Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Evil is either the result of our own free will or God's. I wager on the former. Your theology makes it, by necessity, God's.
Because there is not a single copy of your Hebrew OT that is older than 10th century AD, and because the Qumran Scrolls agree and disagree with MT and LXX. Except that the MT comes after Jamnia and therefore is suspect of being altered for obvious reasons. LXX comes dates two centuries before Christ and had no reason to be altered.
Understood. We use it in the same sense; no offense taken. By the same token, the filioque was a heresy that was allowed to co-exist and was not addressed until it was too late.
The Orthodox Church holds to this date that man is spiritually "sick" but not dead. I has never changed its teaching as far as I know.
But what is one to make when a heretic calls another heretic (in the same spirit as you did)? :)
I meant to ping you to #3523, sorry.
Evil is always a result of our own free will. We can do no other.
LOLOL. God put you where He wants you. 8~)
She told me, in essence, that once you confess your sins to a priest you are in a "saved" state, such that if you were hit by a bus walking home from the church you would be saved. However, upon the commission of the next mortal sin, you were then automatically transferred into a damned state until such time as you would have your next confession. There were standard "outs" that she and I discussed, such as what would happen if you got run over by a bus on your way to confession. :) Anyway, that's what made me think of this as a ping-pong effect. It appeared to me that salvation was won and lost, and won and lost all the time. So, that's where it comes from.
Regarding the "ping-pong" effect, that's how salvation has been explained to me by many RCs, including a priest.
Upon leaving the Confessional, all sins have been forgiven. And a moment later, the person begins to sin again and is again in need of a priestly administration of the sacrament of Confession.
The sacrament is given, all sins absolved...and upon leaving the Confessional the cycle begins again.
This is one reason RCs find it so difficult to leave the church -- because they are told without the priestly-administered sacraments, no salvation is possible.
It looks to be a very tentative salvation.
But Scripture tells us otherwise:
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." -- Hebrews 6:4-6"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
We are cautioned not to think we can crucify Him again. Christ's sacrifice was singular, complete and accomplished all God that intended.
One of the objections of the Orthodox is that papism became caesaropapism -- imperial papism; that the Pope assumed powers and honors of a King, Prince of Apostles, a Viccar of Christ, and all that, whereas the popesuntil the end of the 4th century simple called themselves "Bishop of Rome."
Technically speaking, the Pope presides over the College of Cardinals (a Synod of Bishops) and has one vote, but he also has a preprogative no other bishop has -- to proclaim dogma ex-cathedra and to ask no one for approval.
Kolokotronis has in the past posted the famous "Dictatus Papae" which the catholic Church never officially accepted but in practice there were elements of such rule.
The move by +Benedict XVI that seems to aim to decentralize and reorganize the western Church according to the patristic model (once again) is aimed at making the pope "primus inter pares" by choice and not by divine right (which he may have -- but not in the jurisdictional sense).
Then we agree. There is free will in man, which is the cause of evil, and is not ordained by God.
Have you ever read the Divine Names by +Dionysius the Areopagite? This master of apophatic theology lists many names by which people have described their experience of God's revelation of himself. But none, taken singly or all together, exhausts the nature of God.
Yes.
The Bible NEVER, EVER states that Christ died for the sin of all men. It NEVER says this.
I gave you two verses that says just that, both from the Johannine Corpus... What more do you want? Christ died for the sin of the world (nothing about the word "all". The world. How you gonna get around that?) - just as Adam's sin was sufficient to remove sanctifying grace from all men. It appears we agree that Christ's work is not efficacious for all men, though.
As to your freedom to use "all", you have to prove that ALL does not mean ALL (universal). I think I have sufficiently shown that Paul was not making an universal statement, but merely repeating some Psalms that talk about the wicked. Want proof??
"Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded [us] to keep thy precepts diligently." Psalm 119:1-4. By the way, this Psalm is an incredible testimony to the Law. Consider reading its 176 verses!
As you can see, the Scripture tells us that some men DO seek God. Thus, knowing that God cannot contradict, we must try to ascertain these apparent contradictions. After a bit of reading, we see the Psalmster and Paul are refering to the wicked, not ALL (universal) men. This cannot be said with your interpretation of "all" in refuting that Jesus died for the sin of all men.
That is referring to intercession in prayer. (Rom 8:26)We always need prayer throughout our lives.
Certainly. So what is the answer? Why does God's Spirit intercede for us today if "all is done"?
I agree with you that He does. He answers our accusers and hears our pleas. At the time of judgment He will act as our personal lawyer and judge. (A very nice deal for the elect, BTW! :) When Christ died His work to pay for our sins was complete. No further payment, through good works, or receiving of sacraments, or anything else was required. But that doesn't mean that Jesus then exited our lives. He remains very active, IMO.
You want your cake and eat it too. What you give in the beginning (Jesus intercedes for us today) is taken away (His work to pay for our sins was complete) in the next sentence. Is Christ active or not? Is His "work" finished?
(re: why we ask for forgiveness of sins) it was so that He would forgive our sins. Forgiveness of sins is necessary for salvation. After salvation, it is part of our sanctification, and is the will of God
YES! Wonderful. And some will not ask for this forgivness that Christ has won for all men, correct? Thus, Christ died for ALL men, but ALL men will not ASK for that gift that was won by our Savior. Without ASKING, we shall not RECEIVE this forgiveness, nor salvation.
He doesn't. :) (re: giving men the power to forgive sins)
You are in denial.
"he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained. " John 20:22-23
What more can I say?
Paul is saying that all believers should spread the good news of the Gospel to the unsaved. Notice that in 18 and 19 it is God who is doing all the reconciling, there is no "Co-".
Sadly, ignoring Scripture is starting to become a trademark here.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Scripture is showing it is Paul and other elders he is refering to when he is speaking to the Corinthians. "God asks you through us". God beseeches you by us". "WE pray YOU be in God's good graces". Of course God is doing the reconciling - THROUGH "us", men who have been previously been given such authority.
Christ didn't die to save the non-elect.
Your version of God does not love man unconditionally, does He? Christ died for all men. Unconditionally.
Jesus already knew that His words would fall on deaf ears among the lost, yet He spoke to them anyway. He was showing us what to do because we don't have His inside knowledge.
Interesting. So Jesus KNEW that His teachings would fall on deaf ears - but He did it anyways. BUT. Jesus DID NOT DIE for all men, even though that would ALSO fall on deaf ears. I have discovered another inconsistent statement of your theology.
I know that Jesus taught a principle to us that we should love our enemies, but do you believe it is absolute? Does God love satan?
LOL!!! PRINCIPLE? That is the heart of the Gospel! To go BEYOND the Law. We are to LOVE UNCONDITIONALLY, just as God does. Even the Gentiles "love" those who treat them well. Big friggin' deal. Christians are CALLED to LOVE as God loves. How could you not know that? Of course God loves Satan. But Satan, sadly, is the Prodigal Son who never will return. Satan is part of God's plan. Without Satan, how could man have received the Incarnation?
You've said it many times, and it is a difficult concept for me because I DO know. :)
"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Paul speaking to 'eternally saved' Christians. 1 Cor 10:12. I will disagree with you until you can prove that 10 years from now, you will continue to abide in Christ...
Brother, isn't it clear that WE can come into righteousness, or come into wickedness, even after our Baptism/Sinner's Prayer? (re: Ez 18:21-24)
Sort of...
LOL!!! Are you SURE you believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, or is it more correct to say "your interpretation of Scripture is inspired by God"? I see an accelerating move away from what is clearly delineated in the Scriptures so that your little Calvinist mindset does not totally come crashing down. Just in this letter, you appear to be in total denial of the plain meaning of over a half dozen Scripture verses! Anything to save poor old Calvin.
She told me, in essence, that once you confess your sins to a priest you are in a "saved" state, such that if you were hit by a bus walking home from the church you would be saved. However, upon the commission of the next mortal sin, you were then automatically transferred into a damned state until such time as you would have your next confession. There were standard "outs" that she and I discussed, such as what would happen if you got run over by a bus on your way to confession. :) Anyway, that's what made me think of this as a ping-pong effect. It appeared to me that salvation was won and lost, and won and lost all the time. So, that's where it comes from.
OK. Well, we don't bounce in and out of the state of mortal sin! She is speaking more hypothetically, I believe. Yes, after confession, and subsequent death, our soul will likely attain eternal life. But mortal sins are not something done everyday. They require "grievous sin, done willingly, and knowing the sin will separate us from God". All three must be present. We aren't forced or we don't sin this way through ignorance. It is a malicious and premeditated sin. Do you think Catholics or Protestants move into and out of God's love like that? Men do need to be "rehealed" or "saved again", if you will. But this is not some common occurence. Just as Ez 18 mentions, righteous men can become wicked and vice versus, depending on their actions!
Regards
Of course seals are serious! Did the seal on the tomb keep Jesus in there? Did the seals in Revelation keep God from His will being fulfilled? Seals are marking of someone belonging to God (in this case). But as we have plodded through already, WE can turn from God due to our free will. We can refuse God, refuse our seal, that first installment of the Holy Spirit. It seems inconceivable that someone would return to the vomit of their past life, but the reality is it HAPPENS. Despite the seal. God allows this seal to be broken, as He highly desires love from us, love which can ONLY be given freely. For love is not love if it is not free.
Regards
Yes, a fruit of something planted by God. Are you aware of unloving, unfruitful Christians? People can be poor soil that does not yield thirty, fifty or hundred fold return.
Regards
Well, I'm not an expert of Church Fathers, but I will do my best...
"And pray ye without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For 'cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God.'" Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 10 ( A.D. 110).
And as many of them, he added, as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish...Yet they also, being naturally good, on hearing my commandments, purified themselves, and soon repented. Their dwelling, accordingly, was in the tower. But if any one relapse into strife, he will be east out of the tower, and will lose his life." Hermas, The Shephard, 3:8:7 (A.D. 155).
"Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, 'For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.'" Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2 (A.D. 180).
"But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwilling. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many?" Tertullian, On Repentance, 6 (A.D. 204).
I believe the Great Commission takes for granted that all men can potentially be saved (from our point of view. We know that God knows who will not choose God)
Well, in that case who keeps you in the love of Christ, you or Him?
Christ graces me enough so that I may choose His ways, imperfectly as I do.
A person's "standing with God" rests upon our Lord Jesus, not on ourselves...
It rests on us, as well.
"That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20.
No mention whatsoever about Christ's righteousness. Actually, I am not aware of ANYWHERE IN THE GOSPELS that makes that claim that Christ's rightousness covers up our need to become holy.
The Holy Spirit doesn't pop in and out of a person like Topper's ghost. We are not sick with sin. We are DEAD! We cannot be cure. We must be reborn.
That only addresses initial justification. What about those who fall away AFTER that justification?
Any good that I may possibly do for God's glory is not me but Christ working in me. There is NOTHING that I have that I can offer God. It is all filthy rags. Christ must work through me and I must abide with Him.
That ignores huge chunks of Scripture that talk about men being righteous, men being judged based on their deeds, and men being commanded to follow the Commandments or Christ's ways. You are looking at this in an "Either/or" situation. Either ALL God or ALL men. God and men work together. Even St. Augustine admits this.
A person outside of Christ can do "good" things but they are evil.
So answer my question that I have asked you: WHO drives that person who is Christian for 10 years before they fall away? You say "he never was saved to begin with". But then you contradict yourself that "ONLY God can make a person love, etc.". So during those ten years of faithful service to God, WHO exactly led that person? The Holy Spirit? Or does the devil also make us do good deeds?
This is a major contradiction in Calvinism that you have not been able to answer.
Regards
It is throughout the book. God's gifts come to us in this world, according to the writer. All are vanities. Why would life be 'vanities' if there was a hope AFTER this life? For example:
"As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour" Ecc 5:15
"And this also [is] a sore evil, [that] in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind? " Ecc 5:16
"[it is] good and comely [for one] to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it [is] his portion. " Ecc 5:17
Pretty hopeless sounding book regarding the afterlife.
Regards
Up until this point I have not. However, I have spent part of today reading this work (about 3/4 of it actually) per your recommendation. I find the work to be very vague and Platonic. He dwells on the good, love, beauty of God but fails to balance this with God's other attributes of justice, jealousy, and wrath.
According to this work, there is no evil-not even among demons (please see Section XXIII) where he states:
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children..." Matt 7:11 "...and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil." Matt 12:34 "...for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light.” Jn 3:19 “I do not ask You to take them out of the wold, but to keep them from the evil one.” Jn 17:15 (Notice the direct contradiction to Dionysius' assertion that the demons are not evil to our Lord Jesus' statement.)
"...for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good..." Matt 5:45
With all due respects for +Dionysius, I would have to strongly disagree with his statement:
If any would like to read this material it can be found here -> Dionysius and Form of the Good
Man will freely choose to do ONLY that which is evil in God's eyes. We are "slaves to sin" until the Son sets us free. After the Son has set us free we are "slaves to righteousness" freely choosing but always being guided in our choices by God.
2) which is the cause of evil, and is not ordained by God.
Evil is not ordained by God but God uses evil for His divine purpose. The Westminster Confession states so.
Slaves to righteousness "freely" choosing, HD? Slavery is a synonym for bondage, i.e. lack of freedom. So, your quote above is an oxymoron. But I am not surprised that you are tripping all over yourself because your theology leads you right into a corner.
Let me recap what you are saying: God is not the author of evil but He uses it for His purpose. If I entice a man to break my neighbor's window, I am not the author of that crime? Is that what you are saying?
We know that God did not create evil. What God created was all good. Now, since He needs evil for His purpose, as you(and Westminister Confession) claim, He made Lucifer and man so that He could have evil to operate with!
In other words, God needs evil for His plan to work, but He can't make it Himself, so He makes two "fall guys" to take the blame and allows them to become evil. That's pretty evil! But it is also satan's lie that appears "sensible" to some.
First of all, God can accomplish His work without evil, I am sure. Second, God does not need anything. Third, making satan and man so that they can be blamed for evil (which God "needs" to use for His purpose) is outright pagan for the lack of a better word.
But God's love is seen as wrath and jealousy by people who hate Him. A minor detail OT authors failed to recognize at the time, just as Christ reminds us that "eye for an eye" (also in the Scripture, is not a correct response, nor something we should follow. How can Scripture be wrong? Christ says "eye for an eye" is not what we should follow.
The Old Testament says you should kill your enemy. Christ says you should love your enemies and those who persecute you. How can that be? The OT teaches nothing like that!
According to this work, there is no evil-not even among demons
God made all things good, according to Scripture. Demons were angels before they rebelled. Man was good until he rebelled. In both cases the free will rejected God and created evil.
Dionysius fails to recognized that man corrupted himself and is now considered, by God, to be evil
But, according to your theology, God was "guiding" him! Adam was good and alive when he was created and all his steps must have been guided by God, as He guides "the elect" today. But that implies that God guided Adam right into sin!
You make Dionysius' point for him. If man corrupts himself, that corruption does not come from God. So you are confirming what Dionysius says: evil does not come from God. What we disagree about is Total Depravity. Christianity has never subscribed to this doctrine--it is an invention of Calvin.
Dionysius asserts that nothing in creation is evil by nature because all is created by God who is goodness and has no evil in him. When talking about the evil of daimones he says
Their evil, then, is a turning aside and a departure from and privation of their true estate, a weakness, failure and falling away from that power which would preserve them in their perfection...Hence the race of daimones is not evil in sofar as it is according to nature, but in so far as it is not. And the whole good given to them has not been changed, but they themselves have fallen away from the wholeness of good...But they are called evil through a declination and deprivation and lapse from that good which is proper to them, and they are evil in seeking that which is not.
So evil seeks that which is not--in other words, the state of non-being which is death.
and [man] is now considered, by God, to be evil.
Well, this is what we disagree about. God doesn't consider man to be evil, but under the influence of evil. That is a big difference.
Yes, I think that is best explanation I have seen.
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.