That's British...we Orthodox have nothing like that.
Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
They could ask questions and His answers were either examples of good or evil or parables. They were His "groupies," His followers. They are referred to as His disciples (students, pupils), not His family. The only thing the Bible says about Christ's human family is that they thought He was not altogether right in His head.
We can't have any idea how they addressed Him in every case. We aren't told. John refers to himself as "the one Jesus loved". Do you see that as pure arrogance? Or, could that be a clear signal as to their relationship? And Jesus said:
Matt 12:48-50 : 48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers ?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers . 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matt 28:10 : Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."
John 20:17 : Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Why would Jesus speak like this? He could have just said "followers" or some such. This is pretty clear to me. He had real familial relationships with them. And how does Mariology fit into this? What would you say was the relationship between Jesus and Mary? How about between Mary and the Church or between you and Mary? Is it impersonal and non-familial?
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).
What? St. Paul IS part of the Bible, so they are both clear. Every time you declare Paul wrong you are saying the Bible, the one your Church claims to contain a modicum of truth, is wrong. Your Magisterium (or anyone else) can interpret him out of existence, but what he actually wrote is still correct. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Paul was taking things out of context and was wrong.
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?"
Because God does not derive "jollies" out of men doing evil. He was not "laughing" while Jesus hung dying on the cross. But it had to happen because He ordained it for a higher purpose. Besides, I thought that you would disagree with any notion of God being "grieved" about anything. Used here, I don't take that word in its common sense either.
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!
Christ said that He "could" have summoned an army of angels to deliver Him from the cross. He wasn't kidding. Plus, He specifically prayed for the will of the Father, and that was granted. Of course it was 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?"
I'm not suggesting that because I don't know the mechanics. GOD predestined that Jesus die on the cross. Of that we can be sure. If that is false, then when do you say the decision was made, and by whom specifically?
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.
How is this not satan holding power over God? What if God did not want to pay satan? I mean, did they strike a mutual agreement among relative equals? I've never understood this part of Orthodoxy. If God sacrifices to meet His own standards, then I can understand, but if God is all jammed up and "owes" another for the freedom of His children then it makes no sense to me.
........ And there are many such Christological problems in the New Testament, which is precisely why Christological heresies continue to this day; even heretics use the scripture to "prove" their heresy! Bible is very accommodating indeed.
I guess we heretics DO follow those NT Christological problems, that's why we're heretics. :) But some do have the Church to correct those Biblical errors and lay out the true faith. Us Bible-followers do tend to get in theological trouble when we trust that well-meaning, but flawed book. :)
Won't argue the "choice" part, but here does it say in the Bible that God made a plan?
You keep asking that and I keep answering it with scripture, and then you ask it again. Why? :)
“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.
How is this not satan holding power over God? What if God did not want to pay satan? I mean, did they strike a mutual agreement among relative equals? I’ve never understood this part of Orthodoxy. If God sacrifices to meet His own standards, then I can understand, but if God is all jammed up and “owes” another for the freedom of His children then it makes no sense to me.”
And yet for 2000 years this is what The Church in the East has believed and taught. This is the consensus patrum. The West believed the same thing though expressed a bit differently. Prior to the 16th century, contrary to subsequent theological spin, no one believed the bloody slaughter to satisfy the wrath of a monster god theory of theosis that some groups of reformed theologians have taught over the past 400 years. As I have said before, FK, given such a theology, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the West has fallen deeply into apostasy, atheism and secularism. If I thought for one minute that God was some divine blood thirsty Dagon Who created men in His image and likeness so he could torment the majority of them in everlasting hellfire, the massacre of His Son not really quite cutting it in the slaking of wrath area, why FK, I’d loath that monster with every fiber of my being.
Of course God looks at the heart. I was assuming that the 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.
So would it be true in Catholicism that if an atheist helps the old lady because "of a genuine love for her as a fellow human" and a Christian helps the old lady because of his love for God, that those two acts would count the same in God's eyes in terms of what is good and pleasing to God?
It is not true that we are never transformed by the faith, and it is demonstrably not true that even the devout sin regularly.
Of course we are transformed by faith, that is the Reformed position. But, you say that even the devout don't sin regularly???? That is very surprising to me. It's funny because when I hear one person say that he only sins once in a while, and another person say that he sins all the time but by the grace of God he is forgiven, I know which one is devout. :)
One of the reasons to venerate saints is to take courage of their example, because with them the sanctification has run a complete course.
And Saints are created in Heaven by a vote of the Magisterium on earth? I mean, to me it is a huge presumption to declare the salvation status of another as a fact. The Bible actually specifically warns us NOT to do that, but the Church does it all the time.
God, who is love, who needs nothing, and who is glorified without us, "needs" evil men to bring glory to Himself?
I tell you, it takes a special person to believe that.
Like what? Two legs, two eyes, speech, reason, etc? The fact is they are predistined by the Reformed God to be evil. Is evil imago dei?
Apparently our Reformed friends believe so.
Only if they are presumed to be in the image of God. Being that they were created to be evil that is an oxymoron.
Otherwise, the reprobate are no different than animals.
And since some men are evil, and since the Reformed God predestined everyone before the foundation of the world to be either good or evil, that means evil is also the image of God!
Just a reminder as we come upon the 5,000th post, that there will be a semi formal commemorative high tea served in the parlor just off of the chapel at 3:00 P.M.
FK: Your conclusion is pure speculation based on something EXTREMELY unlikely. Possible, yes, but likely, no way
I would say impossible, FK. The Christian God would never do that! But the Reformed theology teaches us that their God would, for his own "glory" no less!
I don't know what purpose of God the Holocaust served, I only know there WAS some purpose. It did not happen outside of God's control.
You admitted earlier that God willed evil as a necessary element in his "plan." Here you admit that God had his hand in the Holocaust, exerting divine control over it.
Are you really not capable of seeing where this theology comes from?
FK: I'm afraid you're wrong on almost every count. :) Of course all of those things matter. They absolutely matter to us, therefore they matter to God who loves us
On which account am I wrong? Are you now saying that Abraham, according to the Reformed theology, was not predestined to believe and appreciate his faith?
Are you now saying that our prayers and our faith somehow changes anything that hasn't already been determined by God before we even existed?
It is not an illusion, indeed deception (and we know who the father of those is!) that our prayers and faith make a difference if everything was predestined and we are simply acting out a pre-choregraphed script? We are simply reading the lines of the drama text the Reformed God wrote for us before we existed.
So, where am I wrong an almost every count here?
We KNOW that God gives good gifts and works for the good of those who love Him: Matt 7:7-11 : 7...Rom 8:28
Part of Reformed God's choreography...none of it changes anything.
God also sends his rain on the pious and impious, FK, none of which changes the fact that some are predestined to hell and others to heaven according to the reformed theology.
Prayers do not change GOD, but they certainly DO change things for us. When we pray in accordance with God's will we ALWAYS get the thing we are praying for
If it is in accordance with God's will, then it will happen whether we pray or not because the outcome was already predestined by the Reformed God before the foundation of the world. Our prayer is simply a litmus test if they are in accordance with God's will or not. They don't change the outcome.
We can pray for someone to get well, but if that person doesn't make it, then our prayers were not in accordance with God's will. If we didn't pray, that person would have died anyway because the Reformed God willed it so. So, the prayer changed nothing.
And, if the person does get well then our prayers did nothing either, since it was God's will to begin with that this person should get well, and our prayers changed nothing.
Therefore, in the Reformed religion, prayers do nothing and change nothing. They are either empty rituals, or meaningless show that God predestined us to perform.
We din't have semi-formal, high or low tea, BD. We just have tea. You must have us confused. :)
“We din’t have semi-formal, high or low tea, BD. We just have tea. You must have us confused. :)”
But what about all of these little cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off?
That's British...we Orthodox have nothing like that.
Both are doing precisely the same thing because love of neighbor is love of God and love of God is love of neighbor. (I am not saying that the neighbor is God, merely that one expression of love and the other expression of love are different expressions of the same Christian obligation). The difference is that the atheist doesn't know why is he doing the good works and the believer does. One could speculate that the atheist is more pleasing because he has a greater distance to cover before he can embrace God, -- he is a lost sheep that brings the pastor a greater joy.
ven the devout don't sin regularly????
Can't speak for everyone, but usually the sensitivity to sin grows (hence frequent confessions) while the gravity of sins declines. The devout would daily confess the daily failing to help EVERY lady across EVERY street, while the beginner in faith would struggle with sexual impulses, lying, bouts of anger, or perhaps even criminal deeds, once a year.
Saints are created in Heaven by a vote of the Magisterium on earth?
Of course not. The early saints were simply venerated without asking anyone, woven into liturgies, iconized, prayed to, and the miracles they worked served as sufficient proof of sanctity. When the Church got better organized, a process and even strict criteria were established, that, if anything, resembles not a vote but a court trial (with the devil's advocate arguing why the proposed person is not a saint). That trial lasts decades and at times centuries. Whatever the outcome, a saint is mot "made" by the papal Congregation for the Causes of the Saints' decision, he is recognized as beyond doubt one sanctified by Christ. Miracles, martyrdom, and spontaneous veneration of the faithful are all factors in the recognition. After all, if no one prays to the proposed saint, there is no way he can work a miracle attributable to him.
That's how the Orthodox saints are "made" to this day. One more example of Orthodoxy being the timless reflection of early Christianity.
We say otherwise? WHO does? Show me the sonofagun! I need some target practice.
It's just the way the free will position is presented. If all Jesus did was make it possible for us to come to Him, and if God never interferes, then, presumably, we come to God "on our own". I infer from that that we don't "need" Him for that decision, although every Catholic would say we absolutely need Him to get to that point. We would say that we need God for all of it.
It has to do with the parent-child analogy throughout the Bible. My impression is that the Catholic view is that we are respectful adult children, that is, we can still be greatly influenced by the parent, but are relatively independent. We see ourselves as relative toddlers, still fully dependent for everything.
[H]ere's an excerpt from a very interesting little book, Karl Adam, Roots of the Reformation: " 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." ......
Looks like it could be a good read. :) If more folks spoke like this our disagreements would be much less.
OK, I'll take that, thanks. From what I'm learning there are more than one from his cloth that would probably hate what they are known for today. Kind of like just thinking out loud one day and having it wind up on YouTube forever. That's tragic. :)
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.
That's pretty reasonable. I think of many directions, but not all since there were some who went off in directions that could not be Christianity by anyone's standards. :) But of course the RCC came into being and became a major force in Christianity.
I saw the Pope land today, but more importantly I saw the clip of him on the plane before it landed. I thought it was a beautiful gesture and one that scored a lot of points. Good for him. :)
Sure. In the study I am currently doing, Heidegger is portrayed as someone who believes that ultimately man himself is the starting point for understanding. God is unknowable, and therefore the best we can do is the best that man can do. Here is a passage from one of my study books: The God Who is There, by Francis Schaeffer:
Because he could not live with his existentialism, Heidegger as an older man moved his position. His new position rests on these points: (1) Something, Being, is there; (2) This something makes itself known; (3) Language is one with Being and makes Being known. We can never know rationally about what is there (brute fact), but language does reveal that something is there. Thus language is already itself an interpretation (a hermeneutic).
He postulates that there was long ago an era, before Aristotle (and before the entrance of rationality), when men spoke in Greek in such a way that the universe was speaking ideally. He then tries to transfer this to all of man's language - not the content of what is spoken, but simply the existence of language. In this way, the existence of language becomes for Heidegger the mysticism by which he tries to find relief from his previous existential dichotomy. It is semantic mysticism because it does not deal with content in language but simply language as such. Man speaking becomes the mouthpiece of the impersonal "What is" (Being). The impersonal and unknown Being speaks through the being who speaks (verbalizes) - that is, man.
This could be a quite correct view if there were any personality behind man to speak meaningfully to and through man. But because Heidegger is a rationalist and begins absolutely from himself, he cannot accept that a person behind man has spoken. So he is shut up to his particular form of semantic mysticism. The word language is a connotation word which seems to involve personality. The whole solution hangs on the connotation inherent in the one word language
At the end of his book What is Philosophy? he says that in our modern day this use of language is found particularly in the poet. So the conclusion of this view is that we are to listen to the poet. This does not mean we are to listen to the content of what the poet says, but to listen to the fact that there is a speaking which exists. That is all.
This is a good example of the (later) Heidegger that I am aware of. When I read this (and then throw in the Church here and there) I think "Kosta, Kosta, Kosta". :) In Heidegger, we have a gentleman who believes God is irrational and impersonal, who demands that everything be proved rationally by man's standards, who is not terribly concerned with the content of language (insert Bible), and who believes that mysticism is a good answer in many, many cases, even on important issues. I also see a few places in this passage where we could insert what I perceive as your view of the Church (the unknowable speaks through the hierarchy, etc.). I am simply saying that I have perceived a lot of this in your posting, but only somewhat so from Latin posters (and not really at all from MD). That's where my comment came from.
Regardig that Karl Adam quote, the Catholic Church does teach Grace Alone. What we don’t teach is Faith Alone. The first is biblical, the second is not.
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.