Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Filioque: I would also point out that I've recently been to the Phillipines and India and they use a shortened form of the Creed, totally missing this out. I think the two lungs have been too far apart and perhaps us Catholics need to consolidate and look to our Eastern brethern for where we have made errors.
I would say, with conditions -- some Protestant groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, I'm sorry, but are too deviant from Apostolic teachings to be considered part of the Church. The Anglicans were close, but after Gene Rob, it doesn't seem so any more.
In fact, if one takes the word "elect" in the sense that you've put it (The Jews were certainly the "chosen" people -- but chosen to spread the Gospel. It was their "chosen fate" to be the bearers of the Good News. Hence our Lord says "Salvation is from the Jews." In other words, they were chosen to do good works in faith and cooperation with God.), that makes sense.
The idea of the "invisible Church" applies to few and far-in-between apostate or non-Chrstian individuals who were tuched by the Holy Spirit, and is not something the Church would recommend as an alternative to the Eucharist.
Well, if I should have put "good life" in quotes before, then so be it. The underlying point that has been repeated many times is that our side holds that living a "good life" is not a cause of salvation. Perseverance is incident to salvation via the work of God's power within us.
If you equate "good life" with Godly life and suppose that a truly lost person can lead a truly Godly life, thus winning salvation, then perhaps we are farther apart than I had thought. :)
Again, I do sympathize with the fact that it may sound harsh to us humans that the non-elect can live any kind of life, or do anything they want to merit God's grace, and still be passed over. My answer is that the proper redressee on this point is not me, the messenger, but rather Management. We just work here, on this earth thingy. God's complete and perfect sovereignty remains intact, whether it sounds fair to us or not.
Again again, from our perspective, the whole world is a field of the elect.
God's "grace was given in Christ Jesus (to the elect) before the world began" (2Ti_1:9
What is "2Ti 1:9"?
So, to understand this from a Protestant perspective, in context in which you present it, those who are saved become just like Chirst? Free of sin? Dead to the sin? Immaculate? Wow, that is some triumphalistic way of deifying man!
Wrong? Rude? Christ was humble. Humility is rarely something you hear from Protestant pulpits. I suppose you will deny that too.
I will say this: far and few in-between are those who fit +Paul's words. We all may believe that we truly believe, but at least most if us do not fool ourselves to believe we are free of sin, Christ-like.
I don't agree with that intpretation. Again, Paul is distinguishing between good and wicked men, not saying that all men are wicked. For example, he tells us:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (Romans 2:7-15)
This is not the language of someone who believes that all men are evil and that no one can do good. Naturally, we must look to other Scripture - verses that tell us that we cannot do the above without the Spirit working within us. However, such verses taken all together tell us that there is some sort of cooperation with God's graces - the Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts are moved to obey it by God.
And there you have it, salvation by works. We cooperate and when God sees that we are very good people He saves us. The Pelagius error; condemned by the early church fathers but fully accepted at Trent.
Trent re-affirms the Second Council of Orange. Nothing was deleted. Perhaps your definition of works is at issue. According to Paul, "works" is not doing something, an action. Works is something done for wages (Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom 4:4) From my discussions here, I believe many falter on this. By confusing "works" with a thing that is done, I believe Protestants automatically believe that ANYTHING we do is of NO value to God ultimately. This is why Luther made the terrible mistake of discounting love from the formula of salvation. NOWHERE does Paul remove love from the formula. Paul is merely saying that we are not saved by "works" defined as trying to earn a pay. NOTHING we do can earn salvation. But we are still commanded to obey and love and repent with proper inner disposition. THESE are not works. It is by this that we will be judged, as Romans 2 points out.
And what precisely does this atonement do??? What does the blood of Christ cover if it is for all men???
Catholics call Christ's redemptive works "objective redemption". What Christ did was more than sufficient to save each and every man. However, to make this redemption sufficient for a PARTICULAR MAN, that person has to respond to God's Graces. Thus, the Church has taught that free will somehow cooperates with God's Graces to obtain subjective redemption for that particular man. Objective redemption opens the gates of heaven to all men. God desires that all men be saved, and He has taken the steps necessary to enable us the opportunity. However, since God desires that we love Him and willingly choose Him, He allows us the potential to reject Him. We have two choices laid out before us - good and evil. Our fallen nature has the capability of choosing good, with God moving within us the will and desire to do His Will. But He does not move it irrestibly.
Regards
Cronos, the only "Trump card" the Orthodox have on this issue is that we have not changed that which the Councils proclaimed, and therefore we know that we have not erred. This leaves the "buden of proof" on the Latin side to show that your addition was theologically and canonically permitted. The Church as a whole will have to determine whether the Latin addition of the Filioque is or sin't an error in that context.
Kolo mentioned many times in the past that a lengthy and learned dialogue between the Latin and Orthodox resulted in a suggestion that it would be best to leave Filioque out for now, even if the Latins believe otherwise, until the General Council can resolve this issue.
I agree, but either way the two particular Churches in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are working to overcome ecclesiastical obstacles of human nature in order to call such a Council, with the express intention to end the needless schism between us.
The first and most important step is to begin treating each other as One Church, within which there is disagreement that can only be resolved by an ecumenical council. This would be no different that the conditions that existed for the first seven such Councils. Heresy has been creeping into the Church ever since its birth because, after all, contrary to our Protestant firends' belief, the Church is full of sinners rather than spotless "elect."
Our oblgation is to treat each other as part of the same Church first and foremost -- the Church founded on the authority given to the Apostles directly by our Lord Jesus Christ at the Pentecost, and their succession therefrom.
Thak you Cronos, Christ is born!
God desires that we love in the manner that He loved us. We are to love others for their own sake and because God loves them. We are not to "love" for our own selfish motives. Christ never criticizes a ritual act itself, but the motive behind the act. He tells us to purify the inner vessel first. Apparently, there were some Judaizers who tried to teach adherence to the Mosaic Law as part of the salvation formula. The Mosaic Law is not bad in of itself, but the mere performance of it without the proper inner disposition is worthless. We are saved by faith, but not by faith alone. Paul tells us that love is even greater than faith. And so love must be "God-like" - it must be a total giving of self, a dying to one's own ego. By this, we are saved.
When a person falls away, what happens to the indwelling Spirit? Does He stay there, defeated, or does He depart during the choice of the person to go back to the sinful life?
The Spirit and mortal sin cannot coexist. If a person loses sanctifying grace, the inner life of God, than that person cannot attain to heaven. He is in a state similar to the one before Baptism. He has given up his rights as an adopted son - although this may be temporary. God will continue to work to bring this person back to Him. Frankly, I don't know at what level God "remains" with us. He no longer abides in us, that is certain. However, some sort of residual effects remain, as a person who falls CAN return. Thus, God doesn't give up on us, even when we grievously falter.
God is "present" in every person by the fact that His effects are manifest in every person. We cannot remain in existence without Him keeping us alive. Thus, God's power is effective in us on the natural level. Since our body and soul are united, if God's power effects our natural body, it must also have some sort of presence or effect on our spiritual self, even if we turn away. This makes sense, considering that God is the one who initially brings us to Him during Baptism. He was working on us BEFORE we were sons of God. In the same manner, I presume that God can continue to call upon us to repent, to return to Him. But the Spirit is not present within us in the same manner as when we abide in Christ.
I would respectfully disagree. Given the countless comparisons to the parent-child relationship found throughout the Bible, would you allow your child to have what he wanted, even if you knew for sure that it would cause certain death? Is that love?
First of all, "death" in the Bible is not defined in the way you seem to be defining it. Life in the NT is defined as God's abiding presence. Death is defined as separation from this. It is NOT defined as the end of existence, however. After the first death, we will continue to exist in a spiritual form. If, because of our choices on earth, do not desire "Life" - Christ, then God gives us what we want, "Death" - separation from Him. A "life" without God is considered death, but not an end of existence. Thus, your analogy fails. Those of us who have older children who have become adults can understand this better, I think. Sometimes, our children will make really dumb choices, choices that are not in their best interest. They will regret them for the rest of their lives. We know it before they do it. Yet, we respect their decision and allow them to make the choice (which doesn't mean that we don't try and try to convince them otherwise!). I believe that this is a closer analogy to what God does with us. He allows us to make a decision. Life with Him or "life" without Him. Yes, this is love. If a person would be happier WITHOUT God's presence, then love dictates that God allows that person to have his way. Naturally, hell will be the place where God's presence is not manifest.
Regards
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.