Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
You "gnosis" that for sure? You got rules?
What do you know for sure, you old Gnostic you?
If I were a Gnostic I'd tell'ya...
I guess it all goes to the creation of the souls. Judaism shares pagan belief in the pre-existence of the souls.
The Orthodox, as far as I know, teach traducianism. The doctrine teaches that God created a soul of Adam and that through his soul all humans inherited the same life. Thus, when he fell, all the generations inherited a defective soul, corrupted by sin.
Correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that the Catholic teach creationism of the soul, although the early Latin Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine, were leaning towards the former. The doctrine of creationism of the souls teaches that God creates a souls for each newly conceived human being.
Early Gnostics embraced the Judaic belief that all the souls were created before the foundation of the world.
Early Reformers, to the best of my knowledge, still maintained creationism doctrine of the souls, but some of the 21st century followers of Reformation, and most sects and cults that appear on these threads seem to embrace the Judeo-pagan belief of pre0-existing souls.
The early Church condemned Origen's and the Gnostic belief in the pre-existence of the souls because of its association with re-incarnation, which the Church rejects.
How do we end up with a defective soul? Obviously, the doctrine of the pre-existenceI of the souls and the doctrine of creationism implicitly suggest that God deliberately created or creates defective souls. Traduconism simply explains it by saying we are getting " by his transgression.
The Catholics, of course, do not believe that God creates defective souls with each conception, but do not offer an xcplanation at which moment does the soul of a new human being become defective.
The Protestants who believe in the pre-existence of the souls simply say that God ordained some to hell and some to heaven, then created all the souls, and predestined each human being with an "appropriate" ready-made soul, which is pulled off the heavenly storage shelf and "plugged" in at the moment of conception, or perhaps even at some other moment.
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
That's very true.
... after all that what this does for me is challenge me to put all my faith, to place all my bets, to stake everything on Jesus.
Amen, wise words for us all.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. :) I think all Christians should take doses of getting back to basics very often. Every organized faith carries dangers of getting away from them.
FK: "The answer is unquestionably "YES"." ......
I think I need to correct this. [If a man does certain things the Spirit may become "dormant" such that the person is spiritually dead.] ...... Whether the Spirit actually vacates permanently the person, that's different. IF the Spirit actually left forever, then that person could NEVER repent!!! I don't see God giving up on us and returning to the fold (remember the shepherd parables?). The fact that a sinner CAN repent is proof that the Holy Spirit does not "vacate" entirely those whom He wills.
Thanks for your reply. Since we are talking about the indwelling Holy Spirit, as opposed to His influence alone, I don't understand your point about not being able to repent. Sinners originally repented before the Spirit indwelt, so (if the Spirit left) why couldn't they just do it again, theoretically? So, my understanding of the Catholic view was that the Spirit vacated, in most cases temporarily, until the person repented and then the Spirit would come back.
Yes.. violating the rules/rule is the point..
When I alleged contradictions, one example I was specifically thinking of was papal authority. I thought that was clearly a case of dogmatic binding by the Church.
That looks like a pretty good summary, thanks.
You’re correct, as far as I know, about the RC view, although I read that there are some modern exceptions, and as you noted, there was some back and forth way back.
I do definitely prefer some of the resulting conclusions from Traducianism and I think that in general, the Eastern Orthodox way of handling original sin seems healthier, at least compared to how some in the West use it in early catechism. Whether this is a necessary result of the theology or a failure of humans, I’m not sure. I also wasn’t raised in the East, so it could be that humans there could also misuse teaching of inherited sin while still be correct to the letter.
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance” and I don’t know the Eastern response to this objection. I would accept “it’s a lesser problem than you have otherwise.”
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents. Which would seem, to me anyway, to mitigate the objection to Traducianism, but I’m not sure how it removes it.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly. From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on.
thanks for your post..
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
Does anyone have any evidence for these strange comments that appear to be condemning innocent newborns to hell sight unseen?
I tend to avoid the Religion Forum, so I am not up on the latest interpretations here. But, I have to say condemning newborns to hell before they have a chance to do good or ill seems like pure bilge to me.
In that case, your testimony is that there are mistakes and abuse in Heaven because everything is bound there too. I would say that pretty much invalidates it. :)
But you cleverly avoid answering my question, because there is very little, save for a direct and personal objection to the verse, which obviously offends you. You offer no explanation, only your blanket opposition.
I don't remember a specific question to me, but if I missed it then I'm sorry. Are you asking for a scriptural explanation? If so, my objection is on the basis that the Bible does not support it. I'm not asserting the power so I don't have to prove it, your side does. If the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then God's sovereignty is damaged because man can trump God, as the above dilemma illustrates. The binding and loosening we are talking about (can) concern very serious spiritual matters. If Heaven became bound by man's mistakes, then where are we? Chaos. That is unbiblical.
What could "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" possibly mean if not what it says, FK?
Christ specifically gave Peter, and by extension the other Apostles, the power to bind and loose. That is, that they were given the authority to continue preaching Christ's Gospel, and to rule on Church discipline. They were not given the ability to supplant God's word, but only to declare it with the authority of Christ. They never had the power to declare against God's word. And, I am unaware of any of the Apostles ever abusing this authority.
If, however, through Apostolic succession there has been subsequent abuse, and I agree with you that there has, then something is very wrong here. For those abuses, Heaven is indeed not bound, yet the abuses still have the force of "law" to the laity, and scripture appears to be violated. I would say that's a bad thing. :)
The Reformed have no problem with God making humans destined for hell, but somehow find it "offensive" and "unjust" that God may have elected some people for a specific task?
No, we have no problem with that, my problem is with who is really in control. I see the interpretation of binding and loosening being that whatever the Church says goes, and God just agrees to it no matter what. That is impossible in my mind, since "the Church" says different things.
FK: "It is a blank check to the few men in power in the Church. For the Latins, it is a blank check to one man alone."
What happened to you, FK? You have changed. How can you make such a statement knowing how patently incorrect it is? The Bible tells us that this is not so, and the promise (the "keys") are given to all the Apostles, and their successors, not only to Peter and his.
No, I'm the same old me. :) By "one man" I was referring to the "blank check" given to the Pope to declare infallibly on behalf of God ex cathedra. I know that binding, etc. applied to all the Apostles.
We all receive blessings; what we do with them is a different story. Surely, we all agree that blessings may have been abused. That doesn't invalidate the blessings. Breaking the law does not invalidate the law; it condemns the lawbreaker.
I agree, but in the context of this conversation, this would leave the Church open to condemnation for abuses. Is that possible? I thought not because of the claim of infallibility. But if it is possible, then how can any member of the laity know which parts to agree with and which not to?
With all due respect, FK, you seem to have forgotten everything you once apparently knew about the Church. The binding and loosening has to do with mysteries (sacraments) and not ecclesial matters.
Actually, I have never heard this before. Is there any scripture to support that limitation? I inferred from one of your earlier comments (which I could never find) that it applied to just about anything. Then it came out that it does not apply to sending people to hell, etc., so I was asking where the line is drawn, and how do we know that.
Also, your take does not appear to match the scripture that BD found: [BD: "The practical application is: binding; 1 Cor. 5:1-7, loosing; 2 Cor. 2:1-10."]
It has always been one and has never ceased being one and only Church Christ established, because it is established on sacramental authority given in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
I do not see any limitation to the sacraments. Those verses really "look" pretty open-ended.
You believe what you want believe.. some religionists are that way too.. You must be ignorant on the death of those not at the age of consent.. i.e child vs. adult..
I plead ignorance to the particulars of what each of the many thousands of individual religions believe.
But I think the idea of condemning newborns to hell, which is what a previous post seemed to be advocating, is one of the most repugnant, and ridiculous, ideas I have ever heard.
Interesting observation. In the East, the ancestral (original) sin is looked at as a disease passed on from generation to generation. The soul is sick, and in need of a spiritual physician. Adam's transgression tipped the scale of his neither-mortal-nor-immortal-nature to mortality, and from there on all those who share in his nature are also mortal.
To become healed we need to be spiritually united with God by imitating Him and submitting to His will, thereby regaining His likeness which was lost in the Fall. So, by becoming Christ-like we are in various stages of healing. This, of course, requires obedience and cooperation with the Physician.
It's comparable to a drug-addicted child born by a drug-addicted mother. It will continue in perpetuum if untreated. Naturally, the child bears no guilt or responsability for his affliction, but he cannot—on his own—shake himself free from it. So, the eastern mindest is free of guilt, self-debasng, self-condmening concept of the original sin.
In this mindset, the concept of Immaculate Conception is meaningless to the Orthodox. Combine that with traducianism and one can see no theological basis for such an intervention. In fact, IC in this framework produces a human being unlike the rest of us.
This could be, as some of our friends here like to say, an observer problem, because it is just a slikely that, from the strictly Augustinian frame of mind, the IC must perfect sense and even a necessity!
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance”
I am not sure what that means.
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents
The "fallen part" of what? The soul? I didn't think souls came in parts. It is not our body that is fallen, but our soul. The soul quickens the body; the body follows. The body is a car; the soul is the driver. If the driver is drunk...you get the drift. Adam first experienced spiritual death, which was eventually followed by physicial death.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly
That is true and the different views in this sphere were not any cause of division as fra as I know.
From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on
Most certainly.
The "evidence" is, of course, the Bible, or better yet their interpretation of it, since not all who use the Bible arrive at the same conclusion. They would answer you that none of us is innocent (even at birth), but "filthy rags" (one of their favorite quotes).
I tend to avoid the Religion Forum, so I am not up on the latest interpretations here. But, I have to say condemning newborns to hell before they have a chance to do good or ill seems like pure bilge to me
They will tell you that no one can do any good until he is "born again" and has an "indwelling spirit." You can take it from there...
Jesus called Simon "a ROCK" not peter(Cephas)(a first name) like "Rockie".. A ROCK for the building of a metaphorical building(church)..
All members can bind and loose in their own lives.. For wherever two or three meet in my name(there am I) is the church.. If you, do or not do, something you are responsible.. Only the blood sacrifice of Jesus can adjust that deed(s).. What deeds you DO is bound to YOU in BOTH realms.. And what blessings you GET are LOOSED to YOU in BOTH realms.. What you bind or loose yourself effects your life instantly whether by word or deed...
Example: whatever "we" post on this thread binds or looses activity and responsibility on earth and in heaven.. NOW.... Scary stuff without the Holy Spirit to guide you.. and Jesus blood to "cover you"...
Me too... but there some even here(FR) that do not see murdering people(babies) as a foul deed.. maybe unfortunate but not foul..
Looks like those concepts went over your head "also"... ZOOOM..
However the reformed "Arminian" school (saved by works) gets close to that.. but even they don't advocate that.. as you present it..
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.