Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“Abraham’s faith was accorded to him as righteousness. Job was “perfect”. David was a man after God’s own heart, etc. It obviously worked in those cases. In fact, it always worked as God willed.”
No, it didn’t, FK, not until after the Incarnation. Abraham, Job, David, etc. were all captives of Death in the place of the dead; not one of them was “saved” until Christ freed them.
Where were Elijah and Moses?
My sentiment exactly.
“Where were Elijah and Moses?”
Well, Elijah was on the other side of that hill, wasn’t he?!. As for Moses, well that’s a different matter isn’t it? No question he was dead and buried, but we are told he showed up at the Transfiguration. The consensus patrum seems to indicate that neither Elijah nor Moses were there in fact, but rather allegorically, relating to the nature of Christ. I posted some of the relevant writings a few weeks back, perhaps on this thread.
I should add that there is that story in Jude about +Michael the Archangel contesting with the Evil One about the body of Moses, so maybe he was taken out of Hades before the Resurrection.
No. Greek is sufficient unto itself for theological purposes. After all, it was good enough for God! :)
Yeah :). I just couldn't figure out what the objection was.
C'mon, FK, now God,Who is a spirit, has a "face?" Are the Reformers really this literalistic and anthropomorphic and, frankly, childish in their reading of the Bible?
So, I wouldn't get too hung up on the face to face thing
Face to face means face to face, FK. This is not expressed as an allegory. This is where the incomplete revelation comes into play.
I thought we both already knew that can't be right just because of the Transfiguration
Apparitions are not necessarily real images. God could have caused the Apostles to "see" Moses and Elijah when none was there.
Matt 11:25-26 : 25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father , Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
So, the wisest and most learned among us are the ones in the dark? God is "anti-intellectual" I suppose.
***The consensus patrum seems to indicate that neither Elijah nor Moses were there in fact, but rather allegorically, relating to the nature of Christ.***
But what does scripture say?
“But what does scripture say?”
About what? Elijah and Moses? We both know what the English translation of scripture says. I’m off to bed with a book. We’ll have to continue tomorrow evening.
Hope it’s a good book. Good night.:>)
“”In fact, it always worked as God willed.””
Do you believe that God “willed” there to be a devil,demons and all evil?
Take your time to think about this.
I am off on business til sunday, so don’t expect a response from me.
I will pray for you to be honest with yourself!
“”These differences lead to different theology. The word in question is thelema, which is, in its secondary meaning defined as “will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure.” Not here that the term pleasure is equated to will (as in “as I please”) whereas the word pleasure really means a sensation of pleasure which is anthropomorphic term of passion/corruption which the Protestants routinely assign to God because it suggests that God is subject to pleasure. “”
Dear Kosta... Thank you for posting this.
I wish you a Blessed Evening
Forgive me, I can't keep up with all the Protestant beliefs... Unfortunately, I mixed Lutheranism and Calvinism there in my sentence. Disregard the "extrinsic justification" part. However, it is my belief that Calvinism crushes man so that God can 'retain' His sovereignty. Anything credit to man, even under the auspices of grace, is discounted by the 'reformed'.
I would say that we understand primary and secondary causes just fine. We just define and use them differently from you. (You may have seen some of the recent discussion of them in the context of the WCF.) Anyway, in the theater of sin, we say that God ordains it as a primary cause, but man carries it out as the secondary cause. Thus WE say that man gets the blame for it. You, OTOH, apparently say that primary and secondary causes do not apply to sin. But if they did, you would say that God as the primary cause gets all the blame, thus you accuse us of believing that God is the author of sin.
Really? Well, if man is the secondary cause of sin, why is it so difficult to understand that man is the secondary cause of his own salvation? I do not understand your refusal to attribute to man anything of value - although you claim that man is transformed and is a new creation in Christ - and cannot be so of his own effort, but of God.
Now, in the theater of salvation, you give credit for salvation to both God as primary cause and to man as secondary cause (grace + works = salvation). We, OTOH, give all the credit for salvation to God as primary cause. Thus, you say that for us man is "crushed" or "worthless" since we glorify God alone. We will never apologize for giving God all the glory.
IF you understand "primary" and "secondary" causes, then why is God alone glorified when it is God Himself who raises up man and saves Him? Why do you continue to not accept that secondary causes ARE real, and not abstract? Will man be saved if He refuses? Secondary causes are not fictional.
What are you talking about? The Reformers were the ONLY ones who clung to universals and antithesis. The Reformers combated the Renaissance philosophers and later modern philosophers, who were forced to give up their attempt to find a universal to reconcile man and God.
I think you need to consider that the roots of the Reformation PRECEDE the Reformation... Nominalism, that corrupted result of Scholasticism, an empiricism that wounded the mystery of the faith, was the philosophy that Luther and Calvin operated under. Ockham, for example, was Luther's hero.
For example, the Catholics were pushing the idea of an incomplete Fall, thus leaving man with an autonomous intellect.
Whether the Fall was incomplete or not does not take away the necessity of grace entirely dependent upon from God.
A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this.
If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Protestantism is BUILT upon the individualism of relativism. The current Pope has strongly written against relativism. Meanwhile, more and more relativists form more independent communities based upon their OWN opinions. Apparently, Christianity is no longer a revealed religion, in their eyes, but one of relativism.
Please.
Well, I was clearly speaking of spiritual salvation, and the RCC position appears to be that God does not interfere with that. My point was that you would blame me for not interfering in a physical situation (less important), yet God is prevented from interfering in the more important situation. I see that as inconsistent.
As far as predestination goes, I think our respective views of it are wholly incompatible. For us, predestination involves the sovereign choices of God. He independently chooses those who will be saved. The independence is what makes it a true act, and not just the act of a stenographer. :) Therefore, double predestination is simply the logical continuation of single predestination. If God independently chooses the saved, then logically, He chooses those who will not be saved by default.
The explanation of primary and secondary causes in the WCF is designed to obscure and not be clear. If God is the author of all, including all people, then the WCFs explanation of primary and secondary is meaningless, since the author of an object that is designed to operate in a specific fashion, unless he specifically stops or alters the operation, is expressly responsible for that objects actions.
The explanation of the WCF is very clear to those of like minds. It is not surprising that it would be unclear to those who disagree with everything that is being said anyway. :) As I said recently to Joe, apparently your side does not believe that the concept of primary and secondary causes applies to the theater of sin. Under that presupposition, the WCF would make no sense to you on this point. We, however, disagree and say it does apply.
If I install a brake system that is designed to fail in a car, then I am responsible for the failure of that brake system. If God installs a guaranteed failure mechanism in us that ensures that we go to hell, then God is responsible, not us.
No, the brake system has no will of its own, so it cannot be considered a secondary cause in the WCF sense. In your example, you would be the primary and only cause.
If Im walking by a house (with window close to the sidewalk - Im not really a peeping Tom) and I see a 3 year old striking matches and starting a fire, then I am legally AND morally obligated to step in and save that child and any others that I become aware of.
From a legal standpoint, this is not correct in the United States. In this country, unless there is a duty present (e.g. parent-child), no one is required to help a "victim". Now, a few foreign countries DO have laws as you suggest, but not here. As to morality, I would agree with you that there is a moral requirement to act. But as I said, in Apostolic theology, God somehow escapes this morality even when the victims are God's own children. IOW, under your beliefs, God would be arrested even under U.S. law. :)
I don't know who the elect are, so I pray for God's will concerning all people.
Why does it matter what the Reformed know. God knows everything and you need not worry who the "elect" are. You have been given the commandment to teach the world and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't say "to the elect."
Amen, Kosta. No complaints from me here. :) I hope I haven't given you any impressions to the contrary. Just by the math, if I follow God's commandment exactly, it is doubtless that I will preach to many who are not of the elect. That is a wonderful thing and glory be to God for it. :)
The "elect" is something St. Paul used to show that the Christians are really the New Israel (people of God), and as such His "chosen" sheep. However, Christ's ministry shows that this was not an election of privilege but of sacrifice and mercy.
Are you asserting a conflict between Paul and Christ? If so, I don't see it. First, Paul's use of "elect" clearly also covers the OT since He says so many times that predestination is from the beginning, or from the foundation of the world. Christ's ministry shows that He sacrificed and showed mercy on these people. I see no conflict. All these things are true.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Thats a fairly incredible quote from Luther, isnt it? Roman Catholics frequently use it when discussing the Canon of Scripture: In his Commentary on John, discussing the sixteenth chapter of that Gospel, Luther admitted, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Source: Brian Harrison, Logic and Protestantism's Shaky Foundations (This Rock Volume 3, Number 12 December 1992)] Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Source: Jason Evert, How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (This Rock Volume 11, Number 9, September 2000)]. These are but two examples from This Rock Magazine- an actual Roman Catholic publication. If one were to do a quick Internet search for this quote, one finds the quote used often and vigorously. See for example, this search. The on-line defenders of Rome seem to love this quote
as if it actually proves a point. In the above articles from This Rock Magazine, the quote is supposed to prove that Luther believed the Roman Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Luther is portrayed to be saying the Papacy gave us the Bible. The papacy (maybe even by infallible pronouncement) determined the canon of Scripture for Luther. Brian Harrison thinks the quote is an example of Luther at times coming
close to recognizing that sola scriptura was false, insofar as he was relying, to some extent, on the despised "Papists" and not only on the Bible. See, Luther said it himself: the Papists gave us the Bible, without them doing so, we would have never known what Scripture is. How To Respond: 1. Locate a Reference or Citation: Commentary or Sermon? First, thank the Roman Catholic using this quote for providing a reference. Normally, the citation given will simply be Luthers commentary on John 16. Now this is not totally correct- the citation is from Luthers Sermons on John 16 [LW 24], not a commentary. Luther preached on John 14-16 after March 14, 1537, finishing in either June or July of 1537. The sermons were taken down and edited by Caspar Cruciger. Luther actually credits Cruciger for writing the book. In other words, Luther didnt sit down and write an exegetical commentary on John. Rather, this quote was the result of preaching, and someone else writing it down the way he heard it. 2. Locate a Translation: Do Catholics Actually Read Luther? The question that I always consider when reading Roman Catholics quote Luther, is if theyve actually read Luther. This quote serves as a great opportunity to find out. The quote as typically cited, We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it is not the translation from the standard English 55 volume version of Luthers Works [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. Nor is it from the earlier small English set of Luthers Works (known as the Philadelphia or Holman edition of the Works of Martin Luther), because that set doesnt contain Luthers Sermons on John 16. So where did the Roman Catholic citing this quote get it from? My guess is they cant tell you, because they havent actually read Luthers Sermons on John 16. They have this quote which they've read somewhere, and thought it made their point. It's probably the result of cut-and-paste, not research. 3. Put the Quote in a Context: What Does Luther Really Mean? In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the True Church actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah). Luther says, Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: Where else should Gods people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself. [LW 24:303]. But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be Gods people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted Gods true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult. He says, This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil, You are preaching against Gods people and the church, yes, against God Himself. For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it." [LW 24:304]. Then, comes the citation in question: Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concedeas we mustthat so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has Gods Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints. [LW 24:304]. Is Luther conceding an infallible church gave us the canon? Absolutely not. Is Luther saying an infallible extra-biblical tradition produced the Canon? Absolutely Not. Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the Church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in. The visible church indeed promulgated the Scriptures and Christian doctrine. Who can deny this? But simply because they did so, does not mean the visible church in Rome infallibly declared the canon of Scripture. Luther held that the Church was God's hand maid and servant. It does not create God's Word, God's Word creates the Church. As the servant of the Word, it gives the Word to the body of Christ, His people. Indeed, who would know God's Word if it were not for the Church continually upholding it and pointing God's people to it in each generation? One shouild be able to sense the thrust of Luther's argument: when the visible Church goes bad, going against it is an awesome and fearful undertaking. The Church is God's handmaid. It is to protect and promulgate the Word- but what happens when the servant disobey's the Master? Who can condemn the handmaid and not be fearful? The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing Canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting Gods true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was? But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: Not all who carry long knives are cooks. Thus not all who lay claim to the title church are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called Gods people, children of Abraham, Christs disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name church includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey Gods Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had Gods Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been Gods people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name church that God was forced to say: This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: You are sons of the living God (Hos. 1:10; 2:23). [LW 24:304]. Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists: Thus we are also compelled to say: I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not Gods apostles and bishops; they are the devils. And their people are not Gods people; they are the devils. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner. [LW 24:305]. In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devils church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross. In like manner, they pray: Our Father who art in heaven. They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.[LW 24:309]. From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master."We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther
"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin
" As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men - other than me!"
- John Calvin
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.