Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
So Peter was wrong? The writings were not inspired until the Church stated so 400 years later? It only becomes deemed inspired based on the council decree-not an apostle and Pope?
If Peter was the head of the Church and Peter said Paul's writings were inspired, why did it take the Church 400 years to agree with Peter? Moveover, why did it take the Church 400 years to determine what the first Pope states? Peter was after all the first Pope and I would assume probably the most important one. I would have thought that his writings would have been treasured.
If God created Adam and Eve sinless, and immortal, would you "equate" this to the incarnation of Christ? I might make a distinction that Adam was created with the potential to sin (you would call free will), because he did, while Christ did not sin. Did Christ have free will? By this line, it appears that Adam was born with a "flaw" that Jesus did not have. Where did this flaw come from? Even before the first sin was committed, wasn't our natural state inclusive of this flaw of potential to sin? Therefore, didn't our natural state dramatically change for the worse after the first sin (the flaw multiplied by being realized)?
Restoring mankind to its original state is the only "natural" state of man.
As above, is not this natural state flawed?
Most Protestants, except Calvinists, admit that the Saints (in heaven, the "famous" ones) pray on our behalf along with angels. Most Protestants except some Anglicans do not accept prayers (as requests) to the saints.
(First, thanks for the kind words.) I was unaware of this distinction across (generally) Protestantism. That's very interesting. Could you name any specific denominations? Even in my own church, I know there is a generally accepted belief that angels are fully real and "do" things on our behalf, but I have never heard that intercessory prayer is among them (even if we do not ask). As far as I know, in my church, and among non-physically-living humans, it is only the Spirit Who prays on our behalf.
Also, remember that Holy Trinity, as understood by the Church and accepted by most Protestants, as well as the duality of nature of Christ in one Person is not exactly word-by-word in the Scriptures either.
I agree that the Holy Trinity is a difficult concept to understand, especially explain, and does require interpretation. That immediately reminded me of the references earlier in this thread to the filioque (sp?). Before this thread, I had never heard the term in my life. Out of curiosity back then, I looked it up and got a dictionary sense of the views of the procession of the Holy Spirit. But, what I didn't catch was why this apparently was such a big deal. It appeared to be a major reason for the schism, but I don't see why that would be.
(To be honest, I don't even know what I'm "supposed" to believe on this. We've never had a single lesson on it in Sunday school. I've always thought that all three persons were co-existent and co-equal from the beginning.) Anyway, why is it such a big thing whether the HS proceeds from just the Father or from the Father and Jesus?
Oh, and here's a weird one for you. Would you tell me how to pronounce filioque? I searched the net for 20 minutes and couldn't find it. It drove me crazy :)
I already explained this. Not everyone believed that 2 Peter WAS Scripture, nor even WRITTEN by Peter. So how can we base "what is Scripture" on a letter that Christians weren't sure on, that many disagreed on its inerrancy? The Church didn't take 400 years to decide that Paul's letters were Scripture. Some of them were noted as Scripture by future writers in the second century. But some of "Paul's" writings were debatable. Hebrews. The Pastorals. Did Paul write them? Evidence is clear that not everyone was sure about their authenticity. There appears to be a gradual acceptance of the Pauline Corpus, but none of this was ever universal until the Church declared it so.
And last I looked, the NT consists of more than some writings from Paul and the Gospels... Where does the Bible state that James is inspired by God? John's Epistles? Jude? 2 Peter? The fact of the matter is that regarding doctrine, the Church DEFINES issues when there is disagreement on true teachings. The reason for councils was to define and weigh in on one side or the other. The same is true on the Canon of Scripture.
Regards
'how to pronounce filioque'
Fee-lee-oak
14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.What St. Paul definitely is doing here is warning that endless quotes from Romans and Galatians vainly purporting to prove salvation by faith alone lead to the destruction of Luther and his unlearned and unstable disciples.
feeleeokway
Latin has no silent letters.
The very fact that it is NOW included in the Canon should attest to it's infalliblity. Wouldn't that be correct?
Where does the Bible state that James is inspired by God? John's Epistles? Jude? 2 Peter?
In fact there were very few books that were called into question. Peter considered Paul's writings inspired. Undoubtedly the early church felt the same about Peter's writings. These writings were guarded. They were not oral traditions and they did not disappear. Nor did the church fathers sit around scratching their heads trying to decide what books to quote from. There is no better evidence than Peter's own words which the Church has deemed "inspired".
Some would like us to believe that the Church's council got together in the 4th century and magically strung all these books together, picking and choosing. You say that Peter had the keys to the kingdom and it was handed down in succession providing a clear documented trail back to Peter. And then you tell us nobody knew what books were inspired until the 4th century. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?
In truth all but a few of the writings were already validated and verified all the way back to Peter. (To deny this is to deny the inspiration of Peter.) And people were reading them. There are a handful of books that raised questions but these were only a few; not the many as we are led to believe. The purpose of closing the scriptures according to Augustine was to keep the Gnostic writings out; not for the Church to stamp their seal on God's word.
Church Latin- feeleokway
Been awhile, but I think Classical is - feeleeoak.
The no silent letter comment has me going back to HS again trying to remember.
I think I can hang with you here with one distinction. I would say that free will just isn't possible until after salvation, since we were born with a sin nature. Aside from that, this looks pretty reasonable to me.
Generally, classical Latin is even closer to letter-by-letter phonetics than Church Latin, which is influenced by Italian. For example, "caesar" is "k-eye-sar" in classical, "chehzar" in Church.
The phonetics that basically follow the intuition of an English speaker is legal Latin, where "bona feeday" becomes "bone a feyed". But I doubt lawyers have any use of "filioque".
"But I doubt lawyers have any use of "filioque".
Certainly not Greek Orthodox ones (even though I was a classics major)!
Yes. Every human being since Adam was born with the consequence or Adam's sin, which is mortality. Every one of us was born separated from God. ... But it is clear that the way we are is not the way God created man.
OK, I think this might be going back to the "what is God's plan" debate. If "natural" is mankind before the first sin, then I think I see what you are saying. However, that would bring me back to my recently posted argument (after your post) about God's role in creating man with the potential to sin. Is it only natural if man doesn't do what he could do? Does that sound natural for the human condition?
Since the last post, I have failed to come up with an example, and so am forced to admit, you are likely right.
He is referring to the OLD testament
"Did Christ have free will?"
Christ is God, the origin and definition of Free Will.
Before the Fall, Adam was in a state of potential theosis, though likely far more advanced than any of us. His free will was natural to him and not at all a flaw. Free Will is an attribute of our Triune God and Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. The exercise of that Free Will, to gain knowledge when he wasn't ready for it and then lying about it to God was Adam's doing, Adam's sin, not God's. God is never the author of evil, my friend.
Man's natural state is the state of Adam before the Fall and it is the state, theosis, to which we aspire and through the Incarnation it is available to us as it was to Adam. +Gregory Palamas gives a good discussion of this:
"Adam, before the fall ... participated in ... divine illumination and resplendence [theosis, or potential theosis], and because he was truly clothed in a garment of glory he was not naked, nor was he unseemly by reason of his nakedness. He was far more richly adorned than those who now deck themselves out with diadems of gold and brightly sparkling jewels. St. Paul calls this divine illumination and grace our celestial dwelling when he says, 'For this we sigh, yearning to be clothed in our heavenly habitation, since clothed we will not be found naked' (2 Cor. 5:2)."
"But, what I didn't catch was why this apparently was such a big deal. It appeared to be a major reason for the schism, but I don't see why that would be."
It is just about the most major big deal in Christian theology after the Arian and Nestorian heresies. The issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit has to do with the monarchy of the Father and the inner relationships of Holy Trinity and implicates questions of created and uncreated energies of God. Originally the filioque was used in Spain to counter certain Christologic heresies of the Arians. For centuries it was condemned by all the Patriarchs, including Rome, but eventually Rome accepted it and inserted it in the Creed. The East never accepted that. It now appears that Rome agrees that the use of the filioque is not "normative" and that it shouldn;t be used for teaching and translations. Some today say that although the filioque as originally taught by Rome is problematic, nevertheless it really is more about words than belief. The Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the East agree that while the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" only from the Father which is the source of both the Son and the Spirit. In any event, +Gregory Palamas explains the workings of the Trinity about as well as anyone could (for the Latins who read this, note how +Gregory speaks of the "eros" between the Father and the Logos and compare to +Benedict XVI's recent, quite wonderful, encyclical):
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
Paul perhaps was but not Peter. Peter specifically states that Paul's writings are inspired.
Wow.
So "sending" is not the same as "procession as regards existence"? My Catholic lung feels fine. Does this satisfy my Orthodox lung?
I don't argue that they are not, but where do you see that in 2 Peter?
Please note that Peter equates Paul's writings to Scriptures. As some have tried to make a case that Paul's instruction to Timothy was in regards to the Old Testament; presumably Peter is equating Paul's writings to the Old Testament scriptures.
I know I quoted the same thing just recently to both of you and the rest...
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.