Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
So you don't consider Presbyterians to even be Christians?
Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 28. V. " V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
What exactly did he preach that was said to be gnostic? Thanks
Amen. Nothing saves but the shed blood of Christ for the sins of His flock.
Thanks for your reply. Did they, the Apostles, have more authority than others within the Church?
It's my suspicion that you will not get your Orthodox brothers nor the Orthodox Church to agree with you on this one.
I don't think so, other than there were the different gifts given of the Spirit and in the exercising of those gifts, obviously some are more suited to some tasks than others.
I suspect that this charge of gnosticism is nothing more than a misunderstanding of Judaism and Christianity
"That does sound really wonderful."
Believe me, it is. It is a precious gift that none of us have done anything to deserve. But as with everything beautiful, we *are* capable of ruining, obscuring or perverting it -- or just failing to receive that gift by ignoring it and not participating in the life of the Body of Christ.
I certainly cannot prove that it wasn't the prophet Samuel. But I find it hard to believe that God would allow a witch to conjure up Samuel's soul. Can you think of *any* instances in the OT where God brought back the soul of a dead holy man to get a message across -- let alone did so through someone who worked with "familiar spirits?" Maybe there are examples -- I just can't think of any.
On the other hand, we have many examples of where demons were commanded by Christ to speak, identify themselves, be silent, etc... So it is possible that God could have forced a demon to speak the words he wanted him to speak, allowing Saul to see what he wanted to see -- Samuel.
But I have another, even more likely explanation from an Orthodox perspective. We have a highly developed sense and tradition of care before the deception of demons. The demons, we are taught, use whatever tool is at their disposal to destroy us because they hate us. One of the Fathers said that the reason that the Legion of demons asked to go into the pigs was that they wanted to destroy something, and that Christ allowed them to do so in order to demonstrate to the people just what the demons would do to everyone if they were allowed by God to have their way.
The message that Saul received through the witch's ministrations condemned him, brought him to despair, and left him with no hope or way of repentance. This is exactly the way of demons -- first they tempt us to sin, then they suggest to us that we are beyond hope or repentance because of that sin.
Saul was certainly left in despair by this encounter, and it contributed to his demise. There *were* other choices available to Saul -- repentance, reconciliation with David, renunciation of the throne, return to the true worship of God. Any of these things he could have done right that very moment, and his life would have been transformed, without the bloodshed and death that actually did ensue on both sides of this civil war.
I have a hard time seeing God speaking through Samuel in a way that did not offer a way out, whereas I do have an easy time seeing a demon (and we know that Satan can appear as an angel of light) speaking thusly in order to ensure that destruction and death would ensue.
Saul did not seek help from God -- he sought help from a witch, and he got what one would expect to find when one looks in those places.
This is *all* my personal speculations. I am unaware of any New Testament references to this passage, or any patristic discussions, although I have certainly encountered the idea that this "Samuel" was actually a demon somewhere, and found it plausible.
Again, very well stated.
I would suggest to you, though, that our basic construct is essentially the same, but applied in different directions, and that thus your claim to be a skeptic is not completely true. Allow me to elaborate.
You are a Christian thinker in the Reformed tradition. This means that at some point, whether by rearing, personal contacts, reading, or some combination of the above, you came to the point where you decided that Protestantism, in its distinctively Reformed manifestation, was the truest form of Christianity. You did not understand or know everything there was to know about Reformed thought at the time you made that decision (lets leave out the whole predestination thing for the sake of argument, OK?), but you had seen enough to trust that tradition of Scriptural interpretation and theological reasoning.
Therefore, while you do indeed read Calvin critically, you are evaluating in the light of, for want of a better term, the consensus teachings of developed Reformed theology. As you know, Calvin's teachings and the consensus teachings of Reformed theology are not one and the same, therefore you will disagree with Calvin from time to time, just as you will disagree with other reformers from time to time.
But you *do* approach Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Van Til, whoever, with the basic presumption that because they are within that tradition, their teachings are essentially correct on most things until proven otherwise. You do not open the Institutes with the attitude of "I don't believe any of this stuff, but there might be a point or two I agree with here and there."
We likewise approach the Fathers knowing that probably every Father will have written some things that are not in line with the consensus patrum. But we approach them expecting that we will find that most of what we read will be basically true, since the Church found their writings worth painstakingly copying by hand through the centuries.
By contrast, I approach Calvin knowing that I really don't share a common faith with him, and that while I will find many things that I agree with, especially on core subjects such as the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection in the body, etc..., I am very skeptical in my approach, and keep him at metaphorical armslength. In turn, you approach the early Church Fathers in the same spirit of skepticism, keeping them at metaphorical armslength. This is a very different skepticism with which you approach Calvin or Knox, because you already know that those two guys are in line with your own "consensus patrum" on most things, whereas the Church Fathers are not.
Would you say that this is a fair portrayal?
I believe God let the witch call up Samuel just because it pleased Him to do so. Plus it was Saul, the King of Israel committing this abomination. Even though the Lord had left him, and He had left him because of some unpardonable sins, usurping the priesthood and trying to be a prophet, not the least of them, Saul was still Saul. (David put to death the man who slayed him).
I don't think any demon could have given that information in such detail to Saul either, and that the knowledge of all that was about to happen had to come from God, for God Himself was about to bring all that upon Saul.
All very good points. It certainly is very possible that it happened just that way, and the plain reading of the passage would more support your interpretation. It does portray it as a conversation between Samuel and Saul. It is also a reasonable point to make that Scripture could have stated that this was a demon, and didn't.
With regard to the predictive information given, I wouldn't regard that part as proof. While the demons live inside time, just like us, and cannot see the future, they have had thousands of years of experience in dealing with us, and often can make some pretty "educated guesses" in an attempt to deceive and destroy. Also, as I pointed out, a prediction like that one was a bit self-fulfilling given the effect it would have on Saul's state of mind and morale.
"What nonsense. God told Noah and his descendants to go eat animals just like the plants"
Um, that was after the Fall. Check out what God said to Adam and Eve before the Fall. I think that was Kosta's point. We Orthodox remember this during all of our fasting days and seasons, in which we eat nothing that comes from an animal. (But does that lamb ever taste good on Pascha after being without meat for nearly two months!)
Yes, "successors" naturally means someone who comes AFTER the Apostles - following in their footsteps and given the power to continue to lead the Church on earth. It is safe to assume that the original Apostles are long gone and in heaven by now.
Regards
FWIW, I've been taught that the Luke geneology is actually through Mary, not Joseph. The argument goes that if Joseph had been the blood father of Jesus, then Jesus would be barred from the throne according to the Matthew geneology. This is because it includes the name of (Jehoiachin) Jeconiah (v. 1:11). Apparently, there was a curse on this Royal line:
Jer. 22:30 : This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."
So, this would not be the best line to use because most people would assume Joseph was the blood father. Instead, He uses the Luke geneology, which traces back through Nathan, not Jeconiah. This is Mary's line. Now, I saw in your post the requirement that all blood lines have to be traced through the male. One argument is that there is an exception spelled out in the Bible. Here is an excerpt from an article I found on the subject: The Lineage Loophole
"However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule."
"In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6)."
Anyway, it's just another view. I thought you all might be interested. :)
What about the Council of Jerusalem?
You should know better. Paul asks for and prays for other Christians throughout the New Testament.
"ye also helping us with prayer, that for the gift [bestowed] upon us by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many on our behalf." 2 Cor 1:11
"they glorify God for the obedience of your consent unto the gospel of the Christ and in [your] liberal distribution unto them and unto everyone, and in their prayer for you, for they love you because of the eminent grace of God in you." 2 Cor 9:13-14
"Epaphras, who is [one] of you, a servant of Christ, salutes you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand [firm], perfect and fulfilled in all the will of God." Col 4:12
And many more like this...
Regards
I would say this is a fair portrayal. I have always held from my first day as a Christian, original sin, as well as OSAS (a very poor interpretation of Perseverance of the Saints).
When I first heard of the Reformed belief I wanted to know if the basic principles were indeed what the early church taught. I did three things; first, I reread the scriptures from an entirely Reformed perspective; second I studied some of the early church teaching focusing on Augustine since he was considered one of the leading theologian of the times; and third I studied the evolution of church doctrine throughout history. I did not studied the details of the Reformed beliefs through Calvin or Reformed writers but through the early western church writings. I wasn't interested in the details of the Reformers until I could understand where the basic concepts came from.
The Orthodox Church has a different history from the western church and it's very difficult to trace that history and doctrinal development. However, I believe there is enough historical evidence to say the synergistic view of the Orthodox church can be legitimately traced back to the early church. There are reasons why I disagree with the Orthodox position but most of those reasons are embedded in many of my discussions both the the Orthodox and Catholics. The views of the Catholic Church (and many Protestants today) are the views of the Orthodox Church-not the original western views.
Where I would disagree with your statement, if I understand it correctly, is the implications that I had established my views and these views lined up with the Reformed perspective, so I was naturally inclined to the Reformed view. While there is some merit in this statement, I was very concerned that I had the right perspective and was willing to abandon everything. To be honest, it was far more of a culture shift to accept the Reformed monergistic perspective than it would have been to maintain what I now know to be an Orthodox's synergistic perspective.
Unfortunately, while the Reformed perspective was the primary view of the western church, it has largely been abandoned. It is openly derided. It would be far easier for me to take the path most traveled by. I have had people tell me I'm foolish, ignorant, hand me slips of papers at church with various Bible verses on it "correcting" my egregious interpretations, etc. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I know I'm right on primary doctrinal points. I feel I would not be true to the gospel or God, and certainly I would be remiss to other fellow believers, if I did not try to offer corrections.
Here I stand. I can do no other. May God be merciful.
And my point was that God continued to evolves man's thought process. God commanded man to eat plants and animals. It wasn't just that Noah was hungry and started eying the chicken coming out of the ark. God told Noah to get the knives out. This is no different than God telling Peter not to consider things unholy that which God has cleansed:
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.