Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I would tend to agree that we're never going to understand each other on this so all I can do is restate my position that God's will is what happens because He is an omnipotent and sovereign God. Apparently contrary to your position, man does not have the power to overcome God's will through his choices. The wages of sin is death, so man is responsible for his own sin. God cannot be blamed for man's sin, no matter how much you say I think so. Under my view, God retains control, which is one area in which we differ.
FK to Kosta: 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
You must be the only one who does not find that in the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear that God is a Judge. Judges judge, either by pardoning or condemning. Those who are "saved" are saved from all eternity according to your theology, and those who are not saved (i.e. "lost") are, by God's decision (therefore judgment), destined to perdition.
That would strongly suggest to anyone, lawyers notwithstanding :),that those who are "lost" from all eternity have been judged to perdition.
I am not placing blame or crying "foul" but simply stating that, looking at your theology, those who will be lost (i.e. not-saved) have no reason to seek anything from God because none will be given. Their fate has been sealed from all eternity. I am glad you see "justice" in that, because I don't.
Now, I know that AG thinks my theology stinks, but even I can say that God's justice is mercy and not condemnation, and frankly I see no mercy in yourn theology dear friend.
No Sir. God retains control, but we still have freedom of will. Jo kus tried, unsuccessfully I see, to point out to you that God transcends time and that He knows all the decisions we make, good and evil, past, present and future, of all the people in the world, who lived, live and will live, as happening all at once and integrates them into His plan -- if that doesn't speak volumes of His omnipotence I don't know what does!
No Sir! The Christian Bible is no truth to a Jew or a Muslim or Hindu or a Buddhist or a Wiccan for that matter -- because he or she does not believe in what it proclaims.
As to what is "Scripture" is entirely dependent on what you are willing to believe. The Koran is no scripture to me, and the Gospels are no Scripture to a Jew, just as the Book of Mormon is no scripture top any Christian.
Kosta to FK: And you continue to write as if you know what God thinks
FK to Kosta: I have never relied on my "view" of what God "thinks", in the ether, I rely on what He says, in the scripture
Really? Funny, isn't it, that what you read God says in the same Scripture is not what other Christians see in it? Unlike you, I trust that the Church has better understanding of the Scripture, bsed on Tradition and collective knowledge. You, on the other hand, trust what you read in it as the truth. So, either way, it all falls down to the common denominator -- that you "know" what God is saying.
That's a cute analogy, FK, and somewhat true. However, I would say that both particular Churches, within their respective and traditional mindests, understand Christian Canon to be a product of the Holy Tradition, and an integral and inseparable part of it.
Likewise, both particular Churches of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church hold that Scripture and Tradition are never in conflict with each other.
Very true.
A mere 2,000 posts ago we dealt with it: 2428
Yes, Elder Cleopa says it better than we can, but you as a Catholic can read it and recognize your own particular Churchn in what he says, jusy as he is a part of our particular Church: Tradition, and Holy Scripture within it, is one and the same Body of Christ.
Thanks for the passages from Archmandrite Sophrony, and the prayer from +John Chrysostomos. You know how I feel about the free will issue, so I'm not sure we can have a meeting of the minds there. :) And, while I saw theological differences, all in all, I liked the tone and intent from both men. You found another good example of what I was saying.
Shifting gears a little, this passage may be another example of the terminology issue we have been discussing. I note that it says here that God humbles Himself before us. That could be taken two ways, at least. I would agree that Christ was humble IN FRONT OF men, but not TO men. Do you see it the same way? I ask in connection with the concept that God "respects" man. This idea also could mean many things.
" I note that it says here that God humbles Himself before us. That could be taken two ways, at least. I would agree that Christ was humble IN FRONT OF men, but not TO men. Do you see it the same way? I ask in connection with the concept that God "respects" man. This idea also could mean many things."
Remarkable, isn't it!
I must say I agree with my Balkan Mountain Bandit Brothers on this one FK. I think what you are missing are the respective phronema, or mindsets or worldviews, of the two particular churches within The Church which we are members of. Though these phronemai actually are quite different, and that difference plays itself out in our theology and how we speak about these matters, our views of the integration of the Scriptures within Holy Tradition are at base identical, at least in any way a non Latin Rite or Eastern Christian would view things.
'Receive ye the Holy Spirit.' Though he continues to be the only Shepherd of his Church, he must necessarily display the power of his Spirit in the ministers whose agency he employs; and this also he testified by the outward symbol, when he breathed on the Apostles; for this would not be applicable, if the Spirit did not proceed from him. So much the more detestable is the sacrilege of the Papists, who seize and claim for themselves the honor which belongs to the Son of God, for their mitred bishops, when they make priests, have the effrontery to boast of breathing the Holy Spirit on them. But the fact plainly shows how different their stinking breath is from the Divine breathing of Christ; for what else is it that they do than to change horses into asses? Besides, not only does Christ communicate to his disciples the Spirit which he has received, but he bestows it as his own, as the Spirit which he has in common with the Father. Consequently, all those who boast of giving the Spirit by breathing lay claim to the glory of Divinity. It ought to be observed, that those whom Christ calls to the pastoral office he likewise adorns with the necessary gifts, that they may be qualified for discharging the office, or, at least, may not come to it empty and unprovided. And if this be true, there is no difficulty in refuting the foolish boasting of the Papists, who, while they employ lofty terms of commendation in extolling their hierarchy, cannot show a single spark of the Holy Spirit in their bishops. They wish us to believe that they are the lawful pastors of the Church, and, in like manner, that they are the apostles and vicars of Christ, while it is evident that they are utterly destitute of the grace of the Holy Spirit. A sure criterion is here laid down for judging of the calling of those who govern the Church of God; and that criterion is, if we see that they have received the Holy Spirit...Most absurdly do the Papists, on the other hand, torture this passage, to support their magical absolutions. If any person do not confess his sins in the ear of the priest, he has no right, in their opinion, to expect forgiveness; for Christ intended that sins should be forgiven through the Apostles, and they cannot absolve without having examined the matter; therefore, confession is necessary. Such is their beautiful argument. But they fall into a strange blunder, when they pass by the most important point of the matter; namely, that this right was granted to the Apostles, in order to maintain the credit of the Gospel, which they had been commissioned to preach. For Christ does not here appoint confessors, to inquire minutely into each sin by means of low mutterings, but preachers of his Gospel, who shall cause their voice to be heard, and who shall seal on the hearts of believers the grace of the atonement obtained through Christ. We ought, therefore, to keep by the manner of forgiving sins, so as to know what is that power which has been granted to the apostles...""...22. 'He breathed on them.' Not one of the sons of men is qualified for discharging so difficult an office, and, therefore, Christ prepares the Apostles for it by the grace of his Spirit. And, indeed, to govern the Church of God, to carry the embassy of eternal salvation, to erect the kingdom of God on earth, and to raise men to heaven, is a task far beyond human capacity. We need not be astonished, therefore, that no man is found qualified unless he be inspired by the Holy Spirit; for no man can speak a word concerning Christ unless the Spirit guide his tongue, (1 Corinthians 12:3;) so far is it from being true that there is any man who is competent to discharge faithfully and honestly all the duties of so excellent an office. Again, it is the glory of Christ alone to form those whom he appoints to be teachers of his Church; for the reason why the fullness of the Spirit has been poured out upon him is, that he may bestow it upon each person according to a certain measure.
The bobblehead had an ugly soul. He, too, would give the Mother of Christ a chair and some coffee.
Does this idiot have an opinion based on anything he reads in the Gospel? It is really shameful that this fraud is considered theologian.
It is exactly the same with me, except it only goes back to one day before this thread started for me. :) Before this thread, I really didn't know that Reformed theology existed in an organized way. I was so happy to find kindred spirits here, to meet new friends, and to learn that I hadn't been making this stuff up all along. :)
Thank you for sharing the stories of your friend and your childhood. When you spoke of your dilemma, I was going to answer in a certain way, but then I read Dr. E.'s reply (... it may take some time to unlearn 50 years of behavioral patterns; "entanglements," as Calvin calls them.) and I had to rethink it. I decided to just tell you what I was going to say, and ask Dr. E. if I'm off the reservation on this one. :)
I was going to say that I didn't think you had a dilemma at all. :) Both of the things you mentioned that you still do now, making the sign of the cross, and bowing your head at the name of Jesus have a few things in common for you. They are both things you grew up with and are now ingrained, they are both things you do that make you focus on God, and they are both things you do in reverence of God.
In "the before time" :) you did these things within a specific belief system that was given to you. These practices meant specific things to you based on that system. Now, however, though you still have the practices, your view of God has either changed, or at least it is very different from others who have the same practices. You have a new/different belief system about God in certain respects. Now, I'm guessing, when you make the sign of the cross and think of God, it's not from the old paradigm you were told to follow, it is from the new one you have accepted now. And when you bow your head in reverence, it is under your new system of accepted beliefs.
I was going to say that if all this is true, then I don't see a dilemma. To me it isn't the gesture or habit followed that is of primary importance, it is what it means to the person in terms of worship and reverence for God. After all, those are reminders of something. If those things now remind you of God in a new way consistent with your beliefs now, then I would say "great". And, if those things only remind you today of a prior belief system that you now disagree with, well, then that would be a dilemma. :)
I suppose it must come down to whether it is possible to separate the practice from the old belief. If not, then consider everything I've said to be a big "Never Mind!" LOL! I hope that's not true because I love simple, little things that remind us of God. He knows so well how much we need them. :)
Unlike my last post, in which I could only guess what it is like to move from Catholicism to this faith, on this issue I know exactly what you are talking about. In my case, it concerns my mother, who died two years ago. Growing up in my home, I was raised with no spiritual guidance at all, just the generic "yeah, we're Christian". It was only until God used outside influences on me that I came to believe on Him in my late teens.
After I married right out of college and became established in an SB church, I started to worry about her and her salvation. I witnessed to her for years, but to no avail. She openly rejected God at this point. However, I asked her about her childhood and she told me that she was a regular church-goer then and that she had accepted Christ as her savior. At the time, I believed in "once saved, always saved", so I said "Whew, at least she's covered".
Then I learned about "Perseverance of the Saints", and it was quite a bitter pill to swallow, exactly because of the implications you mentioned. Today, I reconcile it by saying that if it is really true that God chooses His elect, then there was nothing I could have done. I could have witnessed to her seven days a week, and it wouldn't have mattered. In addition, every minute that I spend beating myself up about it now is just another minute that satan has won over me. Pass.
Ultimately, it is only God who decides who goes to heaven, and all of my observations, my little theories about, and even my own excuses for my mother are meaningless. I will know the truth someday about her fate, so all I can do now is to continue trusting in Him. His will defines "perfect", His will shall be done, so what else can I do? :)
Is that the best you can do? Or was that just a knee jerk?
Calvin's was a knee jerk. How am I supposed to argue with this "theology"? "The gospel says... But I say ...".
I'll get to scriptural arguments presented by blue-duncan later in the day.
FK, while having not much more to add to our discussion, still wanted to let you know that I appreciate your response.
Thanks, qua, and you too, Dr. E.
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.