Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That's ridiculous, FK. I simply said that if Christ in his humanity does not have the potential to sin, then he is not fully human. The difference between Christ and Adam is simply that Christ chose not to sin, that he exhibited perfect obedience.
The Church teaches that Christ is one Person with two unmixed and unconfused natures and wills, one divine and one human. The fact that there is full divinity and full humanity in this hypostatic union is not to be understood as one unduly influencing the other, but rather that each is perfect independently of the other.
Otherwise, Christ's suffering, temptation and death and resurrection would be a charade.
Double predestination is simply a one-term expression of two ideas. The first idea is that God is sovereign and He predestines those who will be saved. The Bible is clear that this is so...Rom 8:29-30, Eph 1:4-6, Eph 1:11,
You mean, St. Paul is clear about that? What Paul says in those verses is an "amalgamated" mish-mash of different saying, mostly found in his other works, and a few out-of-context quotes either from St. Matthew or Deuteronomy (the first one uses the kingdom, which is meant in the Jewish messianic sense, and the second one refers specifically to the Jews; St. Paul uses them as heavenly kingdom and to all respectively).
Double or single predestination, taken in the Reformed sense, simply means that God pre-fabricated some people to be good people and also some to be evil. There is no hint of that anywhere in Genesis. If anything, Genesis 6 tells us that God was "grieved" over man's wickedness. If this were all his predestination, then why would he be "grieved?"
What does the word "sacrifice" mean in Orthodoxy? You appear to deny that Christ gave His life willingly. Who do say was the first cause of His death?
Oh, gee, now we have corrupted even the first cause concept! If Christ died because the Father pre-destined him to die, then Christ certainly didn't do it willingly! You are suggesting that God (the Father), who is without cause, and through whom everything was made, predestined the Son as well! How can that be when the Word was with God and was God in the "beginning?" (beginning of what?).
What Orthodoxy says is that Christ took the sins of the whole world and offered himself to Death in exchange for our captivity. That was his sacrifice. Death couldn't hold him and was thus made powerless. This provided freedom for all humanity, past, present, and future, to come to God once the chains of death have been removed on the Cross. Whether we come to God or not is not is our choice. We believe that God knows our choices but does not make them for us. Nor does he force them on us.
Unlike St. Paul, who keeps saying that God [sic] raised Jesus, we believe that Jesus died willingly and that he rose on his own, being God. But if the Father is greater than Jesus [cf Jn 14:28], or if he owes his life to the Father[cf Jn 6:57], or if the Father predestined the Son to die, as the Bible says or suggests, then we have a problem. And there are many such Christological problems in the New Testament, which is precisely why Christological heresies continue to this day; even eretics use the scripture to "prove" their heresy! Bible is very accommodating indeed.
It's not a matter of need, but of His choice. The Bible says He had a plan so we believe He had a plan
Won't argue the "choice" part, but here does it say in the Bible that God made a plan?
That is what the Reformed theology suggests.
Of course God looks at the heart. I was assuming tha tthe hypothetical atheist helps a lady across the street out of a genuine love for her as a fellow human. If he (or a Christian, or anyone else) does it for some ulterior motive, then, of course, not.
That is how I truly see well developed Christians. That is, totally dependent on God for everything. How can it be that even the most devout amongst us still sins regularly? It's because we are still like that little girl compared to God. We NEED Him, not just sometimes, but at ALL times. This is one of my biggest disagreements with the Latin faith.
We are totally dependent on God for everything, but we also grow in holiness, just like the girl in your example grows both as a cook and spiritually. It is not true that we are never transformed by the faith, and it is demostrably not true that even the devout sin regularly. One of the reasons to venerate saints is to take courage of their example, because with them the sanctification has run a complete course.
I agree. LOL! I was going to offer the alternative of "God's nature and essence would prevent Him from ever trying", but I'm not sure if that helps at all. :)
And once again it seems that if we want to see what the fullness of God's wisdom, power, justice, beauty, and joy are, a man on a cross is NOT a man limited, but the Son of Man blossoming as one who came to do God's will. NOT in any meaningful way a limitation.
AMEN, MD! :)
That amalgamation stuff seems very very wrong to me. Not that I pretend to understand the Chalcedonian definition, but amalgamation sure doesn't come to my mind as a word to use about the two natures in one person. YEAH, I can appreciate the avoidance of "dividing the person" but that sure sounds like confusing (Literally, that seems to be what 'amalgamate' means - to make a tertium quid by smooshing (a term much loved of the Fathers, I'm sure) up two other things. Wrong-O! (IMHO, of course.)
But Again, I only was referring to, like, the first chapter or so of Mere Christianity not to the entire Lewis corpus, be it never so amalgamated.
We NEED Him, not just sometimes, but at ALL times. This is one of my biggest disagreements with the Latin faith.
We say otherwise? WHO does? Show me the sonofagun! I need some target practice.
I keep saying everything we have is gift. I have taught and preached (before the Vatican smacked down us lay-preachers) that if God were somehow to turn his gaze from us, as the psalmist in a desperation I quite understand asks, we would go up more quickly than a spent match. Not even a cinder left.
From a truly humble web < href="http://www.rockhousefarm.com/vftalk.shtml">site, with lots to be humble about
[H]ere's an excerpt from a very interesting little book, Karl Adam, Roots of the Reformation:Yeah, that's just about grace and stuff, but it seems to me really to be about everything. Whatever we may be said in any respect to "have" we do not in fact have. It may be "in us" but it sho' ain't ours. Such justice as we may "have" "dwells in us by faith and hoe", and anything else we "have" is a gift maintained by the constant giving of God, with whom it is always "Yes!"In fact, the phrase "salvation by faith alone" has never been alien to Catholic theology. It was in fact always Catholic teaching that we can only be saved by Christ alone, that is is only God's unmerited, unmeritable grace that lifts us out of the state of sin and death into that of divine sonship, and that even the so-called "meritorious acts" which the redeemed perform in the state of justice are only "meritorious by grace," attributable, that is, the the love of Christ working in us and through us. Insofar as the justification of man is God's work alone, we could speak with Luther of "extrinsic" justice. It is indeed also interior and personal. Luther too, in that same commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, affirms that this extrinsic justice "dwells in us by faith and hope," that it is "in us" though it does not belong to us (in nobis est, non nostra), that it thus, according to the Council of Trent, "inheres" in justified men (atque ipsis inhaeret, sess, 6, cap. 7, can 11).
"Yes" as in, yes you may inhale, yes your lungs and hemoglobin may carry out the oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange, yes, the blood will carry the oxygen to wherever it's needed, and yes, when it gets there it will do some good." and so forth. The "Evangelical poverty" undertaken by some is, inter alia, just a kind of prophetic "sign" for the rest of us, that we live from one instant to another by God's favor alone.
He also has a tendency to give everyone a little credit, and to appear perfectly neutral. That is just too "attenuated" for my Orthodox mind (and I imagine to any Catholic as well), because God does not like lukewarm. God is fire and fire is hot! Ecumenism is lukewarm. We are not some universal "church," but Church Militant.
I think Lewis was trying to find a "Unified Theory" of Christianity, sort of like the attempt at having an "amalgamated", unitary Gospel (something that was tried in the early life of the Church and failed).
The Chalcedonian 'definition' is based on the belief that Christ is a perfect God and a perfect Man, to which I add, without undue influence of either on the other.
For if Christ is a perfect Man because He was getting "help" from his divine nature, then what effort was it for him to resist sin and obey God's law perfectly? And how can we imitate him then?
That in an of itself tells us that amalgamation would prevent the Church from formulating Christ as perfect God and perfect man.
Amen to your whole post, Dr. E. I think many of their beliefs are by necessity, despite scripture, in order to protect the sovereignty of both the individual as against God, and the collective that rules over the individuals. If God is irrational and unknowable, there is nothing for them to cling to but man himself as the starting point. That's all they have left. To deny the complete sovereignty of God is to deny His universal answers. Man by design is built to search for those answers and so the only place for them to find those answers is in the hierarchy of the Church. Wholly inadequate, of course, but that's the price they pay.
[Ephesians 2:8-10] Of course this perspective takes the power of salvation away from men and magisteriums and returns it to God alone, so I can understand why some would prefer to muddy the waters and paint God’s world in shades of gray.
++++
Amen to your whole post, Dr. E. I think many of their beliefs are by necessity, despite scripture, in order to protect the sovereignty of both the individual as against God, and the collective that rules over the individuals. If God is irrational and unknowable, there is nothing for them to cling to but man himself as the starting point. That’s all they have left. To deny the complete sovereignty of God is to deny His universal answers. Man by design is built to search for those answers and so the only place for them to find those answers is in the hierarchy of the Church. Wholly inadequate, of course, but that’s the price they pay.
==
WELL PUT, imho.
Thanks.
If you don’t have standing armies and want those that do to acquiesces to your will what better way is there than to teach you must do as the Church says or your soul is in danger of being damned? If you rely on willing cooperation among indwelt Christians you can’t guarantee what will happen. However, if you develop a coercive theology in which you control the “keys” to salvation compliance is easier to achieve.
We forget history. As the church of Rome became dominant the aristocracy also began to take on a large role in it’s leadership. The very thing that made it strong also made it very susceptible to manipulation, the mono-bishophoric structure, which was not the structure of the Apostolic church.
= =
Excellent points.
Thanks.
Making “man the measure” of Truth is a prescription for human personal and social disaster, wherein the center no longer holds; wherein the Beast continues its relentless slouching towards Babylon....
++++
So very true.
= =
INDEED.
That's surprising to me. But then, I have only seen Heidegger as described and quoted by a Reformer. I had the impression that the Orthodox "should" love him, and that Latins would like him well enough. (?)
...... So I don't think it's wrong to say that God acting through the Church formed the canon.
Church of all believers? Sure. Exclusively the Apostolic Church alone? I can't go there. :) If it's of any help, I COULD say that God led the Apostolic leaders to ratify what the Church of all believers (including those same folks) had already approved.
So when somebody asks what do you guys think the Church says about such and such, he's likely to get an answer which is a snapshot of the precipitate. Then if he even acknowledges the beauty of the crystal, he will still complain that it's all so lifeless, unyielding, and rigid.
But among beautiful crystals, I would say the Bible is like a diamond, and thus superior in the cases that "appear to be" different.
Now THAT's interesting. Heidegger certainly had a strong influence on Tillich and Macquarrie, FWIW. I think Catholics and Orthodox view him with suspicion.
The seriousness behind my frivolity is that Aquinas is making a comeback, and certainly at Thomas Aquinas College he is VERY big (surprise, surprise). My spy there tells me they thought John Paul II was sort of radical.
Church of all believers? Sure. Exclusively the Apostolic Church alone? I can't go there. :)
Well, of course the winners writ ethe history and all that, but at least the NT canon was settled by those whom WE think of as Catholic -- and in response to other canons suggested by those who definitely were not. I get the feeling that you guys think of Christians in, say the 3rd or 4th century as going off in all directions, while i guess I think of almost the same thing but also the gradual arising, in fits and starts, of a central something or other around which the Church was slowly "organized", if you'll pardon the over-statement.
Here’s a thought: Humans are NOT created in God’s image. Consider this, from Gen 5:
1) This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3) When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
See the difference between those who were created in God’s image (Adam and Eve) and those created in the image of their earthly (fallen) parents (all who follow Adam and Eve)? Once Adam and Eve fell, they were sinful people who could not pass on the “image of God”. When the One Who is the perfect image of God (the Lord Jesus) came, He brought back to Earth the image of God. All who are born again in Christ are created as new creatures in the image of God.
Sinful reprobates (Romans chapter 1) are not created in the image of God. Sinful people who are apathetic towards God are not created in His image. Until saved, we are His enemies (Romans 5) and not “in His image”. But once born again, we are new (2 Cor 5) and bear His image (the Spirit of the living God) within our soul.
Basically, I think what you’re saying is that every human created after Adam and Eve was not created by God,they were created by Adam who has replaced God’s power to create due to sin?
This heretical idea would mean that God did not will anyone else after Adam and Eve,thus making Adam the creator of every human soul after original sin.
Do you believe this,or do you believe that God willed us?
God is the One Who can create anything - man simply discovers. God created creatures and plants to pro-create themselves, after their own kind, as God had established.
To say that humans are not created in the image of God is NOT the same as saying God does not have a will regarding the birth or life of man. But Scripture says God created Adam and Eve in His image, and Scripture says all offspring are created in the image of their Earthly parents.
Here’s a thought: Humans are NOT created in God’s image. Consider this, from Gen 5:
1) This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3) When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
See the difference between those who were created in God’s image (Adam and Eve) and those created in the image of their earthly (fallen) parents (all who follow Adam and Eve)? Once Adam and Eve fell, they were sinful people who could not pass on the “image of God”. When the One Who is the perfect image of God (the Lord Jesus) came, He brought back to Earth the image of God. All who are born again in Christ are created as new creatures in the image of God.
Sinful reprobates (Romans chapter 1) are not created in the image of God. Sinful people who are apathetic towards God are not created in His image. Until saved, we are His enemies (Romans 5) and not “in His image”. But once born again, we are new (2 Cor 5) and bear His image (the Spirit of the living God) within our soul.
The correct meaning is to be found in the finesse, in the context of the language in whcih it was written. The Apostles used the Septuagint in over 93% of their references to the Old Testament, and wrote the New Testament in Greek. It is therefore not in English, but in Greek that the finesse lies.
The Church understood the difference between an image and likeness from the beginning and never considered them to be one and the same, because they are very distinct concepts in the language of the Bible.
We are created in God's image, as sovereigns on earth, as "top dogs." But God also created man in His likeness, which was lost in the Fall.
The image (Greek eikona, an icon) is a symbol, not to be confused with the object itself. The likeness (Greek homoios) clearly means more than a symbol; it is an actual similitude in quality and not simply an abstract representation.
Thus, while an icon (image) of Christ is merely a symbolic representation of our Lord, a person who is Chirst-like exhibits qualities and characteristics that are like those of Christ Himself; in other words that man is transformed, or restored (to a degree) to man's original state through grace. It is through these individuals that we see less of them and more of Christ.
This distinction is completely lost in English, with image and likeness being practically synonymous and naturally confused as one and the same thing. If this were true, then Gen 1:26 would be redundant.
I would like you to show me why would the Orthodox embrace someone as alien as Heidegger? I think your whole concept of Orthodoxy, after all this time on FR, is incredibly impoverished and dead wrong.
I will let Mad Dawg reply to this from a Catholic perspective.
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.