Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
If God is an unchanging God, he is the same God in the OT as the NT. Just because he does some things differently does not mean he isn’t the same God. His attributes are all the same. God, in the OT, decided that all but 8 would die by flood. In the NT, God decides who will live with him in heaven, and who will go into hell. No different. It is God who decides according to HIS purpose, according to HIS will. Who are we, oh man, to tell the Lord of the Universe that he is wrong?
No, the Eastern Church never knew or believed Augustinian semi-Manicheaen error of the guilt of the original sin. The Eastern Church always knew of the consequences 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."
But if we carry no guilt because of original sin, then what sins are forgiven through infant baptism? Doesn't your side believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?
We DO carry moral guilt from our very beginning:
Ps 51:5 : 5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
And not only that, our penalty at conception is the same as Adam's:
Rom 5:12 : Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
Rom 5:19 : For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
I still don't understand how you differentiate between being innocent, but under the consequences of sin, from true moral guilt. Sin requires a payment, but if we are innocent then Christ did not die for our sins under your theology, He only died for Adam's sin. Is that how you see it?
Christ is Risen!
Voistinu Voskrese! :)
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.
How does this disagree with what I said? Your attitude towards "a priori" is that it is made up, not supported by facts. That's what I would call baseless. One cannot claim that his faith has a base if it is in "baselessness". :)
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.
Really? Your argument appears to be like saying that if there is one very bad football team in the NFL, then they all must be bad. IOW, I think that just the existence of false faiths and false texts, by itself, lowers your opinion of the Bible. And, that would be an expected result if one thought that all sacred texts have equal internal authority, meaning none. :)
Monotheism is an assumption. It is based on individual human experience (revelations) in dozens of faiths in the world.
Then you must believe that Christ's resurrection is also an assumption, along with everything else in the Bible. The Church can't help you here since it unequivocally holds to monotheism based upon revelation.
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.
In that case it must be in large part luck if any particular person will become a Christian. It would depend on random variables such as where and when a person was born. I mean, by this thinking what chance would you have had becoming a Christian if you had been born in China? Probably almost none, right? Is that how a loving God works, or doesn't work?
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."
You forgot the others who believe that the OT God is exactly the same as the NT God, such as Reformers and the Latin Church. :)
FK: "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.
That is the classic dilemma with "leap of faithers". There just ARE no answers to these issues. For those who hold to historic Christianity, there are plenty of answers.
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.
I have plenty of evidence that I am the son of who I think my parents were. Besides the documents and the family who has known me since I was born there are pictures of my parents showing strong resemblance. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. I am even more sure of the Christian God described in the Bible. :)
The death (and resurrection) of Christ is a matter of belief, not of historical fact. There are no verifiable eyewitness accounts of either.
Oh, well, I have to admit, I wasn't expecting that. :) I have no idea what to say. :)
Yes, I sure do. If the Bible established a hierarchy of truth among the scriptures, I would follow it. However, the Bible says that ALL scriptures are God-breathed. What's a Bible-believing Christian supposed to do? :)
I just can't bring myself to say that some parts of God's word have more intrinsic value than other parts. God's word is God's truth.
What, you don't think toddlers imitate what their parents do? :) Perhaps my kids were freaks. :)
Think of the analogy. You are saying it is more accurate to compare a mature parent to an adult child than it is to compare an adult parent to a toddler. There is a great difference between these two comparisons, and my opinion is that you all are giving man far too much credit. :)
And BTW, on what basis do you say that it's fine with God that if we don't want to imitate Christ that it is OK instead to imitate someone else, perhaps a Saint? I mean, is it OK with God if I imitate Augustine on his doctrine of predestination? :)
And what exactly are the criteria spelled out in 2 Tim 3? Answer: none!. In other words, whatever your heart desires!
No, for THESE purposes the answer is: A TOTALITY of sacred texts that are God-breathed and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, SO THAT the man of God may be THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY good work.
For one thing, to my knowledge, Hinduism makes no claim that all of its scriptures are God-breathed. For another, Christianity claims that the scriptures have everything that we need to know to love and serve God, and live a Christian life. I don't know if those other faiths claim that. I would assume that most faiths add man's opinions to what they first declare to be their sacred texts, and then later declare administratively that those opinions are also sacred. The Mormons, for example.
He is the same God; our perceptions are not.
Surely, you would agree that the ancient Hebrews ' perception of God was radically differet from the Apostolic witness of Christ walking, taling, helaing, and preaching among them.
What is attributed to God in the OT has a lot to do with the Hebrews' perception of what God outght to be like.
This human element is removed in the Gospels, because they are an eyewitness account (one way or another) of God's visible, audible and tangential presence among us, not a result of dreams, voices and possibly hallucinations of the OT authors.
Who are we, oh man, to tell the Lord of the Universe that he is wrong?
Who are we, o man, to tell us what God is like?
Infants carry as much "guilt" on account of Adam's abuse of his God-given freedom as a drug-addicted infant carries "guilt" on account of his drug-abusing mother—exactly zilch. But the infant suffers the consequences of both!
Baptism is the sacrament of adoption into the Church. We die unto ourselves and are re-born into Christ. Those baptized in the Orthodox Church are carried or led around the baptismal font three times and the congregation is singing St. Pau's words "For as many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." [Gal 3:27]
Those who have sinned, and repented, their sins are forgiven and erased and they enter into the Body of Christ like an infant.
Baptism is restoration to grace. Some have more baggage to lose than others. Baptism is the supreme act of divine mercy (forgiveness) and love (adoption) accomplished by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this must be accompanied by faith. For adults, that includes the reciting the Creed and rejection of Satan (exorcism). For infants, their godparents witness for them and oblige themselves to do everything they can to teach and raise that child in faith. It is an awesome obligation in Orthodoxy.
We consider godparents more important than natural parents, for if they raise the child properly in the life of the Church, chances are the biological parents will have none of the problems we see in kids raised without God in their lives.
We DO carry moral guilt from our very beginning: Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Again, this is Judaism. Verse 6 is unintelligible!. And just in case you say "it's in the Bible," well so is verse 19 "Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar." Go ahead, kill a cow...it's in the Bible.
Contrast this with our Lord's words "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." [Mark 10:14]
Obviously, Christ didn't think they were examples of iniquity. Night and day.
Or consider this comparison to the OT "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist the evil one (πονερω, same word as at the end of the Lord's Prayer—a title denoting the crafty or evil one). If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." [Mat 5:38]
Night and day, FK.
And not only that, our penalty at conception is the same as Adam's: Rom 5:12 : Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
This was addressed in a response to a recent post by HalreyD, who either didn't read it or didn't understand it. The wording in Paul's verse 5:12 is subject to interpretation. The native Greek speakers interpreted it one way and the non-native speakers the other way.
Your version of the Bible is telling you something the Greeks never read and understood in that fashion. St. Augustine's Greek was poor. He made a number of known translational errors. Unfortunately, such errors led to erroneous theology.
Rom 5:19 : For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous
He speaks of "many" not all. How does this square with his other statement that "none are righteous, not one?"
Besides all it says is that the consequence of Adam's sin is death I still don't understand how you differentiate between being innocent, but under the consequences of sin, from true moral guilt
Moral guilt comes from willful wrongdoing. Infants did nothing willfully wrong. They simply inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, a fallen human nature that will lead them into sin
When you really think about it, drug-addicted infants are really victims, as is the whole humanity when it comes to Adam's fall. This is why God decided to have mercy on us. While we are born innocent of any wrongdoing, we are bound to commit wrongdoing because our fallen nature inherited from Adam drives us to that end.
FK: Voistinu Voskrese!
I am impressed and deeply touched. Thank you.
I agree, the passage does say that and it is the Catholic Sola Gratia teaching. So how, again, does Sola Fide follow from it?
The passage [Eph. 2:8-10] specifies that saving grace does NOT manifest itself through works, but rather manifests through faith. This is supported by other scripture:
Luke 5:20 : When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
John 3:16-18 : 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John 6:28-29 : 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
John 6:40, 47 : 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." ....... 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
Rom 3:28 : For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Rom 4:5 : However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 5:1 : Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ...
Rom 11:6 : And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. KJV
Phil 3:8-9 : 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
Gal 2:15-16 : 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Gal 2:21 : I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Gal 3:8-9 : 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Titus 3:4-5 : 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ...
Some have tried to make a distinction that there are all sorts of different categories of works, and that ALL of these verses and others refer to only a small category, and thus, works independently chosen are still a separate element of salvation. Some have said that "works of love", somehow not referred to in any of these verses, are the ones that count. However, I don't think this argument works. For example:
Matt 22:36-39 : 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Here Jesus Himself puts all "works of love" under the Law. The quotes above specifically say that they are not independent parts of salvation. Sola Fide stands.
Eph. 2 doesn't do that. It specifies that grace doesn't come from works, but it also says that both faith (v.8) and works (v.10) are products of saving grace.
Some have tried to make a distinction that there are all sorts of different categories of works, and that ALL of these verses and others refer to only a small category, and thus, works independently chosen are still a separate element of salvation. Some have said that "works of love", somehow not referred to in any of these verses, are the ones that count.
Yes, that is the Catholic teaching. It is also true that works of love are a part, the central part, of Christian law. They are not, however, a part of Mosaic ceremonial or Roman civil law; if works of love are done because there is a law that makes you do them, then indeed they are no longer works of love.
Yes, that's the distinction I wanted to understand. My original thinking was that, for example, (a) there was a Council that promulgated dogma. At this point there is a consensus patrum, and then this consensus must be either ratified or rejected by the laity. However, it looks like you might be saying that it is (b) there is no consensus patrum UNTIL a dogma has been ratified by the laity. Could you confirm?
The Church always allowed what the Greeks call theologoumenna (theological opinions), with the understanding that they must not include heterodox beliefs but rather remain within the confines of orthodox foundations of the faith as recognized by the whole Church (i.e. consensus patrum), not local councils.
We do the same thing, but since we do not have one overarching authority of men, every time someone does this we are slapped with having a "new denomination". :) If I'm understanding you correctly, your above is what allows me to be simultaneously a Reformer and a Southern Baptist.
***If I’m understanding you correctly, your above is what allows me to be simultaneously a Reformer and a Southern Baptist.***
Or even a Reformed Conservative Evangelical Universalist Southern Presbyterian Baptist Methodist Lutheran (Northern Rite) :>)
“My original thinking was that, for example, (a) there was a Council that promulgated dogma. At this point there is a consensus patrum, and then this consensus must be either ratified or rejected by the laity. However, it looks like you might be saying that it is (b) there is no consensus patrum UNTIL a dogma has been ratified by the laity.”
Dogma and matters within the consensus partrum are not necessarily the same thing. For example, it is within the consensus patrum that Panagia was always a virgin. All Orthodox Christians believe that but it is not proclaimed dogma of an Ecumenical Council. It is within the consensus patrum that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven after death. All or virtually all Orthodox believe this. It is not dogma; it is a theologoumennon. In the Latin Church it is dogma. It is dogmatic in Orthodoxy that at the Divine Liturgy the bread and wine on the altar table are by the power of the Holy Spirit transformed into the very Body and Blood of Christ. That is within the consensus patrum but was never proclaimed dogma by an Ecumenical Council. The list goes on and on, FK.
Dogmas, however they arise, are only “real” if the laity accepts and approves them by living them. Beliefs within the consensus patrum are not part of the consensus patrum, however, because everyone accepts them. Theologoumenna are not required to be accepted by everyone but they might well be part of the consensus patrum nevertheless.
Its hard for someone trained, however subtly, to think in “canon law”, Latin ways, to think patristicly, especially when it comes to who beliefs become active and/or mandatory within Orthodoxy.
So much for God being outside of time, eh? :) And if no one was saved until Christ within time, then how do you explain Enoch and Elijah?
You are spouting Jewish myths and legends, while dismissing the universal meaning of Christ's redemption.
Think about it: if people were saved before Christ's sacrifice, what does that make of His cross but a mockery. Then He is not the Savior of the world because some were "privileged" not to need Him.
That means some were not captives to death and are immortal; death had no grip on them. They didn't need to wait for Chirst to free the world from the chains of death.
The NT is confusing, if not outright contradicting regarding Elijah as being John the Forerunner (Baptist). In John 1:21 John the Baptist says that he is not Elijah.
But Mat 11:14 says "he is Elijah, the one who is to come" and Mat 17:13 leaves no doubt that he was Elijah "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist."
As far as Enoch is concerned, where does the Old Testament say he never died? Gen 5:24 simply says (my emphasis) "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." Was no more?
It is only in Luke's Gospel that we see inference that he never "saw" death. This is based on Talmudic myth, not on Chirstian scriputres, unless the Reformed consider Talmud as scripture as well.
Where does the Bible say that He will heal a heart INSTEAD OF giving a new one for salvation purposes? Ezekiel 36 is talking about God transforming a non-believer into a believer. And while God certainly heals hearts, He heals believing hearts. We still go astray from time to time as believers and need healing, but that is very different from being transformed from completely lost to completely saved.
Faith is faith, whether it is a "true" faith or not. The first step in any faith is an a priori acceptance of its validity.
A priori doesn't mean it's "baseless." Every belief, whatever it may be, is based on something. A priori is wholly deductive; therefore it is not mindless, baseless or irrational. But it is not necessarily true. Faith is a belief, not a proof. Just because I believe in something doesn't make it true.
The problem with faith is not the faith itself but when someone claims that his faith is "true." This extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence.
Gravity is easy, but when it comes to religion, things get a wee bit more complicated. When asked to authenticate it, the believer offers faith itself as proof! The "proof" that the Bible is God's own word is your belief that it is; but your faith is not a proof that it is!
What proof do you have that your beliefs are true? Your inner feelings? Likewise, what proof do you have that other "bibles' are "false" other than your personal, subjective conviction that they are? In both cases you have an a priori completed belief without any objective proof.
No, Christ's resurrection is a matter of faith. My statement you responded to was that monotheism is an assumption, just as polytheism is.
In that case it must be in large part luck if any particular person will become a Christian. It would depend on random variables such as where and when a person was born. I mean, by this thinking what chance would you have had becoming a Christian if you had been born in China? Probably almost none, right? Is that how a loving God works, or doesn't work?
Funny coming form a Reformed Christian who thinks nothing of the OT God committing genocide that you should ask me is "that how a loving God works!" :) Indeed, priceless.
Yes, where and when you are born has a lot to do with your chances of becoming Christian. Christ left it to His disciples to teach and baptize all nations...so to a large extent it is a task given to the Church.
Perhaps if all the Evangelicals stopped trying to evangelize Christians in Russia and Latin America and instead risked their lives for faith in areas inimical to Christianity, the success rate in China and Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Iran and other places would probably be better.
But doing so they might lose their heads...so rock-solid faith and assurance of salvation doesn't seem to work as well in practice as it does on paper. :)
By all accounts, Islam is doing a much better job of converting people to their "religion of peace" (according to our great leader G W Bush, Jr). Perhaps because it plays even more to egotistic human nature than some 16th century Christian sects, but we won't mention any names... :)
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.