Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Sin is not an inherited defect, our tendency to sin and the resulting mortality are. Sin, in order to be sin, which is separation from God, must be a result of the will to sin, a conscious choice to go against virtue.
Virtue is not in our nature, FK; we are virtuous only if we follow in God's steps, imitating Christ. The more we choose to cleave to God in this manner, the more we become Christ-like. So, as we diminish in our fallen humanity, we grow in our likess of God.
What +Paul was saying is that if we choose sin, the wage for that choice will be (spiritual) death, and if we choose to follow God the reward will be our salvation (from death) by God's mercy. +Paul is reiterating Apostolic Church's teaching that we condemn ourselves, but we do not save oursleves.
The death of a soul is also not to be understood that the soul will disappear. Souls are immortal. The "death" of a soul as opposed to eternal "life" of a soul has to do with whether we will spend eternity in darkness and discomfort, or in presence of God.
The resurrection of the bodies at the Second Coming involves the righteous and the wicked. This means that both shall live, one in heaven, the other in hell.
How can you take no credit if you were the one who chose to do a good work, using your free will? You can't believe that God moves through us, as that would thwart free will. Therefore, if you cooperate, then why do you not deserve any credit?
It amazes me that after all that has been written on these 8,000-plus posts you still do not see it. I blame myself and those on "my side" for failing to do a better job of explaining.
Of course we believe that God moves through us, and of course it thwarts our fee will -- as much as getting married does! But, we choose to follow God, we plead that He guide us and work through us, that we may do His work in His name. It's a loving relationship, not something God imposed on us. It's all about love.
We also realize that nonthing is good except God, and that all goodness comes from God. So, when we do something good, it did not come from us, but from God. And we give all credit to God, thanking Him for bing His vehicle.
Taking credit would be vain, FK.
Forest Keeper replied : I wouldn't think so, since God did not cause it to be canonized and recognized from the time the Bible was put together
Oh boy. Back and forth. On numerous occasions, you have said that the word of God was the word of God, despite what man said about it. "The Scriptures don't need the Church to verify them." You must have said something to this effect 20 times. Now, God did not cause it to be recognized? They had to be made "official" before becoming Scriptures? So which is it?
The fact is that the Septuagint existed before the Incarnation occured and was widely accepted as Scripture both in the Diaspora and in Palestine. Thus, when Paul talks about Scriptures in 60 AD, speaking to a young man who had heard the Septuagint as a child, perhaps in 40 AD, there is no doubt that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the concept of Scriptures, since they was no separation between the book of Wisdom and the book of Ezra.
seems a lot of people had serious problems with these works
That's way overstated. Very few had problems with it being Scriptures. Practically everyone believed that they were inspired through the legend of its writing - where 70 Jews wrote it separately in Egypt and it perfectly matched. While the legend has been proven false today, it was believed then - thus, it was considered from God. The majority of Fathers in the first 400 years of the Church QUOTE from the Deuterocanonicals AS IF they were Scriptures, often in the same sentence as they quote a Protocanonical writing. For example:
"[T]hat they worship Him alone, saying: 'O king Nebuchodonosor, there is no need for us to answer thee in this matter. For the God whom we serve is able to deliver us out of the furnace of burning fire; and He will deliver us from thy hands, O king. And if not, be it known unto thee, that we do not serve thy gods, and we do not adore the golden image which thou hast set up'[Dan 3:16-18]. And Daniel, devoted to God, and filled with the Holy Spirit, exclaims and says: 'I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who founded the heaven and the earth'[Dan 14:5 Bel & Dragon]. Tobias also, although under a royal and tyrannical slavery, yet in feeling and spirit free, maintains his confession to God, and sublimely announces both the divine power and majesty, saying: 'In the land of my captivity I confess to Him, and I show forth His power in a sinful nation'[Tobit 13:6]." Cyprian, Treatises, 11:11 (A.D. 257).
Note, St. Cyprian quotes the protocanonical and 2 different deuterocanonicals in the same breath without making distinction. In other words, he uses what he considers the same inspired source to prove his point. Thus, we can see that St. Cyprian considered the extra section of Daniel and Tobit as Scriptures.
I have done a thorough study on this, and practically every Father before 400 AD quotes at least ONE of the Deuterocanonicals as if Scriptures.
And finally, if you accept the NT Deuterocanonicals (most of the Bible after James), then why not the OT Deuterocanonicals? 2 Peter and Revelation were more in doubt then the book of Wisdom.
But consistency is not a trademark of Protestantism, I am sorry to say.
Regards
Have fun, drive carfefully, and may God bless you and your family, FK.
"I'm not sure how unique it is."
Trust me on this one. My Liddel and Scott (the big one with all the representative citations from classical and patristic literature, not the condensed one) cites only the Matthew and Luke passages. The editors of the NPNF volume of Chysostom's commentary on St. Matthew say that it is found only in those passages, and in subsequent Christian literature citing those verses. Origen, as I said, apparently (the work in which the citation is has not, to my knowledge, been translated into English) that the word was otherwise unknown -- and whatever one thinks of his funny ideas on some things, the thoroughness and carefulness of his Scriptural scholarship cannot be denied by anyone who reads his works. If he says that the word seems to have been coined by Christ or his apostles (I suppose depending on whether Christ ever taught them the prayer in Greek or not), then I think it is pretty safe to say that it was a brand-new word.
"That being said, there still remains NOTHING that supports this as the Eucharist. You are reading far more into this then what is there simply to boaster a flawed doctrine."
Well, as you know, I agree that the plain meaning of the word seems to have been "daily" and/or "necessary/sufficient," referring to the physical needs of daily life, and emphasizing that we shouldn't ask for more than what we need for the day at hand. So I would agree with you that to call it 'supersubstantial' bread would be very misleading for a 21st century English speaker. Even St. Augustine's commentaries go straight to a "daily" or "day by day" discussion, so he didn't seem to imply that even this Latin word was an obvious and plain reference to the Eucharist.
But enough Fathers have discussed it as a secondary or tertiary deeper meaning along with the plain meaning that I think it a gross overstatement to say that there is nothing that supports Alex's preferred reading. (I must note St. Cyprian and St. John Cassian go straight to the Eucharist, and only the Eucharist, but the passages are brief, and they are emphasizing spiritual meanings throughout the works in which these are found.)
We must ponder on the fact that this, again, is a specially coined word, or at least a very carefully chosen rare word. That alone should indicate that like so much of Scripture, there may be deep and layered meanings, or that at the least there are subtle shades of meaning intended.
And as the resident Reformed Christian who likes to trace your tradition through certain of the Western Fathers, I would think that the fact that St. Augustine considers it to refer in part to a daily reception of communion should mean something to you.
"Why should this amaze you?"
I specifically refered only to knowledgable Catholics, and I guess I was meaning Catholics who are furthermore very interested in and in favor of seeking union with the Orthodox. I wouldn't think that a Catholic would have to scratch the Orthodox surface very deeply to discover this.
But you are right -- there are internal discussions and rumblings in both of our ecclesiastical bodies of which the other is for the most part unaware.
Have fun, and God bless. You may even come to your senses and decide to give up FR for awhile once you detox, as I often have...
Now if you are saved, then you cannot lose that salvation (Eph. 4:30).
"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" Why not? We can't lose our salvation anyways ...
Would this not be appropriate instruction to christians … even if there was no chance of losing our salvation ?
The race being run has to do with rewards not salvation. (1 Cor. 9:24-26)
LOL!!! Read the next verse. As usual, you have to cut and paste Scriptures to get it to say your heretical views of the Word of God.
"I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate" 1 Cor 9:27
Other translations say "become disqualified". In either case, "there's no soup for you!" You don't get a prize for being disqualified or reprobate!
A major problem with the argument that Christians may, repeatedly, lose their salvation (i.e. fall from grace) … and, yet, be restored back to their saved status, … after being granted forgiveness of their sin by a priest …
… is that Hebrews 6:4-6 says that it is impossible … for those which have fallen from grace … to be restored to a state of necessary repentance.Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,So the notion that one can lose one’s salvation, … and have it restored … even once … is unbiblical.
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
There may, indeed, be a danger of falling away, but such a falling would necessarily entail much more than, say, missing a weekend’s Mass.
Jesus said that there was only one sin which is unforgivable … that of blaspheming the Holy Ghost.
As such, it should be clear that “falling from grace” … is, ultimately, … a heart issue, … rather than a practice issue. If one’s heart is open towards relationship with God, then one will sekk His forgiveness for one’s wrongdoing.
The unforgivable, unrecoverable state of falling from grace will only occur when one desires a life totally unrestricted by the demands of a relationship with God.
It is when I am willing to do nothing … to foster my relationship with God, … that I have fallen (hopelessly).
… is that Hebrews 6:4-6 says that it is impossible … for those which have fallen from grace … to be restored to a state of necessary repentance.
Brother, the writer of Hebrews was not making a blanket statement, not one of absolute certainty, but one of expectation:
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" Heb 10:27-28
It is when I am willing to do nothing … to foster my relationship with God, … that I have fallen (hopelessly).
I agree.
"What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith [without works of love] save him?" James 2:14
The writers of the Scriptures expect a person who has received the Spirit to love others as Christ did. But practically speaking, they realized that some will refuse to, returning to their former life "as a dog returns to the vomit" (cf. 2 Peter 2:22)
Regards
"It has enabled me to pray the Psalms on a regular basis."
An excellent, sublime practice, my friend!
"Souls are immortal."
Kalomiras would disagree as would Fr. Stephen Fraser, a noted theologian of the Antiochian Church:
"Of the immortality of the soul, the Church teaches that man’s soul is not immortal by nature. The gift of immortality was given by God as a free expression of His love for man, so that man, if he so chooses, may be able to share in the bliss of his creator. In all of creation, only man, as far as we are able to know, was endowed with this most sublime gift."
I've read other pieces which claim that the idea that the soul is immortal is a minority view in Orthodoxy. I must admit I always have been taught, I think, that the soul is immortal, but maybe that's a Greek/Serb concept. I'm pretty sure the Latins believe it too.
Have fun! Find a Greek Restaurant and order a "frappe, metrio meh gala"; you'll like it! :)
The human soul certainly is immortal, but only, as your quotation says, by the grace, gift, and power of God. Only God is immortal by nature -- or at least that is what I have always been taught in my life as an Orthodox Christian. I think that there is a strong strain within the Catholic church of saying that the soul is immortal, and Protestantism got it from there. Catholic theology, however, may have the same caveats of by grace vs by nature that we have.
We have clear statements in Scripture that indicate that the gift of immortality that God has given to our souls (and that he will restore to our resurrected bodies) will not be revoked at any point in the future, so in *that* sense, we can say with confidence that the soul is immortal.
Whenever we colloquially talk about "caring for our immortal soul," I look on this as a practical way of impressing on us that what we do here on earth inn preparation for the next life is, to put it mildly, important -- since the consequences will last for eternity...
When we talk about the soul as not being immortal (by nature), it is to emphasize that it is created, that it is not self-existing or pre-existing, and that we are not divine by nature in the way that God is.
That is news to me too, Kolo. For if a soul dies, what's the point of sending a dead soul to hell, after its body has been resurrected? I believe there is some confusion as to how the word soul and death are treated.
For starters, Genesis 2:7 says that man became a living soul. The word used in LXX is "yuchn" (or "nephesh" in Hebrew or "душа" in Slavonic), all three being derived form the word "breath."
The KJV translates it as "soul" but the newer bibles, NAB, NIV, translate it as "a being."
So, the word soul is really understood to be a human being, and not the Platonic essence separate, or indwelling, in the body. As such, the Orthodox Church teaches that the this man or "soul" was created neither mortal nor immortal in a physical sense.
Yet we are taught without any confusion that, after physical death, the "soul," in this case our anima or essence, continues to exist and feel and even psosess consciousness, and therefore lives — in an unnatural state but lives nontheless without the body (which is completely alien to Aristotelian philosophy).
In the concept of our salvation is the idea that our souls will be reunited with our (new) bodies and the saved shall live in bliss thereafter and that "God's Kingdom shall have no end." [does it now?]
So, as you can see, some of the wording that we are all familiar with seem somewhat "sloppy" in that the "soul" sometimes means a human being, sometimes a breath, soemtimes our essence, or life (anima).
Likewise, death sometimes means physical death (i.e. separation of body and soul, expiration, the last breath), and at other times it referes to the death of our essence, vanishing from existence completely, oblivion.
Obviosuly, the scribes were not always careful (especially those who made copies that we read today as 3rd century "originals," or how else could someone say that Christ's "Kingdom shall have no end" as if it does now?)
Likewise, if we are to assume that the souls of the sinners will simply perish, what will happen to their resurrected bodies? And where exactly will such "people" abide; after all Hell is not a "place" we would agree, yet we are told that at the Second Coming every soul shall be given a body, and those of the unrepentant shall be cast into the eternal fire where there will be "gnashing of the teeth" forever.
Surely, if there will be gnashing of the teeth and eternal torment, there must be "life" in those condemned souls or else torment and gnahsing teeth would be meaningless. The condemned souls must therefore "feel" as much as the saved ones, but in the extreme opposite way, therefore both must be "alive" in order to experience the after-life. So, if all this is true, how can souls then be mortal?
Ping 8,293
It is definitely valid translation of epiousios as "necessary for existence", as well as "of transcendant existence". What happens here is that the pedestrian meaning becomes the dictionary meaning, while the outworldly mystical connotation becomes secondary. The exact same thing happens in Russian, "suschnost" being "essence" but "nasuschny" commonly is understood as "vitally necessary".
As you read the epistles of Paul, toward the end he tends to describe what is it that you must do. For specific opportunities to do charitable work, send your resume to your local diocese and they'll match you up with something. Yes, you can hire help.
This is correct both because of the word used and because a definite article is used. The proper translation is "the evil" or more forcefully "the evil one". The article got lost in Latin translation, as Latin has no articles, and it should have been restored in English. Another reason not to read the scripture alone.
Have a great vacation. (One step closer to the big ten).
As we've discussed amply, it is not supported by scripture.
Oral teaching is consistent with Sola Scriptura to the extent that the oral teaching mirrors what the Bible says. Once extra-scriptural teaching is added, then Sola Scriptura is violated.
This is possible to contemplate today, when there is a fixed Christian canon (which you guys mutilated). It was a meaningless proposition before roughly the 5th century, because the canon was in flux and in the first century some inspired books were not even written. Even today, there is no such thing as teaching form Bible only. You, for example, insist that where the Bible says "water" "womb" is meant, and the outcome of this understanding is not trivial, -- it leads you away from the sacramental understanding of baptism and becomes a point of separation between the Baptists and the Church. We've hashed enough scripture on this thread back and forth to illustrate that there is no such thing as perspicuous reading outside of any doctrinal influence. In fact, Acts 8:30 says so, like it or not. When your missionaries go to non-Christian lands and teach, they don't simply read the words, they teach what they mean. A Baptist missionary would teach differently than a Methodist missionary, even though they have the same truncated canon.
You know better than that.
The fact that Trent was very explicit in stating the inspired nature of the deuterocanonical books is sometimes distorted to support the notion that Trent added these books to some mythically original, conformant with Luther's, canon. This notion is patently false, -- it is sufficient to look at any Bible prior to Luther's, east of west, and see that the deuterocanonicals are there, in their rightful place.
In the context of 2 Timothy your response is completely absurd: you are saying that Paul refers to books he had no idea would be written decades after his death, but he is not referring to the books both Timothy and Paul consider scripture and possess in their libraries.
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.