Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26
Claim your heart as your own if you so desire, Kosta. As for me, I thank God every day for His free, merciful, unearned gift of a new heart of flesh with which to love Him and know my salvation is by and through and for Christ alone.
Yep. And who chooses well and who does not?
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
All glory to God, although some seek it for themselves.
Man never comes to God through sin, but through repentance.
Or, does man become good on his own (or is that what the Church does?), and then comes to God on his own, even after he has sinned?
Man is restored to his freedom to choose through Baptism. It is not what we do, or what the Church does, but (we believe) it is what the Holy Spirit does, which is called a sacrament.
We don't even have to go to "essentially good", just "good enough" to come to God on his own. I think your side believes that (after the work of Christ made it possible for you to show that goodness you were born with or acquired through merit).
We are never good enough in absolute terms; we are forgiven. Even the best among us are sinners.
What we believe is simple: The Holy Spirit leads and we follow, willingly.
Which of our sides believes in infused righteousness and which believes in imputed righteousness? There's your answer to that!
The Orthodox teach neither to the best of my knowledge.
No, no. We honor Paul. We don't worship him, and we especially do not venerate him.
LOL! Do you even know what veneration means, FK? It is synonymous with honoring! You don't consider +Paul as a worthy model that perhaps you could emulate? You don't think he deserves a little awe at what he did for Christianity? Gees, we give more credit to stupid basketball players who couldn't hold a regular job, and not to mention Hollywood bimbos!
Your random verse generator is amazingly cherry-picking. You quote everyone but the Lord (!). Consider "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Or "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Or "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
The Lord also says "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."
The heart is not dead, but sick, and he will heal it. God already insctibed His laws in everyone's hearts, but, as Jesus says, these hearts have "become calloused." But you will believe Ezekiel and Paul more than Christ Himself.
And the Lord also says "When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path."
And even those with "new" hearts continue to sin, for "[T]he things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"
And "for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." Does that mean they had "new hearts" and then fell again, or was it their "original" heart that became "soft" only to be beocme "hard" again? And what does that say abotu certainty of salvation?
Our Lord Jesus Christ speaks of hardened hearts and not of new hearts. Ezekiel and Paul do. Does your random verse generator not have our Lord's words in its reportoire?
Apparently it's because the Apostoles, being Jews, believed that some men are good and others are not (imagine that!). "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."
But you will only quote Paul who says that no one is good. I gues if he says so, it must be true. All other Apostles must be wrong!
And then in Hebrews 3:12 "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God."
Who decides here if they are "to see to it?"
In Heb 4:7 it seems to me that we have a CHOICE! "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Imagine that. We can alos harden our hearts!
In 1 Pet 3:5 it says "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." If your "new heart" goes to Christ all by itself and is not yours to decide, how can we set Christ apart in our hearts?
In 1 John 3:18-20 it says "Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
In other words, do not preach. Live the life of Christ as much as possible. And remember that it is you who sets your heart because it is yours. It may be given to you by the the Lord Holy Spirit, as all blessings are, but what we do with it is our decision and our will, and it may be used for good, in God' name or it may be use for sin and our condmenation.
Amen. Alleluia.
IF this is inevitable, then would it be fair to say that the "operation" of original sin is enough to condemn? That would virtually be the same as I was saying. My understanding of Orthodoxy is that no one is necessarily "doomed" from original sin. That is, anyone could (potentially) just choose to ignore (resist) it, and never sin. Of course we Reformers say that is impossible, so I was just wondering where Catholicism fell on that continuum.
No, the Eastern Church never knew or beleieved Augustinian semi-Manicheaen error of the guilt of the original sin. The Eastern Church always knew of the consequecnes of the ancestral sin, which is death, to which all mankind was captive until Christ died on the Cross and resurrected, "trampling death by death."
The East always taught that man is born terminally ill, not guilty, in need of a physician. Our souls and our will are sick, which influences our choices.
We are restored (healed) by the Holy Spirit through the mysterion (sacrament) of Baptism and enabled to choose God, but He doesn't make our choices. It was Christ, dying on the Cross, and not man on his own, who made that possible.
The Curch in the East always taught that it is the Holy Spirit who leads and some who have been restored follow Him, willingly, while others follow the devil, by choice. The latter condemn themsleves, by choice.
Chirst is Risen!
We don't teach that either, but possibly for different reasons. To be a Christian, one must be a follower of Christ. To follow Christ, one must have a need for Him. To need Him, one must be otherwise damned without Him. Since every conceived embryo is in this last category, no mortal sin is required. We need Christ before the first mortal sin.
Thanks, and I hope I'm not a hyper-Calvinist either. Those guys are nuts. :)
May God's smiling grace be with you on the interview. You're in my prayers.
Greatly appreciated.
Thanks tons.
LUB
1848 As St. Paul affirms, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."118 But to do its work grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts and bestow on us "righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."119 Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God, by his Word and by his Spirit, casts a living light on sin:
Thanks for the Catechism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to necessarily mean mortal sins at a minimum (confessing required, etc.). That would mean that mortal sin is inevitable from original sin, which is what I thought the Catholic position was. But before I get ahead of myself ......... :)
Thanks for the excerpts. My friend also told me that the Koran is filled with specific instructions, not unlike our Bible. But he said one major difference was that it was not personal in any way the Bible is. He said the Koran does not reveal the nature of man in any way comparable to how the Bible does. The "eternal questions" that all men are led to ask about themselves have real answers in the Bible, based on real history. My friend said that the Koran does not really attempt to address those issues (at least in a reasonably defensible manner).
FK: “I suppose those of us who think God commands us to share the faith with others need a little more than that as a reason for our faith. :)”
Kolo: "Really? Why?"
Well, first because the belief Kosta is referring to (as he and I have been discussing) is blind and has no basis. It is a total "just shut up, trust me and believe" situation. :) But it's also because my impression is that most Orthodox would deny the historic facts of the OT. That is, to a much larger degree than other Christians. I couldn't imagine anyone having a reason to listen to me if my best argument was akin to: "Let me show you a bunch of stories that never happened, and then I'll tell you what they mean".
For example, without a REAL Fall, in real space-time, then how does one explain the need for Christ? Did Christ come to die for something that never happened? Another example would be Jesus celebrating the fairy tale of the Passover. Who would go for this? :) Further, if I knew nothing and just read the OT and then someone told me not to worry about all those stories about God killing because they are all lies, then I would tell that person that his faith is not found in that book (testament). It would have to be from some other source because the words say what they say.
I'm not sure what I would tell a person who asked me that if he should disbelieve the historic truth of the OT, then why should he accept the historic truth of the death and resurrection of Christ? Because the Church says so? Well, that would be a faith in the uninspired men of the Church then. I suppose since that doesn't come close to working for me, it wouldn't occur to me to argue it. :)
Faith is not enough?
Well, not usually in a witnessing situation, if it is blind and baseless. Why would anyone take that on? I mean, if a faith is blind and baseless and devoid of reason, then no argument can be made that it is any better than any other faith out there. For those of us who do the witnessing, that just doesn't cut it usually, especially in today's world. :)
I am sorry that I don’t seem to be able to keep up with this excellent conversation. I AM watching and thinking furiously (NOT angrily).
Well, then I suppose that by your standards every faith is a revealed faith if its sacred text mentions any sort of "god" as ever saying anything. However, I am not here to argue Hinduism. If you believe that your faith is not objectively any better than Hinduism, then I will leave you to it. :)
FK: "The shaman didn't have God-breathed words."
How do you know that?
Maybe it's just an eyes and ears thing. :) I believe the Bible is unique in that it could not possibly have been produced by men just writing down their personal thoughts. Since we are worlds apart on even that, it is no wonder that there is no argument to you that "God-breathed" actually has any real meaning. Since you DO believe that the Bible was just written down by well meaning men, then how could it be any better to you than any other text which actually WAS just written down by men? :) It can't on its own. That only leaves the Church as a source of truth, with the Bible being a dusty and flawed reference book. I think many people take that approach.
No, FK, I always qualify my statements that this is the a priori basis for all religions. The initial step is an a priori blind acceptance of God as a matter of fact, because there is no objective proof of God.
The "proof" offered with various reasons are invariably human fancy. Different people see and know different things and go through different experiences and live in different cultures are local "realities," and based on that human, individual knowledge, they make a conclusion that makes sense to them, and they accept it as true and absolute.
The eyes and ears are present in all faiths. It's just that the Jews hear one thing, the Christians another, the Muslims something else, the Hindus something else, the Buddhists something else, the Baha'i something else, etc.
Monotheism is an assumption. It is based on individual human experience (revelations) in dozens of faiths in the world. Polytheism is also an assumption based on similar experiences.
We probably believe in one and the same phenomenon which we all a priori "know" i must be true, namely that something caused all this exist, that something was the initial step in this creation. The details of this "something" are filled in by human fancy.
We all believe in the same "something;" we just paint it differently. Our fancy creates God in our image, FK.
That doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. Just as we have preferences for everything else, we prefer God suited to our image, culture, experience,e etc. It's a choice which religion we will embrace.
Some people find the Zeus-like OT God preferable to Jesus; others find Allah the "true" God; others yet see Christ as perfect God-man, and God as a perfect of union of three Hypostases, all being one and the same God, yet only one of the Hypostases being "without cause." To others this is polytheism; to others yet, the reeks and Latins are "idolaters."
All this betrays human element in all these religions. The basic belief in God is a semi-rational conclusion based on the world we know exists and the universe around us; we makes a reasonable assumption (within the confines of our mental capacities), based on observatrion (which can be erroneous, of course) that "something" must have created this and that something was the "first principle" that 'existed" before all this existed.
There is nothing absolute about human minds or conception. We assume things that "make sense" to us, that we like, that fits our idea of the order of universe. Thus, we reduce even God to a "sensible" phenomenon and even claim to "know" Him through some voices and possibly hallucinations, some of which may have seeds of truth.
For example, without a REAL Fall, in real space-time, then how does one explain the need for Christ? Did Christ come to die for something that never happened? Another example would be Jesus celebrating the fairy tale of the Passover.
I can't answer that. If it is "real" in people's minds, then it shapes their attitudes and beliefs and it may be as "real" as real gets. That's what we call delusions.
What if your parents are not your real parents? What if you were adopted and never told about it? You'd live in a delusion, based on a logical assumption, that your parents are indeed your parents. And even though they are not your real (biological) parents, they are your real parents because they raised you as their son.
Love is real no matter what the source of it is. Those who love you are your family, core or extended. But we don't find love occurring in nature spontaneously; animals show no mercy and neither does man left to his own devices. Is that proof that love is not of this world? It seems that way but it is not a proof.
I'm not sure what I would tell a person who asked me that if he should disbelieve the historic truth of the OT, then why should he accept the historic truth of the death and resurrection of Christ?
The death (and resurrection) of Christ is a matter of belief, not of historical fact. There are no verifiable eyewitness accounts of either. We affirm it on belief; the Jews deny on belief. The churches keep relics of saints on belief that they are indeed relics of those saints, even when the DNA doesn't match. You hold the Bible to be inspired word of God on belief. The Muslims hold the Koran to be God's spoken word on belief.
It doesn't matter how you frame it, whether you say it's "eyes and ears" or simply beliefs, or "knowledge" or some spirit inside of you, etc. It all defaults to what you feel inside, what you prefer. No one is a Christian against his will.
If you believe the OT stories are true, then as far as you are concerned, they are true. I have no problems with anyone's beliefs so long as their intentions are good and they reflect an individual's inner reality and not a club with which one is going to beat his faith into someone else.
We miss you, MD.
Revealed faith is any faith based on one or more individuals' experiences of what they perceived as some deity revealing itself to them.
However, I am not here to argue Hinduism. If you believe that your faith is not objectively any better than Hinduism, then I will leave you to it.
Obviously I do believe that Orthodoxy is not the same as Hinduism, but I can't say that it is objectively better; only subjectively, as a matter of my preferece. While both preach love and mercy, do no harm, etc. Christianity brings God to a human level where we can see Him and imitate Him. And that is a matter of personal preference, something I am much more comfortable with than with some animal-like deity with 12 arms.
I believe the Bible is unique in that it could not possibly have been produced by men just writing down their personal thoughts. Since we are worlds apart on even that, it is no wonder that there is no argument to you that "God-breathed" actually has any real meaning
Rather than saying the Bile is unique, the Old and the New Testaments are rather unique and rather unlike each other. The God of the OT and the God of the NT are also quite unlike each other. You prefer to treat the as equal, even the Gospels.
To me, Gospels are what Christianity is all about. They contain OT references that we need to know. They speak of Christ's ministry. Take out the Gospels and you have no Christianity, Christ in the OT notwithstanding. I am a Christian, a follower and imitator, bad imitation as it may be, of Christ. He is my Lord and God, and I believe in what the Gospels say He said.
Speaking of which, I have read your link to "Christ in the OT" and I disagree with most of the examples. Besides, given the sheer volume of the OT, the examples given are far and few in between.
That only leaves the Church as a source of truth, with the Bible being a dusty and flawed reference book. I think many people take that approach
Whether it is the Church or the Bible "authenticating itself" it is a matter of how we see things. We in the Apostolic Churches see the Church built on the Bible and what was taught by the Apostles to their successors. The Church is a living history.
Your side throws out a portion of what the early Church considered the Bible it was built on, and denies Apostolic succession. Then you tell us that our Church is "flawed!"
Instead, you offer a Book (replacing the Greek OT used in more than 3% of the cases in the NT and replace with it the Hebrew version) which is by no means always consistent or free or errors, and tell us that it is the "pristine" word of God. In fact, some on your side, tell us that it is the Word of God (namely Christ Himself!).
Our communities use different scriptures, teach different atonement, different salvation, different communion, yet we call on the same God, and use the same scripture (more or less)!
There are no 33,000 opinions what gravity is, FK, because there is little doubt what it does. But there are 33,000-plus denomination of Christianity because no one agrees what it does!
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.