Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
This "then" is a non-sequitur invented about 500 years ago by people who don't know how to read the Scripture.
Since when is Holy Scripture only 500 years old?
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Romans 3:10-12"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" -- Philippians 3:9
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
If all righteousness belongs to God, then only God's perfect atonement can save the unrighteous man.
If some righteousness belongs to man, then man helps God in saving himself.
I prefer to rely completely on the finished work of Christ upon the cross for my salvation.
All of Him; none of me.
Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
" But at the same time, Baptism is only good until the next mortal sin, at which point they are again "out of Christ". "
This is what the Fathers taught. +Symeon the New Theolgian put it this way:
"Baptism does not take away our free will or freedom of choice, but gives us the freedom no longer to be tyrannized by the devil unless we choose to be. After baptism it is in our power either to persist willingly in the practice of the commandments of Christ, into Whom we were baptized, and to advance in the path of His ordinances, or to deviate from this straight way and to fall again into the hands of our enemy, the devil."
"I, OTOH, believe God came to seek and save what He lost, gives grace and mercy according to His divine will, and to those who He is gracious to, He fosters a personal, intimate relationship, helping us to live and grow through His inspired word by the power of His Holy Spirit."
____________________________
Wow! That was well said. Count me in this group!
AMEN!
"One thing you can't say about Romanides is that he was insipid."
Another FReeper, Annalex perhaps, noted that Romanides was certainly an ecumenist but hardly an irenicist! In all honesty, I posted the link because of the comments (which I share) about Meyendorff's theories. It didn't occur to me that it might seem like Catholic bashing. I certainly didn't mean that.
" You must be patient as your forefathers with your slower Western brothers..."
I am the very soul of patience as you all know! :)
"Well, faith in Christ alone does save."
____________________________
Hang on to this forever, because he is the "Rock of Ages" and the "Key to the Kingdom" and it is only through him that you may be with the FATHER.
"So, the only issue to me is when do the elect actually become aware that they are of the elect. This does not happen at Baptism, especially at infant Baptism. It happens at the point of true belief."
Interesting observation. The Fathers spoke about this point here and there. Here's what +Diadochos of Photiki wrote in his "on Spiritual Knowledge, #77":
"From the instant we are baptized, grace is hidden in the depths of the intellect, concealing its presence even from the perception of the intellect itself. When someone begins, however, to love God with full resolve, then in a mysterious way, by means of intellectual perception, grace communicates something of its riches to his soul. Then, if he really wants to hold fast to this discovery, he joyfully starts longing to be rid of all his temporal goods, so as to acquire the field in which he has found the hidden treasure of life (cf. Matt. 13:44). This is because, when someone rids himself of all worldly riches, he discovers the place where the grace of God is hidden. For as the soul advances, divine grace more and more reveals itself to the intellect."
Mat 5:48
That sounds a little bit too scary for me, I think I'll just rest in knowing instead
Knowing what? That all you have to say "Lord, Lord" and you will be saved? You don't get it, do you? Most of Protestantism is easy. You keep saying that we are supposed to be Christ-like, but I really wonder if you have any clue what that means? Christ is nothing like any of of us.
For us to become Christ-like, everyithing that defines us must die, because neither you nor anyone of us eve comes close. So, I would worry, especially if I had deliusions of having been saved by a lucky draw.
"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (notice here the word "find it"; it should tell you that it was not decided before all ages).
And, remember that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." There's nothing easy about it! You've got to give a lot to reach theosis -- your whole life in fact!
Luther made it easy. That's why it spread like wild fire: no more fasts, no more confessions and, best of all, pecca fortiter (sin bodly), sin all you want...easy, just be yourself, you have been "elected" from before aeons, so "don't worry, be happy." What virtue! And all that made to look like theology.
We are to be like Christ, who was dead to sin. He led His life to God. We are to do the same, but infants and the severely mentally handicapped cannot, nor do they have capacity to "let sin reign" one way or the other
Hmmmm...."Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 18:3) and "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Mat 19:14)
"Orthodoxy is a Biblical form of Christianity with a rich theological tradition. It pays to be patient and read, read, read."
Every single covert to Orthodoxy from Protestantism I have ever met, save perhaps those who converted on account of getting married, have said almost exactly this to me. In our parish we have one fellow in the seminary and another entering this coming August (not bad for a tiny little parish!) who are both former evangelicals, Baptists I think. Both of them are walking encyclopedias of the Fathers (as well as walking concordances, a facility they picked up during their faith journey to Orthodoxy. They seem especially taken by +Irenaeous, +Gregory Nazianzus +Symeon the New Theologian and +Gregory Palamas.
And Luther urged his followers to do the pecca fortiter La Macarena style — "sin boldly" brothers! Did he get that idea from God? I seriously doubt it. But it says a lot where he is coming from, IMHO.
Yes, I fully agree. And this, of course, then makes us "Mary-haters". :) I'm not quite sure why it has to be an either-or, but I'm told that it does. I think Mary was a wonderful person and was truly blessed. Her faith is a role model to us. AND, she was a human being, a mother of several children who she honorably raised, she was a sinner, and needed a Savior like everyone else. (But I should probably stop my hate-speech here. :)
Not by today's standards, you seem a very knowledgeable Christian. But by the standards of the text, an unlearned one would be a person who is not knowledgeable about the context taken by the Apostolic Tradition. One doesn't need to be an intellectual genius to read Scriptures (fortunately) but we must not forget that the Scriptures are a gift from God and read with the mind of the Church. They are not a "figure it out yourself" proposition.
There is nothing in Peter's verse that would indicate incorrect scripture "destroys"
Typical... If you repeat that enough, you might begin to believe it.
"...they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
What do you think is the cause of this "destruction"? Simply put, another case of not understanding the Scriptures.
Satan was using a variation of scripture, but not the scriptures themselves. Is it any wonder our Lord responded:
Satan said "it is written". Did the Lord correct Satan's translation of the KJV? Did Jesus say "No Satan, don't you mean "lest at any time"? Crazy talk. Jesus doesn't correct Satan's translation, but the context he used. Jesus used Scripture vs. Scripture. Thus, my point remains Scripture can be used for good or bad. It can lead us to salvation, and it can destroy, when twisted to uphold one's own personal opinions. Like "can faith alone save?" can't possibly mean "faith alone doesn't save!"
I was wrong then and I'm sure I'm wrong about some things that God has not revealed to me. But I'm not wrong about the TULIP. I understand completely what Augustine, Calvin, and others were driving at.
I have shown your view of St. Augustine wrong. I have shown you that TULIP is not Biblical. The problem is that you are "once wrong always wrong" - according to your previous post... I, on the other hand, do not believe in fate and that a person is always wrong if previously wrong. There is hope for you, Harley!
Where we differ is that you believe God's grace resides in the Church and sole interpretation resides within an institution, making decisions through a set group of people who are supposedly more learner than you, casting votes for what they feel is right in guiding the Church.
I only respond when you make mistakes, Harley, so I respond again - the Church is God's instrument of grace. Grace only resides within it because it is the Body of Christ. The Church does NOT say a person cannot interpret Scriptures for themselves, as long as they fall within the analogy of faith passed down by the Apostles. It is not based on whether a person is smarter, but on GOD'S will to uphold His Church from error, as the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth". Unless you don't believe that this part of Scriptures are inspired, what have you to say about this verse?
We simply have our differences.
Certainly. I don't pretend they don't exist. If a person makes an informed decision and follows that conviction, so be it. My problem is with the straw man that many Protestants call "the Catholic Church" - and refuse to have anything to do with it.
Regards
And I didn't mean to imply you were. If anyone in this discussion is supportive of Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement, it is you. Romanides was a sharp critic of Meyendorff's views, among other things. Actually, I find his criticism quite stimulating. I am glad to see that Orthodoxy has room for a good debate on an important issue.
You replied Of course he was, he obtained his rightousness back in Gen.15, long before he offered up Issac.
This was not the only time he "obtained" righteousness.
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" James 2:21
"By faith Abraham, being called, hearkened to go out into the place which he should afterwards receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he went" Hebrews 11:8
Not only was ABraham righteous, according to Romans 4, in Genesis 15, but Abraham was ALSO righteously declared in Genesis 12 and when he later offered to sacrifice his son Isaac. Thus, justification is not a one-time process. In each occasion, Abraham was declared righteous in God's eyes because of his faith working in love.
I didn't say you misquoted it, I said you quoted it out of context.
According to you, "Shall this faith [without works] be able to save them?" doesn't mean that faith alone does not save? How on earth do you manage to twist the Scriptures that is right there in black and white to deny what is there as plain as the nose on your face? The context is that man is not saved by merely SAYING he has faith! EVEN the devil has faith! Isn't it clear FROM THE CONTEXT that a person is saved by works [of love] AND to faith when you continue to read James 2, reading :
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. James 2:24
Please, you are in denial. How am I taking such plain language out of context? Follow what the Scripture SAYS, not what you want it to say.
Well, faith in Christ alone does save.
As opposed to "faith in Buddha", you are correct. But your definition of "faith" needs work. Sorry for the pun.
James is not talking about obtaining salvation, and contradicting what Paul said, he is talking about showing salvation (hence the use of the word 'shew me').
Thus, a faith without works DOES NOT SAVE. Logically, that means that faith without works is dead. Oh, yea, it says that in the Scriptures, too! I never said that works save. I said faith without works does not save. Sola Fide is dead.
James is written like a wisdom book, such as proverbs.
Well, that is about all I can agree with what you wrote. Are you now saying that James is not inspired Scriptures or given less meaning because it is a "wisdom book"?
When we come to Scriptures, we should be able to harmonize such passages, since it is the Word of God, which cannot lie. The solution is found in the different meaning of WORKS used by Paul and James, not FAITH.
Regards
Christ is the Word, Mary is His mother. This is the Word she gave birth to. You asked whether Mary wrote any scripture as if writing the scripture is the only yardstick of veneration. It is not, -- Christ wrote no scripture either.
Catholic priests are married to one wife, Christ's church, and have their children under control, except the prodigal ones.
I said, "traditions of Luther and Calvin", not "traditions that Luther and Calvin followed" -- because they followed none. Luther and Calvin invented their superstitious beliefs and formed the Protestant traditions that you and other Protestants follow today, to your condemnation.
Me, too. If you don't worship venerate Mary than you must hate her. ;O)
My post 7424 was misstated, -- I did not identify the non-sequitur in your 7397. I corrected it in 7429, but mistakenly failed to ping you to the correction, -- not that your post makes sense in the context of either two of of mine.
It is simple. The Catholic Church has always (that is 2,000 years) taught that our good works are possible because of the Divine Grace; and it has always taught that we are free to obey or disobey the Gospel. Then Luther erected his false dichotomy and denied the necessity of good works despite the clear teaching of the Gospel; it was false 500 years ago and it remains false today. Beware of the traditions of men, defrocked priests in particular.
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.