Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Amen and well-said, FK.
To swipe Harley's great tag in the KJV...
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures -- Luke 24:45
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region." -- Acts 13:48-49
John shows the correct progression; 1) we are born of God, 2) we KNOW that we are born of God because we believe in God, 3) we love those things of God, 4) we know we love God and belong to Him because we want to keep His commandments, 5) we don't mind keeping His commandments because we love Him, 6) we overcome the world with our faith.
You make this sound like something YOU have to do. The fact is that God has given us His Spirit for which we are born again.
Paul doubted the Galatins' salvation simply because they were caught up in traditions (BIG ouch). We are not to be subject to the yoke of "salvery" following after traditions (Gal 5:1). This is trying to be justified by works of the law and Paul would have nothing to do with it. He stated they had "fallen from grace". We walk BY FAITH, not by works.
Galatins is one book I would not use to justify works.
I am not saying that Orthodoxy is "Platonic", but it is based on Greek philosophical assumptions, first and foremost, that God is so transcendant, that He cannot be known accept through intermediaries. While also a Western thought, nonetheless, we receive this concept from Plato and Greek philosophy. To deny this is to not be aware of the background from which the Church Fathers operated from.
There is *no* separation between the energia of God and the one ousia of God and the one nature of God and the thee hypostases/persons in which we know God. Again, you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
IF this is true, then HOW does God's transcendance remain intact through the mediation of "energy" IF energy is ALSO God???!!! IF God is simple and does not consist of parts, then God's essence and energy are intertwined without separation. BUT - when God comes to man, "sending His Energy", is His Essence present as well? If it is, what is the point of the distinction between Energy and Essence, since both are present? Again, I don't find these distinctions in Scriptures or the Church Fathers.
you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
I can't? Then what's the purpose of "energy"? So why is it necessary to even discuss "energy" as necessary to become an intermediary between God and man? IF energy is equally God, then why cannot God's essence contact man? According to the explanation of WHY energy is crucial in Palamatic understanding, man cannot contact God directly. Is Energy God? Then God and man are in contact! To me, this is a case of "wanting it both ways".
In fact your statement that "God is simple" is perhaps the most Platonic statement of all that one can make.
This is the basic difference between the East and West on this subject, as I see it. The West considers God as One, His Nature first, and His Personhood subsequently. It is the other way around in the East. To say that "God is one is a Platonic concept" is a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, where God is one - AND the Platonic concept that there are different levels of dieties, intermediaries known as demiurges, who allow the Transcendant God to communicate anything to man.
The very fact that we start with the three Persons of the Trinity in all knowledge of God, and that we participate in his life in a multiplicity of His energies should demonstrate that God is not simple.
LOL! Because YOU start from Persons, it must be right??? It is presumed that whenever God the Son is active within a soul, His Spirit and the Father are there as well. The Son can do nothing without the Father and the Spirit also present. This mistaken separation of the "jobs" of God leads to polytheism. The difference between the persons is in relationship ONLY. They don't have different roles, where God the Father remains in heaven while He sends His Son or Spirit. I hope this is not what you are trying to say.
Only by after the fact reflections on the fact that there is a single essence/ousia and a single divine nature does any kind of "simplicity" arise.
As I said earlier, the West has ALWAYS started from "God is One" first. Starting especially with Tertullian. The Scriptures teach us without doubt that God is One first. It is only later, after contemplating the revelation of Christ and the OT in the light of Jesus Christ that we even KNOW that God is Threee Persons, different ONLY in relationship to each other. While there is a school of thought in Hellenistic Judaism that personifies Wisdom, it is not clear from the very few verses that this Wisdom IS of the Essence of God Himself - just that this Wisdom was present with God during Creation. In the end, God is One first. The idea of "Personhood" comes strictly from revelation coming much later, not from human thought. Man sees God as One first.
Now there *is* a Father who does teach a divine simplicity at the center of the Holy Trinity, and that is St. Augustine, and it is because of his Neoplatonic influences when it comes to his Trinitarian theology.
"God is One" was taught by EVERY Western Father who discussed the Trinity BEFORE St. Augustine! Who are you trying to kid?
Regards
This "then" is a non-sequitur invented about 500 years ago by people who don't know how to read the Scripture.
As Jo explained to you, the Scripture is not self-explanatory, or we would not have heretics of any description running around. At the same time, no, the Church does not have a monopoly on understandig the Scripture, as many Protestants and unbelievers convert to Catohlicism and Orthodoxy having convicted themselves of the truth of the Church through independent study. Some come home after they had enough of their Protestant pastors. Tim Staples even wrote a book once, "Jimmy Swaggart Made Me Catholic".
BTW, I believe the passage you are quoting (John 1) refers to JESUS.
Correct both times. And who is the Mother of the Word St. John is referring to?
You are wrong on both cases. First of all, Jesus warned about following traditions that lead us AWAY from God, not ALL traditions (by which, I presume, YOU mean unwritten traditions). Don't you recognize your own "traditions", such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?
And secondly, the Scripture does warn us about reading it without the Church:
"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15b-16
Incorrect Scripture interpretation DESTROYS!!!
The Lord's battle with Satan in the desert clearly shows that Scripture can be used for good or bad purposes.
Those who hold false views of things were always meant to hold false views.
Really??!!! What do you think of your past views that were faulty? Or are you still wrong?!! Seriously, though, that fatalistic attitude won't do with me. I held to false views before, and now I don't! [to include views that we agree on, such as Christ's resurrection]
God separates the sheep from the goats
...in heaven at the final judgment (Mat 25), not now. Or, perhaps, you prefer the wheat and the weeds?
It is God who gives us our knowledge and understanding
Well, I am happy to see we still agree on this!
Regards
Of course He did. Look what harm the traditions of Luther and Calvin did to Christianity.
I can't recall any such warning about reading scripture, can you?
30 And Philip running thither, heard [the Eunuch] reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?"To their own destruction". I'd take that as a warning if I were you.(Acts 8)
15 ... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
(1 Timothy 3)
20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
(2 Peter 1)
... also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3)
Correction: I should have emphasised your post as follows:
If all honor and glory belongs to God, then none belongs to man, and thus salvation is not dependent upon man exercising his "free will" decision to do anything.
And my response is:
This "and thus" is a non-sequitur invented about 500 years ago by people who don't know how to read the Scripture. While I give God the glory, I participate with the Divine Grace by freely choosing to read and obey the Gospel.
"You believe YOU are the source of truth. I look elsewhere."
___________________________________
Typical cheap shot when you really don't have a leg to stand on. You can look to your institution to tell you what to believe and think. I will search the SCRIPTURES meditate on them and pray for the HOLY SPIRIT to open my eyes.
"And who is the Mother of the Word St. John is referring to?"
_________________________
Where is this in the book of John? I may have missed this reference to the "Mother of the Word".
""To their own destruction". I'd take that as a warning if I were you"
It is facinating that you would quote (2 Peter 3 ... "also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.") in the same paragraph where you quote from 1 Timothy 3. Paul there lays out the qualifications for Pastors and deacons in the (1 Timothy 3: 15 ... "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth") one of the most obvious being they must be married to one wife and have their children under control.
Now which church has misinterpreted this?
"...which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.")"
___________________________________
I am looking at this passage from 2 Peter and the key words seem to be "unlearned and unstable". If someone is versed in the SCRIPTURES and is not suffering from a mental condition that would make them unstable it seems that we should be able to discern when SCRIPTURE is being twisted and perverted. All the more reason to study SCRIPTURE, so no one may lead you astray.
More people have gotten into trouble by not following this wise advice. ;O)
That's why Paul, in 2 Tim. 2:15 and 3:16 says to study, study, study the scriptures yourself.
As far as our Lord Jesus discussions with Satan, if you'll recall Satan used incomplete verses or changed the text (as is typical). For example:
Matt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
However, that's the point of growing in Christ.
Good grief. First you guys tell us that Luther and Calvin "invented" their beliefs. Now you're telling us they were following after "vain traditions".
I think there are several reasons for that. But probably the most important is how Biblical Orthodoxy is. Unfortunately for most Protestants, they first see priests in vestments, bishops with long beards, icons on church walls; and once they get that first whiff of incense, they run out the doors.
Orthodoxy is a Biblical form of Christianity with a rich theological tradition. It pays to be patient and read, read, read.
Ofcourse he was, he obtained his rightousness back in Gen.15, long before he offered up Issac.
His offering showed that righteousness and his own spiritual growth (hence his friendship with God)
And quoting James 2:14 out of context doesn't change the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Please explain how I "misquoted" a verse that completely denies we are saved by faith alone? The entire chapter 2 is about how a man without faith will not be saved - and goes on to describe how Abraham was saved by his works (with faith)
I didn't say you misquoted it, I said you quoted it out of context.
I agree, that works alone doesn't save. But neither does faith.
Well, faith in Christ alone does save.
Now, He that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for rightousness'(Rom.4:5) is very clear.
Clear scripture interprets more obscure scripture, that is a basic rule of hermeneutics.
James is not talking about obtaining salvation, and contradicting what Paul said, he is talking about showing salvation (hence the use of the word 'shew me').
James is written like a wisdom book, such as proverbs.
In proverbs, it is right living that is blessed, but those who do wrong are cursed.
A man's faith will not save him from that discipline, such as was the case of 'just' Lot.
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.