Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

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.

If there is one God, as we believe, then that God is the same no matter whose book you read. It is not that God changes; human perception of God does. Luckily, we Christians don't have to depend on "visions," and "inner voices" and dreams and hallucinations. We have a set of books called the Gospels and they tell us an eyewitness account of our Lord and God as to what He said and did in Person. We take that God to be the true God who is merely prefigured in uncertain terms in the OT.

[kosta50]

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.

Yeah, "historic" Christianity (what 16th century?) has plenty of answers such as : "if God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings!" or "my eyes are green because God made them that way" or "I am poor/rich/stupid/smart/healthy/sick/disabled etc.  because God made me that way, for His glory."

That "historic" Christianity (more like Manicheanism) also denies that prehistoric man existed, or that dinosaurs ever existed. When my older daughter, for social reasons, started to attend a Baptist Church in her early teens she told me the fossils were planted in the earth by Satan to deceive us. She learned this from "historic" Christianity.  The "historic" Christianity may have plenty of answers, but not all answers are valid answers, FK.    

[kosta50]

I have plenty of evidence that I am the son of who I think my parents were

I wasn't questioning if your parents were your biological parents, FK. I am surprised you misconstrued it that way. I was talking about believing delusions and believing they are real. As an example of the reality of our beliefs,  I used a situation [using a general "you" and not specifically you]

"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.

You completely missed the point of my example. How you could misconstrue what I was trying to say is beyond me, but form your answer it is clear that you did not get or see or understand that I was talking about the reality of believing delusions. You reply

"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."

Thank you. I wasn't asking for any proof that your parents are your real  biological parent.

[kosta50]

Oh, well, I have to admit, I wasn't expecting that [The death (and resurrection) of Christ is a matter of belief, not of historical fact]. :) I have no idea what to say. :)

And here you just told me that "historic" Christianity has plenty of answers. All the Christians who perished in Roman pogroms did so without ever having seen Jesus. And even some of His own eleven disciples didn't believe in resurrected Jesus when they saw Him [my emphasis]:

"But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. [Mat 28:16-17] 

Why do you think we are holier than they?

[kosta50]

Where does the Bible say that He will heal a heart INSTEAD OF giving a new one for salvation purposes?

John 12:40

Where does Ezekiel say God will give us new hearts for salvational purposes?

[Forest Keeper]

Paul says there were some predestined to be chosen *before* the foundation of this world. The chosen are not necessarily those who most think they are.... So this brings forth the question what is it that those who *were* already chosen do, to receive this *election*?

While I agree that no one can know who the predestined are, I don't think Paul ever said that being predestined and "receiving" election were separate things. Paul says they are one thing:

Eph 1:4-5 : 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—...

Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined , he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

I don't see any option here for one predestined to not be elect. Paul says that God will do this, this, and this. I see no hint at "as long as man does this...". So, I would say that the chosen don't "do" anything to receive election. God does all the doing, both in choosing the elect and then in effectuating the salvation of the elect within time.

And when were the souls created, Moses does NOT describe the creation of the soul, what Moses says is that the dirt, clay, flesh being was NOT living until the 'breath of life' which means soul was breathed into that newly formed flesh being made in the image of the Heavenly Father.

Good question. I'm not certain whether God is carrying around a "bag-o-souls" that He created before the foundations, waiting to dish them out at the time of conception, OR, whether He technically creates the soul at the time of conception. In either case we can know that God KNEW us before we physically existed:

Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you , before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

We are no accidents. Long before He breathed life into us He knew exactly what His intentions were for each one of us. To me that FUNCTIONS as the same as our souls existing from creation. The mechanics really don't matter.

[Kolokotronis]

“Good question. I’m not certain whether God is carrying around a “bag-o-souls” that He created before the foundations, waiting to dish them out at the time of conception, OR, whether He technically creates the soul at the time of conception. In either case we can know that God KNEW us before we physically existed:

Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you , before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

We are no accidents. Long before He breathed life into us He knew exactly what His intentions were for each one of us. To me that FUNCTIONS as the same as our souls existing from creation. The mechanics really don’t matter.”

Close, FK, but watch that sloppy thinking in the last two sentences! Here are a couple of comments which lay out the position of The Church. The notion of the “pre-existence of souls”, btw, is heretical.

“We already existed before this world, because our creation was decided by God long before our actual creation. Before our creation we therefore existed in the thought of God, we who later turned out to be intelligent creatures of the Divine Word. Thanks to Him, we are very ancient in our origin, because ‘in the beginning was the Word.”
+Clement of Alexandria

“...the World-generating Reason also considered, in His mind’s great representations, the images of the world formed by Him, this world which was generated later, but, which, for God was present even then. Everything is before God’s eyes: what will be, what was, and what is now. For me such a division is set by time: that one thing is ahead, another thing behind. But for God all merges into one, and all is held in the arms of the Great Deity.”
+Gregory Nazianzus

[aruanan]

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.

They are saved because he was the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. His death was at one point in time (how could it be otherwise) but it justified all those whose faith was counted as righteousness, even if they happened to be born millennia before Jesus; besides, until the Law was given, God wasn't counting people's sin against them. His death at one point in time is the ground of salvation to people throughout all time, from even before the original sin to the Day of the Lord.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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."

No! It does not mean mortal sins at minimum. It means ANY sin you are aware of upon reflection.

[From the Catechism:] 1425 "YOU were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."9 One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ."10 But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."11 and the Lord himself taught us to pray: "Forgive us our trespasses,"12 linking our forgiveness of one another's offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.

Well, I'm not sure I get your interpretation from the Catechism you quote. If the Catechism quotes with approval this:

1 John 1:8-10 : 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Then, I would think that mortal sin is strongly implied. As I understand it, venial sin does not NEED to be confessed on threat of losing salvation. For what you're saying, the above passage COULD only be referring to venial sins. Does it really read that way to you? It doesn't to me. Plus, wouldn't that be a waste if it did only refer to venial sins without saying so? That interpretation is just too forced.

[stfassisi]

“”As I understand it, venial sin does not NEED to be confessed on threat of losing salvation. For what you're saying, the above passage COULD only be referring to venial sins. Does it really read that way to you?””

No !It does not read that way to me because Confession is required at least once a month. Thus we examine our conscious to confess ANY sin we are aware of committing. I would say that those who do not go to monthly confession run the risk of falling into more serious sins. Thus the importance of confession to be constantly aware of sin

I seriously doubt there are many people who attend weekly or monthly confession that commit grave sin ie; fornication,theft,adultery etc..

That said, it leaves venial sins that we confess weekly or once a month, ie; losing our temper, swearing,laziness etc...

[kosta50]

They are saved because he was the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world

That would presume that God specifically created the world so He could sacrifice His Son in order to save the world. There is no indication of that anywhere in the OT.

The Passover Lamb is killed, its blood is used as a marker, and its flesh is eaten as a meal. The blood of the lamb is instrumental in the deliverance of the Hebrew from their captivity, not for atoning of their sins (they were not enslaved because of their sins). The Passover Lamb is never offered for atonement of the sins. A goat is used for that at Yom Kippur, and he is neither killed nor eaten, but allowed to run away (presumably with out sins which are transferred by placing our hands on the goats head!)

Christian theology combined the Passover Lamb and the Yom Kippur Goat into one and the same (of course this was possible because the Greeks and Romans who accepted the new faith had no clue what the difference was). In addition to that, instead of sprinkling the blood, the Blood is consumed (something strictly forbidden by the Law which Jesus did not come to abolish!).

Any wonder why the Jews rejected this new sect?

[Forest Keeper]

Dear FK,As Kosta pointed out recently,this including sin as something planned by God is Manichean heresy that many protestant sects have adapted,especially calvinism. Our Lord is a Redeemer of those who come to Him sinful and sorrowful with contrite hearts. He is NOT a sin planner for the elect.

From what you quoted from Blessed Saint Aquinas I don't think you accept the distinction between God USING evil and God CAUSING it. We'll just have to disagree. I understand that the need for men to be sovereign and powerful necessitates the lessening of God. Men have been claiming their sovereign authority (as against) God from the beginning. It is how we were born.

However, of course, that doesn't make it right. :) The reason many cannot accept the sovereignty of God is that it would mean that man was dependent on God, and this just can't be the case for many people. Therefore, they say, if man does not determine his own destiny, and if man is not in control, then God creates evil. It just isn't so. I understand this thinking because I used to think I was the captain of my own ship too.

[stfassisi]

FK-””From what you quoted from Blessed Saint Aquinas I don't think you accept the distinction between God USING evil and God CAUSING it. “”

It's very simple Dear Brother, God is the first cause of everything created and God is flawless eternal goodness in anything He creates because He Himself is perfect goodness. Therefore evil cannot be in God, if it were ,than God would be flawed.

“God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good “(Gen. i, 31): “He made all things good in his own time” (Eccles. iii, 11): “Every creature of God is good (1 Tim. iv, 4).

I guess you disagree with this Scripture?

FK-””The reason many cannot accept the sovereignty of God is that it would mean that man was dependent on God, and this just can't be the case for many people. Therefore, they say, if man does not determine his own destiny, and if man is not in control, then God creates evil. It just isn't so. I understand this thinking because I used to think I was the captain of my own ship too.””

In other words... Now you have accepted what ever sins you have committed as part of God's plan for your life.

In this way of thinking you elevate evil as something God needs to create in order to be sovereign.

You have fallen into the heresy of accepting everything as fate now. In doing this you will have to accept Hitler's reign,lucifer being cast out of heaven, the fall of Adam and Eve etc... as part of God's created plan.

This is the way the muslims think,Dear Brother!

From New Advent

FATE IN THE KORAN

The idea of fate among orthodox Mohammedans is founded on the doctrine of God's absolute decree, and of predestination both for good and for evil. The prophet encouraged his followers to fight without fear, and even with desperation, by assuring them that no timidity or caution could save their lives in battle or avert their inevitable destiny.

Does this sound familiar to you?

[Kolokotronis]

“This is the way the muslims think,Dear Brother!”

:) This mentality, apparent in some Western Christian thought, has been commented upon before and not just here on FR. Of course, despite the denials of many in the West, especially here in America, Mohammedanism is at base the most successful of the Christian heresies in the Church’s existence, far more so than those before or since. Bibliolatry is a similar phenomenon. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this particular thread in Mohammedan thought, among others, did not influence non-Latin, non-Orthodox Christian thought as it developed in the universities of Western Europe after say 1500.

[stfassisi]

“”Mohammedanism is at base the most successful of the Christian heresies in the Church’s existence, far more so than those before or since. Bibliolatry is a similar phenomenon. Personally, I find it difficult to believe that this particular thread in Mohammedan thought, among others, did not influence non-Latin, non-Orthodox Christian thought as it developed in the universities of Western Europe after say 1500.””

I agree,and would also add that this thought has lead to atheism in intellectual circles,especially in our universities of today.

KOLO And Kosta .Does the following from New Advent agree with Orthodox teaching?(I assume it does)

CATHOLIC TEACHING
According to Catholic teaching, God, who is the Author of the universe, has made it subject to fixed and necessary laws so that, where our knowledge of these laws is complete, we are able to predict physical events with certainty. Moreover, God's absolute decree is irrevocable, but, as He cannot will that which is evil, the abuse of free will is in no case predetermined by Him. The physical accompaniments of the free act of the will as well as its consequences, are willed by God conditionally upon the positing of the act itself, and all alike are the object of His eternal foreknowledge. The nature of this foreknowledge is a matter still in dispute between the opposing schools of Bañez and Molina. Hence, though God knows from all eternity everything that is going to happen, He does not will everything. Sin He does not will in any sense; He only permits it. Certain things He wills absolutely and others conditionally, and His general supervision, whereby these decrees are carried out, is called Divine Providence. As God is a free agent, the order of nature is not necessary in the sense that it could not have been otherwise than it is. It is only necessary in so far as it works according to definite uniform laws and is predetermined by a decree which, though absolute, was nevertheless free.

Moreover, in the case of miracles, God interferes with the ordinary course of nature; and the supposition that, at certain periods of the world's evolution, such, for instance, as when man first appeared on the earth, there have been other providential interpositions involving new departures in the world-process, provides for certain facts in the region of organic life an explanation not less scientific than the opposite assumptions of the materialists. St. Thomas distinguishes fate from Providence, and calls it the order or disposition of secondary causes according to which they act in obedience to the First Cause.

It follows from what has been said that, in the Catholic view, the idea of fate—St. Thomas dislikes the word—must lack the note of absolute necessity, since God's decrees are free, while it preserves the character of relative necessity inasmuch as such decrees, when once passed, cannot be gainsaid. Moreover, God knows what is going to happen because it is going to happen, and not vice versa. Hence the futurity of an event is a logical, but not a physical, consequence of God's foreknowledge.

[Kolokotronis]

“KOLO And Kosta .Does the following from New Advent agree with Orthodox teaching?(I assume it does)”

Its awfully scholastic, SFA. All in all, though, I think we agree in most aspects. The Fathers spoke of free will and God’s “foreknowledge” numerous times. I quoted a couple of their comments (from +John of Damascus and +Gregory Nazianzus) just today. To add a bit to what they said and specifically regarding free will and your comment:

“It is not God’s foreknowledge of those who, by their free choice and zeal, will prevail which is the cause of their victory, just as, again, it is not His knowing beforehand who will fall and be vanquished which is responsible for their defeat. Instead, it is the zeal, deliberate choice, and courage of each of us which effects the victory. Our faithlessness and sloth, our irresolution and indolence, on the other hand, comprise our defeat and perdition. So, while reclining on our bed of worldly affection He predestined, without perceiving just what it is we are saying. Yes, indeed, He truly knew you beforehand as inattentive and disobedient and lazy, but this is certainly not because He ordered or foreordained it that you should have no power to repent yourself nor, if you will it, to get up and obey.” +Symeon the New Theologian

[stfassisi]

Thanks for the wonderful writing from +Symeon the New Theologian.

In other words...
We need not be concerned with God's foreknowledge since it is NOT possible to know what only God knows.

We are to be Obedient since He wills us for the purpose of Love.

I wish you a Blessed day!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In doing this you will have to accept Hitler's reign,lucifer being cast out of heaven, the fall of Adam and Eve etc... as part of God's created plan.

Nothing is outside of God's created plan because as God tells us Himself...

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:10

Satan is a created being. Any time God doesn't want him to prowl the earth, all He has to do is erase him from existence in less than the blink of an eye.

Further, if, as Scripture tells us, Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," then of course God likewise purposed Adam and Eve's fall from the foundation of the world, or else you would have God ordaining an offering for something that had yet to occur in the mind of God, which is ridiculous.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Amen. And He further states,
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen.

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10