Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"That would put him ahead of the Apostles and appear to indicate more grace."
Eastern Christianity wouldn't try to quantify grace or the grace which is "in" someone, at least as a general matter. Grace, or the uncreated energies of God, has a different meaning in the East than in the West.
Upon rereading that passage in Matthew 18 I can see how you can make that argument.
I will revisit this later on.
I'm not sure how close today's Jewish faith is to that of the OT righteous. I would guess not very close
Oh, I am sure it was a lot closer than to Christianity. I have no doubt that the OT righteous would recognize their own faith in Judaism but never in Christianity.
Well, they can't receive a Christian funeral. What happens to them is up to God. Orthodoxy does not speculate on this. We believe that God has at His disposal an infinite number of options what to do with each soul that has not been baptized, and that His judgment is always merciful and just.
Correct. We are on the same page. All living things by definition exchange gases (i.e. "breathe"). The ancients knew that intrinsically. That process stops when the living things become dead.
As I said earlier, all living things "exchange gases" while they are alive, and that is by definition "breathing." When they die, they stop breathing and fall apart. This has nothing to do with being an "animal," of course, except in the literalistic minds of some Protestants.
By convincing themselves that only men (I would even venture to say & #151; only the elect) have a "soul," they can demean the rest of Creation and treat it without compassion or respect, as something inferior, as "things." After all, their own theology of complete depravity seems to me as the antithesis of humanism that is so clear in Christ.
I really can't see how such a mindset can obey the commandment to "love your enemies."
Mt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Joh 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews , Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jo 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
All the Bible says is that she was betrothed and appeared surprised that she would become pregnant. The rest is connecting the dots. We do it historically, and the Protestants do it counter-historically to serve their theological fantasies
So true. A woman could not have a job or be single, as you said. That is, by the way, the reason why Muslims "justify" their polygamy. This is yet another good example that someone born in West Virginia in 1985 cannot just pick up the Bible and "understand" it in the context of the culture, mindset and times in which it was written. The Church, on the other hand, was there, in context in every way, and was part of the culture.
Essentially, the Protestant protest is denying those who were with the Church all along that they know anything about her, that even the Church does not know who She is! This is like someone saying to you: annalex, you are not the person you think you are. Your memories are 'flawed.' I know, because I read about you in a newspaper!
What about Lydia? She seemed to be doing quite well, even running a business. I imagine it was more common than you think, and really, putting that type of mindset upon Protestants is quite baseless.
I believe most Protestants deny marriage as a Mystery (i.e. Sacrament), so this is new to me. But nevertheless, the sin was that of David and his adulterous lover, not of his son. If God were to kill every offspirng of adulterous relationships, the earth would be a lot smaller, I am sure. God is a lot more merciful than that!
It is a theme in the bible, beginning with Cain. God owns us all and as God can do with us what He will. David trusted God to give him back the son in Heaven, for as David said, "I will go to him."
SOUL. The thinking principle; that by which we feel, know, will, and by which the body is animated. The root of all forms of vital activity. It is a substance or a being which exists per se; it is simple or unextended, i.e., not composed of separate principles of any kind; it is spiritual, i.e., its existence, and to some extent, its operations, are independent of matter; it is immortal (q.v.). The soul is the substantial form (q.v.) of the body. There are three kinds of soul, vegetative, the root of vital activity in plants; sensitive, the root of vital activity in animals; intellectual, the root of vital activity in man. The last contains the other two virtually (q.v.); the sensitive contains the vegetative also virtually. The sensitive and vegetative soul are both simple, but incomplete substances, incapable of existing apart from matter; they are therefore neither spiritual nor immortal...--Donald Attwater, Ed., A Catholic Dictionary, The MacMillan Company (1942), w/Nihil Obstat & Imprimitur, pp. 497-98
Thank you for a wonderful post!
There are certain things which are abominations in the face of God. Homosexuality is one of those things. Because I am not guilty of THAT sin, I am free to judge that SIN.
All the members of the church could pray for a sick person.
The elders of the church were called in because they were men of God who were well schooled in prayer being 'elders' of the church.
This is an issue of maturity not office per se
The point about "house churches" is not that they were someone's house,-- they were at times, -- but that they functioned as a Church, to the point that St. Paul asks people to not eat there, but rather eat in theor own homes.
He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper.
It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22)
'priest' has a far different modern connotation then does elder or even presbyterian. When you read priests annointing the sick or giving communion or teaching the gospel, that is exactly the connotation that is also modern. "Elder" has a connotation of old age. Where is any reference to age about the Priests in the New Testament? Would you translate "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the old men of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"?
See, you are making a theological application based on the word 'Priest' which has the connotation of a special 'clergy' class.
That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament.
Various offices exist such as Pastor (elder) and teachers, but they are not Priests in that they have any special access to God based on their office.
Here is a footnote in the Roman Catholic NAS.
In case of sickness a Christian should ask for the presbyters of the church, i.e. those who have authority in the church. They are to pray over the person and annoint with oil. oil was used for medicinal purposes in the ancient world.
So far, we have no disagreement.
However in a following footnote, it states, The results of prayer and annointing are physical health and forgiveness of sins. The Roman Catholic Church (Council of Trent, Session 14) declared that this annointing of the sick is a sacrament, instituted by Christ and promulgated by blessed James the apostle'
Ryrie writes that from this came the Roman Catholic of unction or last rites.
Yet, the purpose of the calling of the elders is healing, not dying.
Reading 1 Peter as referring to all believers is nowhere in 1 Peter. In particular, "Royal priesthood" cannot be squared with this Protestant notion. If all believers are royal priestshood, who are their subjects?
There are no subjects!
A royal priesthood is referring to the fact that we are related by the new birth to the King of Kings, the Lord Jesus Christ.(Eph.5:30)
Now, as a priest is someone who has access to God.
No Christian needs anyone to go to God for him, he has direct access to God through Christ Himself (Jn.16:23-24)
Now 1Pet 2:5 is talking about all believers, who are 'holy priesthood'.
Our great High Priest is Christ Himself who makes intercession for us (Heb.4:14-15), hence all believers can come 'boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Heb.4:16).
Christ is the only mediator necessary (1Tim.2:5).
I do find it interesting that you just ignore what the passage says in 1Pet.2:5,9 about the 'priesthood' of every believer.
While thre are different spiritual gifts in the body of Christ (Eph.4) every Christian is a priest, one who has access to the throne of God through Christ.
Don't take this the wrong way, but didn't you just say, "Thank God I am not like that homosexual publican",?:)
Amen.
"Of course we interpret the Bible through the historical cultural artifacts, including the Protoevangelium and the rest of the tradition."
______________________________
I have been enjoying the discussion, despite the snide comments, but if you don't mind my asking what is the Protoevangelium?
If you have Scripture to back that assertion, I'd very much like to see it.
For one thing, we don't know if she was Gentile or Jewish. Roman women were quite independent as we know. The situation suggests she was Gentile, as the Apostles were accused to introduce Jewish customs to the Romans, and the town is described as Roman colony. The name is obviously Greek. Also, the Apostles were preaching to the women assembled at the gate, and converted her singlely, but we cannot definitely say she was single. A reference is made to her family. She does indeed display independence.
But be it as it may, no one insists that a former temple virgin could not, never-ever, remain single and chaste into adulthood, just that to do what the Protoevangelium describes was the natural thing to do.
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.