Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Quite a number of Heavenly visitations have related that . . .
folks they knew who’d graduated from this life all looked to be a youthful 30 years old.
That children for some reason were schooled in Heavenly schools and grew at whatever rate to again . . . look like a youthful 30 eyars old . . . forever.
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on their souls and accept them in your Kingdom."
The actual parastos/panekhida, memorial service is quite beautiful as we go through series of God praising prayers of gratitude to the merciful God and ends with us committing their souls to memory eternal.
We also pray for our departed during Divine Liturgy.
The priest recites (I am omitting people's responses) "That the Lord God will establish his (or her or their) soul(s) where the just repose. "
"The mercies of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the remission of his (or her or their) sins, we ask of Christ, our King Immortal and our God"
"O God of spirits, and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death by death, and overthrown the Devil, and hast bestowed life upon Thy world: do Thou Thyself, O Lord, grant rest to the soul(s) of Thy departed servant(s), (name-s of the deceased), in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow and sighing have fled away."
"As the gracious God, Who lovest mankind, pardon every transgression which he (or she or they) has (or have) committed, whether by word, or deed, or thought. For Thou alone art without sin, and Thy righteousness is to all eternity, and Thy word is truth."
"For Thou art the Resurrection, and the Life, and the Repose of Thy departed servant(s) (name-s of the deceased). O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe gory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine All-Holy, and Good and Life-Giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages."
No magic, FK. Just throwing ourselves at His feet.
It doesn't appear that Paul believes there is an intermediate state of any kind. He seems to think that once we physically die, the elect go straight into the presence of our Lord/I>
I would expect +Paul to think that body was filth. That's the Gnostic in him. Yet, the body is just inanimate clay; nothing God didn't make. It is our soul that sins.
If it would preferable to be away from the body then why give us new bodies? We were not meant to be angels who are punished by being imprisoned in a body (although Gnostics did believe exactly that!).
God created us body and soul, together. The soul by itself is in in unnatural state without a body. But, of course, the pagans and Gnostics (and apparently some Protestants) believe that the soul pre-exists the body, in which case – who needs the body, right?
Will we all look like 18-year-olds?
Where does it say that in the Bible? I have heard that said by many people, but I can't figure out whence that came.
Plus, what sort of bodies do abortion victims get?
Such speculations are absurd and pointless, FK. We simply don't know.
I'll take it anytime it can happen. :)
Even a thought can be a sin. So, it is really difficult to imagine that Mary, from her earliest days as a young girl, old enough to know right from wrong, never even thought something, even for a fleeting moment, that would qualify as sin.
Exactly right. That is, as long as she really WAS human, and I know we agree that she was.
But the Apostolic Catholic and Orthodox Church simply says that she is purer than angels, that she never sinned. I think it is an assertion based on the fact that anything that was not pure in its totality could not be a suitable vessel.
That's what it sounds like, but I don't understand it. :) Christ allowed Himself to suffer the worst humiliations in all of history. Yet, somehow the Church has determined that the idea of Jesus being born through a normal faithful woman, who made mistakes like the rest of us, was so much WORSE than anything He ever suffered, that it was impossible.
I believe the Protestants have no problem with Mary except with what they perceive as "idolatry." I assure you, it's not idolatry. I don't understand what is it about Mary that drives Protestants crazy.
I think it has to be the appearances. The Bible gives us examples of REAL idolatry, and then we compare that against what we perceive, and see problems. Even with "Mary save us!", imagine if you were a Protestant who didn't know much about Orthodoxy. What would be reasonable to think? Then in Catholicism, we have people bowing down to statutes and the like, (on TV), JUST LIKE what is described as by actual idolaters in the Bible. In our own culture we often say "perception is everything". :)
But our "profession of faith" isn't the combination to some lock that we've now been given. We profess our faith because God tells us to do so, and we're able to do this when He gives us the understanding that Christ died on our behalf. But our membership in the covenant family doesn't depend on our acknowledgment, but on God's adoption.
I know I linked you to one of Dr. MaMahon's articles from his website, A Puritan's Mind. He was raised and ordained a Baptist and then became a Presbyterian pastor. I think his explanation of his journey is really very good. Here are a few of his essays...
I'm going to spend some time reading these by McMahon and also this oldie but goodie by B.B. Warfield...
And then there's always Calvin for brevity and specificity...
"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.""Let Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the promise, - I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God did not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the symbol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed children of Adam whom the Lord has not yet called to the fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb, or the only defense that can avail him is, that the grace which was offered in the person of their parents is common to them. Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated by baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God rank them among the members of his Son."
...[re the events of/following Acts 2:38-39] The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.
LOL. I have plenty of ground for believing X over ~X.
I know whom I have believed.
LOL. Me, either. Let's not start now. 8~)
KOSTA: Thus all the souls of the departed are in discomfort because they are in an unnatural state.
Huh? Departed souls are either in heaven or hell. Neither group has any need of our earthly supplications. The ones in hell are beyond redemption while the ones in heaven are happily preoccupied with glorifying God and enjoying Him forever.
Do you actually believe those in heaven are in discomfort, Kosta?
Amen, Alex. That sounds so clear and simple. Thanks for the link.
Just two weeks ago, my nephew was born. Now, tell me what ground I have for believing that he is elect and not reprobate?
-A8
Heaven is not our "new home." Our new home is new Earth. Our created nature is that of a body endowed with a soul. Our place in God's creation on earth, not in heaven.
Until we are reunited with our bodies, we will not be in our created natural state. Those who depart do so in various degrees of sin and unrepetance. Surely you don't suggest that sinful souls are in heaven? And, no, the sin you willingly commit are not forgiven unless you repent. Are you saying you repent of all your sins? or do you think you have card blanche to sin all you want (pecca fortiter...)? if so, may God help you!
Our final destiny is not realized until the Final Judgment. We are judged immediately after death (particular judgment), at which point the soul knows that it will either be glorified or condemned, but the disposition of our souls and bodies is not accomplished until after the Final Judgment. The souls of the departed lay in waiting in a state that is unnatural, separate from the body and the earth. the discomfort comes from unrepented desires which we may still have but cannot realize, and neither can we repent after death.
So is heaven "prison" or do people in hell have a second chance? (1 Pet 3:18-20; Eph 4:9)
-A8
Yes, very well said.
Kosta, you have said before that you believe that Paul helped to save Christianity because he developed a broader marketing strategy to include the Gentiles (my paraphrase). If you believe that, and if you believe that Christ was only talking to the Apostles (in meaning) at the great commission, then isn't that an indictment of God's own marketing strategy? If the Apostles understood that they and only they could minister the gospel of Christ to others, then you would have to think that Paul corrected God's error. IOW, you would be saying that God Himself restricted distribution of the faith, since us laymen are unfit to tell the Good News. Then, the faith waned. Finally, Paul stepped in and increased distribution.
It has always fascinated me that on the one hand Apostolics believe that only the clergy are authorized to spread the word, thus highly reducing the spread of Christianity, yet OTOH, you also believe that God loves all people and wants all to come to Him. God would appear to be working against interest in the accomplishment of His own goal. :)
Quite so . . . but why do the Calvinists et al seem to so wholesale
deny
the POWER part of that Scripture?
Even seemingly most Pentecostals are weak to non-involved in that flavor of Christian intensity and spiritual anointing.
Well, if we put all this together now, it appears you are saying that when Christ healed others, it was due to the Father's response to prayers from Christ's human nature. HOWEVER, when Christ arose, it was due to Christ's divine nature, somehow apart from the Father. That seems a little selective to me. :) Why is it wrong to say that the Godhead was responsible for the resurrection, or that the Godhead was involved with all the healings?
The Resurrection was in response to prayer of His human nature, FK; it was not an act of humility, or obedience, which was so essential in His earthly ministry. It was an act of His divine power.
He never doubted His Resurrection. There was no need to pray for that.
The Fathers who formulated the Creed were careful to stress that He rose and not to repeat +Paul's misleading words that He was raised.
If His healing were divine interventions of His own, then what would be the purpose of His human nature and ministry, FK? To show us that God can do anything? He didn't come to teach us that in order to believe we must see.
No, He came to enable His Apostles to walk in His steps, in perfect humility and obedience, so that even they can, by imitating Jesus, come to the Father. How did the Apostles heal if not through the purity of their prayers? Hocuspocus?
How could BEV Mary conceive if not through the purity of her complete submission to the will of God, not because she was forced, but of her own free will and free of any doubt, ego or pride?
The Resurrection was in response to prayer of His human nature should read: The Resurrection was not in response to prayer of His human nature
Cutting and pasting, what can I say...not enough coffee... :)
I don't know of any two Bible-believing Protestants who fundamentally disagree on salvation such as you suggest. On his own, Paul is very clear. He only becomes muddled when his writings must be reconciled with the semi-contradictory holdings of the Apostolic Church.
[On 1 Cor. 3:17] Again, I ask you WHERE in Scriptures does it state that a "destroyed" person enters heaven? That is a fantastical claim if I ever heard one. Moot point??? If you are spiritually dead or destroyed, you think you will enter heaven???
First, we must note our difference on how "temple" is used in this passage. The Bible does use it differently. In some cases it refers to a building, in others it refers to the physical body of a single believer. Here, you appear to take it as the spiritual being of a single believer, and I take it to mean the body of believers in a local church. I can see how it's possible to take verse 16 in the singular and I hope you see how it's possible to take it in the plural.
Of course a spiritually dead person does not enter Heaven, but I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. :) On the one hand, you equate "destroy" with death, but OTOH, you must say that "death" is only temporary since one sin may be fixed by absolution from the Church AND that God destroys and then undestroys many times throughout our lives. Christ rose once to conquer death once.
I disagree with Barnes in his explanation, as his attempt to call this verse an "adage" is wishful thinking. Where is his basis for this idea? I think it is an attempt to explain the verse away.
He said adage or proverb. I'm not sure why he said that, but it could be because if it meant what you say it means, then the rest of Paul would not make any sense, since Paul preaches Sola Fide, with assurance. I think he is correctly recognizing an overall theme and then realizing that Paul cannot contradict himself. All sides do this I think.
Paul is attacking Christians in Corith, people who had previously been baptized and "saved", who were causing dissent among the community.
Right, and Barnes is saying that if one tends to hurt a church, then God will punish him. Plus, Paul knew full well that not everyone who walks into a worship service is necessarily saved. Why else would he preach faith to supposedly saved people so often? Paul also knew that baptism didn't save, since many who are baptized are never of the faith. It is EXACTLY the same today.
James 2 denies we are saved by faith alone. The bible NEVER explicitly states we are saved by faith alone. Paul himself says that faith without love is worthless. Where do you come up with this? And how does Sola Fide threaten what Christ established before Paul came on the scene?
James recognizes that many CLAIM faith without really having it at all. This is like the "Lord, Lord" bunch. Apparently, the "Lord, Lord" bunch gave appearances of faith, but never had it. James is saying that we can certainly spot those who don't do any works as also having no faith. He gives us an easy, and valuable, self test.
None of the stuff you mention are devotions, they are intellectual recognitions of what Mary did. This is not honoring Mary in any way. You recognize that the Great Wall of China exists. Big deal. The Bible says ALL generations will honor Mary. Thankfully, the Catholics and the Orthodox are around to do God's Will, as you are not...
So the only way to honor someone is to have devotion to him or her? I've never heard of that before. In that case I would suppose that you do NOT honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, or Paul, or a host of other Bible greats. In fact, the only ones you DO honor would be those you are devoted to, when you should be devoted to God instead. By your definition, who else in the Bible DO you honor?
With all due respect to Lewis, he is wrong on this point, influenced by Platonism. That view is called 'angelism', and it treats the human person as equivalent to angels. In fact, we are essentially soul-body composites. My body is not something I have, like my car. My body is part of me. To touch my body is to touch me (not all of me, of course, but nevertheless me).
I have to admit I don't know the context of his statement and only know it as a stand-alone. And as a stand-alone, it has always meant to me that the body is mortal, but the human spirit is immortal. Consequently, we should always be focused on our spiritual well-being, more so than our physical well-being.
I'm sorry you have such a fixation on geography, Kosta.
I have every confidence my dear, departed-too-soon father is in heaven as we speak. When history is over and Christ returns again, my dad will receive his glorified body.
But he will still be present with the Lord, his exceeding joy, still glorifying His name from everlasting to everlasting.
Surely you don't suggest that sinful souls are in heaven? And, no, the sin you willingly commit are not forgiven unless you repent. Are you saying you repent of all your sins? or do you think you have card blanche to sin all you want
This is why I've come to learn that JUSTIFICATION is the most misunderstood, ignored doctrine of our time. At my death, I trust my sins HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, every single one of them, by Jesus Christ upon the cross.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:15-16"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18
I don't know that you do, A8.
I will pray your nephew grows up strong and healthy, that he kneels to none but Christ, and that he "studies to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)
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.