Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
That said, I am quote familiar with the Greek word hagiazo (to make holy) but I disagree that it can be "positional" and "practical." Holiness is a state. Something is either holy is or not.
It is a state, but it clearly is used to describe both that which is sanctified by way of consecration but without any real change (Mt. 23:17,19), as well as that which actually is being made practically holy, clean, though it was considered to have been in a state of sanctification. (Eph. 5:26; 1Thes. 5:23) Israel collectively was considered “holy seed” but that did not ensure they practically were and were true children of God.
by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God
That's Paul's babble as far as I am concerned. No man can make himself holy. Also Jewish "holiness" and Pauline idea of holiness, salvation, etc. are like night and day.
Just the opposite. Just as the gift was considered sanctified by the altar of dedication, (Mt. 23:17,19) so the believers body, and that is part of Old Testament sanctification.
every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God
That's right. Jews are God's holy people. That's why a Jew could not own a Jewish slave. Each Jew belongs to God. They are the priestly nation. They are given 613 mitzvot to observe and the Gentiles are given seven. The OT make sit clear that the Gentiles have no role in God's plan. Only the Jews do.
“Own” and “slave” as defined by manner of treatment and length of required service. Jews could sell themselves into servitude to Jews, but were to be treated as hired hands, and offered freedom after 6 years, or the 50th if it came first, with severance pay, unless it was a virgin sold to be a wife for which special rules applied. And Jews who sold themselves into servitude to foreigners could be redeemed by their brethren before the 6th year.
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response
What "volitional response"? You don't get up one morning and decide to believe. It must be given, according to Christian apologists.
It must be granted, but as i stated, a human response is required, God persuading, and some do resist, as referenced. Jesus wept due to the impenitence of Jerusalem, whose salvation (the peoples) He desired. But i do understand the debate.
Jesus did not perform many [baptisms] either, if any
No, but that was before the Great Commission given to his disciples to baptize. I suppose Paul felt that this was not "his job." The Great Commission doesn't say "except Paul." Given Paul's own theology, water baptism was not that important, so he didn't do it. Apparently he was not aware of the Great Commission probably because it was made up a later date, just as Mark's was.
This is incorrect, as the reason Jesus was not baptizing was because his disciples did so, just as others baptized when Paul himself did not. And the recorded evidence shows Paul typically baptizing in their case of individual or small group conversion, and he did more than 1Cor. 1:14,16 mentions, which was in the context of the Corinthians. As for the made up and later date charge, i shall leave others to dealing with such these ideological necessities, would likely need another thread.
But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
That's part of the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity. Different Christian groups believe different things as regards baptism and faith.
Christians are not the only ones who express different views, and while this is understandable as regards baptism, its place does not require making works to merit salvation. What may be the occasion of coming to faith and or the means by which it is expressed is one thing, but supposing such constitutes salvific merit is the error. One is saved by faith, but it is a faith that is characterized by the obedience of faith, and to this all the NT teaches.
By the way, the "born again" is a mistranslation of Greek.
OK, born from above, but it still constitutes an additional birth, of another type. You need two birthdays to see the KOG.
and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train.
Nope. Once you believe (and that is not even your doing, but God;s) no matter what you do nothing will get you thrown off the train. Nothing you do will affect your salvation. Or so the Protestants teach.
You must very well know that such was historically a minority teaching, as i described, and is not classic Protestantism. From Westminster and others. Perseverance of the saints meant a fruit bearing faith would be possessed at the end if one had it at the beginning.
The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray
They will persevere because God wants them to.
Which contradicts your denial, as if any kind of faith saves than there is no need to persevere in one.
Remember the "Your will be done"? The world is as God wants it to be. Or else he is no God.
I think i have heard this argument somewhat and perhaps it has a name, but being almighty is one thing, and choosing to exercise your power is another, though as i recall there is more to the polemic.
while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
Just another example of self-contradictions taught in the New Testament. Calvinists will find you verses in John to counter these without saying the Bible contradicts itself.
And both hold that it is by grace. Judaism was not without its significant divisions either, but both Catholic and Prots actually are agreed on most core doctrines, and those who do basically hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the word of God (which “cults” typically do not) manifest a remarkable unity despite its decentralization and their doctrinal disagreements, which principally are on the issue of predestination and the perpetuity of gifts. And diversification around common essentials has its benefits.
Christianity is strained because it is an amalgam of different beliefs and traditions, a mixture of Judaism, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism, inherently incompatible traditions stitched together and then laboriously "harmonized" over centuries.
Rather, some of its truths are found outside the Bible, while the inherently incompatibility charge depends upon selective use of texts and misconstruance of them and others , such as already seen here.
Sometimes I think the reason we don't have older version of the NT manuscripts is because they were destroyed by Christians, as new beliefs predominated.
Perhaps that explains same problem with other sources of antiquity, though I thought the argument was that they rewrote them. Must have the wrong group, but besides the dating contest, such convenient theories are found useful by some.
Get to the rest later. Good day/night.
I wanted to touch on this earlier but got sidetracked. First, the liturgical praise is meant for Christ, who is the only one believed to have been without sin from day one. To the Orthodox ears this applies only to him, since Mary was born just like the rest of us, and by her (fallen) nature was subject to sin—in other words imperfect.
Her holiness, that makes her the model for all humanity, is in the belief that, unlike the rest of us, her faith and obedience to God became perfected, such that, after being cleansed of all sin, for the rest of her life she was able to choose not to sin. In other words, she achieved in her lifetime what Protestant Christians believe occurs only at the end of their lives on earth, i.e. sanctification.
Which brings up something we discussed way back then, namely, whether Christ in his human nature chose not to sin or simply could not sin. I think I was the only one who insisted that, in order for him to be 100% human, he would have had to choose not to sin, but I believe the rest of you disagreed and insisted that even in his human nature he simply could not sin (i.e. there was no sin in him, he was perfectly sanctified from the start).
[which, by the way, shows that Isaiah 7 is not a prophesy about Jesus, as per verse 16, and the clear context of the chapter]
The East believes that she was cleansed of all sin at some point in her life rather than at the moment when she was conceived by her parents (as the Roman Catholics believe) in order to avoid making Mary an ontologically different human being from the rest of us.
The liturgical words "for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You [Christ] alone are without sin" implies that even out ancestral, pre-Fall parents, Adam and Eve were not without sin in them. The only difference between them and us is that, having been created without a committed sin, they weren't incapable of committing it, which is to say there was sin "in them" but not realized yet.
This is ontologically different from Christ's humanity! Needless to say, the problem originates with Paul's innovation (who else!), that Christ in his humanity was the "Second Adam" (something not even Christ claimed!).
But in order for Paul to believe that Jesus was the Second Adam he would have had to believe that Christ was capable of sinning but chose not to. Which means that Paul could not think of Christ as equal to God. Certainly, Paul knew that the pre-Fall Adam was no God!
If human Jesus was incapable of committing sin, then he was no Adam, but some third kind of 'human,' unlike any other human species biblically known to us, i.e. one that was actually divine in all but his pre-existence from eternity.
Holiness is a state that is acceptable to God. Obviously, people are not always in that state. And neither are things. Exodus 30 shows that what has been made holy by the priest does not remain holy but must be re-sanctified on a continuous basis. People and things are either acceptable to God or they are not. In 1 Thessalonians 5:22, Paul is reminding the readers to "abstain from all form evil" in order to be acceptable to God. It is a conditional state. Those who persevere in holiness will be saved.
The presumption is that those who persevere will do so under grace because of their faith. This does not assure that everyone who thumps his chest and waves to God but doesn't abstain form all form of evil really believes. So, it is the fruit of your faith, the works, that saves you.
Just the opposite. Just as the gift was considered sanctified by the altar of dedication, (Mt. 23:17,19) so the believers body, and that is part of Old Testament sanctification.
The OT says that those who touch a holy thing became holy. It doesn't say they stay holy. Nevertheless, one cannot make himself holy. Only something holy can make other things holy.That is the OT sanctification.
“Own” and “slave” as defined by manner of treatment and length of required service.
No, Jews could own non-Jews, even their offspring, as inheritable property. A Jew, however, could not own a Jew.
This is incorrect, as the reason Jesus was not baptizing was because his disciples did so, just as others baptized when Paul himself did not
I can see Jesus being an exception (although I think it's poor leadership), but Paul is no Jesus. As a supposed apostle of Jesus, he was under the same commandment as the rest as per Matthew 28:19. By what right or presumption does Paul exempt himself from Christ's general commandment to his apostles?
OK, born from above, but it still constitutes an additional birth, of another type. You need two birthdays to see the KOG.
That might have some validity were it not that John 3:3 is highly problematic.
You must very well know that such was historically a minority teaching, as i described, and is not classic Protestantism
It is the teaching of both Luther and Calvin. What other "Protestant" teaching is there?
From Westminster and others. Perseverance of the saints meant a fruit bearing faith would be possessed at the end if one had it at the beginning.
How is that different from works-based salvation?
Which contradicts your denial, as if any kind of faith saves than there is no need to persevere in one.
Well, those who persevered will do so because God wants them to.
I think i have heard this argument somewhat and perhaps it has a name, but being almighty is one thing, and choosing to exercise your power is another, though as i recall there is more to the polemic.
If I say I hate brick homes and I build a brick home, what message am I sending? If I hate loud music it would be utterly ridiculous to find that I live surrounded by loud music. If God hates sin it utterly ridiculous that he created a world full of it and has spent whatever time it took from the creation until now to try to fix the wicked world without any sign that he is succeeding.
and those who do basically hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the word of God (which “cults” typically do not) manifest a remarkable unity despite its decentralization and their doctrinal disagreements
Protestants mainly agree on the Bible being the sole authority and that's about it. Scratch the surface of their doctrines of men and you will find heterodoxy on a biblical scale (no pun intended)!
“Part of the problem the Protestants have with this is that Mary is known in the West as the “Mother of God” which is, first of all a misleading incorrect translation of Greek (what else is new!), and second, an awkward if not confusing choice of words even though it is technically correct.”
And which has resulted in hundreds of posts here which fail to get to the deeper issues. My contention was not with its technicality so much as what it can infer Mary being ontologically the mother of God. And this title takes on a greater significance when coupled with the extreme (a $10 word “supererogation” comes to mind) adulation given Mary, which is not restrained but encouraged in R Catholicism.
and while appealing to man's self-preservation can be reasonable and right if it is for their good, the motive goal in the Bible is to be that of selfless love
Try to sell selfless love with a grave as a dead end (no pun intended), and see how many followers you will have. People want something in return for this "selfless" love. That much is obvious. Every religion offers a carrot, some "reward" at the end to make it worth its while.
That is obvious, and the norm, but one can love someone simply for their virtues, and while appealing to man's self-interest is typically necessary to get him to act for his own good and that of others, Biblically love for God is to become due to His character manifested in giving us “life, breathe and all things” and grace to overcome the evils of sin, as well as giving life beyond the grave. And which motivates self-less love for others. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. {19} We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? " (1 John 4:18-20) Again,
"Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin―; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (Exodus 32:32)
"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." (Romans 9:3)
when a cognitive rational man one chooses to do something out of compulsion, the only reason he can can be compelled is because of it is in the interest of what he really the loves.
Oh is that what love is? Sounds more like desire? The Greek word for that is eros. That should tell you something.
The context was my statement that “what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem,” and your response that that this is not always the case, but I do not think love for one own life is eros.
Surely there is, which is unbelief such as yours.
It's not unbelief but unknowing or agnosis. It is clear to me that the God of various holy books is a man-made God, or at least God as men imagine him.
The rest of your sentence simply shows you nonsensically engage in what your accuse.
Not so, as rather than man not being born with a sinful propensity and dead in sins, and while God must draw, enable, and work to persuade, man can resist. (Prov. 1:23-25; Mt. 23:37) And what you reject is still a gift.
You know, referencing OT when it comes to our ability to save ourselves is not doing Christianity any favor because Christianity does not hold that salvation is in the hands of the believers. Even the ones who believe in works.
That God giving man freedom does not constitute him saving himself was what i corrected, nor does holding that God must enable repentance and faith negate mans responsibility to repent. Calvinists hold that this is predetermined, which the elect not finally resisting God in this, while Arminianism holds souls may, with many, along Rome, holding that souls may fall from grace.
Rather than Proverbs, I think a better example would have been Deuteronomy 30:14 (but not Paul's corrupt version in Rom 10:8), that is if you have a good translation (the one that says "you can do it" and not those, as is usually the case, that are doctrinally "harmonized" by Christian authors).
I stay away from the “dynamic equivalence” types, while the KJV has Dt. 30:14 “that thou mayest doH6213 it” and with only 5 Hebrews words some leeway is possible, and paraphrasing Scripture and loose renderings is certainly not foreign in Hebrew exegesis.
Paul contrast here is that of Old Testament salvation on the basis of merit by the works of the law, as supposing that one is accepted by God due to his own righteousness, fostering self-righteousness, versus humble faith being the grounds for Abraham and believers acceptance with God, out of which position of strength he can lives out the righteousness of the law. (Rm. 8:4) That the law promised life by obedience is not contested, but shown that it was not by the merit of such that justified man, as instead the law showed that he was continually in need of forgiveness as a sinner, thus fostering dependance upon the mercy of God (which true Jews did), such as was expressed by David, whom Paul references in dealing with what precisely justifies one. (Rm. 4:6-8)
This being Paul's contrast in Rm. 10, his use of Dt. 30:14 is prefaced by “the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,” or manner, applying what was spoken of regarding salvation under Moses, (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11) to the righteousness which is of faith, that this system of salvation does not involves any painful search or laborious work.
Far from teaching that one can merit eternal life, the demands of the law show that he can never merit it, but far from teaching a faith that does not work righteousness, as it looks unto Jesus, he condemns as not being in the faith those who “have not yet repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.” (2Cor. 12:21; 13:5) “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13)
In contrast, the God of the Bible manifests the opposite of mood swings, or a victim mentality, and His wrath is consistent with accountability and actions
Genesis 6:6-7 God is distraught with man's wickedness so he decides to act in Andrea Yates fashion!
Yates, besides the drugs, whose husband (from what i recall from Time) was influenced by a man whose anti-church counsel left them isolated, may be said to having loved her kids to death, which many parents today also do, but more slowly. But if Yates were God, having created man and knowing the end from he beginning, she certainly would had the prerogative to take life, and in this case. In this case God justly condemned men whose thoughts were continually evil, even without Internet and the like, while children were delivered from perpetuating their wickedness and its end.
He didn't know this would happen? He was powerless to prevent it? He didn't see it coming? Man became wicked against God's will? It sure sounds like God got cheated (victimized) to me.
What “sure sounds” to you is one thing. Must an Almighty God always exercise His power to prevent man from acting contrary to His will in order to be God? No. If God is omniscient, can He allow man to choose and still see His will accomplished? Yes. Did God make automatons? No. Does God need anything? No.
If God didn't want people to worship 'idols' why didn't he let this Spirit work on them?
If he is selfless love, why doesn't he give everyone faith so he can save all, as the Bible alleges he desires?
And so all would choose what is right. Surely you you understand love is not isolated from other qualities which defined how love would act? Love that cannot choose between two alternatives is not what we see an your proposal would basically be removing any degree of free will. Calvinistic response here.
God is not into making Stepford Wives. God did and does work on those who practice idolatry, which is the mother of all sin. God draws men, (Jn. 12:31) and those who obey the light they have receive more light, (Rm. 2) leading to Christ, (Acts 10) while those who continually resist end up being delivered over to their will, that then being God's will for them. You choose.
If he hates sin so much why didn't he make a world that is free of sin?
Ithink you could think of some reasonable reasons.
Some, God could,
1. have made us (and angels) with no moral ability, depriving us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good.
2. have granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between.
3. always move us to do good, and never allow us to choose evil (make believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling, like God appearing daily and doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary so that no men could attempt excuses and would complain they are being forced.)
4. allow us to do evil, but immediately reverse the effect.
5. allow us to do bad, but restrict us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves.
6. allow us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not reward or punish us accordingly.
7. have given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and will reward or punishment us accordingly, especially ultimately, while also making the evil we do to work out for the good of those who want good, and who thus love God who is good.
And as regards the latter, God could choose to enable redemption of penitent believers, through One who was righteous, and who took responsibility for our sins, and paying the price for the forgiveness of sin, and grant faith in Him and persuade men to choose thusly, so that they may be forgiven and declared just, and thereby satisfy requirements of holiness and justice, while enabling mercy, yet allowing men to resist this call.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " (Revelation 3:21)
So much for no works. :)
Think outside one aspect. As explained, works do not merit eternal life, even in part, contra Trent, as man is incapable of attaining to God's glory, and requires redeemed via God's atonement, but the faith that saves has its characteristics, as its object is the LORD.
Overall, overcoming the world, flesh and the devil is a characteristic of saving faith, (1Cor. 2:15-17; 5:4) as is having virtues those of their beatitudes.
I thought Christ overcame (and will overcome—again?) the devil already by his resurrection (and his second coming). Now you are saying we have to overcome him too? :)
He did, and Jesus sheep hear His voice and follow Him, and to them He gives eternal life. (JN. 10:27,28) However, unlike Jesus who was worthy of eternal life, overcoming is not revealed as perfection, but an overall characteristic of righteousness due to faith in Him, and repentance when convicted in heart of doing contrary to it.
It was the devil who presumed to “climb up some other way” in self-willed selfish exaltation, and being cast down he breathes out vengeance, from the beginning falsely accusing God of selfish motives
God doesn't need the devil to show his selfish motives. He is doing it himself throughout the Old Testament. After all, isn't everything made for God and his good pleasure? Doesn't he say so?
More reiterations in response to my answers that countered such charges with reason. The good pleasure of God is not making man an automaton but a sentiment creature who can choose to respond, which is made effectual by having to choose between two opposing realities, with God giving good thing and good laws, and with the choice for the negative still being met with mercy, but obstinacy resulting in damnation, while those who choose the light are those who characterized by giving God worship and service which He manifestly does not need, and are given eternal life on His expense, and eternal bliss, then God can hardly be said to be selfish. Which is why the Bible must be taken out of context by forced into constructs by unreasonable souls manifesting unrelenting wrath against him, as popular atheistic authors today.
It is laughable that an angel gone viral can compete with God without God's permission or will. That's why Judaism has no devil. That is exists in Christianity has to do with Zoroastrian influence on apocalyptic Jews, of which Jesus was one by all accounts.
And why this scenario? Who said the devil operates outside the will of God, unless you suppose that God cannot allow something He does not constrain. Your reactions toward my response are quite predictable by now, and certainly God know what the devil is going to do by nature let alone foreknowledge. And constraining God into fitting within what you suppose He must do is presumptuous.
Isn't it the same God who says "my name is jealous"? Isn't he who throws fits and commits genocide on a biblical scale (no pun intended) because some people (who were not even Jews) worshiped "idols"?
Yes, and i am sure someone must have explained this to you, but perhaps it did not satisfy. Do you really think what is meant is some sort of insecure selfish jealously? Or considering that God needs nothing, and that His expressed into was to make them the head, and not the tail, being superior in every way and to be blessing to the world, and the context is that of following false gods which would result in their immorality and becoming the opposite — all of which appears to be locked out of consideration — then perhaps it could be allowed that jealously can be part of covenantal commitment (which they agreed to), like a marriage, but in which God required their devotion for their own good. Even a coach could be selflessly grieved and moved to ardor, out of love for what is right and for the team, by teammates “infidelity” in conspiring to throw a game, and this was no game
And why are you spouting Genesis 3? The serpent in Judaism is not the Satan of Christian dualists. Satan comes back in the OT as a loyal servant of God, a son of God in fact, like the rest of the angels, that he was meant to be. The Christians, of course, then go back and dig up verses and reinterpret them to show otherwise. The idea that Satan fell from grace is not Judaism found in the OT. Jews, logically, don't believe that an angel can rebel against God (given that angels were created as obligate servants of his).
As itit mus't be allowed if it is from a Christians, Jews are invoked, some who suppose the serpent in Genesis was evil inclination (Yetzer HaRa), Satan, or the Angel of Death or perhaps a phallic symbol. And in that sober source, the Babylonian Talmud Rabbi Levi asserts that "everything Satan does is for the sake of heaven." When another rabbi preached a similar idea in his town, it is said that Satan himself came and "kissed his knees." As for their alleged Zoroaster connection, verses in the OT which support the Christian idea are themselves surmised to be from Zoroastrianism, or denied that the can apply to a being turning bad. But contrary to you how the devil would like it, as seen the Old Testament the devil is revealed as being opposed by nature and by will to God, serving God's purposes but not as one seeking to please Him.
What we do have is satan being part of the angelic class, which the NT affirms, but rather than being a “loyal servant of God” as Singer has him, instead he is shown as one loyally in opposition to God. In Job 1 it is the devil who is disturbed by the faithfulness of Job which God pointed out to him, and similar to Gn. 3, he objects that this virtue is pure, but is because Job is blessed by God. (Job. 1:1-4) It is the devil then that challenges that if God was to take away such then Job will curse God, that no one is faithful to God within some kickback (so your argument has a precedent). God then assents to the devil's challenge, but places a restriction. (Job. 1:5-6) The devil then comes back and repeats his objection and challenge two more times, with God allowing him to afflict Job accordingly, with restrictions. (Job. 1:9-12; 2:3-11) Thus we see that in Gn. 3 the devil imputed false motives to God and did similarly to Job, and rather showing than the devil to be willingly obeying his Creator's instructions, as per Singer, it was the formers idea to afflict Job, with God assenting but with restrictions. No doubt you would object to this also.
All this did served the purposes of God, and as in Job, He can use the devils manifest desire to harm the people of God, in order for necessary chastening for their greater good, as in 2Sam. 24 with 1Chrn. 21:1 1Cor. 5.
The Jewish Encyclopedia also sees the devil “as the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity, a view retained in Zech. 3:1-2” where Satan is again shown to be a an adversary of holy men, this time the high priest Joshua, and is rebuked by the Angel of the LORD. And they surmised that that 1Chronicles and perhaps Zechariah was influenced by Zoroastrianism.
But in the anything-goes Christian world, the devil is a "serious" treat and a "formidable" opponent to the almighty God. What a joke. Of course, the Christian God is a good God so all the evil things must be due to the "other guy." In Judaism God gives blessings on those hwo obey him and causes evil on those who disobey him. IN other words, he is everything, the good and the evil.
It is not anything-goes Christian world that is the problem, but sadly your anything-works polemics Kosta, in which you side with Catholic views if it serves your purpose against Prots, and Orthodox against Catholics, and Jews against Christians, while you reject everyone of them as regards the existence of God, with narrow-minded railings which ensure you maintain your stance.
And the world would be an infinitely better place the more people live according to the spirit of Christ
That may be true and valid if Christians were Jews. Judaism is about this world, Christianity is not. In the latter, this world is something we need to "overcome" for a better one that awaits the believers.
As regards what is best for the world, this is another unwarranted conclusion, as not only does the NT clearly place a premium on loving thy neighbor as thyself, and defining neighbor as universal, but the more the evangelical gospel has had sway the greater the social works, more than any i dare say in their respective environments. Again, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? " (1 John 4:20) "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, {16} And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? " (James 2:15-16) Jesus said follow Me, and He gave at the cross and He gave it His all.
It is still petty of God, who supposedly gives to the good and wicked and is nor respecter of men, to demand that people worship him and believe in him. If you give a free gift, it is unspeakably petty to brag about it in order to receive recognition and respect. Respect is earned, not bought or forced.
A man will not be convinced against his will. “It is still” that you seem to refuse to see anything but what you simply repeat. Certainly i can concur with your logic as a possibility, but continue to show you what you seem to refuse to see. Rather than “demand,” the call to worship God was after He provided warrant, and was greater in relation to light, and was what was realized to be best for them. Judgment came after truth and morality was continually spurned, including by heathen, and worked for others benefited. God appealed to men like Moses before calling them to service, and like Israel saw His hand work on their behalf, and Jesus did His miracle and called souls to follow, preaching righteousness, and warned of calamities on cites after they remained impenitent.
As for advertising, go to a country with a free cure to a disease that few think they have, and see if you can be unselfish in calling souls to see their need and come to you for it. Or must a captain be selfish or egotistical if he command obedience under fire, or in training? Jesus Himself often told souls to keep their healing under wraps at that time, while His command to preach the gospel is certainly not selfish, as if He was looking for worship, or respect for some ego, and in fact He said overall just the opposite would occur.
Sadly, your “wonder” is not even close to objectivity, but is like that of those wise-in-their-own-eyes souls who despise moral authority and speak evil of them
Sadly you seem to have run out of arguments and now must depend on characterizing and judging me.
No, i certainly have not run out of arguments, and have countered such attempts to characterized the almighty after the skewed reasoning of others, and as for characteristics, see below.
the omnipotent God, according to man, has been "fixing" this world ever since the first humans misbehaved on his omniscient watch by unleashing floods, plagues, genocide, prophesies, miracles, sacrificing himself on the cross, and what not and the world is as evil and wicked as ever. You call that "not even close to objectivity"?
Yes i do, as what is lacking is just that in analysis such. Rather than the purpose being “fixing” the world which could be done in a moment, God has placed man here with the capacity to make a mess out of a world that needed no fixing, by misusing the good things and disobeying the good laws the Creator provided, and man having done just that, and continually, God did enact just judgment, but always provided a way back for those who want light over darkness. The flood, plagues, the execution of idolaters and rebels, occurred after they continually choose just that, with the innocent being spared their eternal end, while God ever manifested His reality and finally manifested Himself in the flesh, which did not stop blind men from refusing Him, while those who do trust and obey are blessed, and the worlds is always better for it. As for being “evil and wicked as ever,” perhaps not ever, but evil, as foretold, but the alternative would find objections also, while as can be seen here, it is the war against God that causes such misery. Everything from AIDS to A bombs would be a thing of the past if the whole world followed Christ, and the eternal one will be populate by people who chose Christ over sin, and would not sin even if they could. Thank be to God.
How many covenants (all supposedly ever-lasting) did this man-made or man-imagned God make and remake?
They key is that the New is not according to the former, and we touched on this before,
Is he not driven to violence when someone doesn't worship him? Is he not moody and narcissistic?
No, he is not, as i have patently explained, but as with other issues, apparently no amount of substantiation, reason and objective analysis will do. This officially pro-God forum does not mean you need to be so yourself, but in my past and extensive dealing with you on this issue you it was like you cannot even allow anything contrary to your incessant vehement charges, even as a possibility, and when shown to be wrong you refuse to see it – as in father-daughter incest – and continuing with you only results in more of the same rage against the One who sits on high. I am sorry this is the case and i do not seek to facilitate it. Good night.
Thanks for the clarification. That sounds a lot more palatable. :)
And the Protestants have chosen not to return to the few and clear dogmas of the One Church but rather to fight with Rome over innovations like the IC and Papal Infallibility and “Original Sin” or the unnecessary dogmatization of the Assumption. What a waste!
I'm not sure I get this one. If all dogmas should point to some aspect of the Trinity then, aside from BEV Mary, what Orthodox dogmas do we disagree about?
It can confer erroneous things only in those who have insufficient catethical training, which includes the vast majority of Protestants. Her title is not Mother of God, but God-bearer. The Marian dogma, as the Ever-Virgin God-Bearer points to her Son and not to her and is a necessary part of the orthodox belief that her Son is both God and man in one Person.
The dogma was proclaimed early on (4th century) in response to various Chrisotlogical heresies, doubting and questioning or even outright denying of Christ's divinity, humanity or duality. The dogma is not about her. And this title takes on a greater significance when coupled with the extreme adulation given Mary, which is not restrained but encouraged in R Catholicism
I agree with you on that observation. Some Eastern Orthodox believers tend to get carried away with her, but Eastern Orthodoxy never focuses on Mary alone; she is mentioned and depicted (on icons) only and always in connection with her Son. Without her Son, her distinction is pointless.
You have too much time? I guess you will continue to flood the bandwidth. I will not respond to another “book” of yours. You can find someone else to bore.
The Orthodox Church recognizes two distinct sorts of dogmas, those perpetually preached and believed by the fullness of the Church as included in various dogmatic and symbolic tests and the writings of the Fathers, and those proclaimed and ratified by the seven ancient ecumenical councils and those local council which were ratified by them. So, for example, you folks do not accept all of the sacraments (which indeed may be more than 7). You don’t accept that at the Divine Liturgy, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine on the altar table become the true body and blood of Christ. You do not ask for the intervention of the saints or pray for God’s mercy on the dead. You do not pray with or venerate icons. Most Protestants ascribe to the notion that grace is created and not uncreated (an inheritance, like your use of the filioque in the Creed, from your Roman Catholic past). Many, many Protestants, as seen here on FR, are Nestorians or Monophysites or Monothelites or Apollinarians or Adoptionists or Modalists. Some are even Arians. And finally, so far as I know, Calvinism is the only distinct form of Protestantism which has been expressly anathemized.
If you believed everything we believe, FK, you’d be Orthodox!
OK, thanks for the explanation. This sounds a whole lot like original sin, though. :)
Needless to say, the problem originates with Paul's innovation (who else!), that Christ in his humanity was the "Second Adam" (something not even Christ claimed!).
Does this mean the Orthodox don't buy into any of that Latin "Mary is the second Eve" stuff?
But in order for Paul to believe that Jesus was the Second Adam he would have had to believe that Christ was capable of sinning but chose not to. Which means that Paul could not think of Christ as equal to God.
I don't agree that follows. The comparison was drawn in part to show the means of entry of sin "into" man and the means of its "exit" from the saved. Besides, using this comparison Paul shows Jesus as God:
Of course it does. The Orthodox do not deny the original sin, only the personal guilt of the original sin on subsequent generations. My point was that man was created neither mortal nor immortal and certainly not incapable of committing sin. Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) writes "it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God." In other words, Adam was not incapable of sinning. But you and many others claim that Christ, in his humanity, was. Therefore, ontologically, Christ was not another Adam, as Paul claims.
Does this mean the Orthodox don't buy into any of that Latin "Mary is the second Eve" stuff?
Sure they do, they even have hymns that extant her as the Second Eve, although the whole notion of her being the Second Eve lends support to the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception which the Orthodox reject. In order for Mary to be the Second Eve, Mary would have had to be created like the Second Eve, i.e. without the original sin (which is at the core of the Immaculate Conception)!
The idea that she is the Second Eve was first proposed by +Justin Martyr around AD 150, and further advanced by +Irenaeus c. AD 180, except that there is a problem with Irenaeus' work (originally written in Greek), because the Latin copy (c. AD 400, the oldest surviving copy of his work) refers to Mary as the advocata, which—when translated back into Greek—becomes Paraclete or Holy Ghost!
Of course, given that +Irenauses' work in Greek is all but lost save for a few fragments of letters, it is difficult to know if +Irenaeus did believe Mary is Paraclete (which would be heresy), or if this is a "doctrinal correction" made by the Latin copyist, since the concept of Mary as an advocate is part of Latin Mariology. However, one has reason to put some trust into the Latin copy because there are copies of +Irenaeus in other languages (i..e Syriac) that agree very well with the Latin copies.
So, to be honest with you, I have no clue why the Orthodox believe Mary was the "Second Eve!" Maybe Kolo can chime in on this.
I am aware of his play on concepts.
Besides, using this comparison Paul shows Jesus as God: 1 Cor. 15:45-47 : 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Oh boy, what was he thinking!? As I read these verses, I am pulling my hair out. Now, Paul is known for his linguistic acrobatics, but even after reading them a hundred times over brings the same reaction in me. Let's look at it line for line.
Did Christ become a life-giving spirit? According to Paul he did. Did Christ not pre-exist man? According to Paul (this time) he did not. According to Paul, the earthly came first. Well, then Paul could not believe that Christ is God, because he clearly suggests the "life-giving spirit" was made after Adam! In other words, Adam pre-existed Christ. Yet in Colossians 1:15 he says that Christ is the "first-born of all creatures!"
Verse 47 is interesting, because later copies (including Textus Receptus that served as the "mother copy" for KJV) add the word Lord (Greek: ho kyrios), thus reading "the second the man, the Lord from heaven" which does not appear in the older manuscripts.
From 1 Cor 15:45-47 it sounds as if Paul believed, Jesus was a creature made in heaven in a spiritual form, yet in Galatians 4:4 he says he "came into existence (Greek: ginomai) of a woman, under the law."
Here is what the Church teaches: Jesus Chris is a single and unique hypostatic union of the divine and human, both natures being united inseparably and seamlessly, yet unconfused, each being 100%. In his divine nature, Christ pre-existed the world eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as one God, who is a spirit. In his human nature, Christ is a 100% human being, like the rest of us, with a human soul and will, who suffered passions, died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead.
The eternal Word of God "took on flesh" (became 'incarnate" or "enfleshed") as his second nature, developed as any normal embryo in the womb and, and was born of a virgin, not just "a woman." Her virginity is extremely important, actually essential in Christian theology, but apparently not to Paul.
The flesh the Word became is not the flesh of his mother (unless you subscribe to Immaculate Conception) because his humanity was not stained by the "original sin" but was like that of Adam before the Fall. The question, then, is whence came the flesh? According to the Bible, the flesh comes form the dust, not from heaven. But Paul says otherwise.
And did Christ not have a human will and spirit which he gave up at the moment of his death like all humans do? Certainly this was not the life-giving spirit Paul is talking about!
All in all, looking at 1 Cor 15:45-47 I don't see anything that mainline Christianity believes about Jesus Christ. It's that emperor-without-clothes thing. Everyone sees the emperor has no clothes, but everyone is pretending he does. Why do people do that?
"extant" = extall
Well I suppose I can't argue with that. :) I guess I was confused as to whether dogmas constituted many things or only a few things. If your list and its associated implications are dogmas then I would call that a lot. If dogmas really only centered on core things like the identity of Christ then I surmised that we would have more agreement.
“If your list and its associated implications are dogmas then I would call that a lot.”
I suppose “a lot” is in the eye of the beholder. Compared to the Latins, we have a dearth of dogma! :)
“If dogmas really only centered on core things like the identity of Christ then I surmised that we would have more agreement.”
Its not only the identity of Christ, though dogma does deal with that, so much as that Orthodox dogma “points to Christ”...like so many of our icons of the Theotokos expressly do. Its all about Christ, FK, every bit of it, because without the Incarnation, the “enfleshment” of God the Word, nothing, no theology or praxis or ecclesiology, at all, makes any difference.
We may agree far more than you think, my brother!
Thanks for the link. I had no idea there was such a strong movement. It said that the Vatican has 6 million signatures asking the Pope to infallibly declare :
Oh my goodness. :)
“extant” = exalt?
Is that what you meant, FRiend?
It seems to make sense. Good discussion, too.
Yes, in the sense that we are born dead in our sins and then later are given life by Christ.
Did Christ not pre-exist man?
No, and Paul knew that. Here Paul was looking at Christ's actions, not His existence.
Well, then Paul could not believe that Christ is God, because he clearly suggests the "life-giving spirit" was made after Adam!
Here Paul doesn't say anything about the issue of Christ being "made" or when He existed compared to anyone else. He spoke of Christ's actions compared to the timing of the lives of Christians.
Yet in Colossians 1:15 he says that Christ is the "first-born of all creatures!"
Yes, and we must be careful not to misinterpret Paul as suggesting that Christ is created. Christ is described as "first-born" in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 1:6; 12:23; and Revelation 1:5. Taken together, these describe the preeminence of Christ, not that He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible. There is a fuller explanation in Got Questions?.
Here is what the Church teaches: Jesus Chris is a single and unique hypostatic union of the divine and human, both natures being united inseparably and seamlessly, yet unconfused, each being 100%. In his divine nature, Christ pre-existed the world eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as one God, who is a spirit. In his human nature, Christ is a 100% human being, like the rest of us, with a human soul and will, who suffered passions, died, was buried and on the third day rose from the dead.
Yep, I agree with all of this. I don't believe the issue of Christ having or not the ability to sin interferes at all with your statement. Christ was absolutely tempted just as we are, but did not sin. I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
The eternal Word of God "took on flesh" (became 'incarnate" or "enfleshed") as his second nature, developed as any normal embryo in the womb and, and was born of a virgin, not just "a woman." Her virginity is extremely important, actually essential in Christian theology, but apparently not to Paul.
I fully agree with this too, but so did Paul. He knew the story and it's a very long stretch, imo, to say he ever wrote anything contradicting the idea. Even if we translate it "born of a woman" it is very conspicuous that Paul would not mention the (human) father at all. Usually children were spoken of as being children (or the son) of the father only. That's also how the genealogies read almost exclusively. This doesn't prove my point, but it does lean. :)
And did Christ not have a human will and spirit which he gave up at the moment of his death like all humans do? Certainly this was not the life-giving spirit Paul is talking about!
That's right, only the Divine can give spiritual life.
I wanted to say extol and hit the post button before I checked for spelling..., but exalt is fine too. Thanks.
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.