LOL. Deserves got nothing to do with it.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Correct. And the issue of papacy is not whether the Orthodox recognize the Pope, but what is the scope of his jurisdiction. Until we clarify the jurisdiction, we cannot even tackle the theology. But what most people fail to understand is that we are all part of one Church, given to the Apostles, and our divisions are within the Church; until such divisions are resolved, we cannot share communion. That's a world of difference with the 'church' created by a renegade priest in Germany.
I do remember that Protestants are ever changing and fully fallible. The difference I see is that Protestants put God's word over and above men. Other non-Protestant groups put men over and above God's word. If anyone is self-righteous, who would that be?
The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. (1 Cor 3:8). And We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. (Rom 12:6)
He doesn't, it must be based on man's rejection of God
Correct!
The Church did not put men over and above God's word. Where do you find that? Self-rigtheousness comes from each individual believer being his or her own "pope." The Pope does not make the Church; the concensus patrum does. The Church did not re-invent the wheel: the same faith and knowledge of truth given to the Apostles at the Pentecost is what led to the Christian canon you call the Bible. We did not change or place the Scripture into the third drawer and made up our own rules. We are practicing what was practiced in the first century AD onward.
Then how is He omnipotent (using your own argument)?
But I think you are mistaken aboyut not letting you go. Matthew 21:43 says
"We goofy Protestants thought Christ made the Church."
You keep reading scripture you are out of here.
So you're saying faith is a reward for not rejecting God.
But why would someone NOT reject God if they had no faith to begin with?
No man is "pope." That's the point you miss.
"Self-rigtheousness comes from each individual believer being his or her own "pope.""
Self-righteousness comes from each individual person, including believers, being his/her own god! You give "pope" too much credit. Self-righteousness is sin.
I don't doubt that for a moment. After all, theology is secondary to liturgy; it is through liturgical union with Christ that we know the Word, Who is Christ Himself. An attempt to discover Christ through scripture alone is about as fruitful as trying to impregnate one's wife through e-mail. See my 4882 for elaboration.
Have you been able to show in Scriptures alone that Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, two pillars of Protestantism, are to be found in God's Word? It seems that you are defining your word and opinion to = God's Word.
Regards
I don't think God gives everyone equal graces, but He gives everyone sufficient grace to turn to Him in some manner. Otherwise, this would nullify Scripture that says "God desires all men to be saved", among others like it.
Anyway, God gives the "X" amount to all of His elect, and He does not for everyone else. Man contributes nothing to his own salvation. It is all in God's hands.
I see it in a reverse order. Since God wants all men to be saved, HE does not "pick and choose" which will be tossed out based on no evidence of response. Thus, God foresees those who reject Him outright. The rest will be predestined. This fits well with God being positively in control of the elect and ALLOWING the condemned to condemn themselves. IF you say God chooses the condemned, you say God is the author of sin - which is not a Christian concept.
it doesn't seem to me that God would be in full control if He ever rolled the dice on anything.
LOL! Why wouldn't God be in control when He foresees all of our actions and is able to aid those who even try slightly to come to God?
Finally, I believe that God retains His justice because He has no duty to save anyone.
Strictly speaking, if God did not present any Scriptures, you'd be correct. But He has PROMISED He desires men to be saved! All of them. He DIED for ALL of them. He binds HIMSELF to the salvation of mankind - if you believe that God is righteous. Thus, God presents the ability for ALL men to be saved - if only they do not "close their eyes to the light".
To me, this sounds like a very passive control, at best. God watches and knows what man will do, but God does not intervene, at least very much.
God is more active than a baseball owner watching a game. We require His graces daily. We rely on Him for every good gift. But this doesn't do away with our ability to refuse Him. People do it all of the time - even regenerated people.
That He died must have been necessary, in view of His justice, or else He committed suicide unnecessarily. It would make no sense for Him to give up His life if a viable alternative was some other way.
As I said, God is not bound by necessity in the HOW in saving us. Nor did Christ commit suicide since He didn't kill Himself. He gave Himself up in obedience to the Father, an expression of ultimate love. God went to the extreme to show His love for us.
God has no such duty to save.
He does if He binds Himself to such a task - which He did in the Garden of Eden. IF God is righteous, we trust that He will execute this promise.
Yes, there is scripture on this, but we have an honest disagreement on the subject of the judgment, in cases like this. Based on the context, I believe that judgment can be either for salvation or for other rewards once in heaven.
So how would you explain the many verses of Scripture that rules out the "judgment based on rewards within heaven"? There are quite a few that make it clear that judgment is for heaven or hell. Some of these verses are spoken to CHRISTIANS, the "saved"! What then?
In my view, there is no such thing as "man's morality". There is only God's.
I think you mean that man's morality has little worth when it contradicts God's morality. Man has many ideas of morality - some really think it is OK to kill unborn kids...
Regards
Sola Fide; Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Sola Scriptura; 2 Tim. 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
If this is what the Orthodox believe, then I was mistaken. Thank you for clearing that up.
[later in the work:] "However, God wished that, after a fashion, we too should be His co-workers in His creation and be responsible for our own eternal destiny. God knows in His infinite wisdom how to transform the causes of evil into that which is profitable for man's salvation. "
This is what I thought the Catholic and Orthodox position was. Thanks for clearing that up, too.
In your belief, when God sins like this, to whom does He confess? :)
If you believe that, then why was He angry with wicked men -- they turned out exactly as He ordained them to be! Where is their fault? They are just passive "tools" and fools in your vision of God's creation.
They weren't just passive tools, they were very active tools, and responsible for their own sins. If we remain in the state of our birth, then we will be wicked. God has every right to be angry, because He is not the author of sin. Men (and satan) are.
[In addition to wicked men, Genesis 6:6 states that God decided to destroy all innocent animal life as well. I wouldn't call that kind.]
Perhaps you would like an apology? :) Besides, cats always have it coming to them anyway.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
This is the Catholic teaching, that we are saved through faith and should follow up with good works.
2 Tim. 3:15-17 does not say anything about sola scriptura. It says that scripture is profitable, at least for the clergy. We agree.
EVERYONE believed in those days??? In what? Was one either an atheist or a believer?. I must not know what you mean. Did God go around in the OT and slay true believers? Was Judas a believer?
Christ specifically went to pull the rigtheous out of hell -- but one can ask if they were rigtheous, why were they in hell to begin with? And why were Adam and Eve among the righteous?
Those are good questions. I have to admit that before this thread I really knew nothing about this whole idea of Christ going down into hell. Is there a difference between hell and purgatory? My vague understanding of purgatory is that it is not as bad as the classical "hell", and is where most saved people go for "refinement" before they are worthy of going to heaven. If they are different places, then I don't understand why icons of the faith like Peter and John the Baptist would go there instead of purgatory, or really, why not straight into heaven?
Yet, clearly, Job is not portrayed as someone who was anything but perfect in God's eyes.
Well, when you put it that way, I think everyone can agree. :)
Thanks Harley, that helps. I think I also read somewhere that the Baptism was sort of legally required to make Him an "officially" recognized priest. Not sure about that one though. :)
LOL. Deserves got nothing to do with it.
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.