Christian Forums

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33The point is not what you mean but what Scripture says.  Scripture makes death out to be physical and spiritual death, connected, but distinct.  That is, one can be discussed without the other being implied.  That is the case in Ephesians 2.

Please demonstrate by argument that, as your position requires, Ephesians 2 cannot (note: not does not, but cannot, there's a huge logical difference) mean physical death.  You are asserting it without proof.  Please prove it.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33I guess I'll have to throw away my O/NT Expository Dictionary... It keeps telling me that death has many meanings in scripture, and that when it is talked about, it doesn't always include all meanings.

I'm not claiming such.  But your position requires that physical death is properly and necessarily excluded.  Again, please demonstrate this by argument.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33We already took into account its range in a previous post.  Context shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters through the marriage and sexual intercourse of Mary and Joseph.  Adelphos can mean this or other things, but it does not have to mean something else when the context is clear.

You are once again asserting a proposition that hasn't been established by argument.  I have shown by argument that "until" does not require a change after a point in time (i.e., Jesus is with us not only until the end of the age, but after as well).  The semantic range of adelphos cannot be limited to children of the same mother.  Your entire argument about sexual intercourse between the Holy Virgin and Joseph rests on these two points alone.  And yet, since these two points cannot be established, your argument falls apart.

To continue to say things, then, like "The context is clear" is circular argument, and invalid.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33You must not understand.  The point is that the word has only one meaning or implication.  That is, whether you apply it to dragging people to court (Acts 16, James 4) or drawing up water.  It never means to draw as in to entice as we so misread it today.

You truly do not understand the etymological fallacy, since you continue to commit it.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...

QuoteNon sequitor [sic].

Haha, it wasn't intended to be a logical formula.  But since you were wrong there, and you're defending the same ideas here, you're wrong here, too.  So I guess it's not really a non-sequitur after all.

Sorry, show me where it's been demonstrated that I've been wrong here.  And if it were the case that I have been so shown to be wrong, it still is a non sequitor to assert that, on the basis of being wrong here, I'm wrong anywhere else.

But I'm not surprised that you would commit logical fallacies with such dogged regularity.  Your posts are full of them.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33"That God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" - God has to give us something to be able to accomplish His goals.  Good works aren't of our own, and they are contingent and consequential to regeneration, faith, etc.

If the good works aren't of our own, then whose are they?  If they aren't ours, then how can we claim to be obedient to the will of God (to do good works)? If we aren't obedient to the will of God, how can we claim to be saved?

Whoops.  There's another unproven assertion that causes your own system to fall apart.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33Clarify what you think I mean.  I feel like you're arguing against something I haven't posited, but I'm unsure.

You appear to conflate born again with the seeing of the Kingdom of God.  I don't think that's warranted from the text.  Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate it.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Made alive while we were dead.  Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.

QuoteBack to unproven assertions.

So dead men can choose life?  You seem to think the basis of my statement is unfounded; be more specific.

Yes, dead men can choose life.  Certainly God's grace has made that possible for all men (cf. Hebrews 2 and Romans 5), but it is still a fact that people choose to accept Christ all the time.

QuotePlease demonstrate by argument that, as your position requires, Ephesians 2 cannot (note: not does not, but cannot, there's a huge logical difference) mean physical death.  You are asserting it without proof.  Please prove it.

Physical death is not the meaning of "and you were dead in your sins and trepasses."  Why?  Because you cannot be both physically alive and physically dead simultaneously (and since he's speaking to people still physically alive...).

What do you accuse me of, false dichotomy?

QuoteI have shown by argument that "until" does not require a change after a point in time (i.e., Jesus is with us not only until the end of the age, but after as well).  The semantic range of adelphos cannot be limited to children of the same mother.  Your entire argument about sexual intercourse between the Holy Virgin and Joseph rests on these two points alone.  And yet, since these two points cannot be established, your argument falls apart.

Your example for until is not a very good one given the ambiguity of talk of ages in Greek.  Indeed, some versions do not say until but "even to" which has a slightly different connotation.  Do you have another example?

No, the range can't be limited to children of the same mother, but that is a specific meaning of the word.  Range is constituted of several distinct meanings.  Indeed, we can have ambiguity because of range, but "children by a shared parent" is a specific meaning which is used throughout scripture, and is distinct given context.

Let me quote a word study outline of adelphos:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Both Thayer's (which you can see here - http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G80&t=kjv ) and Bauer's Lexicons are very clear that adelphos in several passages are about siblings of Christ from Mary.

Indeed, in Luke 2:7 (And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.), Thayer's holds that instead of huion prototokon, had Mary had no subsequent children, the phrase huion monogene would have been used.  (That is, only begotten/unique son versus firstborn.)  Added to the distinction between Jesus' brethren (James for instance) and His apostles, the case becomes clearly in favor of the Protestant view.

QuoteTo continue to say things, then, like "The context is clear" is circular argument, and invalid.

No, range is not the concern here.

QuoteSorry, show me where it's been demonstrated that I've been wrong here.  And if it were the case that I have been so shown to be wrong, it still is a non sequitor to assert that, on the basis of being wrong here, I'm wrong anywhere else.

But I'm not surprised that you would commit logical fallacies with such dogged regularity.  Your posts are full of them.

Follow me closely so I don't lose you a third time: if you are writing about the same subject, probably with the same arguments, in two different places, and you are wrong here, then you are likewise wrong there.

How much time will you spend in Purgatory for calling me a fool?... Just a caution.

QuoteIf the good works aren't of our own, then whose are they?  If they aren't ours, then how can we claim to be obedient to the will of God (to do good works)? If we aren't obedient to the will of God, how can we claim to be saved?

When I said aren't of our own, I was referring to their preparation: that is, God prepared them beforehand.  Good works are synergistic.  Clear now?

QuoteYes, dead men can choose life.  Certainly God's grace has made that possible for all men (cf. Hebrews 2 and Romans 5), but it is still a fact that people choose to accept Christ all the time.

But those people aren't dead anymore... That's the problem.

I must've missed (sincerely) where you responded to the Trent 6.3 doctrine.  I believe I quoted it here.  Again, do you agree with this Catholic doctrine?

Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore...  When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it.  Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.

I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations.  But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe.  How do I know... Cause I used to be one.  Same principle.

I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break.  Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.

But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation. 

Oh please.....

Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed?  Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature.  If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own!  You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!

Talk about dumb.....lol

QuoteWith your quip about FOX you have committed a fallacy.  Because something is biased does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate as a source.

Nor does it guarantee that the information will be free from a slant on the facts.  FOX News is very open about providing us all with a conservative slant on the news, therefore it is wise to recognize that conservative facts will be supported and not challenged, while liberal facts will be challenged and exploited whenever possible.  So if you want to feel good / supported in your conservative viewpoint, while having the opportunity to belittle liberal ideas - FOX News is probably a good choice.  Same thing goes for NPR - if you want to feel supported in your progressive view of the environment, while receiving a nonsupportive viewpoint on the current administration - NPR is a good place to turn.  Both report the facts - neither are 'fair and balanced'.

Would I want to learn about environmentalism from FOX News - only if I was interested in learning about the conservative point of view on the issue.

QuotePeter has a wife. lol

Umm, last time I checked, Peter went to be with the Lord about 2,000 years ago......

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

QuoteI think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."

Funny.....you sound just like Calvin - he also believed he was the only Christian in 1500 years to ever view scripture in context - how arrogant is that?!- lol

The fact is, everything from God is grace.  Our faith, our works, our salvation is all from God and therefore the result of His grace alone.  Nothing we do is apart from God's grace - unless we deny His grace and live in arrogance; but, even in this case we are only fooling ourselves - pretending that we can achieve righteousness apart from Him.  Protestants love to claim that Catholics rely on their own righteousness to gain salvation - WRONG!  Catholics believe that all of our faith and all of our works are a result of Grace and we are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace.

It is only semantics that lead people to set up the idea that faith cames first and then works - frankly, it doesn't matter - as long as your recognize that all of your faith and all of your works are God's grace. 

Luther got all uptight about this idea because he was so neurotic about working for his salvation (without faith, I might add) that his own, Medieval abbot told him to loosen up!  Instead, following the teachings of his own church, he mistook his own misunderstand of 'works alone' with the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The only thing left for him to do was to claim that 'faith alone' is the only way for us to be saved - when in fact grace (faith + works in Christ) is the only way to salvation.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 23:21:12

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore...  When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it.  Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.

I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations.  But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe.  How do I know... Cause I used to be one.  Same principle.

I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break.  Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.

But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation. 

Oh please.....

Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed?  Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature.  If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own!  You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!

Talk about dumb.....lol

Not at all... there are many many protestants who have left the catholic church and remained in suportive fellowship to what they teach and believe. They have a far less slanted view of the religion that someone who just follows it blindly to their own destruction.  Or even someone who has followed it faithfully and never experienced anything else. They don't know the difference in what they believe and  may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said.  Which is it... 

Quote from: kensington on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 01:07:07

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 23:21:12

Quote from: kensington on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore...  When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it.  Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.

I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations.  But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe.  How do I know... Cause I used to be one.  Same principle.

I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break.  Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.

But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation. 

Oh please.....

Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed?  Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature.  If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own!  You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!

Talk about dumb.....lol

Not at all... there are many many protestants who have left the catholic church and remained in suportive fellowship to what they teach and believe. They have a far less slanted view of the religion that someone who just follows it blindly to their own destruction.  Or even someone who has followed it faithfully and never experienced anything else. They don't know the difference in what they believe and  may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said.  Which is it... 

So, are these my only choices?  Catholics who have left the Catholic Church to become Christians or brainwashed followers of the Catholic Church who are incapable of original thought?

Where do I fit in to that equation?

BTW, since you have been such a stickler on demanding that people provide quotes - why not provide one for Pope John Paul II, the Great?  After all, it is important to give the illusion of competency when you are trying to words in someones mouth.

Of course... absolutely, whatever I can do to help you find your way ravenlore....  here you go... 

From Vatican II...

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Quote from: Lumen Gentium
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.



Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

I would like to thank Broach who posted this.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 01:36:26
Of course... absolutely, whatever I can do to help you find your way ravenlore....  here you go... 

From Vatican II...

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Quote from: Lumen Gentium
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.



Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

I would like to thank Broach who posted this.

So where is the part about not being Christian?  The Pope is talking about praying for the Body of Christ, which is presently fractured to be reunited.  The Pope described in detail all of the reasons people outside the Church can still be referred to as Christian - I am really at a loss how you can read into his statement that people outside the Catholic Church are not Christian!

Pope John Paul II wanted reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Church - that was his biggest desire!

BTW - how can you be so angry about what a Church, you don't even believe to be Christian, thinks about your faith in Christ??  And why are you so offended that Catholics reject Protestants as Christian (your belief, not mine or the Catholic Church), but have no problem rejecting us?

Why don't you go back and READ exactly what I said ... and stop jumping to conclusions about what it is you think I said.

Read it again. SLOWLY... very slowly. That might help. Thanks.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 02:02:19
Why don't you go back and READ exactly what I said ... and stop jumping to conclusions about what it is you think I said.

Read it again. SLOWLY... very slowly. That might help. Thanks.

Ah ok - well since you asking so condescendingly,

QuoteThey don't know the difference in what they believe and  may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said.  Which is it...

Unless of course the church (Catholic Church) has been teaching them (the brainwashed Catholics) that those other brethren (Eastern Orthodox) are not apart of Jesus (part of the Body of Christ).

Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion.

If you want to be offended that the Pope follows the Bible's teaching that there is only one Body and your Church is currently fracture from it - knock yourself out.  The Pope certainly has a much more gracious attitude for recognizing that Protestants and EO teach the truth, then Protestants who believe the Catholic Church teaches falsehood that hinder their members from being Christian.

I never said I was offended by what the Pope said. That is another misconception you have all on your own.

If you go back and read what I said to the original post by broach, you will see that. 

It's in the "Eucharist" topic. Please, by all means, feel free to look it up. 

Quote from: kensington on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 02:56:06
I never said I was offended by what the Pope said. That is another misconception you have all on your own.

If you go back and read what I said to the original post by broach, you will see that. 

It's in the "Eucharist" topic. Please, by all means, feel free to look it up. 

No - I am done.

Whatever. 

Greetings,

I think this is all quite simple really...

The Reformed and the Orthodox (some people have the impression that 'CDHealy' is some manner of Catholic) have vastly different of what Jesus did on the cross, what salvation is, how it 'works' (pardon the pun, and, differences over, maybe who over Jesus was (is) (in a Christological sense), etc.

Arguing over verses and interpretations of verses rarely solves anything, since the Reformed and the Orthodox have such distinctive ways of reading them.

The Reformed will accuse the non-Reformed of making St. James contradict St. Paul, the non-Reformed, in turn, will say the the Reformed interpretation of St. Paul (the interpretation which is used as an interpretative lens for the rest of the Canon of Scripture, especially on matters related to salvation, justification, etc) is completely wrong-headed, myopic, etc.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

CDHealy: I would suggest **trying** to better understand where the Reformed are coming from... trying to speak to them using their language, coming from their methodology (as best you can).  It is clear, to me at least, that they aren't getting you at all.  Orthodox soteriology is very alien to Reformed soteriology.  I have come to the conclusion that if one accepts certain 'incarnations' (pardon the pun) of Orthodox Christology and soteriology... well... their opinion of Reformed Christology and soteriology would be very low (insufficient at best - wildly heretical and non-Christian at worst)... and, probably vice versa... so... give it a shot, eh?

Everyone else:  It's clear to me that most of you have very little or no understanding of Orthodox theology.  It's not very much like Reformed theology at all, but people have believed in it for centuries before Calvin or Beza were born... right or wrong I think it deserves to be looked at on it's own terms...

Take care!
Cearnaigh

Ravenlorre.

You wrote:
"Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion."

So far as I know, the late pontiff regards the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church.  For the Catholic the Orthodox actually have "churches" since they have a valid priesthood via apostolic succession, hence they have valid sacraments... the Orthodox, for the late pontiff, actually have "Churches," are part of the Catholic Church, though the communion is strained... fractured in a sense...  Some Orthodox agree with the late pontiff, some don't....

Protestants, on the other hand, don't have Churches, as JPII saw things...  they are regarded as 'ecclesial communities.'

For most Catholics... all who are baptized into Christ are 'in the Church,' in one sense or another, but the Catholic view of Orthodoxy is vastly different from the Catholic view of Protestantism, IMHO.

Be well!
Cearnaigh

Quote from: Cearnaigh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 11:27:53
Ravenlorre.

You wrote:
"Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion."

So far as I know, the late pontiff regards the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church.  For the Catholic the Orthodox actually have "churches" since they have a valid priesthood via apostolic succession, hence they have valid sacraments... the Orthodox, for the late pontiff, actually have "Churches," are part of the Catholic Church, though the communion is strained... fractured in a sense...  Some Orthodox agree with the late pontiff, some don't....

Protestants, on the other hand, don't have Churches, as JPII saw things...  they are regarded as 'ecclesial communities.'

For most Catholics... all who are baptized into Christ are 'in the Church,' in one sense or another, but the Catholic view of Orthodoxy is vastly different from the Catholic view of Protestantism, IMHO.

Be well!
Cearnaigh

Your comments have really added to the conversation - I appreciate them very much.  I agree with you that JPII did view Orthodox and Anglican churches differently from the majority of Protestantism; the conversation I was having with K failed to communicate that - thanks for pointing it out.

I am not sure anything I wrote was received, but I did my best.

blessings

Quote from: Cearnaigh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 11:17:41CDHealy: I would suggest **trying** to better understand where the Reformed are coming from... trying to speak to them using their language, coming from their methodology (as best you can).  It is clear, to me at least, that they aren't getting you at all.  Orthodox soteriology is very alien to Reformed soteriology.  I have come to the conclusion that if one accepts certain 'incarnations' (pardon the pun) of Orthodox Christology and soteriology... well... their opinion of Reformed Christology and soteriology would be very low (insufficient at best - wildly heretical and non-Christian at worst)... and, probably vice versa... so... give it a shot, eh?

I'm not sure the assumption that I've failed to understand them is correct, at least insofar as its predicated upon an unwillingness to utilize their terminology.

Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation.  Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put.  I  have done what I think is at least an adequate job of defining my terms.  If there's lack of clarity, perhaps its on the part of the Reformed who are not only failing to define their terms, but are question begging by failing to substantiate such definitions.

Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

CDHealy,

I don't think it be the case that you lack a certain understanding of Reformed theology, actually, I think you probably have a decent grasp of it.  I guess what I meant by 'understanding where they [re: the Reformed] are coming from,' is more about your using terms and concepts that they would be more familiar with and 'translating' your Orthodox theology into something they could more easily 'get.'  That's all... honest!  :)

You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation.  Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."

I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.

I think the person who posted after you has the right idea.  He is asking for definitions of 'justification.'  That's a good place to start...

Let's say that when they see you use justification, but they are understanding 'justification' to mean 'being forensically declared righteous before God (though inwardly still wicked - there is no 'subjective change') by merit of the righteous of the penal substitute (Christ) whose righteousness has been imputed to the 'account' of the individual and elect (by grace) sinner whose election was decreed from eternity past by a Divine decree based on nothing but God's good pleasure."  If they understand the term that way and then see the rest of how you present salvation (works, etc)... of course they are going to be confused, even say you are preaching another Gospel.

They don't see Jesus has having redeemed the created order... as having triumphed over sin, death, and the Devil... as the One who became man so that men could become gods....  all of this is alien to them.  Try to define your terms and express your Orthodox theology in a way that you think they might have a better chance of understanding it.

IC XC
Cearnaigh

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

Baptism

Quote from: Cearnaigh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:17:51
CDHealy,

I don't think it be the case that you lack a certain understanding of Reformed theology, actually, I think you probably have a decent grasp of it.  I guess what I meant by 'understanding where they [re: the Reformed] are coming from,' is more about your using terms and concepts that they would be more familiar with and 'translating' your Orthodox theology into something they could more easily 'get.'  That's all... honest!  :)

You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation.  Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."

I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.

I think the person who posted after you has the right idea.  He is asking for definitions of 'justification.'  That's a good place to start...

Let's say that when they see you use justification, but they are understanding 'justification' to mean 'being forensically declared righteous before God (though inwardly still wicked - there is no 'subjective change') by merit of the righteous of the penal substitute (Christ) whose righteousness has been imputed to the 'account' of the individual and elect (by grace) sinner whose election was decreed from eternity past by a Divine decree based on nothing but God's good pleasure."  If they understand the term that way and then see the rest of how you present salvation (works, etc)... of course they are going to be confused, even say you are preaching another Gospel.

They don't see Jesus has having redeemed the created order... as having triumphed over sin, death, and the Devil... as the One who became man so that men could become gods....  all of this is alien to them.  Try to define your terms and express your Orthodox theology in a way that you think they might have a better chance of understanding it.

IC XC
Cearnaigh

You are one of the most reasonable and clear thinking persons I have ever encountered online - thank you for your insight.  I have a lot to learn from you.

Quote from: ravenlorre

QuotePeter has a wife. lol

Umm, last time I checked, Peter went to be with the Lord about 2,000 years ago......

Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Yeah, thanks for the update, but that wasn't the point.  If Peter was the first Pope, and if Pope's are forbidden to marry, why do you consider him Papal when he had a wife in this life?

Quote

QuoteI think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."

Funny.....you sound just like Calvin - he also believed he was the only Christian in 1500 years to ever view scripture in context - how arrogant is that?!- lol

I missed the refutation...

QuoteThe fact is, everything from God is grace.  Our faith, our works, our salvation is all from God and therefore the result of His grace alone.  Nothing we do is apart from God's grace - unless we deny His grace and live in arrogance; but, even in this case we are only fooling ourselves - pretending that we can achieve righteousness apart from Him.  Protestants love to claim that Catholics rely on their own righteousness to gain salvation - WRONG!  Catholics believe that all of our faith and all of our works are a result of Grace and we are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace.

Woah...I thought you were Catholic...

QuoteLuther got all uptight about this idea because he was so neurotic about working for his salvation (without faith, I might add) that his own, Medieval abbot told him to loosen up!  Instead, following the teachings of his own church, he mistook his own misunderstand of 'works alone' with the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The only thing left for him to do was to claim that 'faith alone' is the only way for us to be saved - when in fact grace (faith + works in Christ) is the only way to salvation.

Refuted Luther doesn't challenge anything I've said.  Like I wrote before, faith is not without works.  We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.

Quotewe are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace

That's the key.  Works are an integral part of faith, but in no way contribute to our salvation. 

Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

And of course, the classic Ephesians 2: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Saved by a single sacrifice; and saved not as a result of works. 

Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language.  No one has seemed to notice this assertion.  Would you care to take a look?

Ek Pyros,

I wanted to make a few comments about what you've said here...

You wrote:
"Yeah, thanks for the update, but that wasn't the point.  If Peter was the first Pope, and if Pope's are forbidden to marry, why do you consider him Papal when he had a wife in this life?"

Clerical celibacy is not a not a doctrine or 'de fide' dogma professed by the Catholic Church.  It has been something practiced in the Latin rite for the last 1000 years or so, but this is not a practice in all of the Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.

You wrote:
"That's the key.  Works are an integral part of faith, but in no way contribute to our salvation."

Concentrate on defining your terms and showing your reasoning for this assertion utilizing the Holy Writ.

You wrote:
"Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

Not one informed Catholic or Orthodox Christian is going to be unaware of this passage, but they certainly don't see it in the same way you do.  Try to find out the specific differences and then do some comparison and contrasting of the views.  What is different about them?  What is the same?  Etc.

Don't forget Ephesians 2:10...  ;)

You wrote:
"Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language.  No one has seemed to notice this assertion.  Would you care to take a look?"

I think that you need to show this to be the case... so far as I can tell you have not shown this.

You probably also need to show that James is using "justified" in a manner distinct from the manner in which Paul is using this since it seems to be integral to your argument.  Quoting a Reformed commentary that says so won't sway many a Catholic/Orthodox person... just a word to the wise...

I am on my way out so I had to make my comments rather quickly.

I hope you are well.

Cearnaigh

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

Baptism

::sigh::

Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?

Thank you for your comments Cearnaigh.  I confess that most of my posts concerning Catholicism are not as thorough as they ought to be.  Perhaps this is because I consider it to be a) a lost case, and b) obviously errant.

QuoteClerical celibacy is not a not a doctrine or 'de fide' dogma professed by the Catholic Church.  It has been something practiced in the Latin rite for the last 1000 years or so, but this is not a practice in all of the Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.

This is not something I was aware of.  Thank you.

Since you seem to have some knowledge on the subject, do you know whether the dogma against meats on Friday is similar?

Quote"Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

Not one informed Catholic or Orthodox Christian is going to be unaware of this passage, but they certainly don't see it in the same way you do.  Try to find out the specific differences and then do some comparison and contrasting of the views.  What is different about them?  What is the same?  Etc.

Perhaps I should ask for the Catholic interpretation of this passage then.  I see it as a twofold refutation: against works in general for salvation, and against sacrificial eucharist.

Right, Eph. 2:10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

What is the point of these good works?  Certainly they are redundant if they amount to salvation in Christ.  How can we work to be saved, but have these works were prepared for us when we are in Christ?

QuoteYou wrote:
"Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language.  No one has seemed to notice this assertion.  Would you care to take a look?"

I think that you need to show this to be the case... so far as I can tell you have not shown this.

You're correct.  Does anyone see this as worthwhile?  I'll outline it when I get back to my room.

QuoteYou probably also need to show that James is using "justified" in a manner distinct from the manner in which Paul is using this since it seems to be integral to your argument.  Quoting a Reformed commentary that says so won't sway many a Catholic/Orthodox person... just a word to the wise...

Actually, what I was more suggesting is that salvation is not to be taken in the same light as James' justification.  And no, no Reformed commentaries.  Obviously they wouldn't get through.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

Baptism

::sigh::

Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?

LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....

Quote from: Cearnaigh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:17:51You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation.  Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."

I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.

Actually, I was referring to the definitions of Orthodox and Reformed being in many ways contradictory to eacg other, and not referring to internal contradiction per se.

That said, I do believe Reformed theology is self-contradictory, particularly since its theological view is one of absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity.  But that's another thread.

Ek Pyros,

I have a little more time to interact with you in this post... let's hope I can give you some worthwhile ideas...

You wrote:
"Thank you for your comments Cearnaigh.  I confess that most of my posts concerning Catholicism are not as thorough as they ought to be.  Perhaps this is because I consider it to be a) a lost case, and b) obviously errant."

You're welcome!

Yes, I see what you are saying, but... if you are going to be arguing as an apologist (be it contra Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Scientology even), it's better to know exactly how and why said theology/philosophy is deficient.  If your critiques of a religion to a practitioner of that religion are full of errors and (or) half-truths they are going to have a low view (and rightly so) of your understanding of their (what you call) "errors."  They may think, "How can he call my religion a 'lost cause' if he doesn't even understand it?"  And that would be a fair question for, for instance, a Catholic to ask after having read what you wrote about Peter and his wife.  ;)

That's just a word to the wise... ;)

You wrote:
"Since you seem to have some knowledge on the subject, do you know whether the dogma against meats on Friday is similar?"

Sure.  I will be glad to be of help in any way I can.

I would not classify the abstaining from meats on Fridays during Lent as a "dogma" of the Catholic Church, but, as an example of what is called the "law of abstinence."  It is the deprivation of a certain thing for a spiritual good.  The reasoning behind fasting is similar for obvious reasons... :)

So, yes, there is a certain aspect of similarity between the celibate priesthood (in the Latin rite only) and the ordinance about abstaining from eating meat on the Fridays during Lent (although not required, it is recommended that a Catholic abstain from meat eating on all Fridays), in that both are non-dogmatic ordinances that good Catholics are required to follow, but not "de fide dogmas" of the Catholic Church.  Ordinances can change... dogmas cannot.

You wrote (in reference to Hebrews 10:10-14):
"Perhaps I should ask for the Catholic interpretation of this passage then.  I see it as a twofold refutation: against works in general for salvation, and against sacrificial eucharist."

Perhaps, although I think you'll find that the chap you are dealing with (CDHealy) is an Orthodox Christian, and not Catholic.  :)

Seriously though, I think it would be good to ask for CDHealy's understanding of this passage.  I am almost *certain* that he can read the same words and not see in them what you say you see so clearly. 

I have to say that I see nothing against the Catholic (nor against the Orthodox, for that matter) idea of how works are related to final salvation (terminology you should familiarize yourself with in your studies) in the passage itself.  I also have to admit the what you see as an argument against the Eucharistic "Sacrifice" (or "Holy Oblation," if our Orthodox friend prefer) is based on how you are understanding the "once and for all" offering that Christ made relates to your conception of justification.  Remember that Catholics and Orthodox *do not* understand justification in the same way that you do, so they aren't going to see what you see as problematic/contradictory aspects of the "offering" as it relates to justification via grace alone, though faith alone by vehicle of the imputed righteousness of Christ to the elect sinner, etc...  You get the point.  :)

The Catholic or Orthodox person reading these passages will agree that Jesus sacrifice was a "once and for all" sacrifice, but they will disagree with how that sacrifice was (is - a key point) applied.  For instance, they will agree that the "we are" and "sanctified" (v. 10) are present tense verbs in the Greek, that "we" (Christians) *are indeed* sanctified (presently) by Jesus "cross-work."  But *how* were are sanctified by that work, how it was applied... there is where you need to do a bit of study so that you can better compare and contrast the understandings of those things.  They would agree with you that He has perfected "for all time" those who are sanctified (as the verse clearly says), but the real disagreement is **how** that action is applied.

Another point would be to look at the history, for instance, of how justification has been understood from the dawn of Christianity until the present day.  I would also recommend taking a look to see if the Eucharist has been understood as a sacrifice in the past.  Since when?  How could the ECFs have read that passage in Hebrews you quoted and still call it a "sacrifice."  Only when you understand these things more comprehensively can you really critique them.  :)

You asked:
"You're correct.  Does anyone see this as worthwhile?  I'll outline it when I get back to my room."

Yes, I see this as worthwhile.  :)

You wrote:
"Actually, what I was more suggesting is that salvation is not to be taken in the same light as James' justification.  And no, no Reformed commentaries.  Obviously they wouldn't get through."

Right. I think the "trick" is to show that James is using justification in a different manner than is Paul.  Remember that you will be pushed on the point that they both mention Abraham.  :)  You must learn why that is important... why you might be pressed on that point.

I wish you the best of luck as you mull these things over.

Blessings,
Cearnaigh

CDHealy,

Thanks for clarifying, continuing the discussion... :)

You wrote:
"Actually, I was referring to the definitions of Orthodox and Reformed being in many ways contradictory to eacg other, and not referring to internal contradiction per se."

Gotcha! Again, thanks for the clarification!

You wrote:
"That said, I do believe Reformed theology is self-contradictory, particularly since its theological view is one of absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity.  But that's another thread."

You believe Reformed theology to be self-contradictory in what way(s) - apart from your charge about 'absolute divine simplicity' (and, surely, soon to be related to the energies-essence controversy and an exposition on the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas - which really are for another thread - and really are things I don't have unlimited time to get into)??  :)

Am I to assume that something about the self-contradictory nature of Sola Scriptura is soon to follow...?  ;)

I hope you are well!

Blessings,
Cearnaigh

Cearnaigh:

Yes to both of the last.

But their monergistic soteriology is also problematic.

CDHealy,

Thanks for the discussion thus far...

Quote"Yes to both of the last. But their monergistic soteriology is also problematic.

Ok.  Can you go into (a bit) why you find their monergistic soteriology to be problematic?

Thanks,
Cearnaigh

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 18:33:30

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

Baptism

::sigh::

Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?

LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....

Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.

You can lead a horse to water...

(I'm interested in how Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.)

Alright, here goes:

Romans 3:23 - For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

James 2:24 - You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2 probably applies, but let's keep it specific.

Perhaps you would argue, "Paul is only referring to works of the Law, not the same works as James."  Well, if that is a question you have, tell me what good work doesn't fall under Levicitus 19:18b (you shall love your neighbor as yourself)?

Alright, so it would appear that if justify is being used in the same way by both authors we would have a contradiction.  The former says faith apart from works, while the latter says works and not by faith alone.  So what about the example of Abraham?  Well, in Paul's Romans (chapter 4), Abraham is justified before circumcision (i.e., Genesis 15).  But James has him justified when he offers up Isaac; apparently not justified until Genesis 22.

The discrepancy dissolves (or resolves itself, if you will) when we understand the two meanings of "justify" in the Bible.  Borrowing from R.C. Sproul (don't worry, the commentary will be expounded fully):

QuoteThe term justify may mean 1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of His law or 2) to demonstrate or to vindicate.

Let's look at some evidence of this.  When Jesus says in Luke 7:35, "Wisdom is justified of all her children," does He mean that "wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from His wrath"?  No.  Merely that wisdom is demonstrated or vindicated by her produce.  How do we spot wisdom?  By its result.  Likewise, how do we spot faith?  By its works (cf. James 2:17-18).

In Romans 3, Paul's use of justification is clear: he means it in the "ultimate theological sense."  But why do we differentiate between Paul's use and James'?  Besides the fact that to not do so would present a clear contradiction, we are right to do this because James has a different focus.  He establishes this in verse 14 (What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?).  The point he makes in chapter 2 is that faith without works is dead, and thus, not real faith at all.  It is not that works contribute to justification (as in, salvation), but that they justify faith.  There is no such thing as faith without works; genuine faith produces or involves good works.  What kind of faith is needed for salvation?  Faith alone (Paul).  And how is faith evidenced?  What is true faith?  Faith justified by works (James).  The claim to faith is justified--vindicated--when manifested by the fruit (works).  This is why James calls Abraham justified by his works.  That is, his faith--Genesis 15--is vindicated by his works--Genesis 22. 

James 2:22You see that faith was working with [Abraham's] works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.

This is really why you (CDHealy) can give me no answer (as far as scripture goes) as to how much work one must perform to achieve heaven: works are justification (vindication) of faith, not one's status redemptionwise.  It is the faith that saves, but there is no such thing as faith without works.

Hopefully this has been clear and intelligible.

Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 15:48:18

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 18:33:30

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:

Define "justification" in 30 words or less.

Jarrod

Baptism

::sigh::

Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?

LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....

Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.

You can lead a horse to water...

But, you can't make him get baptized.  

Quote from: DCR on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 21:39:05

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 15:48:18
Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.

You can lead a horse to water...

But, you can't make him get baptized.  

I baptize you!!!