Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It's not the Apostolic view. It's putting the responsibility squarely on us and not passing the buck. We can follow God or we can reject Him. What matters is not what we preach, but what we practice. Now that we know the good and evil, we have a choice. Evil can be eradicated in one day. God's prosecutor general could be out of his job for good.
Yeah, who'd want a peaceful world free of evil if it were not Christian?
But going back toy our Wiki data, the other way to look at it is that 95% of all priests in the US are not homosexuals.
Your data also doesn't show how many of the homosexual priests are active pedophiles. Judging from the number of court settlements (over $1 billion), it looks like about 1,500 accusations have been filed, not necessarily against 1,500 priests, over a period of time of some 50 years.
I am sorry, I just don't see that to be a number that makes the Catholic Church nearly as bad as some are trying to make.
I couldn't agree with you more. the Church failed to act properly.
Your priests and Bishops, to the exclusion of all others, are dispensers of the sacraments, which are normally necessary for salvation/theosis
You really need to look up these topics, FK, because you don't seem to grasp that sacraments are not some magic and that the priests are not magi and sorcerers. This is what the Orthodox Church says about sacraments:
The Orthodox East, however, interprets each sacramental act as a prayer of the entire ecclesiastical community, led by the bishop or his representative, and also as a response of God, based upon Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit upon the church.
These two aspects of the sacrament exclude both magic and legalism: they imply that the Holy Spirit is given to free men and call for their responses. In the mysterion of the church, the participation of men in God is effected through their "cooperation" or "synergy"; to make this participation possible once more is the goal of the incarnation.
In other words, the bishop/priest leads the community in prayer asking the HS to come and affect a change in us or in bread and wine, etc., that is: to change our hearts, to cleanse, spiritually the soul. God saves. Not the priests.
Just as once baptized always baptized, the same goes for an ordained priest, no matter what personality deficiencies he may develop.
The Latins believe that salvation itself can be renounced through conduct, so for them, apparently a lost person, doomed for hell
No different from us. We can reject God at any time. God will not force Himself on anyone who doesn't want Him.
I KNOW the clergy are indispensable for the Latins, but I am not certain about the Orthodox
Of course they are. Lay people cannot dispense mysteria (sacraments). To bind and to loosen, an ordained priest is rrequired.
Because we Reformers believe that it is ultimately God who does everything, without our cooperation. So, if God does not engage us, then there can be no salvation. God predestines everything, but He still has to carry it out within time. Hence, sometimes it is problematic to talk about "when" we are saved.
As Ping was alluding to, we have to be careful how we define "evil". If you walked passed an alley and saw a woman being raped, would the Godly thing to do be to continue walking, or would it be to do the "evil" of assaulting the attacker? We also have this:
John 15:12-13 : 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
I think our soldiers and Marines do that for us every day.
So, how do we explain such language [i.e. "the Kingdom of God is at hand"] and such teaching of the apostles and early Christians? In either case it doesn't look good for those who claim to have known the scripture or the word of God.
It is there in scripture, we just have to find it. I don't think when they said "the Kingdom of God" they were referring to a place called Heaven. Half of the parables start with something like "The Kingdom of God is like ...". The descriptions are not of things that are happening in Heaven, they are of things that happen on earth. I found a few views that said that the Kingdom refers to either believing in God, or agreeing to follow His laws in belief. That would seem to fit with the parables, and certainly with this:
Mark 12:34 : 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
I think it's pretty easy to conclude that Jesus was not referring to the man's imminent demise. :) Rather, He was telling him that he was getting closer to having true faith.
Also, John did not write the deuterocanonical epistles, or the Revelation.
I know that some have questions about it, but how do you KNOW that he didn't write them? The author of Revelation is clearly John "somebody".
His revenge is spiritual. That doesn't mean He can't send an earthquake, tsunami, tornado or hurricane if He wants to. It doesn't mean He can't send plagues, disease, pestilence, etc. but not everyone would ever be certain those events are from God. They will be certain when they stand before Him - then His revenge will be understood.
Until that time it is up to us, as Christians, to follow His commandments and conduct ourselves properly. Our lives should be an example to others BUT when evil comes around we MUST stop it. It is our Christian duty to keep it from harming others.
There are rules to live this life by, not only as a Christian, but as a human being. When those rules are boken consequences must be paid. I don't call those consequences vengeance. If I speed while driving down the interstate would it be vengeance for the trooper to give me a ticket? If I murdered someone, is it vengeance to be sent to the electric chair? No to both, it is a consequence of my actions which I freely took.
The vengeance for the choices I made and did not repent of belong to God.
Resisting by returning evil with evil is not the same as stopping someone from committing evil again. Remember, we need to look at our enemies as potentially salvagable souls. The aim should never be to destroy but to save if possible.
"Save If Possible" is the key phrase. It will never be possible, while in our earthly bodies, for all souls to be salvaged.
Rom.12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
I agree partially with you (and the scriptures)in that we should do whatever we can to change our enemy, which includes being kind and "feeding and if he thirst, give him drink". So I will be kind and feed him with truth and the living water of Christ but if he chooses not to listen then it "is not possible to live peaceably with them".
Rom.12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
There have been and will be times that the only way to not become overcome with evil is to stop it by sending that evil to God, as He instructed. Vengeance is His.
If God's plan is perfect it needs no adjusting. It is playing itself out exactly the way God wanted. It only appears to us (your famous POV approach) that for some things God intervenes and in some cases He doesn't. I think that would reflect Reformed theology accurately.
God's plan is perfect and needs no adjusting, as you said. But, it still has to be carried out within time. When I'm born, I have no inclination to come to God at all, indeed I cannot. Therefore, if part of God's plan is that I come to Him. then He MUST act within time during my lifetime. He did act by changing my heart after I was born. And you are right, this is from the human POV. :)From God's POV one could say that everything is already "done". However, from God's POV we can't even talk about the director/observer issue because time is required to do either.
And allowing your children to be tempted, knowing they will sin and die is love?
God loves HIS children, not the lost.
Allowing evil is love?
Sure. Without evil, how would I recognize my need for Him?
Then sacrificing your own Son to fulfill the "divine justice" is love?
It's the greatest act of love in the history of creation, and goes right with the quote from my last post [John 15:13].
Why not make it perfect the first time and never have to "fix" it? It seems there have been constant "patch-up" jobs throughout the Bible.
God DID make it perfect the first time. I am certainly a better Christian today for having known of the mistakes of those who went before me. The "patch-up" jobs were planned changes in course, not corrections. I agree with the Orthodox Church, which says that God is unchanging.
God is perfect and what He does is perfect. He cannot be but perfect and His work cannot be but perfect. His creation is therefore perfect and His plan is playing itself out perfectly without any need for correction or adjustment or replacement or plan B, right?
Right.
How do you explain interventions when the Plan is perfect unless you admit that God intentionally created evil and allowed it to disturb His perfect plan so that He has something to do.
I don't know what you mean by "interventions". God is always intervening in the implementation of His plan. We are all born dead in sin. If He did not intervene, then all would perish. ...... God did not create evil, but He allowed it to form as part of His plan. Evil does not disturb God's plan, it is part of it.
He could have just created Adam and Eve without having them fall and they would have been perfect and their offspring would be in heaven without all the bloodshed and suffering and pain and injustice and poverty and hunger, dying etc.
That's exactly right, He could have. But for His own reasons, which I am not privy to, He decided not to.
And creating a Paradise and putting a man and a woman in it and telling them "be fruitful and multiply" while knowing they will commit a sin because of a temptation He placed in the Garden and having decided before they were born that they will disobey Him and be cursed and become corrupt, is love? Strange love it is!
All those in Heaven and destined to go there can thank God for exactly that kind of love. :)
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they were right and you are wrong?
Sure it has, that would only be fair. But, then I get over it. :) Plus, of course they were not wrong about everything. In fact, they got the most important stuff right.
You (plural you) are "legitimate" Christians; your assemblies are not "legitimate" churches, by definition. There is a difference. The Pope is not expressing his personal "opinion," but a historical fact. The Church was defined before any of you (plural) existed. That definition came from the authority given to the ordained priesthood by the Savior and their successors ever since, in an unbroken lineage.
I understand what you're saying and try not to take the Pope's remarks personally. However, he appears to have changed the definition from how Jesus used it. When Jesus says my "Church" in Matt. 16:18, this is Strong's:
NT:1577 ekklesia (ek-klay-see'-ah); from a compound of NT:1537 and a derivative of NT:2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): KJV - assembly, church.
So, I suppose I can take solace in that as Jesus used the word, we are included. :)
Remember that Reformation started over abuses and not theology.
Well, they go together. Bad practices came from bad theology. Luther's Theses were full of theological disagreements.
Forest Keeper said: That's exactly right, He could have. But for His own reasons, which I am not privy to, He decided not to.
Kosta said: And creating a Paradise and putting a man and a woman in it and telling them "be fruitful and multiply" while knowing they will commit a sin because of a temptation He placed in the Garden and having decided before they were born that they will disobey Him and be cursed and become corrupt, is love? Strange love it is!
This age, our time on earth, is to see who we will follow. Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and multiply so all the souls could be born during this age. He did place the "serpent" there but it is our choice to disobey, be cursed and become corrupt just as it is our choice to follow Him. He wants to see who is worthy to spend eternity with Him. I don't think that is strange at all.
He didn't "have" Adam and Eve fall. He warned them and they made a choice. He gives all of us that choice and the wheat will be separated from the chaff. In His infinite grace He saw how very weak we are and made it even easier for us. He sent Christ. We only need to believe and repent. That is love.
I believe the Bible tells us that there was an age before this one. That was the time Satan rebelled and took many of God's children with him. This age is a chance for us to make the right decision but many won't. The time that Kosta speaks of, a time of peace, no death, no disease, no hunger, is prepared for us too. We must be found worthy to be part of it.
The only reasonable assumption is that He was preaching NT Christianity to the crowds. That's all He ever preached during His ministry of about three years. However, I have no problem with the idea that the Apostles got special training and were given deeper insights than those in the crowds. Christ gave the Apostles more, and from them more was expected.
First, let us define the terms revenge and vengeance.
Revenge comes from the Latin word vindicare, punishment.
Vengeance is the infliction of injury, humiliation, punishment
If God is vengeful, then He is vindictive. The Christian God is the opposite of that: forgiving, merciful.
Hence, any suggestion that God exacts vengeance or revenge is the opposite of a merciful and forgiving God revealed in Jesus Christ, who came to save the unrighteous.
The punishment, (vengeance) is inflicted by our own disobedience and rejection of His blessings. We condemn ourselves.
Not according to the OT or the Book of Revelation.
God is Life. There is no room for death in that which is Life. God creates. He doesn't destroy. God offers, freely, and without any bias, for that is what love is. He doesn't take. He needs nothing, so why would He take?
Earthquakes, tsunamis, tornado, etc. kill and are a result of a fallen world, as the fall of Adam and Eve not only changed human nature (became mortal) but corrupted the entire Creation.
How could you love a tyrant who creates and destroys, who wants 'respect,' who wants to be admired, worshipped, glorified, who is vain and selfish, and moody? Unfortunately, that is the God of the West. being 'saved' to the western ears means being saved from God. That is so pathetic and a distortion of the faith He proclaimed.
Let them worry about their deeds for which they will be judged. Tsunamis and tornadoes, most people can't take credit for them.
I couldn't agree more, :) as long as we understand that 'stopping' evil is not accomplished by doing evil.
Yes. It is a punishment, isn't it? But consider your example: you are comparing a policeman with God. Actually, the policeman is a public servant, doing his job; God is your Father. That is the juridical basis of religion in the West, especially following St. Anselm's (11th c.) idea of atonement. Sin is equivalent to breaking the law. But in the East, no doubt influenced by the Greek word for 'sin' (hamartia), sin is considered "missing the mark," 'committing a mistake," not breaking the law. Christ is the mark, not being Christ-like.
The story of the Prodigal Son is the correct relationship between us sinners and our father in heaven. We are forgiven, but we must have a change in our hearts (repentance, metanoia) and do everything to "sin no more." But if we don't repent, we condemn ourselves. God does nothing of the sort.
Actually they don't. They belong to satan. Because by being unrepentant, you serve him as your master.
No, but we must honestly try even if we honestly fail. If our intentions are pure, God will grant our prayers. But, we are like Peter walking on water, a little here and a little there, and sinking most of the time.
We should do everything to stop him without resorting to that which is evil. And that which is evil is destroying. If you love someone you do not destroy him, even if he commits evil. Stop him, yes, destroy him, no. We do not destroy what we love.
Our enemies are often our best advocates. Here is part of a prayer by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich, a 20th century martyr who was sainted in the Serbian Orthodox Church. The prayer is called "Bless my Enemies, O Lord."
Note: Bp. Nikolai Velimirovich was a Serbian bishop in the last century who spoke out courageously against Nazism until he was arrested and taken to Dachau.
Bless my enemies, O Lord. Even I bless them and do not curse them.
They, rather than I, have confessed my sins before the world.
They have punished me, whenever I have hesitated to punish myself.
They have tormented me, whenever I have tried to flee torments.
They have scolded me, whenever I have flattered myself.
They have spat upon me, whenever I have filled myself with arrogance.
Bless my enemies, O Lord, Even I bless them and do not curse them.
Whenever I have made myself wise, they have called me foolish...
That supports what I have been saying all along and how the earliest Church understood our relationship with evil: overcoming it with good, never with evil.
He absolutely IS telling all of us to read the scripture. Do you really think Christ does not want us to read scripture? I ask myself why anyone would want to erect such a wall between Christ and His children in the laity. The answer is clear. Men of the Church need power, so they make themselves gatekeepers to salvation/theosis. "Christ never said to read His word, trust US only".
FK: "We do believe that the Bible is free from any kind of error."
A cursory study of the Bible reveals that your belief is wrong. The Christian Bible has undergone massive and radical alterations in its ...
I meant the original drafts of the original completed works, sans any minor errors that have crept in due to translation, etc. I still think we have almost ALL of the substance of the original Bible and that all of its teachings are 100% correct.
If He did, it's not in Bible. But you will find a pageful of references about hearing and believing.
Take for instance
How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? -- Rom 10:14
or
He said to them, " Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." -- Act 19:2
or
and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world." -- John 4:42
or
Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved -- Luk 8:12
Men of the Church need power, so they make themselves gatekeepers to salvation/theosis
LOL!!! That's pathetic. You really have a thing about clergy. It reminds me of that move the "Sand Lot" and a "beast" that eats children fro breakfast. In fear, eyes are really big, FK. You need to make friends with a priest and discover how wrong you are about mopst of them.
Most people have no clue what they are reading when they read the Bible. It's like reading any technical book. You understand the words but not the concepts. I can't spend the night at Holiday Inn and pretend I am a lawyer!
Some legal concepts are 'logical' and "obvious," but others are based on precedents (in our case Concensus Patrum, Bible, Liturgy), that are not so clear-cut.
Anyway, Christ did preach to the Masses, but He preached the Old Testament. He read aloud from it in synagogues. But He never said to anyone "read the Bible." And He never said "write the Bible."
The OT righteous WERE true believers and looked forward to the coming of Jesus. They were part of God's invisible Church, which has always been the community of all believers, living, dead, or not yet born. God's visible Church consists of those professing a belief in Christ, but who are not necessarily believers. I do not think God's Church started in 33 AD. God's visible Church, however, did undergo a radical change of focus at that time, and Christ was the chief cornerstone. Now, these are not two Churches, they are different aspects of the same Church.
If it were, then what was Christ doing building His Church on the rock of faith given to Peter?
Christ was building upon God's already existing Church, of which He was always the cornerstone. The radical change of focus, the rock, was all Christ.
Oh, I see. First the Bible does not teach that some sins are worst then others. It says that there is only one sin for which there can be no absolution -- blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. No reason is given for this.
All sin is sin in terms of that it equals death (Rom. 6:23). However, we are also told implicitly that some sins are worse than others, further implying different "levels of hell". The OT is full of penalties for sin that vary all over the place. Why is that? Because some sin is worse than others in terms of how it affects others. Taking drugs oneself is a certain kind of sin, but pushing them on children I think is much worse. I think this is the kind of thing Jesus is talking about. Just as extra awards are given to us in Heaven for our actions, so also are extra curses given to those going to hell for their actions.
Do not feel yourself "worthy" of God's mercy just because you have sinned "less" in your eyes the the clergy you loathe.
Ordinarily it wouldn't occur to me to compare myself to anyone, but I was answering YOUR challenge. :) It is my side that says we are not worthy based on our deeds. Yours is the one that says it is a component. And no, I don't loathe the Apostolic clergy, I loathe what some of them have done, and I see it as evidence that Apostolic succession is not real.
And what master do we follow?
I specifically indicated that I was talking ONLY of those offenders within the context of our conversation. The Apostolic Church is filled to a significantly great extent with Christians who follow Christ.
How many priests are involved? One thousand, ten thousand? Ten thousand is 0.0006% for 1.5 billion (1,500,000,000) people. That would leave 99.999% of the priests serving God.
Actually, that's fuzzy math. :) You are mixing priests with the laity. I'm sure the laity has its share of pedophiles too, as does the SBC, but that's not what we're counting here, only priests. In another post, I gave you the ballpark number of priests at 500,000.
Clinton lied under oath and should have been in a slammer for 30 years because that's what we ordinary "mortals" get and what the law calls for.
AMEN!
And how is Clinton's lying any different than the one who lied us into a war in Iraq while pursuing agendas of dubious national interest instead of going after the guy who is responsible for the 9/11?
Now wait a minute. :) Bush DID immediately go after OBL, and someone, I don't know who, made a terrible mistake at Tora Bora (sp?). IF OBL is still alive, and I have no confidence that he is, he is no longer anywhere near the threat he once was. ...... To the first point, what lies do you think that Bush told to get us into Iraq? A lie means the person knows what he is speaking is not the truth, a la Clinton. What did Bush know that he lied about, and how do YOU know that?
I believe in dungeons, a place no one would ever want to come back to.
I'm with you there, brother. :)
God gives blessings like sunlight to everyone, but He does not give everyone the blessing of the ability to lead a church, for example.
If all the people renounced evil, evil would disappear.
Sure, but first God would have to enable all to make renunciation possible. Right now, the lost have no such capacity.
Where else would evil come from if not from our rejection of God?
I believe satan is an independent source of evil that manifests, in part, with his specific temptations of us. He will also generate independent evil during the end times.
As far as temptation is concerned : "each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust" (James 1:14)
This is out of the order of your post, but... Anyway, it is true that temptation cannot bear any "fruit" in the negative sense without the cooperation of sinful man. However, it is clear from scripture that satan independently tempts. We have the garden, Jesus in the desert, and the command to put on the "armor of God" (spiritual warfare).
What we preach absolutely matters, since Jesus warned us against false preachers. What you're talking about is the "total depravity" vs. "only wounded" debate. If men truly have the power, by themselves, to simply decide against evil, then what need have we of God, let's say after baptism? We appear to have all the tools already, according to what you said. All we need to do after baptism is decide not to sin. Is that right?
Yeah, who'd want a peaceful world free of evil if it were not Christian?
But of course it would NOT be free from evil. You are only judging on outward appearances. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? :) By a definition I think you and I would agree on, Ghandi was an UNREPENTANT SINNER. Now imagine a world filled with those to the rim. Would you really want to live in that over the long haul? Not me.
No problem. I hadn't seen this until after I posted my response to the other post, so nevermind my response, too. :)
I am sorry, I just don't see that to be a number that makes the Catholic Church nearly as bad as some are trying to make.
OK, and I feel no need to pig pile on this. I made my points. My issue is just as much with their hierarchy as with the underlying conduct. I honestly pray for them and that their structure and/or policies will be changed such that this can never happen again.
You really need to look up these topics, FK, because you don't seem to grasp that sacraments are not some magic and that the priests are not magi and sorcerers. This is what the Orthodox Church says about sacraments:
Then perhaps I am mixing you up with the Latins. I know with absolute certainty that I have been told, by MULTIPLE Latin posters, that under normal circumstances, a person who dies without confessing his sins to a priest is doomed to hell, just because of that. In addition, the Catechism seems to indicate some magic going on, giving priests the power to save and unsave:
1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.
Do you agree with this? I would think that anyone who is not in communion with God is doomed. This is direct evidence that priests DO claim power to save and unsave, and that the sacraments are critical to salvation, at least for the Latins. Plus, I know I have had the "salvation by ritual" argument before and nobody said then that the ritual did not confer salvation.
FK: "I KNOW the clergy are indispensable for the Latins, but I am not certain about the Orthodox."
Of course they are. Lay people cannot dispense mysteria (sacraments). To bind and to loosen, an ordained priest is required.
See above.
The Reformed position is that indeed, Adam and Eve did choose to disobey. And, that since God knew that would happen when He allowed the serpent in, that this was a part of God's plan. Further, we would say that our choice to follow Him is caused and energized by the work of the Holy Spirit in changing the heart of the new believer. All the credit goes to God. Finally, we would say that since God is fully sovereign and omniscient, and predestines all of His elect from before creation, that He would already know who will come to Him within time.
He didn't "have" Adam and Eve fall.
That's right, He did not "zap" them with sin to cause their choice. He did set the conditions, knowing the result.
The time that Kosta speaks of, a time of peace, no death, no disease, no hunger, is prepared for us too. We must be found worthy to be part of it.
Amen! I'm looking forward to it. :)
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.