LOL. All I could find was an exploding chicken...
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Most Protestants, until very recently, were never exposed to Eastern Orthodox theology, except if they travelled to an Eastern European country or knew immigrants from that country. Furthermore, while the Orthodox and Catholic theological viewpoints are quite the same, the Orthodox framework is much more Eastern and not at all like the Western mindset through which Protestants, and Catholics (I think) approach things. Without meaning offense, it is my impression that the Orthodox are much less "theological" than the West.
I could be just projecting (I do have a tendency to do that), but I never encountered anything by the Orthodox until college.
Kolokotronis: No we're not. We are, as the Fathers say, a marvel of the angels.
This is just a question, not intended to be derogatory in any way, but why did you cite to the Fathers as authority when you could have just as easily cited to Psalm 8?
Carry on...
WRONG!!!Luther taught that God's Word was the final arbiter of right and wrong. Please,get it right.
And this succession is based on what?
taxes: WRONG!!!Luther taught that God's Word was the final arbiter of right and wrong
Wrong again. Luther taught that God's word as interpreted (and defined) by himself was the final arbitor of right and wrong. Luther's break with Rome was not over the authority of the Scriptures - Rome has never, and will never deny that. It was, rather, over Rome's interpretations of those Scriptures with which Luther disagreed. Luther did not consider the Fathers, the Councils, and the Church's encyclicals to be binding authorities as to how the Scriptures were to be interepreteted. Luther did not respect any sort of Magisterium.
The difference between Luther and Rome is not the authority of Scriptures, but rather the use of a Magesterium to interpret them.
Does this have anything to do with the Pope being "infallible in matters of theology," Alex? ;-)
I'm not sure why you think there are only two "camps", but I as a Catholic am not in the came that says that God "cannot override mankind's 'free will' when it comes to man overcoming the bondage to sin and choosing salvation for himself". I don't think man can choose salvation for himself; that's semi-Pelagianism.
I do think God sovereignly chooses to give all (or perhaps only almost all) men the freedom to freely choose damnation for themselves. Why does he choose to do that? Because he doesn't wish to coerce our love, because coerced love isn't love. God wishes to save all men, but that desire isn't absolute or unconditional. He can want to save all men, but only as free moral agents. You have to allow him the sovereign freedom to do that.
Ironically, the Catholic God seems more sovereign to me than the Calvinist one, because the Catholic God is free to make creatures who can choose on their own to say "no".
Well, he did have a certain marked partiality toward the one between his ears. ;-)
Who says the "Calvinist" God isn't free to create any creatures He so chooses to do whatever He chooses? Maybe the Calvinist God loves us so much that since He already knows what we would choose left to our own devices, He chooses to save the elect anyway.
Don't you find it strange that you should say such a thing when you say that Luther considered his interpretation of Scripture to be the final authority? Luther's complaint was the interpretation of Scripture which the papacy provided. (Refer to Luther's 95 theses)
LOL. All I could find was an exploding chicken...
Peter was not "caught fishing". St. Peter was the first to recognize the resurrected Christ and the first to jump in the water to greet Him. Must you insult the Lords' chosen apostle? The conversation about St. John's death and the Lord's coming directly follows the Commission of Peter and does not contradict that.
Christ knew that St. Peter will follow Him. And Peter did. To believe otherwise is to either disbelieve the Gospel, or disbelieve the commission of Peter given by Christ and described in the Gospel.
I am reminded of Phinehas in Numbers 25. When he saw a couple defiling the Lord's tent of meeting by having sex in the doorway most of the congregation simply wrung their hand in consternation. Phinehas instead took a javelin and ran them through. The Lord didn't call this murder. Instead the Lord blessed Phinehas and gave him a perpetual priesthood.
So to answer your question, yes. God does not look kindly on those who defile Him or His holiness.
Ah...those were the days of simple solutions. ;O)
With one stroke no less, to finish both of them. Then the plague against the Israelites stopped. A glorious God-inspired smiting, really.
Not only are we reading different Bibles, but you read yours differently altogether than the Church has read it for 2,000 years continuously. And even your OT is not the OT used by the Apostles. You can thank Martin Luther for that. He knew better then the Apostles I guess. Why am I not surprized!
You must be joking, right?
Please point out for us the passage(s) in Holy Writ teaching the Church Jesus established (matt 16:18,19) would teach error? Scripture teaches the church is the Pillar and Ground of truth; not error.
It defies logic to think Jesus would establish a Church, send the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth but the Triune God would let that Church teach error. But, that is the protestant position as I understand it.
However, I have never seen an opponent of the Church Jesus established use Scriture as evidence Jesus established a Church that, in essence, lies; teaches error; and leads hundreds of millions to Hell.
ping
"Without meaning offense, it is my impression that the Orthodox are much less "theological" than the West."
Oh, I don't know. We "do" theology in a different way from the West.
"This is just a question, not intended to be derogatory in any way, but why did you cite to the Fathers as authority when you could have just as easily cited to Psalm 8?"
Probably I was in my "patristics mode" when I wrote that! :)
The Psalms are great and a wealth of wisdom, aren't they!
Perhaps a better way might be to say that the East is less "scholastic" than the West? The distinction that I have seen is difficult to define, but it is clearly there. Perhaps you can better articulate it? It just seems that a lot of the theological debates amongst Catholics and Protestants just don't occur in the East because the East does not interest itself in such academic matters. Unless you count the filloque contraversy, I guess.
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.