CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[historian]

If God is omnibenevolent

Now that's a term that I haven't seen before.

There is nothing that says God is omnibenevolent. If he was, half (or 3/4) the OT wouldn't exist. God is longsuffering, but not omnibenevolent.

 

[T.Lex]

They had a reason to celebrate. Just as those who are saved do now.

I on the other hand only have existential, eternal damnation to look forward to. Merry Christmas.

My daily Bible passage was from 15 Romans and inspired me to think of you and your ... situation. This isn't the passage that popped up (yes, foszoe, I'm still going rogue on a daily basis) but it led me to this one:

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, I've also been prayerfully discerning how to approach the whole Catholic confession topic. Clearly, it is a hurdle for some non-Catholics.

And then 15 Romans 3 basically spoke directly to me.

For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”

This may take awhile, but I'll try to prepare a foszoe-esque post that describes both my personal view, the biblical underpinnings, and Catholic doctrine on the matter of confession. I only hope it can be as clearly articulated as the lessons on Orthodoxy that get dropped into this thread.

 

[historian]

My daily Bible passage was from 15 Romans and inspired me to think of you and your ... situation. This isn't the passage that popped up (yes, foszoe, I'm still going rogue on a daily basis) but it led me to this one:

Thanks...but Romans was written to those who are saved. That is one of the reasons I know I never had it. There was no joy or peace in believing.

Good luck with the confessions. Might I suggest this one?

[video=youtube;RFcwJrQmChk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFcwJrQmChk[/video]

 

[CampingJosh]

There is nothing that says God is omnibenevolent.

Sure there is.
1 Timothy 2:4
John 3:16
1 John 4:7-10

I can't read those and come away thinking that God lacks love for anyone.

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks...but Romans was written to those who are saved.

Romans disagrees, especially in the setup for verse 13. Well, sure, Paul was writing TO the church, but not only ABOUT the church.

For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.

That portion itself references the OT.

Keep in mind that the context for that was in Jewish society, there was NO saving of gentiles. Just couldn't happen. Conversion could happen, but there was a different word for those who converted... and it involved circumcision. So, there wasn't exactly a long line of people trying to do that.

"Gentiles" were those who under Jewish law wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be saved.

Yet, here in Romans, they, too, should have hope in Jesus Christ. Paul was saying that gentiles - those who were not on the "right" list in that day and age - could find salvation through Christ.

 

[foszoe]

I have avoided direct engagement as you work through this, but it is the eisegetical reading of Romans that is key to understanding the fragmentation of Christianity, my completely personal opinion.

Thanks...but Romans was written to those who are saved. That is one of the reasons I know I never had it. There was no joy or peace in believing.

Good luck with the confessions. Might I suggest this one?

[video=youtube;RFcwJrQmChk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFcwJrQmChk[/video]

 

[historian]

Romans disagrees, especially in the setup for verse 13. Well, sure, Paul was writing TO the church, but not only ABOUT the church.



That portion itself references the OT.

Keep in mind that the context for that was in Jewish society, there was NO saving of gentiles. Just couldn't happen. Conversion could happen, but there was a different word for those who converted... and it involved circumcision. So, there wasn't exactly a long line of people trying to do that.

"Gentiles" were those who under Jewish law wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be saved.

Yet, here in Romans, they, too, should have hope in Jesus Christ. Paul was saying that gentiles - those who were not on the "right" list in that day and age - could find salvation through Christ.

Yes. Romans lays out the Basics of Christianity. The Gentiles were grafted in, the law was completed, and those who were chosen could now obtain salvation without converting to Judaism. It is why those who are saved are now from every tribe and nation. That doesn't change the fact that those who are saved are saved by the calling of the Spirit. If the Spirit doesn't regenerate a heart, then there is nothing that one can do.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. Romans lays out the Basics of Christianity. The Gentiles were grafted in, the law was completed, and those who were chosen could now obtain salvation without converting to Judaism. It is why those who are saved are now from every tribe and nation. That doesn't change the fact that those who are saved are saved by the calling of the Spirit. If the Spirit doesn't regenerate a heart, then there is nothing that one can do.

Well, I won't continue to belabor the point at this time, but suffice to say that I disagree. And, please know that you have people praying for you.

 

[historian]

Well, I won't continue to belabor the point at this time, but suffice to say that I disagree. And, please know that you have people praying for you.

I appreciate it (Even if you are the Catholic Rob Bell ).

 

[T.Lex]

The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.

 

[GTM]

I subscribe to "The Bible For Normal People" podcast by Pete Enns. Today's podcast was called "The Bible and Orthodox Faith". I found it very interesting in regards to previous conversations in this thread. I like the emphasis on Christus Victor, I've always had a problem with Penal Substitution Atonement theory. It just doesn't make sense.

Foszoe: if you get the chance to listen to it (it's about 40 minutes), I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what was presented.

 

[JettaKnight]

They had a reason to celebrate. Just as those who are saved do now.

I on the other hand only have existential, eternal damnation to look forward to. Merry Christmas.

 

[foszoe]

1. If 5-point Calvinism is true, then for any person x, if God desires to, has the power to, and knows how to cause x to go to Heaven and not suffer eternally in Hell, then x will go to Heaven and not suffer eternally in Hell.


2. If God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then for any person x, God desires to, has the power to, and knows how to cause x to go to Heaven and not suffer eternally in Hell.


3. There is at least one person who will not go to Heaven and suffer eternally in Hell.


4. Therefore, one cannot affirm both (i) that 5-point Calvinism is true and (ii) that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

I did not include the reference


The Petals Drop: Calvinism Implies Atheism ? Free Thinking Ministries

 

[foszoe]

I subscribe to "The Bible For Normal People" podcast by Pete Enns. Today's podcast was called "The Bible and Orthodox Faith". I found it very interesting in regards to previous conversations in this thread. I like the emphasis on Christus Victor, I've always had a problem with Penal Substitution Atonement theory. It just doesn't make sense.

Foszoe: if you get the chance to listen to it (it's about 40 minutes), I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what was presented.

Queing it up now.

You should have problems with Penal Substitution Atonement.

In scholarly literature it has been generally recognised for some time that the penal substitution theory was not taught in the Early Church.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][11]
[/SUP]
Its roots are in Anselm and not in the early Church. Protestantism develops it further.

Stealing a chicken is stealing a chicken no matter who you steal the chicken from.

 

[foszoe]

I subscribe to "The Bible For Normal People" podcast by Pete Enns. Today's podcast was called "The Bible and Orthodox Faith". I found it very interesting in regards to previous conversations in this thread. I like the emphasis on Christus Victor, I've always had a problem with Penal Substitution Atonement theory. It just doesn't make sense.

Foszoe: if you get the chance to listen to it (it's about 40 minutes), I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what was presented.

I admit it was not listening as I do to some podcasts where I outline the entire thing but I did take notes.

I think, and I say this not to boast, but between this thread and the one entitled Happy Reformation Day ( I think) I have covered just about everything covered in that podcast

But I will highlight a few things that I jotted notes on to emphasize.

Interesting the comments on atheism considering my posts earlier today.

Not too long ago, I also talked about Hebrews and Revelation as to how they got in the canon. He talks about we have no dogma/doctrine from Revelation. I had not heard it stated that way but I knew we never read from Revelation in our lectionary. The main thing I take from both books is how to worship and how Orthodox resembles the worship described in both books. My question to others is why theirs doesn't?

The East is often called the Church of the Resurrection. It is because for us that is the most celebrated event. In the west, the crucifixion seems to take precedent. Now both are necessary for our salvation from a human sense, but the whole Incarnation is called a mystery because we will never completely understand it in a rational sense for that is an attempt to define why God does what he does. What we can say is that Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

This results from the Orthodox view of salvation as sickness - healing vs crime - punishment. Sin is focused on as a disease rather than a transgression of a moral law.
You don't punish sickness, you heal it. The healing can be painful depending on the technique but the technique is still meant to heal not inflict pain.

The scriptures are viewed as a combined effort of God and man, not dictated like the Koran. So there is not a lot of effort put into resolving "contradictions". St John Chrysostom once said that the scriptures are God talking to us in baby talk. The language is limited by human understanding. St John also shows flexibility in his sermons/commentaries when he encounters textual variances by saying if the scripture says this then this is what it means if it says that then this is what it means. There is no agonizing over which is "right". You see that today as passages of "scripture" get bracketed with footnotes that it didn't appear in this or that manuscript or even left out because its not found in the most reliable manuscripts. Orthodox avoid all that controversy because, for us, the Church decided what is scripture and we rely on that. I don't care if someone definitively proves Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by Bosephus, they will remain scripture for us. I could only speculate on what would happen in other bodies of believers.

As to the three senses of scripture: literal, moral, spiritual, I would just add its done typologically. They are listed in increasing importance which is why we don't dogmatize the literal very much. If you believe there are two creation stories or one, that the earth is 6000 years old or a couple billion, that Noah's flood was regional or had to be worldwide. That is more up to YOU. Orthodox will argue over all of these things but there must be recognition that you can't split from the Church over non-essentials. That is a key understanding about the church Orthodox would hold that most protestants don't.

 

[Ziggidy]

One of my questions as I read all these posts from orthodox, catholics, protestants.....is what is the common ingredient of each? If we had to remove all the external "stuff", what is left? How does one get to spend eternity in the presence of God? What is the common denominator among us all?

Is there one?

 

[foszoe]

One of my questions as I read all these posts from orthodox, catholics, protestants.....is what is the common ingredient of each? If we had to remove all the external "stuff", what is left? How does one get to spend eternity in the presence of God? What is the common denominator among us all?

Is there one?

I think protestants can agree on what I would call a lowest common denominator not a common denominator and that is what I think you mean, but I am not so sure one can be reached between orthodox, catholics, and protestants.

 

[Ziggidy]

I think protestants can agree on what I would call a lowest common denominator not a common denominator and that is what I think you mean, but I am not so sure one can be reached between orthodox, catholics, and protestants.

WOW.....my initial thought is one of surprise, followed by disappointment.....sad actually.

Personally I believe Jesus is what our link would be. Born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, suffered and died fo our sins, rose from the dead and and is now in heaven with the Father. He sends His Holy Spirit to teach, council and such. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We get to heaven through the penalty Christ paid for our sins. We place our faith in Him.....we are saved.

Very basic, simple and easy. Is this NOT our foundation? The fundamental Truth. All else, our differences are made up of biblical interpretation.......BUT, the fundamental
Truth is the same?

Before the orthodox, before the catholics, before the protestants - what was there? NOT the differences that separated ideas and thoughts, but rather what was the basic foundation of Christianity?

Do you truly believe there is no common (lowest) denominator between us all? Why not? IMO, to deny a common denominator suggests God is not big enough to spread His message of Truth without the interpretation of man? Did He not send His Holy Spirit for that specific reason? What was the basic, fundamental teaching of the Holy Spirit after His ascension? At that very moment, what was the common denomination between men?

Your comment suggests there never was any common denominator. I believe you are wrong.

(i am suffering from bad typo syndrome more than usual)

 

[GTM]

One of my questions as I read all these posts from orthodox, catholics, protestants.....is what is the common ingredient of each? If we had to remove all the external "stuff", what is left? How does one get to spend eternity in the presence of God? What is the common denominator among us all?

Is there one?

If only there were some kind of creed which spelled out the basics of the Christian faith.

Oh wait, there is.

 

[T.Lex]

If only there were some kind of creed which spelled out the basics of the Christian faith.

Oh wait, there is.

Yeah, but the words are different.