Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Yes, I believe this is a key verse for them:
Gen 3:13 : And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. KJV
Adherents say that "beguiled" means seduced sexually, and that "I did eat" (or partake) means they "knew" each other. But as IT noted, Gen. 4:1 clearly blows this out of the water.
Well, FK, there are a couple of ways to look at that. First is that that is exactly what God intended, or so it seems, given that the NT was written in Greek. The second is close to the first. What God intended was that people who are serious about Christianity would develop a language of theology and perhaps of worship which EXACTLY expressed what the Greek said. I pick #2.
So throughout the ages, the only ones who were serious about Christianity were the ones who knew Greek (or a related language as you describe) in conformity with the Orthodox faith? That is quite a statement! :) Of course that would mean that several Saints were "not serious about Christianity", including Saint Augustine. That's a pretty odd result. :) This would appear to also leave all Roman Catholics out in the cold, since you would not recognize Latin as a language of theology that expresses EXACTLY what the Greek does.
In addition, isn't it probably true that Jesus spoke (and presumably taught in) at least three languages? With Hebrew being the original language of revelation, I don't see any Divine exclusivity with the Greek. Careful translation is a must of course, but God knew how many of His children were going to grow up knowing the original Greek, i.e. not many as a total number. God either sufficiently accounted for that, or it was not His intention to reveal His word to all of His children. By your standards, it would clearly be true that the vast majority of believers do not have reasonable access to His word.
“So throughout the ages, the only ones who were serious about Christianity were the ones who knew Greek (or a related language as you describe) in conformity with the Orthodox faith?”
No, I’m just saying that that’s what the “Elect” would do if indeed that was God’s plan. Others, well, probably not.:)
“Of course that would mean that several Saints were “not serious about Christianity”, including Saint Augustine.”
Blessed Augustine’s writings were a complete disaster for Protestant Christianity in the West, in my opinion. They weren’t all that good for the Latins either, for that matter.
“This would appear to also leave all Roman Catholics out in the cold, since you would not recognize Latin as a language of theology that expresses EXACTLY what the Greek does.”
Well, no, though the Romans today fully recognize that Latin does not express Greek clearly. Filioque is an example of this. An even better example is the compound misunderstanding of the filioque by Protestants.
“In addition, isn’t it probably true that Jesus spoke (and presumably taught in) at least three languages? With Hebrew being the original language of revelation, I don’t see any Divine exclusivity with the Greek.”
I don’t know if there was any teaching in Hebrew, but Christ and likely at least some of the Apostles certainly knew it. No one would claim that Greek had any exclusivity to it, merely that it is in fact THE language of revelation in the NT, and frankly, for practical purposes until the Reformation, of the OT. Its the language God chose, FK, not English, not German, not Latin or French or Swedish.
“Careful translation is a must of course, but God knew how many of His children were going to grow up knowing the original Greek, i.e. not many as a total number. God either sufficiently accounted for that, or it was not His intention to reveal His word to all of His children. By your standards, it would clearly be true that the vast majority of believers do not have reasonable access to His word.”
Here’s the problem with your reasoning. Non-Greek/Aramaic/Syriac/Slavonic speakers will indeed have a problem with understanding the scriptures because in every single other language into which the NT has been translated, the translators had a particular theological or political axe to grind, not because God caused a problem but because men decided that they knew better what God meant in scripture than those men who spoke and lived the language it was written in. I think one could have translations of the NT in English, etc., which are faithful to the Greek original, but it won’t read like the high prose we enjoy in the KJV, for example, or the beautiful Latin of the Vulgate. Nothing other than pride and/or laziness has prevented the West from making proper translations of the NT. Everyone who wants to know The Truth of The Faith has access to God’s word. It may just be a bit more difficult for some than for others, but in all honesty, FK, in Calvin’s theology, the Elect don’t need that access and the damned are lost anyway. Looked at another way, the Elect will undoubtedly find a way to understand what the Greek really means. Interestingly, many evangelical or Reformed Protestant converts to Orthodoxy say that once they came to understand what the Greek of the NT was really saying, something they came to in no small measure by studying the Fathers and actually spending time in Orthodox communities, they saw clearly the errors of the West and knew that they had to embrace Orthodoxy.
I would say that God has the power to transcend the limitations of the different languages and translations. I'm inclined to believe that God arranged it so that His message and word could be fairly translated into any language that would exist or begin across time. How else could we effectively pursue His commandment to carry His teachings, His message (forever immortalized in His Holy Scriptures), to "all nations"? Any message that can be transmitted orally can also be written down.
Vacuum? Never. But I do the dishes and iron the clothes :>)
Interesting.
Why not? If a person has the evil desire to look at nekked girls, then he "fulfills" that evil desire by hitting a few buttons on the keyboard. But in hell, there won't be an opportunity to do that, yet he might still have that evil desire. At least, this is what I thought MLG was talking about.
Maybe he fulfills that desire but is not satisfied. That is why he needs to do it again and again. Moving to more and more depravity and decadence. Like money and power, it is never enough.
“Any message that can be transmitted orally can also be written down.”
That doesn’t necessarily follow at all, FK. The Faith is transmitted more than orally and in written form. It is transmitted by the forms of the Liturgies, iconography, architecture, chant, even things as simple as the Sign of the Cross or prostrations. It is precisely in these ways that the Roman Church preserved The Faith as well as it did, at least until Vatican II and hopefully will restore things on a go forward basis since the moto proprio. The Liturgy of the West, the Roman Mass, has carried the Faith for well over 1500 years.
But not all knowledge can be transmitted orally. And even not technically true. A Bach fugue can be written down but not transmitted solely by reading. The same is true of many things. Words are abstractions of things themselves, an effective means of communication, but not as effective as personal communication and instruction.
I'm inclined to believe that God arranged it so that His message and word could be fairly translated into any language that would exist or begin across time.
And I'm inclined to believe that's why He established His church - to transmit that which can be spoken and that which cannot.
I understand, but sin is misery. It is greater punishment ‘fulfilled’ than not.
Sin separates us from God, which is the greatest existential suffering we can imagine, which is what the definition of hell is.
In Dante’s Hell, each sinner received what sin he wished, for eternity.
Yes, one cannot “read” the liturgy and the sacraments - the Church...
Yes, what he said.. :)
Who can imagine what Hell is truly like? The closest we can come I believe is addiction to sin.
***Who can imagine what Hell is truly like?***
Well, Solomon had over 300 mothers-in-law, he must have had some idea of what it is like :>)
Now I see why the EOs reject the clear teaching of Scripture concerning the Blood of Christ being a propitiation for sin. Since you clearly believe the OT to be nothing but Jewish myths, which the logical conclusion being that God inspired myths, or the OT is not God breathed at all, it is not surprising that you would SAY you do not reject the propitiatory nature of the Atonement but then deny what propitiation means and it's ramifications, as well as totally ignoring all of the passages I've cited that clearly teach it.
MLG, as Kosta pointed out in his post, what Orthodoxy believes and teaches about atonement is that which The Church has taught from the beginning. If you are correct in your recent theology, why did God allow humanity to wallow in darkness for 1500 years until some Western Europeans who were angry with an Italian pope/monarch finally set everyone straight...except of course Holy Orthodoxy which is the same today as it was when the Reformers revolted against Rome.
Were there no “elect” around for those 1500 years, or is it that correct theology or belief is of no consequence for the elect? The problem you face, indeed the one which all Protestants face when confronting Orthodoxy, is to explain just where the HS was for those 1500 years before Calvin and Luther started grinding their axes and why, given what must be manifest Orthodox heresy to you people, there was nothing even approaching a reformation in Holy Orthodoxy.
me: "So now you are bearing false witness.”
Kolo: "I take it that’s a no?
Where did you get the idea that I believe that in the first place? You state it as if it were a fact, when in fact you are making it up from whole cloth, which amounts to slander, bearing false witness, and a dishonest misrepresentation.
It's not uncommon for dishonest debaters to employ tactics such as attributing something to another poster, when in fact they have indicated nothing of the kind.
This is attributing something to me that I have never indicated, by questioninig whether I "really believe", indicating that I have professed that belief at some time:
do you really believe that Eve and Satan had sex which resulted in Cain?
In fact, it is a dishonest misrepresentation, amounting to slander.
Kolo, either you can produce any quote from me in which I profess or indicate a belief in the Satan's seed heresy, as you have attributed to me, or retract your comments with apology. If not, then it will be sure that you are not a person of integrity, honesty or honor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Religion Moderator: I only ping you because of the seriousness of questioning of what "Kolo" purports to be my belief in something which has been made up from whole cloth, and the strong comments I make in reply to that slanderous, dishonest misrepresentation, so that you know I have nothing to hide.
“Yes, one cannot “read” the liturgy and the sacraments - the Church...”
Indeed, the Roman Rite, like the Divine Liturgy is experienced and LIVED. Protestants, however, with the exception of some Lutherans and Anglicans, are not liturgical people.
:)
All are born reprobate then? And then some elected?
I thought Calvinism taught the elect/reprobate were thus from birth?
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.