Calvinism--TULIP

[Saved_4ever]

If everytime I got in the car with my wife, I start telling her the wonders of hoe this machine works, our relationship would get pretty scary.

Not a big car lover huh?  

[Whitehorse]

Instead of looking to see, if the teachingfs, aligned themselves with Biblical teaching, "Liberals" argue against His teachings, based on the points.

Absolutely. That's the element that pervades all of liberalism, in all its forms. That gives postmodernism the power it has to actually pervade religious thought. How one can take an absolute standard and remove the absolutes...I guess it has to be done by getting away from the absolutes without actually seeming like they're doing that. And it deceives many.

[PastorTom]

All people are born in sin.  We are full of evil lust and inclinations from our mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God.  Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

We cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God by our own merits, works, or satisfactions, but we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, when we believe that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us.

To obtain such faith God instituted the office of the ministry, that is, provided the Gospel and the sacraments.  Through these, as through means, God gives the Holy Spirit, who works faith, when and where she pleases, in those who hear the Gospel.

Grace is a relationship.  To impose a relationship of love and
forgiveness is impossible.  God does not overpower us, but reaches out to us even before we are able to respond.  Remember:  "If you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, then God will save you," is Law, not Gospel.  The Law cannot save us so this message cannot save us.  "Because of what God has done in Christ, therefore your destiny is good," is Gospel and hearing this message does save us.

The "flip side" of grace is faith.  Faith is the presence of Christ by the Holy Spirit.  We are saved by grace through faith - i.e., God saves us graciously by sending Christ to be present in us by the Holy Spirit in, with, and under Word and Sacrament.  Christ present in us responds to God's grace by trusting that what the Word (in words, water, and bread and wine) promises is given to us in the disciple community.

God is graciously offering Christ by the Spirit to everyone who hears the Gospel (Hearing the Gospel is an event of salvation!).  Some of us, unfortunately, decide to let our free will kick in and we reject the Good News.  We make a free choice and decide that we can just as well save ourselves, that we can do what is required for salvation.  Even if what is required is as little as "choose Jesus," it is still a rejection of the Gospel.  Thus, the argument for free will is not an argument in defense of the Gospel, it is a direct attack on the Gospel.

The problem is in assuming that, after the fall, we really have a totally free will.  Even apart from a theology of the will, how free are we?  Did you choose your own parents?  Did you choose when or where to be born?  Did you design your own genetic makeup?  Given how significant these are to our
lives, free will as a concept seems to be rather superficial.  Its function is to make us good capitalists and consumers and it enables us to blame the poor for their condition rather than see the flaws in the economic system.

We have limited areas in which we can make choices.  We can choose, for example, to be good citizens or good workers or good parents.  What we cannot do is choose to save ourselves.  "I am in bondage to sin and cannot save myself."  The will, left to its own devices, always turns in on itself and
chooses works rather than grace through faith.  As we get further and further into ourselves we end up either in despair or self-righteousness.

I probably tend toward being agnostic.  That is, if justification is by grace alone, we can't possibly know who is saved and who is not.  More importantly, if justification is by grace through faith, God has already taken care of the problem of salvation.  It is not one we need to worry about - either our own salvation or others.  Our call is not to decide who is saved and who is not, but to communicate the Gospel far
and wide and to work for the health and well-being of our communities.

Shalom

[PastorTom]

Ollie:

The narrative begins at Mark 10.13 with the remark that "they" (perhaps parents) were bringing young children, that he might touch them.  But the disciples scolded or rebuked those bringing the children.  This may reflect a typical ancient attitude that young children were less important than adults, and that important teachers shouldn't be bothered by them.  There are early Jewish texts which stress the immaturity of children.  The disciples' action causes Jesus to be indignant with them, and in essence he rebukes the rebukers.  They had not remembered the lesson about receiving the little ones in Jesus' name (Mark 9.36-37).  He says, "Permit the young children to come to me and od not hinder them, for of such is the dominion of God."  With an authority such as only God can claim, he promises the Kingdom to those whose faith resembles the empty hand of a beggar.  Notice that Jesus says nothing about building or accomplishing the dominion or making it happen, but only of receiving and entering it.  Jesus is not romanticizing children or childhood as a time of innocence.  His point is that children are content to receive something as a gift, and this is the proper way all persons should receive the dominion or divine saving activity of God.

After this saying, there is appended an additional word of Jesus which says, "Amen I say to you, unless you receive the dominion as a child, you shall not enter it."  Notice the way this saying suggests there is both a present ("receive") and a future dimension ("enter") to God's dominion.  It is unlikely that this means "unless you receive it during childhood," but it is just possible that what is meant is receiving the dominion in like fashion to which one should receive a little child - unconditionally and with open arms, as Jesus did.  Notice that Jesus gives a warm embrace to children in both 9.36 and 10.16.  This novel suggestion intimates that we are to treat the dominion as if it were a child.

The usual reading of the aphorism, however, is that Jesus means we should receive the dominion in the same fashion that children receive it, a more probable reading in view of 10.13-14, and 16, which recounts how Jesus received children, texts which speak to the issue of the place of children in the dominion.  The point, then, is that the dominion is made up of children and those like them, not that the dominion is like a child in some manner.  Thus those commended become role models, while those corrected become warnings.  Perhaps making the child's behavior a model for adult behavior was so counterintuitive in Jesus' setting that the strong assertion of Jesus' personal authority ("Amen, I say to you...") was required to back it up.  In context there is a notable contrast between the ease with which children enter the dominion of God and the difficulty with which rich adults do so.

The pericope closes in v.16 with an action of Jesus which indicates clear acceptance of the children and of the intentions of those who brought them.  Jesus goes beyond touching the children to hugging them.  Thus it can be said:  Jesus uses the smallest member of the physical family as a model for members of the family of faith and gives children a place in the Kingdom.  The evidence of Jesus' positive attitude toward children, their place in the Kingdom, and how they might serve as models for disciples and be served by disciples seems to imply a positive estimation of a woman's role as child-bearer and mother (as well as a positive estimation of a father's role).  Of course, this text is also a parade example demonstrating Jesus' great concern for and compassion on the weak and most vulnerable members of society.

Why should not the child represent an actual class of exploited persons, as does every other subject of Jesus' advocacy in Mark?  Mark is concerned to unmask the realities of domination within community and even within kindred relationships.  Indeed, from the narrative world of Mark we have cause to suspect that all is not well for the child in first-century Palestinian society.  For where do we meet children in the Gospel?  In every case, it is in situations of sickness and oppression:  the synagogue ruler's daughter (5.21ff.), the Syrophoenician's daughter (7.24ff.), the deaf dumb son (9.14ff.)....  The social signification of such consistent narrative portrait suggests that Mark understands the child as victim.

Indeed, the previous two passages show Jesus to be the protector of both women and children, the most vulnerable members of society.  In the first instance he protects women by forbidding divorce, thus giving them more social and economic security.  In the second instance he protects children by showing them to be valid and valuable members of God's domain who should be welcomed with open arms.

The text says nothing about children's sinlessness, innocence, purity.  It talks about receiving the kingdom like a child who accepts a gift without question, who receives God's grace without trying to earn it.  "'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.  Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.'  And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them."

Shalom

[pnotc]

Calvinism is a pernicious, unbiblical doctrine.  It was never held by anyone in the church (except for some Calvinistic leanings in St. Augustine) until the Reformation.  That in itself is a mark against it.  

However, the biggest problems I have with Calvinism are the way it distorts scripture and the fact that it makes God the author and agent of evil.  The former is evidently clear, as when Petro takes the verses that state God is not willing for any to perish to mean he is not willing to let those he's elected perish.  The clearest, most simple interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Calvinist teachings.  In fact, it would attempt to have it mean something diametrically opposed to it; God is very willing to let people perish.  Also, Petro states specifically that Christ did not die for the whole world, even though the Bible clearly teaches He did.  Once again, we are left with a convoluted reinterpretation of scripture to let it meet the demands of Calvinist doctrine.  There are many other examples.  

Now, for the latter.  Calvinism requires that God is exhaustively sovereign over every element of creation.  The rain, the sea, erosion, the sun, etc, etc.  But it also requires that God be in utter control of our every action as well, including sin.  Every sin, every evil deed, thought or desire is the direct result of God's intent per Calvinist doctrine.  And this is a blasphemous, morally repugnant thing to believe.

Calvinism is also logically inconsistent.  To get around my points above, it had to create a doctrine that absolved God of evil but did not impugn his sovereignty.  So it came up with the idea that man is free to do exactly what he wants, but all the wants to do in his fallen state is sin (an obvious contradiction of Romans 7).  Therefore, God is still able to predestine people to heaven and hell, while still retaining his sovereignty, and yet is not evil because man has freedom.  A nicy tidy little package, until you get to the first 3 chapters of Genesis.  Adam and Eve were not fallen, so they were pure, they were holy, they had only good intentions and desires (which is all they were capable of since they did not have a fallen nature).  So why did they sin?  Either it is because God forced them to or they had the freedom to choose to disobey God.  The former makes God a monster and the original author of sin.  And the latter means that the unfallen nature is not entirely good.  If the unfallen nature is not entirely good, since it chose to sin knowing full well it was against God's wishes, then neither can the fallen nature be entirely bad.  Hence, the Calvinistic system falls apart.  

On a side note, I find it quite humorous that you are a Calvinist, Petro.  After you rail against Orthodox Christians for believing in the "traditions of men," it is very humorous to find you believe something that is so contrary to scripture, and is truly a recent and very human tradition.  

[Petro]

Calvinism is a pernicious, unbiblical doctrine.  It was never held by anyone in the church (except for some Calvinistic leanings in St. Augustine) until the Reformation.  That in itself is a mark against it.  

However, the biggest problems I have with Calvinism are the way it distorts scripture and the fact that it makes God the author and agent of evil.  The former is evidently clear, as when Petro takes the verses that state God is not willing for any to perish to mean he is not willing to let those he's elected perish.  The clearest, most simple interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Calvinist teachings.  In fact, it would attempt to have it mean something diametrically opposed to it; God is very willing to let people perish.  Also, Petro states specifically that Christ did not die for the whole world, even though the Bible clearly teaches He did.  Once again, we are left with a convoluted reinterpretation of scripture to let it meet the demands of Calvinist doctrine.  There are many other examples.  

Now, for the latter.  Calvinism requires that God is exhaustively sovereign over every element of creation.  The rain, the sea, erosion, the sun, etc, etc.  
.  And this is a blasphemous, morally repugnant thing to believe.

Calvinism is also logically inconsistent.  To get around my points above, it had to create a doctrine that absolved God of evil but did not impugn his sovereignty.  So it came up with the idea that man is free to do exactly what he wants, but all the wants to do in his fallen state is sin (an obvious contradiction of Romans 7).  Therefore, God is still able to predestine people to heaven and hell, while still retaining his sovereignty, and yet is not evil because man has freedom.  A nicy tidy little package, until you get to the first 3 chapters of Genesis.  Adam and Eve were not fallen, so they were pure, they were holy, they had only good intentions and desires (which is all they were capable of since they did not have a fallen nature).  So why did they sin?  Either it is because God forced them to or they had the freedom to choose to disobey God.  The former makes God a monster and the original author of sin.  And the latter means that the unfallen nature is not entirely good.  If the unfallen nature is not entirely good, since it chose to sin knowing full well it was against God's wishes, then neither can the fallen nature be entirely bad.  Hence, the Calvinistic system falls apart.  

On a side note, I find it quite humorous that you are a Calvinist, Petro.  After you rail against Orthodox Christians for believing in the "traditions of men," it is very humorous to find you believe something that is so contrary to scripture, and is truly a recent and very human tradition.  

pnotc,

You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth.

You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding.

You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it.

By the way, you asked a question on the images of the cherubs, being used in the tabernacle/temple of God.

I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them.  

From tyhe confidence you exhibited in asking such a question, I was sure you knew, but I wonder if your really do.

Care to tell us?

If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition.  I am sure Orthodoxy has a piles of papers written on the subject, but they won't fly here, you know, we need the inspired version.

You said;

  by pnotc;
But it also requires that God be in utter control of our every action as well, including sin.  Every sin, every evil deed, thought or desire is the direct result of God's intent per Calvinist doctrine

From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent.

Blessings,
Petro

[pnotc]

Petro-

"You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth."

Once again we are blessed by your psychic ability to peer deeply into my soul!  I sincerely doubt that I have any Methodist leanings still clinging to my brain cells, since we weren't all that active in the church.  I mostly went to pre-school there and went to Sunday school until the 4th grade.  While I don't remember much of it, I don't think they delved too deeply into theological differences at that level.  And no, for the record, I fully believe in the sovereignty of God.  I simply believe that he is so sovereign that his authority and control are not threatened by free will in his creations.  Your God-concept puts God on the defensive; if he's not in control of everything, he's not in control of anything.  In this, Calvinism imposes a definition of sovereignty onto God that is not present in scripture.  Scripture certainly teaches that God is in control and has the power to do whatever he wishes, but there are also thousands of examples of his creations exercising choice.  

"You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding."

I fully believe in His wisdom and understanding.  I also fully believe that you are adhering to what you believe to be true, however mistakenly that adherence may be.  And you're right, I never will see it, because it's not biblical.  It imposes outside conditions and ideas onto the Word.  Granted, they are imposed with good intentions, but they are nevertheless, false teachings.  

"You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it."

Your psychic powers again?  You've stated this before, this "you-see-yourself-as-sovereign-like-God" thing, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.  Care to elaborate?

"I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them."

The question was originally asked by Kerygma, and you didn't answer it then.  And when you finally did "answer" it, your response was something along the lines of "I don't dare to questions Gods word you filthy, heathen sinners."  Okay, I added that last part, but it was certainly implied in the tone of your posts.  Also, I think you're forgetting that I did answer your question.  I'll save you the time of looking it up - God ordered those decorations because he sees (unlike you) the difference between idols and images used to bring him glory.  Cherubs and icons are the latter, whereas you continually confuse them with the former.  This, of course, is due to your hatred of all things Roman, and by extension, all things Traditional.  As for me slithering off, you're the one who decided to stop posting on that page.  You got off a couple of fleeing salvos, and then disappeared.  Want to rejoin the conversation?

"If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition."

Happily.  But this isn't the thread for it.  Come over to Orthodoxy part 2 and we'll get back into it.  

"we need the inspired version."

Or do you mean "Petro's version?"

"From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent."

Actually, I know very well what Calvin taught.  I did some research in this area a few years back.  Calvin didn't teach TULIP, or any of that other stuff.  He simply laid the groundwork, and his followers took his teachings to their logical conclusions.  It is those conclusions that I was referring to.  You may hold to a different set of beliefs on the matter, but its really not a viable position.  Any Calvinist doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, makes God the ultimate author of evil.  From your statements, you seem to fall in line with "hyper-Calvinism."  And yet you offer up ludicrous arguments like:

The evil one knows that there is a Godly seed, but he is in the dark as to who they are, just like us, this is why, his goal to deceive,  devour, kill, and murder, pillage rape, and what ever, in hopes of frusterating Gods Plan, if he can cause the death of just one of the elect,  whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the world, then he can thwart the Plan of God.

First off, if we don't know who the elect are, why do you continually condemn those of us who disagree with you?  How do you know we're not one of the elect?  For that matter, how do you know that you are?  Now, the last part of your statement is absurd.  If God has chosen these people before the foundations of the earth to be saved, then they will be saved.  There is no room for the devil to do anything, much less thwart God's plan.  If they die unsaved, then they were not foreordained to salvation.  You contradict yourself in this.  The elect are the elect are the elect.  The devil certainly has no say in this.  If they are elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, how on earth could they possibly lose that salvation?

but He brought me kicking and screaming and arguing with his Word,  to the truth that I was a sinner, needing to repent. He didn't force to repent

I'm assuming the last sentence intended to say that he didn't force you to repent.  The fact of the matter is, if he brought you kicking and screaming then he did.  Oh, and of course, this violates the I in TULIP.  Irresistible means, in this context, you were indeed forced into repentance.  Another hole in your logic.

Oh, and this kind of thing:

"Others see their salvation differently, and do so to give themselves credit, because they really don't want God to get all of the credit."

is self-serving, self-righteous crap.  All your talk makes it abundantly clear that you are very, very satisfied with yourself and quite full of pride.  It was a nice sentiment though.

[stelizabeth]

Pnotc,

Do you know you are Orthodox yet?  smile.

By the way, and I am sure Pnotc knows this, the Historic Church (the Orthodox Church...just have to rile Petro up here) does not believe in the concept of original sin as does the Roman Church and her children...the protestants.  The Church teaches that we are not born guilty of any other person's sin, but that because of the fall, we are born with the tendancy to sin and into a sinful world.

By the way, I was under the impression that Petro was a member of the Church of Christ.  I have a good friend who is and he sure sounds like her.  I am sure Pnotc knows about this group and who founded them and their teachings so I won't get into that.

Pnotc, is there a chance you would share with us where you got your degree?  Do you know all that Greek or did you have to look it up?  You are amazing.  I predict that in 5 years or so you will be an Orthodox priest.  WAIT....don't panic!

And PastorTom (is that right) I am guessing you are Lutheran?

With love in Christ,
Elizabeth

And Peter if you are reading this, you would REALLY get upset with them, the Church of Christ, because they teach that if you don't agree with there beliefs totally you are going to hell.   Now they believe that they are only following the Bible.

[Petro]

Petro-

"You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth."

Once again we are blessed by your psychic ability to peer deeply into my soul!  I sincerely doubt that I have any Methodist leanings still clinging to my brain cells, since we weren't all that active in the church.  I mostly went to pre-school there and went to Sunday school until the 4th grade.  While I don't remember much of it, I don't think they delved too deeply into theological differences at that level.  And no, for the record, I fully believe in the sovereignty of God.  I simply believe that he is so sovereign that his authority and control are not threatened by free will in his creations.  Your God-concept puts God on the defensive; if he's not in control of everything, he's not in control of anything.  In this, Calvinism imposes a definition of sovereignty onto God that is not present in scripture.  Scripture certainly teaches that God is in control and has the power to do whatever he wishes, but there are also thousands of examples of his creations exercising choice.  

"You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding."

I fully believe in His wisdom and understanding.  I also fully believe that you are adhering to what you believe to be true, however mistakenly that adherence may be.  And you're right, I never will see it, because it's not biblical.  It imposes outside conditions and ideas onto the Word.  Granted, they are imposed with good intentions, but they are nevertheless, false teachings.  

"You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it."

Your psychic powers again?  You've stated this before, this "you-see-yourself-as-sovereign-like-God" thing, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.  Care to elaborate?

"I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them."

The question was originally asked by Kerygma, and you didn't answer it then.  And when you finally did "answer" it, your response was something along the lines of "I don't dare to questions Gods word you filthy, heathen sinners."  Okay, I added that last part, but it was certainly implied in the tone of your posts.  Also, I think you're forgetting that I did answer your question.  I'll save you the time of looking it up - God ordered those decorations because he sees (unlike you) the difference between idols and images used to bring him glory.  Cherubs and icons are the latter, whereas you continually confuse them with the former.  This, of course, is due to your hatred of all things Roman, and by extension, all things Traditional.  As for me slithering off, you're the one who decided to stop posting on that page.  You got off a couple of fleeing salvos, and then disappeared.  Want to rejoin the conversation?

"If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition."

Happily.  But this isn't the thread for it.  Come over to Orthodoxy part 2 and we'll get back into it.  

"we need the inspired version."

Or do you mean "Petro's version?"

"From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent."

Actually, I know very well what Calvin taught.  I did some research in this area a few years back.  Calvin didn't teach TULIP, or any of that other stuff.  He simply laid the groundwork, and his followers took his teachings to their logical conclusions.  It is those conclusions that I was referring to.  You may hold to a different set of beliefs on the matter, but its really not a viable position.  Any Calvinist doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, makes God the ultimate author of evil.  From your statements, you seem to fall in line with "hyper-Calvinism."  And yet you offer up ludicrous arguments like:

The evil one knows that there is a Godly seed, but he is in the dark as to who they are, just like us, this is why, his goal to deceive,  devour, kill, and murder, pillage rape, and what ever, in hopes of frusterating Gods Plan, if he can cause the death of just one of the elect,  whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the world, then he can thwart the Plan of God.

First off, if we don't know who the elect are, why do you continually condemn those of us who disagree with you?  How do you know we're not one of the elect?  For that matter, how do you know that you are?  Now, the last part of your statement is absurd.  If God has chosen these people before the foundations of the earth to be saved, then they will be saved.  There is no room for the devil to do anything, much less thwart God's plan.  If they die unsaved, then they were not foreordained to salvation.  You contradict yourself in this.  The elect are the elect are the elect.  The devil certainly has no say in this.  If they are elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, how on earth could they possibly lose that salvation?

but He brought me kicking and screaming and arguing with his Word,  to the truth that I was a sinner, needing to repent. He didn't force to repent

I'm assuming the last sentence intended to say that he didn't force you to repent.  The fact of the matter is, if he brought you kicking and screaming then he did.  Oh, and of course, this violates the I in TULIP.  Irresistible means, in this context, you were indeed forced into repentance.  Another hole in your logic.

Oh, and this kind of thing:

"Others see their salvation differently, and do so to give themselves credit, because they really don't want God to get all of the credit."

is self-serving, self-righteous crap.  All your talk makes it abundantly clear that you are very, very satisfied with yourself and quite full of pride.  It was a nice sentiment though.

pnotc,

You are still kicking and screaming  at Him and at the pricks, what are you talking about.

You resist the Holy Spirit, yet..

You fail to recognize, that there are limits, to Gods word which He has placed beyond which we can only assume, this what He did or didn't do, and your pre sumption that these images were given that you might worship images is exactly that, presumption; which you need to excercise and get approval for from other men, because you desire to pray to them or thru them to justify it to yourself.

I have already given you his word and what he says, seen you can't receive it, I find fruitless to carry on with you concerning the matter of praying to angels and departed saints, go and  do what you are bent on doing.

I am not interested in arguing with those which ignore good council.

If you are a child of God, you should recognize, that he places a hedges around that which belongs to Him, and it would be well for you to stay put, if you belong to him, His desire is 100% obedience to His desires, and you are not ignorant of them, at least you won't be able to claim ignorance beyond this point.

For to obey is better than to sacrifce..and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

You pride yourself in being a military man, and yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord..

I say argue amongsts yourselves, and or councel yourselves, whatever you want to do is fine with me..

I see, no need to speak with you about the matter further.

Petro

[stelizabeth]

An, another one bites the dust.  Petro you are one of the most prideful men I have ever known (read).

I don't think Pnotc prides himself on anything.  He speaks from his knowledge of the truth as presented in the Bible and church history.  

[PastorTom]

Very perceptive Liz.  Lutheran I am.

Shalom

[Petro]

An, another one bites the dust.  Petro you are one of the most prideful men I have ever known (read).

I don't think Pnotc prides himself on anything.  He speaks from his knowledge of the truth as presented in the Bible and church history.  

stelizabeth,

Well of course you do, you are in this camp the distorts Gods word with pnotc and others, using intermediaries which are against the good word of God, which able to make you wise unto salvation.

Shalom,

Petro

[stelizabeth]

Petro, just one clarification, the only mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ.  We ask those who have departed this life to be with the Lord to INTERCEED for us...which means pray to God for us.  When you ask a friend to pray for you, you are asking him to interceed for you with God.  So, our differences rest on whether those who are in with Christ , but have departed this world, can "hear" our prayers and pray to God for us.

I have a quiz for you:

The Bible says what is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?
a. The Bible
b. The Church

Which came first?
a. The Bible
b. The Church

Who did Christ say the Holy Spirit would lead into all truth?

[pnotc]

Petro-

”You are still kicking and screaming  at Him and at the pricks, what are you talking about.”

I’d say by the attitudes and pride you’ve shown in these posts and in the other thread that you are the one kicking and screaming against God and His Church.  

”You resist the Holy Spirit, yet..”

Those psychic powers again?  You should get an infomercial.  

”You fail to recognize, that there are limits, to Gods word which He has placed beyond which we can only assume, this what He did or didn't do, and your pre sumption that these images were given that you might worship images is exactly that, presumption; which you need to excercise and get approval for from other men, because you desire to pray to them or thru them to justify it to yourself.”

Oy, but it gets difficult slogging through your petty insults and foolish statements. Especially when they so clearly contradict your own standing!  No, my presumption is not that the images were given so that I might worship images, since I don’t.  Your presumption is quite clear that any image is an idol.  We have shown this to not be the case, and yet you still refuse to accept the mere possibility that an icon might not be idolatrous.  And since I’ve never prayed to or through a saint, your last comment is, once again, baseless, ignorant, childish, petulant and ultimately irrelevant.  

”I have already given you his word and what he says, seen you can't receive it, I find fruitless to carry on with you concerning the matter of praying to angels and departed saints, go and  do what you are bent on doing.”

You haven’t given us any word on praying to departed saints, or angels for that matter.  You kept on repeating the 2nd Commandment and confusing Orthodox doctrine with Roman doctrine, and refused to accept correction when shown you were wrong.  I think you’re pretty bent on your own agenda, too.  

”I am not interested in arguing with those which ignore good council.”

LOLOLOL

”You pride yourself in being a military man”

I mentioned my military background once, and I’m actually very happy to be getting out of the Army.  

“and yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord..”

And you are clearly unable to discern his Word since I showed that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is not the Lord of Hosts.  To back up your argument, all you said was that a whole lot of commentators agreed with you, and then refused to provide a reference to any of those commentaries.  A reliance upon those commentaries would also be a reliance on the traditions of men, which you reject.  At least, you reject them when they don’t agree with you.  

I, too, see no need to discuss Orthodoxy any further in this thread.  But this thread is about Calvinism and you have yet to respond to a single one of my arguments.  Why is that?  Slithering away from an honest debate?


Stliz-

“Do you know you are Orthodox yet?  smile.”

I think my wife and I are fast on our way to joining the Church.  We’ve been doing a lot of studying and the church we’ve been attending (Antiochian) will be having a class for potential converts this summer, lasting for a couple of months.  I don’t think we’ll know for sure where God wants us for a bit longer, though.  

You bring up a good point about the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.  It is not a concept that was known or preached throughout the early church prior to him, and was definitely not the Judaic understanding of the Fall.  Since he was already brought up earlier, Justin Martyr actually preached that Adam and Eve and the story of the Fall demonstrated the moral freedom of human beings, in contrast to the Augustocalvin doctrine of inherited, binding sin.  

My degree is from Arizona State University in beautiful, and currently disgustingly hot, Tempe, AZ.  And no, I look up all my Greek references.  I’ve done a little bit of studying in Greek, but not at all enough to consider myself an even basically skilled exegete.  And I would never panic about becoming a priest!  I felt the call to ministry some time ago, and have been actively engaged in numerous leadership roles at my old home church.  If my wife and I join the Church, I will be heading towards the ministry.

Thank you for your kind words and God Bless!

[pnotc]

Ollie-

What scripture was Paul referring to when he wrote his epistles?  The Old Testament, of course.  Since Paul himself wrote a fair portion of the NT, and many scholars date the gospels after the start of Paul's ministry, its quite clear that when Paul talks about scripture, he was referring to the OT.  You rightly say that God, through his Holy Spirit, revealed his wisdom to the church.  

However, it is equally clear from Ephesians 3:3, that Paul's revelation was not taken from scripture, but directly from the Holy Spirit.  Here you have an example of extra-scriptural revelation; a revelation he checked against scripture, but not one that was explicitly found in it.  So yes, scripture is profitable and does furnish a Christian for all good works, but those statements cannot be seen to mean that God's truth is found only in scripture, for on several occassions, Paul himself refers to the "tradition" that he handed down to his churches.  We have no biblical evidence of what precisely this "tradition" was, but is it unreasonable to believe that he was as equally inspired in this as he was in his writings?