Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Welcome to the club! Please note I am stumbling along trying to get a grip on what the Fathers have said on this.
"We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near His essence." (Basil, Letter 234)
From the same letter, he writes "For they [his opponents] confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach."
and again ...
"I do know that He [God] exists; what His essence is, I look at as beyond intelligence. How then am I saved? Through faith. It is faith sufficient to know that God exists, without knowing what He is; and “He is a rewarder of them that seek Him.” So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of His incomprehensibility, and the object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists."
I believe that St. Basil is saying that God's essence is beyond our intelligence and comprehension, not that it is totally transcendant to us and requires an "energy" for us to contact us. Thus, the mystics can contact that unknoweable essence, knowing intuitively that it is God, that blinding light of incomprehension. Thus, I believe that a mystic would say we can know God, but not intellectually or are able to categorize Him. Basil continues on about the faith of Abraham, rather than the comprehension of Abraham, closing with... "We know God from His power. We, therefore, believe in Him who is known, and we worship Him who is believed in".
Energy is the dynamic and essential activity of the nature." Thus one cannot separate energy from its nature, but the two are not one and the same
Thus, my question, energy is God and nature is God, but man can only contact the first distinction, energy, but not the other, His "nature"? If God is transcendant, how does His energy (God) become accessible to us while His essence (God) is not? Are we to believe that "part" of God is transcendant and "part" is not (and of course, God is not "parts")
Perhaps I am mistaken, but when the Logos became flesh, the Mediator became God and man, cannot we contact God THROUGH this Mediator? Sure, we can know God's "energy", His attributes, so to speak. God's essence is incomprehensible, but it doesn't follow that we thus cannot contact it. Sort of like me sitting next to a Greek Bible. I cannot comprehend it, but there it is in my grubby hands...
Rather it is the energy that proceeds from the nature, and not the other way around. The hypostases differ relative to each other but not to the nature, namely being divine
According to Chalcedon, the nature is what acts in Christ, not the hypostatis, as I quoted St. Leo. I agree that they are inseparable. But for Christ to have two natures and two wills, we naturally see that the NATURE, not the PERSON is noun in "God does".
St. Gregogory of Naizenzos specifically calls God's energy uncreated
Could you point out where so I could read about it, as I did with St. Basil? Thanks.
Regards
"eghads, we're doomed unless we cough up the cash" crowd.
For some strange reason, I have a feeling that Catholics have been placed in that group by you.
It is sad that you still think we have to earn salvation after all of these posts.
Regards
I would agree. I think the author is a bit harsh in his views on OSAS.
I believe the author is responding to the belief that a man could become "carnal" and live his life in a state of worldliness and still be saved. POTS would state that it's doubtful the person was ever saved to begin with because the Lord would chastise a true believer to a point of repentence. They would not be able to live their life in sin; keeping in mind that bringing a person to repentence could take days, years or even decades to achieve as the Lord wills. POTS eliminates the idea that a man could become a Christian, "fall" away from the faith in some "carnal" state, and go out and live their lives anyway they want, never again to return to the fold. It can't happen.
Personally, as Dr. E stated there isn't much difference between the two views. Trying to sound objective and fair, and as one who believed in OSAS for many years with my Baptist leanings, POTS has far more scriptural backing than OSAS and simply makes more sense. I would suggest studying the scriptures that are posted on the website and see if you don't concur.
Ah, so it is GOD who is judged for the deeds of man...
Regards
To grow in humility.
Regards
And I think it's also a measure of one's Faith.
Bonhoeffer states that Christ is the new beginning that always was. That made me think of Christ's relationship to Adam and wondering a lot about it.
One thing that puzzles me is the story of Mary's parents being rich. Since we know that Mary was poor after marrying Joseph, why did Mary not get an inheritance or at least a large Shiluhim upon marrying?
It is commonly argued that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Matt. 13:54-56 are actually Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. But this does not wash with the Protoevangelium: "And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem... (Proto. of James 1:18)". Here there are two sons, when the Bible says there are four.
But in general terms, I just see it as an unsupported work. It was way too late to be any sort of an eyewitness account, and appears to be an original source for much tradition, rather than reflective of it. I assume the idea for the Immaculate Conception comes from here since it is no where in scripture. I find it problematic that so many ideas taken AS "gospel" are based on unsupported works that the Church itself rejected as infallibly inspired. I'm sure there are many lay Catholics who have no idea why they believe in these things, only that the Church says so.
Apparently even Jerome had little use for the Protoevangelium of James, as he at least attempts to use scripture to prove Mary's ever-virginity in his "Against Helvidius". While I've only read a summary of it, I see a significant problem with his argument because it requires Mary to have a sister, ALSO named Mary. Yikes! :)
You can only assume that she did not assume if you further assume that it did not occur to Mary to ask a very legitimate question: "Why appear to me now to tell me this?". You must assume that Mary did not think this pregnancy was imminent. I think she did and she was right. We know that she was pregnant within three months (three months being the longest time possible) of the annunciation because of her visit to Elizabeth.
"Personally, as Dr. E stated there isn't much difference between the two views."
__________________________________
I guess that's the rub, I am not seeing the differences. I will read the web site.
God is distinct in three Hypostases only to us. God is not divisible by nature, jo. We can know God only by His revelations — through the Hyposatic economy.
Pelikan sounds interesting. I will put him on my reading list, which is much too long already, as well as the other book you mention.
And priests act in the person of Christ. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21).
The one-to-many relationship that exists between the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the multiplicity of parishes in no way makes the eternal marriage of Christ to His Church polygamous. It should not surprise anyone who has read the parable of multiple brides in Matthew 25:1-13 (the miracle of the multiple loaves also comes to mind). Likewise, the fact that one Christ sent many bishops (John 20:21 again) does not make the Church polygamous (or is it now polyandrous?)
But let us examine the "husband of one wife" admonition, found in 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 a bit closer. Its direct meaning is that the bishops, priests and clergy be sexually continent. The ranks of ordained clergy were filled initially from adult converts, the majority of them married. The admonition is then not to ordain those given to sexual voracity; the common, if perhaps not universal practice was for the married priests to abstain from sex; certainly not to remarry or have affairs. Combined with Pauline call to celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:32-40, the scriptural teaching is that continence is the minimum requirement for clergy and celibacy is the ideal. This is consistent with the current diverse disciplines of both the Latin Church and the Churches of the East, either Catholic or Orthodox.
A very good exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:2 and the related verses is The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy by Ignace de la Potterie.
Well, if it's beyond our intelligence and comprehension then it is unreachable. All we know is that He Is. What we know of Him is through His Hyposases and His work of Creation.
That's why the Fathers refer to God as "incomprehensible, ineffable, transcendental, uncricumscribed, invisible Spirit." God is all around us and we can't see Him jo. We cannot detect Him. He is transparent to our senses. Yet, He comes into our lives when He wants to. Sometimes it is just an inner "knowledge," at other times it is some really bizarre stuff.
I think the difference is between recognizing the signs of a disease without knowing the cause or the mechanism of a disease. Thus, we can spot a disease as a result of the "energies" of the disease resulting in damage, but the signs do not tell us anything what makes that disease.
By the way, arguing that scholasticism is inferior to monasticism was the backbone of Palamas' victory over Barlaam. Eastern Fathers speak of "experiencing" God and not intellectually understanding Him or, worse, creating a partnership of sorts.
The quote from +Nazienzos comes from +Gregory Palamas, in Philokalia, Vol. 4, p. 407, as Op cit. 5 (137C).
There is a good list of signs to look out for in order to avoid certain ultra-liberal Catholic parishes. I am sure it's been posted here at least a dosen times. From memory:
Why post Calvin's work here?
They'd be swallowed up in all the volume of posts...a small blip in all the verbiage of Freepers.....:>)
Of course is does. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders are indelible marks of the Holy Spirit. One cannot get unbaptised, for example.
But I thought that in Catholicism the Holy Spirit leaves the believer upon any mortal sin because we are no longer "in Christ" until confession. That sure sounds like an "unsealing" to me, in line with the Catholic belief that there can be no assurance in salvation. The believer can have no security, in contravention of Eph. 4:30.
Then how do we know what happened?
It was history that was revealed to us and glorified God.
As for God now knowing, do you think God did not always know what Abraham would do?
That is simply an a figure of speech, known as Anthropopatheia (Ascribing to God what belongs to Human and rational beings...)
In fact, it made the faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11.
This seems strangely at odds with Christ, who talks about the Pharisees desiring to be justified before men. When does Jesus talk about men being justified before men (and not God) as a good thing - similar to Abraham?
Being justified before God showing obedience to God's will, is what God wants, and that is what God revealed about what Abraham did, showing Abraham's growth as a 'Friend of God'.
Yes, but he didn't receive imputated Rightousness in Gen.12, he received in in Gen.15 He was righteous in Genesis 12 for obeying God despite not knowing what lay ahead. When God says someone is righteous, that man IS righteous, imputed or infused...
It does not say that Abraham had any Righteousness imputated to him in Gen.12, only that he obeyed what God told him to do.
The only time that imputated righteousness is mentioned is in Gen.15.
So, you are going to have to show by scripture where rightousness is imputated more then once.
I think you mean Gen.22, but once again, that only showed that he had been saved, it didn't add any Rightousness to him. He was being declared righteous - thus, justification is a process. If God declared Abraham righteous more than once, than justification is not a one time event.
No, the scripture is not referring to that of sacrificing Issac, but is a reference to Gen.15, when Righteousness was imputated to him.
James 2:23 is speaking to the revealing of that righteousness by his works, not any added righteousness being added.
Friend of God is a sign of maturity, not salvation.
Not everyone who is saved is called the 'friend of God', like Lot for example.
The beginning of the faith issue begins in James 2:14, begins with 'what does it profit, my brethren though a man say he hath faith and hath not works, can faith save him? You are assuming that it means eternal damnation, but there are other things that a believer has to worry about, like discipline from the Lord. First, the discussion about faith begins before James 2:14. Thus, the rhetorical question doesn't just pop out of thin air!!! Secondly, it refers to eternal damnation, because James is speaking to people who already HAVE been saved through Baptism. James is saying that a person who merely SAYS they have faith has a dead faith. He goes on to show his readers through the use of Abraham that a person is properly justified by faith working in love (as Paul would say). Works alone doesn't save, but neither does faith alone. It is difficult how you could miss that.
No, the faith question begins in vs.14.
The first 9 verses are talking about how one is suppose to not favor the rich over the poor.
10-13 talks about the fact that if you break one law, you have broken them all.
Vs 14 begins the discussion on faith and those who say they have it but do not produce any works to show they do.
As for Baptism, No one is saved by water Baptism (which I assume you are talking about), and it is not even mentioned in the chapter.
Abraham is a saved man, showing his salvation by his works, not a man being saved by his works.
The works show his maturity not his salvation.
He was justified by works, works that showed his faith. Let's try another approach... Does a person have faith, so-called saving faith, if he does not have works? It is clear in Paul's example of Abraham that Abraham WAS INDEED "working" or doing something. His faith was "working". Thus, a faith without works is lifeless, as Paul and James and Jesus all say.
No, Paul says very clearly in Rom.4:5, that to one who worketh not, but believeth....
Thus, works are removed from salvation.
They have to do with Christian growth, not salvation.
Faith alone is dead.
No, but those who reject it are.
I notice that you did not even attempt to answer Rom.4:5.
You did not address the issue of Lot and his salvation despite not having any works
But to him that worketh not
I think we have reached the end of this discussion.
Thank you.
You have a point. And here we thought Calvin was verbose. :O)
No, because it is not the believer persevering, but the believer being preserved by God.(Eph.4:30)
But I am glad to note that there is a difference, since many Baptists believe the two are the same, which they are not.
The question is, can a believer leave God to the point that he never returns in time, and God takes him home.
I think that is what the sin unto death is for (1Jn.5:16)
To be sure much of the debate about the necessity of work in salvation is spurious. Some is terminological, some is a difference in emphasis. I never heard of a Protestant (except Luther himsalf, possibly in one of his agitated states) urging people to do bad works, and no informed Catholic would say that his good works are possible without the grace of Christ.
The Catholic teaching can be, perhaps called perseverance of the elect, -- not the saints since we reserve the word "saint" to those exceptional men and women of whose final salvation the Church has made a specific determination of canonization. We certainly think that many others have gone, guided by the Divine Grace, to their reward in Heaven, and so they persevered to the end, just as the gospel commanded them.
The difference, however, lies beyond that simple label, and it is in the central topic of this thread, the teaching on the free will. We believe that the very fact that the Gospel speaks so much about perseverance, moral behavior and charity points to the presence of free will in the faithful, who can choose for the good or for the evil on his own accord; he can therefore respond to grace with good works or fail to do so and perish. We do not believe in God ordaining men to do evil, and we do not believe in the elect lead to their salvation robotically. This is the faith of the fathers that the Church has taught from the beginning; it is clearly stated in the Gospel; it is not a product of some doctrinal development (like, for example, priestly celibacy or the precise formulary of the sacraments) but rather the core Christian belief of all ages.
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.