Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the days when I said Evening Prayer daily by the Episcopal rite, Isaiah 55:6-11 was a "canticle" we used most Fridays of the year.
Isaiah. Wow.
Suggest you pay more attention to the memes in John ch 10.. and into ch 11.. also in Jude.. The Sheep Pen may appear to be a "protection" but it houses also the "WOLVES".. and the posuers.. i.e. shills, fakes, phonies, and weasles.. And makes "the Sheep" wonder is that really a sheep?.. As they tread on sheep dung.. and smell the ammonia..
The pasture OUTSIDE.. has none of that..
MadDawg, these are not "innate" characteristics that make us human. These are defects, or better yet abnormalities, exceptions. Something innate is something that is "known" (either expressly or potentially) by members of a given species as a matter of normal genetic constitution. As such innate characteristics are the rule rather than an exception.
Thus, we can say that a spider does not have to learn how to weave a web. It is "innate." There is no evidence of spiders teaching their young how to weave their web.
Human beings are born with a potential to speak, but they will not develop a language all by themselves, let alone a specific language. And without words there are no concepts. And without concepts, everything is here and now and it is a stimulus which evokes a reflex.
It is a curious thing that the Bible says nothing of God teaching Adam to speak. If anything, the Book of Genesis suggests that Adam was created with a functional speech and comprehension of whatever language God spoke to him. Moreover, Adam was created with pre-formed concepts, such as names. In Genesis, God allowed him to name all the animals (at least in one version of Genesis).
Adam's descendants are born without a functional speech or comprehension. Everything must be learned.
Yes.
I think that in a way similar to that in which Pythagoras, Euclid ... Lobachevsky make new mathematical discoveries by the application of innate abilities to perceptions, there is a sense among humans (generally, though not in every case) of justice and mercy and the rest and that ethical thought.
You would have to have a human lab specimen to show that this is so. Of course this is not possible, so we have to rely on few examples of children being raised in isolation from other humans. The few known children who were raised or survived in the wild had no speech and no concepts, no social graces, etc.
Everything from God onward had to be taught to them.
What's your take on the first arguments in Lewis's Mere Christianity?
I do realize that you are asking me for an opinion of what is considered a Christian giant of modern age. My reply to you is that I am not impressed with this work because it is lukewarm, it is pure speculation, and it is vague enough to satisfy all Christian denominations.
I am certainly deeply opposed to his concept of becoming "amalgamated" with God's nature. From an Orthodox point of view that is pure heresy. We are made god-like by grace and not by nature.
His work certainly rests on a priori assumptions stated as "facts." But this is no different than a primitive man concluding that inside a rumbling volcano there must be an angry "god."
What do you think the imago deiincludes?
Our sovereignty on earth. Who is higher than man on this planet? Humans are above all else by leaps and bounds. There is not even a chance of any competition from other species. Not even a semblance. The gap between humans and chimps (who share 99% of our genetic code) is not nearly as wide as it is abysmally deep. There is really nothing human about chimps. Nothing.
So, our thoughts are not their thoughts and our ways are not their ways. God gave us dominion on earth, in his image, as sovereigns. That's all.
But we also believe that God created us in his likeness, which we lost after the Fall. It is attaining the likeness of God, becoming Christ-like, that is true restoration of humanity to its original purpose. Two very different concepts: image and likeness of God.
“I am certainly deeply opposed to his concept of becoming “amalgamated” with God’s nature. From an Orthodox point of view that is pure heresy. We are made god-like by grace and not by nature.”
MD, you mustn’t think for a moment that we can share God’s “nature” or that we can by nature become like God:
“Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’ (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.
Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the ‘spirit’, according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God...” +Gregory Palamas, Topics on Natural and Theologic Science #75
Do I think that? Did I say something like that?
Whoa! What's IN this glass? I don't think I think that. I don't even think Lewis thinks that.
But the part of Lewis I was referring to was the "proof of God" from the "moral sense".
Amen, Harley. I even go a little further (in my opinion) in that I think that even the reprobate benefit from hearing the Gospel. While they cannot be saved, I still think it could influence their choices while on earth. As WM recently discussed, within the proper Reformed perspective, the lost can choose to sin or not sin. I would think that the Gospel may even be able to affect a reprobate for better choices, that is, better choices for him, even though it won't result in salvation.
And THIS is the downfall of both the Renaissance and "New" theology and philosophy. With the above thinking, there ARE no answers to the questions that vex men's souls. Many men spent their lives searching for these answers but never got them because they refused to accept the idea that God is there (He exists), He is personal, and He is in control.
As far as the sun not rising tomorrow, there is a very real possibility of that, too, FK.
That's true. But if that happened, would you then KNOW that God is there and exists? IOW, are you like doubting Thomas, or do you "know" that while on earth you will never "know"?
Man is not the measure of God.
We must receive all of the words of God even if they are hard to accept and that includes not dismissing Gods words based on our own mortal reasoning or desire.
You are telling me that predestination and free will can "co-exist" but you do not show how that is possible or even real. I take it that your definitions of predestination and free will are vastly different from standard definitions, in which case please define them.
Like the word ratio does not apply to a single number, the term rational does not apply to God; there is no ratio in Truth there can only be a ratio to Truth. God is absolute. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Your challenge:
But Gods says:
The new heaven and earth (Revelation) is not a possibility. It will be because it is Gods will, He has spoken it.
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, - Ephesians 1:3-5
In the passage weve been discussing, John 21, Peters freedom of movement is love. He wasnt being forced to love Jesus to a certain level (more than these) - but Jesus made it very clear by repeating it three times that loving Him is the necessary qualification to feed His lambs. Peter evidently had a problem keeping his priorities straight:
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand [of him whom] thou wilt send.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, [Is] not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. Exodus 4:10-16
No one and no thing can thwart the will of God. That is the bottom line.
Not Satan, not Moses, not Peter, not Herod, not Paul, not the people when Jesus entered Jerusalem, not you, not me, no one - and that includes Mary.
Now I realize that many of my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ put great stock in Marys submission to Gods calling. I strongly suspect her submission is why they are so compelled to venerate her as an example of how everyone ought to submit to the will of God.
But in no way could she have thwarted the will of God. If she had balked like Moses or if she had refused then Jesus would nevertheless had become enfleshed. With God, all things are possible.
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:26
But we know that his fate has already been sealed. Revelation 20
BTW, your comments on judgment call for another sermonette but I didnt want to overload this post so more later.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
AMEN! That is a great truth and a very succinct way of defining what is so difficult to define. Thank you.
Then what is love? Since you believe that salvation can be lost, you are forced to believe that love can be switched on and off. Is that thing that is switched on and off static? I think it was you who called love a decision. That is certainly an action.
Heb. 4:6 Therefore, since it remains that some will enter into it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience, (NAB?)
Formerly received? Only true believers can receive Christ. If you formerly believed and then disobeyed and will not enter into heaven, then you can lose your salvation.
Interesting difference in texts. Mine says:
Heb 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
That's quite a difference I'd say. :) Here is the KJV:
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: KJV
The idea seems clear that the reason they didn't enter was that they never believed, although they had heard the word. That happens all the time. See also the lead up:
Heb 3:19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.
And especially:
Heb 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
The context is unmistakable. Some physically hear, but they do not have spiritual ears to really HEAR.
[Quoted by Mark:] Heb 10: 26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.
Paul here is disagreeing with the Reformed in a rather obvious manner.
Not at all. If we take this particular passage literally, as you do, then all of us are lost by definition, right? Nothing in this passage says "but don't worry, you can always confess to a priest and regain your salvation". There is nothing like that. Therefore, this must be interpreted. Consistent with the rest of the Bible, and ESPECIALLY with the rest of Paul, the better interpretation is that Paul is positing an impossibility for educational purposes. That seems likely to me since it is Paul who affirms that we can be sure of our salvation:
Rom 10:9-10 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
If so, then it should be noted that both Leviticus 19:15 and John 7:24 tell us righteous judgment is not based on appearances:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.
Matthew 7:1-5 speaks of judging people:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matthew 7:1-5
In Matthew 7, Jesus Christ raises two aspects of mans judging. The first, verses 1-2, warns us that if we judge another, we will be judged exactly the same way. And that is righteous judgment consistent with the Lords prayer in Matthew 6:15 whereby we ask God to forgive us our debts exactly the same way we forgive others.
The second is judging false prophets which Christ encourages us to do. Note in Matthew 7:15-20 we are to know they are false by their fruits a good tree does not produce bad fruits.
This is also righteous judgment, of the same vein as I Corinthians 5 which tells us to examine the fruits within our own assembly and remove everyone whose fruits are specifically: fornication, covetousness, extortion, idolatry, drunkedness, railing.
The bottom line is to stay away from prophets (people who want to teach us) whose fruits are bad. The fruits of the Spirit - the good fruits are:
Romans 2:1 further shows that if a man judges another condemns himself:
If we judge another person, we will be judged exactly the same way.
In sum, hate the sin and love the sinner.
To God be the glory!
I am not saying that I know for sure that God chooses EVERYTHING that we do. For example, I don't know if God has anything to do with which shoe I put on first in the morning. He very well may, but I'm not sure about that. What I am sure of is that everything that is a part of God's plan does happen. And it's not by chance, it is by design. For example, if God wanted you to stay home for something this Saturday, then you ain't goin' to any nudie bar. However, if He wanted you to prevent a mugging at the nudie bar, then you're going. The point is whether it is a part of God's plan. But regardless of whether it is a part of God's plan or not, you are still responsible (answerable) for your own sin.
.......... The vicious attacks on Mother Teresa are Gods will? Jeffrey Dahmer is Gods will? I still cant seem to reconcile that with the message of love and salvation that I read from the Gospels.
That is the difference between accepting that God is in control (and doing things we can't explain), and defaulting to the man-centered notion that man is really in control and God follows along dutifully. One is an omnipotent God and one is a very weak God.
Are you saying that if you read Scripture to a non elect who couldnt appreciate it anyway that hed get a better job, or a new car, or a wonderful wife or something like that?
No, I'm only saying that maybe that person would choose to sin LESS. I just think that the TRUTH might have some good effect on everybody, even the reprobate.
No no, you may be mixing "elect" with the common usage of "saved". No one has to know he is elect to be an elect. I was elect before I was even a Christian, so I obviously didn't know it then. The elect are chosen from the foundations and set in stone. Only during life, at a point of God's choosing, do they even have a chance to know it. You, meaning you you, could very well be elect and never "know" it during your life because you choose to follow a particular Christian faith. That doesn't get you kicked out, since you were chosen from the foundations.
Now, "saved" is a little more complex. Obviously all of the elect are saved, but in the common usage of saved, many people point to the time of first true belief. This is perfectly good, as long as it is understood in context. So, with this premise it "could" be said that I preach to an elect who isn't (yet) "saved". At that time, neither of us knows whether that person is elect or saved. All the elect are (or will be in time) saved and all the saved are elect. A main difference is in the common usage of the terms. Another difference is that the elect are all the people the Father gave to Christ, and the saved are the same people that Christ saved. Since Christ loses NONE of those the Father gave Him, the lists wind up being the same.
Dear FK, What you are saying here is that God planned sin in all 3 people in this scenario in order for one person to do good.
That is not a God of love,Dear Brother
First, even the thought of going to the nudie bar is a sin,adding to more sin by actually going there.
Second, the mugger is sinning, and that could not be planned by God either.
Third, the person being mugged is sinning by being in the nudie bar as well.
Don't you realize that what you are saying is that God puts sin into our minds purposely?
It is the devil that tempts us to sin,Dear brother.
When are you going to realize that God would not want there to be a nudie bar in the first place?
Or are you going to tell us that God planned that as well?
I wish you a Blessed day!
Indeed.. we make judgments all day long, all of us.. But it should be done with reluctant humility.. With all that is within us.. For how we judge just may be visited back upon us.. i.e. we will judge ourselves.. Being judged by our own standards and with our own mercy can be a hateful thing..
Better, like David, to be judged by the one who is the essence of mercy.. and forgiveness.. For who really knows the heart of a man or woman.. One does know.. And if that heart is cruel and heartless, being judged by its own standards, how cruel can that be.. The flesh is a hard taskmaster and insensitive to minutia and the moment.. And can pronounce judgement as easy as a flip of the tongue..
Who then can be saved, FROM OURSELVES?...
The Sheep Pen is a violent place.. John ch 10...
Many should take "its" lessons to heart..
Really? St. Paul writes in Rom 6:2 "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" And Luther tells us to "sin boldly" and not worry.
Hey, Rom. 6:2 is one of our verses, you're not allowed to use it. :) But seriously, what do you suppose Paul meant by that? Do you think he was teaching that the saved would never sin again, or were immune from sin? I don't think so. Paul admitted himself a sinner well after he was saved, so that doesn't make any sense. I think Paul was teaching the mindset we should have as Christians. Here, Paul was specifically teaching against what your side accuses us of all the time. That is, a sense of complacency and false freedom to do whatever one wants because salvation is assured. Paul rightfully warns fellow Protestants not to fall into that trap. Reformers are well aware of that warning.
Apparently, Luther does not tell you what he tells the rest of us. You must realize by now that the ONLY people in the world who agree with your interpretation of Luther, HATE Luther. Does that tell you anything? :)
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.