Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
That's right as far as I know. I was referring to the Latin Church specifically, and the Apostolic Church generally.
On an open thread, it is tolerable to say a belief is a lie, a heresy, a joke or whatever - even "satanic." It is tolerable to say a religious figure or author is crazy, a heretic, a liar, etc.
But it is not tolerable to denigrate another Freeper simply because "making it personal" tends to ignite flame wars.
Everyone:
Thank you. I will abide. To all: I’m sorry for taking it down this far.
To kosta50: I am sorry for calling you a heretic. You have differing beliefs than I do. That is all.
As FK stated, once again the author's argument is that "Nobody really understand Greek like the Greeks." This is a rather lame excuse. I'm sure there have been several non-Greek scholars throughout the ages that could understand Greek just as I'm sure Martha Stewart could whip up a great Greek dinner.
The author also uses St. Ignatius as if Ignatius was confirming that he did not believe in a hell. What absolute tripe! Here is what St. Ignatius has to say on the subject:
The author never addresses the numerous places where our Lord Jesus talks about the fiery pits of hell and how people will be sent there. The argument that "it's not talked about in the Old Testament." doesn't wash because Christians use the whole canon to get the complete picture-not just the old. The fact that our Lord (not John, James, Peter or Paul) talked about hell more than anything else should confirm the fact there is such a place.
In a way Kolo is right. People wouldn't be so quick to embrace ecumenicalism if the truly understood the differences.
That is a good question. You can read the church fathers here. I've seen St. Anselm referred to (somewhere) as a Church father but he lived much later than the 6th century. This is a rather confusing issue in my mind.
I would agree with you that I believe the true church fathers lived from the 6th century and earlier. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their writings if they were not "Saints" simply because there is much information to be gleaned from their writings. The Catholic Church even admits that Tertullian doctrine and writings for the most part were good although he was at odds with the Church. Saint or not, all their writings do not raise to the same level as scripture according to Church teaching.
No, it wasn't Calvin. I believe it was John who stated:
Harley, you just made my day!
This is, of course, very grossly simplified and only FYI.
I would encourage folks to go and read, not only the scriptures, but the church fathers. They are rather clear and to suggest they did not believe in the immortality of the soul is just plain wrong.
I will add I am a little confused in the Orthodox position. On the one hand you're saying that the soul is mortal and then on the other hand you're saying all souls will be before God living in some sort of separated thing. The Orthodox doctrinal position on this matter is inconsistent, is not in compliance with scripture, goes against the majority of the church fathers, and are against the teachings of the Church prior to the Orthodox schism of the 1000+ century. I would say that it isn't the Protestants who are holding the heretical view this time.
No, FK, death is a state.
At what point does a mortal soul become immortal?
When it is restored by grace.
I think it is the Orthodox view that the vast majority of the saved do not reach theosis during physical life. If that is true, and the immortal soul is determined by accepting grace, then when does this happen?
Grace is given. We are made alive and immortal through God's grace and nothing we do merits it.
Can a person' mortal soul be transformed into an immortal soul, only to revert back again to a mortal soul?
We can always fall form grace by rejecting God. Adam and Eve did. We are their offspring, their nature.
“...just as I’m sure Martha Stewart could whip up a great Greek dinner.”
I sincerely doubt that, HD!
I’m at the office and have a busy day ahead, but this whole discussion could become very interesting; more tonight with any luck. In haste, however, I can understand your vehemence. If Orthodoxy is correct, its good bye to all that “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” phronema of the West. The opposite, of course, is also true.
“In a way Kolo is right. People wouldn’t be so quick to embrace ecumenicalism if the truly understood the differences.”
No “in a way” about it, HD.
Do you believe Jesus atoned for everyone without exception?
....Or do you believe that God creates and wills "all" of us to be His children?
What makes you think man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?
Another words...We have to freely accept God’s will
Is man born of Adam, born with a sin nature and love of sin and darkness, of the capacity to freely accept God's Will?
because we love God’s will
John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Man born of Adam is predisposed to serving himself and sin, and will not seek God, nor will he believe God.
John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Well then God must be confused because the writings of the Fathers are often contradictory.
No, FK, death is a state.
OK, but what does that MEAN? What is the difference between death as a "state" and what you have heard Harley and me describe as an immortal soul? The Bible is absolutely clear that a soul may be "dead" to God, BUT it is certainly "alive" to actual experience in hell. If all the Bible verses discussing this, and there are many, are ALL WRONG, then Orthodoxy is hoarding to itself some of the greatest secrets of Christianity. You even leave your Latin brethren completely in the dark. Where is the correct text of the Bible in English? The percentage of Orthodox who use English as a first language can't be THAT negligible. :)
Plus, isn't it the duty of your clergy to carry the message to all nations, including those that speak English? According to the arguments I've heard, plus Kolo's article, English speakers don't have a chance.
FK: "At what point does a mortal soul become immortal?"
When it is restored by grace.
Well I KNOW that. :) When does that happen within time?
Grace is given. We are made alive and immortal through God's grace and nothing we do merits it.
I believe you added that the grace must be accepted. I'm asking when that happens. For example, there is a watershed moment in our theology when the believer receives/accepts God's grace and then asks Jesus into his heart. Now, I realize that Apostolics are much more into a process system, however there has to be a moment within time at which the soul turns from mortal to immortal. IOW, does it just follow the same ebb and flow of one's permeable salvation status? My guess would be "yes". My guess would be that it is completely within Orthodox theology for a person's soul to be mortal one minute, then immortal the next, then mortal again the following minute. If true, doesn't that throw out the actual meaning of the word?
OK, I'm dumb. Who is pope Mike? :)
Pope Michael I
Read about him here:
http://catholicgauze.blogspot.com/2006/02/catholics-and-kansas-nuts-falling-from.html
Thanks for the info, I don't take it as a criticism at all, but as insight into the protocol here, which is very much appreciated.
BTW, I see you are relatively new to FR and you are a welcome addition. Your postings are excellent.
Thanks again.
As I have already explained, thsoe angels in John's Book of the Revelation who take the prayers of the saints into the Throneroom of God do so as messengers, directed by God.
Where Rome makes it's fatal mistake is to twist that one example into a license to pray to angels, which takes a quantum leap to arrive at that conclusion. Not really, as is often the case, Rome begins with it's own concepts contrived by men and reads them back into passages such as you cited in Revelation where it does not exist, just as Rome did when contriving the "two swords doctrine", and a host of others.
I think that the self-identified Reformed Redeemed are going to need a very good defense attorney
Our Mediator is Christ, who we trust exclusively to have done everything neccessary for our Redemption upon the Cross to which we can add not one single thing, and Who clothes us in His Righteousness, as a Delightfully Robed Bride perfectly acceptable to the Father, not on account of any single thing we have done, but because of what Christ did on our behalf as our Kinsman Redeemer.
I suspect that that indwelling heartburn will turn out to be just that.
Au contraire, when Christ asks you: "Why should I allow YOU into My heaven?", and you say, "I trusted the pope, I did good works, I finshed the work you began on the Cross, I ate your real, actual flesh and drank your real, actual blood...", it will be sad indeed when you hear the words, "Wrong answer, away with you worker of iniquity, I never knew you."
Catholics do not practice necromancy
Sure Roman Catholics practice necromancy. Necromancy is the attempt to contact the spirits of those who have departed this space/time continuum, which is precisely what you do when praying to saints who have passed from this life.
There is really little excuse, with the immense archives and websites available for all, even the Paulines, to really dig in and truly understand Catholicism.
I do understand Roman Catholicism, which is precisely why I know it is apostate.
Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.
Yet, Honorius I was called "vicar of Christ" by the Roman Catholic church, when in fact he was an antichrist, which can be said for a large number of popes of Rome.
I suggest that you go learn what Calvinist soteriology actually teaches rather than the gross misrepresentation you presented.
Calvinism believes and teaches exactly what the Scriptures AND Augustine especially taught, which is that the fall of Adam, you know, the doctrine of Original Sin, completely marred the desire of man toward a love of sin and darkness and not of God.
John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
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.