Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Last post by NoahB on Today at 04:58:03 PM »
Just a quick note on the filioque controversy...

Most Anglo-Catholics I've talked to agree that it was wrong for it to be added to the Creed without the consent of the whole Church, however, it is also understood in a different way than most here believe. When we say he proceeds from the Father and the Son, we are talking about the economy of salvation, not the procession of the Godhead. I believe even Orthodox Christians can affirm that in the economy of salvation, the Holy Spirit is sent from both the Father and the Son. But when talking about the Godhead by itself, it is true that he proceeds only from the Father.
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Angels, Free Will, and Predestination
« Last post by Dracula on Today at 04:56:25 PM »
God creates the possibility of suffering, but He also offers not only its cure, but something greater in return for it.  The problem is that the fallen angels and men refuse, of their own free will, to receive what is greater.

There is nothing capricious about giving people a choice, though there is a capricious element to refusing it.

Again, if there I no God and suffering is meaningless, why live at all. Why not just chose death and be done with the suffering of life?  Without God, life automatically becomes pointless... and we are not just talking abut the suffering.

So you admit that in the end God is responsible for everything and the ball is always in his court. If God foresaw before the creation of man and angels that some will fall and go to an eternal hell(whose effects and alternative he had given also in his foreknowledge) than still choosing to do so makes him evil, capricious and stupid and of an intellect of a 5 year old dumb toddling. And what does that make his followers then?

My friend you said it yourself, if people can be more cruel than God and on the other hand better and kinder than God than "God" is not God. The chances are that such "God" is an invention by men, with an inferior evil and an inferior good, and an inferior way of living and experiencing on life.

Suffering has no meaning. People who try to find meaning in suffering become nuts.

The thing is that God having foreseen that people and angels will disobey him, and he really was that loving, he could of create the conditions of their disobedience as favourable ones, yet he created them miserable ones(fall,suffering,hell,etc). That is more like caprice , like a kid who gets upset and takes his toys just because another kid won't have it his own way. It gets worst when in the NT Jesus says that the option of never being born is better than the one of having Judas born and betraying him. Thus that kind of makes God vindictive even a bit malevolent. For he could choose not to create such persons (having foreseen all) instead of making them suffer so intensively as their fate being worst than not having been borne.

Suffering may have a cause but not a reason. The purpose is not to get stuck in suffering and relish in it, but to overcome it and go past it.

Point to your previous post: If people can be more cruel than God and on the other hand better and kinder than God than "God" is not God. The chances are that such "God" is an invention by men, with an inferior evil and an inferior good, and an inferior way of living and experiencing on life.

Or, if God is of superior intelligence, could there be a reason for suffering that we would not be able to understand?

Why must there be a supreme reason for all sufferings?

If we are supposed to draw something from suffering than it should foliow that the reason kind of has to be revealed to us. Otherwise it is just a cause and effect thing. It happens because of a cause where even a hidden reason becomes a non-reason to us if we are incapacitated to grasp it.

Clearly you know little if anything much of the reason of sufferings. One who supposingly has the law of God(Orthodoxy) should know all about it. I have been hardly disappointed by the poor/lack of feedback on my thread about the rejection of the call of God. It's like you guys here don't know anything! You are just a bunch of confused fellows with no Law of life(no understanding of life) and comprehending of the life moments and reasons.
Religious Topics / Re: Being gay and Christianity.
« Last post by Gamliel on Today at 04:44:14 PM »

Well, that's where it get complex.  The penetrate also had to be a minor according to Roman practice.  Once the beard grew, being penetrated was forbidden.  At the same time, Roman males could penetrate other prepubescent males, so long as he maintained a proper household (i.e. married to a woman who bore him children).

There is a canon against ordaining a man who had been penetrated, as there is a canon against 'destroying the beard,' a reference to removing hair in such a way as to be mistaken for being effeminate or obscuring a man's masculinity.

The Church does not label people as 'straight' or 'gay.'  I do think that the gay world misunderstands the concept that somehow having sex within marriage absolves 'heterosexuals' of all condemnation for their temptations, because it does not. In fact, it makes things more difficult: it is like the different from abstaining from cocaine and abstaining from over-eating.  One is utter abstinence, but the other is about moderation.  The latter is far more difficult.  Drawing a firm line and saying 'all activity is a sin' is clearer than saying, "No, it really was mutual, it really was about my spouse, and lust had nothing to do with it."

There are some knuckleheads who equate all of marriage with St. Paul's quip, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."  Of course, they forget the chapter begins with, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."  St. Paul does not sign off on all sexual activity within marriage.  The relationship is supposed to be a sacramental union, not a chance for legalized self-gratification.  We walk a fine line, one that is supposed to be accompanied by repentance.

We all know that the modern push for 'acceptance of homosexuality' is all about putting an end to repentance.  They point to the lack of repentance in 'heterosexuals' which is a mistake as well.  Sex is at once a blessing and a responsibility.  It is often done wrong, and even amidst its joys we find reasons to repent... or at least we should.

Those who struggle with the temptation to yearn for sexual contact with others of the same sex have 'disability' in this sense.  Like someone born without legs and lamenting that they cannot walk, we are now faced with the idea that everyone's legs should be amputated for the sake of fairness.  Already, the heterodox idea of romantic love and 'attraction' have already cut off one leg.  The 'gay marriage' argument is 'reasonable' because it is based on the commonly accepted premise of romantic love justifying all sexual activity and forming the basis of marriage.

POM Nominee!
Second it!!!
Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.
Glorification has its beginnings and firm reality in this present age.
"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" 2 Cor 3:18.

This is abundantly clear on reading the excellent article "Glory" in Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of NT Theology.

Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.

Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.

I have read alot of Orthodox saints and I don't know a single one that believed they were sinless.  Isn't that the whole point of the Jesus Prayer? (which seems to be increasingly popular with Lutherans).

It's kind of a paradox. St. Sisoes the Great, for example, on his deathbed cried out to God because he had "not yet begun to repent."

I tend to think that Orthodoxy supports something of a middle ground- perfection in this life can and does happen, we're supposed to always strive for it, but we should never conclude that someone living is definitely there.
"One limit of perfection is the fact that it has no limit. For that divine Apostle, great and lofty in understanding, ever running the course of virtue, never ceased straining toward those things that are still to come... We should show great diligence not to fall away from the perfection which is attainable but to acquire as much as possible." -St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses (CWS/Classsics of Western Spirituality Series, 1979) p. 30.

"Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ." Phil 3:12

“Repentance is fitting at all times and for all persons. To sinners as well as to the righteous who look for salvation. There are no bounds to perfection, for even the perfection of the most perfect is naught but imperfection. Hence, until the moment of death neither the time nor the works of repentance can ever be complete” (St. Isaac the Syrian, as quoted in Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 204).

Protestants (at least the non-liberal types) don't deny the call to holiness and following God's commandments. They just disagree on what those commandments may be, how they are practically applied in this life, and exactly how it contributes to our salvation. There is a temptation among apologists of all sides to present false dichotomies. Example: Sola Fide = antinomianism; Theosis = Pharisaism (if that's a word.)

The Eastern Church views this as a two sided coin: the Christian working out his or her salvation "with fear and trembling" is a repentant sinner (notice there are two variables, not just one) -neither "morally perfect" (moralism/perfectionism) nor unrepentant (antinomianism); according to the Eastern fathers there is only one sin which is called mortal (1 Jn 5): refusal to repent. This is consonant with the dire warning in Heb 10 which speaks of continual willful sin rather than particular sins as such, and 1 Jn 3:9 which translates a verb in the Greek present/continual tense. All sin can blind, corrupt, harm, and deceive the sinner; one can "know" Christianity "ideologically" and be far from God; on the other hand "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (Jn 7:17). Western Christianity sometimes tends to bifurcate into incomplete and often unbalanced alternatives of moralistic legalism on the one hand and undisciplined "hyper-grace" antinomianism on the other; the New Covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah taught the creation of a new heart which would cause us to walk in his ways, as opposed to a religion of tablets and laws (Jer 31), or devil-may-care lawlessness in effect denying Him even if drawing near with the lips and the mind alone (Titus 1:16: "They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works"). Neither trust in the sufficiency of one's own moral achievements nor despair in the face of impossible standards are issues in the Christian East.; similarly there is no tension between such categories as self-discipline as a Spiritual fruit (Gal 5:22). The Orthodox faith understands both the reality and seriousness of our present sin even in the midst of repentance as well as the uncomprormising upward call to holiness ("pursue... holiness, without which no one will see the Lord" -Heb 12:14); where one of these poles is emphasized to the exclusion or minimization of the other the disciple becomes unbalanced, whether in a Pharisaical direction or legalistic moralism, or the equally perilous direction of the lawless who regard continual repentance and the call to holiness as matters to minimize in the least and/or dismiss. The heart of the manner of our continual hope is exemplified by the ancient Jesus Prayer, which we pray at all times: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: Predestination
« Last post by Dracula on Today at 04:39:37 PM »
Predestination always confuses me, but it almost makes sense sometimes

If God knows all things, that is what will happen tomorrow (is this true?) Then he already knows what we will do is this correct? Or if we have the free will to choose what will happen tomorrow, does God not then know all things? Or does he instead know all possibilities? But if God only knows the possibilities, he still does not know all things since he could not say what we will do tomorrow. Does God already know exactly how my life will play out? Is my free will just an illusion of what is already going to happen since it is already set in stone from God knowing that it will be this certain way?
"Foreknowledge is not a cause of that which is going to be, but rather that which is going to be is a cause of foreknowledge. For that which is going to be does not ensue upon foreknowledge, but rather foreknowledge ensues upon that which is going to be." Molina, Concondia, 10.52.21, citing Justin Martyr.

Foreknowledge is deterministic. If God is beyond time and has already foreseen the consummation of all things(see the book of Revelation) than the future is already determined(consumed).

Romans 8: 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

God foreknew the crucifixion, yet Christ freely laid his life down. The Father chose/elected the Son should die, yet Christ said "I lay down my life freely." The free decision and the act of election are in unison.

More like God prophecied the Crucifixion and other hound reds of Old Testament prophecies that apparently were fulfilled in Christ, that he came to awarely fulfil, to awarely walk after a certain pattern rather then doing things freely and randomly. The Scriptures themselves say that those had to be fulfilled.

John 13:18
"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me.'

John 19:24
"Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, "They divided my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment." So this is what the soldiers did.

John 19:28
Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty."

Matthew 26:53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"

Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Thomas Aquinas argued there is no formal contradiction between God knowing future free acts and their being freely chosen.
A contradiction in Aristotle/Aquinas is affirming something to be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. But the sense here, according to Aquinas, is not the same:
"Everything known by God must necessarily be" is true if it refers to the statement of the truth of God's knowledge, but it is false, if it refers to the necessity of the contingent events." see

Zagzebski has argued that the dilemma of theological fatalism is broader than a problem about free will. The modal or causal asymmetry of time, a transfer of necessity principle, and the supposition of infallible foreknowledge are mutually inconsistent. (1991, appendix). If there is a distinct kind of necessity that the past has qua past, and which is not an implicit reference to the lack of causability of the past, then it is temporally asymmetrical. The past has it and the future does not. The necessity of the past and the contingency of the future are two sides of the same coin. To say that the future is contingent in the sense of temporal modality does not imply that we have causal control over the entire future, of course. We lack control over part of the future because part (or even all) of it is causally necessary. But if the necessity of the past is distinct from the lack of causability, and is a type of necessity the past has just because it is past, the future must lack that particular kind of necessity.

The idea that there is temporally asymmetrical modality is inconsistent with the transfer of necessity principle and the supposition of infallible foreknowledge of an essentially omniscient deity. The inconsistency can be demonstrated as follows:

Dilemma of Foreknowledge and Modal Temporal Asymmetry

Again, let T = the proposition that you will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
There is (and was before now) an essentially omniscient foreknower (EOF) [Assumption for dilemma]
(1f) and the Principle of the Necessity of the Past tells us that

Either it is now-necessary that the EOF believed T before now or it is now-necessary that the EOF believed not T before now.
From (1f) and the definition of an EOF it follows that

Necessarily (The EOF believed before now that T → T), and necessarily (The EOF believed before now that not T → not T) .
By the Transfer of Necessity Principle (TNP), (2f) and (3f) entail

Either it is now-necessary that T or it is now-necessary that not T.
(4f) is logically equivalent to

Either it is not now-possible that T or it is not now-possible that not T.
From the Principle of the Contingency of the Future we get

It is now-possible that T and it is now-possible that not T.
But (6f) contradicts (5f).

The inconsistency shown in this argument has nothing to do with free will or fatalism. But the problem is even more general than this argument illustrates. The reason essential omniscience conflicts with temporal modality and the transfer principle is that the existence of an EOF requires that a proposition about the past entails a proposition about the future. But it straightforwardly follows from TNP that a proposition that is now-necessary cannot entail a proposition that is not now-necessary. So if the past is now-necessary and the future is not, a proposition about the past cannot entail a proposition about the future. The conclusion is that if asymmetrical temporal modality is coherent, it can obey TNP, or it can permit a proposition about the past to entail a proposition about the future, but not both.

The root of the problem, then, is that it is impossible for there to be a type of modality that has the following features:

The past and future are asymmetrical in that the past qua past is necessary with respect to this type of modality, whereas the future qua future is contingent with respect to this type of modality.
There are propositions about the past that entail propositions about the future.
TNP obtains.
So the problem of the alleged incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and free will is a special case of a more general problem that has nothing to do with either foreknowledge or free will. Temporally asymmetrical necessity and the transfer of necessity principle threaten a host of metaphysical theses that require that a proposition about the past entails a proposition about the future (e.g., Matter is indestructible). This is not an issue that can be evaded by denying the religious doctrine of divine foreknowledge.

It was suggested in section 2.6 that the problem may be (a) above. There is no temporally asymmetrical necessity. If the root intuition behind the necessity of the past is something like the non-causability of the past, there is another inconsistency. There is an inconsistency between the alleged non-causability of the past, the transfer of non-causability principle, and the supposition that a proposition about the past entails a proposition about the future. But in these arguments it is the transfer principle that is suspicious. Arguments of this kind are discussed in some detail in Zagzebski (2002b).

Regardless of what one thinks of the argument for theological fatalism, there is a more general problem in the logic of time and causation that needs to be addressed. Both the alleged modal asymmetry of time and the causal asymmetry should be examined in more detail, as well as the various transfer principles that result in an inconsistency with metaphysical theses that have the consequence that a proposition about the past entails a proposition about the future.

This was also Luther's understanding: "Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God." Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, p. 206.

Peter and Jesus kind of say that the prophecies had to be fulfilled regarding Judas:

Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

Matthew 26:24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

"While I [Jesus] was with them, I was keeping them in Your [God's] name which You have given Me; and I guarded them [the 11 disciples] and not one of them perished but the son of perdition [Judas], so that the Scripture would be fulfilled." John 17:12

"I [Jesus] do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, `HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.' " John 13:18

Romans 9:21-22 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

"Foreknowledge" in referring to "before" vs. "after" is an anthropomorphism (a biblical one, but an anthropomorphism nonetheless) insofar as God in his unknowable essence is beyond time, as time's Creator:

“Let us put it once more sub specie temporis: On the basis of our temporal images we can speak of a time in which the Son of God had ‘not yet’ become man… And now sub specie aeternitatis: When we reason from the viewpoint of God’s eternal manner of existence, we must abandon transitory and temporal conceptions. God has time in its fullness without end; His time is not fragmented into a sequence of present, past, and future. Rather it is the unity of the before, the now, and the hereafter –of beginning, middle, and end. It is erroneous to conceive of the divine Logos as if He had ‘already’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity, just as it would be wrong to imagine that the divine Logos had ‘not yet’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity. From this viewpoint there is no such thing in God Himself as an eternity before the incarnation. This would amount to dissolving eternity into an interior time of unlimited duration… On the basis of our temporal images we can ask: What is the Son of God before the incarnation? From the standpoint of eternity, however, the most we can ask is: What would the Logos be without the incarnation? –a question possibly helpful in formulating the absolutely free graciousness of the incarnation. In the realm of eternity, it is impossible to speak simply in the strict sense of a non-incarnate Logos, of a prehistorical, pre-Christian, or post-Christian epoch. In this connection, all terms expressing a “pre” (like predetermination, prevision, predestination, pre-existent Christ) easily mislead, since they result, often unconsciously, in the application of inferior temporal images to God’s eternity. We must not overlook the primacy in knowing which existent act has over all forms of potency. To think of God’s knowing as first focused on the yet-undefined, on the potential and possible and only thereafter on the actual and the real, on the final existential definiteness of things, is an anthropomorphism. It is deceiving to imagine that for God knowledge of possibilities (possiblilia) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing existing things or for deciding to create them. Equally deceiving is the notion that God’s knowledge of what is necessary in His person (for instance, His omnipotence or the Trinity of Persons) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing what is free in Himself (for example the human nature of the Son)" "Excursus: The Redeemer in God's Eternity" in Kung, Justification, pp. 285ff).

Can someone please explain orthodox predestination to me, since I never really thought about it too much and it is making me very confused about all these absolutes
An excellent Orthodox description, in line also with the above comments, can be found on pp. 58, 60, and 61 of Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's His Broken Body (chapter on Ecclesiology); see the whole section here (I provide some key quotes below):

Some key quotes (I'm assuming the longer quotation with attribution is allowable since the author has placed the whole chapter on the internet himself; if my assumption is incorrect, mods please feel free to cut it as desired]

Quote from: Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck
"Essentially, the Church is an eschatological reality that transcends space and time. It could be said that God knows, foreknows and has a relationship with our eternal self. He knows his elect from “before the foundation of the world.” The early Christian (and therefore orthodox) doctrine of the ‘pre-existence’ of the Church is well established... Moreover, the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the origin [beginning, source].4

In order to understand reality properly, that is according to the mind of the Spirit, we must discern within time and creation a dynamic movement towards its telos or end.5 Our human consciousness experiences the universe as “purpose-driven,” but could it be that our experience of the arrow of time is only an icon or foretaste of the reality that already exists in God?6 In his classic Being as Communion, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes the point that the Eucharistic liturgy is also “a remembrance of the future,” because the Church below7 is a manifestation of the Church beyond.8 The great theologian compares us with trees “with branches in the present and roots in the future.”[8] This is why the great prayer of consecration of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can say: "Remembering , therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that has come to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand of the Father, and the second and glorious coming." In the Church, we are already “new creatures in Christ”[9], and even in our present chronos (time), we are revealed as foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. The apparent contradiction between ‘pastoral free will’ passages and those stressing eternal divine election[10] simply reflect the tension between equally valid perspectives on reality.

These words of Clement of Alexandria aptly summarize this relationship between the Church of the elect above and the (catholic) Church below: "The earthly Church is the image of the heavenly." [11]4
Margaret Barker’s research on the origins and meaning of early Christian worship, which was itself based on Temple worship, confirms this approach. In a paragraph fittingly entitled Time and Eternity, the author documents how “beyond the veil” of the Holy of Holies, the whole history of the world appeared in one glimpse, as a literally ‘omni-present’[12]5 picture:

In the world view of the temple, there was another, timeless state beyond the veil which was not ‘future’ but always present.[13]6

Likewise, commenting on the biblical worldview assumed by the author of Hebrews, James DeYoung describes a “worldview that views reality as both seen and unseen, as earthly and heavenly, as historical and transtemporal, as existential and essential. These two levels of reality are co-existent. They are tied together by a process of actualization whereby essential reality is being actualized more and more in existential reality.[14]7

In the perspective of our experience of time, of our eon or ‘age,’ the Church is “the body of Christ[15]1,” the means by which temporal creatures can be united to the eternal God-Man, and become “partakers of the divine nature"[16]2 now and in “the age to come.” The purpose of the Church is that the many creatures would be one with God the Father in Jesus Christ, so that “God may be all in all"[17]3. The Church is the means by which human beings can enter in this new mode of existence not “born of the flesh” but “of the Spirit”[18]4. This is what I call “the eschatological[19]5, pre-eternal, fulfilled or supra-temporal Church.” I am keenly aware that this definition can sound identical with that of ‘Universal Church.’ For instance, the Catechism of the Orthodox Church has this question and answer:
Q. Why is the Church called Catholic, or which is the same thing, Universal?
A. Because she is not limited to any place, time, or people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.
In this sense, both concepts are identical, even though the early Church use of ‘catholic Church’ was reserved for the manifestation of the pre-eternal Church in space and time. The problem is that ‘Universal /Catholic Church’ is mainly used to refer to all believers now alive on earth. As we shall see, this is usual Roman Catholic terminology (and theology) for both ‘Catholic Church’ and ‘Universal Church’.

As we reflect on what makes the mystery of the Church (which is the mystery of Christ himself), we can understand that the Eucharistic gathering is what constitutes and manifests the Church. In the Eucharist, we experience an intersection of the eternal “
[4]5 1 Corinthians 15:24
[5]6 The reader interested in a beautiful exposition of this profound truth can refer to the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor: “The things of the past are shadow; those of the present icon; the truth is to be found in the things of the future” (Scolion on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, 3,3:2). See also James 1:17.
[6]7 The catholic Church in its eucharistic gathering.
[7] 8 See Hebrews 12:23-24 and Revelation 4.
[8]1 Being As Communion, p.64-74
[9]2 1 Corinthians 5:17
[10]3 John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1
[11]4 DECB, p. 147
[12]5 Omnipresent is an interesting word which means all-pervading, either in space or in time.
[13]6 The Great High Priest, Margaret Barker, Continuum, London, 2003, p. 336
[14]7 The heavenly tabernacle/temple as interpretive guide (faculty paper, posted at
[15]1 Colossians 1:24-28, also Ephesians 5
[16]2 2 Peter 1:5-9
[17]3 1 Corinthians 15:28
[18]4 John 3:6
[19]5 Eschatological means “of the last things.” Most Christian theologians are aware of the complementarity between “realized eschatological” and “future eschatology.”


If God already foreknows the future / tells the future then how can people change the future that God already has  known and told how it would be? The God is outside of time argument doesn't really change anything, on the contrary it adds more problems to your equation.

More on all your foreknowledge and free-will models here :
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Gamliel on Today at 04:34:22 PM »
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by Cyrillic on Today at 04:20:34 PM »
Again and again...

The 1981 version of Brideshead Revisited.
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: Predestination
« Last post by xariskai on Today at 04:14:29 PM »
Most Reformed theologians outside of the fundamentalist camp deal with Barth or other modern theologians that are largely dismissive of Calvin's emphasis on individual predestination
This is a great point all too often overlooked. Cf. also esp. T. F. Torrance.
Reviews / Re: What TV shows are you watching?
« Last post by biro on Today at 04:13:36 PM »
Right now, I'm watching the repeat airing on tee vee of the Germany - England game.
I also think the persons you met were some extremists. Beware of religious nut job extremists.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10