Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
LOL. You mean do Calvinists believe in the Apostles' Creed? Yes, we do.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith...
I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head by his Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory; and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
(Romans 1:11-14; 6:5, 6; 8:17; 1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 12:7, 12; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:5, 6; 3:16-18; 4:15, 16; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:11; 2 Timothy 2:12; 1 John 1:3; 3:16-18.)
II. Saints by profession are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Isaiah 2:3; Acts 2:42-46; 11:29, 30; 1 Corinthians 11:20; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Hebrews 10:24, 25; 1 John 3:17)
III. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect, either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.
(Psalm 45:6, 7; John 1:14; 20:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:18, 19; Hebrews 1:6-9; Exodus 20:15; Acts 5:4; Ephesians 4:28)
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun." -- Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
As a matter of fact, I would hope a "communion of saints" is occurring right now on this thread as you and I speak. 8~)
Unless I'm misreading, that Communion of Saints doesn't apply to the Saints in Heaven, yes?
The saints in heaven are happy in the presence of God, and are in no need of our communion with them.
The living need only the Triune God.
Are they still with us in the Body of Christ?
I really don't understand this. What does need have to do with it?
I can't make this fit with Jesus's teaching; there's no salvation, no rejoicing of those in Heaven... no memory of them?
It seems to say the dead vanish entirely and completely. Is this solely an OT teaching? What am I missing here?
I think the Scripture means you should content yourself with the living and pray only to God.
Why do you need to pray to anyone other than God?
What does He lack for you?
Orthodox patristic teaching is that Christ assumed human nature as it was before the fall. He submitted voluntarily to the "unblameworthy passions" (hunger, thirst, weariness...). The fact that he did not assume fallen human nature does not take away from his likeness to us, for sin is not a part of human nature as God first created it, but is rather something parasitic. So Christ having an unfallen human nature does not compromise our salvation. One would include in this the suffering he endured -- his submitting to suffering and being killed was not sinful (although the Gnostics had other ideas.)
My point was that Christ was fully God and fully man. His sinless life, his death and resurrection were to achieve our salvation -- not his own. It was not so he could conquer death for himself, but for us.
The Theotokos was a human being who was born with the effects of the ancestral sin -- Christ was not. She labored for her own salvation, which she needed -- Christ labored for ours, and didn't need salvation.
The Theotokos is the exemplary Christian -- Christ is not a Christian, he is the Christ.
By taking the Theotokos and putting her into a special category where she was conceived differently from the rest of us, this makes her more than human, but less than God -- precisely what Protestants accuse those of us who revere her of doing.
If our baptism put us in a pre-fall state, then we would not get sick or die unless we sinned. Since infants who have been baptized but haven't yet sinned get sick and die, it is clear that baptism does not put us into a pre-fall state.
If we are all One, who should be content being apart? Forget part of the Body of Christ? Why? For what purpose?
Are the dead dead to us or are we all alive in Christ?
Is there some virtue in minimalism that I'm missing?
Very interesting, lots to think of there. Your closing logic points to the difference very well.
So that I'm clear: Was temptation for Christ as strong as temptation for us? (I'm referring to temptation outside the "unblameworthy passions")
Something else I'd like to ask your view on: Did Christ know who he was always or did it unfold to Him?
thanks very much for your reply.
Maybe we are crossing lines on "communion." By communion I mean we share, we are part of the same mystical Body of Christ. We are One. Saints on earth, Saints in Heaven. Christ as our head.
Is this not part of Calvinist theology?
Now you are either being obtuse or you just like to argue. How could a non-existent book be the SOLE determinant, the guide that Christians would follow? Is this your idea of being funny or are you serious?
No, I'm being serious. :) I do not think that God's inspired word came out of whole cloth. When I read Paul's letters I presume that he generally wrote what he was teaching. So there was correct doctrine out there. Once it all came together in the form of the Bible it became the standard. Oral and written error came forth both before and after this time, but God made sure none of it made its way into the Bible.
FK: "I suppose you are going to tell me in the same breath that oral Tradition is not superior to scripture."
Why is this a problem? They are equally the Word of God (presuming "oral Tradition" = Apostolic Tradition, part of which got written down in the Bible, part of which got written down by the Fathers or "practiced" in the Liturgy). Because I believe in “oral” Tradition does not mean I put them above Scripture.
It sure looks like you do. By "oral Tradition" I meant all extra-scriptural Tradition. Is there a term for that? I still haven't seen an argument against my contention that extra-scriptural Tradition dominates the scripture because it defines the scripture. The scripture does NOT define the extra-scriptural Tradition.
FK: "You must also have a diminished view of the Ten Commandments. They waited a while before appearing on the scene."
Say what? The Scriptures do not relay any such thing. Moses came down the mountain with stone tablets, not Moses "oral tradition". Unless you claim that Moses did a Mohemmed and wrote them himself.
My focus was on that you diminish the written word because there was oral tradition before it. You lessen the authority of the NT because oral teaching preceded it. I assumed that you also diminish the authority of the Ten Commandments (also written) because there was oral teaching before they came about.
So you believe everything written?
No, I said "If something is written from God ..."
We take the Apostles words that their letters ARE the word of God! That is the "proof". Because they SAY so! What other evidence do we have that their writings ARE the word of God BUT their witness?
We have specific scriptures, but the Church won't accept them perhaps because it might diminish the role of men, and their say so.
Either you believe what they wrote AND said, or you don't.
I know what they wrote, so I believe it. I can't possibly know what they said aside from what they wrote.
Thus, there is no "telephone" game because GOD HIMSELF guides His Church. Certainly, this is a matter of faith - but no more than believing that the Bible is from God.
We have both read the Bible, cover to cover. Is it really only a matter of faith to you that the Bible is from God?
IF something merely needs to written, then explain the first 25 years of Christianity.
I have never said that anything written equals something true. I have said that anything written from God beats out anything else "claimed" to be from God.
Explain the Church's decision to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. Where is that written in the OT?
My understanding is that Sunday was chosen because Christ rose on a Sunday. What does that have to do with anything? Those types of things are not a matter of doctrine or theology. It doesn't help my witness to say that we worship on Sundays. I don't understand the cause for any of these questions you are asking. You have drawn distinctions before between practices and theology, but now you are treating them as the same thing.
And secondly, I have given you ANOTHER means by how a man can be "thoroughly perfected" - the teaching community. This is where Sola Scriptura fails. It says Scripture is USEFUL, not ABSOLUTELY necessary. ... You can't really believe that a person must READ to BELIEVE, do you? Paul says we must HEAR the Word, not read it! Note, one does NOT find out about the Gospel by “reading a book”. It is PROCLAIMED by another.
You know that I am an evangelical Southern Baptist, and yet you are arguing that I am against preaching! If you really think that those who believe in Sola Scriptura are against preaching, then you do not understand the fundamentals of the belief. Sola Scriptura does not throw out oral teaching. It establishes what is authoritative. Any oral teaching that is consistent with scripture is good. Jesus taught orally. How could we be against oral teaching as a principle?
Could you or jokus explain what precisely is Apostolic succession to me and how it applies to Paul and Apollos?
I remember as a child how we use to play "telephone". We would line up and the first person would whisper something in the ear of the person next to him. Each succeeding person would do the same thing in turn until it got to the end where the person would repeat the message. By the time the message got to the end, it was so distorted that it no longer resembled the message as it was begun.
This was the basis for closing the books on the scriptures. Augustine stated that the life of Christ was like a pebble cast into a lake. The farther out from the impact of the stone, the more distorted the message becomes. Consequently, the fathers wisely knew that the farther out from the life of Christ, the more distorted our theology would become. It was on this basis they gathered up all the inspired writings and compiled the Bible. (BTW-The same thing happened to the Jews.)
I would content that the early fathers were correct and the only thing you can go back to is the 1st century inspired writings. That is not to say that you can glean certain truths from the fathers throughout the ages. However one can clearly see from history (even in Catholic and Orthodox history) that there have been moments of great inspiration and darkness. But the only way you can discern what these are is through the written word.
I'm surprise a Catholic would forget about Purgatory. After all, isn't that what indulgences is all about? Unless, perhaps, you didn't know that this was one of the primary issues of the Protestant Reformation.
Your questions to Dr. E, if legitimate, shows that you must be confused about your own spiritual beliefs. Certainly the after life. I would concentrate on God telling Moses, "...you will be gathered to your people." When we die we to are gathered with our people, father Abraham and others of the faith. Jesus told the thief on the cross, "TODAY, you will be with me in Paradise."
However, I know of no one in the Old or New Testament praying to their own people. Moses didn't pray to Joseph and Joseph didn't pray to Abraham for guidance or intercession. They prayed directly to God. And I certainly know of no holding tank for us to sit in until we're "refined" for heaven.
Who was the poster?
[Christian] God is not a tyrant. :)
Then marriage is slavery. :) We are "enslaved" by those we love!? Unfortunately, being a slave means being forced to obedience. He is equating being in love with being "forced"; he is equating the love for God with physical pleasure of sin. So, then, love becomes slavery, pleasure results in obedience, etc...I really don't think he meant it that way. I think our translations are not contemporary enough to express the meaning of his statement. Slavery in those days was not considered in the same light as it is today. So the term is obsolete to say the least.
Look, there is none who is totally "enslaved" by righeousness. Not one who is not driven by physical and material pleasures of life. So, what shall we do? Continue to sin because we are under grace? Apparently, Martin Luther thought we ought to by his famous "Pecca fortiter..." statement.
Apostolic Churches continue to use Jewish customs of fasting, and have instituted confessions and other disciplines of repentance to remind us that we continue to sin even if we cleave to God and regret our ingratitude to Him.
Being Orthodox is the best thing in the world, in part because it involves our self-denial more than any other church does, but it's not easy if you want to do it right. Comfort is never an issue whether it means standing for two hours in church or denying yourself the pleasures of life and food, it is a reminder that we are still slaves to sin (the Orthodox fast 180 days out of the year, and on days when everyone is having fun -- Wednesdays and Fridays!). I don't see Protestants giving up anything for God, maybe I am wrong, but I just don't see it.
This is not bragging. We do it because we want to. For the love of God. I don't see myself enslaved; I can say no to sin or to God. It's my choice.
HD, the Apostles did write what they knew, so that the truths passed on to them could be read in churches, even while they were still alive, since they couldn't be in all the churches at the same time! The Church also wrote down these truths in its liturgical worship.
The only people who knew what to write "by rote" were the Apostles, and only their work was considered inspired. The problem was not that we would forget or distort that which was already written, but the fact that there appeared forgeries masquerading as "apostolic" that were being read in churches.
The Church had to separate those that were known to be of Apostolic origin and pondered for centuries those writings that appeared Apostolic before fully accepting them or rejecting them. The Gospels were a "no brainer." They were used in churches before the end of the 1st century while the Apostles were still alive and with bishops who were directly ordained by the Apostles.
The problems started in the 2nd century when the Apostles were already gone from this life, and could no longer verify the manuscripts floating around bearing their names as authors. The second secontury saw a proliferation of heresies with a multitude of "apostolic" manuscripts (scrolls) in various churches being read as genuine "epistles" and "gospels."
The Church had no choice but to undertake a formidable task of separating texts that were known to be Apostolic and rejecting those that were not from being read publicly in churches and corrupting the faith.
The problem with that task, and the reason it took three hundred years to complete, were the manuscripts other than the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, such as 1 and 2 Peter and 1, 2, 3 John and the Revelation of John, etc. which did not fully match known works of these individuals, or did not have exactly the same style, language and so on.
There were instances when the churches, even the church in Rome, read manuscripts that were later discarded. So, it is not that it was all verbal and oral and then someone decided to make sure the church "telephone" did not result in distorted message, but the fact that distorted messages appeared in writing purporting to be Apostolic in authorship.
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.