Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
It’s not a cop-out if it is the truth, is it? I actually feel very comforted knowing that God is in control.
If that were the case, then the Apostolic teaching of the Scriptures are wrong when teaching there are those whom God has blinded to the Truth of the Gospel.
Romans 11:
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:
God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 Corinthians 4
1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently God has exercises His Free Will to blind those whom He wills, as opposed to your own concept.
***Do you know what hell is? Do you know what love is? Can you describe, paint, define either?***
Marriage?
Sorry, couldn’t help myself :>)
“I actually feel very comforted knowing that God is in control.”
I don’t doubt that at all, IT.
Yup, they really do worship a monster whose wrath is slacked only with innocent blood, preferably the blood of its only son. Κυριε Ελεισον!
It is truly sad to see that you reject the Apostolic teaching of Scripture.
What do you think all that talk by Jesus and the Apostles of the Blood of Christ being a "protitiation" and covering of sins is all about? The Old and New Testament are repleat with them.
Matthew 26:27-28
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ÃÂDrink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[a] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
That was not some nice, new little ritual to keep people busy on Sunday. It has real meaning, within the context of the passages already cited on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement and the following:
Hebrews 9
1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, AaronÃÂs rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the peopleÃÂs sins committed in ignorance; 8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscienceÃÂ 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, ÃÂThis is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.ÃÂ[b] 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of anotherÃÂ 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I highly recommend that you study that deeply, for it says exactly what I said you find so offensive.
I am saddened that you have such a low regard for the Precious Blood of Christ.
It's not only the RCC that claims to be the one and only true church, but the eastern orthodox, do as well.
Did I mention the Mormons do too?
Allows, yes; yet He is not the source of it. It is foreknown (He knows our end as well as beginning all at once) but not preordained. Because of His foreknowledge (He knows what choices we will make) everything works to His purpose. But He is not the source or cause of it.
The filioque proves it.
Oh, Id just love to hear your thoughts on this one! How about it, give us the Protestant read on the filioque innovation, especially its Patristic pedigree.
I'd already done that much earlier.
The Apostolic teaching of Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father AND the Son.
John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper(Paraclete), that He may abide with you forever
John 14:26
But the Helper(Paraclete), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
John 15:26
But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
As I have stated earlier as well, Rome was clearly in violation of the canons of the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon that prohibited the alteration of the Nicene Creed when unilaterally inserting the filioque clause, and thus came under anathema as per those canons from Nicea and Chalcedon.
Excerpt; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine in Ps. 37 n. 3, speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P. L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”. How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops “to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification’, and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion” (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”).
In the end, I would not expect God to accept anything unclean into heaven. It is just another way for God to allow for us on earth to pray for our departed,and for our departed to repay the debt of sin to enter into heaven clean.
You do pray for the departed? Yes/No?
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
The Orthodox do nto reject the state of eternal disocmfort experienced in the state of eternal separation from God. And I would agree that no words can convey the ogrror of that state of separation.
But, as Orthodox Christians we concentrate on God's salvific message because it applies to those who are in His Church. We can only pray that those who are not in His Church would come to Christ before it's too late.
But we Orthodox do not reject Apostolic teaching. We have preserved it inviolate for 2000 years. I'm trust you will forgive me if I find your notions "innovative".
"What do you think all that talk by Jesus and the Apostles of the Blood of Christ being a "protitiation" and covering of sins is all about? The Old and New Testament are repleat with them."
That's easy. Read this; it will tell you what Orthodoxy believes about atonement:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-easter.html
Look at this and you will see what Orthodoxy believes about atonement:
"I am saddened that you have such a low regard for the Precious Blood of Christ."
Well, I'm saddened that you are saddened, MLG. Truth be told, I receive that Precious Blood on every occasion when I am properly prepared. Tell me something, does the blood lust of the "god" you worship translate in any way into the astonishingly bloody history of Western Christianity? It would seem that that bloody sacrifice has made much of a dent in the West. Like other places infested with heresy, evil seems on the ascendant.
And, as Marting Luther said of the devil, "Satan is God's Satan", meaning that Satan does nothing and can do nothing without God's prior approval, lest God be unaware of Satan's activities and Satan is of an equal force as God is, in which that puts someone in the corner of the Docetists and Gnostics.
Therein lies the peril of relying more on "tradition" than the Scriptures, when that "tradition" is contradictory to the Scriptures.
Yes or no?
Please answer the question.
Bless you! Another excellent post!
Therefore, God sees something in man that causes God to choose man, being his choice made from his own goodness.
That is a contruct that is totally contradictory to the Apostolic teachings of Scripture.
"There is none good, no not one."
Jesus replied to the rich young man who asked Him, "Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life", by asking him, "Why do you call Me good? There is but One who is good, that is God."
That construct of God looking down the tube of time to see that a man uses his own goodness to choose God, is contradictory to what "foreknowledge" actually means, being a fore-LOVE, for God has Loved the Elect before the foundations of the cosmos, and makes salvation the result of a human act, choosing God, and not a Divine Act of God exercising His Free Will.
Why did you ask if not to provoke?
Why do you think Jesus Himself taught so much on hell?
Yes or no?
Please answer the question.
Tell you what. I'll make a deal with you.
Many days ago, I presented YOU with several dogmas of the RCC, and asked YOU to produce dogmatic Patristic teachings on them from the first 4 centuries of the Church, which YOU have not answered, YET.
You answer those and I will answer yours, but I will NOT, I repeat, will not respond to your feeble attempts at badgering.
Do you understand?
Good.
“You do pray for the departed? Yes/No?”
Everyday, StFA, everyday!
By the way, anything from the Pseudo Council of Florence will get you exactly nowhere with us Orthodox. The falsity of that ouncil and its “dogmas” were proven, for us, by the immediate rejection of them by the people of God.
“In the end, I would not expect God to accept anything unclean into heaven.”
We don’t see things that way at all, StFA, starting with “unclean” right through “into heaven”.
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.