FK: VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat
How is that un-Apostolic? You mean unBiblical?
Yes, nobody gets into Heaven but for Christ. But this does not mean that no one was saved until Christ died and rose within time. That's a side issue, though.
There is no redemption before Christ. If you believe people were saved before his sacrifice on the cross, then his sacrifice on the cross was not necessary.
His sacrifice made it possible for mankind to be saved by freeing people from enslavement of death to which everyone was subject. (and no, Elijah never died...)
[Ibid.] Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man.
I'm not sure what he means by this. From his scripture quotes it sort of sounds like he means universal salvation, but I don't know. ........ While Christ's sacrifice certainly had a huge effect on the elect, what difference did it make for the reprobate? I mean, were OT reprobate somehow different from the reprobate of today?
That's because your theology is in conflict with the theology of the early Church. The atonement taught by your theology is not the atonement understood by those who walked with the Apostles.
OK, this seems to say that we can't know "God" but for Christ. I am fine with that as long as everyone agrees that Christ was all over the OT
You keep saying that. Please show me where is Christ in the OT!
I have to TOTALLY disagree with this one, for it has man coming to God by his own independent decisions and acts. The Bible just doesn't teach this. I mean, this says one way to salvation was by leading a good life and knowing the Law. Nobody was ever saved that way.
More conflict with the original Christianity. It shows that the Bible was not the way (it isn't even now, for the faith GIVEN). It had a lot to do with how you lived and not what you preached. Preaching is just words. You can make yourself holier than though with words and lead a completely different lifestyle. In other words, words are cheap. We know what we are by what we do. And God judges us by what we do, not what we preach.
FK: VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat.
How is that un-Apostolic? You mean unBiblical?
No, I mean un-Orthodox. :) Look at the words: "... Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own" (emphasis added). This is a correct statement, but un-Orthodox because it does not recognize that God could not have entered this "temple" without the gracious assent of Mary. If Mary's assent was anywhere on +Athanasius' mind, then he would have said: "... Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and accepted it for His very own". He would have recognized the gift that Mary gave to God so that Jesus could come forward, if it was true. Yet he didn't. That's what I meant.
Now, in all fairness, I do not declare whether +Athanasius actually would have agreed with my inference. :) However, I would like to note again how much I "like" and prefer Patristic writings over other early writings because in most cases I can see a way to having some agreement, even if the intent of the author, in the end, doesn't support it. I think the style is much more inclusive among Christians.
There is no redemption before Christ. If you believe people were saved before his sacrifice on the cross, then his sacrifice on the cross was not necessary.
How does that follow?
His sacrifice made it possible for mankind to be saved by freeing people from enslavement of death to which everyone was subject. (and no, Elijah never died...)
His sacrifice ACCOMPLISHED within time the salvation of the elect. But if God is outside of time, a concept brought up much more often by Apostolics, then why can't Christ's death and resurrection apply retroactively? It did. Jesus said before he was crucified:
Luke 16:23-24 : 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham , have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
Where is Abraham if not in Heaven?
You keep saying that. Please show me where is Christ in the OT!
I keep answering, but....... :) The following link is to a chart that looks pretty good. The important thing is that Christ, AND Christ's love is all over the OT. Christ in the Old Testament
FK: I have to TOTALLY disagree with this one, for it has man coming to God by his own independent decisions and acts. The Bible just doesn't teach this. I mean, this says one way to salvation was by leading a good life and knowing the Law. Nobody was ever saved that way.
More conflict with the original Christianity. It shows that the Bible was not the way (it isn't even now, for the faith GIVEN).
Well THAT is certainly telling. :) YIKES! :)
It had a lot to do with how you lived and not what you preached. Preaching is just words.
You mean that preaching God's words ........ is just words. Preaching the Church's words is wholly different. :)
In other words, words are cheap. We know what we are by what we do. And God judges us by what we do, not what we preach.
Words CAN be cheap, but God's aren't. While what we do is very important in the salvation model, God's words are what give those deeds meaning and purpose. In a sense, without God's words all of our deeds are as filthy rags.