Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The patristic reading of scripture empowers man to stand in the place of God, to perform the Eucharist, to forgive sins, and to declare the word of God infallibly, etc. If this isn't empowering men well beyond scripture I don't know what is. Of course, the Church declares that the Bible says all this, all that is missing are the actual words to that effect. I see it as a repeat of the idea of Kings, but we know that God never liked the idea of Kings.
These are legitimate questions, HD. The short answer is: for many reasons. One of them is the fact that after the 4th century, the West was linguistically isolated from the East; the Latins no longer understood Greek, and the reeks never bothered to learn Latin. It was pagan Rome, after all, that imitated Greeks in art, religion, and every aspect of culture and society and not the other way around.
The isolation resulted in mutual "black-out" and the fact that the particular Churches (Latin and Greek) remain for all practical purposes one Chuch, so close in everything despite millennial separation, attests to the validity of Tradition (not traditions!) that resists mutations.
When you strip linguistic, cultural, ecclesiastical, and doctrinal variations, even the half-dozen mutually exclusive ones, you find one and the same Faith and one and the same catholic and Apostolic Church. That is pretty awesome, HD! That makes us exceedingly glad and confident that the Church never swayed, despite human errors, individual corruption, politics, linguistic barriers, cultural diversions, as well as external expressions of the praxis.
St. Augustine's teachings did not cross the linguistic barrier into the East until the 15th or 16th century. The Augustinian teaching of the "original sin" was soemthing unknown to the East, which means that it was unknown to the undivided Church until that time (4th century) or else there would have been talk about it. It did not become controversial because it was never brought before an Ecumenical Council. It remained the doctrine of the West, unknown to the Greeks.
The Greeks had no reason to postulate Immaculate Conception because they never postulated St. Augustine's invention of the "original sin." It is not that the Orthodox deny that our ancestral parents sinned and fell from God's grace, but that we are not born in sin, but simply with a propensity to sin.
A little consultation with our learned Latin brothers and sisters reveals to us that they, too, believe that we are born with propensity to sin, and do not inherit the sin (and the guilt) of our ancestral parents, and that St. St. Augustine's terminology is actually misleading! Bingo!
From this knowledge, our understanding of Baptism shows convergence as well: baptism enables to resist that propensity (but doesn't remove it). It "detoxifies" us, so that when we come to, we will not be hung over but lucid and able to respond to God's call and cleave to Him. So, when our Latins brothers say Baptism washes away the "original sin," we now understand what they mean and there is no clash; and they understand that when we put the "original sin" in quotes we don't mean to call their doctrine heresy but are simply consistent with the Orthodox teaching that does not call our propensity to sin by that name.
Likewise, in the case of the Filioque, the Latin formulation is in every way true, namely that the Father gives His Spirit to His Son, and the Son to the Father, that the Spirit is the eternal eros (longing) that is eternally shared by the Father and the Son, but where the Filioque "fails" is that it is that it is incomplete, because it fails to establish that the Spirit, as regards to His existence, proceeds from the Father, to paraphrase a Palamite definition.
The issue of the Filioque surfaced more than 300 years after it was introduced at the Council of Toledo (a local council in Spain), in response to Arian heresy of the newly arrived Visigoths in the 6th century.
It was actually Frankish pilgrims in the Middle East who reported that the Greeks were reciting "romp" Creed, having "removed" the "and from the Son," from it that started the whole thin in the 9th century.
The arrival of Frankish clergy to Bulgaria (king there was "shopping" for a Church that would crown him a tsar) who noticed that the Greek clergy had long beards, were married, and were reciting the Creed in a "heretical" way, having "removed" the filioque from it.
The prompted the famous two Photian councils which would have qualified as the 8th Ecumenical Council and of which the first the Roman Catholic Church subsequently accepted as the "Eight," having renegged on the earlier acceptance of th second and reversal of the first so-called Photian Councils.
So, as you can see, the communication was not exactly "digital" in those days, and much time would pass and many formulations would form before anyone noticed what the other side was doing, and in most cases the heretofore unknown would be termed a "heresy."
Thus, there is simply no simple way to answer your question. History of the Church sheds a lot of light on what happened and how it happened, and what it shows is that nothing of what transpired was simple or easy. It has always been and still is a struggle to remain on the true path.
Because when we sin we show ingratitude to God's blessings.
Yes you do in Jackson, MS.
Yeah, and the Gospel is a story about one guy telling "I am" to another guy. By this logic there will be nothing left of the scripture, as most of it is parabolic. Why, do you think did the inspired Evangelist record it?
I didn't know you thought most of the Bible was parabolic. That would make much more expansive interpretations more possible. Is that the view of the Church, or is that something upon which good Catholics may disagree?
I thought this was recorded to show us that we all must teach and share the Gospel with others. Jesus did hundreds of things in the scripture to show us what He wanted us to do as well. But if Phillip was only acting as a Catholic hierarchy, then I suppose the jobs of teaching and sharing are only for them, under your interpretation.
I think that only the Church's interpretation of the scripture is valid, as she is the bride of Christ formed by Him for that express purpose (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-50; John 20:21, John 21:15-19), and guarded by Him from failure (Matthew 16:18). Got any scripture to the contrary?
Well, we disagree fundamentally on who God's Church is, so it would be pointless to try. Of course Jesus sent the Apostles, but I disagree that the Apostles were equivalent to today's Roman Catholic Church. I still can't explain why God would inspire His Holy work to be indecipherable to all but a few men who wield all the power. That is an impersonal God.
Last time I checked, Luther wanted to throw out the Book of St. James. How right was that?
They [Church Fathers]walked away from the truth and the Holy Spirit waited until some one like Luther came back to the light...
...to urge his followers to sin boldly because God's love will givue you?
"Baptism" does not imply "water", it MEANS "immersion". That could refer to many things, including water. It appears that by your reading of Matthew, that it is man who actually brings down the Holy Spirit on behalf of his fellow man. God does not indwell as He chooses, NO, men make the decision and God is summoned into the baby.
I thought you were a believer in the perspicuity of the scripture.
On the basics, I am, but that doesn't mean that further study isn't needed on finer points. The Bible is a treasure trove that can more than satisfy any appetite.
[On John 3] But in 5, according to you, Christ abandons the "womb" terminology already offered by Nicodemus in favor of the very unclear "birth of the water", especially unclear in the context of both baptism of John and the scriptural context. In 6, however, Christ already speaks of "flesh". Why did He not stick to the "water" terminology in 6?
He didn't abandon the terminology, He confirmed the idea by using a like term, so there would be no confusion. Wasn't it you who said that the Baptisms of John the Baptist didn't have the same effect as they do today? Well, that's all they had at the time, so your argument doesn't "wash". :)
So why would Christ state the necessity of physical birth so forcefully, if that is what He is referring to in 5? Nicodemus asked Him about the second birth, not the first.
He was doing what He always did, explaining something using a point of reference that the hearer could understand. He was saying that all the "newness" you associate with regular birth is similar to the "newness" that goes with rebirth (a new creation).
Forgive me for dropping out mid-discussion. I was out at the ranch doing the agrarian thing all week, and Mrs. Agrarian rightly reminded me that I didn't have time or energy to solve the world's theological problems *and* put in a full day's hard work every day. (Working on dial-up doesn't make for efficiency, either.)
Kosta fortunately came to my rescue and in his posts said nicely what I should have said.
I did not mean to suggest that God was divisible or has "parts." I am certainly aware of the patristic statements about God's simplicity, which I understand as applying to an after the fact contemplation of his one essence.
What I meant to emphasize was, as Kosta pointed out, Orthodoxy's traditional emphasis on the specific personal revelations through which we come to know God.
We do not begin our knowledge of God with a philosophical conception of divine simplicity, but rather with God's specific revelations of himself through his 3 persons and through granting us participation in a multiplicity of uncreated divine energies. To paraphrase other things said by the fathers, God is beyond simplicity and complexity. Simple does not mean simple to understand or unidimensional or unifaceted. It does not mean what eastern mysticism or Greek philosophy meant by simplicity, I would think. To understand what is meant by "simple," as it applies to God, I think that we must look at God's entire revelation of himself, just as we must look at God's actions of mercy in order to understand what the Christian conception of "divine justice" means -- and not look at *our* pagan-influenced ideas of "justice."
Even in the OT, when the strong emphasis was being placed on there being only one God, and before there was a specific revelation of the three hypostases of God (leaving aside the hints in the creation account and the hospitality of Abraham) -- even then, God revealed himself through a multiplicity of names, which is a curious thing if God's intention was to reveal himself as a divine simplicity in the sense that most of us tend to think of "simple."
Anyway, what I was and am trying to articulate, and am not doing very well at it (that manure on my boots is hampering me), is the Orthodox emphasis on how we know God, which, as I understand it, does not begin either with a rational contemplation of divine attributes or with a philosophical axiom of a divine simplicity -- but rather begins with personal revelation and relationships, and "ends" with direct participation in the life of the one God through the energies of God and in relationships with the three Persons.
Even our understanding of "one God" reflects this, since we see the unity of the Holy Trinity resting in the person of the Father. We see this in the Creed, which does not say "I believe in one God, a simple divine essence" and then go on to articulate beliefs about the persons. It rather begins, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth... and in one Lord Jesus Christ."
This is straight from the NT: St. Paul writes, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
It is clear that St. Paul believes in the divinity of Christ, so why this language? It is the language of "one God" -- fully Trinitarian, but retaining a *personal* center to the Trinity. There is one God because there is one Father, one source from which the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, all equal in glory and equally worshipped.
Stripes -- you would indeed enjoy Pelikan -- Volumes 1 and 2 of his history of the development of Christian doctrine. Also, you make some good points about Palamas. It is important, indeed, to understand that St. Gregory Palamas was *not* responding directly to Latin theologians, but rather was dealing with an Italo-Greek Eastern Christian (or perhaps a school of thought within the Orthodox Church) who was heavily influenced by his understanding of scholastic theology/philosophy.
This was an internal matter for the Orthodox Church -- not a direct conflict with the West. The real question of interest to us today -- perhaps unanswerable ultimately -- is the extent to which Barlaam was reflecting the Latin theology *of his day.* Romanides seems (in my superficial analysis) to believe that he was indeed reflecting it, while Meyendorff portrays a Barlaam who was, in a sense, neither fish nor fowl. One would have expected a different reception for Palamite theology in the West had this been true, but that is another matter...
Now that I am back in the "big city", I'm going to be busy catching up on the work that has piled up in my absence, so I'll probably be out of commission for another week. But I am glancing at the interesting discussions as I have time.
How kind of the Church to assume that function of God as well. If man learns nothing from God directly, but can only learn anything through the men of the Church, then why pray to God for any sort of knowledge? If you are deciding between two jobs, your priest isn't going to instruct you on which one to take, is he? Why would you consider praying about it since God gives you zero knowledge, only the Church does? Or, do you not pray about such things?
Since many Catholics do not actually practice confession who have been properly Baptized, the Spirit is of little value for salvation, in His own right, since everything depends on free will. Also look at His track record, under the Catholic view, if the Spirit advises all people toward God. Pretty weak.
So all the verses that talk about being sealed on a permanent basis really don't mean what they say, they mean on a temporary basis. No one is therefore actually sealed. In Catholicism it is much more like a Ziploc bag. Open, shut, open, shut.
... why pray Our Father at all given the understanding of Perseverance that excludes the free will?
God commands us to pray and if it's good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. There are a million subjects of legitimate prayer that do not directly impact on actual salvation. Moreover, I could turn it around and ask why would you pray to God, since God will not touch man's free will and everything, including the ultimate salvation decision, is man's free will.
Well, my impression was that the Catholic view was that Baptism remits the stain of original sin, but I know that the Orthodox do not believe in original sin. So, that infant Baptism in Orthodoxy is not for the remission of sins is perhaps a difference.
FK: "According to you, God DOES send some of His adopted children, actual children of God (John 1:12), right to hell."
As an Orthodox Christian I would never, ever say that God sends anyone to hell.
OK, for you to be consistent I assume you would say that just as it is our decision on whether we go to heaven, it is also our decision on whether we go to hell. God doesn't really "send" anyone anywhere in this context. Nevertheless, my point was about God letting His actual children send themselves to hell, giving satan dominion over His children forever.
I think the Bible is pretty clear about reserving the term "children of God" for only believers. Along with John 1:12, here is another example:
1 John 3:1-2 : 1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
That's why it is hard for me to understand that anyone who is Baptized as an infant is automatically of the status of "child of God", in a Biblical sense. In addition, I just see it as hard to believe that with all this love for His children, that He is going to stand by and let satan have a feeding frenzy with so many of them, for eternity no less. God's children are separate and apart from other people based on belief, from the human POV.
"Kolo, just take a look around you, when you are there, and you will see heads, with hair white as snow, of people who could be your parents, standing the entire 2-hour Divine Liturgy, and you will feel no desire to sit. :)"
Yeah, well they don't have an "old football injury" (that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)
Paul's first statement says: "If we are believers, then we shall live with Him". His second says: "If we are believers, then we shall reign with Him". The third says: "If we are not believers, then He will deny us". This simple interpretation matches the simple interpretation of John 3:16, that those who believe shall have eternal life, and all the other assurance verses that have had to be re-written in order to conform with Tradition, since Tradition was first.
No one said "it is only man's free will decisions that determine eternal destiny". It is a cooperation of two wills.
That blurs the point. I know that Kosta also believes that God is involved, but he answered my real question in his 7589, when he said : "We know God's rule: no repentance, no forgiveness. Repentance must come from the heart, so yes it is in our hands. Very much so. We are free to cleave to God or to embrace satan." According to you, the ultimate determination of our destiny is in man's hands. At some point, someone has to make the final decision, and for you, that person is [a] man.
Once you have declared yourselves elect, nothing that you do can effect that. Thus, sin to your heart's content! Why not? Party it up! 'Cause God's gonna cover you anyways... Pick up that cross??? Take the narrow path? Crucify one's flesh of your passions? Who put those verses in the Bible???
LOL! OK, you go tell all your friends that you spent six months on a debate thread with real live Reformers, and this is your honest understanding of what they said about their beliefs. :)
Oh, I think we will all agree that you have summed up this complex subject of God's simplicity very, very well, Agrarian.
Because God allows it. It is God, through His permission, who is the ultimate determinant of whether we can save ourselves by cleaving to Him or condemn ourselves by rejecting Him.
Just as God allows evil, He also allows good. He created us neither good nor evil, but capable of both. For us to have a meaningful relationship with God, and not a slave-Master one, God gave us everything we need to be able to choose good from evil.
You see, FK, you are not consistent when you say that God lets us only sin. Fredom is going whichever way you choose. We can't take credit for the evil we choose, but not take credit for choosing God. Our fallen nature chooses evil, but God gave us spirit and reason that can overcome our nature. At no time do we choose God carnally, but whern we are capable of knowing God spiritually. Just as once we choose evil we choose a path that guides us to a perilous end, once we turn to God, He will guide us to salvation.
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?
From the human POV, regeneration is one of the stops that all of the elect will make on a "closed track". During this required pit-stop, the Spirit climbs aboard, and the elect are changed. The one of the elect switches out of the driver's seat and into the back seat, and the Spirit drives the rest of the way.
Salvational grace is certainly a gift in the sense that we do not merit it, and that we have nothing to do with its generation. It is also a gift that the elect may not refuse. (In our common human experience there are many examples, especially involving our children, of gifts that are not free to be refused.) The only initiator and creator of faith is God.
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?
Well, I found Paul talking about the Israelites, and Peter talking about Noah. (1 Cor. 10:1-4, which corresponds to 1 Pet. 3:18-22.) I hope this is what you are talking about. In both cases they were making comparisons, and in neither case did the water do the saving. For Moses, it was his faith that saved them, not the water itself. Likewise, it was not the flood that saved Noah, it was the Ark, i.e., his faith also. Both were symbolic of transitions from the old into the new, just as Baptism is today.
Besides, we are already told in scripture of when Peter witnessed first hand the salvation of others BEFORE their Baptisms:
Acts 10:44-48 : 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
You can't praise God and speak in tongues without being saved. The Holy Spirit was upon them and their sins were already remitted, BEFORE Baptism. So, obviously Peter knew for sure that Baptism did not save and did not remit sins. He saw it with his own eyes.
Well, there's the rub. NO ONE looked at salvation as Protestants do today. Luther's "gospel" is an invention, a twisting of Pauline writings, specifically, Galatians and Romans. Luther found that Scripture doesn't teach salvation by faith alone, which was why he felt it necessary to delete James from the Canon and add "alone" in Romans 3:28. One wonders how a person can follow such a man with so little scruples as to actually change the sense of the written Word of God and delete books that Christians had considered as Scripture for 1200 years...
I'll vote that Luther and Protestants continue to be wrong on salvation by faith alone.
The Holy Spirit didn't abandon them. They walked away from the truth and the Holy Spirit waited until some one like Luther came back to the light.
Right. The pillar and foundation of the truth is actually Martin Luther...Wow. Who'd a thunk it?
However to sin after one has trusted Christ for salvation does not mean one loses salvation; it just means one has sinned and needs to confess the sin to the Father
Certainly. And if they don't?
Regards
I doubt it. We have a period of learning, as well, called "RCIA", (Rites of Christian Initiation of Adults) which usually lasts about 9-12 months. The catechumens learn the catechism, but it is not in a "rote memorization" background. We try to give objective teachings to ground their subjective experiences of the Risen Lord in the sacraments, scripture, prayer, liturgy, and daily life. Personally, I don't think memorizing the Baltimore Catechism is conducive to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
My agreement with Harley is based on that, not on the content, of course. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up, so Paul wrote. I think it is easy to fall into a trap when we have too much knowledge and not enough prayer in our lives...
Regards
There certainly IS a tradition that Mary was sinless. The quesiton never came up before Council (before the Great Schism) so that it could be finally defined. However, there are a number of Fathers, as well as the Liturgy of the Church, that expresses the belief, guided by the Spirit in the Church, that Mary was sinless from birth. All of the Counciliar definitions, whether before or after the Schism, are in seed form in the Apostolic Teachings. The questions are not resolved until the Church mulls over the question of "so what DO we believe on this issue?" when someone teaches a sense not held by the Church. Apparently, the Spirit didn't desire His Church to define the issue until 1854, which nicely refutes Darwin's idea of the end and destiny of man...
Regards
God's love for us saves us, but God doesn't save us unless we also become like Him by loving others. God's love opens the gates of heaven to us. But we have to walk the narrow road to enter into the Kingdom.
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.