Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Didn't one of the Greeks here explain that, according to them, because Job was "perfect" it was possible for all men to become "perfect?""
Actually, he's Serbian -- except in the sense that all of us Orthodox are "Greek" because we share the legacy of the Greek-speaking early church. In any event, while I didn't read every post, I think that Kosta's main point was that if you are going to go sola scriptura, then the Bible's statement that "Job was perfect" taken literally contradicts the New Testament statement that "all have sinned" taken literally.
If you are going to interpret the former to mean something other than "Job was perfect", then the least you can do is to have a little consideration when discussing what the Orthodox Church has to say regarding the long-standing tradition of the sinlessness of the Theotokos.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement that it is a Greek belief (which I initially thought you meant only to refer to pagan Greek belief -- apparently wrongly) that we humans can change our "substance."
"Do you believe we are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to us, or something else?"
I am happy to discuss this question as well, which will involve a definition of terms and careful exchange of meaning.
But again, I want to finish what we started, which is, again, a very different question. Surely you know that.
If you are stating that Greek Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) teaches that we as humans can be transformed into a different essence (our preferred word for what the Latins call "substance"), then you are absolutely wrong, and I would be interested to read any patristic quotation or quotation from an Orthodox liturgical text that says otherwise.
Salvation/theosis does not involve becoming something other than a human being, or in changing from one essence/substance to another. If it did, there would not be such a heavy emphasis on the importance of the resurrection of the body. It does not involve us changing from a human nature to some other kind of nature -- if it did, then there would have been no reason for Christ to take on human nature. If humans were going to escape human nature and become some other kind of essence, then why would Christ have kept his human body and nature (which he still has today, with which he will return in glory to earth, and which he will keep for all eternity?)
If you understand the very basic Orthodox concepts of essence, nature, hypostasis (person), and energies, then you know this, and are just poking at me. If you don't understand what we believe, then ask -- it's much more efficient that way than for you to tell me what I believe, only for me to have to correct you.
No, I had never heard that prayer before. Thanks for sharing it.
Thanks for the reference. I read through it fairly quickly, but I think this portion applies most closely to the discussion of angel's awareness:
"This, indeed, I hold for certain, that each of us is cared for, not by one angel merely, but that all with one consent watch for our safety. For it is said of all the angels collectively, that they rejoice over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance."
It was in the context of whether each person has an angel "assigned." Calvin doesn't claim to know if this is certain, but his view is that if all are watching over us, having "just" one is not a superior claim.
Thanks again...
Oh.. forgot to add this point relevant to the discussion: From the quote that angels = "those in heaven" Calvin would seem to agree that Jesus wasn't speaking about the saints in heaven.
So, I guess I have to disagree with him on this point. But I bet he would have liked the movie anyway.
"I guess I'm Roman Orthodox."
Ha! Given the fact, though, that the Orthodox in their native lands commonly refer to themselves as "Romans" (hence phrases such as "Rum Orthodox"), this label would be a redundancy from the Orthodox point of view!
That is an interesting comment, for it was my impression that the flesh and blood of Christ was not His but Mary's. Else, whence came His own flesh? If He were to be indeed covered by pre-fall flesh, then it would make sense what the Latins believe -- Mary would have to be the pre-Fall Second Eve or else her own flesh would be a post-Fall flesh.
But I will take this a step farther: first Adam did not have a mother. Why would the second Adam need one? So that He could be from the line of David? But I thought the lineage in Judaism was passed via the male line, so how could Christ claim Davidian lineage through His Mother?
Besides, Christ could not have been genetically the same as we are. His humanity comes from His Mother alone. Not exactly like the first Adam, is it?
But I don't think this ends just on literal reading. It is a contradiction no matter how you turn it around. Even if you, as some have done, say "in the eyes of God," that does not change the relationship of mutual exclusivity between these two statements. Certainly both can't be true (in the same sense). So, literal interpretation is impossible. Expanded interpretation adds human element which is corrupt, so instead of a resolution we have a rationalization.
" So, literal interpretation is impossible. Expanded interpretation adds human element which is corrupt, so instead of a resolution we have a rationalization."
It is interesting that you use a different standard of interpretation when it comes to issues like "perpetual virginity", "brothers of Jesus, "praying to saints","primacy of Peter" and "apostolic succession" etc. Instead of reconciling scripture with scripture you force scripture to be the handmaid of your church's dogma and tradition. You would rather use an expanded interpretation of "till", "brother,brethren" "keys" or "right hand of fellowship" than their normal and usual meaning since that contradicts the dogma and tradition, yet you would devalue the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world by presenting two "perfect" people, exceptions to sin, Job and Mary, in spite of Job's declaration of his own sin and the complete absence of any evidence that Mary was sinless.
I don't have very good answers for your questions. I am perhaps being imprecise in my recollection of exactly what terminology is used by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) in his writings on the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas regarding theosis and the Theotokos.
The liturgical texts say that Christ "took flesh of the Virgin." But on the other hand, once he was conceived, he was a unique person, so it only makes sense to say that his body contains his own flesh and blood. The emphasis of St. Gregory Palamas is on the intimate association of Christ's body and blood with that of the Theotokos during his 9th months in her womb, as I recall. Again, my recollection and wording may be imprecise.
I hadn't really thought about the question of why Christ "needed" a mother. I suppose that I always thought that God expected mankind to work its way back to him. This began outside the gates of Eden, where Eve is told that her seed would bruise the serpent's head. Also, while it isn't often talked about as such, the entire human race shares a common nature. We are all linked physically to each other through our common ancestry in Adam and Eve. For Christ to fully share our nature, he would need to be physically linked with us in that common ancestry.
Part of the emphasis in the two lineages given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is the role of adoption. Christ was the son of Joseph by human adoption, and likewise Joseph himself was of a kingly line (St. Matthew's lineage) through adoption (several fathers give this explanation.)
The lineage in Luke is also a geneology leading to Joseph, again showing that he was of the seed of David, but it is a strict blood-line, with no adoption involved (adoption being in the form of a man "raising up seed" to his brother dies without an heir. The fathers explain that the two lineages show that whether one "counts" these "raising up of seed" for a brother or not, Christ is descended from David. And in either case, at the final point in the lineage, Christ's lineage is always traced to his adoptive father, Joseph, in the Gospels. It is a male lineage.
This is appropriate, since we are children of God by adoption -- not by nature or essence.
There is no geneology anywhere in Scripture of the Theotokos herself. It is my understanding that she was of the tribe of Levi (thus her cousin Elizabeth being married to a high priest.) Others, based on the fact that Joseph was an elderly distant relative of hers, believe that hers was either also of the tribe of Judah and general lineage of David, or that her family was of both tribes.
This would be not at all unlikely, since the "lost" ten tribes of Israel included the tribe of Levi. The Jewish nation at the time of Christ was primarily of the tribe of Judah, but doubtless had remnants of all of the other tribes absorbed into it. Some traditions have claimed that the 12 apostles came from lineages of the 12 tribes.
Either way, in Christ, we have the union of the priestly and kingly lineages within the nation of Israel.
I'm not sure about your questions about Christ's genetic likeness to us. Are you raising the question of whether he was haploid or something? :-)
I really don't see your point. If there are two standards of interpretation, I am missing it. The Orthodox Church takes all of Holy Tradition as a seamless whole, with Holy Scripture being the pinnacle, the center, the most authoritative part of Tradition.
The same standard of interpretation is applied to all things in the Orthodox Church: taking the body of faith as a whole.
What was being pointed out was that *Protestantism* has different standards of interpretation for different passages, interpreting some things literally and other things figuratively, without hard sola scriptura indications as to which standard is to be applied to which passage.
We know which passages we are to read literally and which figuratively not only by internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves, but by our traditional understandings of the Scriptures that have been handed down through the centuries, starting, we believe, with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
That is my understanding as well. The LXX was what the average Jew was familiar with because that what the text being used in the synagogues. Did temple virgins go to synagogue? Your guess is as good as mine. However, if she knew any scripture at all, my money is on the Greek. I don't think the Hebrew texts were used outside of the Temple.
I just wanted you to see this statement by itself. :)
Do you think Catholics believe that if they go to Communion (eat Christ's Body) that they are guaranteed heaven? That is what your interpretation of John 6 would tell us...
I don't believe Catholics think anything in the Bible guarantees them heaven. :) If you are referring to the passage I think you are in John 6, then I see that as another way of putting what He already said earlier in the chapter, that whoever believes on Him will have eternal life.
So when Jesus tells us to be awake, to persevere, He really is talking to the Father? I disagree.
No, He is talking to us. He is telling us to not succumb to the remnant, to trust in Him for perseverance, etc.
A baby has his "ticket punched" as a result of infant baptism because he has no stain of sin remaining. He has received sanctifying grace, and has no personal sin. What would keep him out of heaven, FK?
But to carry the analogy, you also believe that the baby, when he grows up, can "unpunch" his own ticket. That means it was never punched in the first place, and in fact, never is during life. If the analogy had to do with a ringing bell, you would say it makes perfect sense that it can be "unrung"!
A guarantee doesn't guarantee the problem will not reoccur. It means that IF it DOES, they will fix it for free! How can a human shop owner "guarantee" that a car will not break?
The shop owner guarantees that his work was sound and that the problem will not occur again outside of normal wear and tear. He promises to fix the car if it breaks down because of some error in his work. He doesn't guarantee anything if something else breaks down. However, God's guarantees are much grander. He guarantees that none of His sheep will ever be lost for good. If the sheep were cars, God guarantees that He will fix the car whenever it breaks down again for any reason (perseverance, sanctification). God fixes all parts of the car for any reason.
Just like the shop owner, God doesn't promise us that we will never sin again, but God does promise to fix us. You deny this and say that in some cases, God refuses the repair when the customer doesn't bring the car back in, even when it's broken. I believe that God happens to keep good records and knows where all the cars are. He loves us so much that He even comes out to the house to make repairs, even if we don't know that something is wrong.
FK: "Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does."
So who does God pay?
Even in our system of jurisprudence we recognize that when a payment of justice is made, there does not necessarily have to be a direct beneficiary of the payment. When a convicted killer is executed, and "pays" with his life, who is the direct beneficiary? That's one way to look at it. Another would be that God pays "Himself", in order to satisfy His requirement for perfect justice. We also see that in our justice system. When a governmental agency is held guilty of a crime and must pay a fine, who does it pay it to? Another governmental agency. That satisfies justice, even though all the money stays within the "government".
Then I said: "...my money is on the Greek. I don't think the Hebrew texts were used outside of the Temple."
It's late and my brain has obviously turned in for the night. ;)
According to the Apocrypha, to protect Mary's virginity. By betrothing Mary to an elderly and righteous man as Joseph, Mary's virginity would be intact AND she would be provided for financially. This is not an unusual scheme, except to the 21st century American who is fixated on sex.
I find this hard to believe. What exactly was in this arrangement for Joseph? Let's see, he agrees to marry a child, and provide for her financially and for all her other needs. She, in return, agrees to not be a wife to him. Hmmm. Deal, or no deal? Oh, and why do you say this was not unusual? What, the practice of older men marrying much younger women for sex was just invented? :)
WHY DID JOSEPH WANT TO MARRY HER? If he wanted to take care of her financially, he sure could have without marrying her. Why the charade, why the lie?
That could make logical sense. But one problem with it is that it doesn't appear to support the belief that Joseph was elderly (if you believe that). If that was true then no children of Joseph could probably be confused with siblings of Jesus. The ages would be all wrong. Although the Bible does not mention any prior children of Joseph, if he was of an appropriate age, and if there were stepchildren nonetheless, then that would be an "out" for these verses.
I have read the Song of Songs, but I admit I have not read any of the Father's interpretations. I know that the interpretation of even the theme of this book is in dispute. Some see it as you do, and others take it as more of an historical record of Solomon's love for a particular woman. In either case, it has good teachings about the proper role of love and romance before and during marriage. There are a million messages in the Bible that tell us to turn to Him and turn away from sin. That doesn't change the fact that God chose His elect from the beginning, and no message in the Bible is going to change the identity of those people. We receive the teaching, and we take encouragement, and hopefully, we will choose less often to succumb to the remnant.
As to my view presenting a "strange marriage" between Christ and His Church, I would just say that as an individual member of God's Church, I willfully submit to my metaphorical "Husband".
Whether or not the Orthodox gives the specific title of "co-Redemptrix" to Mary is immaterial. There is little doubt that she is elevated to the "mother of God" status and an object of veneration (worship). This is a "poor" tradition.
I find the Jesus prayer far more in line with what I believe the apostles would pray than the basic prayer to Mary. In fact, I cannot imagine for one moment Paul, Peter, James or John asking Mary to pray to our Lord Jesus asking forgiveness for their sins. But I suppose I'll hear some "traditional" story written in 852AD to that effect.
If the NT was "written" by imperfect men for specific purposes, then was it subject to error, given that men, armed with free will to reject God's guidance, make mistakes?
Rather than ask why the New Testament is not a systematic theology book, a better question is why, for 1500 years, nobody expected it to be.
How can you know what everyone expected it to be for 1,500 years? The Church does not accept dissent. Some writings by some Fathers have gotten through on some issues. But, I hardly believe that dissent in general was well recorded within the Church. Taken to a comical extreme, this would be like Fidel Castro claiming that all of his people are happy because no one complains. From what I have learned of the RCC, it is not a place of the free exchange of ideas. The hierarchy believes that God reveals the truth to its majority, and that's it. I think it is too broad a brush stroke to say that no one within the Church believed in Protestant ideas until they all cropped up at once in the 1500s.
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.