Which reminds me: I am going on vacation and will be in a disconnected state till later next week. Look for me on the beach.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Like Paul? How "willing" was he?
Please, God, compel me all you want.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Amen. Rom.6:16
Amen to Romans 6:17. 8~)
Clearly, Christ being in us, we must yield to the Holy Spirit, if God is going to work through us.
That is where our will comes into effect, to sin or not sin, to do God's will or not.
Erasmus gave us the first pure Greek New Testament and Luther used it to translate it into a German translation, that shook Europe to its roots.
That German translation is still the best selling Bible in German!
I guess the Germans can still tell a live Bible from a dead one.
Your point about the unnatural state of the separation of the soul from the body is an important one.
The experience of those in an incomplete state of bliss is fundamentally and qualitatively different from the experience of those who hvae rejected God -- whose self-inflicted torment is likewise incomplete because of being separated from the body.
The one is in an unnatural state, but one that anticipates fullness of joy, and which experiences love from God and from the prayers of the Church, and hope as a result of the faith which which he died, etc.
The other is not only in the unnatural state of separation from the body, but is also experiencing, albeit incompletely, self-imposed separation from God and man alike and the presence of the demons...
This is what I was talking about, perhaps not as precisely as I could.
"Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
First born again and made free from sin by Christ's blood, then we become servants of righteousness.
There's no downside to giving God the glory for our obedience, even though the RCs and the Orthodox tell us otherwise.
All that may seem accurate in our day-to-day perceptions, but if God intends for our salvation by Christ's definitive redemption, how can anything truly thwart it?
I just cannot believe the names in heaven depend on men's good choices, or that even one drop of the shed blood of Christ can come to naught.
Amen!
"Erasmus gave us the first pure Greek New Testament..."
Yup, and he got it from us Orthodox, which is why the basic text (leaving aside a few translational eccentricities here and there) of those older translations based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus such as the Luther Bible and the KJV are very close to the NT texts used in the Orthodox Church, whereas those modern translations based on critical editions have significant differences, especially in the Gospels.
The repentant know they died in sin even if they repented. They are tormented by their ingratitude to God, knowing how unworthy they are of being saved. No saint will ever consider himself or herself worthy of being with God. The story of Job ilustrates that perfectly: Job, who was a "perfect man" in God's eyes confessed his own iniquities, and in his humility never even entertains the idea that he, of all people, would be worthy.
You are right, these are two different types of torment, but it all comes down to the fact that they can no longer repent.
I've had that happened before as well. I believe that you have to have certain fonts installed but I'm not sure. I thought someone stabbed you while you were typing... "theo...aaaaagggghhhhh"
Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved?
No, of course not. Only the Baptists get to do that, and she was no Baptist.
[John Paul] really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin
No, he doesn't. Christ's redemptive work is sufficient to save every sinner who wishes to be saved.
Mary's suffering helped to pay for my sins?
Yes, and generally the suffering of the saints contributes to the treasure of merits that is stored up for us in heaven. It doesn't mean, of course, that Christ's work was in any way deficient; however, one can, through a heroic act of virtue, contribute to the salvation that Christ has worked for all. Christ remains the sole power that saves, and is alone, with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, object of our worship.
Indulgences: Spreading the wealth
Merit
If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?
If you have been following the recent Agrarian's posts, see for example, 6756 addressed among others to you, you would not be asking. Please see Limbo and in particular the first part, LIMBUS PATRUM.
Which reminds me: I am going on vacation and will be in a disconnected state till later next week. Look for me on the beach.
LOL!!!
As you well know, this was not an overnight event. It took several hundred years to determine the overall Canon. Thus, it WASN'T "clear enough"...
I remember reading Iraeneus in which he stated that if a true believer heard heresy preached from the pulpit, the Holy Spirit would cause that person to cover their ears and run from the Church never to go back. (I'm not sure if he capitalized "Church".)
He also wrote that the Gauls were to be highly praised, as they were very knowledgeable in the "Gospel", although never having it read to them! They had NO Scripture, but relied entirely on the teachings passed to them by their bishops...
I wrote : The Canon didn't form itself.
You replied :Let's see, 1) the scriptures were written, 2) the Church confirmed they were written, 3) no one debated they were genuine, 4) they were taught in all the Churches, 5) they were accepted as inspired. I guess they were formed when the apostles wrote them down.
LOL! Well, it sounds like you are backpedaling against your previous statements. How dare a Catholic be right? First, the "Scriptures" were not called "Scriptures" when first written. They were identified as such much later. Second, the Church DID debate on the authenticity of so-called "Scriptures" - Paul HIMSELF was worried about forgeries. Next, where and how are you going to prove that more than a few epistles were available to Christians in the various churches spread throughout the Roman Empire? You think they uploaded them to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 100 AD? And finally, they were NOT universally accepted as inspired.
You are forgeting that the Table of Contents of Scripture is NOT inspired. Thus, the Successors of the Apostles had to LATER determine what WAS Scripture. The letter of James does not mention that it is the inspired word of God! People read it and accepted it based on the Community's ALREADY HELD CONCEPTS of the Faith! Thus, the Proclamation, the Word given by the Apostles was given orally at first, and there is absolutely no indication that EVERYTHING is found within these letters. That is why the Church NEVER made a Sola Scriptura declaration. The Church's sense detected the Scripture. The Scripture did not form or create the Church.
Regards
How sad that this truth of the faith is lost on Protestantism, by and large, due to the Western concept of individuality and selfishness.
Regards
Why didn't you ping me, silver? Wanted to leave me out? :-)
"God's revelation of Himself to man and the Plan of Salvation is not theology. Theology is defined by men. There are lots of theologies, even lots of Christian ones.."
Orthodox teaching would disagree with that statement. Theology is the knowing of God. It is a saying among us that theology is not studied or learned -- it is prayed. The true theologian is not the one who knows about God, it is the one who knows God. In common speech we do talk about "liturgical theology," "moral theology," dogmatic theology, etc... (everything but "systematic theology," the very idea of which we reject.) But they are all inextricably linked as necessary parts of knowing God. If we don't know how to pray to God, how to live according to his guidance, or if we believe incorrect things about him -- we won't be able to know him. By this standard, there is only one possible theology, and cannot be multiple theologies that contradict each other.
Your second statement is directed at Kosta, and while it is rooted in things he has said, I don't think that he would agree with that summary -- you will, as annalex said, have to address that to him, and you will have to remember, again, that kosta has repeatedly and specifically said that he knows that he is voicing opinions that are *his own* tentative musings and questionings and are not the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. Both annalex (from the Catholic perspective) and I (from the Orthodox perspective) have written a lot on the subject of OT-NT continuity, etc... with very similar views -- of course, Alex is really Orthodox at heart, so maybe that's cheating. :-)
"To be an object of veneration, one must be "pure", so pure that even after marrying and having children, one is still a virgin."
Hardly. As annalex pointed out, virginity is not at all a requirement of sainthood. I don't think anyone would say that the Theotokos would have sinned by not remaining a virgin, or that she would be unworthy of veneration if she hadn't.
Our belief in her ever-virginity is not based on necessity of any kind -- it is simply based on the fact that it is the consistent and uncontradicted tradition of the Church going back to the earliest times. Since there is no proof that our traditional understandings and interpretations of Scripture are false, there is no reason to change them. How many times do we need to repeat this?
"Did I leave out anything?"
No, but you leave me wondering if you really *have* learned anything about Orthodox belief! :-)
Is that Limbo? Or is it just where people *do* the Limbo?
Did Kolo share some of that ouzo with you? You are in a rare mood tonight! :)
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.