Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Your" side has a problem with God being outside of time.
God sees everything done, from the first day that God created time, to the last day of time in the future, as one view. One NOW. Thus, EVERY SINGLE THING that you do, brother, is seen all at once by God. It is seen at the same time as creation came into being. Thus, God doesn't "wait" for us to choose Him or not choose Him. There is no "waiting" for God - that implies time, which God is outside of. Thus, when God makes a "choice" of who will be of the elect, it is based in part on His SIMULTANEOUS knowledge of our first day of existence and our last day of existence. All of this is from God's point of view, naturally. It is only a small peek into the mystery of God and how He interacts and decides.
With this in mind, it becomes more clear (hopefully) that God, from our point of view, "waits" on our choices that we make. His "foreknowledge" (from our point of view) of 27 February 2006's decisions are seen "already", although from His point of view, He views today and the first day of creation simultaneously. Thus, placing God on a linear time frame and viewing Him strictly from our point of view is a mistake. God cannot help BUT see our actions and reactions to His graces, since He sees all simultaneously. Thus, the Scripture sometimes speaks from man's point of view - and that God had DECIDED (past tense) something. But to Him, God did not "decided" something --- He DECIDES NOW EVERYTHING... Does that twist your noodle enough? ;)
What rational person would choose hell if he really had EVERYTHING he needed?
People choose hell over heaven all the time. By choosing your will over God's will, you are choosing an eternal life without God - hell. Some people prefer life without God.
if God stands out of the way on the final choice, then what is that "thing" to distinguish between those who choose and those who don't?
God is involved in every decision. He doesn't "stand out of the way". We are saying that we do not make decisions ALONE, and we are also saying that God does not overpower our choice to choose. Otherwise, you make a mockery out of the Decalogue and the choice to obey it.
We say our salvation is complete from the beginning of time from God's point of view
How can you know God's point of view on this issue???
The sinner's prayer just help us to know it too.
Your own story proves that false, at least absolute assurance.
We don't believe that God sits there with His giant eraser, constantly blotting out names in the Book of Life on a second to second basis, and then re-writing them back in later as the case may warrant.
We don't believe God does that either - see above. However, from OUR point of view, it would seem that is exactly what happens. Sometimes, we are righteous in God's eyes, and other times, we sin and fall away and are not righteous in His eyes in the present. Again, Scripture is generally written from man's point of view.
There is no "need" to say the sinner's prayer more than once if it was effective the first time. But of course, many people don't yet have a full understanding of their faith and may feel a need to say it again.
Again, how do you know it WILL be effective? We can look back in retrospect and judge that we are more or less living in Christ. But the future? That is pure presumption. The "sinner's prayer" is not an objective point that ensures our salvation from that time - since you have said that it might be required to say it again.
My pastor actually alluded to this idea this morning by comparing it to saying "I do" at marriage. Does anyone really understand all that it means when they say it? NO. Some people repeat their vows, but likewise it is unnecessary, but useful to the people involved if they so choose to do it.
Perhaps. I understand your point. We don't have sexual relations with our spouse one time - we desire to reaffirm our covenant relationship. But we know that we were married on a specific date. This is not about reaffirming the covenant - but making sure we are part of it to begin with! Since Protestantism's theology says that salvation cannot be lost, they go to great lengths to cloud this very issue. It is really double-talk. "I know I am saved when I say the sinner's prayer" --- "unless I fall away in the future, then I was never saved to begin with". See the theological gymnastics required? Logically speaking, one cannot know they are saved, because nothing guarantees you will die in Christ in the future.
So every epistle that uses the familial "you can know", or some form of it, doesn't at all refer to the readers of the letter, or to Christians in general? Instead it refers only to the mysterious elect and no one can know he is a member of that elect until after death. That would make these some very strange letters.
The conditional is presumed when the Epistles speak familially. Paul presumes that those Christians he write to will CONTINUE walking the walk. But he makes provisions for the inevitable person who falls away elsewhere. Paul often teaches "IF...THEN..." If I walk in Christ, I will be saved eternally. If I turn away from my family, the community, I will not be saved. It is not a matter of "I never was saved"!
This is a misunderstanding of the word "saved". Saved means to heal. Are you saying that a person who is healed from a sickness was not really healed the first time if he gets sick again? Why is it so difficult to see that a person can be healed of sickness, get sick later and require the healing touch again??? Isn't it clear from life that this is how things work?
Christ paid for all the sins of His elect, past, present, and future
Again, another shortcoming in this theology...Christ paid for all sins. Not just the elect:
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world. 1 John 2:2
Clearly, misinterpreting the Scriptures can lead to some faulty theology. Basing your theology on something that is anti-Scriptural is bound to lead to error, presuming that Christ died ONLY for the elect - which leads one to falsely presume that no one can "lose" their salvation.
Brother in Christ
Except, that it does not fit into your "double-predestination" belief. If a child commits sin it is no different than, say, Judas betraying Christ. They both commit evil because it is "in God's plan" and "for His purpose."
Here is a synopsis from the Monergism website:
REGENERATION - THE CHRISTIAN IS BORN AGAIN, by J.I. Packer
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” JOHN 3:3
"Regeneration is a New Testament concept that grew, it seems, out of a parabolic picture-phrase that Jesus used to show Nicodemus the inwardness and depth of the change that even religious Jews must undergo if they were ever to see and enter the kingdom of God, and so have eternal life (John 3:3-15). Jesus pictured the change as being “born again.”
"The concept is of God renovating the heart, the core of a person’s being, by implanting a new principle of desire, purpose, and action, a dispositional dynamic that finds expression in positive response to the gospel and its Christ. Jesus’ phrase “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) harks back to Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God is pictured as symbolically cleansing persons from sin’s pollution (by water) and bestowing a “new heart” by putting his Spirit within them. Because this is so explicit, Jesus chides Nicodemus, “Israel’s teacher,” for not understanding how new birth happens (John 3:9-10). Jesus’ point throughout is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth."
"Elsewhere John teaches that belief in the Incarnation and Atonement, with faith and love, holiness and righteousness, is the fruit and proof that one is born of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4). It thus appears that as there is no conversion without new birth, so there is no new birth without conversion."
... "Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God."
---------------
I am not sure what you would accept as knowledge of being "absolutely saved". If one defines it as having divine knowledge, then one has defined the concept out of human existence. I am speaking of human knowledge that is possible.
The objective criteria, then, for us to know for sure is found in the Bible. The are so many passages that say "when such and such happens, the person is saved". Jesus tells us Himself, in great detail, what a born again person looks like. He paints a portrait. As we are sanctified, the portrait becomes clearer. We look at ourselves to see if we look like that, and if we are honest, then we can know. As we grow it also helps us to recognize and then reckon when we stray.
Perhaps at the very beginning, many have nothing more than John 3:16, so that person believes he knows. That's OK, because the truly regenerated heart will seek to learn more and grow in the faith, EVEN THOUGH the beginner may very well have no idea about that yet.
And yes, this author does believe that Baptism is symbolic. It signifies what has already happened. Here is what the same author says about it:
BAPTISM - THIS RITE EXHIBITS UNION WITH CHRIST, by J. I. Packer
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ROMANS 6:3-4
"Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John’s pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God’s seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live henceforth in a new way as committed disciples of Jesus. Baptism signifies a watershed point in a human life because it signifies a new-creational engrafting into Christ’s risen life."
"Christ instructed his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). This means that the covenant relation which baptism formally confers is one of acceptance by, communion with, and commitment to all three Persons of the Godhead. When Paul says that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2), he means that they were put under Moses’ control and direction. Thus, baptism into the name of the triune God signifies control and direction by God himself."
"The outward sign does not automatically or magically convey the inward blessings that it signifies, and the candidates’ professions of faith are not always genuine. Peter had to tell the newly baptized Simon Magus that he was still unrenewed in heart (Acts 8:13-24)".
OK, I agree with you here, Kosta, (and with the point Alex makes a few posts later). The source post (the one that made me nuts over the supposition that Jesus was "killed" as opposed to freely giving up His life for us :) was from Agrarian and I thought you were in full agreement with the whole thing. But now that I think of it, God allowing it doesn't really answer the question. Did God allow men to kill a physically helpless Jesus, or did God allow Jesus to freely give His life. These are very different.
Sorry, all the time I was thinking you talk about "knew her not" passage. Yes, Jesus might very well have described James and Joses, etc. as his brothers, but as we already discussed, the word did not necessarily mean same biological mother. He also refused to use the word even in the broad familial sense, as you remember.
My view is that Mary was 100% human and not divine
Of course.
FK: "(I was assuming that this document by James is considered infallible teaching.)"
Kolo: "I guess I never looked at it that way. Its part of Holy Tradition and tells us something about what people in the very, very early Church believed.
I thought we were talking about the whole document. So, if I have this right now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, :) if an entire document is declared infallible, then that is scripture. Holy Tradition and Apostolic Tradition and the singular "Tradition" are all really the same thing and may or may not be infallible. [Jo said: "I recently tried to describe what process the Church undergoes before it declares an Apostolic Tradition infallible."] But these do not refer to whole documents, rather, they refer more to ideas, concepts, or teachings that are written down, examined, and determined to be infallible or not. Is this right?
Just because something is acknowledged as Tradition doesn't make it infallible. It must be formally declared so by the Church. So, Jo when you said that Holy Tradition is one of the three legs of authority you didn't mean all Tradition. You meant only that Tradition that has been declared infallible? I feel like either I'm pretty close or 100 miles off. :)
Then perhaps the technical definition of Holy Tradition is slightly different for Catholics and Orthodox. I just pinged you both to another post on this a little while ago. Maybe we can figure it out there.
From an Orthodox pov, I think you're off by about 50 miles! :)
Holy Tradition is what The Church always and everywhere believed. It is infallible not because anyone said so but becuase Christ assured us that the Holy Spirit would always be with The Church. Writings of the Fathers, or documents like the Protoevangalion of James in and of themselves are not "infallible", though they may contain expressions of infallible doctrine. With the writings of individual Fathers, and certainly with documents like the Protoevangelion, there can be theological error even heresy, as with Origen and Tertullian and some Orthodox would say with parts of Augustine (I don't mean to single these Fathers out; its something seen in many Fathers, especially when they start speculating on things). When it comes to the Fathers, what we look for is the "consensus patrum", the consensus of The Fathers. That consensus, as part of Holy Tradition, teaches us infallibly the Truth of our Faith. Holy Tradition is made up of many more things, however. The Divine Liturgies and other services and devotions of The Church are part of the Holy Tradition. The Mysteries, what the West calls the Sacraments, are part of Holy Tradition. Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition and is always interpreted according to Holy Tradition. All theological doctrine and practice is measured according to Holy Tradition and can be found to be "orthodox", "heterodox", theologoumenna or heresy.
Does that help?
Sounds a lot like Baptism, and not the "Sinner's Prayer" that regenerates someone, doesn't it? I believe the model in this subject, as in other Christian subjects, is Christ's own Baptism. When Christ was baptised with water, the Spirit came upon Him, as visibly portrayed by the dove. In a like manner, we realize that we, too, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit during the ritual of Baptism, the washing of regeneration, as the Scripture calls it.
Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit.
Of course it is. But it doesn't follow that we are not expected to respond to God's gift by repenting and converting. God gives us the ability to do it - we are told we are to do it (Jesus said: "{YOU} REPENT and BELIEVE" - Not "God Repents for you" or "God believes for you", or "Don't worry, your God has chosen all people standing among us as the elect. Believe or not, but you are still saved" or "It doesn't matter what you do, God has already chosen you, whether you do anything now or not")
I am not sure what you would accept as knowledge of being "absolutely saved". If one defines it as having divine knowledge, then one has defined the concept out of human existence. I am speaking of human knowledge that is possible.
Protestants make the claim that they know that THEY are IRRESISTIBLY SAVED! Men CANNOT EVER LOSE their salvation, no matter what they do! However, in case something in the future, say 40 years from now, happens to make them reject the faith, well, naturally, they weren't saved to begin with! That's your side's argument. Frankly, it isn't Biblical. You are trying to establish a knowledge as certain that IS NOT KNOWABLE in the absolute sense. Countless times, I have argued that we cannot know the distant future. Yet, you argue that we can know God's mind. And yet, if for some reason we DON'T know God's mind, then we never were abiding in Christ in the first place? What sort of an argument is that? Can you see the frustration this presents? Because one cannot know they will not fall away in the future - despite your pleading to the contrary today - your salvation today is insecure! Even today, you don't know you are saved, if you follow your argument all the way...
Let's say you are "saved" in 2000. All things go well with you. You are vibrant in the faith, you read the Scriptures, etc....There is no indication that you will fall away. In 2006, you argue that you are STILL saved, and will be saved forever... But let's say in 2010, you go on a trip to Africa to become a Christian missionary. You are so in love with Christ, you want to spread the Gospel to all. But after seeing the war, the famine, the starvation, the little kids dying in their mothers' arms daily, up close in person, you begin to question whether God really cares about man. Why should a little child have to die? Starve to death? What kind of God allows that? It is enough to shake the faith of many people. You might deny this, but only because you haven't seen it in person and up close. You might not like this scenario, but I have seen people who have undergone this very thing. They fell away from Christianity altogether because of what they saw while trying to be Christian missionaries.
Are you now going to try to tell me that this person WAS NEVER SAVED TO BEGIN WITH??? See where this leads you, brother? This person in 2006 thought he was saved, but in 2010, he is told he never was saved to begin with. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS WON'T HAPPEN TO YOU? Or any other brother? No. Christians are saved, are healed. And Christians get sick spiritually again and need subsequent healing and salvation. That is the only Biblical interpretation of the entire Scripture. Not this idea you present, which logically leaves one with no true knowledge of even TODAY whether they are "healed" or "saved"... You don't even know if you are healed from your disease - as you say it might break out again - so you never were healed to begin with.
The outward sign does not automatically or magically convey the inward blessings that it signifies, and the candidates’ professions of faith are not always genuine. Peter had to tell the newly baptized Simon Magus that he was still unrenewed in heart (Acts 8:13-24)".
Baptism "works", but the person can allow God's grace to fall in vain upon him. Thus, the person has fallen back. He was healed, and has gotten sick again...
Regards
That is largely a Calvinist claim. As you statement is written, it simply isn't true. The majority of Protestants are not Calvinists.
From only the human POV, the elect are marked at regeneration. Some say the sinner's prayer falsely, as the article I posted to you, after your post here, shows. On your side, I don't know how or if people are "falsely" Baptized. You know how I feel about (infant) Baptism, but of course that doesn't stop the Catholic elect from later coming to the saving grace of Christ (perhaps at Confirmation, an idea I like). At that point, the Catholic "COULD" have assurance, but of course this would never happen because the person would have to throw out Catholic teaching. :) Not happening!
So, for either Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, the mark is ACTUALLY there at the time of faith for the elect. Whether any of us can or do know it is a matter of difference. Our view is that, for the elect, the first installment DOES guarantee the future actions.
What I thought made you nuts about my post was the idea that the Jews and Romans actually had the free will to crucify Christ or not crucify Christ. Then it turned out that it actually made you nuts for me to suggest that humans had killed Christ.
From your perspective, this would take away from God's sovereignty if these men voluntarily chose to crucify Christ, as opposed to God forcing them to do it in a grandly predestined pageantry about which they had no alternative. It would also take away from Christ's sovereignty if humans caused his death, as opposed to Christ deciding to die and just doing it at that particular moment.
The hymnology of the Orthodox Church is clear. It speaks of Christ "voluntarily ascending the Cross" (an obviously poetic way of saying that Christ was not helpless, and could, as the Scriptures say, have called down legions of angels.) It speaks of Christ voluntarily giving up his Spirit. One of the most beautiful and moving hymns in the Church is at Matins of Holy Friday during the reading of the 12 Passion Gospels:
Today He who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon the Cross.
He who is King of the angels is arrayed in a crown of thorns.
He who wraps the heavens in clouds is wrapped in the purple of mockery.
He who in Jordan set Adam free receives blows upon His face.
The Bridegroom of the Church is transfixed with nails.
The Son of the Virgin is pierced with a spear.
We venerate Thy Passion, O Christ.
Show us also Thy glorious Resurrection. (Fifteenth Antiphon)
It couldn't be more clear from Scripture and tradition that Christ was all-powerful God, and allowed himself as a man to be crucified and killed. As the Creator of the universe, he was obviously not helpless. The question is this: did Christ have a real human body, i.e. that would die if he was crucified -- that he would die if you did something to his body that would kill any other human being *unless* he used his power as God not to die? Did he have a human body like ours? Was he really fully human as well as fully Godn?
Or was the passion and crucifixion basically a sort of didactic pageantry that had no real relation to Christ's death? Did his hanging on the Cross have absolutely nothing to do with why he died at the 9th hour on that particular Friday afternoon, or was it simply a charade designed to make it look like he had died of crucifixion when really he just hung there for a while and then decided to turn off his body and die? If there was no physical reason for him to die, and he just decided to die, then as Kosta points out, this would be self murder.
And if Christ had no human physical reason whatsoever to die, and just turned his body off, then what about his suffering and passion? Was that real? And if it was real, what or who was the cause of it? Since humans were unable to kill him, according to your argument, then it would stand to reason that humans were incapable of inflicting injury or pain on him either. The nails being driven into his hands were not only being driven by the soldiers because God was controlling them and making them do it -- the nails could only have hurt because Christ/God caused the pain. The driving of the nails by a human being could not have caused the pain, since the crucifixion by men couldn't have caused his death.
Perhaps you are making that exact point, since a certain strain of Western theology is big on the fact that God demanded satisfaction, and only something as gruesome as the passion and crucifixion would get the job done. God would have to be the one torturing his own Son (or torturing himself), since he had to torture and kill someone. Someone had to pay.
You wrote: "Did God allow men to kill a physically helpless Jesus, or did God allow Jesus to freely give His life."
You are right that these two are very different. But again, this is a false dichotomy that I as an Orthodox Christian simply would not accept. You posit a choice between a helpless Christ and an all-powerful Christ. How about "an all-powerful Christ freely allowed men to kill him by choosing not to stop them or fight back"? He chose to remain as dumb "as a sheep before the shearers."
The Scriptures are clear, from Christ's own words, that Christ was always all-powerful through his entire passion. He acknowledged to Pilate that Pilate had the authority and ability to put him to death, but told Pilate that he only had that authority because it had been given to him by God.
Christ voluntarily allowed humans to torture and kill him. Does that make him helpless? Hardly.
Furthermore, Christ in his human will did not want to die. In the monothelete controversy that led up to the 6th Ecumenical Council, this was a major point of discussion. What St. Maximus insisted on (and the fathers of the Council agreed) was that in the garden of Gethsemene, we see Christ's human will, praying to God: "let this cup pass from me." Jesus as a human being didn't want to die -- for wanting to live is human good. Wanting to die is a sin for us humans.
But then Christ says, "not my will, but thine be done." And with those words, he placed his human will into submission to the divine will that he allow this to happen to him for the salvation of mankind. In other words, in the Garden, we see direct Scriptural evidence that not only did Christ have a human nature and a divine nature, but also a human will and a divine will -- that were in perfect synergia. The second Adam undid the choice of the first Adam by exercising his human will in perfect obedience to his divine will.
As Orthodox Christians, we have no problem in accepting that Christ was transcendent and uncircumscribable God *and* fully human in every way, except that he chose not to sin. We have no problem in believing that men freely chose to plot against Christ and kill him, and that Christ freely chose to allow this to happen. We have no problem in understanding that Christ foreknew how all of these events would take place, and inspired the prophets to speak of these future events -- and that he did not make anyone do these things to him.
We certainly do not believe that God is the cause of suffering, torture, pain, and death -- either by direct action or by making other humans do those things to him or to each other.
Tradition has two meanings. First, Tradition is WHAT is delivered. It is a teaching. This is the meaning of Tradition found in Scriptures, when Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the Apostles' teachings. Secondly, Tradition is the way and means by which the teaching is delivered. Again, back to 2 Thessalonians, Paul told them to hold onto written and unwritten teachings. Thus, immediately, we have two definitions of Tradition.
As I have said, when we speak of the unwritten word of God, so called oral tradition, we don't mean it was NEVER written down. (Even the liturgy and the sacraments are "written down", although in both cases, they are "acted" rather than read to the congregation.) Kolo is correct in that something does not necessarily have to be "declared" by the Church heirarchy as infallible before being thought of as such. However, Councils more CLEARLY DEFINE that something really is infallible tradition.
God's Revelation is given to us in three ways: 1. The Scripture, God's Word in writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God's Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It is living in that it is practiced, thus we also call Tradition "living". Sometimes, it takes the Church some self-examination to determine whether something is Divine or not. 3. The teaching office of the Church, the Magesterium. It is God's desire that men are able to interpret God's Revelation to us in Scriptures and Tradition. It is the responsibility of the Apostles' successors to present this for belief to God's People.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are from the same source, God. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with His own "always, to the close of the age". (Dei Verbum, 9)
And finally, yes, there are Sacred Traditions, those that are meant for all people of all times within the Church, those that are considered Divinely given; and those that are Ecclesiastical Traditions, those that are meant for all people of a certain time or some people of a certain time. They are given by the Church to aid in the Christian's walk towards Christ. An example is making the sign of the cross on our forehead when entering the Church. Not divinely given through the Apostles.
Hope this helps. Got to go now, Confession time.
Brother in Christ
Very well said, Agrarian.
This is a bit broad, but in general the Roman Catholics speak of two sources of authority: Scripture *and* Tradition (or in some formulations, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.)
We Orthodox tend to speak of one source of authority -- and that is Holy Tradition. Ultimately, Holy Tradition is the living existence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is expressed and conveyed in various documents and oral traditions, but those documents and oral traditions are not Holy Tradition itself.
Within the documents and oral traditions that convey Holy Tradition, we see a continuum of reliability and authority. Scripture is at the pinnacle of reliability those documents of the Church that convey the revelation of God to man. But even within Scripture, there is a hierarchy of sorts, as one can tell by how it is read and interpreted and by how it is read liturgically. Highest is the four-fold Gospel, then the rest of the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Within the Old Testament, the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Genesis, and Exodus are given particular pre-eminence, and certain passages are of very high importance (I especially think of the 8 Old Testament Biblical Canticles traditionally sung at Matins). The deuterocanonical books are not as important as the Old Testament proper.
After this come the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, then the liturgical texts, writings of the Fathers (also with a hierarchy of importance and reliability), etc., etc. All of these things must be interpreted in light of Scripture, but at the same time, it is the Church that has the ability and authority to interpret Scripture -- this is part of the great importance of the liturgical texts, writings of the Fathers, etc.
Read the first section of Bp. Kallistos (Ware)'s book if you want to understand more. The section on Holy Tradition is short, easy to read, and one of the best expositions I have seen. I posted it sometime last year, and we had a good discussion.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm
With certainty? I think jo kus already posted many a thread on that claim of yours, and I don't believe you have shown how that certainty can be demonstrated to you or others.
When I speak of certainty, I mean on a human level. I am speaking of "assurance" in theological terms. I reposted an earlier article posted by Harley that was packed with scripture on why we can be assured. The article was summarily dismissed because it only spoke of the elect, and no one can know if he is a member of the elect. If that is true, then I'm still not sure what the point of any of those passages would be, if no one can use them because no one can know if they apply to him or her. Seems like a lot of wasted scripture to me. :)
God existed before time. His existence cannot be expressed in terms of time, ... God does not fall under physical laws; His presence is not limited by the speed of light. He is ever-present yesterday, today and tomorrow.
I have no problem with things of God being beyond our comprehension. I know that's true. Maybe my beef is with the use of the word "beget". I don't think I have any problem with "proceed from" since that doesn't imply to me the pre-existence of one over another. Are those terms the same?
Well why didn't you all just say this in the first place? Now I get it! :)
Thanks for your report on the Protoevangelion. It is that caveat that I'm trying to understand. I pinged you to another recent post on this with my attempt. :)
The editors do not say that the Protoevangelion is Gnostic, but do identify numerous other of the writings as being such (and they are -- as in the "Gospel of Thomas".)
I didn't know the "Gospel of Thomas" was considered Gnostic. So, Catholics and Orthodox fully (or mostly) reject it? (I say it that way because I figure you want about as much to do with Gnosticism as I do!) Boy, if so, then the History channel really let me down because I could have sworn they portrayed it as mainstream extra-Biblical teaching. :)
"So, Catholics and Orthodox fully (or mostly) reject it? (I say it that way because I figure you want about as much to do with Gnosticism as I do!)"
It is rejected and condemned 10,000%!
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.