Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Sounds like He already has. ;O)
"But God hates sin."
Does He? Seems an exceedingly mundane emotion to attribute to a completely ineffable and wholly transcendant being, my friend!
"While God is certainly pure love, this means he must necessarily be more than that. For example, God is also pure justice, pure mercy, and even pure wrath."
It never ceases to amaze me how especially Western Protestants have so totally bought into the very Hellenistic Platonism of my ancestors that the Holy Spirit freed us from. This is heresy, FK.
"He gifted certain people to equip the called out ones to fulfill His commandments and He gave the qualifications of those who He had gifted but ultimately He left it up to the individual followers to search the scriptures as illumined by the Holy Spirit to see if what was being taught conformed to the scriptures, not creeds, traditions or the authority of any man."
Where do you Protestants get these ideas? In both the Epistles and Acts we read of the various communities of Christians which were planted around the Eastern Mediterranean. By the end of the first century, letters were passing around those communities, from one bishop to another. Among them were the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the successor but one of +Peter at Antioch and a disciple and friend of the Apostle John, with whom he kept up quite a correspondence. +Ignatius, like his contempory St. Polycarp of Smyrna (another friend and disciple of +John)both taught that The Church was defined as a group of Christians,laity and priests and deacons, headed by a bishop (they actually use that word) in succession from an Apostle who stood in the assembly in "the place of Christ" and who the people are instructed to respect and obey in all things, gathered around the Holy Eucharist. +Ignatius even says that this describes the "Catholic Church".
I suppose one might respond, who is this Ignatius and maybe he was wrong. Well, since he was in close contact with +John, one would think +John would have straightened him out at some point if he was. But he didn't. +Ignatius' definition of The Church is denied everyday by Protestantism, yet it seems likely he knew more about what he was talking about than a group of Germans 1500 years later and their present day Western followers.
You put your faith in the infallibility of the Church. Contrary to what is often purported the Church has historically made some errors. (e.g. Did it ever return the money for the indulgences people erroneously purchased?) How do you know that what is touted as Church doctrine today won't be changed 50 years from now?
We would simply state that although the Church hierarchy is fallible, the word of God is infallible-it never changes. People can misinterpret what is in God's word but it doesn't make it incomplete. It is the same as it has been for thousands of years.
This position is consistent with the early church fathers who themselves determined what was inspired and what wasn't inspired writings. They made a distinction and referred back to scripture-not to other church fathers. Today's Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church makes no distinction between writings.
I would suggest these views of the Church hierarchy being infallible are at odds with what the church fathers original views were.
"You put your faith in the infallibility of the Church."
I can't speak for Dr. E and Gamecock, but I think its safe to say that Kosta and Alex do, as do I.
"Contrary to what is often purported the Church has historically made some errors. (e.g. Did it ever return the money for the indulgences people erroneously purchased?)"
As Kosta pointed out, particular churches within The Church have erred. Even +JPII admitted that. The Church has never erred.
"How do you know that what is touted as Church doctrine today won't be changed 50 years from now?"
Easy, Orthodoxy hasn't changed its doctrine and dogmas since the 7th Ecumenical Council. Without a Great Council of The Church, there will be no change in the future.
"...the word of God is infallible-it never changes." What does "the word of God is infallible" mean?
"This position is consistent with the early church fathers who themselves determined what was inspired and what wasn't inspired writings. They made a distinction and referred back to scripture-not to other church fathers."
The Fathers constantly referred to each others writings, Harley. Where did you get this idea?
"I would suggest these views of the Church hierarchy being infallible are at odds with what the church fathers original views were."
Harley, no one believes the hierarchy are infallible. The Latin Church believes that under certain very narrow circumstances the Pope is infallible. Orthodoxy doesn't accept that at all.
"
Well, if God doesn't hate sin then how does he feel about it? Is He indifferent? Is He mildly opposed to it? Does He like it because through our good deeds we work to overcome sin and seek Him?
It never ceases to amaze me how especially Western Protestants have so totally bought into the very Hellenistic Platonism of my ancestors that the Holy Spirit freed us from. This is heresy, FK.
Heresy? The Bible says that our God is a just God, that He is a God of mercy, that he pours out His wrath on those whom He chooses. I say I believe it all. For that I am a Hellenistic Platonic heretic? I can't wait to tell my wife.
Seems to be a lot of that going around. 8~)
Then He must, "by necessity," be pure evil as well? According to you, He is just pure -- everything, the good and the bad. And according to you, the Almighty God is defined and limited by "necessity." That's not Christianity.
What do you expect on a "Luther" thread? Just the sight of his name in print makes heads explode. :)
Thank you, Harley, for posting this.
The article itself is edifying, but the ensuing debate is equally edifying.
Speaking for the Catholics (my EO brothers can speak for themselves) if you mean that we make no distinction between the writings of the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, you're full of baloney.
Scripture is inspired. Every word of it is God-breathed and -- rightly understood -- says exactly what God wished to be said.
Some Patristic teachings (e.g., the dogmatic canons of ecumenical councils) are infallible, meaning that they are protected from teaching heresy. That is a much weaker claim than inspiration.
Most Patristic writings are neither inspired nor infallible, but they are a valuable window into the mind of the Church in a past age.
Read Dei Verbum sometime, instead of making stuff like this up as you go.
God's attributes are perfect in their balance, since God is perfect. You can't have love without anger, you can't have grace without wrath.
He is the author of all emotion and actions, and only He has that perfect balance, because, well, He's the only one who is perfect.
No, what we call "evil" is not in God's nature so He is not also pure evil. I did not say that God was everything, I said that God is what the Bible says He is. Evil and wrath are not the same thing. When God does wrath he does it for a righteous purpose, making it good. If God did evil himself he would be acting against His own nature, an impossibility.
In fact, it was you who limited God to love. The only way I used "necessity" was to show that God must be greater than your limit.
"Well, if God doesn't hate sin then how does he feel about it? Is He indifferent?"
Well, if you insist on being anthropomorphic about it, yes, He is indifferent.
"The Bible says that our God is a just God, that He is a God of mercy, that he pours out His wrath on those whom He chooses."
God is "just"? By whose standards? You don't know God's standards, none of use do and clearly God is not "just" at all by man's standards. Your definition creates a God to be saved "from" not "by". By the way, the English word "just" found in the bible is a mistranslation of the Greek which is similarly a mistranslation of the OT Hebrew.
"For that I am a Hellenistic Platonic heretic?"
No, because you seem to think that God is some sort of Platonic prime of Love, Hate, Justice, etc.
Yes, I do, because that is the teaching model described in Scripture and clearly in existence in the early church, as attested by the Fathers.
As a Protestant, I rely on Scripture and the preaching of the word of God, and on the inerrant leading of the Holy Spirit to all righteousness.
Yet you call yourself a "Calvinist", clearly aligning yourself with a particular tradition of Scriptural interpretation started by a particular fallible man who was just as much a one-man "church hierarchy" as any Pope, if not moreso.
And, what's even more strange, you seem to think that others should reject the idea that the Holy Spirit leads the Pope, but accept the idea that the Holy Spirit led John Calvin, and leads you today, thus substituting Pope Eckleburg for Pope Benedict.
Count me out.
God feels? Is He subject to pleasure? Is He subject to passions? Is He subject to pride and desires? Does God need, is He deficient, unsatisfied?
I think Kolkotronis was trying to tell you that your idea of a God who is just "like us" except bigger and stronger and immortal, and subject to passions and pleasures just as we are, is not a Christian God, but a Hellenistic pagan god. The pagan Greeks humanized their deities, but in fact deified humaity.
The Bible says that our God is a just God, that He is a God of mercy, that he pours out His wrath on those whom He chooses
And I suppose you think God's justice is driven by the same necessities as human justice? An angry, and offended God, lashing out to satisfy His wounded pride. Is that how you see it?
"While God is certainly pure love, this means he must necessarily be more than that. For example, God is also pure justice, pure mercy, and even pure wrath."
You don't think that's Platonism, Dr. E or do think Platonism is "solid Christian doctrine"?
You could have spoken for us Orthodox just fine on this one, C. :)
>> He doesn't choose<<
Beggin' your pardon, but He does. Israel was chosen over the other nations. Jacob was chosen over his older brother. Joseph was chosen among his brothers. Esther was chosen to be the right person "for a time such as this". The old testament prophets were chosen. The new testament apostles were chosen. David, Saul, Solomon, Paul, Mary, Noah - all were chosen and favored over others. God leaves nothing to any degree of "randomness".
Your verse selection is also take out of context. In this instance, Christ is pointing out that God is just to both the good and the evil, and as such, we are to love our enemies and not persecute them. It is a description of God's supreme authority over everyone.
>>Love loves everyone, even the sinner.<<
There are degrees of "love" that boil down to definitions. You love your wife differently than you love your children, and both differently than your neighbor. Everyone sins, and as such, we have all trespassed His law. His love for us who are in Christ is such that we don't receive the punishment that we're obviously due, because of Christ's attonement for the elect. The unsaved, most assuredly, receive the punishment they are due.
We all sin, but God's love for His people are what make the difference in how our sin is satisfied to Him.
>>if he or she rejects Him and chooses to stay and die in the darkness.<<
We are all born into darkness. Only by the grace of God through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit can we see our sin for the vile thing that it is. A regenerated heart hates sin and rejects it - and pursues righteousness. It's irresistable.
We are all dead in sin, and a dead man cannot "choose" life - it can only be given.
Thanks, T. You guys do a good job of contending for the faith once delivered, though, and I didn't want to discourage any of you from jumping in on the topic. We agree on much, thanks be to God.
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.