Na zdrave!
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Again, all you can do is respond with a generality and a smirk which is what the smiley is about. And a contradiction as well. You say that Protestants do not value the free will of man, and then you castigate them for their freedom of reading and understanding the Bible.
It's the same spirit, brother, it compels irrestistably!
PS The Russians perfected it -- looks like water; that's why they call it vodka (from voda -- water; wodka -- like water). In fact, I think Russians believe it is water.
No.
I don't know about Orthodox phronema (note to reader: I hardly knew any Orthodoxy when I converted so all my conscious mind is wholly latinized), but I absolutely can't stand the Russian drinks (or the weather that inspires those drinks). I learned to know and love slivovitz, rakia, in Bulgaria and long for it ever since. My usual drink is red wine.
But my favorite breakfast is certified Greek, canned octopus with feta and black olives.
Na zdrave!
Oh yes, there were plenty of Calvinsits "back then", and they even called themselves Calvinsits or perhaps Presbyterians, given that Elder Cleopa served God in the communist-enslaved Romania in the second half of the 20th century! Last time I checked, Calvinists were not extinct in Europe at that time.
And you say that you have read some of his works but never bothered to find out a little about the author, such as where and when he lived?
Well, this is what he has to say to your quotes:
This teaching, as we have said previously, is not a teaching of the Christ's Church but of the Calvinists who have themselves termed it unconditional election or predestination. According to this teaching, God decided from before the ages to save certain men and destroy others.
This He does in accord with His liking, not according to the way man would work but through His grace - grace that He decided to give in order to save some. To a few Grace is given - grace that compels them to work according to His will - while to others grace is withheld. Such is the teaching of the Calvinists." [Elder Cleopa to a "seeker"]
Zhiveli! Na zdravlye!
Hey, instead of a sermon, why don't you just answer my question?
And, by the way, this is not my contradiction but the Protestant contradiction -- people who deny free will insist on the freedom of interpretation. Geez!
Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church via its holy clergy and theologians, men who are instructed in and knowledgeable of the true faith. When we consider how our Saviour gave the grace of teaching to His Holy Apostles (Mat. 28:20) and not to the masses it is easy for us to see that the prerogative to teach is held only by the bishops, priests and theologians of our Church. It was the Apostles who were sent by Christ to teach and to celebrate the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments). Our Apostle Paul says: “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Rom. 10:15). Accordingly, the bishops are the lawful successors to the Apostles and those sent for the preaching (êÞñõãìá) to the people. Paul entrusts the heavy burden of the instruction of the people to Timothy and not to the faithful. He speaks of this elsewhere: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29) Again he says to Timothy that the clergy must be “apt to teach” others (1 Tim. 3:2). He does not, however, say the same thing for the faithful. He makes a distinction between shepherd and sheep, between teacher and those taught.
[...]
No, [the Holy Scripture] is not sufficient to guide man to salvation, [2] inasmuch as, firstly, it wasn’t given to man from the beginning and, secondly, when it was given it wasn’t the only authentic text, with regard to the salvation of human souls, because before it there was the Holy Tradition. Many years before Moses began writing the first books of the Old Testament, there was sacred piety in the community of the people of Israel. Similarly, the books of the New Testament began to be written ten years after the formal foundation of the Church, which took place on the day of Pentecost. The Church chose and sealed as inspired by God the books of the two Testaments over one hundred years later.[3] These then comprised the declared Canon of the books of Holy Scripture. Thereafter the Church maintained this Canon of Truth, inasmuch as it is the very “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Holy Spirit operates within all of this for the preservation of the truth about salvation. Where the Church is, says Saint Jerome, there also is the Spirit of God and where the Spirit of God is, there also is the Church and all grace - since the Spirit is truth.
Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Church, God-given with a living voice, from which a portion was later written down. As with Holy Scripture, so, too, Holy Tradition contains Holy Revelation, and is, therefore, fundamental for our salvation. Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit and, consonant with the enduring life of the Church, is thus a wellspring of Holy Revelation, such that, consequently, it possesses the same authority as Holy Scripture.
From the time of Adam until that of Abraham, according to the old chronologies, 3,678 years passed, and if we add 430 years when the Israelites remained in Egypt, we have 4,108 years. Throughout this period of time Holy Scripture neither existed nor was the Sabbath considered as a feast among the people. During this period of many thousands of years the faithful and chosen people were guided to the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition, namely, from the teachings about God which they received from a living voice. Only for the duration of 1400 years - from the time of Moses until the advent of Christ - were they guided by the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.
Just as before the books of the Old Testament were written the people were guided in the knowledge of God and on the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition (Tradition with a living voice, orally), so too were they precisely before the writing of the books of the New Testament. The Holy Tradition was the guide by which the first Christians were directed to the path of salvation. The first to impart the teachings of the New Testament with a living voice to the ears of the people was our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, who for three and a half years continually taught the people, distributing His Gospel without, however, writing anything. Inasmuch as He was carrying out obedience to His Father, He didn’t send His Apostles to write but to preach the Gospel to the whole world, saying to them: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mat. 28:19-20). From the day of its establishment (33 AD) until the year 44 AD, when the the Holy Apostle Matthew wrote the first Gospel [1], the Church was governed without the Scriptures of the New Testament, but only with the Holy Tradition of which only a part was later recorded. Although there were many other writers for whom it was claimed that they were inspired and faithful scribes of the Apostles, the Church is She who did or did not recognise them, for She is unerring. The Church lived the truth of the Gospel even before anything was committed to writing, having lived with the Holy Tradition from the outset.
So then, this is the Holy Tradition: The source and the root of the two Testaments - the Old and the New - and thus the reason why we call it a source of Holy Revelation, since it carries the same weight as Holy Scripture.
[...]
... the law of God is not only contained in Holy Scripture. Listen to what the divine Evangelist John says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen” (Jn. 21:25). Again the same Evangelist declares in one of his epistles: “Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full” (2 Jn. 1:12). So, you see that the holy evangelist, when he had the ability, taught his disciples more with the living voice of Tradition than by sending them epistles. While your friends keep at all costs only so much as is written, they don’t take into account that both the Saviour and the majority of His Apostles did not leave anything written, but rather taught orally, with the living voice of Tradition.
Alex, you should have pinged our Protestant friends as well.
He's really extraordinary, Alex!
Sermon? That is all you do on these threads is deliver infallible sermons.
why don't you just answer my question?
The majority.
I was getting ready to type "Yes, I agree", but then something struck me. I thought that Baptism was the "moment" for you all, as the sinner's prayer is for us. Since these occur at completely different times, when does the Spirit indwell?
The death to life comment is a comparison of this life and True Life. Compared to True Life in Christ, our life is like a state of death.
OK, I think I see now, thanks. The focus is toward the end of the race.
[From +John Chrysostomos:] "As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost,..."
Why do you think this negates the scripture verse? Is it because you believe that once you have gained salvation the struggle is over? From an Orthodox pov the struggle usually continues through life and since it is we who cut ourselves off from God, not other people, what +John Chrysostomos says seems self-evident.
I think it negates the verse because "no one" does not mean "no one", instead it is interpreted to mean "no one except me". Doesn't this change the entire meaning of the verse? By the plain meaning, God's supreme sovereignty is glorified. When God has something in His hand, no one can change that. In the interpreted meaning, man has power over God to snatch himself out of His hand. God only keeps something in His hand until a man decides to release it himself. That just sounds like a much weaker God to me.
I do not believe that once salvation is attained that the struggle is over. There will be much work to do. The regenerated heart will move us to want to do that work. And, the struggle is not really an issue in salvation, because it is a lock that it will happen. Yes, it needs to happen for salvation to be real, but God promises that it will for the elect.
"In the interpreted meaning, man has power over God to snatch himself out of His hand. God only keeps something in His hand until a man decides to release it himself. That just sounds like a much weaker God to me."
Not at all, FK. It means that God, for His own reasons, respects our decisions. This doesn't mean He's weak, FK. I see where you are coming from but the consensus patrum is quite clear on this. Now Latins and the Orthodox believe the Fathers are right on this one. Clearly Protestants don't.
"I thought that Baptism was the "moment" for you all, as the sinner's prayer is for us. Since these occur at completely different times, when does the Spirit indwell?"
Baptism is part of our "initiation" into The Church. It washes away all sin, assuming there is any. Babies don't have sin, though the Latins speak of Original Sin. We believe that Baptism seals us and as it is our first reception of sacramental grace, by which grace we are able to begin to experience the process of theosis (and without which we likely can't, but, as I have said, we can't say whither the Spirit goes). It may be that for us Baptism is the "regeneration" you speak of, but I confess I don't necessarily understand how you are using the term.
Very apt statement. We see God as treating us in a way that would be incomprehensible to mere mortals -- if you or I were omnipotent beings, impossibly powerful beings, wouldn't we be lording it over everybody and saying bow down NOW.
But, we understand that God is not like that, God is not debased like us.
Salaam walekum!! Well put Kolokotronis. Christianity allows us the freedom to think, Islam does not -- the Hadiths SAY that the earth is flat, so you cannot contradict it without being an apostate. The Bible does NOT say this, so the medieval men may have thought one theory and we may teach another, but that does not affect the Church belief system.
I am saving the medicine, as Kolokotronis would say.
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.