Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It's not a slogan Kosta. "We teach what Christ and the Apostles taught", is true. Are you saying here that you don't believe any of the Bible or that you do believe part of it but only because the Church gave it to us?
Do you believe any part of the Old Testament. If not, how do you justify those from the time of the New Testament writings, like Jesus, Paul, etc., that referred to the Books, prophets and writings of the Old Testament. Is this just how you believe or is it a teaching of your Church? If it is a teaching of your Church how do they say everything began. What is their idea of the beginning up until the time of Christ? What do you and your Church base your beliefs on if it isn't what Protestant/Baptists base theirs on?
That was a lot of questions and if you don't have the time or inclination to answer them maybe you can refer me to a good site. I really do want to know.
Great find, Ping-Pong. Thanks for posting. :)
One method of interpretation is that when a Bible verse appears to contradict observed reality, one can simply declare the Bible verse to be wrong, and go with whatever man-made tradition says on the subject. Another method is to recognize that an interpretation of the verse is necessary since the Bible cannot be "wrong". In the case of Psalm 103:3, it could either be David referring to his own illnesses that God has healed, or it could be a general statement that whenever we ARE healed of an illness, it is God we have to thank for it. This does not stretch the verse out of proportion in any way.
Let me just say, given these conditions, that you will just have to do your own research on these issues. You can't have an opinion based on ignorance, and I can't provide you with the complete wisdom of the Church and all the reasons we do things the way we do thing.
At best I can direct you with a link here and now, or with quotes as a starter. But it seems you have made up your minds and you are not carrying this discussion to find out more but to slam dunk what you don't know and don't understand.
Study Orthodoxy and then make educated comments. The Church has taught that God is passionless from the beginning. You can disagree, but that's what the Church taught. Now, you can make an ignorant comment as part of your disagreement, but your disagreement will not change the fact that the Church did teach that, that God is not a moody old man
If you are going to throw at me your Bible readings and your personal interpretations (being that you are also fallible) then you are not really interested in learning more about Orthodoxy and why we immerse three times versus once, but you are interested a criticizing and belittling. As I said, in my response to both of you I am not soliciting your opinions. I am merely directing your attention as to what the Church believed from the beginning.
Whether it is Virgin-Mary, whether it is Holy Trinity, dual nature of Christ, sacraments, you name it, everything is derived from scriptures. Trouble is your scripture and ours are not the same and so because you can't find it in yours and you dismiss ours, you conclude that ours is extra-scriptural.
So, if you are interested in learning why and how and what the Church believed, I can provide you with that information. If you are seeking that information only to give me your 21-century American Baptist/Protestant "angle" based on your Bible reading and personal opinion, I have to respectfully decline.
If you give me reasons and historical background to the dissenting opinions of those with whom you share some of your private theology, trying to educate me (mnot wioth your opinions but with facts) I will be most appreciative.
And, again, be mindful that I can't provide you encyclopedic knowledge of the 2,000-year-old Church. You will just have to do it yourself, if you are really interested.
Having said that, The Orthodox Church has from 33 AD taught that God is passionless and free of any corruption or change, envy , hate or bias. As a starter, you can find more from St. John of Damascus, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 9th century, the last desert father. He did not formulate, but he did concisely express our faith.
Yes.
If not, how do you justify those from the time of the New Testament writings, like Jesus, Paul, etc., that referred to the Books, prophets and writings of the Old Testament
They were (partially or fully) inspired by God.
Is this just how you believe or is it a teaching of your Church?
Both. Igf my belief clashes with that of the Church I yield to the combined wisdom and knowledge of the Church.
If it is a teaching of your Church how do they say everything began
In the Beginning
What is their idea of the beginning up until the time of Christ?
Gradual revelation of God to the Hebrews.
What do you and your Church base your beliefs on if it isn't what Protestant/Baptists base theirs on?
What was taught by Jesus and the Apostles. Without those beliefs the Church could not put together the New Testament. So, the Church knows what its doing and what its' teaching.
That was a lot of questions and if you don't have the time or inclination to answer them maybe you can refer me to a good site. I really do want to know
A good summary is here
An exceptional theological work by +John of Damascus is here
Yes it could be but we really don't know, do we? David could have used the personal pronoun 'my' but he didn't, did he?
or it could be a general statement that whenever we ARE healed of an illness, it is God we have to thank for it. This does not stretch the verse out of proportion in any way
But we could also say that we have to thank God when we are not healed, because everything we have is given to us and the only one in charge is God.
Do you not thank God for illness or disaster or bad news? Is it not His doing also? Do you not die on His time, and by His Will?.
I think the absurdity of "understanding" the Bible by ceasless rationalizations is obvious.
Thank you Kosta. I'm going to the beach with my family today but I'll try to look at some of the information tomorrow.
Have a terrific day my friend.......Ping
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
So, as usual, for every quote there is a counter-quote ...
I don't think this is counter to Matt 7:28-29 at all. The key to your quote is what is meant by "people" and "them". We know for sure that it can't mean "all people who have heard Jesus teach", since Jesus did not always teach in ONLY parables. So here, the reference could be to only that particular crowd by the lake. Or, and supported by Jesus' answer, perhaps the reference is to the elect versus the non-elect. Obviously the intent was for the elect to understand (or eventually understand) the parables. The parables obviously were not meant only for the disciples, they were meant for all of the elect. So, here the real point is (could be) that the parables are meant to confound the non-elect and edify (sanctify) the elect.
Also, please note St. Luke's version of the Sermon [6:20]
And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
which clearly suggests He was addressing the Apostles, not the crowd. St. Luke also makes no mention of crowds being amazed.
It "could" suggest that, but it is by no means clear. It could also equally mean simply that Jesus first looked at the disciples while He spoke to everyone. That commonly happens in speeches. This latter interpretation preserves the consistency of scripture so I find it more likely. ...... That Luke did not mention the crowds being amazed proves nothing. If he had said that the crowds were bored, now that might be a problem. :)
Seems to me that someone may have added the last line in Matthew 7 at a latter date, which is not uncommon occurrence in the Bible.
LOL! A classic ploy of CHAOS, no doubt. :)
None (in ANSB, NIV or KJV), using the phrase "follow the scripture."
Do you mean that because that particular phrase isn't there, that the idea is not taught? I doubt it. Here are just a few of tons of examples:
Mark 12:10-11 : 10 Haven't you read this scripture : "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" ......[Jesus specifically endorses/commands reading the scripture.]
John 2:22 : After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.......[Believing the scripture is put side by side with Jesus' own words.]
John 7:38 : Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
John 10:35 : If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—......[If Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken, is it possible He thinks we should follow it?]
James 2:8 : 8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture , "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. ......[James seems to think we should follow scripture.]
Of course there are many more, along with all the references to God's word (not Word). Those references tell us that God's word must be followed and heeded. I believe that the Orthodox Church fully recognizes the scriptures as "God's word", so the Bible obviously teaches that we should follow it.
At no point does he say to individuals or crowds "go read the Scripture."
See above.
I think that is made abundantly clear. However, it is clear that He was making a distinction between the Apostles and the people. After all, the Apostles were later given the keys to bind and loosen. Thus, the priesthood was given the secret knowledge (gnosis) of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is easy to see where the Gnostics get their scriptural "evidence" as well.
It "could" suggest that, but it is by no means clear. It could also equally mean simply that Jesus first looked at the disciples while He spoke to everyone
Actually, it is a real stretch to suggest the last part, because the way the verses are worded it is clear that the crowds were not addressed. Thus
Mat 5:1-2 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying
Luk 6:20 Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor
In Mat 5:1-2 the crowds are separated by a full stop. The 'them" here is a pronoun for the disciples who came and sat down next to Him. This is basic English comprehension, FK.
In Luk 6:20 any doubt lingering from Mat 5:1-2 is dispelled, because he is looking directly as the disciples and addressing them.
Which makes my suggestion of Mat 7:29 being inserted at a latter date very plausible. Especially, because there is ample precedent to insertions, deletions and additions elsewhere in the Bible.
God established His Church on a given date with words "I will build My Church on this rock..," FK. There was no Church prior to that because God's revelation was not complete. The Jews did not have a Church.
The "rock" Jesus spoke of was Himself. What kind of "rock" upon which to build a Church is a guy who denied Christ three times, among many other sins? The "rock" here obviously had to be stronger than that. Here is proof:
Eph 2:19-20 : 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
Note no mention of Peter individually. Is God's Church built on just any old rock, or is it built on a cornerstone? Of course the Apostles and prophets are extremely important to God's Church, but the most important component, the thing God's Church was BUILT upon, was Jesus Himself. Therefore, God has always been the authority of His Church.
You want a church of saints, not sinners.
I'm talking about leadership here, along the lines of "Luke 12:48 ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Leaders MUST have higher standards. Since Apostolic hierarchs have apparently been given MUCH MUCH more than anyone else, including all Protestant/Baptist clergy, etc., I would expect to see a difference. I'm just saying that I don't, especially given recent news items, also fully involving hierarchy, having nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. But, it is still the same boat as I understand it in terms of Apostolic succession.
Their burden is much bigger than ours, as they are expected to be above reproach.
Right.
I am sure the Bar Association expects you to be a lawyer above reproach, but do lawyers who are not invalidate your profession? Or do they simply bring condemnation on themselves?
The latter, but it is you who are mixing apples and oranges. This is not the same as wayward priests and hierarchy. To THEM God has given much spiritually (obviously not to lawyers :), and much is demanded/expected/required, in front of God. So says the scripture. If I were to disgrace the legal profession, IOW blend in with the crowd, then that would be on me, but I wouldn't be affecting other people's souls. Given the Apostolic beliefs on the importance of the hierarchy to the process of salvation, it would seem that if corruption was systemic, it would challenge those beliefs. Are THESE the people God REALLY left in charge of His flock, over and above all others, including other Christian clergy? If I was considering becoming an Apostolic, that would be a very hard question for me.
Just because we are good professionals doesn't mean we are spiritually pure or morally perfect.
Yes, the two have nothing to do with each other. That is, UNLESS the profession happens to be Christianity. No one expects perfection, but as we agree, scripture DEMANDS a higher standard. It would definitely say something about the legal system if the average untrained layman was a better lawyer than THOUSANDS (a noteworthy percentage) of trained attorneys. However, this is exactly what we see, by comparison, in Apostolic history. Plus, while we can compare the training of lawyers and priests, the priests were given so MUCH MORE by God in terms of powers and responsibility accorded upon the Holy Orders.
Their margin of "error" that can be tolerated is much narrower than that of average laity.
Yes, in theory that is what I would expect too. Now, I know that you do not speak for the Latins, and have no duty to defend them, but in terms of Apostolic succession you know the next thing I would say. :)
Ghandi was a "godly man" and I am sure God has a special place for him. He was motivated by Christ and walked in His steps even thought he did not profess Christianity. Ghandi was a lot more Christ-like than most Christians I have known.
Really, you figure Ghandi to be in Heaven? You do realize he was a lawyer, right? :) Anyway, of course neither of us can know, but his case doesn't look good to me based on his beliefs. From Wiki:
Gandhi was born a Hindu and practiced Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal, and rejected all efforts to convert him to a different faith. ...... Some of his comments on various religions are: "Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. ...... Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied: "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
Hmmmm. I don't know, Kosta. Doesn't sound too good to me. :) He was fairly presented the Gospel and openly rejected Christ. Now, if salvation WAS based on works, then he would certainly have a great chance. But, the Bible doesn't teach that at all. Just "loving" others, in a vacuum, doesn't come close.
Ghandi was a lot more Christ-like than most Christians I have known.
NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE, can be Christ-like who does not accept Christ. Otherwise, Christ is not needed to reach theosis. I know you don't think that. :)
Those darn drooling Hebrews! :)
Of course He is. He is addressing scribes and priests, FK. It was their job to read the scriptures.
John 2:22 : ...Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken...[Believing the scripture is put side by side with Jesus' own words]
He is speaking to His disciples, the new priesthood. I would hope they would know and read the scriptures, and believe them as they believed His word. But in John 20:9 it is clear that they didn't:
"For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead."
Apparently all the reading and hearing didn't help them until they saw Him. It was only after they saw Him that they believed the scriptures and His words. All the miracles, witnessing and scripture verses prior to that did nothing. Makes you wonder. But the clincher was seeing.
John 7:38 : Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
Yes, He is making a clear connection to the Old Testament verses (Isa 44:3, 55:1, 58:11). He is simply affirming that he is the one mentioned in the OT. And verse 39 makes it clear that He is speaking of those who believe in Him and therefore do not need to be convinced. His mention of the scripture was addressed to the pharisees as a matter of fact.
John 10:35 : If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—...[If Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken, is it possible He thinks we should follow it?]
If the scripture cannot be broken, it doesn't matter if we follow it or not, does it? Besides, one does not read the scriptures in order that he may believe, but because he already believes.
James 2:8 : 8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture , "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right...[James seems to think we should follow scripture]
He is addressing the believers too who, by definition, already follow the scripture.
I believe that the Orthodox Church fully recognizes the scriptures as "God's word", so the Bible obviously teaches that we should follow it.
The Orthodox Church recognizes that the scriptures are God-inspired human creation, expressing inerrant spiritual truth, but not free from human error. The Jews believe that Torah was dictated to Moses word-by-word and therefore actually "written" by God using Moses' hand and therefore free from any kind of error. I am pretty sure the Protestant/Baptist communities believe the same for the entire Bible.
My point was that God never tells us "read the Bible." The quotes you give me use the Bible as the proof of what He was saying. Not an invitation to read the Bible.
We like to think the "rock" (not the "Rock") was faith which he received from the Father at that moment (a revelation). That faith is the foundation united in Christ. Peter became the first because he was the last. Peter is the living example of the faith delivered that even the worst sinner can become a saint, that even the worst sinner can be saved. St. Peter actually gives all of us hope, because we should all recognize ourselves in him.
Of course the Apostles and prophets are extremely important to God's Church, but the most important component, the thing God's Church was BUILT upon, was Jesus Himself. Therefore, God has always been the authority of His Church
How could He always be the head of His Church when there were always no believers? The church is based on faith in Jesus Christ, for which one needs believers in Jesus Christ for a Church (ekklesia, gathering of the faithful) to exist. The Head existed, but not the Body. The High Priest existed, but not the congregation. God was always authority unto Himself, but his authority in the Church was not when the Church was not.
I'm talking about leadership here, along the lines of "Luke 12:48 ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be basked."
I hope you recognize yourself included in that statement. When you can tell me you have not failed, even once, I will reconsider.
Leaders MUST have higher standards. Since Apostolic hierarchy have apparently been given MUCH MUCH more than anyone else, including all Protestant/Baptist clergy, etc., I would expect to see a difference
I don't care how much they have been given, they are all sinners. Sinners are fallible. Some are less fallible than others, but all are fallible as human beings, and all need a Savior. And they fall much lower than you and I, precisely because they have been given so much more. But don't you think it should be up to God to pronounce judgment on them rather than my sinful self or yours? Is it no like one criminal calling another criminal a criminal? Or one fool calling someone else foolish?
So, then you do agree that God ordained His priesthood apart from the priesthood of all believers?
If I were to disgrace the legal profession, IOW blend in with the crowd, then that would be on me, but I wouldn't be affecting other people's souls.
It would affect those who love you, your clients, etc. proportionally to the number of souls you touched.
Given the Apostolic beliefs on the importance of the hierarchy to the process of salvation
How is hierarchy involved in the process of our salvation? You need to read the link I gave Ping-Pong on the Eastern Orthodox Church and look up salvation and escathology. I don't think you will find that priests somehow determine our salvation.
Are THESE the people God REALLY left in charge of His flock, over and above all others, including other Christian clergy? If I was considering becoming an Apostolic, that would be a very hard question for me.
Is Judas? besides, a dishonest priest does not invalidate his consecrations with his dishonesty. His orders are still valid; it is his life that is sinful, not the keys God gave him.
Yes, the two have nothing to do with each other. That is, UNLESS the profession happens to be Christianity. No one expects perfection, but as we agree, scripture DEMANDS a higher standard
You are making an unjustified exception. First, the Orthodox do not consider their priests and bishops as "holy" by virtue of their profession.
The profession itself, as a rule, attracts pious, humble individuals, who wish to dedicate their life to God and give up a lot. That is a noble thing, like serving your country, but it is not holy in and of itself.
"Holiness" is implied in the Roman Catholic world much more than in the East. Our ordinary priests are married family men. We expect honesty and humility and authority from them when it comes to ensuring proper liturgical life and spiritual leadership, and that includes living and exemplary life and not being subject of family disturbance, moral trespassing, etc.
Their ordination simply gives them the keys, as your computer specialists have keys to make your computers clean and safe. It requires dependability and credibility, honesty and trustworthiness, but not holiness.
You don't expect your public officials to be drunks, and drug abusers, do you? What about your doctors and lawyers? We are all held to a higher standard when we are "ordained" to discharge a given public office, and being a priest/bishop is among the highest, but no one demands saint!
It would definitely say something about the legal system if the average untrained layman was a better lawyer than THOUSANDS (a noteworthy percentage) of trained attorneys. However, this is exactly what we see, by comparison, in Apostolic history
I will ask you to back this up with more than your opinion. I reject this as a strawman.
I have no clue. But if all people on earth were like Ghandi, I believe the earth would be a lot more 'godly' then it is now.
You do realize he was a lawyer, right?
Then he is definitely in hell! :)
He was fairly presented the Gospel and openly rejected Christ. Now, if salvation WAS based on works, then he would certainly have a great chance. But, the Bible doesn't teach that at all. Just "loving" others, in a vacuum, doesn't come close
I agree. But he was honest. Honest failure is not unforgivable. God's mercy is greater than our ability to forgive.
NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE, can be Christ-like who does not accept Christ. Otherwise, Christ is not needed to reach theosis. I know you don't think that
It takes a lot more than accepting Christ to be Christ-like. Most people who do don't strike me as Christ-like at all, myself being first among them!
I like that question! Yes, there is spiritual warfare. No need for quotation marks. We do battles every day in the spiritual realm. Satan is our enemy, but he does not engage us.
But is not satan the great tempter? If satan actively tempts me personally, then I would call that full engagement. Wouldn't you? If satan fully engages, then he is every bit the enemy that any Islamofascist with a bomb-belt is, indeed he is worse. Now, I would never pray for satan as my enemy because I know from scripture that it would be pointless. However, among my earthly enemies, I don't know if any will convert at some later time, so praying for them is worthwhile. That does not change, however, my treatment of them while they are attacking me. I don't think that Jesus was talking about either of these situations when He said to turn the other cheek.
The evil doing is ours.
Yes, that's true, we bear full responsibility.
Satan merely puts in front of us seductive choices, which we can either accept or reject.
If satan does not engage us, and this is all satan merely does, then according to Apostolic belief neither does God engage us. It could just as easily be said that God merely puts His hand out which we can either accept or reject. I think the Bible teaches that God is much more active than that.
Christians did not "put" themselves into a "martyr position" intentionally. They were persecuted for various reasons. But, once caught, they did not resist.
So they DID intentionally evade capture in self defense. Jesus did not even try to evade capture at the end since He had perfect control over the whole thing and everything happened according to His timing. However, He did evade capture before it was His time. This all goes to God's plan. I think he does move some to be pacifists when faced with physical aggression. However, He does not call on ALL of His children to so succumb.
For the original martyrs, it was of great worth to the faith to stand out by not resisting. It made Christianity something special, and many took an extra look, and eventually believed. I think the same idea applies to today's martyrs in places like China and Sudan. They are so called, and predestined. However, that does not apply as a blanket policy, as in the case with John.
Romans would give them three chances to worship Caesar by incensing his statue and if they refused the prescribed penalty was death. So, they chose death rather than worship a man.
Yes, the Bible teaches that, but I don't think it teaches that when I am mugged and stabbed in the ribs, that I should turn and offer him the chance to stab me on the other side.
But obviously Jesus did not want [John] alive until He returned, so this answer to Peter is somewhat baffling.
Not at all. Christ is going to be our advocate when we need Him most, and here He is showing His lawyering skills to us. :) Notice that Christ uses an oldie but a goodie. In John 21:22 He says "If I want him to remain alive until I return ...". He didn't want that, but, tangentially, He also didn't want John to die the same type of death as the others. So, Christ's answer was perfectly true because it was only a hypothetical. Brilliant. :)
Trouble is, everyone was under the impression that it was "at hand" because of such and similar statements.
That's true. I'm not sure why that type of language was used many times in the NT, other than the possibility of simply stressing the urgency of coming to Christ and not putting it off until later. I would imagine this also helped to motivate evangelists.
John's service was to write his version of the Gospel. How was John's service different from the other three (who died as martyrs and wrote Gospels)?
John's service also included taking care of Mary, who lived to the ripe old age of ??? :) In addition, John had to write 3 more letters, and Revelation to close out the scriptures. God wanted Revelation to be last, so it makes sense that John would live the longest.
FK: "It is inconceivable that God sat back and watched these events unfold by themselves, and then just "signed off" on them by inserting them into prophecy."
Why is that inconceivable, FK? If God knew what everyone's response was going to be, He knew how things would unfold.
The consideration is on whether in earthly matters God is either a director or merely an observer. If He is merely an observer, then that argues against Him loving us. Do we merely observe our children growing up, or do we participate and give them direction in their formative years?
Would an omnipotent God, who actually DID love us go to all the trouble of creating everything just to sit back and watch? I wouldn't even do that. That would contradict what the Bible describes as God's love for us, which is far beyond the human conception of love. God's love for us is reflected in what He does for us. The sacrifice, the blessings, the discipline, the revelation, etc. That sounds pretty active to me, and not more like this whole "earth" thing being a simply, unbiased lab experiment. IOW, if God just sits back and watches, then that isn't love. I'm not talking in human terms, but as the Bible describes God's love for us. That is inconceivable to me. The Bible describes a love for us MUCH different than just sitting back and watching.
FK: "And as opposed to that, we teach what Christ and the Apostles taught."
Something's lost in translation...
Yes, indeed. The operative question is when did that happen? Sometimes, I do feel a little boxed in while trying to justify that some of the very early Apostolics had some concepts so wrong when they were close in time to the Apostles. However, human beings are human beings, and as OT history tells us, when the rulers decide to go against God, even innocently, He will often let them for a time, and then reinstate what He originally intended.
I always come back to the inescapable truth that if the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then the Bible is necessarily written in secret code, indecipherable to those non-Apostolic Christians who agree with you on core Biblical values. That would mean that the Bible is crystal clear on only a small handful of points, but is otherwise a hodgepodge of nonsense to the unindoctrinated reader. That would be an irrational way to treat those He gave eyes and ears to in order to understand the basics. (I believe God is a rational being.) It is irrational because it would contradict His own word, again relating to love for His children. It would be the ultimate tease to the rest of us to give us sight for "10 verses" in scripture, but blind us, and VERY importantly the whole of the "yet saved" elect, to the rest. God doesn't operate like that.
FK: "I note also in his recent restatement of "Dominus Iesus" that he calls the Orthodox Church "defective".
That is an unchanged position from the original Dominus Iesu in 2000.
That's exactly right. I was juxtaposing that against your citing the Pope as authoritative on the subject of whether we are "legitimate" Christians. Frankly, I really do not think that he (nor you) is saying that we are not, however, HIS words could not have been more poorly chosen for global consumption, imo.
I believe my question was neither ignorant, nor uneducated. You separately asserted that (a) God has no emotions, and (b) that God IS love. Logically, on the surface, these two statements cannot go together. I was asking if you could reconcile them, because I honestly wanted to know. Of course you are free to decline to give any answer if you so wish. However, after sifting through your post several times, I gather that your reconciliation is that both statements are true because "that's what the Church taught". That's fine. :)
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.