All? He was addressing the Apostles. And the NT reminds us that not all are Apostles.
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. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Intended for the apostles only! here are a lot of other interesting details I outlined in this but that's for another thread.
You are forgetting that it is God's INTENTION to use His elect to reach others of His elect. So, in some cases my action is indeed required because that is what God planned. The cause of my action is wholly God, but it is still necessary for God's plan to be fulfilled. That is the use of my preaching
But you are not called to preach unless you are an apostle. Your preaching doesn't give anyone faith; neither does the Bible. Is it not God who gives faith? Was it not God, according to your theology, who decided that at one point, long before you existed, you will have faith regardless of what takes place?
Preaching, praying, bible reading had nothing to do with it. It was set in stone.
Again, I remind you that not all are apostles and that the Great Commission was not given to all.
When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well.
What benefit? Is your faith and your assurance not sufficient? What else do you need?
FK: ***I believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall.***
Mark: No. Your experience tells you that it will fall. It is knowledge. No wonder we have such interesting debates - we don’t even have common terminology.
FK: You're right that we don't have common terminology. I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.
But this "belief" is based on factual experience; not some "indwelling spirit." Look, even Christ used miracles to make people believe. It is only after it became impossible to duplicate the miracles mentioned in the early NT that faith, believing without seeing, became the norm in the writings towards the end of the 1st century.
Mark: See? The Reformed appear have redefined “belief” and “knowledge” each to mean the other
You know, Prof. Kalomiros, an Orthodox theologian of the 1970's, wrote in his address "You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose."
Do you see the reformed theology in this? I do. It reeks of Calvinism, where hate becomes love, where a tyrant becomes a "benevolent" Father, even a "Daddy."
But then Kalomiros says: "But what was the instrument of the devil’s slandering of God? What means did he use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought?
He used "theology." He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable...Did you ever try to pinpoint what is the principal characteristic of Western [Protestant] theology? Well, its principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of all evil."
So your observation is right on target, Mark. By changing and redefining words to fit that theology one creates new "beliefs," where hate becomes love and evil becomes a creature of God (something that was confirmed on in these posts by the reformed on more than one occasion). The really sad thing is that they are not even aware that they have been hijacked.
He used "theology." He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable...Did you ever try to pinpoint what is the principal characteristic of Western [Protestant] theology? Well, its principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of all evil."
Why did you add that bracket, Kosta? Here is the sentence that follows:
"What is evil? Is it not the estrangement from God Who is Life?1 Is it not death? What does Western theology teach about death? All Roman Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God." [emphasis mine]
Whatever Kalomiros had to say about Protestants, he said the same or worse about Roman Catholics. All Roman Catholics??? Where I come from, that quantifier has a precise, logical meaning. In fact, he was attacking Western Christianity in general, not just Protestants*. Kalomiros had some great things to say--taken straight from the Fathers--about the fire of God's unconditional love, so it's a shame that he turned his address into a broad, over-generalized screed against the entire West because that made it almost unpalatable.
Incidentally, I had found Kalomiros' River of Fire on the same site where I found C.S. Lewis' Introduction to +Athanasius. One of life's little coincidences, I suppose...
I think this goes back to the point that MD keeps making about trying to understand where we're all coming from and being precise** about what it is we're arguing for or against so that we really understand our similarities and differences before launching into invectives. These threads on the Religion Forum tend to turn into one giant and prolonged game of "Gotcha!" and this same "game" is played over and over and over, with no progress in sight. I am guilty of the same, and so I ask anyone who happens to read this for forgiveness for my own lack of charity and patience.
* The term "Protestant" is itself often used vaguely and imprecisely, especially on this thread. "Protestant" is not a religion (except perhaps for those who make an idol of their rejection of Rome's claims); it is simply the name for Western Christians who are not in communion with Rome.
** On a side note, MD, this is why I insisted a while back that--in this sense--precision is necessary for accuracy.
All? He was addressing the Apostles. And the NT reminds us that not all are Apostles.
By that reasoning there is no one left to make disciples, unless you put your clergy on a par with the Apostles. This falls apart immediately. You are forced to insert what is not there, i.e. "EXCEPT for Apostolic succession, which we claim."
The Great Commission (Mat 28: 1-20) ....... Intended for the apostles only!
Then Christ is not always with His children to the very end of the age. At best, you would have to say He is only with the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church. I know the Orthodox are against evangelism by the laity, but the only interpretation that makes any sense here is that Christ was talking to all of His children. You are truly trying to have it both ways.
If it is truly Christian to think of others first, then why wouldn't you want to share the most important thing in the world, the Gospel of Christ, with them? We have no reasonable answer for that, so we DO share. We even want to. Sometimes, I have worried that I will mess something up (and I have), but now I remember that it is God alone who does the saving. Perhaps under a works-based model you fear that your works might (through mistake) interfere with the works of people you're talking to. I'm not sure.
Your preaching doesn't give anyone faith; neither does the Bible. Is it not God who gives faith?
God gives faith. Under normal circumstances, it is through the hearing of the word either or both through preaching and the text of the Bible.
Was it not God, according to your theology, who decided that at one point, long before you existed, you will have faith regardless of what takes place?
Technically, no. It was God who decided that at one point, long before I existed, I would have faith. But, it was never REGARDLESS. Everything that led up to that moment was choreographed by God. The moment of my faith was not "whenever, just sometime before he dies". :)
Preaching, praying, bible reading had nothing to do with it. It was set in stone.
In my particular case, preaching (to me), praying, and bible reading were ALL a PART of the stone that was set for me. They were all ordained to happen, they all did happen, and now I believe. God first changed my heart to make any of these of any value to me, but everything had to happen (as described above in my case).
FK: "When we preach to the non-elect, we also benefit from the experience, and the non-elect probably benefits from the interaction as well."
What benefit? Is your faith and your assurance not sufficient? What else do you need?
What are you talking about? We don't preach for our own salvation!!! LOL! That is a TRUE mindset giveaway. :) No, we preach because we want to obey God and we want to please Him. And though it doesn't happen every day, I can't tell you how much of a thrill it is to be there when God decides to do a miracle in the person I'm talking to. God lets me watch, and there is nothing more fulfilling I can think of. I'd say that is a pretty worthwhile benefit. :)
FK to Mark: You're right that we don't have common terminology. I really DO believe that if I drop a hammer it will fall. ...
But this "belief" is based on factual experience; not some "indwelling spirit."
Not really. Before I had ever seen a hammer in my life I could have read a book describing gravity and then reasoned that if I ever did see a real hammer, that it would fall. When I read the book, He who made me believe the truth of gravity was the Spirit. So, when I finally did come across a hammer and dropped it and it fell, I knew I was reading a very true book.
You know, Prof. Kalomiros, an Orthodox theologian of the 1970's, wrote in his address "You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose."
Do you see the reformed theology in this? I do. It reeks of Calvinism, where hate becomes love, where a tyrant becomes a "benevolent" Father, even a "Daddy."
I don't see Reformed theology at all. I also don't agree with your implied equating of our beliefs with satan, again. But in this case, instead of stating our beliefs correctly and then just calling them satanic, this isn't even close to being right. In fact, it's so wrong I'm not even positive what you are trying to say, in order to refute it.
But in any event, if you really see Calvinism in that statement then I can only hope that others have learned a SINGLE thing about Calvinism from any of my posts. :)