Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
And I say to you: prove it!
Prove that you don't change the meaning of the words, or that what the Chruch believes is not tested against the Scriptures or that the Scriptures are not what the Apsotles taught by word of mouth. Show me one shred of evidence that what the Church believes is contrary to the Scripture.
"I would respectfully disagree about "begotten" because I see it as referring to the "man" Jesus, who was obviously "begotten". I would say that "The Son" was in full existence well before He was "begotten"."
But FK, the Creed says "...begotten of the Father before all ages...."
I have always assumed that Baptists, indeed all Christians, accept the Nicene Creed (either with or without the filioque). Was I wrong about the Baptists?
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these verses about John. I read that the seven deadly sins came from Pope St. Gregory.
I do agree that we are "baptized (immersed) in the Spirit", but we disagree as to when that occurs. I don't believe in infant baptism. I believe you have agreed that the Bible does not directly address infant baptism.
Please remember that the elect cannot be left out of heaven IN THE END - but who is to say that God doesn't leave that person for a time?
God does:
Ps. 139:7-12 : 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
Certainly WE DO leave God, but He never leaves His elect. Even with the prodigal son, isn't the comparison that the father was like God? He was still "with" his son in terms of love and support throughout the whole thing. He was unable to be physically with the son, but God does not have a similar restriction.
There are of course differences, since Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was both God and man. The Theotokos was not.
I'm not sure that I've noted that the Fathers speak to this in detail, since it enters the realm of theological speculation: what would have happened if the Jews and Romans of Christ's day had chosen not to kill him? -- as they certainly had the free will to choose to do or not to do. Would Christ have eventually died of old age and then been resurrected? Again, pointless theological speculation, which isn't really part of the Orthodox way of doing theology.
I don't think that it is safe to say that Christ's pre-Resurrectional body was incapable of corruption -- it obviously wasn't. He suffered thirst and hunger, he suffered pain, he bled, he sweated. None of these things are characteristics of a glorified body. In fact, if his body weren't just like ours, then he wouldn't really be truly God and truly man.
There are many, many stories in the lives of the saints where saints voluntarily die at a time that seems to be of their choosing -- in perfect concordance with the will of God. They are destined for death, are ailing, but to a certain extent are able to receive communion, say their last words, and then give up their spirit to God.
I have no problem in believing that something of this sort happened to the Theotokos -- I believe she probably did exercise some will to give up her spirit at the end of her life. But she knew the end was coming and inevitable, so this control was not absolute.
Christ, on the other hand, controls the winds and waves, and is the creator of the universe. He raises the dead, heals the sick of every infirmity, and told his disciples at the time of his Passion that he could call down legions of angels to aid him if he chose. In short, Christ could have chosen, so to speak to heal himself and continue to do so indefinitely. In that sense, Christ did voluntarily die, and the Scripture says that he gave up his spirit. The soldiers were surprised that he was already dead.
But he was born with a body that was just like ours. He also was tempted in every way that we were -- and it was real temptation -- otherwise how is he fully God and fully man? The Scriptures simply say that he was like us in all ways except that he did not sin.
The Theotokos didn't sin, and yet suffered the effects of "original sin" -- she grew old and died. I've not heard it said one way or another whether the Orthodox Church believes that Christ was born with "original sin" in that sense -- i.e. the tendency to death and corruption. This is probably because we aren't focused on original sin.
Amen, brother! If you want to know just how much I agree with you on this, see my 2883. :)
"Again, pointless theological speculation, which isn't really part of the Orthodox way of doing theology."
!
I know that you know that Adam sinned, I was referring to the inherited part.
We are simply born with the consequences of their sin. Imagine a woman who is an alcoholic and drinks while she is pregnant. Her sin will poison the baby. The child, will be born brain-damaged from the effects of alcohol, yet the child is not guilty of having done any drinking of his or her own. Where is the guilt in that child?
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. I don't think that I did anything wrong when I was born with the original sin. I didn't "earn" my sinful nature of my own accord. Adam did it first, and now I am subject to the consequences. If that were the end of the story I would think that is totally unfair. Thank God it isn't.
We've all heard of "crack babies" who are literally addicted to cocaine at birth. They inherited the addiction through no individual fault of their own. Yet, it is real and they will suffer the consequences. That's the bad news. The good news is they can be healed
Well, even a busted clock ... :)
FK: "I never claimed that everyone who claimed to be of the elect actually was. We both know that cannot be true.
Applied to oneself, why isn't this true? How does a person "KNOW" he is of the elect when he cannot see God's view? Apparently, you believe that we cannot know absolutely that we are saved - we agree. However, we should have "confidence" and "hope" that WE are following Christ. I do not believe, however, that this makes us of the Elect.
We know we are of the elect to the extent we accept that God's promises in the Bible are true. Because I am human I cannot have the same assurance that God has about myself, but I can still live in confidence that the many descriptions in the Bible of a saved person "generally" match me to date, so I believe I am saved at this moment. I am not of the elect because I declare it. God declares it in His word.
This [FK's summary of what he thought was the Catholic position] sounds like a Calvinist definition of free will. It is incorrect. Free will is NOT making a decision APART from God. It is making the correct decision with God's help. Free will is choosing one or the other, but this doesn't require that God is not part of the decision making process. The above definition is Pelagianism, a teaching declared a heresy some 1500 years ago.
I must admit that I am puzzled by what you think a Calvinist and a Pelagian would have in common. :)
When I say "apart" from God, I don't mean in opposition, I mean "separate from". I'm trying to express that I think you believe that man uses something from only himself in order to cooperate with God. If you thought that everything came from God then you would agree with me. Instead, you think that "something" comes from ourselves "apart" from God. That's all I mean.
I am here if you want to learn more!
And I have appreciated our conversation very much. :)
We decide, but it is God's graces that help us make the right decision - see Phil 2:12-13. Note the cooperation and how I AND God am doing something when I make a decision.
It seems like you focus on verse 12 and I on verse 13. :)
OOPS! You almost had it! "That means I won't either". That is presuming that one is of the elect without special knowledge.
I am only presuming that God keeps His promises. I suppose we must see His promises very differently. "No man can" does not at all mean "no man can", etc.
God Bless.
Thanks for the info, Harley. I'll stick to the term "Arminian".
Thanks, Kolo for the info and the link. It's very interesting to see the different versions compared side by side.
In that case, I will steer clear of that term. :) Thanks for the background.
John Cassian, Church Father (Unfortunately)
BTW-That "Unfortunately" is not mine but the author. I would agree.
Have I felt led? Sure. But that doesn't mean I was led by God! I could have very well been led by my own desires. This manner is way too subjective to determine the ONE TRUTH that God has given us. Isn't it clear enough that God doesn't speak to us in this way? Just look at your fellow Protestant brothers who disagree with you on infant baptism - that's pretty important.
My issue is with reliability.
So God only protected the first generation from error? He left the Church to fend for themselves for the last 1900 years? Brother, one of the main reasons why I am Catholic is because the Church still stands DESPITE the men who make up the Church. Only God could be guiding it so that it continues to teach the same things it did from the beginning.
My sketchy memory tells me it had to do with the seven deadly sins. Is there any connection?
Well, there are seven "deadly" vices, but I don't think they have anything to do with what is a deadly sin. Overeating is not necessarily a mortal sin, although it is an action of gluttony - and a disregard for temperance. The Church and our conscience generally judges what is a mortal sin.
Regards
St. John talks about sin that leads to death (we call "mortal") and sin that does not lead to death ("venial").
If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask [God], and he shall give him life [that is], unto those that do not sin unto death. There is sin unto death, for which I do not say that you should pray. 1 John 5:16
The Apostle is identifying major and minor classes of sin, one that separates us from Life, the other does not.
I believe you have agreed that the Bible does not directly address infant baptism.
Agree. There is nothing telling us one way or the other on infant baptism. Thus, we look to other Apostolic Teachings besides the Scriptures.
Certainly WE DO leave God, but He never leaves His elect. Even with the prodigal son, isn't the comparison that the father was like God? He was still "with" his son in terms of love and support throughout the whole thing. He was unable to be physically with the son, but God does not have a similar restriction.
This is probably an issue of semantics. When we say that God leaves us because of mortal sin, it means we no longer have sanctifying grace. We have disinherited ourselves from the Kingdom. But God is "active" in every person, keeping them alive from moment to moment. God is there, awaiting for our return. There is nowhere that we can go to "escape" God - because God created the entire world. To maintain it requires His "presence" in every corner. But His loving effect is not noted in the wicked, those who have willingly turned away. Although He continues to call those men, they will not turn to God (as we have discussed previously with Romans 3). Their own desires far outweigh the voice of God.
Again and again, we don't know who the elect are. All WE can do is work out our salvation in fear and trembling, hoping in God's mercy that the fruits of our faith "prove" more convincingly that we are of the elect.
Regards
We can have a guarded confidence that we are of the elect. As you mention, the things that we do are not the determinant of whether we are of the Elect. We can only have a general idea, an optimistic hope, that our faith working in love is proof that God really IS working within us and transforming us into another Christ. But the end of the road is unseen to us - it is based upon faith that WE will be faithful to the end - of course, if we are of the elect, God will be faithful. This whole discussion is to merely refute "absolute assurance" of salvation. We cannot know that. But we can have a very good idea that we are of the elect IF we were to die today...presuming we honestly appraise our relationship with God.
When I say "apart" from God, I don't mean in opposition, I mean "separate from".
I understood it that way. And I continue to say that free will does not mean we make a decision "separate from" God. Recall Phil 2:12-13 again.
I'm trying to express that I think you believe that man uses something from only himself in order to cooperate with God. If you thought that everything came from God then you would agree with me. Instead, you think that "something" comes from ourselves "apart" from God. That's all I mean.
EVERYTHING that we have is from God, whether in the natural world or in the supernatural. Thus, when we make a decision, God is involved in some manner. HE formed the intellect, He formed our will. Yet, God does not overwhelm our nature with His Grace. We can allow His graces to move our will to fall in vain upon us. When we make a decision, there is our concupiscence fighting against the goodness that God has placed inside of us as a result of our Baptism and the subsequent graces He gives us. As we mature as Christians, God graces us more and more and we cooperate more and more by saying "Yes" to God more often. It is a cycle of transformation. But in the end, each decision can also yield a "no" - this is proof enough that man has free will. IF a person who has undergone the washing of sins, is justified in God's eyes - can still sin - doesn't this mean that EVEN IN THIS STATE, we are free to sin or not to sin? Certainly, God helps us to avoid sin. But even among the most holy, sin is still a threat.
I am only presuming that God keeps His promises.
God didn't promise to YOU directly! He promised to His elect. I don't find a passage anywhere in the Scriptures that tells me "Joe, when he will be baptized, is of the elect". Certainly, just because we are baptized doesn't mean we are of the elect, either! We have already agreed on that. So what point do we then "KNOW" we are of the elect? We can never know completely until our death! If a person can fall away, potentially, then we can NOT know we are ABSOLUTELY ASSURED personally of salvation. The Bible promises the ELECT will be saved. We must be careful in giving ourselves this title based on subjective feelings within us - feelings that change with time.
Regards
Did I or anyone respond to this?
There may be some popular sentiment like you describe, but the teaching is that original sin is not personal sin and is washed away at baptism. A baptized Christian does not bear the sin of Adam in any sense, although, just like the Orthodox believe, he struggles with the inherited consequences of that sin.
Well, maybe He did and maybe He did not. You cannot deduce anything from the single "eos" in Matthew either way, because, as I showed, it can mean anything from "until, but not after" to "before, and possibly after". From what Jesus chose to discuss for sure we only know that He did not view familial ties as particularly important. Based on that evidence, I conjecture that He probably did not discuss who was born of who in his family. You are free to speculate otherwise, but as far as the scripture is concerned there is no contradiction to the traditional view on Mary as ever virgin.
there's a pretty good reason why Jesus didn't ask James. Perhaps because HE WASN'T THERE
But neither St. Peter was there, yet Christ charged him with the pastorship of the Church when he appeared following the resurrection. If Jesus preferred James over John, He could have accomplished that one way or another.
Actually, I read much more in the adoption of John that a mere economic arrangement: that was the moment when Mary adopted all Christians as her sons. But it does not abolish that fact that James was older than Jesus and therefore not suitable for the role.
wasn't the standard sacrifice of anyone of reasonable means a lamb?
Yes, I believe you are right, it does indicate limited means.
Well, the Catholic position avoids all dilemmas like that. We simply believe that she was given the fullness of grace at her conception, and not at three, or two and a half, or one second before the Archangel descended.
This being said, when a child disobeys, it does not constitute sin. The Church teaches that the age of reason begins at 7 at the earliest; anything prior to that is not a wilful disobedience but mere instinctive behavior which cannot be sinful. It is a case of invincible ignorance -- another case of people free from all sin, contrary to the literalist reading of "all have sinned" in the Romans.
The usual English translation says it a bit less forcefully, "eternally begotten of the Father", but of course, the meaning is the same.
It does indeed mean the same thing, but the Greek "pro pantwn twn aiwnwn" does actually translate as "before all ages".
The bottom line is, FK, that the Logos, Christ, was begotten as part of the Trinity, not merely as a man, the Son of Mary. I am curious as to whether or not your understanding of the Creed is shared as a matter of doctrine by Baptists in general and if so, why, if you know.
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.