By presuming to be the mouthpieces of God.
Actually, that presumption was grabbed soon after all the Apostles were gone. Our clergies do not claim the supernatural powers that your clergies do (you and the Latins). Our leaders have no need for that sort of power to spiritually guide the flock. All they need are the indwelling Spirit and the Scriptures.
Being free is not a presumption of pride. We are not robots.
Perceived, experienced, or "relative" freedom is very different from "freedom to control" God. Once it is believed that man determines his own way and destiny then it certainly is a presumption of pride. That is, unless one believes in a weak or irresponsible God.
A change in human desire can happen for many reasons. We don't necessarily know why we change in the course of a lifetime.
If we change because we have been given faith, then we should know why. If we change from "bad" to "worse", then we will not know why.
FK: "But to some, our testimonies must be thrown out in toto, because they do not rise to the level of "proof" required by some who do not believe in such phenomena."
Yes, it burns you doesn't it, because if you had proof you would be the first to post it! So, you dismiss it. Conveniently. It's funny how we demand proof for everything else in life except what we believe. Amazing.
It used to "burn me". :) But now not so much. I know I have used my best arguments with you based on both Scripture and reason. So, I have just come to think that there exists no proof that you as an individual would accept. That part is out of my hands, and there is nothing I can do about it. All of us have different levels of proof that we will accept on certain things. Some accept proof on a preponderance, or a reasonable proof, or sometimes it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Still others might require it to a scientific certitude, by the measure of science at a given time. IOW, "proof" as a term is very relative. I believe that on matters of faith that God determines the exact level of "proof" required by each of His children. For example, some believe BECAUSE they have seen, while others believe without seeing.
So, I have just come to think that there exists no proof that you as an individual would accept. That part is out of my hands, and there is nothing I can do about it. All of us have different levels of proof that we will accept on certain things. Some accept proof on a preponderance, or a reasonable proof, or sometimes it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Still others might require it to a scientific certitude, by the measure of science at a given time. IOW, “proof” as a term is very relative.
I believe that on matters of faith that God determines the exact level of “proof” required by each of His children. For example, some believe BECAUSE they have seen, while others believe without seeing.
= = =
INDEED!
With relative hazards and . . . rewards accordingly vis a vis to our responses—particularly in our hearts—to the level of proof God provides.
He may have designed us to relate responsively to Him with say a level of proof at 5.0. Yet, if we stamp our feet and insist on our own way unless He provides a level of proof at 9.9 . . . He is not likely to be impressed nor compliant with our demands of Him on that score.
For others, He may provide miracle after miracle . . . either because it is His good Daddy-loves-blessing-some-kids-differntly-pleasure to do so in His relationship with that individual or—because He designed that individual to do best in that kind of context as they are being trained to rule in their slot and role in eternity.
imho, of course.
I can't speak for the Latin clergy (but I seriously doubt that they teach they have "supernatural powers"), but I would want you show me what "supernatural powers" the Orthodox clergy claim (and I know I have shown you to be wrong on this in the past).
You'll have to show me where the Church teaches that God gave man freedom to control God. The Church teaches that God gave man (limited) freedom to use (in His likeness) in exercising dominion over earth (in His image), not to "thwart" God. Our planet is way too small and insignificant, smaller than a dust particle, to have any effect on our Galaxy, let alone the Universe, or God, who is beyond everything.
Elder Cleopa, when asked what he thought of the feat of Yuriy Gagarin, the first man in space, said to the effect it was like a little bee flying out of his hive and going around it three times before returning. The rest of the world remained unshaken.
Our freedom affects us and whether we walk in God's light, or choose to walk in our fallen darkness. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross restored that freedom, which was lost with Adam's transgression.
The Reformed have concocted this myth that God is there to control everything on this little speck of dust. What He gave us was a gift and the recipients are free to do what they please with it, to their benefit or demise. Otherwise it's not a gift.
Really? And what makes you think you change for the "better" is really something God wants you to do and is not something you want to do to be on the "safe" side? If you are assured of your salvation, then sin boldly as Luther urges, and show confidence that nothing you do will affect it.
And who is the judge of whether you are a "better" person now and you are not just hiding behind your good deeds? Why, it is you, of course, who is the judge. We do the same thing, but we keep repenting because we never asusme that we are not "good enough" for God.
And if God is the micromanager in charge, then the turn for the "worse" must be God's will as well and by and of itself must be good because its from God, right? Isn't it the Reformed theology's premise that sin is something God uses to fulfill His plan? Then how can sin be bad?
Why, with this mindset, the reformed ought to be thanking and praising God when someone gets raped, killed or terminally ill! It's all good. But they sure don't act like they believe it's good!
No, because faith is not subject to proof or disproof. I have no problem with anyone's faith. I have a problem with those who state their faith as if it were a provable fact. When they say "the Bible is the word of God" instead of "I believe the Bible is the word of God." Or when they tell me "Indwelling spirit moves me" versus "I believe the indwelling spirit moves me."
Then, if the faith has no proof, as you begin to realize, then why argue faith? What do you have to offer as a convincing "proof" that what you believe is (absolutely) true? Your faith, which is—as you now admit—unprovable?
Bible thumpers obviously believe that their faith can be proven, which is why they forcfeed the Bible down everyone's throat, while admitting that God gives us faith! Imagine that! If faith is all we need, and it comes only from God, then why forceed the Bible on anyone as if that will make them believe? Obviously, because Protestant bibliolators think that the Bible can "prove" the faith. Otherwise, why would they quote verses as "proof?"
But you do realize that this business of "seeing without believing" is something Christianity had to introduce once the miracles stopped being shown on the regular basis. That's why this passage appears in John, which was written at the end of the century. It had to prepare the world to accept faith without miracles and without signs. But, think about it: if the whole world did not get converted when the miracles were occurring on a regular basis, why would it accept something on blind faith?
But, let me ask you something: what would it take for you to believe (and willing to die for that belief) that a homeless man in a New York subway, begging, is Christ almighty?
Good answer, FK. Thanks.