Amen. It also diverts attention from the finished work of Christ upon the cross to the errors of pagan philosophies, such as the cult of Cybele.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Being made righteous = being justified. In either case, the person is pleasing in God's eyes.
Abraham obeyed God in Gen.12, but he still had not believed in God
Really? He didn't believe in God? He picked up his entire family and property in his well-to-do lifestyle at Ur and traveled to the middle of the desert - because why again??? BY FAITH. In WHOM? In God. That's what the Scriptures say in Hebrews. Think about it for a second. People don't do that because they woke up one day and said to themselves "hey, let's move the entire family, lock, stock, and barrel, to the middle of the desert. As a desert dweller myself, that isn't something you do lightly...
Well, if you are not impressed with the Scofield note, how about the Roman Catholic NAS note?
What version is that? I never heard of a "NAS" Catholic version...
As to the footnotes, I never said we are saved by works! You read into my posts because you think all Catholics believe in salvation by works without giving me a chance by reading what I write...I said we are NOT SAVED BY FAITH ALONE! If you have no works, your "faith" is not going to save you. Works alone are worthless. Faith alone is worthless. The only thing that matters is faith working in love...Gal 5:6
Faith is the root from which good works grow out of, but good works add nothing to salvation, they only show it.
Jesus Christ is the root in which faith AND works grow from. Faith is not the vine...Christ's abiding love within us enables us to have a "working faith".
Now, would a bible with a picture of a Pope on the cover mislead you?
Not willingly. But as I said, I don't disagree with the notes you posted from this book.
Regards
Again, I am telling you no one was there to witness Abraham being justified in front of man. The angel said "NOW I KNOW", not "NOW MAN KNOW'S". How many times do I need to repeat this? The purpose of the testing was not for other men to see how righteous Abraham was! Abraham was justified in front of God as a result of what he did in faith.
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
Ah, now I finally understand what the heck you are asking me, I think...Peter is thinking of Lot during a different time in Lot's life, obviously not the time he was drunk... Your confusion is centered on the fact that you think justification is a one-time event. It's not. It is an ongoing process, just like it was for Abraham.
That Angel was God Himself, so He always knew what Abraham would do.
Of course God knew what Abraham was going to do. But Abraham still must execute it. God allows ALL of us to wrestle in faith with decisions whether to please God or not. He already knows when we will pass or fail. But He doesn't prevent us from executing our free will just the same. And when we pass the test, then WE know and grow ourselves in sanctification.
Mankind certainly learned of it as well.
From Sacred Scriptures. I wonder how willing people would be to believe that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son to "God" - whom no one else had yet seen do any miraculous things or even speak to them. I think this is another part of faith that Abraham had to endure that is overlooked, much like Noah.
Works have nothing to do with getting saved, or even staying saved,(Acts.15), they only are a result of being saved.
I will disagree, no matter how many times you repeat it without proof. The Bible clearly disagrees and you can't explain those verses away.
Regards
Nature = essence = ouisa.
When discussing the Hypostatic Union of Christ, we see two natures united in one person.
When discussing the Trinity, we see one nature fully present in all three persons.
In either case, it is the nature, not the person, that is responsible for the action - thus, this is why Jesus has TWO wills, and not ONE. This was THE deciding factor regarding the orthodox battle vs. those Jacobites and such who thought Christ had only one will.
Thus, my problem with an energy that is God but that doesn't also include the essence. God is simple (no parts)
Regards
OK, thanks.
Regards
I am convinced that few Protestants think much of the words of Christ, considering Paul a "canon within the canon". This has been explicitly mentioned by some Protestant apologists, claiming Jesus never really spoke much about the "real" Gospel of "Faith Alone" - so they must turn to Paul and twist it from Romans and Galatians...
Even there, I can show that Paul and James and Jesus are on the same page...
Regards
Jo, of course. There is no "His" energy — it's God's Energy, that belongs equally to all three Hypostases. The Grace of God is that of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The hesychasts teach that Grace is not created means of God's salific work, but an uncreated means proceeding directly from God's essence or nature.
Despite this, and despite sometimes negative attitude towards hesychasts by the Latin side in the past, I will simply refer you to the words of a great Pope of our memory, +John Paul II, at his Angelus Message in 1996 entitled Eastern Theology Has Enriched the Whole Church.
If you think about it, seriously, we may be speaking in different terms but how far can the Apostolic Church really "stray" from herself?
The Church never considered it anything but that, jo, East or West.
At this point, I would like to be clear what the various positions are.
The Catholic position articulated by jo kus: In the beatific vision, the blessed see the essence of God.
The Orthodox position articulated by kosta: In the beatific vision, the blessed see the uncreated energies of God, but not the essence of God.
In the debate between Barlaam and Palamas in the 14th century, Palamas' position is what kosta repeats here. But Barlaam's position is not what jo kus is saying. Barlaam maintained that the Heysachists saw a created grace only, and it is impossible to see God's essence because he is transcendent. On this latter point, Barlaam and Palamas agree. What they argued about was the grace of the light of Christ. For Barlaam, it was created grace. For Palamas, it was uncreated.
If jo kus' position is indeed that of the Catholic Church in the late Middle Ages, then this undermines Romanides' criticism of Meyendorff on this point. Romanides maintains that Barlaam articulated the position of the Western church that was foreign to the East. Meyendorff says that Barlaam represented a philosophical humanist postion native to the East, and that Palamas defended the traditional theological view of the church by using Partistics. Unless someone can come up with historical evidence that Barlaam's position was that of the Catholic Church at that time, this part of Romanides' argument collapses. He may, however, have very valid criticisms of Meyendorff's understanding of Platonism and its role in the controversy of the vision of God.
If Barlaam's position does not come from the Western church, where does it come from? Is Meyendorff correct to argue that it comes from a humanist tradition in the East? This needs more clarification.
Ah...
Thank you.
"You added the quotes."
_______________________________________
Obviously, because it was a phrase you claimed was in SCRIPTURE and is not there. Again, where in John does he refer to MARY as the "Mother of the WORD"?
Amen!
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:5-7"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Hmmm. That's a tough one. Maybe God was screening His prayers and didn't pick up?
Amen. It also diverts attention from the finished work of Christ upon the cross to the errors of pagan philosophies, such as the cult of Cybele.
thanks for the clarification. I was starting to wonder! I didn't think that the East had fallen in that direction, that I must have been misunderstanding something! The East has had to deal more precisely with Trinitarian and Christological heresies - so they should KNOW better! We just approach it differently.
Despite this, and despite sometimes negative attitude towards hesychasts by the Latin side in the past, I will simply refer you to the words of a great Pope of our memory, +John Paul II, at his Angelus Message in 1996 entitled Eastern Theology Has Enriched the Whole Church.
"How many things we have in common", said John Paul II. I totally agree. This very thread shows on how many topics we are side by side - despite coming from different backgrounds, we still have retained a common faith due to the Holy Spirit protecting His Church.
Regards
That's not quite my position. As I noted to Kosta, I quoted St. Basil, St. John Crysostom, and St. George Nazianzus that showed THEIR view of "knowledge", or what is "seen". In the East and Western Tradition, we cannot "KNOW" the incomprehensible. As St. John says, we cannot hope to KNOW God's essence with our intellect. Catholicism has agreed with that statement. Where I differ is that man DOES contact God's essence. It just remains incomprehensible. Also, we say that God exists - which is the ONLY thing we can KNOW about God's essence. We can experience God's essence - to the degree that He allows - but we will never understand it or be able to articulate it.
As a result, I think I could sum up by saying that God's action AND God's nature comes to man. God's Nature doesn't stay home while sending His Energy. In other words, that light from Mt. Tabor was God's Essence AND Energy - as defined by the Orthodox - since God does not consist of parts. We contact ALL of God - although we will never comprehend it.
A better statement would be : The Catholic position articulated by jo kus: In the beatific vision, the blessed see the essence of God, but find it incomprehensible and beyond our intellect. Our knowledge would be "unknowing", knowing only its existence.
Barlaam was mistaken by saying that the grace that comes to man is ONLY created grace. We believe that the Giver AND His Gift is present - God Himself (Energy and Essence) as well as Sanctifying Grace - a created gift that varies with each person as God sees fit - able to improve a particular virtue of man as God wills.
If Barlaam's position does not come from the Western church, where does it come from? Is Meyendorff correct to argue that it comes from a humanist tradition in the East? This needs more clarification.
Scholasticism was largely corrupted by many following St. Thomas Aquinas, to include Barlaam. I would agree with Meyendorff - that Barlaam was a humanist Platonic who had difficulties expressing the thoughts of the Angelic Doctor. You are correct.
Regards
My brothers and sister, faith AND works BOTH come from God! When James says we are justified by works, he is not omitting faith! And it is understood (because God's word does not contradict) that ALL grace is from God - thus WE ALONE cannot brag. We only brag IN Christ and His wonderful gifts He has given us. Thus, we are justified, made righteous, and found pleasing in God's eyes when we faithfully obey His will... Hopefully, this happens daily! The "we" understood as "God moving my will and desires and I complying".
Regards
"The whole idea that a human being who faithfully carried out a task they were given by GOD is anymore than a humble servant of GOD is irresponsible."
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Next time you see an icon with Mary and Jesus, look at Mary's hands... They point to Jesus. Everything about Mary points to Jesus.
As a woman, I would think that Mary would be a wonderful example for you to follow, considering she was Jesus' greatest and first disciple...
Scripture says she will be called blessed by all generations. God HIMSELF says that! I find this as permission to honor and venerate Mary as often as I can.
Regards
Hmmm. That's a tough one. Maybe God was screening His prayers and didn't pick up?
Humility. I find this trait lacking among the self-proclamed elect...
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.