Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I certainly don’t agree with Herman Bavinck on the “critical research”
Just because something becomes a dogma does not mean it was not overwhelmingly believed up until that point.
A dogma in many cases makes things concrete to shut the door on heretical beliefs as they start to gain force.
Take the dogma of the Divinity of Christ for instance.
When did the Church declare that Jesus was God as dogma? At the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Nearly 300 years after Christ’s death, correct? Does that mean that the Church DID NOT already believe this? Of course it did! Jesus was worshiped during the liturgy. People prayed to Him during their daily prayers and through their actions. The Church overwhelmingly already KNEW that Jesus was God.
The Church guided by the Holy Spirit needed to shut the door on the Arian heretics, to make concrete, so that the denial of Christ’s Divinity would not spread into the Church
Historical critical research does show us the early Christians believed Christ is God. Thus the importance of oral and written tradition
Examples
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.” Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).
“For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).
“We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.” Tatian the Syrian, Oration Against the Greeks, 21 (c. A.D. 175).
“God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power, the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him.” Tatian the Syrian, Oration Against the Greeks, 5 (c. A.D. 175).
We can trace the sinlessness of Mary back also
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
That's wonderful, Dear Brother!
Keep him humble and don't let the liberal education system corrupt him!
I wish you a Blessed day!
But you've just chosen Matthew over Luke, so you're not comparing to harmonize, but simply selecting which verse you prefer...out of context.
In context, both Gospels say Christ was speaking to a multitude of His disciples and they all heard Him.
And those with ears given by God understood Him.
What's the purpose of excluding the multitude from the Beatitudes? Why would Christ ignore the throngs of eager followers who came to hear Him and touch Him, and instead whisper the Sermon on the Mount to only a select few?
Don't you see how that perspective keeps the spoken truth of Christ from men as individuals and instead places it secretly among a small hierarchy of men who then decide to whom and when to reveal it?
Doesn't it just make sense to get the truth from Christ's own lips rather than through more human intermediaries?
In all my life I've never heard anyone, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, say the Sermon on the Mount was delivered only to the Apostles.
You're in a minority of one here, Kosta.
It's obvious. Yet you seem to think that Jesus calls the crowd the "light of the world."
Matthew was an eyewitness; Luke wasn't.
In context, both Gospels say Christ was speaking to a multitude of His disciples and they all heard Him
In context, as you describe it, Jesus was calling the curious crowd "the light of the world." I don't think so.
What's the purpose of excluding the multitude from the Beatitudes?
That He calls someone "the light of the world."
Why would Christ ignore the throngs of eager followers who came to hear Him and touch Him, and instead whisper the Sermon on the Mount to only a select few?
For the same reason He spoke in parables. He wasn't there to teach the crowds, but to teach His disciples. For the crowds, Christ provided miracles.
Don't you see how that perspective keeps the spoken truth of Christ from men as individuals and instead places it secretly among a small hierarchy of men who then decide to whom and when to reveal it?
There you go again. I have never heard anyone in the Church talk about this. I have no clue how the Church sees it. I read it and I see it as I read it.
I ask myself "Would Christ call ordinary crowds the light of the world?" Not all are teachers and not all are apostles. He picked His disciples and He taught them the secrets of the Kingdom of God.
When He was among others, He spoke in parables lest they understood Him.
It has nothing to do with the hierarchy of men in the Church as you are hinting (again). I am only doing what every Protestant does every day: read as I see it. If you disagree, show me why would Christ call the crowds "the light of the world." Don't give me a sermon.
In all my life I've never heard anyone, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, say the Sermon on the Mount was delivered only to the Apostles
Are you the measure of the world?
You're in a minority of one here, Kosta
And your point is?
It's not a club. It's the Apostolic Church. It also doesn't have a low opinion of the Scriptures, and I am not a spokesman for the EOC. Get it? Or are you just being optuse?
The protestant’s favorite Saint,Saint Augustine sees things the same way as what you’re saying as well
“”The beginning, then, of this sermon is introduced as follows: “And when He saw the great multitudes, He went up into a mountain: and when He was set, HIS DISCIPLES CAME UNTO HIM: and He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying.” If it is asked what the “mountain” means, it may well be understood as meaning the greater precepts of righteousness; for there were lesser ones which were given to the Jews. Yet it is one God who, through His holy prophets and servants, according to a thoroughly arranged distribution of times, gave the lesser precepts to a people who as yet required to be bound by fear; and who, through His Son, gave the greater ones to a people whom it had now become suitable to set free by love.””
-Saint Augustine ;sermon on the mount book 1
From Luke 6 (which comports with Matthew)...
And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all." "a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
So unless Luke is a liar, we learn this wasn't just a "curious crowd." These were people who if they weren't believers already, they sure were after they were healed since Christ healed "them all."
Do you know of anyone who was not a believer after Christ healed them?
Dr.E: What's the purpose of excluding the multitude from the Beatitudes?
KOSTA: That He calls someone "the light of the world."
You don't think Christ referred to believers as "the light of the world?" You think that designation only went to the Apostles?
This is getting sillier...
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them... Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life... As he spake these words, many believed on him..." -- John 8:1-2;12;30 "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
So we see that those who believe in Christ will "have the light of life" and thus become like Christ, the "light of the world."
But to others among them He said...
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." -- John 8:43;48 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word...
For the same reason He spoke in parables. He wasn't there to teach the crowds, but to teach His disciples. For the crowds, Christ provided miracles.
What peculiar thoughts. Christ meant something different by speaking in parables than He did by performing miracles? Weren't both a means of convincing those whom God had given eyes to see? Christ spoke in parables because Christ came to save the lost sheep of Israel, and every one of them will hear Him, and know Him as God and follow Him because God gives them ears to hear and a new heart to understand.
Miracles weren't to influence those who would never have faith; miracles were to further convince those to whom God gave faith.
I ask myself "Would Christ call ordinary crowds the light of the world?" Not all are teachers and not all are apostles. He picked His disciples and He taught them the secrets of the Kingdom of God.
So you imagine Christ came to earth to teach the secrets of the Kingdom of God to only His apostles???
No wonder you believe in the magick of the priesthood and an alchemy of the Lord's Supper. Read Luke 12...
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do... And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is." -- Luke 12:1-4;54"In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
So there's no division between Christ's words to believers and Christ's words to His disciples. They were one and the same. No "secret knowledge" imparted to the Apostles that is not given to every one who believes in Him.
I have never heard anyone in the Church talk about this. I have no clue how the Church sees it. I read it and I see it as I read it...I am only doing what every Protestant does every day: read as I see it.
That's not what Protestants do. Protestants do not dismiss Luke because he did not witness the Sermon on the Mount, as you have done. Protestants don't pick and choose indiscriminately, and then come to some "personal" conclusion. Protestants gauge every thought and belief on the word of God. And if we disagree, we come prepared to debate our differences so that the truth is more clearly articulated.
But now I realize the many Bible-believing Christians on this thread are not debating with a theology or a church or a religion or a set of beliefs, but just with one man and his peculiar take on the Bible.
Which is strange for one who supposedly believes that the EO church is the purest form of Christianity. Why not tell us what this "pure church" believes since you say you are a member of it rather than making it up as you go along?
SFA: The protestant’s favorite Saint
And which protestant would that be? :)
Saint Augustine sees things the same way as what you’re saying as well
Actually SFA, the part you emphasized ("his disciples came unto him") was simply the quote from St. Matthew's Gospel, so it doesn't really say anything about +Augustine's view. Here is +Augustine from the same book you cited, preceding the quote you provided:
Since, therefore, He has not simply said, "Whosoever hears my words," but has made an addition, saying, "Whosoever hears these words of mine," He has sufficiently indicated, as I think, that these sayings which He uttered on the mount so perfectly guide the life of those who may be willing to live according to them, that they may justly be compared to one building upon a rock.
Also, here's what +John Chrysostom had to say in his Homily XV on the Gospel of St. Matthew:
But when thou hearest that He taught them, do not think of Him as discoursing with His disciples only, but rather with all through them.
For since the multitude was such as a multitude ever is, and consisted moreover of such as creep on the ground, He withdraws the choir of His disciples, and makes His discourse unto them: in His conversation with them providing that the rest also, who were yet very far from the level of His sayings, might find His lesson of self-denial no longer grievous unto them. Of which indeed both Luke gave intimation, when he said, that He directed His words unto them: and Matthew too, clearly declaring the same, wrote, “His disciples came unto Him, and He taught them.” For thus the others also were sure to be more eagerly attentive to Him, than they would have been, had He addressed Himself unto all.
Whence then doth He begin? and what kind of foundations of His new polity doth He lay for us?
Let us hearken with strict attention unto what is said. For though it was spoken unto them, it was written for the sake also of all men afterwards. And accordingly on this account, though He had His disciples in His mind in His public preaching, yet unto them He limits not His sayings, but applies all His words of blessing without restriction. Thus He said not, “Blessed are ye, if ye become poor,” but “Blessed are the poor.” And I may add that even if He had spoken of them, the advice would still be common to all. For so, when He saith, “Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” He is discoursing not with them only, but also, through them, with all the world. And in pronouncing them blessed, who are persecuted, and chased, and suffer all intolerable things; not for them only, but also for all who arrive at the same excellency, He weaves His crown.
Yes, Christ was addressing his disciples. But he did so that all might hear, including the attending multitudes, and even those of us who read His words to this very day.
Amen. Great catch from Augustine and John Chrysostom.
We've learned to put into context these snippets from the church fathers who more often than not would disagree with today's church in Rome...and Kosta, who is a church of one.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9;20 "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine...
Thankfully, most Jews are not so naive. They know an "anti-religious movement" when they see it. They also know they've already given up more than 15 grams of carbon dioxide for those candles.
That is to expect to be persecuted in this world for your faith. The pluralistic society in which we live in today would label Christ and the apostles psychotic nuts.
People in modern society only want a Christ that fits their own lifestyle.
This is the false Christ,and in a sense the anti-Christ!
I suggest you read this thread I started.
AMEN, Harley!
Miracles are used for various purposes for enacting God's will. But as has been repeatedly shown in scripture, miracles don't change the heart. God has to do that. Pharaoh saw all sorts of miracles. God appeared to Abimelech in a dream. The Philistines recognized the miracles of God when they stoled the ark. The unbelieving Israelites ate the food of angels for 40 years. None of these miracles did them any good. God could pop His hand out of the thin air and start writing on the wall and all people will do is look at it and say, "Whew!! There's something you don't see everyday, Myrtle." People will not see a miracle even if the handwriting is on the wall.
LOLOL! Myrtle's always been something of a skeptic. 8~)
There is no Christ in it either.
Well, I know that you know that I was paraphrasing what you consider to be "scripture". Here Paul was quoting from Ex. 33:19 :
Rom 9:14-18 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
So, to get rid of this you have to say that both Paul and Exodus were wrong.
There is nothing in the NT that says Christ came because of the Gentiles. "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[Mat 15:24] Yeah, only. How much clearer can that be?
It can be no clearer. Just as your verse says, Christ came for His sheep. You seem to be stuck on the notion that only Jews by birth can be sheep. The NT lays waste to that notion through Paul. In addition, we have a Gospel passage that I have quoted often recently:
John 10:27-30 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
This quote was said BEFORE your alleged reorganization of Christianity to include Gentiles. Therefore, by your reasoning, Jesus only was talking about ALL lost Jews here. But we know that not all Jews followed Him, so this would make Jesus a liar. So obviously, your logic does not work. OTOH, if the sheep Jesus was speaking of included Gentiles and meant all of God's children from whatever race, (as Paul said), then everything fits and makes sense. As you said: "How much clearer can that be?" :)
Did the OT say anywhere that the messiah was going to come to save the Gentiles?
Yes:
Isa 53:12 : 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
If the Gentiles are not among the transgressors, then all of us are doomed.
FK: "However, since God ALWAYS intended to reach the Gentiles en mass, then what you call the failure of the Jews I would call the success of God."
And that's based on what? So, next time you see a homeless person why don't you congratulate him?
I may not be following you, but it's based on the fact that we know that Gentiles are saved. If God changed His mind we would know Him to be flawed, and He could not be omniscient.
I have no idea why I would want to congratulate a homeless person or what that would have to do with salvation.
No, "those who believe" does not mean "all who believe". It means some. It would be like me saying "Those who smoke will get lung cancer." That doesn't mean I'm saying everyone who smokes is going to get lung cancer.
No but it makes it very clear that the ones who believe and are baptized shall be saved.
One who BELIEVE and is baptized SHALL be saved.
It also makes it clear that those who are baptized but do not believe will not be. This of course flies in the face of all the other "salvational formulas" one finds all over the NT.
You've changed the text. It doesn't say that those who are baptized but do not believe. Mark 16:16 states that those who do not believe will not be saved. That to is true. There are the people who believe (the elect) and the people who don't believe (the reprobates). This IS consistent with the "salvational formulas". What is clearly missing from the text is that you HAVE to be baptized in order to be saved.
Bear in mind that Calvinists do not subscribe to what is now the standard belief among most Protestants, that you must exercise your faith (take a leap of faith) in order to be saved. This is no more than Catholic doctrine which is a works oriented doctrine-you have to do something. It is God who brings us to repentance and gives us our faith.
This is exactly what people do when they reject Eucharist being the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, even though every single Early Church father- without a single exception believed it .
You trust them to give witness that the Bible is the word of God though and elevate your own interpretations above Saints who were persecuted for the true faith
Many solo scripturists are willing to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old,but they reject something like this that Christ says more than once
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
abideth in me, and I in him.
John 6:55-56
I'm praying that your husband returns to the Catholic faith.
There is not a single Christian who has not in his or her own way learned to know the antithesis between the "wisdom of the world" and "the foolishness of God." It is one and the same battle, an ever-continuing battle, which has to be waged by all Christians, learned or unlearned, to "take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Here on earth no one ever rises above that Battle...
Amen. "Every thought captive."
"Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself." -- John Calvin
The Beatitudes cannot be taken alone: they are not ideals; they are hard facts and realities inseparable from the Cross of Calvary.
Sounds like Bishop Sheen thought the Beatitudes, like the cross of Calvary, were addressed to all those who believe in Christ, not just to the Apostles.
LOL.
Doesn’t ring true to me.
Christ’s church not only is bigger than one club, it slices through all such boundaries—right across them . . . kattywumpus.
Optuse . . . is that a special EOC Greek word?
I don’t find much Apostolic about the EOC NOR the RCC.
Pontifical . . . politically power mongering . . . !!!TRADITIONAL!!!
but not Apostolic. I don’t think Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would be very proudly supportive of long lists of things in the EOC and the RCC and every other “Christian” Club I know of.
That is generous of you, but my husband thanks God every day that Christ plucked him out of the error of Rome and brought him into the light and liberty of His word.
He and I both pray the same for you.
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -- 1 John 5:-13"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
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.