User Tag List

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 254

Thread: The Big Picture

  1. #31
    Silver Member glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    15,291
    Thanks
    5,485
    Thanked 21,493 Times in 10,833 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147705
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    My real objection to OSAS is that it is inconsistent with the idea of openness. Why say that your free will plays a part in your salvation and then deny your free will afterwards?
    That's because "afterward" we have moved into our Lord Jesus Christ. I think of it as being "adopted" by a powerful Lord, and coming to live in His house as one of His children. We get to play in a big backyard, but there is a fence He will not allow us to cross....lest we get accosted by the sex offender down the street, or run over by a speeding car. We are being trained up in the way we should go under the close supervision of a loving Father.

    1 Cor. 10:13
    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  3. #32
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    To say that man is sinful
    and that therefore he sins
    is an unnecessary prejudice in effective communication.
    It is also un-Biblical...

    Paul, for instance, toward the end of his life, described himself as the worst of sinners, and this because of his prior sins... And this from a man who had "fought the good fight" and had "persevered to the end..." Indeed had overcome his sins...

    And God calls sinners to repentance, so that the saved are the repentant [and need I add 'repenting?] sinners...

    And we need to get a solid handle on what constitutes sin, and this one should convict all, because "Everything that is not of God is sin..." And we pretty much all of us forget God throughout our everyday lives, regardless of how often we remember Him... Forgetfulness of God is with most of us most of our time each day...

    But Paul himself tells us that by Adam's sin, DEATH passed to ALL mankind, and that because of that possession of death, ALL have sinned... In Orthodoxy, we call it the "darkening of the nous"... Where sin itself takes on the appearance of good...

    And the real kicker is with Adam, who thought that he could become as God by partaking of CREATION... Christ corrected this in giving of Himself for us to eat, and to drink, for we eat His Body, and we drink His Blood, ingesting God Himself, and in this Peter records that we "become partakers of the Divine Nature"... Salvation and eternal live are KNOWING God, and this in the Biblical sense of knowing, meaning utterly transcendant union with God... And in this, we become ONE with God, where God acts through us, and at its full maturity, it is not us, as Paul records, but "Christ in me..." And this only comes at that point where we have thoroughly but the Old Man to death, and live only unto Christ, and are praying without ceasing, 24/7/365-6... Full Saints...

    And one thing I would suggest to you is to examine the DIFFERENCE between the intellect with its thoughts and ideas and concepts and words, and the Nous, the "eye of the heart", which is scattered in fallen man, and concentrated in redeemed man who using his intellect purifies his heart in repentance in accordance with God... ["Unless God build the House, in vain do ye labor..."

    Arsenios

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  5. #33
    Silver Member Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,808
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 2,224 Times in 1,604 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    257366
    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post
    And one thing I would suggest to you is to examine the DIFFERENCE between the intellect with its thoughts and ideas and concepts and words, and the Nous, the "eye of the heart", which is scattered in fallen man, and concentrated in redeemed man who using his intellect purifies his heart in repentance in accordance with God... ["Unless God build the House, in vain do ye labor..."

    Arsenios
    Amen!
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Nang For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  7. #34
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Man sins because he is a sinner.
    Man is not a sinner because he sins.
    AMR
    The Apostle tells is man sins because death entered creation through the sin of Adam... Hence we are born into death, and for that, all have sinned...

    Man sins because he is a sinner...
    And he is a sinner because he sins...

    Or as Shakespeare once penned:

    "'Tis true, 'tis a pity...
    And the pity 'tis...
    'Tis true!

    Directly to your point, you see, is the fact that sin is a product of deception and death... By human-naturizing it as you have, you have made it irreducible, which is not Biblical, at least according to Paul and the account of the deception in the Garden...

    Arsenios

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  9. #35
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,837
    Thanks
    3,017
    Thanked 2,735 Times in 1,669 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Good...

    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post
    Man sins because he is a sinner...
    And he is a sinner because he sins...
    Better:

    Man sins because he is a sinner.
    Man is not a sinner just because he sins.



    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  11. #36
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Good...



    Better:

    Man sins because he is a sinner.
    Man is not a sinner just because he sins.



    AMR

    Are you really arguing that Adam was not a sinner?
    He did but one sin...
    But you are arguing that he is not a sinner...
    For that he sinned but once...

    You cannot argue that he was a sinner prior to the sin he sinned...
    Because then you must affirm that a sinless man...
    Is a sinner...

    It is DEEDS that define the man...
    And it is man who does the deeds...

    'Tis true!

    Man has a death nature...
    Sin flows from death...
    And into death...

    "Tis a Mystery...
    And Evil too...

    Arsenios

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  13. #37
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,837
    Thanks
    3,017
    Thanked 2,735 Times in 1,669 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    I am not speaking of Adam, but those "in Adam" after the fall of Adam. Of course Adam sinned, but he was created upright, yet mutable, able to sin or not to sin. Adam was not born a sinner as are we all after him.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  15. #38
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451548
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy2006 View Post
    In fact LFW is not a mechanism, it is a logical position with respect to the will.
    Surely I'm entitled to think of LFW as a mechanism for something? On the other hand, what is significant in saying that it is a 'logical position'? You have no more right to say that than I have to say it is a mechanism. After all, LFW is proposed by its proponents as an explanation of how choices are made. It is touted as the reason why people are responsible for their actions. It is also surely naive to think that those who tout it see it as merely another way of saying that a person could have done something other than what they did? It is more than that: it an assertion that there is something within the person that is punishable or that makes the person punishable.
    Once again, I am not arguing that such a thing exists. I am sitting on the fence. I don't require the existence of some kind of non-physical soul or specific tangible psychological function to support my belief that decisions are open.

    This makes me think you don't really understand the terms used in the debate, much less the debate itself. LFW has nothing intrinsically to do with predestination. "Openness" is a neologism that is primarily concerned with predestination, and simply doesn't exist outside of theological circles. It is primarily a position with respect to God or ontological possibility rather than human will. Consider:

    A = "Humans have free will"
    B = "Determinism is true"

    Libertarianism (LFW) = A and ~B
    Compatibilism = A and B
    Hard Determinism = ~A and B
    I am arguing over truth issues, not over what the debate positions are. Compatibilists have a different understanding of free will to LFW. So your summary above doesn't really mean much. It is shifting sand. That is why the phrase LFW had to be coined. Because the ordinary meaning of the simple phrase 'free will' or even just 'will' had been corrupted by compatibilists. I believe as a matter of truth that free will is incompatible with determinism. That is the issue, not whether I have understood the terms of a debate other people happen to be having.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Reign For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  17. #39
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451548
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy2006 View Post
    I think you are fundamentally incorrect when you start saying things like this, and I am not even sure what school you are coming from. I have never heard of anyone holding the idea that knowledge is merely a matter of organization and the organization is merely a matter of preference (that is, I think most everyone disagrees with you on this).

    Human knowledge is a relation of knower to known that exists within the subject. It is a matter of conforming one's mind to an objective reality "out there." Of course knowledge itself is not something "objective out there." It exists in minds, but the object known does exist out there. Organization is a significant part of knowledge, but it does not exhaust the nature of knowledge.

    Is this theory you keep espousing, and have been espousing for years, the result of your own personal findings, or are you following some tradition? Perhaps a loose Wittgensteinianism?
    If I don't hail from some or other school that you are familiar with, I hope that is not a reason to engage less authentically with my beliefs.
    In any case, I am glad that you acknowledge that knowledge is in minds, not 'out there'.

    Organisation is a matter of preference but preferences need to be communicated. That is why I am generally talking about cultural preferences, not individual preferences. Individual preferences do play a part in the formation of cultural preferences and this is the nature of creativity. An individual creates a new preference that is readily communicable and hence useful and that preference spreads into the culture and becomes part of the language. Preferences that aren't useful or communicable remain esoteric.
    If your culture developed an appreciation of shades of colour such that it came to radically distinguish between 15 different shades of what we now call blue, then the statement 'this ball is blue' would be meaningless in that culture. And what people generally now think of as an 'objective fact' turns out to be meanigless generality. The ball is what it is but what it is is a function of its relationship to the rest of the world.
    The most useful preferences are the ones that are the most communicable in the culture. That is why there is a false perception that knowledge consists of objective facts. The things that people think of as objective facts are precisely to do with those preferences that are in the middle of the bell curve: not so general as to say something indistinguishable from anything else ("this ball is coloured") or so specific as to be incapable of comparison with other things ("this ball is coloured 486.377 nm").
    Last edited by Desert Reign; July 30th, 2014 at 07:00 PM.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Reign For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  19. #40
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I am not speaking of Adam, but those "in Adam" after the fall of Adam.
    OK - Yet did not Adam EXIST after the fall of Adam? Was Adam "in Adam" after his fall? So that perhaps you mean pre- vs post- Fall Adam, and those in Post Fall Adam...

    Yet what do you say then to Paul in Romans?

    Romans 5:12
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
    and death by sin;
    and so death passed upon all men,
    'for that' (eg 'by reason of which) all have sinned:

    You see, he did NOT say that SIN passed upon all men, by which all men have a SIN nature at all... Instead he is showing how it is that sin gained its foothold by death, for it is the "death nature" that we inherit in Adam, and we in Christ are to overcome death by crucifying this "death nature"... "For he who has suffered has overcome sin..."


    Of course Adam sinned, but he was created upright, yet mutable, able to sin or not to sin. Adam was not born a sinner as are we all after him.

    AMR
    Well, it is true that "...in sins did my mother bear me..." and that indeed being born of the seed of man is itself laden with issues, the plain fact is that the conception of a human being, in terms of the person so conceived, does not bequeath sin, but death, and in the weakness and darkness of that death in the person so conceived, indeed in his or her very flesh, nd then the person commits sins...

    eg We are not conceived sinners, but as ones bearing death in us, and in this death we are born... And in it we sin... Because of it we sin... And this has very practical consequences, because by understanding it this way, we know our enemy, and can ask the help we need in overcoming the sins our enemy, death, is giving us reason to commit...

    How do you answer Paul, who tells us that we inherit death and not a "sin nature"? [Which is I think what you mean when you say: "...born a sinner as we all are..."]

    Arsenios
    Last edited by Arsenios; July 29th, 2014 at 08:01 PM.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  21. #41
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Knowledge is in minds,
    (It is) not 'out there'.
    Actually, it is in PERSONS...

    The sucker punch of the Latin Scholasticism of the Middle Ages is this neo-scholastic and Protestant idea that knowledge exists in minds, and that it consists in intellectual correspondences between mental data and the great "out there" of an external world... Were this true, we would not all be caught up in the Cartesian Box we find ourselves in... Indeed, were it true, we would not have athletic training to get better at athletic skills... We build memory into our bodies in ALL skills, AS WELL as in our intellect...

    There is such a thing as ontological knowledge, where we become what we know, and this is the "Knowing God" that IS Life Eternal... The "epistemological" prerequisite of theological knowledge is not university classroom training with Bible readings, but is instead the repentance of the sinner putting sin to death in his own members, from which such knowledge of God arises, and without which it does not arise, for it is the Gift of God by His Grace of Himself to us who turn from sin as a way of life...

    Arsenios

    I mean, the title of this thread is, after all, the BIG PICTURE, yes?
    Last edited by Arsenios; July 29th, 2014 at 07:58 PM.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  23. #42
    LIFETIME MEMBER Desert Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 182 Times in 115 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    451548
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    That's because "afterward" we have moved into our Lord Jesus Christ. I think of it as being "adopted" by a powerful Lord, and coming to live in His house as one of His children. We get to play in a big backyard, but there is a fence He will not allow us to cross....lest we get accosted by the sex offender down the street, or run over by a speeding car. We are being trained up in the way we should go under the close supervision of a loving Father.
    1 Cor. 10:13
    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    It is a good thought. However, I feel that the fence that we are not allowed to cross is still an emprisonment which is contrary to the notion of openness. What binds us to Christ is not a set of high walls but trust (= faith). Trust loses its meaning when there is coercion. I agree with Paul as you have quoted, however, the fact that God gives us the means to bear every temptation that comes our way doesn't imply that we have to bear it. We are still free not to bear those temptations and to submit to them. The fact that we remain faithful even though we could walk away, is a feather in God's cap, so to speak. That translates into spiritual warfare. It is like the prayers of the saints continually reaching up as fragrant incense to heaven. Our faithfulness gives God power. If there are walls, the walls represent the limit of our faith. Without walls our faith can be limitless and we reach Jesus' teaching that if we ask anything in his name then it wil be granted us.
    Last edited by Desert Reign; July 30th, 2014 at 07:06 PM.
    Total Misanthropy.
    Uncertain salvation.
    Luck of the draw.
    Irresistible damnation.
    Persecution of the saints.

    Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
    (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
    Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
    Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Desert Reign For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  25. #43
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,837
    Thanks
    3,017
    Thanked 2,735 Times in 1,669 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    75 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147668
    Quote Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post

    You see, he did NOT say that SIN passed upon all men, by which all men have a SIN nature at all... Instead he is showing how it is that sin gained its foothold by death, for it is the "death nature" that we inherit in Adam, and we in Christ are to overcome death by crucifying this "death nature"... "For he who has suffered has overcome sin..."
    I disagree entirely.

    Rather than wax eloquent with no opener, how about prefacing your commentary with the fact that it represents the EO view of "ancestral sin" (the passing on inherited mortality and death rather than guilt such that a man's will is unaffected) versus the Protestant view of "original sin"? I fear some that are quite taken with you will fall into error. I aim to prevent that from happening.

    The EO view is summed up as:
    "There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly Gregory Palamas. "

    SRC: John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983)

    And before you protest that Meyendorff as liberal, Kallistos Ware would concur.

    Whereas, in the West, the WSC sums it up:

    WSC Question 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

    Answer. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in
    the guilt of Adam’s first sin,
    the want of original righteousness, and
    the corruption of his whole nature
    which is commonly called original sin;
    together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

    With respect to this typical view from the EO, which seeks to show how close our view are:
    http://www.orthodoxevangelical.com/2...lse-dichotomy/

    I suspect we agree that the corruption of the whole nature is connected with our ontological, biological connection to Adam in one race of humanity. That is but one single part of that which is our natural, human taint. We are sinners through transmission and we act the same as all our fellow men working out that intrinsic evil.

    It is of greater significance that we are "guilty by association" through the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed to all of us; because we are reckoned "righteous by association" through the righteousness of One, even Christ, Rom. 5:17-18.

    Imputation is more significant than ontological solidarity, even if the latter category describes mankind as a one-in-origin. God made a covenant-separation between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. And again, between the seed of Abraham, and the rest of mankind. God's legal categories break up the biological unity of man. His legal declarations give rise to new ontological categories.

    In the East, as much as in the West, the dominant church teaches salvation by means of transformation. The EO, like yourself, teach eventually there is a subsuming of that human nature of ours in something else, the expectation of theosis. This is simply not just another way of explaining our doctrine of final sanctification or glorification.

    EO does not give the legal aspect of salvation its due. EO downplays it and gives room for Gnostic philosophy to penetrate the church's categories. EO ends up with salvation as more of an attainment (a level, theosis) for our persons to arrive unto, than a rightly re-ordered relationship of creature to Creator.

    The right relation for us means salvation, now, regardless of the pre or or post estate glory.The right relation is defined by being "in Christ," and that is fundamentally federal theology. Contrary to EO, that ontological transference from one kind of humanity to another is not something we are waiting for, once theosis has occurred. Rather it is a very present reality, 2 Cor. 3:18: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another."

    For more:
    http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calv...orthodoxy.html

    Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:


    The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:

    Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

    Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  27. #44
    Over 1500 post club Arsenios's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 39 Times in 36 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    80164

    Originally Posted by Arsenios View Post

    You see, he did NOT say that SIN passed upon all men, by which all men have a SIN nature at all... Instead he is showing how it is that sin gained its foothold by death, for it is the "death nature" that we inherit in Adam, and we in Christ are to overcome death by crucifying this "death nature"... "For he who has suffered has overcome sin..."



    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    I disagree entirely.
    Thank-you AMR -

    Because you have taken from what I wrote exactly what constitutes its core,
    and see it as fundamentally wrong, and have said so.
    I must confess, I grow weary of being disagreed with
    on the basis of what I have not said...

    So thank you again!

    Rather than wax eloquent with no opener, how about prefacing your commentary with the fact that it represents the EO view of "ancestral sin" (the passing on inherited mortality and death rather than guilt such that a man's will is unaffected) versus the Protestant view of "original sin"? I fear some that are quite taken with you will fall into error. I aim to prevent that from happening.
    Well, thank-you for the slap of my eloquent wax - Let's see if you can form it into a seal that will close my lips! fwiw, I think all here know that I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and that I speak from that perspective, and that the EOC perspective is fundamentally opposed to the Scholastic tradition of the Latin Church, and the neo-scholastic tradition of its illegitimate offspring, the spawn known as the Protestant Reformation... And that while we do not in any way scorn the intellect, we understand knowledge of God to proceed only from repentance on man's part, and only from God's Grace on God's part...

    But because you are of this neo-scholastic spawn from Latin Scholastic Rome, I was trying, somewhat valiantly in the vanity of my own self perception, I might add... I was trying, I say, to frame my response in a way that derives its grasp from Scripture... Because THAT, you see, is YOUR basis of understanding... It is ALSO one of the bases of understanding for the EOC, but it is an entry level understanding... It is the understanding we give to catechumens as they are starting out on new lives of life-long repentance as service in the Lord...

    So yes, I am unapologetically a Christian of the Old School, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and I DO speak from that perspective, and have been doing so, insofar as I have managed to actually be successful in so doing, for well over 2000 postings here...

    The EO view is summed up as:
    "There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly Gregory Palamas. "
    Yes... And this in response to the West and its mistaken understanding of the fall...

    btw - Have you read Gregory Palamas' Homily #51?

    SRC: John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983)

    And before you protest that Meyendorff as liberal, Kallistos Ware would concur.
    The only time I have seen His Grace [Kalistos] break out of his pedantic style of speaking is when he reads Aquinas in Latin, whence cometh utterly unforeseen emotional explurgations! Then, when he translates them into English, he returns to placid pedanticisms...

    Father John [Meyendorff] is/was fairly traditional in his praxeological approach to the Faith of Christ... I have "read at" [eg skimmed and read a few paragraphs] some of his writings... Whatever his faults, and we all have many, he was instrumental in bringing many of the best and brightest of the western pastors into the EOC in the face of the decline of their churches and teachings and practices...

    Whereas, in the West, the WSC sums it up:

    WSC Question 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

    Answer. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in
    the guilt of Adam’s first sin,
    the want of original righteousness, and
    the corruption of his whole nature
    which is commonly called original sin;
    together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.
    OK...

    With respect to this typical view from the EO, which seeks to show how close our view are:
    http://www.orthodoxevangelical.com/2...lse-dichotomy/
    There are a lot of areas of agreement, but the fundamental one is that even having the discussion of doctrine regarding them is fundamentally problematic, and is done only out of the evangellical ekonomia of the Faith... iow Even if we were to totally agree on each and every formulaic statement regarding the Ancestral Sin, it would not mean that we have a unity of nous on the matter, and this because we do not approach that understanding from the perspective of logical systematics, but instead from the perspective of first hand experience within the praxis of repentance within the Faith...

    I suspect we agree that the corruption of the whole nature is connected with our ontological, biological connection to Adam in one race of humanity.
    Indeed, the ontological being greater than the biological, which is a consequence of it...

    That is but one single part of that which is our natural, human taint.
    Calling the whole of human ontology to be but a single part does not sit all that well in my enguttednesses!

    We are sinners through transmission
    We are sinners through doing sin...

    and we act the same as all our fellow men working out that intrinsic evil.
    We all sin, but each differrently and unrepeatably from the other...

    It is of greater significance that we are "guilty by association" through the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed to all of us; because we are reckoned "righteous by association" through the righteousness of One, even Christ, Rom. 5:17-18.
    So you think we have inherited associational guilt having common sins because Adam is our progenitor, and HE was guilty of the first sin...??

    This is where our path divides...

    And it is where Paul disagrees with you when he tells us we have inherited death and therefore commit sin. You are teaching that we have inherited sin, and therefore die...

    Imputation is more significant than ontological solidarity, even if the latter category describes mankind as a one-in-origin. God made a covenant-separation between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. And again, between the seed of Abraham, and the rest of mankind. God's legal categories break up the biological unity of man. His legal declarations give rise to new ontological categories.
    And as the divergence widens, you expand into western Latin legalisms applied to salvation, giving imputation in place of repentance unto God's Grace IMPARTED... And you depart from ontology, which means REALITY, and enter into a non-ontological imputation without impartation...

    In the East, as much as in the West, the dominant church teaches salvation by means of transformation.
    The dfference is the East does not shoot itself in the foot with legalistic imputation without ontological impartation, and from your post, it would seem that you do this because you regard ontology as but a part of the fall...

    The EO, like yourself, teach eventually there is a subsuming of that human nature of ours in something else, the expectation of theosis. This is simply not just another way of explaining our doctrine of final sanctification or glorification.
    You would do well to meet an elder...

    But more to the point, we teach that it is very possible that we become like Paul when he writes: "No longer I, but Christ within me..." That this marks fully mature Christianity... We do not call it subsuming, but the successful putting to death of our Old Man in self denial and suffering for Christ... Because it marks the maturity of the New Creation we become in the Baptismal Waters of Regeneration...

    EO does not give the legal aspect of salvation its due.
    Sure we do! We give it our scorn!

    EO downplays it and gives room for Gnostic philosophy to penetrate the church's categories.
    That is a common accusation... The Gnostics buy into it as well... They have come to me often thinking they have an ally online, and they walk away dazed and confused... You see, they think that by their spiritual experiences, they are elevated and have a special mission to mankind, and in this vanity they are full of beans. They are outside the Body of Christ, and have a "spirituality" that they find themselves in, which is not a product of repentance... Much like children of extreme abuse "disappear" from their abusers while being abused, forget the event that happened, and find themselves having certain "spiritual powers" of discernment of persons, they simply have not "paid the dues" of conscious repentance and remembrance...

    The EOC understands the Gnostics, for theirs is a spiritual world... Their error is that they think it is Christ's... And for that, the matter lies between them and Christ. I asked on woman on TheologyWeb to simply ATTEND an EOC Service of the Divine Liturgy, so as to report back to me what her spiritual experience of it was, and I kept urging her to do so for over a year, and she never went... But she was keen to recruit me into her circle... Yaarghhh!

    I tell ya, the Gnostics flee from the EOC - We can show them WHERE in their INNER life they made the wrong turn, and they do not like the idea of entering into a life of repentance to the end... We are like Holy Water on the rump of a demon to them...

    EO ends up with salvation as more of an attainment (a level, theosis) for our persons to arrive unto, than a rightly re-ordered relationship of creature to Creator.
    "These also He hath Glorified..."

    Yet we don't attain squat... Even our so called repentance is but a personally establishment of sincerity on our part for the repentance given by God...

    The right relation for us means salvation, now, regardless of the pre or or post estate glory.The right relation is defined by being "in Christ," and that is fundamentally federal theology.
    I have no idea what any of this means... WE do say that we not only HAVE BEEN Saved in Baptism, but that we ARE BEING Saved each day and year and second, and we SHALL BE Saved at the Dread Judgement...

    Contrary to EO, that ontological transference from one kind of humanity to another is not something we are waiting for, once theosis has occurred. Rather it is a very present reality, 2 Cor. 3:18: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another."
    You claim it, but establish it as outside your ontology as imputation without impartation...

    We only care about what is REAL...

    Theosis is a Reality in the EOC...

    Our Theology is Empirical...

    For more:
    http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calv...orthodoxy.html

    Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:


    The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:

    Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

    Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

    Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?

    AMR


    A lot of demonic scales flutter back to their slime when one unburdens one's soul with affirmative answers to the confessional questions enumerated above...

    Arsenios

    PS - I had said that Paul did NOT SAY that SIN had passed upon all men...

    And you said you entirely disagree...

    Paul said DEATH was passed by Adam to all men...

    And you said you entirely disagree...

    And Paul said that because of death, all men have sinned...

    And you said that you entirely disagree...

    Were you entirely sincere in this entire disagreement?

    A.
    Last edited by Arsenios; July 31st, 2014 at 11:55 AM.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Arsenios For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

  29. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    970
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Surely I'm entitled to think of LFW as a mechanism for something?
    You can think of it however you like, but words have meanings and I'm pointing out the meaning of LFW given by common academic usage.

    On the other hand, what is significant in saying that it is a 'logical position'?
    Rather than defining a mechanism, it defines logical parameters of human freedom--a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for human freedom. It isn't concerned with how this freedom works (mechanism) but what it is.

    You have no more right to say that than I have to say it is a mechanism.
    Sure I do. You should read about what it is.

    After all, LFW is proposed by its proponents as an explanation of how choices are made.
    No, not really. It doesn't explain in any sort of scientific or empirical way. It certainly doesn't give any insight into how choices are made--just the opposite.

    It is touted as the reason why people are responsible for their actions. It is also surely naive to think that those who tout it see it as merely another way of saying that a person could have done something other than what they did?
    The ability to do otherwise is by far the most basic and fundamental aspect of LFW. Many philosophers would simply equate it with that ability, and some would add further conditions.

    It is more than that: it an assertion that there is something within the person that is punishable or that makes the person punishable.
    Nothing more is required to make the person punishable. If they had the ability to do otherwise, then they are punishable.

    Once again, I am not arguing that such a thing exists. I am sitting on the fence. I don't require the existence of some kind of non-physical soul or specific tangible psychological function to support my belief that decisions are open.
    Again, LFW has nothing to do with such psychological machinations.

    I am arguing over truth issues, not over what the debate positions are.
    You are using the positions to explain the issues, and you are using them incorrectly. Thus you inevitably miss the truth (and effective communication).

    This makes me think you don't really understand the terms used in the debate, much less the debate itself. LFW has nothing intrinsically to do with predestination. "Openness" is a neologism that is primarily concerned with predestination, and simply doesn't exist outside of theological circles. It is primarily a position with respect to God or ontological possibility rather than human will. Consider:

    A = "Humans have free will"
    B = "Determinism is true"

    Libertarianism (LFW) = A and ~B
    Compatibilism = A and B
    Hard Determinism = ~A and B
    Compatibilists have a different understanding of free will to LFW.
    Of course they do. They don't think it precludes determinism. You would see this if you read what I wrote to you.

    So your summary above doesn't really mean much. It is shifting sand.
    Well, no. It means quite a bit. It's not rocket science, but if you keep misusing words you're not going to actually be communicating with anyone.

    That is why the phrase LFW had to be coined. Because the ordinary meaning of the simple phrase 'free will' or even just 'will' had been corrupted by compatibilists.
    Yes, it was a distinction that became necessary.

    I believe as a matter of truth that free will is incompatible with determinism.
    Then you're a libertarian.

    That is the issue, not whether I have understood the terms of a debate other people happen to be having.
    It becomes problematic when a libertarian ends up attacking libertarianism based on a false notion. But if you like, you can ignore my points and continue to talk past people for the rest of your life.

    In any event, you addressed about 10% of my post. There was plenty of non-semantic, "truthy" content that you ignored.


  30. The Following User Says Thank You to zippy2006 For Your Post:

    theophilus (February 27th, 2016)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us