Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
First, I introduced Elder Cleopa as a Romanian monk, not as a "church father." Anyone with even a basic knoweldge of the world would know that Romania did not exist in the 5th century.
Second, you are least qualified to decide who is a leigitmate "church father" or, for that matter, what is a "church father" because you are not even in the Church. You are your own self-appointed "pope!"
So, respect does not need to be earned? Do you use love and respect interchangeably, or, what is the difference? I respect the fact that Hitler held power over millions (meaning I believe it), but I don't RESPECT him. I don't know how you are using the word.
God did not come on earth to gain resepct for us. There is nothing we could possibly do to earn His resepct. Just as your children (if you have any) have done nothing to earn your. In both cases, love is unconditiona, and so is the resepct that goes hand in hand.
So, then the nature of a man and the divine nature are equal in your eyes?
FK: "Also, the concept of fear involves doubt and uncertainty. I don't believe that Jesus had these characteristics."
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is the most chilling moment in the entire Gospel. It is here that He takes on the sin of the hole world and finds Himself separated from His own essence.
I know this is a tricky area and Jesus did take on all of our sins, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that He was expressing fear in your quote. When you are in pain and express fear in the moment, do you usually do so by quoting scripture?:
Ps. 22:1 : "1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?"
-------------------------
Or do you deny that He actually died?
No, Jesus did not actually die. He was only wounded. His friends took Him away and healed Him. Then, they wrapped Him up in a burial shroud, gave Him a straw to breathe through, an IV for nourishment, and buried Him for three days. On the third day, Jesus simply rolled back the two ton stone from the inside (Jesus worked out.). The Roman guards freaked and split, knowing there would be no consequences for them leaving their posts. The rest is history.
St John Vianney said... "A person who loves pleasure, flies from any suffering, is over-anxious, complains, blames, and impatient at the least thing that is not in his favor is a Christian in name only. If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself daily and follow me (Luke 9:23)"
Hey, that's pretty good. Thanks for the background. :)
I have two Scripture quotes on the side of my monitor here at home. One is Gal 1:10, a reminder to myself as I minister to others. The other is Gal 5:24, which is at the heart of St. Vianney's quote. Look it up.
Done. It's a very good verse. Subject to interpretation, but a very good verse. :)
We can only leave them to the Merciful Hands of God.
So true, brother. Thanks.
God bless.
Are the seven deadly sins then the test of evil? Or, were you just using an example? I did not know of this distinction between sin and evil.
Huh? I think you have this backward. ... There is nothing in the Scripture whatsoever that says you must be "of age" to be baptized. Baptism is simply washing away the grime that comes from our corrupt nature, the patina that forms on out souls as it does on copper.
By "order" in scripture I meant as in the Great Commission, or the story of the eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). In both cases the belief is to come before Baptism. On the other hand, to my knowledge there is zero Biblical support for infant sprinkling as saving Baptism.
FK: "... is there such a thing as "initial theosis", or are these ideas not really comparable?"
There is such a thing but it has nothing to do with baptism. Initial theosis would be the beginning of a life in Christ.
Since Catholics believe that Baptism is initial salvation, is this a source of disagreement you have with them? What does Baptism mean to you?
Actually Eve's befuddled answer to the serpent in the Garden illustrates that she did not have full knowledge. It wasn't a matter that she was "confused" as I thought for a long time. It was simply that she only had a partial understanding of God's command.
Why this is the scriptures are unclear. God gave Adam the actual command. It can be presumed that Adam passed the command to his wife since husbands are suppose to instruct their wives (1 Cor 14:35) and Eve did have some knowledge of what God had said imperfect as that knowledge may have been. Whether Adam poorly communicated the information or Eve, over the course of time, failed to remember it properly we don't know. What we do know is that Eve failed to have the proper interpretation.
It's important to realize here that the scriptures states over and over that God is the author of wisdom, knowledge and understanding. The book of Proverbs is devoted to this truth. Eve's failed memory shows a lack of understanding and Adam's caveliar attitude shows a lack of wisdom-both which comes from God. This was not a "choice" by Adam as some would have us believe. Rather it was that God did not give Adam the wisdom so that he could make the right choice.
It's important to understand this because for years it has always bothered me that the scriptures state that sin came into the world through Adam, yet it was Eve that actually ate the fruit first and one could say that Eve tempted Adam leading to his and our ruin. Didn't sin actually come into the world through Eve? Also, where was God? Why didn't He prevent it?
The answer IMO lies in the deception of Eve which Paul mentions twice. Her poor understanding led to her downfall but not the condemnation of the world as Adam's sinful attitude. Sin is still sin whether one is deceived or not (Paul warns Christians in a number of places not to be deceived). God could have prevented it by 1) not allowing the serpent in the garden, 2) giving Eve a better mind to understand God's word, and 3) giving Adam greater wisdom in deciding what to do. He didn't do any of this.
God wants us to rely upon Him for wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Not on ourselves. Had Adam or Eve done this everything would have been different. But man's steps are ordained by the Lord.
FK, read my sentence again, and I mean read it. It starts with "you can respect but not love..." Obviously there is a difference and obviously they are not interchangable.
While it is possible to respect without loving, it is impossible to love without respecting.
Just giving an extreme example, FK. As for there being a distinction between sin and evil, well there certainly can be. In the Orthodox rubrics for confession, we repent for our sins known and unknown, intentional or unintentional. But to be fair, I may be making too fine a distinction in the sin/evil business. When we "miss the mark", we always please the Evil One.
FK, in Orthodoxy, Baptism is always followed by Chrismation so the sacraments should be looked at together. Here's what the GOA website says:
"BAPTISM
The Sacrament of Baptism incorporates us into the Church, the Body of Christ, and is our introduction to the life of the Holy Trinity. Water is a natural symbol of cleansing and newness of life. Through the three-fold immersion in the waters of Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity, one dies to the old ways of sin and is born to a new life in Christ. Baptism is one's public identification with Christ Death and victorious Resurrection. Following the custom of the early Church, Orthodoxy encourages the baptism of infants. The Church believes that the Sacrament is bearing witness to the action of God who chooses a child to be an important member of His people. From the day of their baptism, children are expected to mature in the life of the Spirit, through their family and the Church. The Baptism of adults is practiced when there was no previous baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity.
CHRISMATION
The Sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation) immediately follows baptism and is never delayed until a later age. As the ministry of Christ was enlivened by the Spirit, and the preaching of the Apostles strengthened by the Spirit, so is the life of each Orthodox Christian sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Chrismation, which is often referred to as one's personal Pentecost, is the Sacrament which imparts the Spirit in a special way.
In the Sacrament of Chrismation, the priest anoints the various parts of the body of the newly-baptized with Holy Oil saying: "The seal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit." The Holy Oil, which is blessed by the bishop, is a sign of consecration and strength. The Sacrament emphasizes the truths that not only is each person a valuable member of the Church, but also each one is blessed by the Spirit with certain gifts and talents. The anointing also reminds us that our bodies are valuable and are involved in the process of salvation.
The Sacraments of initiation always are concluded with the distribution of Holy Communion to the newly-baptized. Ideally, this takes place within the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. This practice reveals that Orthodoxy views children from their infancy as important members of the Church. There is never time when the young are not part of God's people."
It wasn't real??? That is very interesting... So God allows us to participate in His work, but not really? Do you realize what you are saying? That God's love is phony. Sure, the daughter wasn't needed. But you miss the point. When we are allowed to participate, it IS real. What exactly is the problem with God being magnanimous, allowing us to REALLY do things?
And your wife "really" didn't give birth??? God created us as operative beings. We are given the ability to biologically reproduce. We are independent agents, with God's blessings. We are secondary causes, by God's will.
I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future.
I didn't say it was, I said that is how a person SHOULD initially approach it. We should not presume that it is anything more than that until we "test the spirit".
I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means.
God gave a group of men His teachings, not everyone. God continues to guide a group of men. These men are guided by God, not their own abilities. They are important in times when men inevitably disagree.
This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.
Let's be frank. How do YOU KNOW what is the "original" meaning of the Scriptures? You are reading a 2000 year old book written in another language that utilizes nuances we do not know of today. Tell me how the first Christians, who HEARD the apostles, got so confused that every single one of them suddenly, all together, started to take John 6 to mean literal flesh??? I think you need to think about this a bit and what you are saying.
The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.
You are misunderstanding the role of the heirarchy. It is critical that we put aside our pride and humbly submit to Mother Church in times of disagreement. The Church doesn't say we can't read Scriptures. But to get the meaning that God intended, we are to follow her lead and the lead of those who have gone before us. The Church is the arbitrator of disagreements. Thus, when an Arius comes up, a Marcion, a Luther, we, the laity, can KNOW which one is correct. We don't have to agonize and depend on our own limited resources and knowledge, but we can turn to the Church to explain WHY the heretic is wrong. Otherwise, brother, you are relying totally on your own personal knowledge and abilities to determine God's Will and Word - and you have already agreed that man is quite incapable of doing that alone, since we are depraved (according to you).
Is free will not used to sin?
Yes, but freedom is not the ability to sin, but the ability to choose our destiny with the Lord.
But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture
Not at all! The Apostles were given a body of teachings by God Himself. Thus, whether it was written down in what we now call Scriptures, or given by oral teachings and only later written down by some of the Fathers (such as Infant Baptism), it still has the same source - and cannot contradict. Apostolic Tradition + Scripture = Revelation from God. They cannot disagree, if you believe God is Truth. I still don't understand what contradictions (180 degrees different?) you see within Apostolic Tradition to keep bringing this up.
But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible
I think we should address those.
This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.
That's begging the question, or a circular argument. You can't begin a premise "this book is from God", and then point to a word within it and say "this proves it - the verse here claims that it is God's Word". First of all, the Scriptures were not written as one book, but as individual letters. Secondly, ANYONE can write a book and put within it "Thus says God". Does that prove it is really the Word of God?
I am sorry, but the Bible is not self-authenticating. We don't even know who wrote large portions of the NT. How do we know it is not forgeries? No, we rely on those first witnesses, empowered by God. By their life, we know they were honest and really witnesses Christ's glorious Body and His divine teachings. Those who heard their teachings and witnessed their life testified to them, and so forth. Thus, we know that the Scripture is from God.
I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.
And if you were raised in Iran, you'd say the same thing about the Koran. So how does an unbiased person know who is correct?
Regards
Because He never said so. I would imagine that the word explicit I used would make that perfectly clear. Having said that, I will posit that it was also never His implicit plan.
Then you must believe that Christianity is not a revealed faith at all. It is only revealed to the tiniest few in the hierarchy. Even these few make individual mistakes on important issues. You must believe that Christianity is a hidden faith.
FK: "Was Jesus part of God's plan? He was pretty late too wasn't He?"
Late? What is late or early for God? I mean, on whose agenda are we, His or ours?
You were arguing that the Bible is not God's plan because it showed up relatively late in history. I was countering that Jesus was also relatively late. I'm basically saying "so what?". What does timing have to do with God's plan?
First, Catholics do not go by oral tradition. The Jews do. Secondly, you obviously trust theirs, for the Old Testament was written based on oral tradition, yet you are hinting that you don't. Which is it?
I have been told by Catholics that tradition is one of the three legs of authority in the Church. Now I'm confused.
In general, to help me keep it straight, I think of tradition as being extra-Biblical. I know that many oral teachings that were passed down were exactly correct and made it into the Bible. So, once they make it in, I don't refer to them as "tradition" anymore. I believe the OT came directly from God, not in hope that the message was not corrupted in being passed through many generations.
Good! then perhaps you can explain variations in the Jewish Scripture -- the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text -- in length and content!
I can't explain the 'how', all I know is that God sorted it all out when He assembled the Bible.
But the Scripture was preserved by oral teachings, and therefore came from oral teachings! You are using circular arguments.
I believe the scripture was preserved by God. Nothing circular about that. You are giving credit to men. I disagree with that.
FK: "Wasn't there a lot of disagreement about what got in [to the Bible]? So, who is to know what to trust?"
These disagreements were based mostly on uncertainty of authorship and fear that, because we are fallible, we could introduce satanitc verses into the Holy Bible. Oh, satan would have been ecstatic!
I agree. But aren't some of these writings (that didn't get in) what you now call tradition and you trust them?
This is different from the Latin rite, but consistent with the various Eastern rites of the Catholic church.
In the Latin rite, confirmation is done at the age of reason; it is consonant with the meaning of the confirmant as becoming a soldier for Christ, capable, for example, to read and understand the scripture.
In the East, both Catholic Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Church, the meaning of chrysmation is the same, but the age is not considered a factor. These are not differences in doctrine, as in either case Christ supplies the soldierly strength on His own schedule.
The difference with the Orthodox is in the understanding of baptism. The Catholic belief is that it remits both the original sin and any personal sin up to the point of baptism, so that a new person, free from the sin of Adam, is born. When an infant is baptized, there is no personal sin, but there is original sin, and that is remitted. In addition, baptism effects the membership in the Church just like the Orthodox say. The difference regarding the original sin is not really a difference in the sacrament of baptism, but rather in the concept of original sin itself. Both agree that concupiscence -- propensity to sin -- is not removed by baptism.
Both also agree that the faith and the will to be baptised are necessary if an adult (or a child past the age of reason, as early as around 7 years of age) gets baptised; when an infant is baptised, the faith and the will of at least one parent is sufficient. The sponsors then take the responsibility to foster the infant in faith.
Of course, any baptism by water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is valid in or out of any church. E.g. in an emergency a non-Christian may perform a valid baptism, if he uses water, the Trinitarian formula, and intends the procedure to have the Christian meaning even in absence of his personal understanding of that meaning. Certainly Trinitarian Protestant baptism is valid.
"The difference regarding the original sin is not really a difference in the sacrament of baptism, but rather in the concept of original sin itself. Both agree that concupiscence -- propensity to sin -- is not removed by baptism."
Alex is correct. The sacrament is identical in its essence and efficacy. The actual service is a bit different, for example Orthodoxy baptises by a triple immersion. I will be the godfather at the baptism of an adult on the Saturday of Lazarus. Her baptism will was away all her sins.
I neglected to respond to that. Yes, not only is sinlessness of Mary not contradicted by any verses you brought up, as I have shown, but also there is a positive statement indicating her sinlessness even prior to the Annunciation, and that is Luke 1:28. The original Greek has her described by the angel as "kecharitomene", word unique in the New testament, indicating fullness of grace in the past tense. Now, where grace abounds, sin cannot abide.
When immersion is used in a Catholic baptism, it is triple. When water is poured, it is poured three times.
Hi Cronos! Yes, this monster is still going strong. I am still a full two days behind and trying to catch up. :)
Yes, I do not believe that God is the author of any sin. I do believe that God will withhold His protection and leave us to our natural devices (sin) at times. God could have protected Judas from satan, but He didn't. As far as my willful participation goes, whenever I do good I am obviously "there", so I participate. But, I give all the credit to God and none to myself. I do not believe I was born with any good in me to do in God's eyes. After regeneration, now I have the tools to do good. Even then, I still give all the credit to God.
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.