Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I don't think the West disagrees that a mystic can reach theosis and "see" God through contemplative prayer. St. Augustine himself was a mystic. I think where I have problems with is on several issues:
First, I bring up hypostases (persons) and the Trinitarian formulas because whenever one discusses Christological issues, (which "energy" appears to be), then naturally, we must look at our Trinitarian definitions. And at Chalcedon, it was clear that it is the nature, not the person that acts. Also, the Great Councils determined that the nature, God's Essence, is entirely in each Hypostasis. Thus, if Christ comes to man as at Mt. Tabor, God's Essence is FULLY PRESENT, not just His Energy.
The second issue is how we "know" and contact God's nature. You are correct that both the East and the West has a patristic background that notes that man cannot comprehend the essence of God. Your quote from Basil is one of several that I found among the Cappadocians and St. John Chrysostom, but also St. Augustine as well. The thing I see here is the degree of "knowledge" that man can possess and the NEED of an energy. Here are some examples:
No one knows the Father except the Son". What then? Are we all in ignorance? Perish the thought! But no one knows Him as the Son knows Him. Many have seen Him to the extent of the vision permitted them, but no one has seen His essence; so too, all know God, but what His essence is no one knows, except only the One begotten of Him. For by "knowledge" He means the exact notion and comprehension such as the Father has in respect to His Son: As the Father knows Me, so do I know the Father. (St. John Crysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 15, 1)
Again,
"Why does John say "No one has ever seen God"? So that you might learn that He is speaking about perfect comprehension of God and about precise knowledge of Him ...When, therefore, you hear that "no one has ever seen God", consider it the same as hearing that no one can know God in an utterly perfect manner, as to His Essence...When, therefore, the Prophet says that although God was condescending, [the Seraphim and Cherubim] could not bear to look at Him, it means nothing else but that they were not able to have a clear knowledge and an accurate comprehension of Him, nor did they dare to gaze intently upon His pure and perfect Essence, nor even upon this condescension. For to gaze intently is to know." (St. John Crysostom, Homilies against the Anomoians and on the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 4, 3)
Thus, to "see" means to fully comprehend - not that we never contact God's Essence.
And St. Basil writes about knowledge:
"But if, in our teaching, anyone say that knowledge comes before faith, I raise no objection, rather, taking knowledge as referring to the knowledge that is within the limits of human comprehension". (St. Basil, Letter 235, 1 - the one immediately following the one he speaks about "knowing" God's essence is not possible)
"What God is in nature and essence, no man has ever yet discovered nor can discover...It seems to me that this is the solution to that whole philosophical problem of our being about to know even as we have been known. But in our present mode of existence all that is apparent (about God's essence) to us is but an effluence, like a little radiance from a great light." (St Gregory of Nazianz, Second Theological Oration, 28,17)
From these and the writings of the mystics such as St. Symeon the New Theologian, I think it is more proper to say that man's knowledge of God's essence is limited to Its existence. It is incomprehensible. But it is "seen" through the "eyes" of the mystic. Man not only "sees" God's action, but His Essence - in an incomprehensible manner. That light is not an energy, alone, but God's nature, God's essence itself, also. But this essence is totally incomprehensible to the intellect. None have been able to describe it beyond a spiritual knowledge of its existence. Thus, I don't see the necessity of calling Christ's abiding presence an "energy" alone. When God comes, He comes completely. His Action and His Nature. We contact it - however incomprehensible it might be to us.
Regards
Infants don't have an active will! To utilize a will, one must have an active, rational mind. Animals and brutes have no will, although they do not desire something by way of instinct. Babies are as yet irrational - so nothing is done "against" their will, properly speaking.
It makes a difference to me because I think that the Spirit becoming indwelling happens at regeneration, which is only for believers.
Which again makes you the initiator of faith. Grace is no longer a gift, then. It appears that you are saying that God only will regenerate those who show proper faith... Sounds like works salvation to me, so I must be misunderstanding you?
If the Spirit indwelled and sins were remitted at Baptism, then I'd have to change all of my beliefs about "belief".
Perhaps you should consider re-reading the Bible when it talks about water, the "laver of regeneration", or just plain baptism. What about when Peter compares the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and comparing it to Baptism? It is for the remission of sins. Or do you deny that the Scriptures say this?
Regards
What about it?
Only one time Righteousness being imputated to Abraham, Gen.15?
You forgot Genesis 12 and Genesis 22. Hebrews 11 says that Abram, by faith, WENT to the Promised Land - thus, being justified. James 2 says that Abraham was justified during the sacrifice of Isaac.
I am not impressed with Scofield notes, thanks. The Angel at Abraham said "NOW I SEE..." Faith without works is dead. What more can I say? You continue to ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't reward people for being justified in the eyes of man. Scofield and the rest of Protestant eigesis is flat-out wrong. We are justified in God's eyes. HE is the one who saw Abraham's sacrifice and considered Abraham righteous during that ACT of FAITH. Man didn't see Abraham's sacrifice! Just as God desires to SEE Abraham's faith, God desires to see our faith by works of love. Loveless faith cannot save.
Regards
Thanks for the quotes. With only a couple of bumps and bruises, I really saw myself getting through both quotes pretty much OK. :)
In the first one, the most interesting thing was the description of theosis being wholly compatible with my idea of salvation. I really liked that and was "yupping" all the way through. :) The second most interesting thing was the phrase "Thus when the soul renounces its attachment to inferior things and cleaves through love to God ...". I have no idea whether it was intentional, but this exact wording actually allows a person like me to fully agree. The focus is not on the "how" (which is where I think there would be disagreement) but rather on the actual thing that is happening. Since I agree that this happens, I can participate here.
The second quote is similar and I think I can agree in principle to it with one hitch: "He who is frightened of this death and has preserved himself from it ...". I think there could be some wiggle room here, but it just struck me as something possibly intended to convey an accomplishment by man's self, rather than God through man. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. :) In any case, I felt reasonably receptive to both quotes.
"That's pretty interesting. I've never thought of it in terms of actually having the grace already, and not knowing it. I suppose the "trigger mechanism" would have to be important. I will surely give this some thought."
I don't know if there is a "trigger mechanism" as such, FK. You will perhaps remember this snip from the Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony:
"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice. If we would know the Holy Spirit we need to examine ourselves in the light of the Gospel teaching, to detect any other presence which may prevent the Holy Spirit from entering into our souls. We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension. And when we open our hearts to Him we are overwhelmed by the conviction that He is indeed our Father. The soul then worships in love."
We don't know if St. Paul was "not allowed" to marry. It appears from his letters that he simply chose to be celibate. Like I said, the celibacy discipline was not adopted legally till the 4th century, and many Christian clergy were adult converts already married; such was St. Peter.
This being said, the Church always distinguished between St. Peter's situation,-- a married man entering priesthood (allowed in the early Church, still allowed in the East, and for converts in the West), -- and what would have been the case for St. Paul, an ordained clergy marrying (not allowed anytime and anywhere, as far as I know).
And that is exactly what, I believe, we were saying.
That there is no scriptural basis for celibacy among church leadership.
By the way, the NAS Roman Catholic Bible, has Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the Apostles and the brothers of of the Lord and Kephas?(1Cor.9:3)
Like I always say, you can't trust those modern translations!
This doesn't sound like the God of the Old Testament, nor the Christ who made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the temple.
I did not state that. This is my entire post 7456:
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.
Evangelist John explained that Christ is the Word. The fact the Mary is his mother we know from several Gospels. No one among the inspired writers literally called Mary the Mother of the Word, but this is a reasonable inference. If you took the inference I invited you to make as a statement about what is in the Gospel of St. John, sorry to have created that impression in you.
leads you to say Mary "wrote all of them" when referring to who wrote the SCRIPTURES. You should know that this statement is false on the face of it
Of course it is wrong on the face of it. We have 73 books in the Bible and Mary is not on any title page. Although, I hasten to say, we know the names of most of the inspired authors from the Catholic tradition, and not from the scripture itself.
Your point however, was that since Mary did not write any scripture, why venerate her (7300)? This would have come across better if the bibliolators at least venerated the evangelist saints. But my comment stands: The Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ our Lord, Who gave us all the scripture. To call her the writer of all the scripture is a logical hyperbole, as among the humans that produced the scripture she did the foundational work.
Yes, but it doesn't say that Abraham had any Righteousness imputated to him for it!
The word Righteousness only shows up once for Abraham, and that in Gen.15:6, in fact, it is the first time the the word is used in the Bible
Abraham obeyed God in Gen.12, but he still had not believed in God and been saved until Gen.15.
You are reading into those verses what is not there.
I am not impressed with Scofield notes, thanks. The Angel at Abraham said "NOW I SEE..." Faith without works is dead. What more can I say? You continue to ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't reward people for being justified in the eyes of man. Scofield and the rest of Protestant eigesis is flat-out wrong. We are justified in God's eyes. HE is the one who saw Abraham's sacrifice and considered Abraham righteous during that ACT of FAITH. Man didn't see Abraham's sacrifice! Just as God desires to SEE Abraham's faith, God desires to see our faith by works of love. Loveless faith cannot save.
Well, if you are not impressed with the Scofield note, how about the Roman Catholic NAS note?
2.14-26. The theme of these verses is the relationship of faith and works (deeds). It has been argued that the teaching here contradicts that of Paul (see espically Rom.4,5-6). The problem can only be understood if the different viewpoints of the two authors are seen. Paul argues against those who claim to participate in God's salvation because of their good deeds as well as because they have committed themselves to trust in God through Christ Jesus (Paul's concept of Faith). Paul certainly understands, however, the implications of true faith for a life of love and generosity (see Gal. 5,6:13-15) The author of James is well aware that proper conduct can only come about with an authentic committment to God in faith. Many think he was seeking to corect a misunderstanding of Paul's view' (NAS,1398)
Even this footnote, in a RCC bible states that Paul is arguing against those who claim to be saved because of the works they are doing, making the works equal with the faith.
Faith is the root from which good works grow out of, but good works add nothing to salvation, they only show it.
Now, would a bible with a picture of a Pope on the cover mislead you?
He is justified, but not before God, but before other man, becoming a great hero of faith in history.
The quote regarding his righteousness is from Gen.15:6, and thus, Abraham showed the righteousness that had been imputed to him in Gen.15:6.
Still nothing on Lot?
Peter calls him 'righteous' and 'Just'. If it weren't for the NT, we would never think he was a saved man by his works
The Angel at Abraham said "NOW I SEE..." Faith without works is dead. What more can I say? You continue to ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't reward people for being justified in the eyes of man. Scofield and the rest of Protestant eigesis is flat-out wrong. We are justified in God's eyes. HE is the one who saw Abraham's sacrifice and considered Abraham righteous during that ACT of FAITH. Man didn't see Abraham's sacrifice! Just as God desires to SEE Abraham's faith, God desires to see our faith by works of love. Loveless faith cannot save.
That Angel was God Himself, so He always knew what Abraham would do.
Unless you are denying God's Omniscience?
It is a figure of speech, that relates the event to God's appreciation of it.
As for 'seeing' it, well, Angels certainly saw it and Peter says that we are observed by angels who want to learn of our great salvation (1Pe.1:12)
Mankind certainly learned of it as well.
Now,as for the statement, 'God desires to see our faith', that is correct, but that has nothing to do with our salvation, that has to do with our growth, which glorifies God.
Works have nothing to do with getting saved, or even staying saved,(Acts.15), they only are a result of being saved.
[...]
That light is not an energy, alone, but God's nature, God's essence itself
Perhaps I am not alone in my confusion. Isn't "nature" supposed to refer to one of the two natures of Christ, divine and human, while "essence" is the single essence of the Triune God.
| Who | Has what | Acts how | Known how |
|---|---|---|---|
| Truine God | Essence | Creates, ... | Imperfectly |
| Christ the Son | Person | Acts in harmony of the two wills, ... | Uncreated energies (?), ... |
| Divine | Nature | Wills, redeems, ... | Uncreated energies (?), ... |
| Human | Nature | Wills, suffers, dies, ... | Gospels, ... |
Is this the framework of the discussion?
I'd agree that there is not enough in the scripture to definitely say that only the celibate may be ordained priests, but married men can be ordained deacons; this is why the priestly celibacy discipline in the Latin West is not a dogma of the Church. There is enough in the scripture to say that married priests may not remarry, this is why it is taught universally east and West. There is enough the scripture to say that celibacy is advisable for men and women of God, this is why the Church East and West has monks and nuns and mandates celibacy for her bishops.
No, what Paul is saying is that being single is ideal since it allows one to concentrate on working for the Lord without worldy distractions.
That view is not only for the leadership but for all Christians.
Paul, however, makes it clear that if one cannot handle being alone, then one should marry.
As for remarriage, there is nothing against remarriage, Moses was remarried.
The verse means to be the husband of one wife, one at a time, not that if your wife dies you cannot remarry.
These are simply man-made traditions (Mk.7:7)
Correction, that should be NAB.
For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him..."; 2 Tim 2:11-13
Jo, you think if they read more than mostly +Paul they might actually get the picture?
Indeed; so is the call to accept tonsure, go into priesthood, or marry.
not that if your wife dies you cannot remarry
The Church's interpretation East and West is that a priest cannot either marry or remarry, but he can stay married and enter priesthood in some limited circumstances. The notion that the "husband of one wife" allows remarriage is your spin, and I prefer to stick with the traditional interpretation we've had for at least since the 4th century.
Why is this interest among Protestants in the disciplines of the Church, anyway? I thought you ran off because you did not like Church disciplines; want to play priest now?
You added the quotes. I did not have quotes, and explained the meaning following your question in 7456.
Let me parse 7426, for the benefit of your eyesight:
And who is the Mother [deep breath here] of the Word St. John is referring to [in John 1]?
I was quoting the Bible (KJV). It says: that Job was a man who "was perfect [blameless] and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."
Eschewing evil pretty much means being sinless. It's actually not that rare: the term "blameless" is also used for Noah (Gen 6:9), Abraham (Gen 17:1) and in Deut. 18:13 "Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God." So, it seems God expects us to be perfect, blameless and upright, eschewing evil. Contrast that with Luther's pecca fortiter...you get the picture.
Certainly you don't think that we can be alive in Christ if we are not sinless? And we are sinless when, through repentance, we ask for forgiveness of our sins and partake in the Eucharist. The idea is to be all you can be when it comes to sinlessness in the time God granted you. Do you know anyone who is?
I will agree that resting in God's promises is EASIER than having no security and never knowing where you're going to spend eternity
No, Protestantism is easy because it requires nothing of you other than "Lord, Lord..." Once you accept Christ as your Savior, you are "in" [talk about you deciding rather than God!] and from there on nothing you do will get you "out." Luther was clever. He knew that people disliked fasting, or their remorse over ingratitude to God, or the need for self-denial. Covering yourself with Christ is like shoving dirt under the rug. On the surface it looks clean, but underneath...that's another story. But it sure is easier to shove all that under the rug.
It is much more fun to go to Sunday bible reading sessions for a couple of hours, listening to the pastors' lip service about humility, giving to God, repentance, etc. but really having no obligation to follow any of that unless you personally agreed with the pastor, or anyone else for that matter.
And if all else failed, you can always start your own denomination! You don't like your church? Make a new one! To your liking. Thus, you can pick and choose the verses that fit your life style and beliefs, and you can add or abstract a little to make it just right. Not just easy; comfy too.
FK: It doesn't mean that, it just means that "few" will find it because only "few" are elected from before time
It doesn't say that at all. Your interpretation is using Pauline teachings. Christ makes no reference to the "elect," and the Gospels make no reference to +Paul, even though they were written after his Epistles were written.
Infants cannot humble themselves, nor can they be called or stand, at least at the time you would Baptize them. Jesus is talking about childlike faith, which infants cannot possess
You have a strange way of making things "fit" your theories. Christ said first "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
So, FK, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. :) And that goes for all of us.
However, unless we change and become like little children also implies that we can change and become like little children (sinless), blameless, upright, etc. which seems to conflict with your "before all ages" elect theory. If you are destined to go into heaven, why would you have to change? Or how could you?
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.