Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I believe I have clealry stated (in 1534) how we see ourselves in relation to God.
You are right. The word "may" does not mean "must," but might, a desire, a possibility, a chance, have permission to (archaic).
Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
I am sorry I don't nderstand how this follows what I said. We believe in the same God, the God of Abraham, but that does not mean that Moses or Abraham were Christians.
I really hesitate to come back into this thread but perhaps if you read these writings by three of the Fathers you'll see whence Kosta is speaking. Our Orthodox Christian "understanding" of our Triune God and theosis (salvation) is rather different from that in the West:
"The Spirit does not take up His abode in someone's life through a physical approach; how could a corporeal being approach the Bodiless one? Instead, the Spirit comes to us when we withdraw ourselves from evil passions, which have crept into the soul through its friendship with the flesh, alienating us from a close relationship with God. Only when a man has been cleansed from the shame of his evil, and has returned to his natural beauty, and the original form of the Royal Image has been restored in him, is it possible for him to approach the Paraclete. Then, like the sun, He will show you in Himself the image of the invisible, and with purified eyes you will see in this blessed image the unspeakable beauty of its prototype." +Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 4th century.
"It is my opinion that our intellect does not have a natural power to be moved to the divine vision of Divinity. And in this one deficiency we are the peers of all the celestial natures, for both in us and in them grace moves that which is alien by nature both to the human intellect and to the angelic. For divine vision concerning the Godhead is not to be numbered among the other kinds of divine vision. For we possess divine vision of the natures of things through participation in their twofold nature, because there is a portion of all things in us. But we do not have a portion of the nature of the Divine Essence, and so neither do we have by nature divine vision of it." +Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies, 6th century.
and finally this:
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, 'He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him' (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.
Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the 'spirit', according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God..." +Gregory Palamas, 14th century.
Rom 9:6-8 ...For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Good answer, but the whole point is that God chose only some to do His specific task (i.e. were select). It was about being chosen, and that not all who believe are chosen.
I have rejected that part of your Church in my heart. I have many Catholic friends - so what. We are in disagreement over doctrine, doctrine, doctrine.
Nonsequitur
jo did you chose wisely & the other guy did not?
Same answer?
OK
How about love then; it is clear you have love while the other guy did not.
The study was about the leadership not the doctrine. Every Independent baptist church was counted as a separate denomination because they do not have a single leadership.
Every independent Church was counted as its own denomination, but if you went to the websites of these churches you would see that they all actually hold the same doctrine.
Even very "different" soteriologies like the Arminians and Calvinists here hold probably 90 % of our doctrine in common only an alteration of the order of salvation .
That is a lesser difference than if you took a survey of how many Registered Catholics agree with the church on many issues.
Sure,
Men have a free will that was bound by the sin of Adam. After the fall men still have a free will,but they will never choose "good" they will instead choose between the lesser of 2 evils, they will never choose to do "good " or be "good" ( as God calls good not men). So men have a "free" will that is in bondage to sin, men always serve their master, in this case the unsaved man has sin as his master.
I have heard it said by an evangelical Christian that before he was saved sin was never a "problem" to him, he just did it without a concern or guilt. That is the unregenerate, will at work.
Men will always choose according to his nature, an unregenerate mans nature will never desire to come to God .
That bondage must be broken by Gods grace before a man will have the ability to truly repent that sin and believe in Christ.
Paul expresses it like this
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
He notes the change with conversion
Eph 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience::3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? .Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
So the unregenerate man can choose, but he will never chose Christ, he is a slave to his sin nature.
Orthodox/Catholic:
4) You are both right. The Eucharist transmits saving grace, and it is a commandment of Christ.
5) Harley is flat wrong. God's plan for each one depends on one's actions, but God is involved in everyone's life at all times. Not a sparrow falls on the ground without His knowledge.
Reformed:
1) Your disagreement is one of those jelly-on-the-wall things about Reformed theology. I surely have seen statements that God hates the reprobate made by the Calvinists. I agree that the statement cannot be ascribed to to all Protestants, as not all are Calvinists.
2-5) Harley cannot mean literally that only Harley is saved, sealed with the Holy spirit, etc. If Harley disagrees with Bohemund, he needs to point out where in precise rather than idiomatic language.
You have reminded me to look for a quote from Pink regarding "Two Fold Working of the Holy Spirit".
Your are throwing enough fog around hoping to get away from the plain fact that the Christian Canon was established in AD 419 if memory serves, and Luther reduced it.
I wonder why do you need to feel defensive about it. Amputating parts of Christ's legacy is something the Reformed are not generally defensive about. Do you not proclaim Sola Scriptura with pride? You can reduce the Holy Scripture to, say, the letter to Galatians, and remain on the same vandalistic trip you started with Sola Scriptura. Once you decided that you are going to interpret any part of the Holy Scripture for yourselves and discard the unwritten tradition, it matters very little what part of the Scripture you want to continue to look at in that foolish manner, and which to discard. You should feel free to reduce the scripture to a single verse, or fit it on a vanity license plate, or whatever.
momof7 (bless 'em all)
Found it. Below Pink tells of the sense in which some seek God but the last line is:
They still lacked the principle of regeneration!
Shortened version below from Pinks commentary on Hebrews.
2. The Spirit causes men to turn naturally toward the Redeemer.
Self-love is the predominant principle in the natural man: he loves himself more than he loves God; it is this which lies at the root of depravity and sin. Now when a man’s conscience is convicted so that he perceives his need of a physician, and recognizes that happiness comes from Christ, such good news appeals to his self-love. Satan, who knows human nature so well was right when he said, "skin for skin yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life" (Job 2:4). Make the self-love of the natural man conscious of the wrath of God, and he is ready to "accept Christ", or do anything else which the preacher bids him; yet that is only the workings of nature, he is still unregenerate.
An enlightened understanding, moved by self-love, is prepared to take up Divine duties never practiced before, yea, to walk in the commandments of God. This was demonstrated plainly at Sinai. When Jehovah appeared before Israel in His awesome majesty, and their conscience was smitten by His manifested holiness, they said to Moses, "Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear and do". They were prepared to receive and obey the Lord’s statutes. Yet mark what God said of them, "Oh, that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always". They still lacked the principle of regeneration!
As to love, I would say that Christ's love is shining through my actions much more clearly than someone who chooses not to love.
Regards
How about more Godly wisdom than the other guy. Hope you know I wasn't talking about a PhD in Physics - if you did not then let's make it clear that I am talking about the wisdom of God not the wisdom of man.
I claim that your view is that through your own natural reason/free-will you chose God but the other guy did not. You used the teaching of your Church wisely in your view, the other guy did not.
Any chance we can agree on that?
The Catholic Church does not teach that man can come to God of his own natural ability. The teaching of Pelagius was declared as heretical some 1500 years ago, and Trent clearly re-affirmed that. Quite frankly, I think the interaction between God's graces of calling us to Him and our free will response in answering the call is a mystery. As this very long thread has shown, there are many opinions on the matter. The Church itself has not defined the matter, nor will I attempt it.
As I have asked several times on this thread, what makes a grace efficacious, God or man's response? Who can say how the two interact. But we do say that neither overpowers the other or is independent of the other.
Thus, to answer your question, I can't say it was "my" wisdom alone that enabled me to make the right choice, because God was certainly involved.
Regards
Thus, to answer your question, I can't say it was "my" wisdom alone that enabled me to make the right choice, because God was certainly involved.
And that my dear jo kus is where we are diametrically opposed. As you know by now I hold that my redemption is totally from God & zero to the lazy eigth power of me.
I think we understand each other.
If you are unfamiliar with the acronym TULIP please ask; it summarizes my theology on the matter of salvation. Oh heck I'll just state it, it summarizes an old Protestant doctrinal dispute:
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints
Finally without agreeing with me in the slightest I trust that you can understand why I understand that your involvement with God in your salvation makes you the final arbiter; that applies to the other guy also.
Note, Christ links "works done in God" with faith. Again, this matches the entire theme that I see throughout the Scripture - that one must WALK in faith in God. When Christ speaks about obeying the Will of the Father, He ALSO is NOT excluding FAITH. Thus, when Christ speaks about faith, I note that He is also expecting us to walk in that faith. Thus, we are saved by faith AND works of love in Christ.
I would link them also. Before faith, our works are evil. After salvation, our good works count as good. I suppose I just see those works as a natural fruit of salvation, as opposed to a choice in the sense we have been discussing. If after salvation, I noticed that I was still doing the evil I did before, then I think I'd be in big trouble. The replaced nature will produce change in every case.
In today's society, it seems that there is an overemphasis on "tolerance" to the degree that no one stands for truth hardly anymore. "What's your truth is your truth, and what's my truth is my truth". I think we all have been infected with this to some degree. By preaching "over-tolerance", the truth is watered down - the REAL TRUTH, not one's own idea of truth. That is why I think one must pursue the truth and accept it, wherever it leads them. The important thing to remember, though, is that truth is NOT based on our own opinions! Truth is not a popularity contest...I leave you with that to think about.
Amen to that, brother! I don't know if it is his line, but my pastor always says "tolerance is knowing what is intolerable". I like that. I suppose the issue, then, is where do we get the truth. I would say that it comes from the Spirit. I'm guessing you would say it comes from the Spirit to the Church, and then to you through the "lenses" that you speak of later. In any event, I agree that the truth does not come from my own opinions in my human capacity. There have been several truths in the Bible that did not make sense to me when I first heard them, but I later accepted. Hopefully that is a good sign. :)
Believe it or not, the Church only truly defines like a dozen verses that can be taken only one specific way (most dealing with the sacraments). The rest, the Church recognizes several ways of reading the same Scripture. We have a Tradition (teaching) that we have been given, and we read the Scripture through that "lens".
I didn't know that. So, two people could use the same lens when reading a verse and come to different results within the lens. But this must be distinguished from what is outside the lens, thus, neither person could reach such a conclusion. Is that close enough? :)
Thus, as we all are painfully aware, people can misuse Scripture. The very first Christians made the complaint that heretics did JUST THAT! Thus, the absolute need for an authoritative interpreter to fall back on WHEN people disagree on the essentials of faith. As far as I can tell, Christ only left one such interpreter, the Church hierarchy.
I certainly agree that scripture can be misused, as satan did misuse it. I am one of those who believes that the Bible interprets itself. So if I suspect someone is misinterpreting, then I SHOULD be able to point to other scripture to back up my claim. I would say that Christ left a part of Himself in scripture for us to use as an interpreter. Christ even openly interprets Himself in some verses.
Unfortunately, a book cannot interpret itself. I can write one sentence, and you would have no idea what I am emphasizing ...
If all I had was the one statement, you'd be right. If I had many other of your statements, showing how you use language, along with a detailed view of your nature, then I think it would be possible to arrive at a correct interpretation.
I believe it is common sense that there are a number of things that Christians did and believed that didn't make the letters of Paul or John. ... Things we take for granted, we don't normally write about. And the same for early Christian practices. Certain things were taken for granted, and Paul and Peter and John found no need to write about them. But other Christians did. It makes no sense to me why we would exclude things from Christian practice BECAUSE it is not in the Scriptures!
I agree with you. And, if we needed any of those things, I suppose God would have included them in the Bible. So, I would say that any teaching or tradition is presumably fine as long as it is firmly consistent with the Bible, or at the very least, non-offensive to scripture. I have no problem with Christians worshiping in different ways, as long as the true God is the center. If a cult started ordaining openly gay Bishops, then I would question whether they are worshiping the true God. :)
That [the Bible] is useful, but really, it is words in action that converts and brings people to God.
Men do the converting?
God bless.
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.