Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Good point.
Okay, satan didn't "entice" (convince, motivate) but "incited" (provoked) God into ruining Job "without cause." Then, maybe you can explain to me how can satan provoke (i.e. incite) GOD into something wihtout God wanting satan to do so (in which case it's not a provocation!)? What kind of a sovereign God is one who is subject to provocation?
The only thing we can conclude, then, is that the whole thing was God's doing, yet it was satan's fault! It seems to me that God enticed satan to test Job, ruin him, kill everyone Job loved but Job, just to see if he will curse God, which He knew Job would not do. Satan, falling for this scenario, is then blamed for doing his work. Amazing!
Nothing. Why do't you try to stay on the subject and remember that I was repsonding to your "No, to return to the freedom that God has given us." Hence my reply was that we are not free to sin boldly, as Luther suggested.
The historical fact is that Luther's translation had James in it as part of the Canon (unlike the Apocrypha books which he knew were not part of the Canon)
The historical fact is that Luther wanted to exlcude it.
It's more than a symbol (i.e. baptism). God works THROUGH this visible symbol. Otherwise, at what point are we made children of God?
When we believe.John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Christ Himself corrects Nicodemus' idea that salvation has anything to do with the fleshy birth ...
Correct.
Jesus makes it clear to Nicodemus that the new birth is ... spiritual in nature (i.e. of the Spirit).
John said that John (the Baptist) baptized with water, but Jesus' baptism ... was of the Spirit.Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
___________________________________________________________
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
___________________________________________________________
Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
___________________________________________________________
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
"But they are altogether dull-hearted and foolish; A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine." -- Jeremiah 10:8
Sorry, your confirmation number doesn't match any of those verses... The above verses presume that a Christian would persevere until the end, but it is not guaranteed.
Certainly John 10 covers perseverance. Oh, I forgot, even Jesus doesn't mean what He says in the Bible. When He says "no one" that is the last thing He means. But even if you don't like these words from Jesus, here are three other sources for perseverance:
Romans 11:29 : ... for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 1:5 : ... who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
---------------
You've lost me. I can't judge your faith but yet I supposedly believe you have faith because you merely declare it so? Who are you and where is Forest Keeper? Have I once said that a person has faith because they declare it so? Have I not argued against this very proposition with you? I am not sure where this is from. "False faith" is not faith, even if one claims it is.
I assure you I am still here too! :) My point is that you interpret all of the verses that speak of an equivalent of someone "professing faith" as meaning that they actually had faith. The reason you must is to show that they later LOST that faith by failing to do good works or otherwise persevere. I, OTOH, say they never had faith in the first place. Can you name a verse or two that describes a person who professed faith but never really had it? My supposition is that you can't, whereas I would say the Bible has plenty of them.
FK: "I have no problem following what the Apostles taught, they wrote down their most important teachings. After them, error crept in."
How do you know that? Where have you established that?
I know it because what the Apostles wrote down looks little like what Catholicism teaches today, in many cases. That's what this thread has shown. Why would the Apostles teach clearly with their spoken words, yet write in pretzeled and confounding riddles for all eternity to misunderstand? Yet you say it happened.
"He who rejects you rejects Me"? So who is "you"? It is the Apostles and their successors.
I disagree. It is every believer. That matches with the verses promising us that, as believers, we don't have to worry about whether we will be persecuted, it is certain to happen.
If anything, Protestantism is not even consistent with itself. Case in point - Sola Fide vs. Sola Scriptura... The Bible ITSELF SPECIFICALLY says that we are NOT saved by faith ALONE.
We define faith completely differently, so James only works for you under a very narrow definition. You say James is right and Paul is wrong, and I say they can both be right under a non-Catholic definition of faith.
Ooooo, doggy...this thing sure gets complex. Apparently the Lutherans did lay out their doctrinal beliefs before the Orthodox. The Orthodox simply had issues with them. An interesting article from the Orthodox center is Luther Had His Chance. (Love that title.) The article refers to the Augsburg Confession which shows the differences in belief.
What I do find puzzling is why on earth Luther would think he would have anything in common with the Orthodox and why he didn't anticipate the Orthodox reaction? The Augsburg Confessions plainly challenge many of the Orthodox beliefs just as much the Catholics. They sound somewhat Reformed. (It was Calvin who laid out the Protestant's systematic theology-not Luther.) Did Luther think the Orthodox would simply read the Confession and say, "Yep, you're right. Guess we've been wrong all these years."? If things only worked so easily, I would have everyone here singing, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.
The articles I look through do not address these questions. I can only surmise that these were dangerous times for Luther and Protestants in general. Perhaps they were naively looking for some sort of support. They certainly didn't find it with the Orthodox.
Of course. Man inherits mortality, and concupiscence, as well. We have inherited a tendency to sin that was not there before
The concept of inherited "guilt" as opposed to "damage" is a very different mindset that prevailed in the theology of the East and the West from Augstine onward.
I think we take a broader definition of "guilt". We certainly see ourselves as "damaged", as well. Sure, we don't have Adam's personal sin on us, as if it was our responsibility. But we (and you, I believe) see Adam as the universal man (as Christ would become), thus, his "sin" is our sin, as our fallen nature shows. Guilt does bring about a different mindset, you are correct. However, one can find both concepts in the Fathers before St. Augustine. Again, it is two ways of approaching the same problem, man's fallen nature.
We have not broken the law by inheritiy mortality from our ancestral parents, so there is no guilt and if there is no guilt there is no need to "pay back" anything.
Retribution, redemption, atonement, payback. All are part and parcel of the Christian view of Christ's work on the Cross. It certainly is not the only view, which is why I continue to see a reconciliation between our positions on this subject. I see us looking at the issue from two different views.
Sin is willful disobedience to God. Obviosuly, infants do not sin. So, there is nothing to "wash off."
Sin is the absence of God's presence, something against His will. Scriptures tell us that one might sin and not know about it! I think this is more an OT concept, but Paul talks about it, as well. An infant requires baptism not because of personal sin, because there is a lack of God's presence, the inherited nature of humanity, the damaged goods, so to speak. Because of the fall, we are no longer "children of God". When the early Church talks about baptism for the remission of sin for children, I think they sense that the infant has not committed personal sin, but still conducted the ritual as they sensed somthing amiss in man's fallen state (even an infant) that required it.
Regards
God CREATED us. He understands our problems. I can't believe you actually think that dead people with experience are better qualified to respond to certain of our problems than Christ Himself. What does Christ have to do to earn any street cred with you? Trust me, He gets it. He gets ALL of it.
The Saints and Mary are His greatest material means for us to discover Him and to follow Him.
I just hope the Bible makes your top ten list of ways to know God. Just tell me it's in there somewhere.
Ignoring the saints is like ignoring a life preserver while adrift in the ocean because you prefer to wait for a boat.
It never ceases to amaze me at how much help you think God needs. God can't interpret His own scripture, He can't handle saving us by Himself, He's too busy to forgive all the sins, and now this. I believe in a MUCH more powerful God:
Rev. 22:13 : I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (KJV)
Kosta's answer basically covers it. An essence is not a source. The source and point of unity in the Trinity is a Person -- the Father, not an impersonal and abstract "essence" or "God in general." The Father, Son, and Spirit are of one essence, and that one essence is uniquely enhypostasized in its entirety in each of the persons -- it is not divided up between the persons.
I think that Romanides' reference is that Leo consented to the Franks' desire to sing the Creed in the Liturgy *at all.*
The addition of saying or singing the Creed during the Divine Liturgy is a relatively late addition. Its ancient use was in baptismal services.
At least that is how I read Romanides -- Leo gave permission to sing the Creed in the Liturgy, but insisted that it be in its original form. I may be wrong, but I can't make it make sense otherwise.
I don't have the sources ready to hand, and am in a hurry during a break, but I'm pretty sure that the exchange between the Lutherans and the Orthodox happened after Luther's death.
The Reformation had by that point started to harden in its positions, and was really not in a position to be influenced by the Orthodox. The motivation seems rather to have been that the Tubingen theologians thought that they were going to enlighten the East. Ex Occidenti Lux.
Here you go, twisting Scriptures again...Let's see what you have done with our wonderful book now.
"...for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Rom 11:29
Which is speaking about the Jewish nation, Israel! Not you or the individual. Consider actually READING the Scriptures, FK. ALL of them...
"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:22-24
Only a few verses before your supposed "coup de grace", we read that "you shall be cut off"! OH NO! And note, those removed CAN BE GRAFTED BACK INTO the olive tree! If this doesn't shoot down "once saved - always saved" in your mind, I don't know what more to tell you. Some people's minds will be closed to the Truth. The supposed learned men of Scriptures, the Pharisees, closed their minds, too.
You say James is right and Paul is wrong
I don't really see this conversation going anywhere positive. You attribute things to me that I have NEVER said. I have shown quite amply that your version of Scripture interpretation is based on snippets that takes verses entirely out of context and ignores other verses. No matter what I point out, you'll either ignore it or refuse the obvious.
It's one thing to disagree on interpretation, but when the Bible stares you in the face with actual words that prove you are wrong, and you ignore them, what's the point of discussing this further?
Regards
"Certain lewd fellows of the baser sort"
That is one of my favorite phrases in the KJV. I just love it -- nothing else quite has the flair and punch to it. It's right up there with "...the bewitching of naughtiness and the wandering of concupiscence..."
Leaving aside the Byzantine text-type and all that, it would be hard for me to give up the KJV just for the language alone...
This was but one. :O)
If I recall Calvin mentions in his writings the great love and care God has for art. For example, He commanded that representations of cherubs grace the ark and bulls support the molten sea. And how He specifically gave instructions in the weaving of the fabrics and the care of construction. I agree with Calvin.
But, like Calvin, I think there is dangers in picture representation and statues of God, our Lord, and saints. Could anyone out on this board really believe that John (the last Apostle) on the island of Pathmos would have a statue made of Mary or of Christ and venerate before it? I think the whole concept of icons is nonsense at best and pagan at worse.
In other words, fluffy, fat cherubs are in. Pictures of Christ on the cross out. However, I must say that I doubt if the mighty warrior angels of God would appreciate some of our depictions of them.
Thank you for the both of your explanations. I didn't mean to infer that an essence was a source! Again, we are probably speaking apples and oranges. As you both have said in the past, we cannot comprehend the Divine Essence, so what occurs "within" the Godhead is really speculation. I am quite aware that the essence of God is not divided between His persons!
Regards
Yes, yes. That's the reason alright. My "great learning" has driven me mad. ;O)
It couldn't be any worst than the "enlighten" writings of "great" Renaissance Catholics like Sir Thomas More who would have like to created a few rulers over the masses. He called it Utopia. I'd call it communism.
You responded : "When we believe.
John said that John (the Baptist) baptized with water, but Jesus' baptism ... was of the Spirit.
No doubt. John's baptism was a ritual. It is Baptism backed up by Christ's Spirit that saves, though, not only belief!
"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:1-6
The immediate section before, Luke again distinguishes between the baptism of John and the Baptism of the Spirit with regards to Apollos. From above, it should be clear that the Spirit does NOT come upon men "merely" at the point of belief.
The Scriptures is rife with verses that talk about the salvific action of the ritual of Baptism conducted so as the Spirit comes upon men. Faith doesn't bring the Spirit to men. God sends the Spirit when the Church executes Christ's command to baptize in the name of the Trinity.
By the way, nice to hear from you again.
Regards
Looking up papal documents is usually not the proper methodology, because they tend to lag behind actual practice. Pope Clement VI's Unigenitus Dei Filius (confusingly, there is a later bull by the same name from Clement XI) does not seem to be online. But Newman is not alone to link the Treasure of Merits with the beliefs of the early Church. See, for example, this discourse, which cites Unigenitus:
The Church is holy to such a degree that the penitential works of the just, the saints, the martyrs— their tribulations, their merits—often go beyond the strict debt they owe due to their sins. Even more, the merits of Christ, and especially His Passion, have exceeded the punishment that sinners have justly incurred; in fact they have infinitely exceeded them. All this constitutes a treasury.1 So we can say that the Church's treasury consists of the merits of Our Lord and the Virgin Mary, together with those merits of the works of satisfaction — performed by the just — that have exceeded their debt.
(Indulgences in the Life of the Church)Now, Our Lord and the faithful form one single mystical Body: Christ “is the head of His body, the Church.”2 “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”3 The consequence of this profound union between the Church's head and members is that the merits of works of satisfaction can be pooled. Our Lord, the Virgin Mary, and the just have performed satisfaction for the whole Church: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.”4 The merits of these works of satisfaction, which constitute a treasury, can be distributed. And by whom? By him who holds the keys of the Church, i.e., the Sovereign Pontiff. In this connection let us turn to what Pope Clement VI wrote in his Jubilee Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius of January 27, 1343; it sums up all we have just said:
The only-begotten Son of God... “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and satisfaction, and redemption” (I Cor. 1:30) “neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered into the holy of holies...obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9: 12), redeemed us “not with corruptible things as gold or silver...but with (His own) precious blood, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled” (I Peter l:18ff.). On the altar of the Cross, He the innocent Victim, shed not just one drop of His blood—which on account of the union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of the entire human race—but poured it out in abundance so that “from the sole of the foot to the top of the head there was no soundness” (Is. 1:6) found in Him. Now if this so merciful shedding of blood were not to be useless, pointless, and superfluous, how great a treasure it won for the Church militant. The good Father wanted to make his son rich, so that thus there should be “an infinite treasure to men, which they that use, become the friends of God” (Wis. 7:14).
Which treasure... He put at the disposal of blessed Peter, the Keybearer,5 and his successors, His own vicars on earth, to be salutarily distributed among the faithful, for pious and reasonable causes, for the remission, sometimes total, sometimes partial, of the temporal punishment due to sins, to be mercifully applied generally or specially, as it seems good before God, to those who truly repent and confess.
[...]
1. It is sometimes said that the doctrine of the treasury was invented in the 13th century. It may be true that the word “treasury” was introduced at this period, but the doctrine was there in substance from the very beginnings of the Church. On this issue see Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 1922, p.306. It should also be pointed out that the Church's magisterium defended the notion of the treasury in its condemnation of Luther (DS 1448) and the Jansenists (DS 1026).
2. Col. 1:18.
3. Rom. 12:4-5.
4. Col. 1:24.
5. The power to bind, given to Peter and the Apostles (Mt. 16:18 and 18: 18), concerns everything that prevents men from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. If the Church has the power to remit eternal punishment, she also has the power to remit temporal debt, according to the adage: the one who can do the greater, can also do the lesser. In granting an indulgence the Church is using the power of the keys to free the sinner from the obligation of undergoing a temporal punishment; she does this by paying from her treasury a satisfaction of an equivalent value. In such a case the Church is using her discretionary power of jurisdiction: the use of the key of jurisdiction is left to the Church's discretion.
Footnote 1 contains a reference to that very issue.
I posted a couple of articles on the Treasure of Merits on FR:
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.