Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I think this is an excellent example of how God works in His Church. First, Tertullian was without doubt the brightest mind in the Latin Church during his era. IF the Church's beliefs were based on "brainpower" of man, then Tertullian certainly could have successfully argued his own personal beliefs that differed from the Church's. HOWEVER, the Church is led by the Spirit. So when a Father writes something that CAN be taken out of context and read differently then the Church's orthodox beliefs, the Church, duly appointed by Christ, judges on the issue on the side of its handed-down Tradition.
Thus, St. Augustine and St. John Cassian have written what SOME people would consider out of order of the consensus patrum - and have been misinterpreted. The Church was not fooled. Despite Augustine's incredible influence, the Church did not fall for his version of mass damnatia. Even his follower, St. Prosper of Aquitaine, did not teach it, realizing that Augustine was writing polemically vs. the Pelagians. Later readers of John Cassian also need to understand the Saint's point of view - being he was a monk - and not trying to work out a precise theological relationship, but rather, was concerned with practical application. Thus, we shouldn't consider him a heretical Semi-Pelagian. In either case, the Church did not change their opinions based on the popularity of these giants' opinions.
I consider that the above examples are further proof of God working within His Church.
Regards
And here I thought it was God-breathed into men chosen by God and led by the Holy Spirit to be vessels of His perfect Word.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" -- 2 Timothy 3:16
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -- 2 Peter 1:21
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12-13"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Yes it is. taste my own medicine. Thank you. :)
The most prominent example that spring to mind is the quotation that Christ himself used to silence the Pharisees: "... the Lord said unto my Lord..."
I am glad you mentioned this example, because preceding that quote Jesus asks who do they think the Messiah is a son of? And they answer: David. This is so in line with Judaic understanding of the meshiach, the "anointed" warrior king of Israel. It shows that Judaism of Christ's time on earth has not changed. So, what do you think Moses and Elijah would have answered?
What did +Thomas say and became famous for? Did the myrrth bearing women not doubt? Were they not asked why there were looking for the dead among the living? They didn't come to anoint a living body they believed would resurrect but a dead one! If all the miracles He performed in the Gospels really happened, they would have expected Him to be up and alive! Yet no one, not one really believed and it took +Thomas to put his fingers into His wounds to believe and say "My Lord and my God."
The whole cascade of Christian tidal wave started after they all realized that He is indeed Risen! And that all this was, despite their doubts, really true! What a rush! But until that time, everyone doubted. Mary did not come tell the disciples "Don't worry, He'll be up and about..."
As for your quote, obviously the one who is anointed by God to be the king is a Lord of a LORD. But it does not mean that he is divine. Stretching, as I said.
This can also be seen in the Hebrew expression the "World to Come." The Christians converted it into the Kingdom of Heaven, but to the Jews it means the world after the meshiach established peace on earth, rebuilt Jerusalem, and converted everyone to the God of Abraham, all in real time and physically on this earth.
Now, we could say the Jews has "sporoi" or "seeds" of truth (as most religions on earth do) and did not understand their own revelations, that much I will grant, but to say that observant Jews whether they were Patriarchs or Prophets believed what we believe in is a bit of a stretch.
In that case we need to re-establish communion with the Catholic Church immediately by stretching the theology a wee bit. If Christianity and Judaism are one and the same faith, certainly Catholicism and Orthodoxy are!
As to whether Moses and Elijah would have recognized Christ on earth is a speculation. We presume they would. But we really don't know. Salvation in Orthodoxy is not achieved by recognition of the faith, but by becoming Christ-like, which is why all of them, including John the Baptist had to be rescued from Hell, because none of them were Christlike, where they? After all, Moses committed a murder by killing an Egyptian in revenge.
I know, we are here going about semantics, but if they were not in hell strictly speaking but "only" in Hades (I do remember that icon with the gates of Hell knocked down into a cross though) and were destined to go to heaven, why were they not in heaven to begin with? Come on, Agrarian, Orthodox belief as to what happens after one dies is well known to you: you are immediately judged and you go to the Hades where you foretaste the bliss of heaven or damnation of hell.
The "discomfort" people feel in the Hades regardless of their destiny is because souls are separated from their bodies (which is an unnatural state) and attached to unrepeated sin; they are then comforted with our panekhidas and purified in that way because they cannot repent themselves any more. The truly righteous go to heaven and need not be pulled out of the Hades as a special favor.
The only Old Testament righteous person we know who for sure recognized Christ was St. John the Baptist, and even he had to be rescued pronto. And what about our Ancestral Parents, Adam and Eve. Did they ever repent? Last time I checked, God gave them a chance to repent in the Garden and they failed and started this whole mess. They, too, were pulled out of the Hades.
Stretching, dear brother, is an understatement. The Jews do not believe they should love their enemies. Did Moses? Did David? Jews do not believe that they should turn the other cheek and never return evil for evil. Did Moses? Did David? Jews do not teach that blessed are those who are poor in spirit.n Did Moses? Did David?
That is uniquely Christian, unprecedented in Judaism, unknown to Judaism. How can it be one and the same religion? I have never heard that Moses or David or any of the righteous OT Jews preached or believed anything like that. So, if it was unknown to Judaism it was new, a new religion. What the Pharisees saw and heard was Jewish "Protestantism." Just as we say "where are you coming from? We have known this for 2,000 years and now you are telling us we were wrong all this time?" So did the Pharisees. And for that they were called the sons of the devil. I am sure if Jesus wanted to soften their hearts he could have and would have, but He didn't. And that's an altogether different topic!
Think about it: if we had an individual who told us all our beliefs were false and that he was the son of God in flesh we would put him in a mental institution, and some Evangelist might even kill him.
Dr. E, you are off the target. I am sorry, I really do not believe you understand this topic at all.
The individual scrolls that make up the New Testament were God-inspired and written by the Apostles (or so we believe). The New Testament was compiled by the Church and officially canonized in 397 A.D. Do you DENY these FACTS?
It is an amazing and repetitive occurrence one sees as the Church is immune to fall albeit not to heresy. Heresy reached as high as the second highest see of the Church. There was more than one heretical Bishop of Constantinople, and each and every time the orthodox bishops from the east sought refuse with the Bishop of Rome who, for all you know, could have been a less than exemplary person but whose office maintained steadfast orthodoxy.
+John Chrysostom and +Maximus the Confessor come to mind as people who sought support among orthodox popes, and the one Confessor knew was the one who was actually, post-mortem, excommunicated for allowing but not agreeing with the heresy of the Bishop of Constantinople! So, something protects the Church. And it ain't any fallible or brainy men.
Most definitely. And it certainly is not "public opinion" polls. I am thinking in particular the heresy of Arianism. St. Jerome once said "the world woke up one day to find itself Arian", when describing the speed in which many people in the Church turned to this heresy. It was only particular orthodox saints of the day guided by God, St. Athanasius corresponding with the Bishop of Rome before and after Nicea, especially, that the Church maintained its orthodoxy. Public opinion polls would have led us to regard Jesus as a different essence then the Father.
By the way, it is noteworthy that both Greeks and Latins consider the Confessor a major saintly figure in our respective communities who upheld the Holy Tradition of the Apostles in the face of heretics - who sometimes were political powers. I believe that St. Leo would be another.
something protects the Church. And it ain't any fallible or brainy men.
One only needs to look at the Medieval popes for proof of that. No doubt something supernatural was guiding these otherwise very poor quality men to continue in the teachings of the Church unadultered.
Regards
Interesting. Moses was a savior, Joseph was a savior, and Jesus is the Savior.
2Sa 22:3 2Ki 13:5
(And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime
Ps 106:21
They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
Isa 19:20
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
Isa 43:3
For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Isa 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Whether it was saving them, preserving them or delivering them, God is their Saviour. Several times, Israel came close to disappearing.
In fact, the Plan of Salvation seems to be the central message of the whole bible from what I can see.
We even have Boaz, as kinsman redeemer saving Ruth, without whom, there would be no David.
Torah has been unchanged for 6 thousand years, and she is the Word of God. The beautiful, lovely, unspoiled Word of God. You are the one who needs to study Hebrew theology.
Amen. One perfect script -- written, produced and directed by God for His glory.
If you were really sorry for your continual condescending attitude, you'd repent.
I'll wait for it.
Argue the issues all you want - but don't make it personal.
First, thank you for reiterating the timing element of when tradition was called what. I did need that reminder. :) ... Sure, they would be given the same weight, IF both were absolutely true. My concern is with the reliability of oral teachings in general. From anyone. As I very recently posted, Paul appears to share this same concern in the opening to Luke. In my view, the written word is more reliable, in the long term, and would always take precedence.
In no case, however, do we say that the oral Apostolic Tradition is "above" the Bible.
My whole argument along these lines has been that since you do not believe that the Bible speaks for itself, but rather men speak for the Bible, that men decide what the Bible means IN ORDER THAT it matches what tradition says. It is perfectly reasonable to want or require that the two match. And for whatever reason, the Church has decided to interpret scripture IN LIGHT OF non-scriptural tradition, rather than the reverse. That is where I'm coming from.
You look to the words of the text, and if they don't fit your own eigesis, you change the meaning.
I don't think so. I look to whether the literal meaning of the text denotes something either physically impossible, or which appears to contradict other scripture. If the answer is "yes", then I know that an interpretation is needed. With "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have eternal life", I know that there must be a symbolic meaning here for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of impossibility. The second is that even when He was here, the Apostles did not literally do this when it was potentially physically possible. So, we both take it symbolically, just in different ways.
As to God gambling, have you forgotten God's foresight??? You don't think that He has control of man's writing without taking the pen out of his hand?
My view is that God's foreknowledge actually does take the pen out of man's hands, because God causes His foreknowledge to come true. My impression is that you do not see it that way, and that God just saw what men would write, and, lucky for Him, it was good. That's the "gambling" aspect.
If I asked you if the Bible was God's inspired word, you would say "yes". I just wonder if we have very different ideas of what "inspired" means. I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants. The result is never in doubt. I'm not sure you would come out that far with me. :) My current impression is that your side sees inspiration perhaps as like a writer might view a great piece of art and feel "inspired" to write something great. The inspiration from the painting only serves to heighten the writer's creative abilities, etc., but it is still the author's original work. Is that close?
Consider atheists. They read it - and get nothing from it. Thus, the BOOK does not convert people, it is the Spirit that leads the faithful, the Church, to garner the meaning and proper sense of the Scriptures.
I agree, they get nothing from it. I would add that the book does not convert people, I do not, the Church does not, only God does. ... I thought that it was your view that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy of the Church. That leaves many faithful Catholics, along with the rest of us, who are not led by the Spirit. I know I've been hammered for suggesting that the Spirit would even give me the correct time. :)
I am not condescending. I merely observed that your answer, IMHO, was off target. If I am wrong, then you will answer my question in 5344. Please do. Thank you.
There are several pre-Schism popes who are saints in the Orthodox Church, and Leo I is certainly one of them, even though it was the East that challeneged his jurisdictional desires.
One only needs to look at the Medieval popes for proof of that
Beyond that, the oustanding example is also Pope Alexander VI, personally nothing you would consider "fatherly" in a spiritual sense, but he maintained strict Catholic orthodoxy.
This is a huge thread. What is it about?
God has clearly told them and us, that He alone is their Savior. We do not believe "that someone else" suffered and died for us. We believe in John 3:16.
They had and have, a Holy Day known as the Day of Atonement. All their sins were placed on a goat who then was either thrown off a cliff or let loose in the wilderness. He was the sacrificial goat. Other times of the year, individuals and families paid to have animals slain in the temple to atone for their sins. It was blood atonement, a blueprint that God so graciously gave them pre-heralding the real thing, that He would do Himself.
I believe Hebrews 11 addresses this. I was going to post the entire chapter but thought better.
Were there any writings left out of the Bible that were inspired? Were there any writings included that were not inspired?
Well, in both cases, the Church says they are, as does the Scriptures themselves. So in theory, we agree that what comes from God is truth, correct?
My concern is with the reliability of oral teachings in general. From anyone.
Refer to my above statement! Remember, the Church claims that it is guided by God in presenting God's teachings. The Scriptures themselves tell us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the Spirit would always lead it to truth. Thus, I conclude that it is GOD that IS verifying the oral teachings, when properly identified, as coming from Him - for example, infant baptism. We do not believe that God will allow error to creep into the Church on doctrinal issues, as then we'd have nothing to rely on in knowing God's revelation - since He doesn't give it to us individually.
Paul appears to share this same concern in the opening to Luke. In my view, the written word is more reliable, in the long term, and would always take precedence.
Sorry to correct you again, I presume you mean Luke's opinion, not Paul's... Yes, the written word is more reliable when the two are compared side-by-side. There is an issue of verifying an oral tradition. The Scriptures have ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED. Oral Traditions often are not challenged until many years later.
As a former military historian, I can tell you that much of what we know about ancient military history is based on accounts that are HUNDREDS of years old! Livy didn't follow Julius Caesar around! Yet, we (I should say, "they") absolutely rely on such accounts that have been passed down orally and by partial manuscripts. On important issues, it should come as no surprise that men would remember details of accounts from long ago. I would say that when men are accustomed to repeating something, such as the Liturgy, they would have a pretty good knowledge of what is going on without having to write it down. Have you needed to write down for posterity's sake how to use a fork? Some things don't NEED to be written.
My whole argument along these lines has been that since you do not believe that the Bible speaks for itself, but rather men speak for the Bible
The Bible can speak "for itself" to only a very limited degree. Otherwise, it requires interpretation - presumably by the community that WROTE it! That would be the Church, correct? It is from this community that the original authors came from, taught, and passed on their teachings, only later writing down some of them. I seriously doubt that Christians in Gaul had access to the entire 27 books of the NT for a number of years after the fact. But yet, St. Irenaeus comments on the Gaul's doctrinal orthodoxy. Imagine that, Christians partaking in the Word without ever reading about it!!!
And for whatever reason, the Church has decided to interpret scripture IN LIGHT OF non-scriptural tradition, rather than the reverse. That is where I'm coming from
I would say that the majority of what we call "Protestantism" is in your self-described boat, as it interprets salvation in light of a non-Scriptural tradition, in my opinion. The writings of Christians of the first 1000 years NEVER mention anything that you would consider a pillar of Protestantism, thus making YOUR interpretations novel. I find this interesting - that IF Protestant interpretations were true and what the Bible REALLY means, then why do we not find any Church Fathers subscribing to Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, or Positive Reprobation, or man has no free will? This is why I could never countenance Protestantism. It is a novel invention that the first Christians would have been appalled to see. THESE first Christians would never recognize what we call Protestantism today as something from the same Tradition that they were taught from.
"...the doctrine of impossibility."
With God, nothing is impossible. Didn't God Himself say that?
My view is that God's foreknowledge actually does take the pen out of man's hands, because God causes His foreknowledge to come true.
Then clearly, you believe that God ALSO causes men to commit sins. If you equate foreknowledge with foreordaining something, actively decreeing something, then you are saying that God is the author of sin. Remarkable.
I think that when God inspires, He does so 100% toward what He wants
Yes, but He doesn't do it by directly interfering with the human writer. That is Islam you're talking, brother. God works through humanity to accomplish His will and to write His Scriptures. But if the Bible was THE WORD OF GOD as in Islam, the actual voice of God transcribed onto paper as Mohemmed claimed, then you had better take literally EVERY word! And also remember, that while Islam CANNOT reform because of their Scriptural ideas of the Koran, Christianity has shown that it CAN reform PRECISELY because it is man AND God putting to paper what God desires to be written. Thus, interpretation plays a bigger part in Christian study of Scriptures. There is more than the literal sense. There is also the allegorical, moral and anagogical sense of Scriptures, often times interweaved into the same writings. Who would take the Song of Songs literally? But it is one of the most revered books in the OT by Christians!
I agree, they get nothing from it. I would add that the book does not convert people, I do not, the Church does not, only God does
That is true. And God doesn't find it necessary to circumvent His Church, we HE brought into existence. Didn't Jesus say that "a Kingdom divided against itself will surely fall"? Even in your conversion experience, the "Church" brought you into the fold - I presume you didn't baptize yourself.
I thought that it was your view that the Spirit only leads the hierarchy of the Church
Sad. You have so soon forgotten or ignored what I have said on this. I never said that the Spirit only leads the heirarchy. I said in matters of doctrinal decisions, the Church only leads the heirarchy to make a definite proclamation, based on what the Church as a whole ALREADY BELIEVES. It would be impossible otherwise - God doesn't come to man individually and give false, contradictory teachings, like you say He does to you vs. Episcopalians or Lutherans.
Regards
Although I will admit that I understand Him the least, I most certainly do believe the Holy Spirit is a co-equal.
Baptism doesn't cause righteousness -- it's not magic. It's a sacrament. You are "brought" into the Church under grace.
I thought that you believed that Baptism was absolutely instrumental to salvation. When is it that righteousness is infused? After death?
FK: "Yes, they accepted Christ as a future Messiah."
You will have to show me some scriptural evidence for that, FK. Judaism does not teach that man needs to be saved, so why would the OT righteous have believed it?
Well, I found a pretty interesting article on the subject on the Jews For Jesus website. (I figure they know better than me. :) Anyway, they say that the OT Jews WERE looking for a Messiah. Here is an excerpt:
"This is not to say that all Jewish people rejected the claims of Jesus. Far from that being the case, all the first followers of Jesus were Jews. In fact, the rabbis of that time period and afterwards were well aware of the many Messianic prophecies which Christians claimed were fulfilled in Jesus. So for instance, although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. This interpretation is maintained today by many Jewish scholars, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages."
"What, then, are some of the credentials of the Messiah? Only a few can be listed below; there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early rabbis as referring to the Messiah:"
Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10
Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9
Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22
Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12"
---------------
You have still not answered my question a few posts ago why would the OT righteous have been in hell if they were righteous.
I'm sorry, I suppose I genuinely don't understand the question. I don't look at the OT righteous as having gone to hell. Their faith allowed them to be covered in the righteousness of Christ.
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.