Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Amen, and thank you for all the wonderful scriptures! :) Even just one scripture can be enough, but to see it all stacked up like that just drives the point home all the more.
Checking my wallet, I have no photographs of God, of Jesus or of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if I did, I wouldn't tell anyone.
"Checking my wallet, I have no photographs of God, of Jesus or of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if I did, I wouldn't tell anyone."
But He has your picture and He's not ashamed to show it to all the believers, past and present who have gone on before and the angels and principalities and powers. He is so proud of you He even calls you brother in the sanctuary of heaven. Pretty neat, huh?
Hbr 2:11 "For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."
They probably will... :O)
That does raise a question in my mind. I believe in all our discussions it has been the position of Rome that Councils were only meant to affirmed what beliefs were held by the Church. Where there are two differences, one is correct and one is heretical. It is the Council job to sort those matters out and confirm what is the correct doctrine held by the Church and what isn't. Under our scenario, either Rome or the Orthodox are teaching heretic doctrine. You don't really expect Rome to admit they're teaching heresy now would you?
But you have suggested a different use of a Council; to establish new precedence by reconciling doctrinal beliefs. While it is my understanding the Orthodox use of the Council in this fashion, Councils were never used this way under the Roman Catholic Church-or so we've been told. Under this scenario, if Rome admits to using a Council in this fashion, it calls into questions ALL Councils, since the purpose of the Council (as we've been told) is underminded.
Either the purpose of the Council is to affirm what the early church fathers believed which makes the Orthodox view in the Roman Catholic Church heretical, or the Council purpose is to reconcile and establish doctrine which means they can't point back to a Council to state an affirmation of a belief. If the answer is that a Council does both, then the argument calls into question any decision by the Council.
We are saved by God's mercy alone. The rest is fluff.
But you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't concern you at all, since you are not in the Church. So why don't you just stick to your own traditions. If you want answers, you are welcome to ask, but if all you want is something to chew on, kindly direct your disagreements with your community — there's a lot more variety there.
The Church is the way it is, even if you don't understand it, HD. I think you will be much happier swapping verses with your sola scriptura folks.
But Luther certainly did. Pecca fortier, remember? So, are you now telling us that the entire Lutheran "church" is now teaching that Luther was wrong. Are you saying that Calvin openly disagreed with Luther on this? If that's so, it's news to me. But I would be happy to read anything you have to that effect.
You know, there is a difference between reason and rationalization, HD. The only Ecumenical Councils that were held are the first seven. The others were either not classified as ecumenical or were classified as ecumenical but were not for one reason or another.
Some of the doctrinal differences that exist between the east and the west have to do with the language used, with concepts, etc. which express either fully the same belief but in such a way tat it is not understood the same, or incompletely (such as in the case of the Purgatory and Filioque respectively).
In other cases a doctrine was developed by necessity, based on another doctrine that is itself not defined the same way between the east and the west (i.e. the "original sin"). Immaculate Conception is a perfect example of that.
The East does not deny that Theotokos was immaculate, but only that she was not conceived immaculately, which is taught by the Latin side as a necessary dogma based on Augustinian concept of the "original sin," which the east never taught.
Individual teachings of various Fathers that do not agree with Councils are not heretical. They represent theological opinions and hypotheses, but not doctrine. Thus, Catholics were allowed to believe in the Limbo, but were not required to.
The concept of limbus patrum to which both Churches held, as a state where the souls of the OT Righteous were before Resurrection, served as a precedence for a hypothesis of limbus infantum.
Our differences are not heresies: they represent disagreements within the Church, and such disagreements were addressed by various councils, both general (Ecumenical) or local. The important point is to remember that only the Ecumenical Synods are binding, but even there one finds that somehow discipline and habits sometimes do not follow the declarations of the Church completely.
The best example is prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (by the First Ecumenical Council), yet Roman Catholics, Antionchan Orthodox (in America), Greek Orthodox (in America), etc. habitually kneel on Sundays. Kneeing is especially proscribed during 40 days after Resurrection. If one is to follow the First Ecumenical Council, the proper way to attend Divine Liturgy is only by standing (exception being the Pentecost when there is kneeling).
That's why "old country" Orthodox parishes never have pews (the Church is supposed to be a home, not a theater!), and there are chairs along the walls for the sick and weak (pregnant, elderly, etc.), but at no time is one supposed to be comfortable in church. One does not go to church to relax, but to stand in awe.
"That does raise a question in my mind. I believe in all our discussions it has been the position of Rome that Councils were only meant to affirmed what beliefs were held by the Church."
Not really; that's far, far too simplistic. Whether or not the whole Church always believed something may or may not have to do with it. The writings of the early Fathers are full of speculations which were accepted or rejected by the councils and in any event, in the end its up to the people to affirm a dogmatic pronouncement (though this isn't accepted in the West).
"Where there are two differences, one is correct and one is heretical."
Oh that's not true at all. Often what appear to be differences are only in how we talk about things. In other cases, the Western dogma of the Assumption being an example, dogma in the West may only be theolougemenon in the East. The areas of doctrine, discipline and praxis are filled with differences which could be dealt with by a council but have nothing to do with heresy.
"While it is my understanding the Orthodox use of the Council in this fashion, Councils were never used this way under the Roman Catholic Church-or so we've been told. Under this scenario, if Rome admits to using a Council in this fashion, it calls into questions ALL Councils, since the purpose of the Council (as we've been told) is underminded.'
Sorry, wrong again. Western Councils have often refined dogmatic, doctrinal and praxis points. The problem, by the way, evaporates when one takes the position that non ecumenical councils are by their nature local and therefore binding only on the particular church which is holding it.
"Either the purpose of the Council is to affirm what the early church fathers believed which makes the Orthodox view in the Roman Catholic Church heretical, or the Council purpose is to reconcile and establish doctrine which means they can't point back to a Council to state an affirmation of a belief."
Where does this come from. You've set up a wholly false dichotomy, Harley.
"If the answer is that a Council does both, then the argument calls into question any decision by the Council."
Why? I'm not following you at all. On the other hand, Kosta is right. Most of Protestantism will have nothing to do with what The Church does in a great council.
"That's why "old country" Orthodox parishes never have pews (the Church is supposed to be a home, not a theater!), and there are chairs along the walls for the sick and weak (pregnant, elderly, etc.)...."
Those are always my excuses (well, not pregnancy) for using them when I'm in Greece! :)
"[On POTS] Thanks, Harley."
___________________________
It seems that the difference between POTS and OSAS is in the question of whether the individual "choose" to be saved or was predestined. I've read the article and following justification both camps are in agreement.
Nor was there a reason in 1520. God didn't start something new in 1520. Despite what you are trying to say, Luther and company were not the re-incarnation of Christ! Throughout the OT, despite the Jews's sinfulness, God NEVER had the prophets start a whole new religion. Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion. It's done. Luther and company are quite similar to Korah. Wanting to place themselves in power over God's appointed instruments, as bad as they might have been in leading the sheep.
I think it's been shown that Luther's theology is a massive mis-interpretation of Scriptures and cannot come from God.
Regards
Not sure what you are getting at in that ramble which I didn't post all of. Frankly, it doesn't matter what other people say or see, it is what God sees. He knows if you are a true believer by how you put your faith in action. Even good works done with bad motives will be noticed by God.
So the Spirit only takes up temporary residence in believers until He is kicked out and then invited back in again? Paul seemed to have another view:1 Cor. 3:16-17 (KJV):
You aren't reading the whole context of that Scripture. Paul is warning those divisive Corinthians to behave, otherwise, the Spirit will leave them.
"If anyone defiles the temple of God, God shall destroy that one" 1 Cor 3:17a
God destroys people by leaving them. He expects more from those who have the Spirit given to them. Thus, God doesn't automatically pull on puppet strings, but requires a response from man.
No, that [Some had professed to having faith, but did not really have it.] couldn't include me. God sent me a personal telegram with a confirmation number, the same as He did for you, I presume.
Of course not. False bravado and presumption are most certainly typical of a Christian charecter, at least what I am finding out by talking to you... Humility is not found anywhere in such attitude.
What do you think I mean by "false faith"? It is someone who claims to have faith but does not. But for you, there are no such people in the Bible, because all that is needed for faith is a claim of it.
Faith, in this case, is from God's point of view. You either have it or you don't. This "false faith" is for men. Men don't judge men for eternal salvation - which is what we are speaking of. Thus, there is no false faith in God's eyes. Either it is there (perhaps in insufficient qunatity, such as a workless faith), or it is not there at all. Phony faith is not faith.
Given this, then all Protestants have a clear way to heaven in Catholicism. I assume that you think that each of us was true in our initial professions of faith, but then many/most lost that faith when we failed to start practicing Catholicism (we didn't confess our mortal sins to a priest, etc.). So, all we have to do is keep re-claiming to have faith after each sin, and then we're covered.
So exactly how does a person claim to have faith in Jesus Christ but refuses to follow those He left behind? Ever heard of "He who rejects you rejects Me"? "If you love Me, you will obey my commandments"? Does Christ rule your life, or do you pick and choose which laws of Christ to follow?
About listening to me, I would have the same attitude with you that Paul had with the Bereans, which was, in effect: "DON'T listen to me at all until you know that what I say is consistent with scriptures". The Bereans did exactly that, and Paul loved them for it.
Paul loved the Bereans because, unlike the Thessolonians, who ALSO looked at Scriptures, agreed with Paul! And I am sure that Paul was really happy with the Bereans that they figured out how to celebrate the Eucharist from the OT Scriptures ALONE...Or baptize people from the OT Scriptures ALONE... Or to forget about Circumcision from the OT Scriptures ALONE...
Regards
Any bum could pray to Mary and get the same result as a righteous man.
Whether a person prays to God or to God through Mary will not improve the chances of one's prayer if the person is asking for something that is not God's Will.
However, if Mary DOES discriminate, like God does, then why bother going to Mary in the first place if you wind up in the same place?
Humility. It breeds a humble attitude when we feel we are not worthy to go to God directly, since He is all holiness and we are insignificant sinners.
Regards
First of all, Mary and the saints in heaven are not dead. NOTHING can separate us from the Love of God, not even death, as Paul tells us in Romans 8. Secondly, God created people and situations in our lives (Providence) to specifically bring us closer to Him. God is invisible and incomprehensible. People are not. This is why Christ became incarnate - to reveal God to us through the Mediator. But this doesn't mean that God no longer sends us further aid to come to Him. He helps us daily - DESPITE that fact that HE has already sent the Mediator.
How much does God want us to communicate with Him? Certainly not as much if He prefers that we go through middle management with our (intercessory) prayers.
Some people have a close connection with another person that has suffered similarly as they have. For example, patron saints. Say a person was blind. Was Jesus Christ blind? No. But what about some of the saints? There WERE blind saints, those who were able to put God first in their lives - despite their blindness. Thus, by emulating a particular patron saint, a person comes closer to God through another creation that God made for the example of others.
You need to stop thinking of the saints and Mary as competition with God. HE MADE THEM WHAT THEY ARE/WERE!
Regards
Well, here, I will agree with Harley. However, I will point out that Catholics ALSO do not place memorization of the catechism as important, above practice. The whole point of doctrines is to give us an objective grounding in the experiences of God that we all have claimed to have. Experience is subjective. Our experiences can mean quite anything. But with the solid grounding of the Church, the pillar of truth, we KNOW that Jesus Christ, Whom we experience, is the second person of the Trinity, and was born of a virgin woman... The catechism defines our experiences in truth.
Regards
Very true and good points. Just showing up for Mass will not guarantee a spot in heaven.
we are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus and not because of or in addition to any works we have done.
As long as you qualify "faith" as James does, who says that faith without works is dead. Thus, without works, you won't be saved.
You have not experienced the liberty from bondage given by the finished work of Jesus and made real to us by the ever present Holy Spirit, nor have you experienced the freedom from fear of the future.
I personally don't feel any bondage by going to Mass or praising God in a liturgical setting. Kosta? We lift up our hearts, as God has asked, as a community of believers as we break the bread. As to fear of the future, it doesn't follow that because we "work out our salvation in fear and trembling", that we live in fear. Does Paul strike you as someone fearful of not achieving his goal? No. But he didn't take it for granted, either. Considering the impetus that operates within us, we only have ourselves to blame if we fail. We can trust in the Lord's support. But this requires we persevere until the end. This is not difficult for those who love.
Regards
We differ because we have different views of what salvation IS. You appear to believe it is a one-time event when we first believe in Christ. Catholics believe, with the Scriptures, that salvation is a process, since salvation is spoken of in the past tense, the present tense, and the future tense - ALL to Christians who have already "been saved". Thus, salvation DOES include works, as James points out.
Shall faith [without works] be able to save them?
Clearly, works are part of the salvation formula, since James includes the word "SAVE", not "sanctify".
Regards
Nor, is a man being saved, he is saved and produces good works that show it.
You are again ignoring Scriptures.
"so faith, if it does not have works, is dead in and of itself" James 2:17.
Are you saying that dead faith saves?
"Moreover, brothers, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received and in which ye stand; by which also ye are being saved if ye retain the word that I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain" 1 Cor 15:1-2
BEING SAVED - to Christians!
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall cause the one who is sick to be saved, and the Lord shall raise him up" James 5:14-15 TO BE SAVED - to Christians ALREADY saved!
There are others, but you get the message. Salvation is a process that doesn't end when you proclaim your faith in God on May 17, 1993. People fall away, even after making such a proclamation, thus, the proclamation itself doesn't save. It is our continuous perseverance in following Christ and becoming more like Him.
Regards
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
You take a single verse from James about faith without works being dead, and transmute that into the definition of salvation.
A body without breath is dead, but respiration does not create life; it is a result of life, a result of a beating heart and functioning lungs and an active spinal cortex.
There are so many verses that speak to the fact that we can in no way earn our salvation; it is a gift from God to be received with a grateful heart, made alive by the work of the Holy Spirit within us.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." -- 1 Corinthians 15:10
Even Christ uses the concept that works are the evidence of His divinity, not the cause of it when He says to the Jews, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." (John 10:37)
Doing the good works of His Father does not make Him Christ, but it establishes the fact that He is Christ.
Good works serve the same purpose for His sheep -- they testify to their salvation; they do not earn it for them.
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." -- 1 Peter 1:3-5"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Even our faith is the work of God who uses it to bring us to Him.
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." -- John 6:37
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.