OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 02:35:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hopko's list of points  (Read 7510 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #135 on: January 20, 2012, 02:06:47 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God does demand justice. That is what the commandments and the prescriptions for atonement he gave and the punishments he inflicted are about. It was unjust for the Jews to have Jesus killed,but the Father used the crucifixion as the event that would redeem mankind. God draws good from the evil actions of humans,as in the story of Joseph the son of Israel and his brethren. The scapegoating of Jesus was just on the part of the Father because Jesus was his Son and the Son willed to sacrifice himself.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #136 on: January 20, 2012, 02:15:35 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God does demand justice. That is what the commandments and the prescriptions for atonement he gave and the punishments he inflicted are about. It was unjust for the Jews to have Jesus killed,but the Father used the crucifixion as the event that would redeem mankind. God draws good from the evil actions of humans,as in the story of Joseph the son of Israel and his brethren. The scapegoating of Jesus was just on the part of the Father because Jesus was his Son and the Son willed to sacrifice himself.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: January 20, 2012, 02:48:43 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God's justice is the Good of Creation.

Therefore the justice of Christ's kenosis is the restoration/redemption of the goodness of Creation.

Do you think anything man could do to restore Creation?

Well...clearly neither can some men understand that restoration as justice... Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: January 20, 2012, 06:16:49 PM »


This isn't about scholastic theology. It is a fact known from scripture that God demands atonement for sins,and in the Law of Moses this required the shedding of blood.


A rather sad fate for those thousands of cattle, sheep and turtle doves since the shedding of their blood achieved absolutely no atonement.

As the proponents of substitutionary atonement will tell you no human and certainly no dumb animal can atone for sin.  No human or animal can substitute and appease the anger of God and satisfy His justice.

Sorry, calves!  Sorry, sheep!  Sorry, doves!  You were all killed in vain.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #139 on: January 20, 2012, 08:55:43 PM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:8). But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 08:56:00 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #140 on: January 20, 2012, 09:08:01 PM »

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
You might have had a point from Rom 3 had you used the inaccurate translation propitiation rather than the correct expiation to render ιλαστηριον/hilasterion.

However, by citing the proper translation you unwittingly serve as a witness for the position you are objecting to as opposed to your official propitiation/satisfaction view which was unknown to the Undivided Church (before the Schism) during the entire first millennium. http://katachriston.com/propitiation-or-expiation
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 09:21:11 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #141 on: January 20, 2012, 09:41:43 PM »

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.who argue in the manner some have in this thread, with little more than references to Bible verses, worn out cliches, and their respective historic confessions with regard to the atonement, sound today like someone who has every part of their head in the sand but their mouth given the massive academic fallout which has occurred regarding central struts of the positions they are affirming in the last half century. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41635.msg695416.html#msg695416  To my ears this seems more on the order of lecture or monologue than dialog.

Quote from: N. T. Wright
Supposing you have a friend who comes over to stay who, you discover in conversation over supper, has never realized that, in fact, the earth goes round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth. And you’re fascinated by this. You’ve never met somebody who didn’t know this before. So you take some time and you explain how astronomically we know that in fact we are going round the sun, even though from our perspective it looks as though the sun is going round us. The friend is a bit puzzled about this, and actually a bit worried.  
 
The next morning he wakes you up early and takes you for a little walk and says, “Now let’s just stand here for a bit.” And you’re up on a hill and you see the sun coming up in all its glory. And the friend says, “There you are. You know, you have these funny theories, and I know that scientists can come up with these weird ideas sometimes. But now you’ve actually seen it with your own eyes. Perhaps it’s better to stay with what we’ve always more or less believed.”
 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 09:54:32 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #142 on: January 21, 2012, 12:53:15 PM »

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.

Do not all teach the same thing.  Sometimes ignorance of a putative opposing position can make one feel superior but it will never draw them into the genuine dialogue.  They will always be outside throwing mud-balls at the windows.

M.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #143 on: January 22, 2012, 09:47:30 PM »

Do not all teach the same thing...

M.
Not all the time, except when they do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41635.msg695416.html#msg695416





« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 09:50:00 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #144 on: January 23, 2012, 11:11:29 AM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2012, 03:23:50 PM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
There you have it, the standard M. red herring, often asserted though rarely demonstrated with respect to the given point at hand, served daily to dozens in multitudes of threads and spiced with a dash of amateur apologist obscurantism.

Had you bothered with the links and appended bibliographies you would know that the arguments are not mine, but of the now universal consensus of major contemporary Pauine scholarship which has developed over the last 50 years which holds key dogmatic content which in common within Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories is inaccurate medieval innovation with no roots in scripture or early Christianity before the middle ages; I'm only the humble messenger.

One can often easily tell when a defensive fundamentalist mindset has no substantive irenic reply and can't wait for someone who might have one to come along. Maybe if it attacks the messenger the arguments and appended bibliographies with them that are all left unanswered might just go away. That is M's invariable style with poster after poster after poster in this forum. It woefully fails to impress. Don't think it isn't obvious to intelligent readers, and the intelligence quotient in this forum is very high.

The fact of universal repudiation by all major contemporary Pauline scholars of important aspects of dogma shared by the classic Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories as reflecting biblical or early Christian realities is there plain as the mid day sun for anyone to see who takes the time to look. Perhaps someone here has an interesting reply (we're still waiting for that). From an Orthodox point of view the absence of these themes from first millennium Christian tradition which were never a part of Orthodox theology also raises interesting theological questions.

http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/did-luther-get-it-wrong-most-major-contemporary-pauline-scholars-say-yes/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/propitiation-or-expiation-did-christ-change-gods-attitude/





« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 03:34:53 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2012, 06:46:29 PM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
There you have it, the standard M. red herring, asserted often to many though rarely demonstrated with respect to the given point at hand, served daily and spiced with a dash of amateur apologist obscurantism.

Had you bothered with the links and appended bibliographies you would know that the arguments are not mine, but of the now universal consensus of major contemporary Pauine scholarship which has developed over the last 50 years which holds key dogmatic content which in common within Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories is inaccurate medieval innovation with no roots in scripture or early Christianity before the middle ages; I'm only the humble messenger.

One can always tell when a radical fundamentalist has no substantive irenic reply.



More meaningless intellectualism.

Do you even know what a herring is?...Well maybe...as long as it is not a Catholic one.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2012, 07:15:34 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2012, 08:42:04 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2012, 09:06:08 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random. One minute xariskai was saying:

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.who argue in the manner some have in this thread, with little more than references to Bible verses, worn out cliches, and their respective historic confessions with regard to the atonement, sound today like someone who has every part of their head in the sand but their mouth given the massive academic fallout which has occurred regarding central struts of the positions they are affirming in the last half century.

then next thing you know the thread has turned into an argument about whether those groups teach the same things or not.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 09:07:49 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #150 on: January 23, 2012, 09:16:12 PM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #151 on: January 23, 2012, 09:55:29 PM »

but if wishes were fishes...

Ah, I know that one. "If onlys and justs were candies and nuts, then every day would be Erntedankfest." (Dwight Schrute)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #152 on: January 23, 2012, 11:35:02 PM »

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).
Yes, thanks witega (and to Peter J)

Best to just c/p the original discussion if anyone is interested; some of what ensued from there was off-point IMO.

==========

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
The "cash register" notion of Christ's death as a means to change the father's attitude or to solve his need to balance his own books was unknown for over a thousand years in the Undivided Church (before the Great Schism).

Further, though many within fundamentalist Protestant trajectories have striven vigorously to retain and communicate such emphases there has been a massive abandonment of this paradigm among major contemporary academic investigators during the last century (see links below) to the point that the joint agreement between Roman Catholics and Lutherans borders on appearing as yet another instance of hitching theological horses to a burning wagon.

The fact of massive academic repudiation of central aspects shared by the classic Roman Catholic/Lutheran and other Protestant trajectories relevant to this discussion if nothing else very strongly suggests that any supposition that such notions approach something either self-evident or hermenutically or logically necessary from the Bible and/or reason is absolute nonsense. From an Orthodox point of view their absence from first millennium Christian tradition also raises interesting questions.

Did Luther Get It Wrong? Most Major Contemporary Pauline Scholars Say “Yes”

Dikaiosyne Theou: The Righteousness of God in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship
Propitiation or Expiation? Did Christ Change God's Attitude?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 12:05:29 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #153 on: January 24, 2012, 02:33:21 AM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:Cool. But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.

St. Issac was using the word justice in a narrow,legalistic sense. Justice as a moral virtue is not limited to balanced recompense and it does not exclude gratuitous mercy or generosity. It is just,a well as generous,that God show mercy upon us and glorify us for obeying him,because he created us in his image and he is our father.  But it is evident from scripture that God is just in the sense of giving us what we deserve.

Matthew 16,27:
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #154 on: January 24, 2012, 02:59:19 AM »

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

You might have had a point from Rom 3 had you used the inaccurate translation propitiation rather than the correct expiation to render ιλαστηριον/hilasterion.

However, by citing the proper translation you unwittingly serve as a witness for the position you are objecting to as opposed to your official propitiation/satisfaction view which was unknown to the Undivided Church (before the Schism) during the entire first millennium. http://katachriston.com/propitiation-or-expiation


The words expiation and propitiation both mean an act of atonement or the means of making atonement. The only difference is that the word propitiation more specifically refers to a sacrifice of atonement. You do acknowledge that Jesus' crucifixion was a willing sacrifice? Whose will do you think Jesus was obeying when he sacrificed himself?

Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #155 on: January 24, 2012, 03:06:16 AM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:Cool. But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.

St. Issac was using the word justice in a narrow,legalistic sense. Justice as a moral virtue is not limited to balanced recompense and it does not exclude gratuitous mercy or generosity. It is just,a well as generous,that God show mercy upon us and glorify us for obeying him. He created us in his image,he loves us and he is our father. Love has its own kind of justice,which is superabundantly generous. But it is evident from scripture that God is also just in the sense of giving us what we deserve.

Matthew 16,27:
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 03:07:12 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: January 24, 2012, 04:21:24 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #157 on: January 24, 2012, 04:50:00 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.

Every claim is a crisis on OCNet.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #158 on: January 24, 2012, 12:51:11 PM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.

Every claim is a crisis on OCNet.
QFT

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #159 on: January 26, 2012, 10:47:25 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
Yes, it is tragic; wishes are not fishes, and trolls are the internet's black holes.



Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
*sigh* The Joint Statement on Justification between Roman Catholics and Lutherans was part of that point. The original point further outlined a view held by all major of contemporary Pauline scholars about a common hermeneutic.

Lots of common ground is precisely what the Roman Catholic church officially affirmed signing that statement. Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not identical; there is, however, overlap. There is also overlap between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. There is overlap between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Discussing overlap is not a claim of univocal identity. (M *can't* be so inconceivably ignorant as to suppose her straw man has been actually claimed by anyone, can she? Trollin' trollin' trollin' (every thread, any poster).

Do Lutherans and Roman Catholics teach the same thing? As said before they do not except when they do. The Joint Statement refers to instances where they do, according to the Roman Catholic church. The scholars quoted in DPL and DNTT and the host of other sources cited in esp. the first two links refer to instances where they do (part of the original point also).

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

RC presented it as a thesis; Luther took it up as an antithesis which he "saw" (incorrectly) first in the Judaizers of the book of Galatians. That particular hermeneutic though present in RC and L in quite different ways did become integral to Lutheran and later Protestant theologies as it was extrapolated theologically as an axiom into other categories.

A basic sine qua non of an intelligent criticism, M., is to display evidence of some shred of understanding of the position one is criticizing.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 10:59:10 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #160 on: January 26, 2012, 12:49:46 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 12:50:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #161 on: January 26, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #162 on: January 26, 2012, 01:28:08 PM »

Quote
Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
No, RC's and Protestants are not discovering that the orthodox were right, but maybe they should  laugh

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #163 on: January 26, 2012, 01:42:39 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......

That's quite right, and one is completely free to suppose all major contemporary Pauline scholars are wrong on this matter if one wishes, albeit supposition combined with argument as to why would be more interesting.

To paraphrase Anglican scholar Bishop N. T. Wright's famous reply to a conservative/classical Calvinist author/popular speaker who disputed him on a related point connected with the doctrine justification, perhaps the sun really does revolve around the earth.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 02:02:11 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #164 on: January 26, 2012, 02:00:32 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
Not in and of itself (though there is nothing incompatible with what they are saying on this point contra Orthodoxy); it is true, however, that the Orthodox did not go down that particular medieval to modern rabbit hole.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 02:01:01 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #165 on: January 26, 2012, 02:01:12 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......
That's quite right, and one is completely free to suppose all major contemporary Pauline scholars are wrong if one wishes, albeit supposition combined with argument as to why would be more interesting.

As Anglican scholar Bishop N. T. Wright famously replied to a conservative/classical Calvinist author/popular speaker who disputed him on a related point connected with the doctrine justification, perhaps the sun really does revolve around the earth.

I'm not disputing that "...medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers."  I honestly don't know.  What I take issue with is your use of the phrase  "ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars", specifically the word "ALL".  That's a pretty sweeping statement, to say the least.  ALL?  Really?  Every single one of them, without exception?  And just who are all these "major contemporary Pauline scholars" who are in total agreement with each other about this?  And...even if they are, the fact remains that scholarship advances, and regresses, opinions change and what's in fashion one moment is out of fashion the next.  Hey, even an undereducated slob like me knows *that*  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #166 on: January 26, 2012, 05:18:19 PM »

Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
*sigh* The Joint Statement on Justification between Roman Catholics and Lutherans was part of that point. The original point further outlined a view held by all major of contemporary Pauline scholars about a common hermeneutic.

Lots of common ground is precisely what the Roman Catholic church officially affirmed signing that statement. Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not identical; there is, however, overlap.


Yes.  And the issue here in what I said concerns where they do NOT over-lap.

I don't know if you know the history of that document but I knew Lutheran pastors who were personally and directly involved in the dialogues and the drafting of the document.

At the 11th hour, then Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed the text right before signing it and made changes that totally disrupted the Lutheran position as being IDENTICAL with the Catholic Church.

You barely hear the accord even mentioned any more except in places like this.

Both sides knew that it was an agreement to disagree in the final analysis.

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing on the points in question in this discussion.

Mary
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #167 on: January 26, 2012, 06:49:05 PM »

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing.

Mary
For the third time, you are talking to yourself on your "identical teachings" theme. No one else has claimed that was ever at issue.

At the 11th hour, then Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed the text right before signing it and made changes that totally disrupted the Lutheran position...

Since the agreement Lutheran Bishops have praised Cardinal Ratzinger's role in cementing (not sabotaging) the final agreement.[1]

Both sides signed the JDDJ, as the Lutheran World Federation website affirms[2]



After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.



___________________

[1] John Allen, Jr., in Cardinal Ratzinger: the Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith tells us the JDDJ was then Cardinal Ratzinger's most significant ecumenical acheivement, and quotes Luheran signatory Bishop George Anderson as affirming that it was "Ratzinger who untied the knots when it looked as though the document would be shipwrecked by officials from the Pontifical Council." "His most significant ecumenical achievement as CDF Prefect was the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed with the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Bishop George Anderson, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, publicly acknowledged that it was ‘Ratzinger who untied the knots’ when it looked as though the document would be shipwrecked by officials from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Ratzinger got the agreement back on track by organising a meeting with the Lutheran leaders at his brother’s house in Regensburg. Included in this agreement was the notion that the goal of the ecumenical process is unity in diversity, not structural reintegration."

[2] From Lutheran World Federation website: "The final JDDJ draft was submitted to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and LWF member churches in January 1997. Official responses were provided from both in June 1998. Certain aspects then had to be examined before the announcement was made in June 1999 that agreement had been reached. An "Official Common Statement" was agreed on, to which an "Annex" of clarification was attached. The JDDJ was signed on Reformation Day, 31 October 1999, All Saints Day eve. The ceremony took place in Augsburg, Germany, where the confession of the same name was presented in 1530 by the Lutheran reformers in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. Eight signatories represented the LWF at the JDDJ signing ceremony: the president, general secretary, treasurer and five vice-presidents. They included men, women, bishops, pastors and laity, representing the seven LWF world regions. The PCPCU president and secretary signed the JDDJ for the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.lutheranworld.org/Special_Events/LWF-Special_Events-Justification.html


« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 06:52:24 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #168 on: January 26, 2012, 08:22:15 PM »

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing.

Mary
For the third time, you are talking to yourself on your "identical teachings" theme. No one else has claimed that was ever at issue.

I was under the impression that it had become a topic of conversation on this thread; but perhaps I misunderstood.

Edit: Oh, now I see, after going back to see your earlier post


« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 08:29:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,249


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #169 on: January 26, 2012, 09:25:01 PM »

Edit: Oh, now I see, after going back to see your earlier post
Yes, thanks PeterJ. Here is the incredible story (itself, unfortunately, a repetition of other stories with the same plot):

(1) M first argued against the point that was never made (post #142) ...after which
(2) It was explained to M that this was not the point being made (# 143) ...after which
(3) M argued against the point that was never made yet again (#156) ...after which
(4) It was explained to M a second time that the point had never been made (#159) ...after which
(5) M argued against the point that was never made yet again! (#166) ...after which
(6) It was explained to M a third time that the point had never been made (#167) ...after which
(7) It was wondered if this had been a topic after all (it was, but not because anyone originally argued for it  ;)  ...after which
(8) We arrive at the present post, which can hopefully serve as another notice to M that she is talking to herself regarding the "identical teachings" theme and that no one has claimed that was ever at issue.

(Examples of additional replies by other posters concerning the point that was never made were omitted to keep the list concise)

Stay tuned for the next episode...  :)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 09:47:21 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:20 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

How much time do you think I spend on posts for this forum, given the gross level of distortion that is aimed at Catholic teaching by you and others?...sure I am going to over-state or under-state now and then, but I don't take the time to try to be all encompassing in what I say in any given note.  If I think it is worth it, I'll clarify later...

At any rate, what I said about the JDDJ is not out of left field at all:

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

I was a consultant to the international Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue during the time the JDDJ was being approved, and my present Dean, Michael Root, was one of its drafters. What I was told by immediate participants was something like this: the drafters had responded to multiple detailed critiques by theological experts of the Congregation, and had satisfied them. The Response however was drafted in another corner of the Congregation, over which Ratzinger by no means had total control. Some of the cardinals in the Congregation had little or no personal experience of Lutherans and no real knowledge of the history of the dialogues; ...

...It is rightly stated that there is 'a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification'." On the other hand, the negative stuff is so negative, and as you say, seems to deny that the Lutheran teaching presented in the JDDJ is compatible with Trent...

...This is the point at which Ratzinger re-enters the story. According to my information, Ratzinger was disturbed precisely because the Congregation had had multiple opportunities to register concerns beforehand, and these concerns had been taken into account in the drafting process. In short, he felt that his word of honor had been compromised at least by the way in which the Report created confusion. I am told that he therefore unofficially made a major, perhaps decisive, contribution to working out the main lines of what became the "Official Common Statement" and the "Annex to the Official Common Statement," which clarify the situation with respect to paragraph 41 and address some of the concerns of the Response. [An "annex" is actually a diplomatic category, an explanatory note added to a treaty by mutual consent without the need for re-negotiation. The idea was to clarify the JDDJ without having to resubmit a new version to all the member churches of the Lutheran World Federation.]...

...I think this episode brings out two important things about Ratzinger/Benedict. One of course is the sense of honor and responsibility that animated his actions. The other is his essentially committed attitude to ecumenism. His job as Prefect was to make ecumenical agreement hard, and as a theologian, he has been brutally honest about the difficulties in moving towards Christian unity. But he is ecumenically sophisticated: his deep orthodoxy is not of the "paint-by-numbers" variety; he is capable of making sense of the notion of a "differentiated consensus" that doesn't treat all differences as disagreements, nor all disagreements as church-dividing. And he really does want the churches to move towards unity, though he wants it to be real, and therefore expects that the movement will be made up of a lot of small hard-won steps. So I am not at all inclined to think that his description of Christian unity as his "primary responsibility" is mere window-dressing. Indeed, I think it's possible that he may be able to provide crucial leads for the strategic rethinking of the whole ecumenical enterprise that I think is so profoundly needed right now.

Thanks for your blog,

David S. Yeago
Michael C. Peeler Professor of Systematic Theology
Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary
Columbia, South Carolina
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #171 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:21 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.



Here's another one  Cheesy  Cardinal Ratzinger's amendments to the JDDJ at that last moment raised the hair on many a good Lutheran scholar's neck.  It created a fine fuss both inside the ELCA and among other Lutherans world wide.  Here's a very good synopsis of the central issue, though the paper is much much longer, here:

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

Failures of the Declaration:

A Confessional Lutheran Perspective

1. Justification: Forensic or Transformational?

The foremost defect of the document is that it does not come
clean on the most glaring conflict between Augsburg and Trent.
For Lutherans, justification is essentially forensic, that is, God
declares the sinner righteous on account of and in Christ. Roman
Catholics define justification as an internal transformation of the
believer, a “process,” which Lutherans place in the area of sanctification,
about which too there are different understandings.
Roman Catholics have understood grace as if it were almost a
substance, gratia infusa, which is poured into the soul initially by
Baptism.11

Lutherans, with Paul, see justifying grace as the favor
Dei, God’s gracious attitude whereby He accepts sinners. The title
of paragraph 4.2, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making
Righteous,” to be sure, could be understood in a Lutheran way.
The famous paragraph 72 of Apology IV makes it clear that faith
“being made righteous” in justification means only receiving “the
forgiveness of sins.”12 Clearly this is not what is meant in the Joint
Declaration. However, the Formula of Concord expressly rejects
the view that justifying righteousness “consists of two pieces or
parts, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins and, as a second
element, renewal or sanctification” (SD, III, 48). We are not
alone in our concerns. So also the six ELCA theologians:

The fundamental problem with JDDJ is that it seems to subsume
the Lutheran understanding of justification under a
Roman Catholic understanding of justification as a process
whereby the soul is progressively transformed through “grace.”.

The document presents an understanding of justification in
terms of the soul’s progressive internal transformation by
infused grace, and never refers in a vital or critical way to the
Lutheran insistence on justification by faith alone (sola fide) in
God’s Word of promise, no doubt because such insistence
would undermine the entire structure of the doctrine of justification
proposed by JDDJ (emphases in original).

This objection does come a bit late! For years the ELCA compromised
itself in various ecumenical dialogues. Lutheran acceptance
of the Roman Catholic position on justification should
come as no surprise.

H. George Anderson, now Presiding Bishop
of the ELCA, co-chaired the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue
on Justification by Faith, which concluded: “156 (5). . . . By
justification we are both declared and made righteous . . . 158 . .
. [God’s saving work] can be expressed in the imagery of God as
judge who pronounces sinners innocent and righteous, . . . and
also in a transformist view, which emphasizes the change wrought
in sinners by infused grace.”13 On this point the Lutherans
completely surrendered...

...but Rome was not required to reform her
traditional definition, which was officially restated in the 1994
Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification includes the
remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner
man” (498). The characteristic Roman Catholic fusion of “forensic”
and “transformist” views of justification has been wrongly
attributed to Luther by such prominent scholars as Alister
McGrath and Tuomo Mannermaa, as will be shown below.14
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #172 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:22 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.


OH!!  Lookee!!... Cheesy...another one!!

Here:

http://www.ccmverax.org/documents/LOGIAXVIII-3Menacher.pdf

If JDDJ could no longer provide fancy garnish for the LWF’s
anniversary extravaganza, why would the LWF continue to
prepare it? Who would benefit from offering a consensus in
only “basic truths” on the doctrine of justification with admittedly
no ecclesial consequences?10 Since when did ecumenical
expediency overshadow theological clarity? Scores of eminent
Protestant theologians, mainly in Germany but elsewhere
too,11 began to raise similar questions, which later turned into
objections to JDDJ. On 27 January 1998, 141 (later, more than
160) German Protestant academic theologians issued a petition
(Votum) to Lutheran church leaders in Germany, urging them
in seven concisely written articles to reject the JDDJ.12 Likewise,
despite previous input in the drafting process, the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also began to
voice reservations about the claimed consensus in JDDJ. Later
that same year on the anniversary (June 25) of the presentation
of the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Church published its
Response to JDDJ.13 In eight articles of somewhat more involved
argumentation, the Vatican found JDDJ lacking in many of the
same points as the Protestant theologians, but obviously for
different reasons. The Vatican’s Response represented not only a
rejection of JDDJ specifically14 but also a condemnation of Lutheran
theology generally. In short, for Lutherans the doctrine
of justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ is “the fundamental
reality of the Christian life and the church” (Article I). For
the Vatican, the doctrine of justification represents just one aspect
of the faithful’s cooperative participation in the life of the
Roman Church as God’s gracious sacrament of salvation with
Jesus Christ. Viewed constructively, some of Protestantism’s
finest theologians and the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog had
reached a decisive consensus: JDDJ with its so-called differentiated
consensus15 was proving increasingly senseless.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #173 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:22 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.


Shall we try one last one just for fun... Cheesy

This one is a little more pedestrian and from another poor dim-witted woman... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy...so I appreciate it more even that the other more academic treatments:

http://blog.higherthings.org/madre/article/2562.html

I have liked this guy since he handled the Joint Declaration on Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church.  A few months after the hoopla over its signing subsided, he issued the statement Dominus Iesus, which essentially re-affirmed traditional Roman Catholic doctrines - arguably many which would cause observant Lutherans to bristle even more than they had over the LWF's supposed speaking for all Lutherans (at least as far as the media was concerned anyway).

But as a critic of the JDDJ (formally in my master's thesis) from the Lutheran side of things, I had to give the guy with the red yarmulke props for sticking to the beliefs of his church and sticking it to all the people who were making far much ado about well...nothing.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #174 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:24 PM »

A few more on the JDDJ which indicate that it is not all that some of us may think that it is in terms of  parity in teaching.  The final article by Avery Dulles is particularly important for the Catholic perspective:

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/SlenczkaAgreementandDisagreementAboutJustification.pdf

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/ctsjointdeclaration.pdf

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/dulles.html
Logged

#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #175 on: November 27, 2012, 01:54:46 PM »

Regarding the "Filioque", John Paul II said the following at a General audience in 1985:

"Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son "spirate" the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This appears to be fundamentally different from the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father as from one spiration. The Roman teaching is clear in that the Holy Spirit does not proceed through the Son but from the union between Father and Son, essentially making it sound like the union between husband and wife begetting children.

I can't see how the Orthodox could view this as anything other then heresy.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19851120en.html
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #176 on: November 27, 2012, 02:26:22 PM »

Regarding the "Filioque", John Paul II said the following at a General audience in 1985:

"Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son "spirate" the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This quote is wrong on so many levels. From energy (love) comes hypostasis?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 02:28:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,277


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #177 on: November 27, 2012, 02:52:56 PM »

Regarding the "Filioque", John Paul II said the following at a General audience in 1985:

"Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son "spirate" the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This quote is wrong on so many levels. From energy (love) comes hypostasis?
I've heard quite a few Catholics explain the Holy Spirit in this way. Doesn't this understanding date back to Augustine?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #178 on: November 27, 2012, 03:02:34 PM »

Regarding the "Filioque", John Paul II said the following at a General audience in 1985:

"Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son "spirate" the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This quote is wrong on so many levels. From energy (love) comes hypostasis?
I've heard quite a few Catholics explain the Holy Spirit in this way. Doesn't this understanding date back to Augustine?

Yes, although St. Augustine explained it somewhat better:

"Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore the love because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of the two, through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begot Him, and through whom, not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by the gift of any superior, but by their own, they are "keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;" which we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards ourselves. "On which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." So those three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed.

But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in Him; because we ourselves are one by His gift, and one spirit with Him, because our soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, since He will destroy every man who is estranged from Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, is something common both to the Father and Son. But that communion itself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and "God is love," as it is written. But as He is a substance together with the Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoever else is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing to God to be, and another to be great or to be good, and the rest, as we have shown above.

For if love is less great therein [i.e. in God] than wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to what it is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be loved according to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as we have proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, how is "God love"? If it is not substance, how is God substance? (De Trinitate VI.5.7)"
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Tags: atonement 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.212 seconds with 72 queries.