Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“So, then why didn’t the Church add the writings of +Symneon the New Theologian and others to the canon of scripture?”
Because they weren’t writing scripture, they were writing “commentaries” and “instruction manuals”, though I suppose the same could be said for +Paul.
I honestly believe that The Church is quite clear that both scripture and the writings of the Fathers, to the extent they are in the consensus patrum, are inspired by God. What makes NT scripture “scripture” is likely the Apostolic quality, though that raises questions then of why +Paul and not +Ignatius of Antioch or +Clement of Rome, both of whose letters were read for at least a couple of centuries during the Liturgy (the Shepherd too for that matter). Perhaps the distinction is that the canon of the NT and that of the OT read in light of the NT provides literally everything we need for theosis, with the writings of the others, however inspired, merely providing a gloss.
I do know that the Greek Church is very cautious of anything that smacks of a Mohammedan attitude towards the Bible, Bibliolatry, so to speak. The canons of both the NT and the OT are creations of The Church. I don’t think that can be repeated too much, especially nowadays.
“But man, unlike animals, is unique and depraved; and it all stems from Adam.”
I take it you doubt that animal nature might have been twisted by man’s sin?
Hmmmm...that's a good question that, quite frankly, I've never thought about. Are animals' nature twisted because of their surroundings, are their nature twisted because of the will of God (such as the "fear of man" falling on them after Noah), is it a combination, or none? I'm not sure.
The Christian position has been that everything is tainted but what does that mean for animals? In the OT if an animal such as an ox, had a history of gorging a person, it was considered sin on the animal and the ox was to be put to death. But I'm not sure that isn't too literal of an interpretation. All I can say, without more research, is that animals are not quite what they use to be and should be.
BTW, I see you are relatively new to FR and you are a welcome addition. Your postings are excellent.
:::MB: So Raphael catches prayers directly to God in some sort of heavenly bucket and then presents them to God? I thought that Jesus was the only intermediary in Reformed doctrine. This gets better and better.
MLG: You are confusing the role Christ stands in as the Intermediary as a defense attorney for the Redeemed, with those who offer intercessory prayer, and then twist the meanings for license to practice necromancy and the invoking of angels, both of which are forbidden by God.:::
Pray then speak of the heavenly prayer buckets toted about by the angels, if you would. I think that the self-identified Reformed Redeemed are going to need a very good defense attorney; I suspect that that indwelling heartburn will turn out to be just that.
Catholics do not practice necromancy any more than they practice cannibalism. There is really little excuse, with the immense archives and websites available for all, even the Paulines, to really dig in and truly understand Catholicism. ‘Tis a pity that your frantic hyperbole is the stereotypical sound and fury...
I wish you a blessed evening!
I have no idea why I doubt your sincerity. (Continued sarcasm).
My ignorance is daily shrinking due to the most excellent postings of the frantic, tempered with most excellent prose of the WCF, the Catechisms, and Saint Calvin himself (PBUH).
You have amassed a truly incredible theology, evolving quite nicely in many different directions, as the splinters of the splinters of the splinters keep splintering. I truly wish you well. Ignorance can be remedied, but schizophrenia can only be treated.
Sorry, my education includes English, Scripture, and logic. I must be missing something. Would you be so kind as to reword the reply so it becomes legible to the unReformed?
I’m not sure that I have had the pleasure of the acquaintance of pope Mike. Is he of the Calvinist persuasion?
I most certainly would include Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, probably more as developers of ancient heresies, and somewhat less as inventors of new ones.
But let us go back to the first millennium:
Simon Magus (the development of “Christian” Gnosticism)
Manichaeus (Manichaenism ensnared Saint Augustine for 9 years)
Ammonius Saccas (neo Platonism)
Montanus
Paul of Samosata (Monarchianism)
Sabellius (Modal Monarchianism)
Arius
Nestorius
Elipandus of Toledo (Adoptionism)
to name a few.
Augustine timeline:
Born 354
Extensive religious schooling in Tagaste and Madaura
Carthage 370
Became Manichaean 373
To Italy to study neo Platonism, came under tutelage of Ambrose 383
Epiphany 386
Baptized 387
Ordained 391
Sole Bishop of Hippo 396
Died 430
We cannot have everlasting life without God’s grace. It is just possible to spurn that grace, though. God chose all men; not all men choose God.
Wasn't Origen considered an early Father? Yet, he was excommunicated. In addition, many of the original Reformers, now considered heretics, were humanly inspired by Augustine. All I was saying is that there were lots of Fathers who went off the reservation, as compared to the majority, on at least one issue or other. I'm asserting that the reason for that must have been the accusation of private interpretation.
Pretty sure that was a local excommunication. You have me intrigued, I haven't spent that much time investigating all of the Fathers of the Church, there are quite a few. I'm not prepared to say that "lots" of the Church Fathers "went off the reservation" but will try to do more reading concerning the issue. Thanks.
Catholic Apologists and Protestant Apologists/Antagonists each cherrypick the writings of the Early Church Fathers when it suits their purposes.
Suffice to say that many of the Early Church Fathers might well have reached a toasty end for their "heretical" teachings.
So let me get this straight. When the Church uses a term in English, and I quote from the dictionary, that's a straw man. I will keep that in mind. :)
FK: "So, if no one had prayed, might they have survived?"
No, but this proves my point that Calvinists see prayer as an obligation which has no effect on anything.
Then you don't read all of my posts to you. It has a direct affect on the one praying. I answered this in detail directly to you in 9,954.
[About the miners:] They prayed for life and they received death. And your own quote from Phil 4:19 says "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" suggests that they did not know their needs.
From this we can draw two possibilities: (1) the verse is not true but misinterpreted or (2) those who truly believe will not pray because we (robots) don't know what our needs are. Number 1 is very likely. Number 2 is Calvinism 101.
For someone who doesn't declare Bible verses "wrong" you are fooling a lot of us. :) The first option is out the window because the Bible is true. The second is out the window because whether we know our needs is irrelevant to whether we should or will pray.
The correct answer is that of course none of us knows all of our specific needs at any given time. For all Christians, at some point it becomes our need to be with the Lord. Who among us can know exactly when that is? We can't. God does (since He determines our needs) and He brings all of us home at that time. Needs are both physical AND spiritual.
If this life is so short of "glorious riches in Christ Jesus" then why are all Calvinists still around on this filthy earth, and why are they not hastening their departure? (David Koresh and Tom Jones alert!)
Suicide is not a rational option for Calvinists because He forbids it. We know that God will bring us home when He decides it is time. While on earth, one of the primary needs of the Christian is to serve Christ. When that service is complete, our need is to be with our loving God, so He brings us home.
***Suicide is not a rational option for Calvinists because He forbids it. We know that God will bring us home when He decides it is time. While on earth, one of the primary needs of the Christian is to serve Christ. When that service is complete, our need is to be with our loving God, so He brings us home.***
Philippians 1 says to live is Christ and to die is gain. Paul answered his own question and desire here. His desire was to be with God, but God’s need was for him to be here.
:>)
I wish they would keep practicing until the Mariners win it all!
“Hmmmm...that’s a good question that, quite frankly, I’ve never thought about.”
Its worth thinking about in terms of a creation perfect by “nature” having become distorted after the Fall by man’s sinfulness. What does this say about the purpose and meaning of the Incarnation and “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”?
All creation is to be perfected as it was created in perfection. Like with so much of what we as Christians believe, it gets back to man’s sinfulness, man’s failure to “hit the mark” and fulfill his created purpose which is to be like God.
***I most certainly would include Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, probably more as developers of ancient heresies, and somewhat less as inventors of new ones.***
You would, but I don’t. Everything the believed they backed up with scripture. I cannot say the same with the Catholic Church.
What do you do when the Catholic Church and the Bible do not agree? WHat do you do when Tradition and the Bible do not agree?
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.