Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Keep in mind that in the Orthodox Church, we take seriously St. Paul's admonition that a clergyman is to be "the husband of one wife."
This of course precludes women being ordained, and we also believe that it means that this applies not only to polygamy (which was no longer a part of Jewish life), but more specifically that a man should only have had one marriage.
There are many reasons for this, but I would point out that in the Orthodox Church, celibacy is considered to be the state in which one can most readily and perfectly draw close to God *all other things being equal.* St. Paul, again, really couldn't make this more clear, could he?
Of course, all things aren't equal in the real world. Very few have the strength of will to live the celibate life of a monastic. (And the Orthodox Church in general discourages anyone from attempting life-long celibacy outside of the structure of a monastic life.)
But again, it is clear from St. Paul that he discourages widows from remarrying. He says, however, that it is "better to marry than to burn." In an Orthodox remarriage ceremony, this is actually the epistle reading that is appointed to be read. (In practice, many Orthodox priests use the usual reading, and others use it only if it is a second marriage for both partners.)
In the New Testament, there is detailed a new way of caring for widows by the entire community, and the importance of leaving one's "seed" became of far less significance because of this, and after the coming of the Messiah.
As I said before, in the Orthodox Church, we don't take vows as part of our marriage service. We come humbly before God, asking to be married, and God, through the Church bestows the grace and blessing of marriage on us. We are certainly admonished on how we are expected to behave toward each other, but there are no vows. The communication in this sense is one-way -- from God to us. It is expected that we would want and intend to do nothing else other than follow the guidelines of the Church with regard to marriage -- not from fear, but out of love for God and each other.
I did not say that the reason that a divorced spouse shouldn't remarry is that the spouse is "broken." I said that the reason that the marriage broke up was because there was something spiritually wrong there, in most cases.
I guess that the best way of describing it is this. Over the course of an Orthodox marriage, the marriage has played several roles. The most important is that the marriage helps us to attain salvation. In the crudest sense, it does so by giving licit outlets to our sexual appetites and prevents us from commiting adultery and fornication.
More importantly, we look on marriage as a situation in which we can learn to be selfless, forgiving, and bearing each other's burdens. We help encourage each other to pray, to go to services, to teach our children, to help each other. More often than not, one is strong when and where the other is weak.
The ideal also is that during the course of marriage, one learns to control one's "passions" (and not just the sexual type.) There are times and situations when the Church discourages us from engaging in marital relations. The admonition of Scripture to come apart by agreement, for a season, for purposes of prayer, is built into Orthodox life, although with all of the temptations of today, fully following such guidelines is beyond most people -- staying chaste within the bonds of marriage certainly trumps "coming apart for a season."
What I am getting at is that by the time a spouse dies, one hopes that the other spouse has reached a point where it is possible to live without marriage. One can give undivided attention to one's children, grandchildren, and the Church. Even those who lose a spouse young can often do this. Look at the Scriptural example of the Prophetess Anna, who had lived with her husband only a few years before being widowed, and who then spent the rest of her life serving and praying in the Temple.
This is the ideal that the Church holds up before us, and it shows the example by requiring clergy to strictly meet these criteria. Our bishops are required to be completely celibate, and are generally drawn from the ranks of monastics, although widowers are sometimes chosen to be bishops.
I hope this helps explain a little more.
I just got back from Borders, I bought Calvin's commentary on Genesis and Acts, so I'm excited about getting to them. I really need to apply myself to the Study of Scripture, and I'm thinking Calvin's commentaries are a very good accompanying resource as he knew Hebrew and Greek, and was one of the first people to ever undertake such a task on behalf of the ordinary person, such as myself.
You know, as you post more Scripture from the Book of Job, the immeasurable Awe and Respect that should naturally flow from us regarding God's Sovereignty becomes striking.
I've been hitting various blogs and came upon Carla Rolfe's (Good Calvinist girl: 7 kids, 1 husband and I think some pets.), who described perfectly her experience as she became better acquainted with what the Doctrine of God's Sovereignty and His Grace was really all about. She gave voice to what I had experienced but couldn't find the words for before.
Anyway, when reading her stuff she made reference to Arthur Pink, and there's a wonderful website showcasing a lot of his works. You probably are already familiar with his stuff, but I found the following to be so moving and so beautiful:
In a remarkable manner Divine grace was exercised at the time of the Saviour’s birth. The incarnation of God’s Son was one of the greatest events in the history of the universe, and yet its actual occurrence was not made known to all mankind; instead, it was specially revealed to the Bethlehem shepherds and wise men of the East. And this was prophetic and indicative of the entire course of this dispensation, for even today Christ is not made known to all. It would have been an easy matter f or God to have sent a company of angels to every nation and announced the birth of His Son. But He did not. God could have readily attracted the attention of all mankind to the "star;" but He did not. Why? Because God is sovereign and dispenses His favors as He pleases. Note particularly the two classes to whom the birth of the Saviour was made known, namely, the most unlikely classes—illiterate shepherds and heathen from a far country. No angel stood before the Sanhedrin and announced the advent of Israel’s Messiah! No "star" appeared unto the scribes and lawyers as they, in their pride and self-righteousness, searched the Scriptures! They searched diligently to find out where He should be born, and yet it was not made known to them when He was actually come. What a display of Divine sovereignty—the illiterate shepherds singled out for peculiar honor, and the learned and eminent passed by! And why was the birth of the Saviour revealed to these foreigners, and not to those in whose midst He was born? See in this a wonderful foreshadowing of God’s dealings with our race throughout the entire Christian dispensation—sovereign in the exercise of His grace, bestowing His favors on whom He pleases, often on the most unlikely and unworthy.""The sovereign exercise of grace is illustrated on nearly every page of Scripture. The Gentiles are left to walk in their own ways, while Israel becomes the covenant people of Jehovah. Ishmael the firstborn is cast out comparatively unblessed, while Isaac the son of his parents’ old age is made the child of promise. Esau the generous-hearted and forgiving-spirited is denied the blessing, though he sought it carefully with tears, while the worm Jacob receives the inheritance and is fashioned into a vessel of honor. So in the New Testament. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent, but is revealed to babes. The Pharisees and Sadducees are left to go their own way, while publicans and harlots are drawn by the cords of love.
As I was taking a spin in my car today (I'm near 50 going on 17!) I began thinking about Theology, and wondered at what point those who study it stop being in Awe of God and really wondering about Him, and then begin to believe they can figure Him out in rather minute detail.
I know this post is probably apropos of nothing, but thanks for indulging me all the same.
Being in the presence of evil does not equate to being a part of it. God and satan were close enough to have a conversation in the Bible. That doesn't challenge His omnipresence. satan was still in Heaven the moment before he was cast out. God was present, but not a part of it.
Calvinists fully believe that we can reject God. In fact, we're born to do it. :)
I think, the distinctions we are talking about here are very subtle. Do we all agree that God did not create evil, and that evil requires an act of will? I still think that the metaphore of light is the best. To make darkness one has to erect a barrier. Darkness then is very tangible behind the barrier. Yet it is not created by God. Light is created by God and the barrier is. The positioning of the barrier so that it produces darkness is an act of sinful will.
God is present everywhere but not everywhere in the same sense. For example, we beleive that He is present during luturgy in a special way, and during a football game in a different way.
Gen 4:7 (your OT)
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
Gen 4:7 (LXX)
"Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him."
Surely, God did not dictate this to two different people, HD.
I have a good explanation for about 98% of them
Whatever.
It is quite another position to read a verse like "A man's steps are from the Lord.." and turn right around and say their not
I think one of the Catholic posters (either jo kus or annalex) already posted Philippians 1:22, which you choose to ignore. You have asked this question ad nauseum, triumphalistically I may say, as if you discovered something no one else knows. You see, God gives us everything, including our intellect and will, so in that sense our steps are from God, as is everything else, but He doesn't think or choose for us.
And just because we know where all this comes from does not mean we understand anything as it really is.
You believe with everyone that sides with Cassian. I believe with everyone that sides with Augustine
Wrong again, HD. You side with some who side with +Augustine.
Do you believe that God will send people to hell and what is your concept of hell?
The unrepenetant hearts will end in hell, but not because God wants them there.
What's he saying?
My comment was in response to your "By denying the literal, intended sense of Jesus' Words, you do injustice to the passage." My point was in regard to my opinion of the propensity of Catholicism to take the literal, intended sense of scripture. :)
We must trust in His promises - promises that are in the future - and sometimes, promises that seem pretty far-fetched in the face of what people experience in the world today (for example, if God is so powerful, why do people suffer - this adds a dimension of doubt to the promise...) Thus, even regarding our relationship with God, WE must make a choice, and believe me, it is not automatic for us!
Do you really think that all of God's promises that we must trust in are future promises? What about all the promises that you claim give power to your Church? Are those not ongoing? ... If you believe that God selected His elect, and they cannot be changed, then from His POV, the decision on our part is automatic. Of course, we don't experience that, we believe that we used our free will, when in reality our destiny was settled long before we even existed.
Thank you for the info on confession.
First, Baptism leaves an indelible mark. We will always be God's children. But as a result of our own separation, we walk away from God - sometimes, permanently - just like children sometimes disown their own parents (although they are still children of their parents).
Are you saying that everyone who is Baptized is a child of God? If so, then how do you explain verses like this? :
Rom. 8:14-17 : 14 ... because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
How do you explain verse 17? If we are children, then we are heirs. I have to assume the Catholic translation would be "If we are children, we MAY BECOME heirs, at some point in the future, which no one except God can know. No child of God is an heir by any means until after death." I suppose this is the plain meaning and intent of the verse? How about this one? :
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Babies cannot believe in His name. Yet, you say that they, and any other non-believer who has been Baptized, are still children of God. Doesn't this passage clearly say that such do not have the right as of yet? Under your view, many of God's children slip through His fingers, don't they?
FK: "Would that have meant that the son disinherited himself? I would say that's impossible because the son already received his rightful inheritance before he even left."
I think that takes the story beyond what Christ meant. Otherwise, there would be no reason to return to the Father.
Sure there would be. Forgiveness and reconciliation are very good reasons. While the son could not lose his inheritance, he still wanted to be forgiven and be reconciled to his father. That's what Jesus teaches us. Those who are already saved (already have their inheritance sealed), but have fallen away, will always come back to the Father. He has ordained it.
The elect cannot disinherit themselves, because God will cause something (famine) to happen that He knows will turn the man's free will back onto course. Does God do this for others? Yes, but their free will will resist God's "famines". The Prodigal Son realized he had sinned. Those that God foresees are the reprobate will NOT realize they have sinned - even despite the famines of their lives.
For the elect, God will CAUSE something that He knows will turn the man's FREE WILL? How free is that? It sounds like you are agreeing with my "offer you can't refuse" idea. :) By what you said, it appears that God is treating all of His children the same in that He gives them all "famines". It's just that with some of His famines He causes a change, and with others nothing will happen. The only conclusion, from what you have said, is that God does not love His children equally. Either that, OR, that God did not have the power to cause the others to likewise come back.
Dr. E-"Apparently Job knows the answer to that one which was asked of him by God Himself."
So did Solomon (the wise):
There may have been no rule at all in actual practice and someone decided to invent one. Or, the actual practice could have been to Baptize only believers, as is the only case in the Bible, and someone decided to expand it. As you have said, any individual could have and did write error, as judged later. With the primitive communication network in use at the time, couldn't any teaching have spread from village to village as long as it was popular? And then, if a Catholic writer happened to like it and pick up upon it, it is then presumed to have been taught by the Apostles. To me, that is a lot of presumption.
This is like someone today writing about President Nixon. People would be able to verify whether Nixon did this or that. Thus, future readers would learn something about Nixon - presuming that the writer was not contradicted by other authors of that era. We don't see disagreement regarding infant baptism.
I've got another analogy for you. How about the Kennedy assassination? Many people had written very different things about it. Then, there was a "Commission" and a consensus was declared. Many people to this day believe the Warren Commission was a joke. The point is that no one can be sure what the truth is, even though it was "officially" solved. If translated to Catholicism, the Warren Report would have been declared infallible, and anyone disagreeing with it would have been a heretic. No room for disagreement or further study.
Writers on Kennedy enjoyed modern day free speech rights, and the inexpensive ability to publish on a grand scale. What was it like for ancient writers? It seems to me that by comparison, it was only a very few who had the means, either through individual wealth, or the backing of a church or government, to get widely published and to get notoriety. It is possible that was a reason that infant baptism didn't have widely published opponents. It was popular, so the only ones who got the ink were on message.
Councils are to verify what is the true teaching in the face of contradictory teachings.
That sounds exactly like what our Supreme Court does. When different Circuit Courts disagree as to interpretation of a statute or the Constitution, then the SCOTUS verifies the true meaning. Both declare what is the interpretation of the governing document (Constitution or Bible). The only difference is that the SCOTUS is specifically ordained in the Constitution. I don't know where Councils are to be found in the Bible.
Which was the point of my reply to your statement that evil is absence of God. Evil can only be the result of the free will to reject God. If there is no free will, there is no possibility of evil, FK.
Thus, scripturally, there is no need to specifically qualify our will as free any more than there is a need for the Bible to specifically use the term Holy Trinity for both to be true and obvious to all (except to Calvinists).
Calvinists fully believe that we can reject God.
No, Calvinists fully believe that we must reject God. You confirmed that in the very next sentence In fact, we're born to do it. If we are born to reject God, we do not reject God willingly. That much we agree. But once made aware of God, you continue to believe that, by virtue of our nature, we must reject Him unless He compels us otherwise. At no point do Calvinists admit that man, by virtue of his intellect, chooses God or chooses to continue to reject God.
Now, we are born without the knowledge of God but, when God knocks (repeatedly) on our hearts, by virtue of our nature we tend to reject God, but by virtue of our intellect, we are free to either reject or accept His love, a decision we make freely because He endowed us with that freedom.
I look at it as I would look at an addiction. We follow "feels-good" principle of our flesh, by nature, even if our intellect tells us that it may not be good for us. We will repeatedly be drawn to do what is necessary to continue the addiction against our better judgment, so we need help. But help can come only when you, in your mind, freely decide, by virtue of your intellect, that the addiction (no matter how good it feels) is wrong, and wish to overcome it. You then seek help because it is impossible to overcome on one's own. It is only then that we realize that help was always there.
This all goes back to my original objection to Calvinism, namely that denying free will by necessity denies the possibility of evil (and makes evil, sin, and the need for our redemption meaningless). By necessity, our actions, then, are simply an extension of God's will. Since God cannot choose evil, the fact that evil exists, proves that theory false.
"If you do well, will it not be lifted up? If you don't do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it." Gen 4:7 Hebrew Names Version
Now comparing your verse against "my" version (I don't use the King James) which seems more accurate?
But if I live on in the flesh, this will bring fruit from my work; yet I don't make known what I will choose. Phil 1:22
Sure, we have a choice. I said we have a choice. The Bible says we have a choice.
Pro 5:21 For the ways of a man are before the eyes of the LORD, And He watches all his paths.
God watches all of man's path. You feel that you make a decision and God reacts to that decision. I would say that every path that we "decide" is ordained (guided) by the Lord. You can NOT do anything that God hasn't ordained to happen.
Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
I just got back from Church a little while ago. That is, the Memorial Presbyterian Church here in Rochester, NY.
I have been attending Service there for the last month, but didn't make it last week. When I arrived this morning I was greeted with such love and concern. Because I'm new to the Church, and they know of whence I came and the ensuing struggle, they prayed for me, and last week I could feel that they were.
I don't think I ever fully believed in the power of prayer, but I'm fast advancing. The power of the Power of Prayer is that it is Spiritual armament for the person who Prays, and for the person the Prayer is prayed for. The purpose of Prayer is to stengthen all that is inside of us that yearns for Our Creator; to steel us in preparation of tribulation, and to enliven our hearts with gratitude for whatever Our God will bestow.
I am blown away by the Christian love these people and the wonderful Pastor have shown me. Caring for my welfare, as a Shepherd ought. It's exceedingly humbling and comforting to me.
In light of my reassessment of the Power of Prayer, if you wouldn't mind and if you remember, can you say a prayer for my Mom? Two nodules were found on her thyroid, and as such will have to be removed. I will be taking her to Roswell tomorrow, for some pre-op tests. She'll be 74 this Easter Sunday, and Praise God, is in pretty decent health, otherwise.
The difficulty in my Mom's upcoming surgery lies in the fact that this enlarged thyroid is pressing against one of her vocal chords, thereby paralyzing it. It is possible that she will not regain the use of her voice. The thought of not being able to hear that beautiful voice of hers that called my name these near 50 years, is painful. So, please pray also for Our Lord to guide the skill and precision of those marvellous creations of His, known as doctors, who will be performing the surgery.
You'll have to forgive my rambling. I'm a recluse but yet a talker, and fellowship is good.
On a final note, I want to thank God for the blessed St. Paul who brought The Gospel to us Gentiles, and I also want to thank God for the blessed John Calvin, who with the same zeal and fervor, many centuries later made the Gospel available and accessible to millions such as myself. God's blesings to all of you and to all on this thread.
Amen.
The Council of Orange was a local council. It was never binding on the universal church. So it is understandable that Cassian is considered a saint in the Eastern Church (commemorated on the last day of February.) Christianity as a whole never embraced the doctrine of Total Depravity, so dear to a Calvinist's heart, a doctrine Calvinists use the Council of Orange to support.
Heresy is a very interesting word. It comes from the Greek word for choice. That doesn't mean that what a heretic chooses is necessarily wrong, but he chooses only one feature of doctrine and blows it out of proportion and to the exclusion of every other part of Christian tradition. It seems to me that the charge of heresy is more applicable to the Council of Orange than what kosta is offering on these threads.
No question about it!
I emigrated to this blessed Country when I was just a wee thing, and I grew up in a very Anglo/Protestant town, and their Good Fruits were plentifully bestowed on my whole family.
Philip Schaff says or said it best, Calvin is one of the greatest men God ever raised to be one of His Advocates. I am paraphrasing, 'cause I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote, but I think I'm on target.
"St AlbionGirl, I will add a prayer for your mother."
Thank you, my FRiend!
St Calvin and St Gamecock?
Amen!
Sounds like God has led you to a wonderful "wee kirk of the glen." 8~)
"...the Power of Prayer is that it is Spiritual armament for the person who Prays, and for the person the Prayer is prayed for. The purpose of Prayer is to stengthen all that is inside of us that yearns for Our Creator; to steel us in preparation of tribulation, and to enliven our hearts with gratitude for whatever Our God will bestow."
Amen, and beautifully-said.
I'll pray for your mom's swift and full recovery, AG, knowing she's in His hands.
"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward." -- Isaiah 58:8
"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward." -- Isaiah 58:8
Thank you!
Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. I would be honor to pray for your mother as I'm sure the rest of us would. May God watch over her and your family during this difficult time granting you His peace, love and mercies.
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.