Sure they do claim that. (Or, the Orthodox Church claims it for them.) Isn't that what defines "consensus patrum"? If any other group gets together and comes up with "dogma" or "doctrine", then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God.
But you claim (a) that 1 Peter was written by Apostle Peter (who was dead when that book was written!), and (b) that the words in 1 Peter are those of God Himself, no less.
God's word says that God's word is God breathed. In addition, 1 Peter begins with: " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, ...". God's word is good enough for me. To disbelieve this one must place a higher authority on some other source than God's word. What is that authority for you?
I am simply asking you (again for the nth time) to prove to me that it is God speaking through the author and that the author is indeed St. Peter even thought we know he was dead when 1 Peter was written (between 80-110 AD).
We have already established that attempting to "prove" anything concerning God's word to you is pointless. In addition, whatever your higher-than-the-Bible authority is that tells you that 1 Peter was written after Peter died is unknown to me. My particular Bible estimates that 1 Peter was written around 63-64 A.D. The note says:
"That the apostle Peter was the writer (as stated in 1:1) is confirmed by the many similarities between this letter and Peter's sermons recorded in Acts (1:20 and Acts 2:23; 4:5 and Acts 10:42). The same Silas who accompanied Paul on the second missionary journey was his amanuensis, or secretary (5:12; Acts 15:40)."
Obviously, denying the very authorship of the sacred scriptures is an easy predicate to denying the truth of anything inconvenient found in them. :)
1 Peter begins in a positively Pauline language:
Perhaps they were both right. :)
You will have to show me that God wanted you to be born on Long island (that it would really matter where you were born) and that the color of your eyes is also something God willed. Then you can also tell me why is He making so many suffering children in this world!
All this God willed because it happened. From the Westminster Confession:
Chapter 3. Of God's Eternal Decree. 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; (a) yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (c)
a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (a) yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (b)
a. 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mat 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels (a) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. (b)
a. Mat 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21. • b. Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. (a)
a. John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19.
5. Those of mankind that [Kosta, here would be a good use of "sic" since the correct word is "who". :)]are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (a) out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; (b) and all to the praise of his glorious grace. (c)
a. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:4, 9, 11; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Tim 1:9. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9. • c. Eph 1:6, 12.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. (a) Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (b) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, (c) and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. (d) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (e)
a. Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2. • b. 1 Thes 5:9-10; Titus 2:14. • c. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13. • d. 1 Pet 1:5. • e. John 6:64-65; 8:47; 10:26; 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; 1 John 2:19.
7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (a)
a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.
8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (a) that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. (b) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; (c) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel. (d)
a. Deut 29:29; Rom 9:20. • b. 2 Pet 1:10. • c. Rom 11:33; Eph 1:6. • d. Luke 10:20; Rom 8:33; 11:5-6, 20; 2 Pet 1:10.
At least there is some good scripture there on the sovereignty of God. Now, on the matter of why children suffer we can only know that God is in charge and in control of everything. We weren't built to have all the answers to God's ways, as you have pointed out from scripture. However, THAT we don't understand something IS NOT prima facie evidence that it is not of God, as you seem to imply.
And as far as where we are born, it could be just pure chance or luck (bad luck or good luck, depends). But we really don't know, do we?
Well, I know, and so do many others here on FR. :) There is no chance or luck.
FK, gravity is a property of matter. We don't know why bodies attract.
You just need the presupposition that there is an intelligent CREATOR. If we can get there, then we can accept that all matter has (reasonably consistent) properties. Gravity doesn't surprise me at all since it is a perfect part of the reality that we know. Without it, our reality would be completely different.
You can's say that something is "logical" if you don't know the cause of the effect.
The cause is God. :) You appear frustrated if things cannot be explained without God. I'm afraid I don't have good news for the future. :) Schaeffer wrote extensively about Renaissance philosophers and practitioners of what he called the "new theology" who were and are in the same boat.
Kosta: “The Church Fathers give their opinions. The Church Fathers do not claim God is speaking through them. They merely express their faith.”
FK: “Sure they do claim that. (Or, the Orthodox Church claims it for them.) Isn’t that what defines “consensus patrum”? If any other group gets together and comes up with “dogma” or “doctrine”, then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God.”
No individual Father claims that God speaks through him. The Church teaches that God speaks through the consensus patrum. And FK, in Orthodoxy, the hierarchy is not even remotely the final word on dogma, the People of God, the laity, are. You have to get this straight, FK! Its a very important point.
Individual Church Fathers never claimed that, FK. +Gregory of Nyssa, a student of Origen, for example, taught for a while Origen's universal salvation. +Augustine of Hippo taught that God created the world at once (based on his faulty understanding of Greek); his teaching on the original never became Church dogma (it was accepted in the west, but not in the entire Church).
Thus, not everything the Fathers wrote became doctrine. Only those things the whole church agreed were orthodox became official Church teaching, meaning that they reflect and are in agreement with the Holy Tradition, as passed on from Christ to the Apostles. Not that they are the words of God.
The Ecumenical Councils, which are part of the Holy Tradition, are believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit and their decisions are believed to be infallible based on the biblical promise that the Church will not fail, and not that God speaks through the bishops at the Council.
We are not talking Harry Potter here, okay?
If any other group gets together and comes up with "dogma" or "doctrine", then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God.
What "other group?" Heretics? Look, the Church allowed theological opinions, but there are limits. Just as there are some things your tradition will not allow and still consider someone a Baptist. Those other groups as you call them taught things that are not in conformity with what the belief concerning the Holy Trinity and Christ.
When they teach that God is not Triune, when they teach that Christ is a "lesser" God then the Father, when they teach that Christ is no God at all, etc., you better believe the Church will consider "less" and un-orthodox, heretical.
This is the twisted logic that betrays lack of authority, FK! If I make extraordinary claims I better have extraordinary evidence to prove my claims. What is your extraordinary evidence other than your a priori claim that it is from God? It's your faith! And that's no proof to anyone but you.
We have already established that attempting to "prove" anything concerning God's word to you is pointless
If you only offer your faith as any "proof," that's correct. I mean, you are offering your faith as the highest authority!
In addition, whatever your higher-than-the-Bible authority is that tells you that 1 Peter was written after Peter died is unknown to me. My particular Bible estimates that 1 Peter was written around 63-64 A.D.
The historical content of 1 Peter doesn't match the time, FK. Sorry. There were no exiles in those areas at his time (and I know he wasn't talking about those who may have settled other lands after the Babylonian exile, 500 years earlier! For one, they were not Christians!).
Also, curiously, 1 Peter never speaks of +Peter's personal experience with Christ, which should have been stronger than that of other disciples, yet all it talks about is suffering Christ (very Pauline).
And if Silas wrote the book (another wild theory which holds no water), then it was the teaching of +Paul and not +Peter who is behind 1 Peter, as is the book of Acts, since +Luke was merely following +Paul.
If anything, it was +Mark who followed +Peter, and it would have been more likely that +Mark, whose Greek was very crude, would have written 1 Peter instead of the sophisticated Greek of the current book.
And even if it were Silas who wrote it, it was not +Peter who did. +Peter and +Paul were not even physically close and their disagreement is well documented and remained unsettled among Christians for a long time, despite attempts in the book of Acts to smooth things over.
So, no matter how you turn it around, it the idea that it was +Peter who authored it holds very little water.
I guess you also claim the dinosaurs didn't exist. :)
We could also say that accepting everything that's in the Bible as an truth without any evidence to support it (other than your faith) opens up a can of worms where individual writers add or erase or say whatever they want to support their own agenda.
That is so meideval, as well as un-orthodox. In your formula evil is part of God's creation because it happens.
Yes and no. "That" is actually a universal pronoun (among other grammatical forms) that applies to persons as well as things. "Who" is more specific to persons.
And, conversely, it doesn't mean it is prima facie evidence that it is of God! Remember, the party that makes the claim must provide the evidence (the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence is required). Doubt is justified until proof is established.
You just need the presupposition that there is an intelligent CREATOR
There you have it! The a priori, blind faith, initial step. From there on, we can "explain" everything. That's positively medieval, FK. :)
The presupposition is that there is God and now we proceed to prove the presupposition by all means. That's not how one gets to the truth, FK. The cause is established by working retroactively towards the cause, based on available evidence.
Sure, we can make a reasonable assumption that if we see a house there must be a builder who built it and an architect who designed it. We can do the same thing about the Creation. But we don't know anything about either, except that something HAD to cause this to happen. As to who or what or how is unknown.
We agree on that. The rest is filled with human fancy.
You appear frustrated if things cannot be explained without God.
I am frustrated with those who attempt to explain everything through God. Saying the "cause is God" is not an explanation FK. If I scratch my head, is that also from God? Is God causing my head to itch? And if so, where is the poof?