Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The Word is not the Scripture alone. The Word is Christ and the visible Christ today is the Apostolic Church. If I post something and you doubt the meaning, you would ask me, right? You would not ask your pastor, or Harley, or anyone but me what I mean. Likewise, the Holy Scripture is the product of the Church. So, we ask the Church rather than your pastor. To do otherwise is foolish, although I recognize that many Protestants attempt to do so.
Just an observation observations, this is about rewards not salvation. It is consistent with what I told you earlier. That God is to get the glory for ALL our deeds not us. If we get the glory there is no eternal reward for that .
Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 10:41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
You want to interpret "reward" as salvation, but that is no where taught in scripture. Salvation is called salvation. If one does not think it is important to point to the "source" of his works, any reward is lost.
"That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 5:20).
Ahhh exactly, we can never enter heaven based on our own righteousness, (our works, law keeping, church attendance etc) we enter only covered in the righteousness of Christ.
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
No the rich young man did not know Jesus was the Messiah.
First you need to understand that Jesus was viewed as a Rabbi ( a teacher)
In Judaism men that aspired to be rabbis found one to follow around and to be taught by him. When they had done that for a time , they themselves become Rabbis .
This young man was looking for a Rabbi to study under , not a Savior.
Note he did not see Jesus as his Savior from the beginning, he was looking to save himself .
Mar 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Notice here that the emphasis is not on grace or mercy but what shall I do . He was not looking to God or the Messiah for salvation
The rich ruler wanted to know what he might need to do to be sure that he had not missed anything in his righteousness. Was there something that might prevent him from attaining everlasting life - life with God? Jesus struck a "fatal blow "to his theology and confidence. His did not understand righteousness .
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.
Jesus , who knows all things knows that this young man does NOT know who he is.
The young man called him good, that was a word reserved for God in Jewish culture.There are no parallels exist in Jewish literature for calling someone a "good teacher."
Jesus did not correct him when he called him good and say "no I am not good" instead He actually told him that He was God by not denying that he was good.
The young man does not respond to Jesus you are God.
Even when Jesus does not deny He is good (meaning He is God) the young man still does not see Jesus is Messiah Jesus , who knows all things knows that this young man does NOT know who he is.
Jesus got to the heart of the matter and revealed a corrupted understanding of righteousness. He categorically stated that only God is good. To think of a human in the same terms as God is a lack of understanding of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men . His standard was inadequate. IT WAS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN GOD’S.
Even when Jesus does not deny He is good (meaning He is God) the young man still does not see Jesus is Messiah
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Notice here that Jesus goes first to the part of the law that refers to men . In doing so shows this young mans self righteousness, as opposed to the righteousness of God.
He most likely did work at keeping the law. Jesus did not point out to him that he had failed at any one point of it .
Instead Jesus pointed out a sin that was not seen in the world of the Pharisees, the desire for greed and power and yes, making his possessions above his relationship to God or his eternal life . They were false gods tis true, but if he had known that Jesus was God and not just a teacher he may have given them up.
Mar 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Jesus does not question the truth of this. This was obviously a man that did keep the commandments. Except Jesus saw something that perhaps the young man had never even considered, there is more to righteousness than keeping the law
Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Jesus told the young man he lacked something in spite of his law keeping . What he lacked was faith . He did not understand that Jesus was the Messiah, he was not even looking for a Messiah. He was looking for a teacher , a rabbi to study under , so that one day he too could be a rabbi.He was looking to his own righteousness to save him. (Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;)
Jesus told him the cost of coming was dying to himself (pick up your cross).
This was about self righteousness and position and poser to this man , not seeking a Messiah
Mar 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
He trusted in his money more than Christ. Does that indicate any spiritual vision at all?
The others have sold all they had to follow Him. The mans faith was in himself and his possessions, and his own righteousnes
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Have no doubt, he was not seeking a Savior in that encounter. He did not know who Jesus was, and even when Jesus revealed himself to the man , he was still unable to come in faith .
Jesus did not come for the righteous,He came for sinners. So why would he demand law keeping here?
The point of this story is that no matter how hard men work at law keeping we can not do it .No matter how righteous we try to make ourselves , God can see the heart and sin that we do not see.
True righteousness is in Christ.
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" James 2:14-16
James is speaking to saved men on how the world will see them. It is about being justified in the eyes of men
If one believes he is saved or damned by his works , then one comforts oneself with the idea that "I am not as bad as my neighbor"
It allows a man to think men can be saved on the basis of that work and not need Christ as their savior( ie. Muslims)
The Bible tells us "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That is the inspired word of God . It does not say that some have fallen short and some are "close"
Now I quote James to you
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
So the thief is also a murder in Gods eyes.
No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works. The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Who is James SHOWING his "faith" to ? God work in us is how MEN see our faith.
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one . Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Isa 57:12 I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law . Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
The WORD when capitalized is Christ, when not it is scripture
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2Cr 6:7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
It is true that the word "logos" on occasion means just that, "word". You can see that from context (the original did not have any capitalization). Also, another word, "graphe" is used to designate scripture as opposed to Christ. The point is that the revealed truth of Christianity is not contained merely in the canonized scripture, but is the life of the Church as a whole, of which the Holy Scripture is a part. To interpret the Scripture outside of the Church makes as much sense as to interpret my words without asking me what I mean by what I post.
We are the church :)
No, unfortunately, the Protestants are not, as a community of faith, part of the Church, -- if they were, Luther's work to separate himself from the Church would have been in vain. Individual Protestants are, of course, mystically, and insofar as they are not in rebellion of mind, members of the catholic Church on which they rely for their salvation. But the Revelation subsists in the two apostolic Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and they together are source of the interpretation of the Scripture. The insights individual Protestant communities may have into the Scripture are private interpretations.
Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with Samaritans (they were often the "hero's" in His stories) or with Gentiles). I think the Spirit will not be inhibited if God wills to save a Muslim, despite his religious affiliation.
Could you define grace and mercy for me?
Grace is a freely given gift from God that empowers a man/woman to have faith, love, and trust in God. It CAN be rendered ineffectual by man himself (2Co 6:1; Ga 2:21; Eph 3:7; Heb 2:9; Jas 4:6). It is given to sinful men that they may turn to the Lord. It is by grace that we are saved - because through God's gift of faith and love, we are able to respond to God's promptings of love and union.
Mercy is generally thought of a sympathy, kindness, forbearance (when justice might be demanded) and forgiveness. We, too, are commanded to have mercy upon our brothers and sisters, forgiving them there trespasses and being kind to them, even in the face of unkindness.
Regards
I think, Jo, it needs to be stated that while Muslims can be saved, they are saved by Christ and after He is done with them they are no longer Muslim but Christian, albeit not baptized in the ordinary sense. There is no salvation outside the Church.
While Scripture often talks about rewards, it is NOT only relegated to this life!:
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he shall reward everyone according to their works. Matt 16:27
Rejoice ye in that day and leap for joy; for, behold, your reward [is] great in heaven, for their fathers treated the prophets in the same manner. Luke 6:23
(Regarding Mat 5:20) Ahhh exactly, we can never enter heaven based on our own righteousness, (our works, law keeping, church attendance etc) we enter only covered in the righteousness of Christ.
If that is not reading your theology into Scripture, I don’t know what is. Where does Matthew 5-7 mention ANYTHING about being covered in Christ’s righteousness? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard! The ENTIRE SECTION talks about YOU! Not about Christ covering you! He talks about reaching fulfilling the meaning of the Law BY loving others! When we pray, when we fast, when we give alms…In our relationships with others, even our enemies. Where or where does Matthew mention ANYTHING about being covered with Christ’s righteousness??!!
Regarding the Rich Young Man, I didn’t say the man thought Jesus was the Savior, or was God. He asked Him, as a Teacher, to tell him what was needed to be saved. Considering Jesus was God (although the man didn’t know), we must take seriously the answer He gave the young man – to obey the commandments out of love. Of course he was asking what HE needed to do! WE ALL want to know what is necessary to be saved. I don’t see your distinction. Nor do I understand your discussion on “not knowing Jesus was God”. So what…He received God’s advice, didn’t he? Unfortunately, he didn’t become “perfect”.
The rich ruler wanted to know what he might need to do to be sure that he had not missed anything in his righteousness. Was there something that might prevent him from attaining everlasting life - life with God? Jesus struck a "fatal blow "to his theology and confidence. His did not understand righteousness .
Jesus did not REJECT that the commandments were necessary for salvation! In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus even says “HE LOVED HIM”. Doesn’t sound like this man was a Pharisee, a hypocrite that Jesus tells us to NOT emulate throughout the Gospels.
Jesus got to the heart of the matter and revealed a corrupted understanding of righteousness. He categorically stated that only God is good. To think of a human in the same terms as God is a lack of understanding of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men . His standard was inadequate. IT WAS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN GOD’S.
Quite frankly, you miss the point of the story. If it was about “earning” salvation, if Jesus wanted to condemn following the Law, now was His chance…JESUS HIMSELF asked the man if he obeyed the commandments, the MAN didn’t say “see, teacher, I am doing “x”, and “y”. He asked because the man desired to know what was God’s will. As a teacher of the Law, Jesus WAS in a position to respond to this legitimate question. Again, you are reading your theology into the Scriptures. Love is the key to understand Christ’s teachings, not about God vs. man’s righteousness…
Except Jesus saw something that perhaps the young man had never even considered, there is more to righteousness than keeping the law
Hardly. This is about putting Jesus first in our lives. Recall all of the verses in the Bible that talk about the rich and entering heaven? Do you know why? How can a rich man rely on Christ? He relies on himself. He has the means to place his trust in himself. Christ wants us to die to ourselves! We MUST if we are to love. Love means dying to ourselves for the sake of the other. You must know this, being married, right? How can we die to ourselves when we see ourselves as the center of the world?
Jesus told the young man he lacked something in spite of his law keeping . What he lacked was faith .
If he lacked faith, he wouldn’t obey the commandments out of love!!! The wicked do not obey the Law. Those who have no faith in God are foolish. There are too many such verses in the OT to even begin to quote them all. What the man lacked was the attitude of dedicating himself entirely to God. His priorities were out of balance, and it showed when asked to give them up. Money, not God, was where his heart was.
Jesus did not come for the righteous,He came for sinners. So why would he demand law keeping here?
Christ says not ONE jot of the Law will pass away. He DEMANDS we keep the Law – the “royal” law of love (James). If He is your king, He expects obedience to His commands. Do you obey your king or not?
James is speaking to saved men on how the world will see them. It is about being justified in the eyes of men
The ENTIRE NT is written to “saved” people. I don’t understand the difference here in James. James is talking about adding deeds of love to our faith – since they don’t come automatically.
It allows a man to think men can be saved on the basis of that work and not need Christ as their savior( ie. Muslims)
We already covered this ground. There is a difference between an action done out of self-righteousness (for wages) and the SAME action done out of love of God and neighbor. You should be able to tell the two apart when you examine yourself.
No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works. The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Nor did I! I have NEVER said we are saved by works ALONE! We are saved by faith AND works… Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one . Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
It addresses FAITH! There is no "regular" faith and "saving" faith mentioned in the Scritures... You seem very intent on combining “works” and “faith” into one thing called “saving faith” so as to keep “sola fide” intact. The problem is that sola fide does not consider love as necessary for salvation. Do you? If I have not love, will I enter heaven? If you say no, then faith is not alone
All of your follow-up verses say is that we cannot earn salvation and that faith is key to salvation. I have not disagreed with that. I am merely saying that our faith MUST be combined with good works of love, otherwise, as James said, our faith is dead. What good is worthless faith? As the Scriptures say over and over, a person can have faith in Christ, BUT may not love. He may do things that will not allow him to inherit heaven. He may be LOSE his salvation obtained through Baptism and the Spirit. To be seen as righteous in God’s eyes, we must continue to persevere, cooperating with God’s graces that enable us to love our neighbors.
Regards
The children of the reformation will chose to politely refuse any union with Rome
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Church
ekklesia
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
No mention of Rome or a Pope . An assembly of believers.
But the Revelation subsists in the two apostolic Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and they together are source of the interpretation of the Scripture. The insights individual Protestant communities may have into the Scripture are private interpretations.
The "inclusion of the EO in your attempt to pacify and ingratiate yourself to our EO posters is noted, but they are no so easily deceived , they do not see themselves as subject to the Pope or Rome's teachings either . They are part of the church and not the church at Rome . I know you consider the scholars and teaching of our Churches as " private interpretation" and we let that pass as an expected insult from those that do not know any better, and repeat what they are told without question .
He revealed himself to them, he made no provision to "save" them in their work based religion and error. If you believe that those that do not know Christ can be saved then you do not think faith is at all necessary . If one can be saved without Christ, why did he bother to come at all? Could not God have just issued a general absolution?
Does this scripture count?
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Could you define grace and mercy for me?
Grace is a freely given gift from God that empowers a man/woman to have faith, love, and trust in God. It CAN be rendered ineffectual by man himself (2Co 6:1; Ga 2:21; Eph 3:7; Heb 2:9; Jas 4:6). It is given to sinful men that they may turn to the Lord. It is by grace that we are saved - because through God's gift of faith and love, we are able to respond to God's promptings of love and union.
Could we agree that it is undeserved merit?
Mercy is generally thought of a sympathy, kindness, forbearance (when justice might be demanded) and forgiveness. We, too, are commanded to have mercy upon our brothers and sisters, forgiving them there trespasses and being kind to them, even in the face of unkindness.
Could we agree one must be judged guilty to receive mercy?
My question is "Considering the earliest Christians wrote about the necessity of Tradition to interpret Scriptures, why has Tradition of late been discarded, when it was considered part of God's Word to us through His apostles?"
All of your quotes from the earliest Christians were extra-biblical, so I'm not sure why they should be accorded authority. For some reason, none of these words or teachings appear to have made it into the Bible. All of these writers also appear to have a self interest in their views: "Do what I say because God gave me (not you) the authority". It is not surprising that men in authority held theological positions that kept them in authority. If God's intent really was to give only a very select few the power to interpret scripture (across all time) to the exclusion of the rest of us, why was this idea not unambiguously included in the Bible the Catholics put together? It would seem to me that the people who assembled the Bible would have been very interested in securing their own authority for all time in the Bible, unless that was not God's will.
This brings me to my main question about Apostolic Succession. Is this a Biblical idea, or was it instituted by early successors to assert authority? Your Ephesians verse clearly speaks of spiritual gifts. And, clearly God gave the apostles very special spiritual gifts. What says they had the authority to pass along those special gifts to others?
Honestly, one of the things that has always troubled me most about Catholicism is the belief that priests have the actual, literal power to forgive sin, and that this is necessary for the lay Catholic to achieve final salvation. Clearly, the apostles were given special powers, including the ability to physically heal, and perform other miracles. Why can't priests do that today, but they can forgive sin? Why does Apostolic Succession only include the transfer of some powers?
Getting back to your question, I don't think it is necessary to discard tradition, it just must be tested. For example, is not clerical celibacy a tradition? (Notwithstanding that Paul hinted at it, I am unaware that it is mandated Biblically.) Anyway, I have no problem with this requirement if Catholics believe it works for them. I can't point to the Bible and say priests SHOULD be married. So, I find that tradition unobjectionable spiritually.
Overall, I suppose that I am just very uncomfortable with the idea of so heavily relying on men instead of God. I know the early Christians might say "don't worry, trust us. God gave us, and only us, special power and authority". To me, this attitude is, ironically, anti-free-will thinking. You said before that Catholics are allowed to disagree within a "lens" hierarchal teaching, but how much freedom is there really? The idea seems to be that Catholics should approach clerics with their honest questions, and the clerics will relay Church teaching, and require the person to adopt it to remain in good standing. I don't mean this in any diabolical sense. I only mean that Catholics are required to follow Church teaching.
I am Serbian. Kolokotronis is your resident Greek expert. That being said, I would add that God chose Greek for both the New and Old Testament for His New Covenant. The Gospels refer to verses from the Septuagint (LXX), remember?
I am not sure how precise the language is. But it is liturgical. In other words, it is capable of expressing divine concepts unlike ordinary vernacular. Thus, Latin had to develop into a liturgical language and Church Slavonic was specifically developed by SS Cyrill and Methodius as a liturgical language.
From what I know of Slavonic, it is capable of forming intricate concepts that correspond word-by-word, and grammatically, tense-by-tense, to the Greek original.
LOL! Where is the "wickedness" in robotic obedience? Are you that confused?
LOL! Where is the "wickedness" in robotic obedience? Are you that confused?
LOL! Where is the "wickedness" in robotic obedience? Are you that confused?
LOL! Where is the "wickedness" in robotic obedience? Are you that confused?
My point was that one-way relationships are not true relationships. God's love and sacrifice for us is immersurable compared to our minimalist approach. It's all God and nothing us. It's not a relationship in any sensible way. We adore God, we worship Him, we "love" Him in a selfish-way. That is neithe rlove nor a relationship.
You're saying these things on purpose, right? Just to drive me crazy! :) Concerning love, the last sentence in the universe I would have expected from you is that it is all God and nothing us. You're stealing my line! :)
The Catholics on this thread have been more than crystal clear that with God's aid, love-based works on our part are absolutely necessary to final salvation. "What is faith without love?" To a Catholic, "love[ing] Him in a selfish-way" is the road to perdition. As for everything in this paragraph, I'm with the Catholics! :) (We just look at the logistics a little differently :)
Now, without accusing anyone of anything, and if I understand what you're saying (maybe I don't), this seems like a major difference between EO and RCC. Was this difference a cause of the split? I vaguely remember from about a million posts ago that the split happened a little after the reformation because of "differences", but I don't remember what they were. I have noted several posts from Catholics and EOs that wish for or hope that there will be a reunification. Can there be if one side says that man cannot "truly" love God?
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.