Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Well said, and thank you for the appropriate quote.
Thank you. Good to see you posting, too. Remember the OWK days?
It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is.
He should be judged by the standard of monastic vows he and the nuns he corrupted had chosen for themselves voluntarily.
I don't object to "walk", merely point out that it is how we understand salvific work. It is something we do.
Peter offered very little of spiritual revelation in the bible.. except for his gross mistakes.. All other writers of the new testestament and the old one too.. were much deeper and richer in thought.. and spiritual insight..
Peter was pretty much a spiritual doofus.. or schelmiel.. or even schmozzle.. The Barney Fife of the New Testament.. Useing him as a model should be re-thunk... Ya think?..
Fascinating.
"It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is."
Well, I just read it in English and Greek. I don't see where one gets instant theosis out of Rom. 6. Were that the case, why is +Paul bothering to speak to the Romans. If the fix is in, the fix is in. Rom. 6 seems to be telling us what Christ has done for us and how we are to conform our free will to respond to that. In other words, we've now got another chance to get it right. What am I missing, Kosta?
I have nothing but scorn for Luther. Sorry.
I would expect no more of you.
Thanks for your exposition on culpability and disordered.
I think that pretty well states, and should close, the case.
This is dispositive for me. I don't really care what linguistic and historical path has the deposit of Faith delivered tot he Apostles followed. The Septuagint illumines the thinking of the apostles. As a Christian, this is of the primary importance.
you're saying that one should accept the Vulgate as definitive--but not follow Jerome's example in going back to the original languages of the Scripture to do any new translation?
Something similar. I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful. If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example
See above. The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture, hence his preference cannot be used to deprecate the septuagint. I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong.
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
"It's Romans 6, Kolo. That's where the rub is."
Take a look at the end of +John Chrysostomos' Homily X and all of Homily XI on Romans.
Of course. What is there in the wider context that you think needs to be considered? I discussed the Real Presence disputation on this thread at length. Want to do it again? You know where to find me.
I don't think it asserts that at all. It says that Christ dies for our sin and that we should become dead to sin.
Every now and then you post something that reflects an ignorant and angry attitude, and at the same time does not contain anything to argue about logically. That is your opinion? Fine. Now get lost. I do not argue with opinions.
Alex, being a simple Greek, I don't understand the issue here. The Church uses various versions of the canon of Scripture with minor differences in the Greek and Latin; the West the Vulgate, we Greeks the Byzantine Canon and the Septuagint as our "approved" texts. I don't know about the Arabs and the Slavs, but I am confident they do the same. This is what The Church has determined. Why would we ever care what "older" or "other" versions might exist except to the extent that they might, as translations into the vernacular, lead anytone in The Church astray? What I mean is, who cares what the Jews established or how the Protestants translated the Vulgate or the Byzantine Canon or the Septuagint?
"How does Catholic or Orthodox Church explain Roman 6:10 [...] It asserts that Christians don't sin.
I don't think it asserts that at all. It says that Christ dies for our sin and that we should become dead to sin."
Like I said earlier, read +John Chrysostomos' Homilies X & Xi on Romans. Seems pretty clear to me.
Perhaps it is better to understand the phrase dead to sin as meaning in a state of existence involving separation to sin. No longer does our living depend upon the law, rather our life is separate from the disobedience of Him.
Do we violate the law? Sure, no doubt about the legalism, but through faith in Christ we have life because He has already paid the debt of sin.
We've been separated from sin carrying us into death, again by faith, and when we live in that faith we also abide by the law.
I see humor is wasted on you bucko..
There was nothing angry in my post..
I accept Peter as a brother just as I do any other Barney Fife christian.. Being a christian is not about being smart.. its about being chosen with Gods favor..
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.