Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
That is interesting, thanks. I suppose I still can't wrap my arms around the idea of protecting people from themselves by shielding them from God's "revealed" word. :) John's writings can be loved and appreciated on so many different levels. I will be learning from them for the rest of my life.
I am put in mind of +John Chrysostomos’ Homily XX on Ephesians 22-24.
Thank you so much for the link to this wonderful sermon. (I'm about half-way through so far and look forward to finishing.) I'll tell you, just from the snippet you posted I could only think of one thing. Boy could us SBs have used this sermon a few years ago, when we were called misogynists for issuing a holding at our convention that "wives should submit to their husbands". We were called every name in the book. I took great delight in watching how the real wives in our church were laughing at the press coverage. :)
As much as I would like to answer your long series of questions, I must point out that you have not defined grace vs. blessing wrt the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Until you are able to do that and I can see your real objection, I can’t answer your questions because they are really just a diversion from the issue that you raised.
So what is it in all those verses that teach your view of “blessing” vs. my view of “grace” in the sacraments?
I would never say that. "Thank you. Pray for us..." is more appropriate.
The OT does not distinguish between idoaltrous Jews and idoaltrous non-Jews. All idoaltors (non-believers) are called "Gentiles." The NT is where the word Gentile is exclusively associated with non-Jews.
That still doesn't change the fact that the Ot has nothing but contempt for the idaoltrous non-believer goyim (gentiles).
True.. ICON which means idol.. exposes many many of those you proscribe.. except they be so-called christians..
My understand is that Bob Dylan never became a Christian in his heart. After his 1980's stunt with "born-agains" and writing lyrics such as you posted, he went back to supporting many Jewish religious causes and participating in Jewish religious rituals. Bob Dylan was born Jewish, but apaprently was not very observant most of his life.
I have a feeling that once he ran out of protest material of the late 1960's and early 1970's, he found passionate audiences in the evanglical "born-again" crowds, but his music style didn't change; just the words. If you make your living by selling, you have to do what the customers want.
Some people are simply chamelons. They change, you know like Blowin; in the Wind...
Icon comes from the Greek word εικων (eikon, prn. ey-cohn) means any image. An idol (ειδωλον, eidolon, pron ey-dohlon), means an image of false worship.
except they be so-called christians..
Who are those?
It was not called a sacrament or an ordinance nor were the disciples commanded to routinely celebrate the rite. Paul says it is optional with his “as oft as you eat this bread and drink this cup...”. . Look at the discussion that took place at the Last Supper after the “breaking of bread”. They were laying around drinking and eating and debating what their places of authority were going to be in the promised kingdom. It was an argument over who was going to be sitting next to Jesus in the seats of power in the kingdom that was to come; rank ambition. Jesus does not criticize them but points out they will eat and drink with Him in the Kingdom and be rulers over kingdoms appointed to them. He exposed a traitor who had participated in the brotherhood meal, and He deflated the braggadocio of Peter; all of these things after the “breaking of bread”. There was nothing sacred about the “breaking of bread” and definitely, no grace was bestowed at that time.
Look at how the Corinthian church was celebrating it. It followed the meal like the Last Supper did. It was a part of the fellowship that identified them as a unity in Christ and inheritors of the kingdom that was to come.
Berkhof defines sacrament as “a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, in which by sensible signs the grace of God in Christ, and the benefits of the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to believers, and these, in turn, give expression to their faith and allegiance to God.” Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that in either baptism or communion the “benefits of the covenant of grace are ........, sealed, and applied to believers”. Represented, yes, but not the sealed and applied. Communion was just a variation of a common brotherhood rite with an eschatological component.
I’m not sure about your history lesson, but the “Last Supper” and subsequent Lord’s Supper was the new covenant feast meal to replace the old covenant passover.
The imagery of Christ’s body and blood shed clearly are the antitype to the passover lamb. Christ is the true Lamb of God.
We eat and drink Christ spiritually when we partake of the elements. It is a sacrament of fellowship between Christ and His people (1 Cor. 10:16,17). It is what sets us apart really, spiritually from the world (1 Cor. 10:21).
The early disciples did routinely celebrate the sacrament. It seems a common occurrence with the gathering of believers in the book of Acts. The fellowships mention the “breaking of bread” (communion).
Have been confident your perspective is more Biblical for sometime, Kosta.
The issue is to wake up the minority that is still awash in their . . . confabulations about such.
Not one of His sheep will perish.
“The early disciples did routinely celebrate the sacrament. It seems a common occurrence with the gathering of believers in the book of Acts. The fellowships mention the “breaking of bread” (communion)”.
Then how did the disciples on the road to Emmaus know Jesus by the “breaking of bread” if they were not present at the Last Supper? “Breaking of bread” was the name of the common brotherhood rite of the time. They must have participated in the rite with Jesus before the Last Supper in order to recognize His officiating. Just the actions of the disciples present and the practice of the Corinthian church some 25 years after the Last Supper would say that there was not a “sacrament” and conferred no grace on the participants.
The Last Supper was not the Passover meal but the meal the evening before Passover.
Maybe.
Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
I don't know. Two men and bondage? Doesn't sound like the sort of thread that would suit my tastes.
You Babdisds just don't know how to have fun..... ;-)
About John and holding him back from the neophytes, while I'm with you on keeping the Bible accessible, I've seen enough gnostics take John as justification for their pseudo platonic views to understand (without agreeing with) the impulse to snatch that particular book away from them.
After conversion, Paul always said he was a follower of Christ, what we call today a "Christian". My view is that real NT Christianity is the fulfillment of RIGHTEOUS OT Judaism, as opposed to common OT Judaism at the time. Paul was not practicing righteous OT Judaism just prior to conversion, so I DO think he saw his new faith as a significant change. However, I think he also must have understood the point I'm making here. The new illuminates the old and completes it. ... So, whatever words he used, it is clear that Paul considered himself what we would call a Christian, as opposed to what we would call a Jew.
FK: "The disciples HAD no worries, comparatively, but when Jesus went to Gethsemane, we saw His human nature."
Christ is a perfect fusion but not confusion of two perfect nature's, one divine, the other human. What that means is that their relationship is in perfect harmony. Christ may have felt human needs and desires but He never did anything to counter His divine nature. The two were are in perfect harmony. Otherwise, Christ would not be perfect.
I fully agree and I think you said it very well. :) I still think of the "Nestorian controversy" that was earlier on this thread. So, I thought I would just ask you. How would you describe the workings of the two perfect natures when (a) Jesus supernaturally healed, and (b) he prayed to the Father? I always got in trouble when I tried. :)
So, no, at no time was Christ not aware of His human or divine nature. If by "His human nature" you mean doubt, that would be an indication that He was not perfect and did not believe in Himself, but fell for the temptation of doubt.
I didn't mean "doubt", I meant something that a deity would not say from the core of His essence, unless it was an insincere performance, and I don't think it was. So, how do we describe that? I agree that the two natures are together, and in full harmony, but in the Bible we see Christ doing and saying things that appear incompatible with one or the other of the natures. So, for description, I say things like "here we see His human nature". Then I get in trouble. :)
Where did you get this idea? The Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as the Didache....speak quite specifically of real water, like the stuff we drink.
Obvious even from Augustine's writings baptism wasn't well thought out. For example, Augustine talks about baptizing an unbeliever who laid feverously, near death. He was also unclear as to where unbaptized infant go when they die. (Are you prepare to agree with Augustine they go to hell if they're not baptized?) It is clear that as late as the 4th century, the Church was trying to determine the meaning of baptism. Meanwhile, while all the theologians were contemplating the meaning, all of us Baptists were down by the river dunking those we could get out hands on. ;O)
Probably because he couldn’t read Greek.
Hmmmm....maybe that was to his credit. :O)
My view is that real NT Christianity is the fulfillment of RIGHTEOUS OT Judaism, as opposed to common OT Judaism at the time
The faith God gave mankind is not Judaism, FK. He gave it to the Jews first because they were chosen to do the awesome task of spreading it to the rest of mankind, but not as a nation; rather, through few brave and dedicated individuals.
Christianity represents that true faith, spread to the rest of the mankind and not confined to one nation, or "owned" by one nation. So, we can't call it Judaism. Judaism is what it was not supposed to be.
And it is should not be confused with Judaism. That's why we have no business seeking "concordance" in Judaism. Christianity reveals everything we need to know.
That's why we must read and approach the OT through the lens of the NT and treat it as an overture, heavily tainted with Jewish mindset and a special interest group bias that is evident especially in the Chronicles and the Kings.
It was +Paul who proclaimed for the first time that the followers of Christ, and recepients of God's saving grace are not just the Jews, but the Gentiles as well.
Whether that was something God dictated to him (which I don't believe) or whether it is something +Paul realized in his heart as merciful God's desire (which I do believe) is irrelevant. He unlocked the final mystery of God's revelation that starts with Genesis and ends with the NT. The whole Bible is one giant Gospel (if you filter narrow national taint out of it).
+Paul did nto consider being a follower of Christ as a new religion, so he does not speak as someone who "left" Judaism or ceased being a Jew. He realized that the righteous faith you speak of is not narrow-interest national religion, but that God's love is a supra-national ambrella that has room for the Jew and Gentile alike and that he gives a soul to each and every one of us.
Think about it, if you feel blessed, don't you wish to share your blessings, and pray to God to bless all the people? What is perfect mercy if not soemthing that can be applied to all us, and not only some of us; for we are all sinners in need of mercy. The only way we can be left out of God's loving grace is if we refuse it!
Our Lord Jesus Christ was the High Priest in His human nature. He prayed a lot, as any priest should. The healing is the divine power that comes in response to our prayers. Since His prayers were always true and perfect prayers, they were always fulfilled. Ours are not, because our motivations are not always true or pure, but selfish and ungreatful.
He prayed to the Father because who else can He pray to? Praying to Himself would be vain, and Christ was the epitome of divine humility.
A true priest is someone in whom you see no person, but only Christ's love. His ego is as transparent as glass, and God's love shines as bright as the sun; in most of us, there is a heavy layer of impurity that obscures most if not all of that light.
Although I am sure Christ childhood would be an inteersting topic, we know next to nothing about Christ's childhood years. Anything other than His ministry, His priesthood, would deter and draw attention to Him in His human nature, and away from His divine nature and mission.
in the Bible we see Christ doing and saying things that appear incompatible with one or the other of the natures. So, for description, I say things like "here we see His human nature". Then I get in trouble
You get in trouble only with Kolokotronis. :) But, that's to be expected: he is a moody, xenophobic Greek (which is why he says God gave Greeks Orthodoxy because they needed it more than anyone else; I disagree) :) At least Kolo is trying to help you; he may be moody, but he cares.
We Serbs are not as nice. We would be eating people for breakfast if God didn't have mercy on our wretched bunch and told the Greeks to give us some of that True Faith, because we needed it more than they did! :)
In the Gospels, Christ is God and High Priest. There is nothing incompatible about either. We can speak of His natures only in the abstract, such as Him dying in His human nature (mindbody as the Greeks call it), subject to corruption (desires, passions, doubts) but His human behavior is always in His priestly role (perfect obedience to God, resistance to corruption and passion through prayer, self-denial, and free will).
Hope you won't mind if I add a comment: why not? What harm could come out of it? perhaps the HS would move the unbeliever in the hour of his death to repent and accept God and be forgiven. It was the last spiritual resussitation God offered to him and +Augustine was right in doing what he did.
He was also unclear as to where unbaptized infant go when they die. (Are you prepare to agree with Augustine they go to hell if they're not baptized?)
+Augustine constructed the "original sin" error and passed it on to the entire western Church, from whence sprang many other conceptual errors in escathology and mariology.
Wew Orthodox never had that burden. We never belieevd that merciful God would simply create people to destroy them or to punish innocent children for not being baptized by sending them to hell! They have no deeds to be judged on, so they are innocent. Anything they inherited from our anestral parents' disobedience is mortality, and not their sin.
In the East, Holy Baptism is described as a sacrament of adoption. The Church becomes your spiritual home, where one is helped in his spiritual growth through the (litugical) life of the Church, pastioral care and spiritual (god)parents.
But those of the Protestant/Baptist sola fide persuasion believe that, in order to be saved, one must believe. Thus, unbaptized children, by necessity, must go to hell because they cannot believe.
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.