Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The point is that majoritarian decisions have nothing to do with it either way. The Chruch has the promise of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail over it. There is also a promise to St. Peter from Christ, that He will protect Peter personally from error. Based on that, the Chruch believes that however her decisions are reached, by consensus, majority, or papal infallibility in absence of consensus, she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. It is not a belief akin to what one might have about the American justice system, for example, that because of its juruducal constitutional structure, it is self correcting. It is a mystical belief in the promise of Christ.
When God made Adam and Eve it was good, but is there scripture to say that when He made the rest of us we were good? Obviously this goes to our honest differences as to the nature of man at birth. -- I would say that the error came from man's choosing to sin AND that God ordained our nature to be so.
Unless, of course, you believe that you are without a flaw and we are full of them.
I have a flaw. :)
The two [science and faith] are not "miscible."
I don't agree that the two must be mutually exclusive, in context. Why should Christianity be "afraid" of science? If God created what we call science for us as a gift, then how could it interfere with scripture? God created both.
That is what I was curious about. Does Tradition supplement scripture or the other way around, or neither? Without diminishing the importance of scripture, you seem to be saying that your instincts lead you to Tradition first. For example, when you are faced with an ethical dilemma, whereby there are reasonable arguments on both sides of a decision you must make, where do you look toward first for guidance?
I had no idea about the place of your upbringing. I sincerely hope that I run into you on an appropriate thread on something touching the subject. I have always wondered what that must have been like.
So, in either way we have a theory, a man-made creation, that "explains" the world around us. Except that more people agree on gravity than on God for obvious reasons: gravity always gives consistent results; our appeal to, or defiance of, God doesn't. So, while we can predictably subject gravity to test, God is not readily verified by experiments.
The result is that we know what will gravity do, while with God nothing is certain. Thus, our "belief" in gravity is actually a certitude for all practical purposes, while our belief in God is "substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen," [Heb 11:1].
Gravity is part of this world; God isn't. Gravity affects the world physically. God affects us spiritually. From gravity we learn that things fall; from God we learn mercy, love, justice, etc., "things" not subject to physical laws or evident in nature.
Apples and oranges, as I said.
Yes, He made us capable of good by inscribing His laws in our hearts. If we follow His laws, we will do His will. But we have to follow His laws willingly and freely. He is the Light, the Truth and the Way, but we have a choice to follow that Light, believe in that Truth and stay on that Way. He doesn't compel; we choose to.
It's like a train. Once on them, the rails leave very little wiggle room. But once on the rails, the train will follow with certitude and reach the destination (but remember a train can still get derailed!). When we are born, we are born off the track, stuck, going nowhere. The good news is: God gave us a chance to jump on His track and follow Him. He offers, but He won't make that jump for us.
I think you are still confused on what the Holy Tradition is. There is never a dilemma between the Holy Tradition and the Sripture.
They are by their nature: one is of human and the other of divine origin. Science is a product of our mind; faith is a product of God. Science can only reveal that which is of this world. Science cannot prove or disprove God. He is not subject to scientific method or experiment.
Why should Christianity be "afraid" of science?
There is absolutely no reason to be afraid of science. To the contrary. Science shows us how incredible is the Creation. It also shows us how different we are from God: for what we see in nature is something we could never design, or make. It truly brings home the verse that our ways are not God's ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts. (cf Isa 55:8)
The world is a painting that tells us a lot about the Artist. It is a building that tells us a lot about the Architect.
Apology accepted. We realize that the Church holds out an ideal that most people seem not to be able to live up to. But we have to really think - who is master, God's ways, or our ways. Culture speaks loud and clear and we are influenced by it - but Christ is counter-cultural. I see annulment as a pastoral reality, as most people DO NOT live up to Christ's standards - but on the other hand, are we to close the doors to everyone? Annulments bring closure to people that is greatly needed in our society.
Regards
Well said Dr. E. His glory is what matters. -- This is another wonderful article by Warfield. I loved the simplicity of this passage:
"To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit."
Amen. I can't think of a thing to add to this. It is beautiful. Thank you so much for showing this to me.
The Tradition is first, because I got it first. So is with you or anyone. Consider your native language. On occasion, we check with the dictionary, but even when we do, the first recourse is what you learned, not the dictionary. Scripture is not a separate from Tradition thing, it is an integral part of it.
when you are faced with an ethical dilemma, whereby there are reasonable arguments on both sides of a decision you must make, where do you look toward first for guidance?
Now that you force me to examine that, I discover three stages in the process. My first stage is thoroughly intuitive. I fall back on the elements of Christianity I know from the heart. God is love. Sanctity is goal. Christ leads. Cross shows the way. Suffering is fellowship with Christ. Etc. This is not scriptural, -- these are bumper stickers. Or if you prefer a more dignified term, these are instincts.
Second, I would reflect on the scripture. I cannot think of a single moment whe the scripture redirected the instinct, but it often reinforces the instinct. For example, I often get angry when the Church is offended. That is instinct. Then I think to Christ talking to St. Paul, "Why are you persecuting me?". And so I remind myself that persecution of the Chruch is persecution of Christ, because, of course, Saul was not persecuting Christ personally. This is the scriptural reinforcement.
Thirdly, I look inwardly. This is a prayer for guidance. It may moderate the anger, or quicken it, or it may inspire some research into the patristic literature. For example, the issue of original sin is very subtle and I do not intuitively understand the subtlety. I have enough understanding to confront a Pelagian, or a pagan, or a Calvinist, but I do not have depth. So I read St. Anselm, or, recently, that wonderful article that Kolokotronis provided. But, you know what? It is Mary that guides, really. Because, just like the Filipino ladies with their rosaries, this Russian 50+ year old male cannot identify with the Divine in a sterile way. I can only get to Christ through Mary, as a man, husband, and parent.
Before I can answer that, you will have to answer me how can I do anything God did not "ordain" me to do. If He "ordained" me to choose against Him, where is my fault?
Just to be certain, of course I was referring to the ubiquitous "you", not you personally. I am talking in terms of salvation. -- Since I believe that God ordains "everything", I would have to say that none of us can do anything God did not ordain. When someone "chooses" against Him, I really don't look at it in terms of fault, I look at it in terms of responsibility.
A loose comparison might be that an executive is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates, but he might not be at all to "blame" for a particular mistake made by one of them. Since God has no duty to us either in salvation or in any terms of the human concept of "fairness", we are still responsible for our sin.
My dear friend, I think part of the reason we don't understand each other is because you seem to make up meanings of words. The sentence above is a circular argument, because fault is synonymous with responsibility, i.e. fault: "responsibility for a mistake or an offense; culpability" (dictionary.com), or "responsibility for wrongdoing or failure [the accident was the driver's fault]" [Merriam-Webster's].
If all we do is what God "ordained" us to do, then we bear no fault for anything we do. Whether we sin or not is God's will, and not ours, so no matter what we do is part of God's plan, and ours is simply to carry out the task He assigned us to do.
A loose comparison might be that an executive is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates, but he might not be at all to "blame" for a particular mistake made by one of them
Whether we do good or evil, it is through obedience to God's will in your theology. If we make a "mistake" it cannot be against His will and if it isn't against His will, then it is not our fault. Judas was "ordained" to "betray" Christ so that, in Calvinist theology, the choreography plays itself out, and all the actors on the stage were simply doing their assigned part.
I suppose that I am fascinated because it did sound so humble. This is in contradiction to many ideas I have heard on this thread, of course in my "humble" opinion. :) For example, I do not see humility in the idea that God chooses His elect based on His foreknowledge of our decisions for Him. I also do not see humility in elevating the Magesterium over and above scripture. (I am not accusing you of any of this.) In fact, many, many times I have felt closer to you all than I have to the Catholic view. That's interesting to me because before this thread I knew virtually nothing about Orthodoxy. :)
"It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image."
This is wonderful too. When one is in this state, it seems to me that sin becomes impossible, so it is an enormous measure of protection, to say nothing of peace.
Depending on what you mean, there's no figuring to it, it's simple. Sin happens. God has the exclusive and ultimate authority to prevent it. He doesn't in all cases. Therefore He allows it. Now, if you mean why did God order the universe to include sin for men, that is much more difficult to say. As I said in my post, perhaps one reason is that we can so much better understand our need for Him and His love for us. But of course, far be it from me to declare why.
But, as for your "case" it seems you have convinced yourself more than those you are trying to convince. Maybe you should start with your more recent Calvinist member, Albion Girl (post #4432); she seems to believe that God made everything, the good -- and the bad.
I have met AG on this thread, and I think her posts have been wonderful and wise. My case was that God is not the author of evil, but He allows things to happen that are evil. AG said that " ... God created all, good and bad and everything in between." Perhaps she got this crazy idea from places like this:
JOHN 1:1-3,10 : 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
God created sharks. Sometimes, sharks eat people. We say that's "bad". This is very different from any suggestion that God proactively inserts an evil demon or something into someone to make him do something terrible. I will let AG speak for herself on how she sees this distinction.
[on my possibility as to why God allows sin] Maybe you can explain to me first why would the "rejects" depend on, and need Him if they have been "condemned" to hell from all eternity?
You use words like "condemn" because you place a duty on God to love everyone equally, and provide for everyone's salvation, if it his/her choice. I do not see that in the Bible at all. I see a sovereign God, who does not "owe" us anything from the beginning. Those who are not of the elect will not depend on, or experience a genuine need for God.
And you continue to write as if you know what God thinks? Everyone else seems to be doing that. This is why I am skeptical about the Bible. Everyone reads into it what he or she wants. (emphasis added)
You said it, I didn't. :) It doesn't affect my view of the Bible at all whether others have other views of it, or even try to tear it down. I don't think the Bible is right because I, or any other man, or group of men says it is. I say that the Bible is truth regardless of any of our beliefs. Some will hear the truth, some will not. -- I have never relied on my "view" of what God "thinks", in the ether, I rely on what He says, in the scripture.
"In fact, many, many times I have felt closer to you all than I have to the Catholic view."
Now I find that fascinating! Usually Western Christians are more drawn to Latin ways rather than Orthodox ones.
In Orthodoxy, The Church teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who leads us to repentence which allows us to lay aside our involvement "in the world" which has lead to our existence "of the world", an existence where a parasitical Evil One rules. The Holy Spirit does not approach us in clouds of smoke and fire, or with some sort of spiritual brass band and loud commands. Archmandrite Sophrony put it well:
"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice. If we would know the Holy Spirit we need to examine ourselves in the light of the Gospel teaching, to detect any other presence which may prevent the Holy Spirit from entering into our souls. We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension. And when we open our hearts to Him we are overwhelmed by the conviction that He is indeed our Father. The soul then worships in love."
This humility, this meekness of approach, which characterizes God does indeed seem at odds with the attributes we as humans give to Almighty God. Just as God's Justice is not our justice, so our conceptions of Divine Majesty likely are not God's conception. This sense of the humility of God, this understanding that it is through humility and meekness that we can advamce in theosis is a concept found all through Orthodox theology and praxis. +John Chrysostomos, Patriarch of Constantinople and my favorite among the Fathers (his name means "The Golden Mouthed") wrote a prayer which is said at Communion time during Orthodox Divine Liturgies. He was a powerful man, a man at the pinacle of The Church in the East, who died an exile's death.
" I believe, Lord, and confess, that You are truly the Christ, Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the greatest. I also believe that this is truly Your spotless Body, and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Wherefore I pray You: have mercy on me and forgive my offenses, whether or not intended, whether committed in word or deed, knowingly or unwittingly; and count me worthy to share without judgment in Your pure Mysteries, for remission of sins and for everlasting life. Amen.
You have beguiled me with yearning, O Christ, and by love divine transformed me. Consume my sins in ethereal flame, and let me be filled with the sheer delight of You, O Gracious Lord, that leaping for joy, I may magnify both Your Advents.
How shall I, so unworthy, come into the splendor of Your Saints? If I dare to enter the bridal feast, my clothing will disgrace me, since it is not a wedding garment. Then I shall be bound and cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, purge my soul and save me.
Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ my God, let not these holy Gifts become a judgment against me because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of both soul and body, and as an earnest of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God, to place in Him the hope of my salvation.
Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical supper; for I will not reveal the Mystery to Your enemies, nor give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom."
But why blame the scripture for this by lessening its weight? I'd say the blame goes to us humans. You revere the U.S Constitution as the supreme document of man's law, right? And yet, so many disagree as to what it means. That isn't the fault of the founding fathers, any more than it is the fault of God that man misinterprets His work.
Even though you and I disagree so much on the theological stuff, we do agree on so much that is important because we are both Christians. As I said to someone else on this thread, I'd bet you would have no problem whatsoever with the "Sinner's Prayer" in principle, as a prayer, you would just disagree on what it "officially" means. I would say the same thing about structured confession.
Is Scripture "scripture" simply because we call it that? Is the Koran "scripture?" Is the Book of Mormon? To the Muslims and the Mormons, they are. That means, Scripture is what men consider "scripture." How is that different from my assertions?
If you say that only men declare what is scripture then I have to ask what you think it means that the scriptures are "God-breathed". Does that mean that God gave advice, but left it to men to decide what was worthy? If that is true, then I would throw the entire Bible out, and basically wander aimlessly in my Christian walk. Of course, I never would have become a Christian if I thought that was the case. "I" would have thought the whole thing was a faith constructed by men, to the worship of men. If I really thought that men made the hard choices, then I would be totally suspect of the Bible too. These were good, but fallible men, so how can we know?
BTW, at this minute, I am watching satan TV, this time on the National Geographic channel. The topic is "The Gospel of Judas" (was he really such a bad guy?). So far, it's pretty funny.
Thank you for the link. I didn't read the whole thing, but I did see a few statements that raised my eyebrows. Father Romanides was no potted plant. :) For example, I noted him saying "Thus, according to St. Paul, creation as it is is not what God intended it to be— ...". You know what kind of buttons that presses with me. :)
In the passages I read, he seems to spend most of his time on Paul in this writing, and quite a lot of time discussing satan. It seemed to me that his idea was to peg satan with the blame for man's sin as sort of the Orthodox version of, or response to, the doctrine of original sin. I.e., man sins because of satan, not because of Adam.
"AlbionGirl, the Calvinist", that's rather a shock to see in print! Not that I find it in any way unpleasant, just startling in that if you would have suggested a year ago that is where I'd be today I would have said you were crazy. But, being that I took so easily and readily to so much of Calvin's theology, I have to conclude I was probably a crypto-Calvinist for quite a while. I don't see him at all as the caricature men draw of him. I see him as a man who loved God with fervor, who was offended at His suffusion in myriad medieval accretions, who saw the tyrannization (sp?;word?) of the consciences of the faithful as harmful. He wasn't alone, there were some Catholics who were offended as well, but they didn't see the solution to those problems in the same way Calvin did.
I went out to dinner last week with a friend I hadn't connected with in quite a while. We began with a margarita, and any inhibition to speak what was on my mind disappeared almost immediately, as I don't consume alcohol that often, so its effects on me are almost immediate. Anyway, I began to tell him of my trek over to the Calvinist side of the isle, and he burst into a roar of laughter that took him a few minutes to reign in. He's a Buddhist. The laughter was not one of derision or mockery, but one of recognition, it was as if his peal of laughter declared, 'I knew it!'.
He's a well-educated man who has been as good as gold to me since we developed a friendship back in the early 90s. We're a couple of misfit celibates, who nonetheless aren't in the least bit misanthropic.
He says that on balance he's a fan of Calvin, not for religious reasons at all, but for reasons pertaining to the effect of Calvinistic thought on personal industry, capitalism, liberty, etc.
As I discussed with him though, here's my dilemma: I was a Catholic for 50 years, I can't stop making the sign of the Cross when I sit down to eat, when I want to chase away an unworthy thought, if I wanted to. I can't not bow my head when I hear Jesus's name articulated, if I wanted to.
Yesterday was the beginning of Holy Week. That I recognize and love Holy Week will never, ever change. When I was a kid my Mother used to try to get me and my older brother to remain silent during the hours from 12 to 3 on Good Friday. She never believed it was possible to get a 5 year-old and an 8 year-old to remain silent for 3 hours, but she was trying to instill in us a reverence for the Blessed day, and she sure was successful. My brother and I would look at each other with a look that said, 'ok, we're really going to do it this time', then we'd start saying our prayers in Latin, and be struck by how funny sounding mulieribus was, and burst into a muffled snickering. My Mom would say, 'shush', and the sequence would begin anew. These are such precious memories to me, and all of this is in my bones.
On my desktop at home, I have a picture of +Mary of Egypt, an Orthodox saint, whose life, legendary or not, has so many parallels to my own, minus the Saint part, of course, that I find immense comfort in the moral of her story.
I didn't know anything about her until last Friday, when an Orthodox priest, who I became acquainted with last summer when attending Divine Liturgy, included me in an email he had sent out to his Faithful. He has sent me a copy of the Parish Bulletin every week since I attended. He's a pretty smart man, and a very good Shepherd.
So, as you can see, my ecclesial eclecticism has the potential to produce a cacophony that makes it difficult for me to fully assess where I fit in, organizationally speaking. The only thing I do know is that I couldn't remain Roman Catholic, and that I will never return to their fold.
Now, as far as God having created it all, good and bad? I think that's a given, and I liked your shark eats man illustration.
The one doctrine of Calvinism that I have tremendous trouble with though, is his doctrine of Predestination. In particular, the idea of reprobation before the foundation of the world. He seems to have wanted to downplay that himself, as it represents a small part of his Institutes, relatively speaking. I think Calvin's main point, the thing he was driving at the most, is that it is dangerous for man to find or try to find that private place inside himself that secretly believes in the power of his own goodness and righteousness. Ego is the name of that private place. And in that, I'm in full agreement with Calvin. I must also confess that I'm probably frightened of his doctrine because of the death of my youngest brother, and the concomitant implications.
Finally, I'm sorry to have rambled on so, but I do thank you for sparking my ability to do so, and for listening, my friend.
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.