Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[Forest Keeper]

Kosta: “And, the Church never elevates itself above the Scriptures because the Scriptures are what the Church agreed was what was believed.”

Kolo: Indeed not, but that said, one should never forget that the canon of the NT (and as read the OT too for that matter) is a creation of The Church, and that Church believed an taught then what Orthodoxy teaches today.

In that case I am being asked to simultaneously accept that the Church created the canon and has the sole authority to interpret the scriptures into whatever it says is correct, HOWEVER, the Church is not above the scriptures. That is simply unreasonable. What you are asking me to accept is that an author is not above his own novel, a composer is not above his own score, and an artist is not above his own painting.

[Kolokotronis]

“In that case I am being asked to simultaneously accept that the Church created the canon and has the sole authority to interpret the scriptures into whatever it says is correct, HOWEVER, the Church is not above the scriptures.”

You misunderstand. The Church created the canon by determining which of the writings which claimed to be inspired by God and were “contending” for use by Christians were consistent with what The Church always and everywhere believed. The Church had and has sole authority to make that determination. The Church is the repository of The Truth and the scriptures are used to teach The Truth, which they in great measure reflect, to mankind. To this extent The Church is not above the scriptures because The Church in recognizing, explaining and teaching The Truth is not above it nor is it its creator.

[Marysecretary]

You can slap them right in the face with the Word of God and it doesn’t matter. They have a few favorite verses they’ve twisted to suit their religious beliefs, which is funny because they don’t really seem to believe that God’s Word is all that important in the scheme of things. LOL.

[stfassisi]

What are your opinions on the following from Saint Aquinas?

That a Created Intelligence needs some influx of Divine Light to see God in His Essence

IT is impossible for that which is the proper form of one thing to become the form of another thing, unless that latter thing comes to partake of some likeness to the former. But the divine essence is the proper intelligible form of the divine intelligence, and is proportioned to it: for in God these three are one, that which understands, that whereby it understands, and that which is understood. It is impossible therefore for the very essence of God to become an intelligible form to any created intellect otherwise than by the said intellect coming to be partaker in some likeness to God.
3. If two things, not previously united, come afterwards to be united, this must be either by a change in both or by a change in one of them. If therefore any created intellect begins anew to see the essence of God, the divine essence must be conjoined anew with that intellect by way of intelligible presentation. But it is impossible for the divine essence to change; and therefore such union must begin by some change in the created intellect, that is to say, by its making some new acquisition.

But because we arrive at the knowledge of things intelligible through things sensible, we also transfer the names of sensible cognition to intelligible cognition, and particularly the properties of sight, which among senses is the nobler and more spiritual and more akin to intellect: hence intellectual knowledge itself is called sight, or vision. And because bodily vision is not accomplished except through light, the means whereby intellectual vision is fulfilled borrow the name of light. That disposition therefore whereby a created intelligence is raised to the intellectual vision of the divine substance is called the ‘light of glory.’

This is the light of which it is said: In thy light we shall see light (Ps. xxxv, 10), to wit, of the divine substance; and, The city needeth not sun nor moon, for the brightness of God illuminateth it (Apoc. xxi, 23); and, No more shall there be sun to shine on thee by day, nor brightness of moon to enlighten thee, but the Lord shall be to thee an everlasting light, and thy God shall be thy glory Isaias lx, 19). And because in God being and understanding are the same and He is to all the cause of understanding, He is on that account called ‘light’: He was the true light, that enlighteneth every man coming into this world John i, 8)*: God is light (1 John i, 5): Clad in light as in a garment (Ps. ciii, 2). And therefore also as well God as the angels in Holy Scripture are described in figures of fire, because of the brightness of fire.

http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_53.htm

[Kolokotronis]

“What are your opinions on the following from Saint Aquinas?”

That he is wrong, very very wrong.

[stfassisi]

“”That he is wrong, very very wrong.””

Can you explain why you think this ,Dear Brother?

It seems to me that God has the power to do what Aquinas is saying here

[Kolokotronis]

“Can you explain why you think this ,Dear Brother?”

What he has theorized is diametrically opposed to the consensus patrum. Aquinas wrote well, but his writings are so suffused with pagan philosophy that sometimes it is hard to credit that he was truly a Christian theologian. It helps to remember that he was arguing with Mohammedan disputants who were steeped in Aristotelian philosophy. There is very little in the writings of Aquinas which an Orthodox Christian will recognize and embrace.

[stfassisi]

That only explains your personal opinion of Aquinas,Dear Brother, that is backed up with no substance. It does not address what was written in post #5744.

I am sincerely trying to understand why you reject it?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***Of course God planned the Flood, He said so in no uncertain terms and planned for its aftermath. He fully intended to and did wipe out everything except for what He put on the ark. Mark, as a Catholic, how would you and/or the Latin Church answer this?***

Interesting. New Advent says this: ...........

Mark: So what we have is that God caused the flood to happen in response to man’s wickedness. God also condemned Sodom and Gomorrah in response to their wickedness. God caused the multiplication of languages at the Tower of Babel in response to their wickedness.

Thanks. While I don't see God as being a reactionary Being, I am glad to see that the Church recognizes that these events did in fact happen.

FK: ***And, none of us knows who the whole group of the elect are, but we CAN know about our individual selves. ***

Can or do? How is that knowledge experienced?

It has to be "CAN", or else I couldn't consider you guys as Christians since you say you have no assurance. I don't want to go there. :) Assurance is experienced by acceptance of the totality of God's promises in the scriptures, as the text reads.

FK: *** It is certain that not all who profess to being Bible-believing Christians are of the elect. ***

This does not jive. How can you believe in God if you are not hijacked by the Reformed Holy Spirit? Does the Reformed Holy Spirit then give the grace to believe in God to some that are then condemned to hell? Am I misunderstanding or is Reformed belief a tad inconsistent?

If Reformed theology is anything, it is consistent. :) The Reformed Holy Spirit, as you say, gives faith (salvational grace) ONLY to the elect, and then they profess it. However, this does not encompass the entire pool of those who profess. Some who are false believers also profess. One day they will say "Lord, Lord". Anyone can say "I believe", but only the elect can say so in truth. There are false believers among all of our churches.

FK: ***The elect are predestined to be saved (remember the different uses of the word “saved” within time?) which IS AS GOOD AS BEING saved.***

Whee. What does this really mean?

I'm not sure what you are asking. On one level it means that God's promises are better than gold. On another level it means that the Reformed can be said to be "saved" at different points in time. It can be said that we are saved at the foundation of the world. It can also be said that we are saved when Jesus died on the cross. Further, it can be said to apply when we believe. Finally, it can be said to happen when we actually enter Heaven. All are legitimate uses of the word "save" and God promises that all will happen for the elect.

[MarkBsnr]

***While I don’t see God as being a reactionary Being, I am glad to see that the Church recognizes that these events did in fact happen.***

If God didn’t do this in reaction to what we humans did, then what prompted it?

***It has to be “CAN”, or else I couldn’t consider you guys as Christians since you say you have no assurance. I don’t want to go there. :) Assurance is experienced by acceptance of the totality of God’s promises in the scriptures, as the text reads.***

Since not even St. Paul was assured, how is it that you guys are?

***On one level it means that God’s promises are better than gold. On another level it means that the Reformed can be said to be “saved” at different points in time. It can be said that we are saved at the foundation of the world. It can also be said that we are saved when Jesus died on the cross. Further, it can be said to apply when we believe. Finally, it can be said to happen when we actually enter Heaven. All are legitimate uses of the word “save” and God promises that all will happen for the elect.***

Wow. And none of this relates to anything of your doing or not doing. Nothing of what you do or not do relates to anything. You are saved and no sin matters. This is fantastic.

[kosta50]

As a Presbyterian, I believe the church still has elected elders

Too bad you don't recognize their apostolic authority.

These elected elders govern the earthly body of the church

Correct.

they do not dispense God's grace

Agree.

they are not infallible in any way

Agree.

are not "another Christ"

No they are not "another " Christ, but they are the icons (an image) of Christ. (we don't worship images)

they are not required to remain in some kind of anti-life monasticism

Agree that they are not required. Those who live monastic lives do so on their own choice. Monastic life is not anti-life; it's probably closer to what we will be doing in heaven. :)

and they are not the final authority which belongs to God and His word alone

True. The problem is who interprets the word of God? Every Tom, Dick and Harriette?

According to God's word..."For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." -- Matthew 18:20

Random verse generator again. That verse says nothing about the authority. You are quoting out of context.That verse has been quoted and re-quoted ad nauseum. What does it mean? That Christ requires a "quorum?" One believer is not enough?

Christ is making a reference (Mat 18:16)

"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED

Every fact? We won't go into this sweeping generalization now, but it's rather naïve to believe that this is so

which comes from Deut 19:16 which reads

"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed"

And in verse 17 Christ says

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

In other words, excommunicate them! Also, so much for including Gentles in the "branch" of Israel.

And then he says (Mat 18:18)

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven

Whoa!! WHO is He talking to? The crowds? Naw. Oh no, He is talking to the disciples (verse 1), not Tom, Dick and Harriette. He just gave the all the keys to bind and loosen, and promises that whatever they (the select ones, the clergy) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

So, when a priest blesses you, he is not dispensing grace; the heaven is, because Christ promised it to his priesthood. If you don't believe it, then you don;t believe the entire Bible. Welcome to the club! :)

So, then your verse (20) in context is in relation to the clergy because He makes the distinction between them and the whole Church (v.17).

[kosta50]

Kosta: “The Great Commission (in both Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts) was given to the eleven apostles only.”

MTWD: So that means NOBODY today has any responsibility to proclaim the Gospel? You don’t say that the Great Commission was given to the 11 apostles and their successors

Yes I am, unless you can find evidence to the contrary. The evelen where there and the apostles chose their successors and their rpelacements.

[kosta50]

I offer for your consideration, Proverbs 16:4 “The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Is that what Jesus taught? Where is Christ in Prov 16? Therein lies the problem.

Besides, the NAB says "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Quite a difference from "for himself."

It's interesting that KJV translates the Hebrew word "ma'aneh" as answer no less than seven times, but in this particular case it translates it (one and only time) as "for himself!" How curious! Smacks of an agenda to me.

The Septuagint (LXX) actually omits this verse along with verses 1, 3, and 6 of the Masoretic Text)!

So, how do you expect an Orthodox Christian to consider Prov 16 with that verse in it?

[kosta50]

Here’s a link to a book that closely examines what the Scripture says about the structure and function of the NT church - not comfortable for most SBC pastors, likely true for many others...

WShy do Protestants write so many books when the Bible is supposed to be "perspicuous?"

[kosta50]

I would like to know who makes up the Church administration from the ONE TRUE Church it claims that is made up of all denominations with various beliefs?It must be the guy who runs the website who decides the Church administration;)Sound like a statement from the United Nations-;

Sure does, doesn't it?!

[kosta50]

IMHO,since God uses His creature to build up the Church through the ages ,it seems to me that this would have to include the triune nature of God guiding that process through human nature

Often we discover that we believe the same thing but our vocabulriy doesn't.

That said,I will refrain from arguing an over 1000 year old problem between us and Pray for complete unity for the leaders of both sides to figure out.

Me too. But we must point to our disagreements, remembering that they are "in-house," and that the path towards full unity will be full of such.

[irishtenor]

Because selling books PAYS!!!!!!!!!!!

Want to read mine when I am done writing it? :>)

[stfassisi]

Me too. But we must point to our disagreements, remembering that they are "in-house," and that the path towards full unity will be full of such.

I suppose you're right, and I certainly trust we can do it with respect for each other

Past my bedtime though.

I wish you and your family a blessed evening!

[kosta50]

The claim was that God would not let His elect sin SUCH THAT salvation would be lost. The claim is that we can reasonably infer this from scripture, as I have posted. No one says that the elect stop sinning after they are saved

You then must also believe that God would not let His reporbates do enough good in this world in order to lose their perdition!

That's because you believe things such as Prov 16:4. Septuaging doesn't have that vers (or 1, 3, or 6). We don't have the same scriptures and we don't believe the same thing.

I think Jesus knew what would happen a scant few weeks later. The command was to all of them, as well as all of us.

The Bible is clear about the eleven. You don't like what it says, so you say it's nto true.

you say that God wants all to be saved

I don't; the NT does, but you don't like that so you "give" it to me.

Many more would be reached and saved if the attitude was that Jesus was speaking to the laity as well.

Conjecture. The Bible is clear that he was addresisng the eleven.

Bible-believing Christians believe that the Great Commission applies to everyone with true faith

That's fine with me, but it's not what the Bible says.

Then either God erred or God needed Paul's help

The disciples didn't fully grasp Chris's role until afer He left.

I mean, if the Church had folded, would God have said "Oh well"?

Jesus specifically told the disciples not to go to Samaria and where Gentiles live. He also stated that He was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and in Math 18:17 He make sit clear that the Gentles are not the same as the Jews.

[kosta50]

I suppose you're right, and I certainly trust we can do it with respect for each other

There is no other alternative.