Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[Kolokotronis]

“Is man immortal by nature?

Spiritually, “Yes”. “

I am really astonished at this! No wonder you guys believe what you do. I honestly never knew this.

[kosta50]

At physical death, the physical body returns to dust, meaning nothingness. The physical body is mortal

It is the soul that animates the body. For someone to die, one's soul must experience (spiritual) death (alienation from God). When the Protestants say we are born "dead" they mean spiritually deprived of life.

Kosta: Is man immortal by nature?

FK: Spiritually, "Yes"

No! The immortality of the soul is conditional on God's grace. Fallen from grace, there is no life (God) in us.

The immortality of man was not "created" as his essence; it was attained from the tree of life; if we are immortal by nature, we would be God and we could not sin.

Adam and Eve were created neither mortal nor immortal, but potentially both.

Where does that rule come from? If you are made immortal by grace, do you then have the divine nature or essence?

That's a nonsensical question, FK. :)  Immortality is attained through Grace. It's not an immutable quality of our nature.

In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we are clearly told that the rich man was well aware of his surroundings. The condemned will feel whatever causes weeping and gnashing of tee

The Jews believed that the afterlife was no different than the present life. In fact, in that same story, Lazarus is carried by the angels and the rich man is simply buried. Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is begging Abraham to "save" him.

It's a verbal tapestry woven for the pubic to understand, but it also contains Christian concepts mixed with Judaic traditions. We know that being deprived of God is extremely uncomfortable for a soul, even unbearable. We do not know the true nature of that torment, but it has been likened to burning and gnashing of the teeth for the common man to understand.

[HarleyD]

First, Irenaeus did not believe in, or teach the immortality of the soul by nature.

This is an absolutely incredible statement to make since I have not only posted (#10347) Irenaeus stating specifically that "Souls...are immortal although they once had a beginning." but I posted the link to where Irenaeus makes that comment in Against Heretics, Book 2. It is one thing to say Irenaeus might have held heretical views but it is quiet another to tell me that he didn't say something all the while that I'm reading he did.

Second, Tertullian was a heretic because he embraced Montanism which teaches, among other thing, that the prophesies of the Montanists supercede those of the Apostles.

Come, come now. How many posts have we talked about the Orthodox Fathers have been granted the keys to the kingdom and have the power to redefine what the Apostles stated? In fact I remember in one exchange (could have been here) that it was stated the Orthodox don't allow bishops to marry and are free to reinterpret Paul's direction. What's the difference between your complaint of the Montanists and the way the Church behaves now?

In reading about Tertullian I don't see any real substantive argument against him except that he didn't like some of the customs of the Church. I'd have to study it more but he sounds like the first Protestant to be perfectly honest.

The immortality of the soul is not its nature (i.e. it is not created immortal) but it is given by God (grace). If God created immortal souls then we would be God. You will just have to do a little more Church Fathers studying before you get the whole picture.

I have posted numereous references to the fathers and the Catholic website showing this is wrong. If you would like to post your own references I would be happy to study them.

The problem with Tertullian and others on the Latin side...is that their misconceptions always started with the poor understanding of Greek...

Yes, yes. It always comes back to being misunderstood. Jerome didn't understand Greek. Augustine didn't understand Greek. Tertullian didn't understand Greek. Ireaneus didn't understand Greek. No one really understand it except for the eastern fathers who understood.

Ireaneus has another quote:

"For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables."

Iraeneus-Against Heresy, Book II

[HarleyD]

And WHO are the wolves??? :O)

[Kolokotronis]

“And WHO are the wolves??? :O)”

Well, not Turkish Grey Wolves, I can assure you! :)

[Forest Keeper]

I am really astonished at this! No wonder you guys believe what you do. I honestly never knew this.

Well, does the reprobate soul spend eternity in hell or not? :) If it does, then it is immortal. I highly doubt you would say that this is a result of God's grace.

[Kolokotronis]

Read this, it may help, FK:

http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

[Kolokotronis]

This marginal comment in particular, by John Kalomiros, a noted Greek theologian of recent times, is worth thinking about:

“I read the article by P. Chopelas carefully. I believe that it is correct. It certainly contributes to a meaningful idea of God and to a correct understanding of the nature of Heaven and Hell. ... the general concept that heaven and hell only represent how a man’s soul responds in the presence of the light of God is sound and patristic. Certainly the problem of how Christians receive the teaching of the Church on Heaven and Hell is not only a linguistic problem arising from false translations, but it is also a conceptual and cultural problem.”

“Well, does the reprobate soul spend eternity in hell or not? :)”

I meant to answer this. The answer to the question as posed is “no”. :)

[Forest Keeper]

When the Protestants say we are born "dead" they mean spiritually deprived of life.

Yes, dead "in sin", but not dead as to existence. When we are born we obviously have souls. Those souls never cease to exist, therefore, they are immortal.

The immortality of man was not "created" as his essence; it was attained from the tree of life; if we are immortal by nature, we would be God and we could not sin.

Then you have a special theological definition of the concept of immortality that is unknown to us. The Bible speaks of sinners going to hell for eternity tons of times. I have always considered it a basic Christian principle and had no idea that there were entire groups of Christians who disagreed with it, as you appear to.

The Jews believed that the afterlife was no different than the present life.

Is that what you believe?

[Kolokotronis]

“And WHO are the wolves??? :O)”

Do you doubt even for one single minute that I, Theodoros Kolokontronis, was one of them?!

As I said, the Armenians proclaimed that a man such as I (they would have included Kosta had he been there) should live 1000 years! :)

[Diva]

While this seems to say that they were not technically Fathers, I still find it interesting how much influence they DID have over actual Fathers, even though they were "tinged with heresy". :)

Most of the Fathers of the Church I am aware of are the ones quoted in Catholic Prayer books or books on theology. I always assumed the Fathers of the Church would also have to be declared Saints. Guess I'm wrong. Is there a criteria for determining who is and isn't? I would think they all had to be from the 6th century or earlier and of course writers, teachers, theologians and probably priests, bishops or monks.

[Forest Keeper]

Read this, it may help, FK: http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

Thanks very much for the article. I can see by the author's approach that he simply retranslated the words he needed to get the result he wanted. It's the "Only Orthodox scholars know Greek" argument. That's fine.

[from the article:] In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

The following is from a website called Gotquestions.org:

Is hell real? Studies show that over 90% of people in the world believe in a "heaven" while less than 50% believe in an eternal hell. According to the Bible, hell is most definitely real! The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never-ending as the bliss of the righteous in Heaven. The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41), "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), "shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2), a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44-49), a place of "torments" and "flame" (Luke 16:23,24), "everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place of torment with "fire and brimstone" where "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever" (Revelation 14:10,11), and a "lake of fire and brimstone" where the wicked are "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). Jesus Himself indicates that the punishment in hell itself is everlasting - not merely the smoke and flames (Matthew 25:46).

The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God in hell. They consciously suffer shame and contempt and the assaults of an accusing conscience -- along with the fiery wrath of an offended deity -- for all of eternity. Even those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalms 76:10). Those who are in the very real hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end! Praise God that through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16,18,36).

The Bible clearly teaches that hell is a place of eternal torment. Even Jesus said so. But of course, if all the words are translated incorrectly, then........ :)

I have to say that I was surprised to see this idea that hell is just some sort of mystical experience and that the damned are really side by side with the saved. That goes against all Biblical teachings I am familiar with concerning Heaven and hell. I don't think I would have guessed it possible for us to be so far apart on something so seemingly basic, but yet important in Christianity.

[Kolokotronis]

“I don’t think I would have guessed it possible for us to be so far apart on something so seemingly basic, but yet important in Christianity.”

Believe it, FK. Pretending we believe the same things is one of the most dangerous aspects of the heresy of ecumenism.

[Forest Keeper]

Is there a criteria for determining who is and isn't [a Church Father]? I would think they all had to be from the 6th century or earlier and of course writers, teachers, theologians and probably priests, bishops or monks.

Good question, I would like to know myself. :) One thing I'm pretty sure about is that the Orthodox, at least, consider some to be Fathers who are much later than the 6th century. One example would be +Gregory Palamas. But then, don't quote me. :) I've looked for lists, but haven't found anything authoritative-looking yet. Apparently there is more than one type of Church Father, so I'm trying to figure that out too.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Literalism is certainly one of those and unbiblical private interpretation of the scriptures is another. By claming indwelling Spirit, in a way every Chrisina is claiming some degree inspiration.

Illumination is a much better application.

But naturally, one say that a dedicated physician inspired someone to become a doctor, or that a book was inspiring, or that one is inspired by God's goodness and love. Inspired simply means "moved" (quickened). Yet we also believe that the so-called truly "inspired" were only the Apostles, and the Church as a whole (through Ecumenical Councils).

That is precisely why I asked for clarification on the level of "inspiration" being spoken of.(wink)

[stfassisi]

“Now, let’s take your scenario... a child, totally depraved by his parents, completely ignored by them. Now, suddenly, an adoptive parent takes him, cleans him up, loves him like no one ever has, takes care of him and let’s him live with the parent forever. That is the Lord with those he chose. We (and I am including you in this, because I can see in your nature that you love the Lord)having once been lost, wallowing in the mire of sin, have now been washed with the blood of the Lamb, adopted into the family of God, and will live with him, forever.”

Well.. I think you don’t believe in total depravity of calvinism, because total depravity taught by Calvin teaches that people are by nature not inclined to love .
God created us out of love and for love.He wills us to love.I don’t think you believe that God wills ANYONE to hate?

Dear Brother,your scenario is excellent, because it shows that the adaptive parents followed the will of God “freely”.
God worked in union with the adaptive parents human nature because of their desire follow the will of God.

When we humble ourselves to the will of God(that is always for the purpose of love) We become participants in the love of Jesus Christ

[stfassisi]

Oops.
adaptive should read adoptive

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Yet we also believe that the so-called truly "inspired" were only the Apostles, and the Church as a whole (through Ecumenical Councils).

I suppose you do not include the council of Constantinople, AD 754 in that "inspired" category?

[irishtenor]

I think you missed the intent of my post. The adoptive parent IS God. It is God who takes us when we are worthless, downtrodden, sinful, and washes us with the blood of the Lamb. Man by himself is totally depraved, with nothing worthy of God. It is only when we are adopted into the family of God do we find ourselves not only clean, but worthy of worshipping God. We can face God unafraid, because he has chosen us to be his children. Rejoice in that.

1 John says that God is love, and no one can love who does not have God. It is God who gives us the love to share with each other. He gives this love to his children. Those who are not his children do not get this love.

You are mistaken, I do believe in the total depravity of man, the same as Calvin did. And I also believe that it is God who saves his own from that depravity. Romans 1 spells it out very thoroughly. God gave them over to their lusts, he allowed it. Some he saved from those lusts. They (you and I and all those God saved) are freed from the ravages of lust, freed from the consequences of sin, freed from slavery to the nature of man.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

I have no problem at all seeing that the God who created the entire Cosmos, ex nihilo, could have temporarily given Moses his body for the purpose of Moses being present at the Transfiguration. Since Elijah was taken without dying, he would have still had a body.

Thanks much for the explanation, MLG. It is very nice to meet you. I have very much enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. :)

Thanks, I too have enjoyed reading your posts as well. :-)