
Regardless, when the Apostles' Creed appears in Greek, "ad inferna" is translated as "eis ta katotata." This choice of words in Greek seems to be directly drawn from Ephesians 4:9 "eis ta katotera meri tis gis" (into the lower parts of the earth.) This is the only appearance in the New Testment of this particular construction.
But for someone familiar with the LXX, as St. Paul was, the language was familiar:
Psalm 62:9 -- "eis ta katotata tis gis" (into the nethermost/lowest parts of the earth)
Psalm 85:13 -- "ex athou katotatou" (from the nethermost/lowest Hades) [Hades here being a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol]
Psalm 138:15 -- "en tis katotato tis gis" (in the nethermost/lowest parts of the earth) [the LXX reading of this verse, incidentally has a quite different meaning from what translations from the Hebrew do in this verse, with the LXX seeming to refer to some sort of Hades/Sheol]
St. Paul seems to be directly using Old Testament terminology to describe a descent into some sort of lower regions, something most likely referring to Hades/Sheol.
This needs to be read in conjunction with the sermon of St. Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts, where he quotes the Prophet David "Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hell (Hades), nor wilt thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption," with regard to Christ (vs 27, and then restating it for good measure in vs. 31 that Christ's "soul was not left in hell (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption.")
Both Sts. Peter and Paul are speaking of Christ's descent into Hades -- the former in the sense that Hades could not hold him captive, the latter with the added bonus that he "led captivity captive" in the process.
Again, in light of the LXX being used by the Apostles, this seems to be a fairly clear use of language -- but then, I have a tendency to think that Orthodox teachings are always clear. :-)
The liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church are pretty clear on where Christ went. For instance, the stichera at the Synaxarion reading of the Paschal Vigil reads pretty clearly:
"Xristos katelthon palin Athou monos,
Lavon anelte polla tis nikis skila"
(Having gone down alone to do battle with Hades,
Christ hath come up, bringing many trophies as spoils.)
The full text of the Synaxarion reading includes this passage: "And now, having rescued all human nature from the dungeons of hades, He hath led it up to the heavens and restored it to its ancient dignity of incorruption. Yet having descended into hades, He did not resurrect all, but only as many as whose will it was to believe. The souls of the saints of ages past held perforce by hades He freed, and granted them all to ascend to the heavens."
The very moving Irmos of the 6th Ode of the Canon at Matins of the Vigil of Pascha (my personal favorite of the Irmoi) goes as follows:
"Thou didst descent into the nethermost depths of the earth (en tis katotatis tis gis), and dist shatter the everlasting bars which held those who were bound, O Christ, and like Jonah from the sea monster Thou didst rise from the tomb on the third day"
And the 2nd troparion of the 7th Ode: "We celebrate the slaying of death, the ruination of Hades, the beginning of a new and everlasting life..."
And the 3rd sticheron of the Praises at Matins: "O Christ Who by the Resurrection didst make Hades captive and raise men from the dead, count us worthy to hymn and glorify Thee with a pure heart." (Thus the Slavonic, although the Greek says "o ton Athin skilevsas," which more directly means that Christ "spoiled" Hades, in the sense of plundering it / carrying off booty.)
I'd better quit, before I get excited and start chanting the entire Paschal service and wake up my family!
Where did you get that idea from? Faith comes from God as a gift, as Eph 2:8-9 states, among others.
But I understand your view to be that God's gift of faith is worthless without the man-generated acceptance of it. Therefore, the only efficacious salvific faith is the result of a man-generated decision. Faith is nothing without man.
Thus, we say that love must be added to faith to achieve our eternal reward - which comes from God and accepted by man.
Again, faith is nothing without man. Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.
[JK quoting FK:] "It sure looks like He [I am not sure if you are referring to Satan or Jesus here] used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition."
Look more closely. Note that the devil and Jesus both used Scriptures - that tells us that Scripture can be twisted to suit one's personal needs. Thus, the need for Tradition, which gives us the correct interpretation. Christ was giving us Tradition by stating the correct interpretation and utilization of the Scriptures.
LOL! You win the most self-serving comment of the thread award! :) satan twisted scripture, THEREFORE Tradition is correct. I love it! Let me try. Joseph was thrown into a well, THEREFORE Tradition is correct! --- All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.
BTW, I was referring to Jesus. I don't even capitalize satan's name so I also do not with the pronouns.
The Thessalonians ALSO read the Scriptures. So did other Jews. What happened? Isn't Scripture so clear for even a child can read it and understand it???
On certain levels, it is. But this is only for those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear. That is why I believe it is perfectly appropriate for some 6-year-olds to say a legitimate sinner's prayer.
You have told me time and time again that God leads man infallibly to choose good or evil. If man has no free will, how is man responsible for his actions?
I have told you no such thing. I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just.
Protestants believe that man is totally corrupt after the fall and remains in sin even AFTER his regeneration. Their is no REAL regeneration, we are merely covered with alien justice of Christ. With this paradigm, you read the Scriptures - thinking that man cannot possibly do anything to prepare or cooperate with salvation.
I do not know how you are using the terms "totally corrupt" and "remains in sin". I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone. And yes, we still do sin, but we are new people. But, we still cannot earn our salvation through our own cooperation. God accomplishes it to His glory, not to man's glory.
Basically what you are saying is "FK's belief are the Word of God"...When you say "Protestants are not the authority, God is", that is baloney, because God doesn't "speak" in that manner.
I know, I know, God only speaks in Catholicese. What I am saying here is that I am no authority, the Bible is. You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself. To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it. The Bible is not good enough to interpret itself. Of course, I do consider opinions of scholars who are of like minds, but they must prove everything with scripture for me to believe it. Nothing short will do. To you, everything must be proven through unscriptural tradition first.
You are presuming, along with all of your non-monolithic brothers, that God speaks to YOU personally - and often contradictorily.
I know, I know, God is much too busy conferring with Catholic priests and bishops to have any time for the sorry likes of someone like me.
[hypothetically] I could certainly bring out enough verses to prove that either the Spirit or the Son is NOT God.
Really? Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.
Yes you are [told how to interpret scripture]. You are told that Genesis is to believed as literal history and CANNOT be taken as allegory. Otherwise, you are told, how can we know ANYTHING to be historical? Your whole concept of Biblical inerrancy comes to a crashing thud if your literal interpretation is disproved.
I really think you are confusing your own reality with ours. No one has EVER, EVER taught or told me that I must take Genesis in the young earth sense. That was absolutely an individual decision that I have made. I am absolutely certain that there are many in my own church, whom I deeply respect, who do not hold that view. I just personally see it as being more consistent. That's all. I can't explain the math otherwise. AND, I do keep an open mind so that if someone can make a compelling case that is SCRIPTURALLY SUPPORTED, I might well be open to changing my view. That is sanctification. ... My whole concept of Biblical inerrancy is totally unaffected in this situation (as far as I know!). There is allegory in both the old and new testaments.
You, on the other hand, cannot know if you are correct, or the guy across the street in the 2nd Baptist Church of Main Street is correct. This is quite scary, to be honest.
It is true that I cannot know if I am correct about every aspect of theology, but that doesn't scare me, that excites me. It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ. However, on the flip side, there are several things I can be sure of, including things about which you cannot be sure. I also see that as "scary". I guess it works both ways. :)
Sure, there are some particulars that we are told is Truth. Is that a problem?
Not at all. I also have particulars that I take as unalterable truth. We might even share in many of them.
In case of the Flood He was "sorry" and "grieved" that mankind turned the way they did -- I don't think so.
So, God IN HEAVEN can be humble, but He can't be "sorry" or "grieved"? I tend to agree with you on the latter. But, IMO, God had no cause to be humble to Adam. (Jesus was humble BEFORE man, but not TO him.) Just in my own thoughts, I have believed that God was trying to show something to Adam by calling out to him for his whereabouts. Imagine yourself in Adam's (almost) shoes. :) If you knew that God was God, and you heard Him asking where you were, what would you have thought? I might have thought that something bad was up, and I was in the jackpot.
FK: "Didn't God create us to eat innocent animals?"
No. "Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you" (Genesis 1:12) ... It is only later that man began killing animals, as the rest of the creation became corrupt by our Ancestral Fall.
Wow. I have never heard this view before. I have heard the one that says that God changed the rules after the flood, but I'm not even sure I buy that one.
God wouldn't hand down His law in light of man's corruption would He? God said specifically that lambs and other animals were to be sacrificed, and then what was to be done with them? Weren't the Levites supposed to eat them? His priests? If this was not what God intended, then how could He have commanded it?
The other offer of proof is one YOU, over others, should appreciate. :) This is along the lines of the "birds 'n' bats" discussion we had earlier. God created us as OMNIVORES! If He didn't want us to eat meat, then why did He construct our jaws and teeth as He did?
Being "saved" in Orthodoxy (and I am quite sure in Catholicism too) means "how Christ-like" you are -- hitting the mark. How Christ-like is sufficient? As much as possible! That is why we venerate our saints, people who have attained that "holiness" about them through works of faith, through meekness, through renunciation of everything worldly, through humility, through love, through self-sacrifice, etc.
I appreciate your (entire) post, but I'm not sure how it answers my question. My understanding of salvation in Catholicism is as you say also, a lifelong process that really isn't completed until after death. During life, we use our free will to perform various works of faith and other godly deeds in order to become more Christ-like. My question is that SINCE free will is free, and uncoerced, and of man, then how is this not earning our salvation? I'll even throw out intent in any negative sense. Isn't it true that if a man performs "X" amount of deeds to achieve a level of Christ-likeness to an "X" degree, then he is saved? Even if all the deeds were done from love, is this still not earning it?
Kosta-Summarize it, then
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God,
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham,
Heb 11:11 By faith even Sarah (let's not forget the women)
Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
Heb 11:19 He [Abraham] considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
Heb 11:21 By faith Jacob,
Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph,
Heb 11:24-25 By faith Moses, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. [sic:MOSES CONSIDERING THE REPROACH OF CHRIST!!!]
Heb 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot
Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,
Good to see you trust the Catholic Church on something...
Regards
Not the Biblical notion of love. People may try to justify their actions under the auspice of love, but it is self-love in reality. When someone self-sacrifices, they are loving, and this is NEVER sinful, when done for the love of God and others.
I don't believe that anyone can choose to do God's will or to love on his own, whether he knows of the scriptures or not.
So when Paul says we are a new creation, and that we have the ability to live in the Spirit, he really means we are puppets and can do no good? Hardly. Paul makes it pretty clear that the old man and the new man in Christ have different capabilities. You would have us the exact same except that the "regenerated" man is merely a legal title with no additional abilities or charecteristics. That is patently untrue. In Christ, I can do powerful deeds of love.
God will touch those whom He chooses, and they will obey and love.
Again, the Scriptures say that man can choose to obey God or reject Him. Thus on this basis, we are judged.
Regards
If I give you a billion dollars, what good is it if you never use it and put it in your attic? I have the ability to reject God's supernatural gift of faith, as well.
Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.
That's because our idea of God is quite different. I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...
All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.
Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.
I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just
God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world. You keep ignoring Scriptures on this, brother. If God is righteous, He does not say "I desire all men to be saved" and "Jesus died for the sin of the entire world" - AND THEN NOT give ALL men at least an ability to choose good or evil! This is a contradiction that remains in your Protestant view on this matter. IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just? If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God? Not by any definition of the word... And don't bother with the "our ways are not God's ways". If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.
I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone
But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING. We cannot even choose goodness AFTER our regeneration, so the "regeneration", the "heart of flesh" are just status terms with no real meaning. Utterly ridiculous. God MAKES people righteous in reality, not just legally!
You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself.
The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!
To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it.
I have never said that! I only say that the heirarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught. Interpretations must fit into the Holy Tradition given to the Apostles. There is only one faith, not many. The Bible is not meant to have many diverse and opposing meanings on the same subject. This is Relativism - every interpretation is as good as another. Really, is that what you are proposing? That man choose what God says? That certainly sounds like it. This makes Christianity a religion of man, rather than a revealed religion from God.
Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.
You are missing the point. IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct? Or does the Church split into factions? You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.
I just personally see it as being more consistent.
Science has given ample evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the earth is a round three-dimensional object that revolves around the sun. Perhaps you might disagree. But if so, it is not because science has given insufficient evidence. It is because you are stuck in the "literal sense only" mode of interpretation. Can you say unequivocably that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.
It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ.
LOL! How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth? There is only one truth, and it is objective. It is not dependent on our opinions. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You know this is the word of God - but you do not believe it. Ask yourself if you are REALLY searching for Truth or something that sounds good to YOU.
Regards
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.