Author Topic: Question For Chalcedonians  (Read 5815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Question For Chalcedonians
« on: October 29, 2014, 11:08:55 AM »
Question For Chalcedonians


Did both natures of Jesus suffer and die on the cross or just the human nature?


Thanks,

Tony
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 11:11:23 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,462
  • Faith: Serbian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of New Gracanica
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2014, 11:31:23 AM »
I'm not sure that natures suffer or die.  A nature is more of a concept than a quantifiable entity.  Just as you cannot change a person's humanity by any chemical or physical means, I don't think that crucifixion changed the fact that Christ was God and Man.  Whether our God Christ suffered on the Cross, I would have to guess yes, though I am not sure that humans can comprehend God's "emotions" anymore than a lobster or hamster could comprehend human emotions like disillusionment or zealousness.  Christ being fully man I am sure suffered on the Cross as executions tend to hurt.  I don't think the Word of God died on the Cross any more than a human soul dies after the body has been shot.  The Son of Man did die, as was verified by the Roman soldiers, but was able to raise Himself from the dead, as verified by the Apostles and Myrrh Bearing Women.

All things considered, this is WAY above my pay grade.
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2014, 11:42:17 AM »
The last time I took a class on dogmatic theology was about five years ago, so I may be mistaken.

But I recall that the answer to this is that when we say "God died on the Cross", we can only do so by using "God" as a synecdoche for the the hypostatic union of God and Man, Jesus Christ. Thus only the human nature suffered and died.

Edit: I have spake heresy. Corrected.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 12:04:32 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2014, 11:55:21 AM »
I have a different question or observation that has always perplexed me.

Death is the soul separating from the body. The body and soul of Christ were/are both hypostaticly united to the divinity.

So when Christ died on the cross, I would assume, His body remained Divine.

Would that be orthodox or heretical or theologoumena?

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2014, 11:57:39 AM »
Christ died on the cross. I don't think you can any more say that His nature(s) died on the cross any more than you can say any other non-physical attributes died. Did His semitic culture die on the cross?  Did His nurturing by His mother die on the cross? Did His knowledge die on the cross?  I think the question is fundamentally illogical because non-physical attributes are not alive and therefore cannot die.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2014, 12:00:45 PM »
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body."

(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#article3)
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2014, 12:01:28 PM »
I have a different question or observation that has always perplexed me.

Death is the soul separating from the body. The body and soul of Christ were/are both hypostaticly united to the divinity.

So when Christ died on the cross, I would assume, His body remained Divine.

Would that be orthodox or heretical or theologoumena?

Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): "In that body which was circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed on the tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God: the same was laid in the tomb." Therefore it was the same body living and dead.

Source: ibid.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 12:01:49 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2014, 12:01:47 PM »
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body."

(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#article3)

Thanks!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2014, 12:42:08 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2014, 12:45:56 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony

I think the human nature died, but not the divine nature.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2014, 01:01:32 PM »
Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline sakura95

  • Resident Philosonoob
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Orthodox seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Deanery of Great Britain and Ireland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2014, 01:02:05 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony

It is a Divine Person that died on the Cross and the Human part(Physical). This is why Jesus descended into Hades as the Nicene Creed proclaims. Only the dead shall go into Hades not the living. This is why both Human part and the Second Person of the Trinity died on the Cross. You don't get to venture or even perceive the otherworldly realms when you are "alive" only the dead could do so.

P.S This is not an official belief or statement from any of the Orthodox Churches. It is simply my two cents
My Lord, My Lord, give my worthless soul the illumination of Wisdom in your mercy

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2014, 01:04:06 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:04:59 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2014, 01:07:06 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
I think this is the problem though. You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus. He is 100% God and 100% man. There is no way to separate the two.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2014, 01:09:15 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
I think this is the problem though. You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus. He is 100% God and 100% man. There is no way to separate the two.

I beg your forgiveness in saying so, but I do not believe this is accurate. That is monophysitism. The Orthodox belief is that Jesus is both God and man, and the two natures coexist without confusion or mixture in hypostatic union, but that the two natures are indeed separate.

One can say that "God died on the Cross" because Christ was God, but one cannot say "the divine nature of Jesus died on the Cross", because that implies the divine essence is mortal or bodily.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2014, 01:14:51 PM »
No. Here is the Chalcedonian Creed:

Quote
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us
 
One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
The creed says quite clearly that while they are two distinct natures, they are also indivisible and inseparable.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2014, 01:16:34 PM »
The hypostatic union is indivisible. However one can still *speak* of his human nature and his divine nature. That is why we say that the two natures coexist but are not confused with each other.

In other words. The creed "acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly", which is the opposite of "You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus".
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:17:48 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2014, 01:19:35 PM »
I think we believe the same thing, we are merely disputing what kind of idioms one can use in verbally communicating the hypostatic union.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2014, 01:19:53 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."

Okay, but that's another person that came a few hundred years later. Anyway, it seems to me right now that Athanasius quote is a little ambiguous so it might fit with what Damascene is saying. It might also fit with my belief which is the second person of the Trinity, the Divinity also died and rose again along with the human part. No matter though, since Damascene is a Chalcedonian I gather, it answers my question.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2014, 01:20:14 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2014, 01:21:25 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."

Okay, but that's another person that came a few hundred years later. Anyway, it seems to me right now that Athanasius quote is a little ambiguous so it might fit with what Damascene is saying. It might also fit with my belief which is the second person of the Trinity, the Divinity also died and rose again along with the human part. No matter though, since Damascene is a Chalcedonian I gather, it answers my question.

Tony

How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:

See above. Also, it sounds like we are responding to a miaphysite's query.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:22:23 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2014, 01:24:41 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2014, 01:25:53 PM »
I'm not sure that natures suffer or die.

Indeed. Natures don't suffer, die or age, persons do.

The Godhead has no body.

It depends on what you mean with that. Remember, the Word became flesh.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:27:24 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2014, 01:26:25 PM »
See above. Also, it sounds like we are responding to a miaphysite's query.

So you would say that which I just stated is the belief of Miaphysites?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2014, 01:29:23 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


I don't see where my statement contradicts that. If Scripture says that Jesus was hungry and desired food, that is an expression of His humanity, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desire by the hypostatic Christ.  He wasn't a schizophrenic.
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2014, 01:30:26 PM »
How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

Though I only started this thread to ask questions, so I know what you Chalcedonians believe, not to debate, I will answer this briefly. "The Word BECAME flesh..." He didn't just put on flesh like a suit to wear but became a human. It also doesn't say, "The Word merged with flesh." It says, "BECAME."

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2014, 01:30:31 PM »
Quote
The Godhead has no body.

It depends on what you mean with that. Remember, the Word became flesh.

How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

Though I only started this thread to ask questions, so I know what you Chalcedonians believe, not to debate, I will answer this briefly. "The Word BECAME flesh..." He didn't just put on flesh like a suit to wear but became a human. It also doesn't say, "The Word merged with flesh." It says, "BECAME."

Tony

The word "Godhead" refers to the divine essence of God. We can say "God has a body" because the Word became flesh. However the divine essence of Jesus, the Godhead, does not; otherwise you are saying that God had a body BEFORE the annunciation.

I have done a bit of quick research. The belief that the divine nature of Christ suffered and died on the Cross is called Theopassionism, or Theopaschism. It is actually a condemned heresy as a subset of Monophysitism.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:31:50 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2014, 01:33:54 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


I don't see where my statement contradicts that. If Scripture says that Jesus was hungry and desired food, that is an expression of His humanity, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desire by the hypostatic Christ.  He wasn't a schizophrenic.

I agree. I would only object to the idea that we can't distinguish. Distinguishing isn't always an attempt to compromise the union. (And I'm not saying you were opposing that.)

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2014, 01:37:35 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2014, 01:39:36 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2014, 01:42:23 PM »
There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

So according to the latter being true, do they or do they not believe that the divine person of the Son died like I do?

Tony
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:42:44 PM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2014, 01:46:22 PM »
There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

So according to the latter being true, do they or do they not believe that the divine person of the Son died like I do?

Tony

I am not sure. Miaphysites say that their belief is based upon St. Cyril of Alexandria. I am currently skimming through his works to find out.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2014, 01:49:59 PM »
Here is an interesting wikipedia article to further muddy the water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopaschite_controversy

Quote
Eventually, the emperor's support of the "Theopaschite formula" finally paved the way for its vindication at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, of which canon 10 reads: "If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in flesh is true God and Lord of glory and one of the holy Trinity, let him be anathema".
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2014, 01:52:15 PM »
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I will wait for more replies. Mainly the point of this thread is to see if Chalcedonians believe that the divine part of Christ also died along with the human part, or only the human part. Seems the official belief is the human part though. I'm sure some authoritative experts will come in eventually to add their comments. So I'll wait on that.

As for what Miaphysites believe about this. Maybe I'll start a new thread just for them.

Thanks to everyone who has answered and will answer,

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2014, 01:52:28 PM »
That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2014, 01:56:03 PM »
Aha, found a source. Miaphysites DO NOT believe that the divine essence died. See this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7178.msg272042.html#msg272042

Quote
We say that He both suffered, and rose again, not meaning that the Word of God suffered in His own nature .... but in so far as that which had become His own body suffered, then He Himself is said to suffer these things, for our sake, because the Impassible One was in the suffering body.1

Source:  Saint Cyril Of Alexandria: Second Letter To Nestorius in:  John McGuckin: Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy p 203
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2014, 01:57:48 PM »
That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
It does address the concept of theopaschism being a heresy. I have found patripassionism being condemned as a heresy, but not theopaschism.

How can you say God died on the cross if you deny that the divine nature was a part of that? That sounds as if it is saying that the Divinity of Christ left Him prior to His death.
God bless!

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,865
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2014, 01:57:59 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

Just a point of correction.  The OO Church does not say "we are Diophysites who are misunderstood".  We say "we are Orthodox who are misunderstood."
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2014, 02:04:37 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

Just a point of correction.  The OO Church does not say "we are Diophysites who are misunderstood".  We say "we are Orthodox who are misunderstood."

Eleison. What I meant to say was that Miaphysites claim their view of the Incarnation is Orthodox, i.e. does not conflict with Diophysitism albeit is expressed in different words. You are correct.

That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
It does address the concept of theopaschism being a heresy. I have found patripassionism being condemned as a heresy, but not theopaschism.

How can you say God died on the cross if you deny that the divine nature was a part of that? That sounds as if it is saying that the Divinity of Christ left Him prior to His death.

No, Athanasius and Damascene both testify that when Christ died, his hypostatic union did not separate. That is why we can say "God died". But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 02:07:43 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2014, 02:10:23 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???
God bless!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2014, 02:10:39 PM »
But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.

Something as abstract as "essence" can't die.

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2014, 02:13:36 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

Death is separation of body and soul. The body and soul, parts of the human nature, separated. The Divine nature remained hypostatically united to both. So the Divine Person died. His divine nature in and of itself cannot die, but the Divine Person died. We can say the Divine Person suffered and died according to his flesh. (I believe that is a Cyrilian expression.)

I really think everyone is on the same page, it's all semantics.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 02:14:52 PM by gueranger »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2014, 02:23:20 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

Death is separation of body and soul. The body and soul, parts of the human nature, separated. The Divine nature remained hypostatically united to both. So the Divine Person died. His divine nature in and of itself cannot die, but the Divine Person died. We can say the Divine Person suffered and died according to his flesh. (I believe that is a Cyrilian expression.)

I really think everyone is on the same page, it's all semantics.
I'll go with you on this. Theological semantics are about the most abstract thing in the world.  :laugh:
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2014, 02:24:08 PM »
But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.

Something as abstract as "essence" can't die.

Essence = life-force (for living beings) = soul = species = form = nature = Quiddity. All of these words are synonymous. When the body dies, the essence dies. So as you can see, there is an absurdity in saying the divine nature of Christ died on the Cross--literally speaking, death can only happen to bodily/mortal things.

I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

No, that is wrong. The union is not "half divine, half human". Jesus Christ is entirely human, entirely divine, inseparably and unconfused. When a person dies, their soul leaves the body. This is is what happened to Christ. The body dies, which means the human essence died. However the divine essence did not die, it was still part of his soul when he descended into Hell.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2014, 02:39:32 PM »
 Essence (or Ousia) =/= Nature (or physis). 
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2014, 02:42:41 PM »
I have seen "physis" translated as "essence" many times.

Ousia and physis are practically synonymous. They only differ in connotation. It's like the difference between the words "hit" and "strike".
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2014, 02:50:12 PM »
So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divine
Essence = life
Essence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2014, 02:58:30 PM »
So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divine
Essence = life
Essence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #48 on: October 29, 2014, 03:01:13 PM »
So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divine
Essence = life
Essence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?
So even though our soul experiences death, it still is immortal and continues to exist.  Cannot the same be said of Christ in that even though His Divine nature experienced death, it is still immortal and continues to exist?
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #49 on: October 29, 2014, 03:15:15 PM »
So taking your logic (that essence, nature, soul, etc are all equal) does this mean that when a normal person dies the soul also dies? It seems that you are arguing:

A human has only a human essence, not a divine
Essence = life
Essence = soul

Therefore both life and soul end at death.

Life and soul are the same thing. When a plant dies, it loses its species as a plant, or its soul, in exactly the same way it loses its functional life-force.

Human beings are special, with immortal souls that continue on to another realm of existence once the body has died. That's why Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" (Jn 11:25). So when Jesus died, we can say his human essence died because his body died whilst his soul when to Hell, but his divine essence certainly did not die; how can an immortal and bodiless entity die?
So even though our soul experiences death, it still is immortal and continues to exist.  Cannot the same be said of Christ in that even though His Divine nature experienced death, it is still immortal and continues to exist?

Faulty comparison. The human soul is created, and so while it exists forever after God makes it, there is a moment when it comes into existence, before which it does not exist. For the human being, death means that the body goes to the grave whilst the soul goes elsewhere, but the human is still dead--there is still a qualitative difference of the person's essence before and after death.

The eternal Son/the Logos/the Godhead/the divine essence of Christ did not come into existence, but is co-eternal with the Father. It has no body. It cannot die. If it can, then you are saying God's essence can change. But we know from faith that God is eternal and immutable.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,835
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2014, 06:12:03 PM »
Quote
Emmanuel our God was hung upon the wood
and the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.
His spirit alone left him on the wood.
His essence departed not from his body.
He left human life*, not the eternal.
The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,
Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Qolo, qaumo qadmoyo daslibo d'lilyo da'rubtho, in Awsar Slawoto (2006: SEERI, Kottayam, India), p. 766-769.

I have taken the liberty of tweaking slightly the English translation given in this volume in order to preserve certain unique features found in the Syriac text and/or to aid in clarity. 

*I have left this line untouched (except to remove a possessive that wasn't explicitly there) because I find it hard to translate.  The sense is not that he abandoned humanity or stopped being human, but that he died a human death and in that sense lost/gave up his life and was removed from our society while at the same time never having died in his divinity ("In the Grave with the body, but in Hades with the Soul, as God; in Paradise with the Thief, and on the Throne with the Father and Spirit wast thou, O Christ, filling all things, thyself uncircumscribed."). 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2014, 06:42:35 PM »
In perfect accordance with the passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria that I quoted.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #52 on: October 30, 2014, 01:34:34 AM »
I'm in agreement that the spiritual part of the soul separates from the body and is alive and conscious when one dies, it does not cease to exist; so yes the Divine Nature was part of that, so in that sense it didn't die. But the Divine Nature was also part of the whole man which died, there I believe the Divine that was one with it died the same way any other human would die because Christ was made in all things like we are and therefore suffered and died in all ways like we do (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15).

I'm trying to figure out how what you guys are saying isn't similar to Doceticism.

See Inquirer you are saying that the Lord did die but it doesn't sound like he actually completely died. See the Divine One, the Son, actually had to die for real, as I see it, for him to actually make it so he could take divorced Israel back as a new man with a new marriage contract (Jeremiah 3; Romans 7:1-6). I can't see this how can be if it was only a human death and not a divine one as well. The whole point of him assuming flesh was so that he could die, which before in his previous state was impossible.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2014, 01:39:47 AM »
Quote
Emmanuel our God was hung upon the wood
and the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.
His spirit alone left him on the wood.
His essence departed not from his body.
He left human life*, not the eternal.
The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,
Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Qolo, qaumo qadmoyo daslibo d'lilyo da'rubtho, in Awsar Slawoto (2006: SEERI, Kottayam, India), p. 766-769.

I have taken the liberty of tweaking slightly the English translation given in this volume in order to preserve certain unique features found in the Syriac text and/or to aid in clarity. 

*I have left this line untouched (except to remove a possessive that wasn't explicitly there) because I find it hard to translate.  The sense is not that he abandoned humanity or stopped being human, but that he died a human death and in that sense lost/gave up his life and was removed from our society while at the same time never having died in his divinity ("In the Grave with the body, but in Hades with the Soul, as God; in Paradise with the Thief, and on the Throne with the Father and Spirit wast thou, O Christ, filling all things, thyself uncircumscribed."). 

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,213
  • Je suis Janusz Korwin-Mikke
  • Faith: I'm a Vegan
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to ROCOR
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2014, 02:21:26 AM »
The headline seems weird coming from a Chalcedonian. Are you inquiring OOxy?
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2014, 02:32:57 AM »
Assuming the Son is One Person with two natures (divine and human), He experienced death in that He suffered in His human nature (i.e. his humanity) and that His human body actually died.

However, to say that either of His natures died suggests a misunderstanding of what "nature" is.

(We just discussed this in our adult catechism.)

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #56 on: October 30, 2014, 04:40:58 AM »
Assuming the Son is One Person with two natures (divine and human), He experienced death in that He suffered in His human nature (i.e. his humanity) and that His human body actually died.

However, to say that either of His natures died suggests a misunderstanding of what "nature" is.

(We just discussed this in our adult catechism.)

Yes I understand that my wording was poor in the beginning, but I think I've made it clear what I mean.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2014, 04:45:22 AM »
The headline seems weird coming from a Chalcedonian. Are you inquiring OOxy?

Who is this question directed at?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2014, 08:30:46 AM »
I'm in agreement that the spiritual part of the soul separates from the body and is alive and conscious when one dies, it does not cease to exist; so yes the Divine Nature was part of that, so in that sense it didn't die. But the Divine Nature was also part of the whole man which died, there I believe the Divine that was one with it died the same way any other human would die because Christ was made in all things like we are and therefore suffered and died in all ways like we do (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15).

I'm trying to figure out how what you guys are saying isn't similar to Doceticism.

See Inquirer you are saying that the Lord did die but it doesn't sound like he actually completely died. See the Divine One, the Son, actually had to die for real, as I see it, for him to actually make it so he could take divorced Israel back as a new man with a new marriage contract (Jeremiah 3; Romans 7:1-6). I can't see this how can be if it was only a human death and not a divine one as well. The whole point of him assuming flesh was so that he could die, which before in his previous state was impossible.

Tony

Do you believe God the Father can die? What about God the Holy Spirit?

If your answer to that is no, then how can you believe that God the Son can die? Presumably because of the hypostatic union. In that sense, nobody is denying that God the Son died on the Cross. There is no disagreement there.

Docetism is "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." Nobody that has posted in this thread thus far has believed that. Chalcedonians and Miaphysites say that Christ is true God, true Man, both divine and human, inseparable but unconfused. Docetists would argue that Christ is true God in the illusion of a man.

Quote
Emmanuel our God was hung upon the wood
and the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.
His spirit alone left him on the wood.
His essence departed not from his body.
He left human life*, not the eternal.
The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,
Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Qolo, qaumo qadmoyo daslibo d'lilyo da'rubtho, in Awsar Slawoto (2006: SEERI, Kottayam, India), p. 766-769.

I have taken the liberty of tweaking slightly the English translation given in this volume in order to preserve certain unique features found in the Syriac text and/or to aid in clarity. 

*I have left this line untouched (except to remove a possessive that wasn't explicitly there) because I find it hard to translate.  The sense is not that he abandoned humanity or stopped being human, but that he died a human death and in that sense lost/gave up his life and was removed from our society while at the same time never having died in his divinity ("In the Grave with the body, but in Hades with the Soul, as God; in Paradise with the Thief, and on the Throne with the Father and Spirit wast thou, O Christ, filling all things, thyself uncircumscribed."). 

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

Tony

I do not think anybody is saying that. Nothing in ME's hymn suggests that when Christ died, his natures "separated' or anything like that. His soul descended unto death, still both human and divine.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2014, 08:53:24 AM »
Okay what do you call the heresy: The Son of God didn't suffer and die on the cross, only the Son of Man? To me it sounds similar to this.

I believe the Son of God could die because he became a human, that's why.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2014, 08:57:24 AM »
Okay what do you call the heresy: The Son of God didn't suffer and die on the cross, only the Son of Man? To me it sounds similar to this.

I believe the Son of God could die because he became a human, that's why.

Tony


"The Son of God didn't suffer and die on the cross, only the Son of Man" - Nestorianism, or Radical Dyophisitism that undermines the hypostatic union.

"I believe the Son of God could die because he became a human, that's why." - Exactly, there is no dispute here. Nobody is saying the Son of God did not die. But if you're saying he only COULD die because of his humanity, then you're saying only his human essence died. His body gave up the ghost (forgive the Latinism). If his divine essence died, that is like saying God the Father or God the Holy Spirit died, is it not?

Your difficulty seems to be that saying only one of his natures died means he only "half" died, or his hypostatic union ceased to be. That is not what I am saying. Jesus is true God, true Man. Thus, on the Cross died true God and true Man. When I say his divine essence did not die, I am merely saying that the eternal Son/Godhead cannot go into the grave, and neither can the Father or the Holy Spirit, because they are not bodily mortals. God could go into the grave because of the Incarnation and for no other reason.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:59:37 AM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,835
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2014, 01:34:55 PM »
Quote
Emmanuel our God was hung upon the wood
and the mighty Son of El Shaddai bowed his head and died.
His spirit alone left him on the wood.
His essence departed not from his body.
He left human life*, not the eternal.
The Jews will repent with mourning for having crucified the Most High,
Alleluia, woe to them forever.

Qolo, qaumo qadmoyo daslibo d'lilyo da'rubtho, in Awsar Slawoto (2006: SEERI, Kottayam, India), p. 766-769.

I have taken the liberty of tweaking slightly the English translation given in this volume in order to preserve certain unique features found in the Syriac text and/or to aid in clarity. 

*I have left this line untouched (except to remove a possessive that wasn't explicitly there) because I find it hard to translate.  The sense is not that he abandoned humanity or stopped being human, but that he died a human death and in that sense lost/gave up his life and was removed from our society while at the same time never having died in his divinity ("In the Grave with the body, but in Hades with the Soul, as God; in Paradise with the Thief, and on the Throne with the Father and Spirit wast thou, O Christ, filling all things, thyself uncircumscribed."). 

Mor Ephrem, is this saying that while Jesus was dead in Hades, the Paradise part with the thief, he was yet at the same time already on the throne with the Father in heaven, and also filling the universe too with himself, that the Son didn't limit himself?

Tony

Hi Tony,

What do you mean, "the Son didn't limit himself"?   
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2014, 02:04:11 PM »
Hi Tony,

What do you mean, "the Son didn't limit himself"?   

Hello Mor Ephrem,

I believe the Son limited himself in terms of his abilities. Like if he wanted to he could have made himself immortal and just obliterated every enemy of his right there and then. But he didn't. He became a servant human that served God the way we all should have right from birth. He limited himself to needing to eat, sleep, urinate, have his behind wiped by his mother when he was a babe, grow in knowledge, etc. He was a real guy like all of us. Now he could never have done such a thing without the permission and power from his Father though (I'm Subordinationalist Trinitarian). I believe that the Son is only everything he is because it comes from the source, the Father. He could take up his life again because his Father gave him the ability. He has all authority given to him because his Father gave it to him. He knows all men because his Father gave him that ability. The Father clearly has not given it to the Son know the day or the hour though. Just like the mouth/word of man is subject to the mind, so also the Son is subject to the Father. But the Son in ability could have disobeyed his Father but not in nature and character (like how I could never rape and pillage). So though the weaknesses of his human fleshly nature didn't want to suffer and die, yet it was the Father's will be done and not his own for he always does the will of his Father without exception (not like us) being in very nature the Son of God who is of the Father's substance.

Tony


"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2014, 02:15:15 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?

Why I asked this question was an acquaintance of mine said that EOs do not believe that the divine part died but the OOs do. He was telling me that EOs beliefs are sort of Gnostic-like in this respect but not the Miaphysite OOs. But it seems you guys believe in the same thing in this respect. I'll need to think in my mind if we are on the same page or not.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Online NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,566
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2014, 02:24:28 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?
The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

(I'm Subordinationalist Trinitarian).

That's not subordinationism. Subordinationism says that Christ has a different and inferior nature to the Father's nature.

Question: Where is your theological info coming from? Mostly from this friend of yours?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 02:29:20 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,835
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2014, 02:26:50 PM »
Hi Tony,

What do you mean, "the Son didn't limit himself"?   

Hello Mor Ephrem,

I believe the Son limited himself in terms of his abilities. Like if he wanted to he could have made himself immortal and just obliterated every enemy of his right there and then. But he didn't. He became a servant human that served God the way we all should have right from birth. He limited himself to needing to eat, sleep, urinate, have his behind wiped by his mother when he was a babe, grow in knowledge, etc. He was a real guy like all of us.

OK.  I mean, I don't usually like using such informal terms as "guy" in a Christological discussion, but OK, everything you just wrote I could agree with.  :)

Quote
Now he could never have done such a thing without the permission and power from his Father though (I'm Subordinationalist Trinitarian). I believe that the Son is only everything he is because it comes from the source, the Father. He could take up his life again because his Father gave him the ability. He has all authority given to him because his Father gave it to him. He knows all men because his Father gave him that ability. The Father clearly has not given it to the Son know the day or the hour though. Just like the mouth/word of man is subject to the mind, so also the Son is subject to the Father.

Because you identify yourself as a Subordinationist, I don't know if I can agree with you on all this.  I think most of these statements could be interpreted in an orthodox manner but I don't really know that I am convinced you are doing so.    

Quote
But the Son in ability could have disobeyed his Father but not in nature and character (like how I could never rape and pillage). So though the weaknesses of his human fleshly nature didn't want to suffer and die, yet it was the Father's will be done and not his own for he always does the will of his Father without exception (not like us) being in very nature the Son of God who is of the Father's substance.

Who says you could never rape and pillage?  Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.  
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2014, 02:30:38 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?
The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2014, 03:19:54 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?
The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.
Can the human nature do anything of itself, like die?
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2014, 03:23:17 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?
The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.
Can the human nature do anything of itself, like die?

Sorry. My previous post was misleading. I was saying 'precisely' to the statement "The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died."
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2014, 03:48:25 PM »
So you guys admit that the Son of God the divine nature limited itself to experience death along with the human nature?
The divine nature can't do anything of itself. The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died.

Precisely.
Can the human nature do anything of itself, like die?

Sorry. My previous post was misleading. I was saying 'precisely' to the statement "The Divine Hypostasis emptied himself and died."
Ah, ok.  ;)  :P
God bless!

Online NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,566
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2014, 05:59:20 PM »
Can the human nature do anything of itself, like die?
Strictly, no.
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #71 on: October 30, 2014, 07:51:17 PM »
It appears as if both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians are in agreement regarding the OP's question.

Both would also agree that Subordinationism is not Orthodox doctrine.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 07:53:05 PM by lovesupreme »

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2014, 01:32:48 AM »
Who says you could never rape and pillage?  Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.  

I'm saying it. I'm very certain that I could never do anything such as that. Maybe before I came to know the Messiah, but even then, not entirely sure, although I did other very heinous things and thought to do them. Sweet little babies grow up and learn from what is around them, and are highly susceptible to influence from the Evil One at that time.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,835
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2014, 01:42:58 AM »
Who says you could never rape and pillage?  Every rapist and pillager was born as a sweet little baby.  

I'm saying it. I'm very certain that I could never do anything such as that. Maybe before I came to know the Messiah, but even then, not entirely sure, although I did other very heinous things and thought to do them. Sweet little babies grow up and learn from what is around them, and are highly susceptible to influence from the Evil One at that time.

Tony

You're fooling yourself, Tony.  We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us. 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2014, 01:45:43 AM »
That's not subordinationism. Subordinationism says that Christ has a different and inferior nature to the Father's nature.

I was looking it up last night. It seems there are many forms of what is called this. It seems to me that I am. Most Trinitarians (from what I can tell) believe that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal in every single way like the Son. Though it seems there is some Subordinationalist type understanding in Orthodoxy, which westerners many times take as false teaching. I think this Subordinationalism is just in regards to autrhority structure with the Father as head, if I'm not mistaken.

Question: Where is your theological info coming from? Mostly from this friend of yours?

No. But when he told me this it shocked me, because I told him I was considering Orthodoxy, and I told him I didn't understand why there was such division over the Chalcedonian vs Miaphysitism because to me it seemed that it was just semantics. This is how I have viewed it. I thought that it seemed a bit over the top for there to be contention, seeing as this is mainly just philosophical expounding on what Scripture says, and I don't think Scripture actually goes this deep. Anyway then he told me that the Chalcedonian view was gnostic as per his understanding. Anyway, to be fair, he said that was his understanding and that I should look into it myself, so obviously he was uncertain if he was correct.

Tony

"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2014, 01:49:19 AM »
You're fooling yourself, Tony.  We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us.  

Mor Ephrem, I don't think so. It's close to as bad as saying that I'm only fooling myself if I say I would never kill my mother, slice her up, and eat her. I could never do that. How could I do that? Am I totally depraved with this sinful nature inside me that I cannot cease to do evil and learn to do good?

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 01:49:54 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2014, 01:51:16 AM »
Chalcedonians... gnostic? :D

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #77 on: October 31, 2014, 01:58:59 AM »
I also want to point out if I did anything heinous like those things that I am confident I would lose my salvation and damn myself to the Lake of Fire forever, with no hope of being restored. "I we sin willfully after we come to the full knowledge of the truth... "

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,835
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #78 on: October 31, 2014, 02:02:36 AM »
You're fooling yourself, Tony.  We all fool ourselves in this way until the joke is on us.  

Mor Ephrem, I don't think so. It's close to as bad as saying that I'm only fooling myself if I say I would never kill my mother, slice her up, and eat her. I could never do that. How could I do that? Am I totally depraved with this sinful nature inside me that I cannot cease to do evil and learn to do good?

Tony

Just in the last day or two, a man my age beheaded his mother on one end of a street in New York, dragged her body to the other side, and kicked her head back where he started.  Then he went to a train station, jumped in front of a moving train and killed himself.  

Did he ever think he could ever do that to his mother?  Did his mother ever think her son could do that to her or to anyone?  

It's not that you or I are so totally depraved that we cannot help but commit evil acts.  But when we think that certain sins are so heinous that we are incapable of doing them, this is implicitly a judgement that we are better than "those people" (the ones who are capable of doing such things).  Where that pride enters, a fall is imminent, and often our fall is related to the source of our pride.  At least this is my personal experience.  

For the record, my mother is alive and well.  :)
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #79 on: October 31, 2014, 02:27:51 AM »
Just in the last day or two, a man my age beheaded his mother on one end of a street in New York, dragged her body to the other side, and kicked her head back where he started.  Then he went to a train station, jumped in front of a moving train and killed himself.  

Did he ever think he could ever do that to his mother?  Did his mother ever think her son could do that to her or to anyone?  

It's not that you or I are so totally depraved that we cannot help but commit evil acts.  But when we think that certain sins are so heinous that we are incapable of doing them, this is implicitly a judgement that we are better than "those people" (the ones who are capable of doing such things).  Where that pride enters, a fall is imminent, and often our fall is related to the source of our pride.  At least this is my personal experience.  

For the record, my mother is alive and well.  :)

I understand your concern. But I am not saying this because I am be prideful that I'm better than people who would.

First, I was using it as an example of how the Messiah be had a human nature like us, was made in every way like us, tempted in all points like us, had the ability to sin just like us, but he could not do it because, "How could I in the least bit disobey my Father?" And I my example was something extreme that I am absolutely sure I would never do.

I don't think this has anything to do with, "I thank you that I am not like other men..."

I believe it is possible for me to fall away from my faith. I've had some close calls. God merciful to me in my ignorance, some of which was even willfull. But we ought to know ourselves. If one is not so steadfast and confident in his walk with God that he knows he would not do such horrible acts, I have to question whether that one has really been through a genuine repentance and faith proven by deeds which the Bible requires.

Imagine me going to my wife on our wedding day and saying, "I love you and I promise to do my best in our marriage, but you should know, I might mess up and fall into adultery here and there, and I hope you bear with me in this if it happens." Is she going to want to marry me after that? I don't think so. To think that there is a possibility I might be unfaithful will turn her away. I mean I've already said I might do it. Why should she take the risk when it seems I have some guile? Now compare that to approaching God. "God forgive me, I repent, but I might still go out and get drunk and fornicate every once and a while, because I'm not perfect, and I just want to be humble."

Have you ever read the "prideful boastings" of the early saints to their Roman opponents like the Octavius vs Cecilius debate?

As long as we are sincere in our hearts and don't think more highly of ourselves then we ought to and pray, "Deliver us not over to temptation but from the evil one," I have confidence in God we'll overcome, as long as we are emptied of guile.

If you go over to my website's (Www.TheLoveOfTheTruth.Weebly.Com) home page, you'll see a video there exposing modern day mainstream Christianity and the heinous things done by them. And the main reason I think Christians today are so capable of doing such things is because of the saved in sin gospel. 

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #80 on: October 31, 2014, 02:53:37 AM »
Tony, Mor is not suggesting that we approach our commitments flippantly and without resolve. However, the truth is that we do mess up, and most of the time we cannot foresee our mistakes.

I used to be a devout Jew and I assured everyone I knew that I would be Jewish for the rest of my life. I was on my way to moving to a religious community to live the rest of my life when one night, while under a fever, I became an atheist. Now, I'm an Orthodox Christian. How could I have foreseen my life's trajectory? Granted, I didn't murder anyone, but I certainly did not anticipate become militantly anti-religious (which came with a plethora of blasphemous sins) before then joining the one religion I at the time had opposed the most (Christianity).

I know people who vowed they would never have sex before marriage, but they did. Do you think those people were supposed to be immune to temptation because of their commitments?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 02:54:27 AM by lovesupreme »

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #81 on: October 31, 2014, 04:16:41 AM »
Tony, Mor is not suggesting that we approach our commitments flippantly and without resolve. However, the truth is that we do mess up, and most of the time we cannot foresee our mistakes.

I used to be a devout Jew and I assured everyone I knew that I would be Jewish for the rest of my life. I was on my way to moving to a religious community to live the rest of my life when one night, while under a fever, I became an atheist. Now, I'm an Orthodox Christian. How could I have foreseen my life's trajectory? Granted, I didn't murder anyone, but I certainly did not anticipate become militantly anti-religious (which came with a plethora of blasphemous sins) before then joining the one religion I at the time had opposed the most (Christianity).

I know people who vowed they would never have sex before marriage, but they did. Do you think those people were supposed to be immune to temptation because of their commitments?

Are true saved ransomed Christians going to constantly mess up in sins to death, the sins listed as disqualifying one from the Kingdom, as being said that one has no more sacrifice for sins if one does it, such as sexual immorality and false oaths? And can something even be considered a "mess up" or is that something that is premeditated and rebellion against the Holy One? And if a truly saved Christian does something like that is it not true that they have just cast away there birthright for a piece of meat like Esau? And isn't it going to be virtually impossible for one such as that to be restored? Does Hebrews 6 and 10 mean what it says? Does Romans 6 mean what it says when it says the Christian life is one of victory over sin, not messing up. Is one really a slave to whom he obeys, whether obedience to righteousness and life, or sin to death and destruction?

Surely we can throw away the gift of righteousness. It could happen to us, so we should fear, lest we end up being overcome. This is totally true. But I mean to say one can't have some assurance he won't sin to death if he puts his mind to it and keeps his eyes on his Lord is a little worrisome.

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 04:24:39 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #82 on: October 31, 2014, 08:38:48 AM »
I also want to point out if I did anything heinous like those things that I am confident I would lose my salvation and damn myself to the Lake of Fire forever, with no hope of being restored. "I we sin willfully after we come to the full knowledge of the truth... "

Tony

You're confident that you have salvation now? Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." And you're also confident that God would not save you if you do some unspeakable evil? Jesus says "judge not", and he never appended that with "except yourself".

"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #83 on: October 31, 2014, 09:28:59 AM »
You're confident that you have salvation now? Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling." And you're also confident that God would not save you if you do some unspeakable evil? Jesus says "judge not", and he never appended that with "except yourself".

Many Scriptures speak of those who believe already being saved. Examples:

Quote
"[5:13] I have written these things to you who believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have everlasting life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God."--MKJV

"[2:5] (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), [2:6] and has raised [us] up together and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, [2:7] so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in [His] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. [2:8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God,"--Ephesians MKJV

There are also Scriptures that speak of not yet having attained eternal life but having it once we endure till the end. Examples:

Quote
"[24:13] But he who endures to the end, this one will be saved."--Matthew MLV

"[3:12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. [3:13] My brothers, I do not count myself to have taken possession, but one [thing I do], forgetting the things behind and reaching forward to the things before,"--Philippians MKJV

As long as we repent and continue to acceptably serve the Lord in reverent fear, we can have assurance of salvation.

Quote
"[3:21] Beloved, if our heart does not accuse us, we have confidence toward God. [3:22] And whatever we ask, we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. [3:23] And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. [3:24] And he who keeps His commandment dwells in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave to us."--1John MKJV

The Scripture you speak of, "judge not," in context is referring to hypocritical judgments. Scripture tells us to judge however, in a righteous manner.

Quote
"[7:24] Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment."--John MKJV

"[2:15] But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one. [...] [6:1] Do any of you dare, when you have a matter against another, to go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? [6:2] Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [6:3] Do you not know that we shall judge angels, not to mention [the things] of [this] life? [6:4] If, then, you truly have judgments of [the things] of [this] life, set those who are least esteemed in the church [to judge]. [6:5] For I speak to your shame. [Is it] so [that] there is not a wise one among you, not even one in your midst who shall be able to judge between his brother? [6:6] But brother goes to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. [6:7] Indeed then there is already on the whole a failure among you, that you have lawsuits with yourselves. Why not instead be wronged? Why not instead be defrauded? [6:8] But you do wrong and defraud, and these things to brothers. [6:9] Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals, [6:10] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.  [6:11] And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."--1Corinthians MKJV


How can one examine oneself to see if one is in the faith if he doesn't judge himself?

Quote
"[13:5] Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Or do you not yourselves perceive that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?"--2Corinthians LITV

That said, will I make it to the end? I don't know. I hope so. Is it a guarantee that I won't fall away but will make it to the Lord in a state that he will not say to me, "Go away from me I never knew you!" but will say, "Well done good and faithful servant!"? I cannot say. But with God his people have peace.

Quote
"[5:1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."--Romans MKJV

How can one have peace if he doesn't know whether or not he's saved?

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 09:29:30 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2014, 09:32:59 AM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 09:33:25 AM by TheTrisagion »
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2014, 09:33:51 AM »
And you're also confident that God would not save you if you do some unspeakable evil?

I've done enough evil since I "believed." I don't want to find out if I have anymore chances left.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2014, 09:36:19 AM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #87 on: October 31, 2014, 09:38:20 AM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony

When one is baptized, one is saved. When one goes to confession, one is saved. At any time your sins are forgiven, you are saved. But that does not account for the totality of your salvation. That's why Paul says "work out your salvation in fear and trembling", not "you know you are saved and have no real chance of losing it".
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #88 on: October 31, 2014, 09:42:48 AM »
Let me illustrate for you from the Acts of John:

Quote
"67. When the pilot that voyageth, together with them that sail with him, and the ship herself, arriveth in a calm and stormless harbour, then let him say that he is safe. [...]"

Salvation is like being in the sea drowning, but then the President sends out his Captain with his ship of rescue/salvation to save you. He brings you into the ship and now you have been saved/rescued. But you have yet to make it to the port where you are completely safe. You must yet endure the storms and winds on the way home, and also you must abide by the ship rules. For if you do not obey the ship rules, you will be kicked off the ship.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #89 on: October 31, 2014, 09:44:10 AM »
Let me illustrate for you from the Acts of John:

Quote
"67. When the pilot that voyageth, together with them that sail with him, and the ship herself, arriveth in a calm and stormless harbour, then let him say that he is safe. [...]"

Salvation is like being in the sea drowning, but then the President sends out his Captain with his ship of rescue/salvation to save you. He brings you into the ship and now you have been saved/rescued. But you have yet to make it to the port where you are completely safe. You must yet endure the storms and winds on the way home, and also you must abide by the ship rules. For if you do not obey the ship rules, you will be kicked off the ship.

Tony


I guess there's a misunderstanding here, because you're very clearly saying that salvation can be lost if you do not obey the ship rules.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #90 on: October 31, 2014, 09:44:34 AM »
Where did I ever say one is saved insomuch that one cannot give up one's salvation? ("Give up" is probably a better term than "loose")

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #91 on: October 31, 2014, 09:46:25 AM »
Where did I ever say one is saved insomuch that one cannot give up one's salvation? ("Give up" is probably a better term than "loose")

Tony

OK. So it was a misunderstanding. We are in agreement that "once saved, always saved" is a load of nonsense.

However, I still object to two notions: (1) that you KNOW that God will save your soul (where is there room for hope?), or that (2) you KNOW that God will NOT save your soul if you do something exceedingly heinous (who are you to decide whom God will save or not?).
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #92 on: October 31, 2014, 09:47:11 AM »
I guess there's a misunderstanding here, because you're very clearly saying that salvation can be lost if you do not obey the ship rules.

I think so.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #93 on: October 31, 2014, 09:48:19 AM »
I'll get back to you, I have to go now.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2014, 09:50:35 AM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony
I am not at all a Greek scholar, so perhaps someone else can give a better answer, but the Greek word is ἐστε which is the second person plural present indicative of εἰμί (the word for "I am").  The word for "saved" is σεσῳσμένοι which translates to "save, resue heal". The actual literal translation would be "For by grace you (plural) are (present tense) rescued through faith..."
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2014, 11:11:58 AM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony
I am not at all a Greek scholar, so perhaps someone else can give a better answer, but the Greek word is ἐστε which is the second person plural present indicative of εἰμί (the word for "I am").  The word for "saved" is σεσῳσμένοι which translates to "save, resue heal". The actual literal translation would be "For by grace you (plural) are (present tense) rescued through faith..."

I'm not an expert in Greek neither, not by a long shot, but most of the super literal translations say, "You are having been saved."

Quote
"for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you--of God the gift,"--Ephesians 2:8 YLT

I also spoke about this verse with someone who is an expert of Greek recently (Tim Warner) and he told me the same thing. As Young has it here he says that is the literal translation, but it doesn't really sound right in English so to sound good and yet be as literal as possible at the same time, he translates it as "have been saved" in his translation of the NT. Thus when it is translated "are saved" in English, it means you are already saved right now.

Plus you also forgot to mention John who says of the saints that he was writing to that they possessed eternal life already while still enduring. And there are other verses that speak of believers already being saved before the end, those were just examples.

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 11:13:09 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2014, 11:34:13 AM »
OK. So it was a misunderstanding. We are in agreement that "once saved, always saved" is a load of nonsense.

However, I still object to two notions: (1) that you KNOW that God will save your soul (where is there room for hope?), or that (2) you KNOW that God will NOT save your soul if you do something exceedingly heinous (who are you to decide whom God will save or not?).

Yes, OSAS is a lie of the Devil. I reject all Reformed doctrines of "salvation."

1) I'm not saying one who is saved knows God will save that one, that they will endure. I'm saying one who is saved knows they are currently saved/right with God/ransomed from the power of Satan to God.

2) Shepherd of Hermas confirms what the Book of Hebrews says, that there is really virtually only one repentance for the people of God which is supposed to happen at baptism. Yes a second repentance can happen as we see examples of the Judge giving some of the 7 Assemblies in Revelation a chance to repent for doing some wicked deeds, and also Paul mentions a man who was having his father's wife as having been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit MIGHT be saved, and we know that later he was indeed restored to favor after a genuine repentance. Also the Angel of Repentance offers a chance to some to repent after they have fallen away too. But I've had lot's of chances. My conscience speaks to me that if I do such a deed that is wicked, like break my vows to my wife before God that I will most likely be given over to those twelve women in black in the Shepherd of Hermas which symbolize the fruits of apostasy. There is appointed a day in which after someone sins he can have no more forgiveness, but for heathen repentance is possible till the last day. This was common teaching in the early Church. Tertullian talks about it too (though he went a bit too far I believe). I believe that it is dangerous to not accept Hermas as Scripture because it confirms how narrow the way is and what the correct interpretation of Hebrews 6 and 10 is. AT LEAST people should take it as true if not as Scripture equal with the Bible and heed the warnings. Even certain Orthodox in the Church have had prophecies that they received and people believe them to be from God even though they don't put them in the Bible. Even 1Clement, though not in the Bible, people would agree is true and useful for doctrine. It confirms that Protestants who believe in a priesthood for all believers only are in error. But the Bible alone can prove what I'm saying because it says the Anointed One died for past sins (Romans 3:25; 2Peter 1:9), not past, present and future, so that's how the Hebrews can say what it does.

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 11:38:17 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #97 on: October 31, 2014, 12:05:17 PM »
OK. So it was a misunderstanding. We are in agreement that "once saved, always saved" is a load of nonsense.

However, I still object to two notions: (1) that you KNOW that God will save your soul (where is there room for hope?), or that (2) you KNOW that God will NOT save your soul if you do something exceedingly heinous (who are you to decide whom God will save or not?).

Yes, OSAS is a lie of the Devil. I reject all Reformed doctrines of "salvation."

1) I'm not saying one who is saved knows God will save that one, that they will endure. I'm saying one who is saved knows they are currently saved/right with God/ransomed from the power of Satan to God.

2) Shepherd of Hermas confirms what the Book of Hebrews says, that there is really virtually only one repentance for the people of God which is supposed to happen at baptism. Yes a second repentance can happen as we see examples of the Judge giving some of the 7 Assemblies in Revelation a chance to repent for doing some wicked deeds, and also Paul mentions a man who was having his father's wife as having been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit MIGHT be saved, and we know that later he was indeed restored to favor after a genuine repentance. Also the Angel of Repentance offers a chance to some to repent after they have fallen away too. But I've had lot's of chances. My conscience speaks to me that if I do such a deed that is wicked, like break my vows to my wife before God that I will most likely be given over to those twelve women in black in the Shepherd of Hermas which symbolize the fruits of apostasy. There is appointed a day in which after someone sins he can have no more forgiveness, but for heathen repentance is possible till the last day. This was common teaching in the early Church. Tertullian talks about it too (though he went a bit too far I believe). I believe that it is dangerous to not accept Hermas as Scripture because it confirms how narrow the way is and what the correct interpretation of Hebrews 6 and 10 is. AT LEAST people should take it as true if not as Scripture equal with the Bible and heed the warnings. Even certain Orthodox in the Church have had prophecies that they received and people believe them to be from God even though they don't put them in the Bible. Even 1Clement, though not in the Bible, people would agree is true and useful for doctrine. It confirms that Protestants who believe in a priesthood for all believers only are in error. But the Bible alone can prove what I'm saying because it says the Anointed One died for past sins (Romans 3:25; 2Peter 1:9), not past, present and future, so that's how the Hebrews can say what it does.

Tony

1) This just totally reeks of the sin of presumption. Paul did not know he was saved, until right before he was about to be martyred for Christ. Before then he displays considerable disconfidence in his own salvation. If you walk around believing "if I die right now I will go to heaven", there is absolutely no room for faith or hope. It is prideful.

Besides, this belief just causes a sort of Calvinistic depression in people. What if you're not sure you're saved? Are you to take that to mean you aren't?

2) "There is appointed a day in which after someone sins he can have no more forgiveness" - perhaps, but that's for God to decide and for him to know. You can't say "if I do this sin God will not save me." That is arrogantly believing that you know the mind of God. His ways are not our ways. And what are you supposed to do, if you end up doing that sin? Not beg for forgiveness, just kill yourself? No. Makes no sense.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 12:07:47 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2014, 12:50:11 PM »
OK. So it was a misunderstanding. We are in agreement that "once saved, always saved" is a load of nonsense.

However, I still object to two notions: (1) that you KNOW that God will save your soul (where is there room for hope?), or that (2) you KNOW that God will NOT save your soul if you do something exceedingly heinous (who are you to decide whom God will save or not?).

Yes, OSAS is a lie of the Devil. I reject all Reformed doctrines of "salvation."

1) I'm not saying one who is saved knows God will save that one, that they will endure. I'm saying one who is saved knows they are currently saved/right with God/ransomed from the power of Satan to God.

2) Shepherd of Hermas confirms what the Book of Hebrews says, that there is really virtually only one repentance for the people of God which is supposed to happen at baptism. Yes a second repentance can happen as we see examples of the Judge giving some of the 7 Assemblies in Revelation a chance to repent for doing some wicked deeds, and also Paul mentions a man who was having his father's wife as having been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit MIGHT be saved, and we know that later he was indeed restored to favor after a genuine repentance. Also the Angel of Repentance offers a chance to some to repent after they have fallen away too. But I've had lot's of chances. My conscience speaks to me that if I do such a deed that is wicked, like break my vows to my wife before God that I will most likely be given over to those twelve women in black in the Shepherd of Hermas which symbolize the fruits of apostasy. There is appointed a day in which after someone sins he can have no more forgiveness, but for heathen repentance is possible till the last day. This was common teaching in the early Church. Tertullian talks about it too (though he went a bit too far I believe). I believe that it is dangerous to not accept Hermas as Scripture because it confirms how narrow the way is and what the correct interpretation of Hebrews 6 and 10 is. AT LEAST people should take it as true if not as Scripture equal with the Bible and heed the warnings. Even certain Orthodox in the Church have had prophecies that they received and people believe them to be from God even though they don't put them in the Bible. Even 1Clement, though not in the Bible, people would agree is true and useful for doctrine. It confirms that Protestants who believe in a priesthood for all believers only are in error. But the Bible alone can prove what I'm saying because it says the Anointed One died for past sins (Romans 3:25; 2Peter 1:9), not past, present and future, so that's how the Hebrews can say what it does.

Tony

1) This just totally reeks of the sin of presumption. Paul did not know he was saved, until right before he was about to be martyred for Christ. Before then he displays considerable disconfidence in his own salvation. If you walk around believing "if I die right now I will go to heaven", there is absolutely no room for faith or hope. It is prideful.

Besides, this belief just causes a sort of Calvinistic depression in people. What if you're not sure you're saved? Are you to take that to mean you aren't?

2) "There is appointed a day in which after someone sins he can have no more forgiveness" - perhaps, but that's for God to decide and for him to know. You can't say "if I do this sin God will not save me." That is arrogantly believing that you know the mind of God. His ways are not our ways. And what are you supposed to do, if you end up doing that sin? Not beg for forgiveness, just kill yourself? No. Makes no sense.

I'm sorry you disagree with the Word.

1) It's not presumption. Presumption would be something like OSAS. If someone has been delivered from bondage to sin, has been given a new life that they are walking in, is overcoming the world, has had their past sins remitted by the Blood, is pronounced justified/made righteous with God, how is that not being in the state of salvation? Yet the end is not yet and there is yet the Kingdom, which we do not yet see, to hope for.

"[23:1] And looking earnestly on the sanhedrin, Paul said, Men, brothers, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day."--Acts MKJV

Was Paul presumptuous here? And yet he also said,

"[4:3] But to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or by a man's day; but I do not judge my own self, [4:4] for I know nothing by myself. Yet I have not been justified by this, but He who judges me is [the] Lord. [4:5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall each one have praise of God."--1Corinthians MKJV

This has nothing to do with being prideful.

I know that I still have growing to do and getting to the end to do and that I must be fully conformed to his image. But I have confidence in God that he is getting me there right now, because when we work out our salvation with fear and trembling it is God energizing us. When one is forgiven it means they have been saved from their sins.

And just because one is not sure one is not saved doesn't mean they aren't either. They could still be saved. Feelings are not enough and are not always accurate (1John 3:20).

2) One should never in any circumstance kill their self, even if they have lost their salvation. Why would you want to go to hell sooner? And if you kill yourself your punishment will be worse for adding to your sin. We should still try to be restored to favour. Hermas gives us a hint that once we have lost it that we are given over to the 12 women in black. It is possible that I could be forgiven but I HIGHLY doubt it BECAUSE OF WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS.

"[12:15] looking diligently lest any fail of the grace of God, or lest any root of bitterness springing up disturb [you], and by it many are defiled, [12:16] (lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. [12:17] For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he did not find any place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears)."--Hebrews MKJV


I'm certainly not discouraging that one doesn't run to God's mercy seat if they have sinned. I would still do so and hope in his mercy if I sinned. We must understand the goodness and severity of God. Christians do have a higher accountability now though too since we have the truth of Christ, not like those in the OT who didn't know this truth in it's fulness as we do now.

Tony
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 12:59:13 PM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2014, 12:54:45 PM »
None of those quotations say anything close to "if you live faithfully as a Christian, you are guaranteed salvation".

I side with the Church, which has taught immutably that one cannot know if they will be eternally damned or saved until the moment God pronounces judgment upon them. Claiming to know what will happen to your soul the moment you die is presumption. Period.

Edit: in fact, your own quotation speaks against your position.

"[4:3] But to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or by a man's day; but I do not judge my own self, [4:4] for I know nothing by myself. Yet I have not been justified by this, but He who judges me is [the] Lord. [4:5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall each one have praise of God."--1Corinthians MKJV
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 12:57:20 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #100 on: October 31, 2014, 01:21:09 PM »
None of those quotations say anything close to "if you live faithfully as a Christian, you are guaranteed salvation".

I side with the Church, which has taught immutably that one cannot know if they will be eternally damned or saved until the moment God pronounces judgment upon them. Claiming to know what will happen to your soul the moment you die is presumption. Period.

Edit: in fact, your own quotation speaks against your position.

"[4:3] But to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or by a man's day; but I do not judge my own self, [4:4] for I know nothing by myself. Yet I have not been justified by this, but He who judges me is [the] Lord. [4:5] Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall each one have praise of God."--1Corinthians MKJV

So according to you the Church doesn't agree with what the Church in Scripture says.

"[3:7] that having been declared righteous by His grace, heirs we may become according to the hope of life age-during."--Titus 3:7 YLT

Paul here says the believers HAVE ALREADY BEEN made right with God. So if you are right with God you are saved status. Yet after he says "that [...] we MAY become heirs according to the hope of everlasting life." And then yet again in Galatians 3:29 Paul says to the believers, "and if ye [are] of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise--heirs." (YLT)

Therefore you have a contradiction on your hands. Not me though because I believe both and live and speak according to both. I'm not saying we can be like God and know 100% what our judgment will be on that say. But I'm saying that God says that if we repent and believe in his Son and walk in his ways we are AND will be saved. This has nothing to do with knowing the guarantee of the future outcome, which belongs to YHWH.

"[8:16] The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God."--Romans MKJV

Spirit bears witness to believers that they are children of God. Only children of God are saved. If someone is not a child of God, what is he? A child of the Devil. Children of the Devil are unsaved. But the children of God must endure till the end to be saved in which they will have 100% certainty having been judged worthy, if indeed they are.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #101 on: October 31, 2014, 01:28:32 PM »
Nothing in Scripture says that one will know for certainty that he will be saved if he dies at the moment, except Paul prior to his martyrdom.
Paul also says not to judge, even yourself, because that is God's domain.

You're lopping your own interpretation on Scripture. That's why we need the Church.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #102 on: October 31, 2014, 01:30:11 PM »
Don't the Mormons also know with "100% certainty" that they are going to heaven?  How about the jihadists who blow themselves up? What about the Calvinists who are certained they are the elect?  Saying you know anything, particularly when it comes to faith, really means absolutely nothing.
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #103 on: October 31, 2014, 01:37:31 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #104 on: October 31, 2014, 01:42:07 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony

No, it's YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's Word. You do not speak Koine Greek fluently like the Fathers did, so I will assume the Fathers' interpretation is right and yours is not, when they are in contradiction.

The Church says salvation is a process of sanctification, becoming like God. Jesus' death justified all mankind and made us the children of God. So when the Bible says "you are saved", it is referring to the one-time Passion and Death of Christ. When it says "you are being saved", it is referring to the ongoing process whereby one works out their salvation in fear and trembling with faith, good works, and recourse to the Sacraments. When it says "you will be saved", it is referring to the final judgment of God that declares you an eternal denizen of Heaven and the New Jerusalem when you die, assuming God wills it.

In summary:
Bible: "You are saved" --> saved from ancestral Sin, thus have the possibility of going to heaven
Bible: "You are being saved" --> you are in the process of sanctification that if God brings to fruition, will result in your eternal salvation
Bible: "You will be saved" --> if God is sufficiently pleased with your sanctification, at your death God will not damn you.

Your interpretation reasonably fits with some of the Bible verses but leaves other verses inexplicable. The Church's interpretation accounts for all of it, because it is the Tradition handed on since the Apostles.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 01:46:41 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #105 on: October 31, 2014, 01:48:22 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony
How do you reconcile your beliefs with St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians where he says in 1:18:
Quote
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #106 on: October 31, 2014, 01:57:20 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony
How do you reconcile your beliefs with St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians where he says in 1:18:
Quote
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.


I refer you back to my rescue boat analogy.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #107 on: October 31, 2014, 01:58:48 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony

No, it's YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's Word. You do not speak Koine Greek fluently like the Fathers did, so I will assume the Fathers' interpretation is right and yours is not, when they are in contradiction.

The Church says salvation is a process of sanctification, becoming like God. Jesus' death justified all mankind and made us the children of God. So when the Bible says "you are saved", it is referring to the one-time Passion and Death of Christ. When it says "you are being saved", it is referring to the ongoing process whereby one works out their salvation in fear and trembling with faith, good works, and recourse to the Sacraments. When it says "you will be saved", it is referring to the final judgment of God that declares you an eternal denizen of Heaven and the New Jerusalem when you die, assuming God wills it.

In summary:
Bible: "You are saved" --> saved from ancestral Sin, thus have the possibility of going to heaven
Bible: "You are being saved" --> you are in the process of sanctification that if God brings to fruition, will result in your eternal salvation
Bible: "You will be saved" --> if God is sufficiently pleased with your sanctification, at your death God will not damn you.

Your interpretation reasonably fits with some of the Bible verses but leaves other verses inexplicable. The Church's interpretation accounts for all of it, because it is the Tradition handed on since the Apostles.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #108 on: October 31, 2014, 02:02:16 PM »
It's not presumptuous because God's Word tells us it. If we didn't have God telling us we would be in presumption.

Okay so I need the Church to know that "you are having been saved" means, you are not saved yet wait until judgment day to find out? I mean it's a pretty direct statement. So are you saying you are not right with God? If so why?

Tony

No, it's YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's Word. You do not speak Koine Greek fluently like the Fathers did, so I will assume the Fathers' interpretation is right and yours is not, when they are in contradiction.

The Church says salvation is a process of sanctification, becoming like God. Jesus' death justified all mankind and made us the children of God. So when the Bible says "you are saved", it is referring to the one-time Passion and Death of Christ. When it says "you are being saved", it is referring to the ongoing process whereby one works out their salvation in fear and trembling with faith, good works, and recourse to the Sacraments. When it says "you will be saved", it is referring to the final judgment of God that declares you an eternal denizen of Heaven and the New Jerusalem when you die, assuming God wills it.

In summary:
Bible: "You are saved" --> saved from ancestral Sin, thus have the possibility of going to heaven
Bible: "You are being saved" --> you are in the process of sanctification that if God brings to fruition, will result in your eternal salvation
Bible: "You will be saved" --> if God is sufficiently pleased with your sanctification, at your death God will not damn you.

Your interpretation reasonably fits with some of the Bible verses but leaves other verses inexplicable. The Church's interpretation accounts for all of it, because it is the Tradition handed on since the Apostles.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

Tony

Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the "hope" (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God.

Several such verses like this express hope in salvation upon death, not an express guarantee that one will be saved.

Like I said. You cherry pick a few verses that fit your belief and say that I am contradicting the Word of God when I disagree with your explanation. However, the Church's explanation holds up to all of the verses of Scripture, whereas yours makes no sense in light of several of them.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 02:03:09 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #109 on: October 31, 2014, 02:10:08 PM »
It seems to me if what you are saying is true then Paul shouldn't even have known he would be saved when he was almost finished his course and was ready to be martyred. He would have had to wait until judgment time.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #110 on: October 31, 2014, 02:15:41 PM »
It seems to me if what you are saying is true then Paul shouldn't even have known he would be saved when he was almost finished his course and was ready to be martyred. He would have had to wait until judgment time.

Tony

Yes, you're right. But this can be easily explained by saying that martyrdom is such an extraordinary act of holiness, that it in itself is an almost certain sign of eternal salvation. Or perhaps Paul had some divine vision which showed him his fate whilst he wrote his last epistle.

In any case we can see that this is something of an exception to the rest of the NT, since at no other point does he express any certitude whatsoever in his own salvation, and in fact expressly commends his readers to not judge themselves but wait for God's judgment.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #111 on: October 31, 2014, 02:26:00 PM »
It seems to me if what you are saying is true then Paul shouldn't even have known he would be saved when he was almost finished his course and was ready to be martyred. He would have had to wait until judgment time.

Tony

Yes, you're right. But this can be easily explained by saying that martyrdom is such an extraordinary act of holiness, that it in itself is an almost certain sign of eternal salvation. Or perhaps Paul had some divine vision which showed him his fate whilst he wrote his last epistle.

In any case we can see that this is something of an exception to the rest of the NT, since at no other point does he express any certitude whatsoever in his own salvation, and in fact expressly commends his readers to not judge themselves but wait for God's judgment.

[9:26] So then I run, not as if I were uncertain. And so I fight, not as [one who] beats the air. [9:27] But I buffet my body, and lead [it] captive, lest proclaiming to others I myself might be rejected."--1Corinthians MKJV

Paul ran with "CERTAINTY." He KNEW if he would do the will of God he would receive the "PROMISE." But he wasn't presumptuous to relax himself as if it was a done deal, he kept himself under guard lest he would be rejected because he threw away the promise by sinning because of allowing his lusts to be unbridled. 

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #112 on: October 31, 2014, 02:31:46 PM »
"Jesus' death justified all mankind and made us the children of God. So when the Bible says "you are saved", it is referring to the one-time Passion and Death of Christ."

Only righteous people who don't sin are children of God. Righteous people are saved because God says so. Not all mankind is justified and children of God. Only those who have repented and received him are. The Scriptures make it clear the world are children of the Devil under God's wrath, not justified; even though Jesus died for them, they must meet the requirements.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #113 on: October 31, 2014, 02:41:18 PM »
"[6:11] and we desire each one of you the same diligence to shew, unto the full assurance of the hope unto the end,"--Hebrews YLT

Greek dictionary also says hope means EXPECTATION.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #114 on: October 31, 2014, 03:12:38 PM »
"[10:9] Because if you confess [the] Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from [the] dead, you will be saved."--Romans LITV

"WILL be saved." Not "might be saved."

"[6:23] For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] everlasting life in Christ Jesus our Lord."--Romans LITV

"[11:29] For the free gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance."--Romans MKJV


God will not arbitrarily change his mind about our eternal life. He has made a "PROMISE." This is not OSAS and Irresistible Grace by Faith Alone though.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #115 on: October 31, 2014, 03:18:29 PM »
"[3:14] We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers. He who does not love [his] brother abides in death. [3:15] Everyone hating his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer has everlasting life abiding in him."--1John MKJV

"We HAVE passed from death to life." What type of life? Verse 15: The "everlasting life" that murderers don't have because they hate their brother.

Again 1John 5:13.

Now is all this according to OSAS? NO. There is endurance to be done if one once to enter into that life. There is still judgment to come.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #116 on: November 01, 2014, 04:08:48 AM »
Something dawned on me last night as I was meditating on the Scriptures about us "being saved." According to what you guys are saying, how do you even know you are "being saved?" How can one even be certain that God is saving them without being "presumptuous?" Maybe many people who believe God is saving them are really deluded and God isn't working with them at all because he isn't pleased with them enough, but because they "believe" and go to church or whatever religious ordinances they do, they think God is "saving" them, but really he might not even be doing that.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,096
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #117 on: November 01, 2014, 04:16:09 AM »
God died on the Cross, and in His dying He defeated death. It is a mystery, and we should leave it alone.


Selam
"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +
http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #118 on: November 01, 2014, 04:19:41 AM »
"[20:6] Blessed and holy [is] he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years."--Revelation MKJV

Your own horribly inconsistent Amillennialist views also defeat you because you believe this first resurrection is about those who have been baptized into Christ, that have been buried with him in baptism and raised with him in newness of life. But here it says those who partake of the first resurrection the second death has no authority over them. But you say that it does possibly still since we don't know until the supposed second resurrection, or at least until we die, which isn't even then judgment day either by the way.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #119 on: November 01, 2014, 04:22:10 AM »
God died on the Cross, and in His dying He defeated death. It is a mystery, and we should leave it alone.


Selam

In some ways I actually agree with you because it seems we are adding much philosophy to this truth which doesn't really appear in Scripture, and doesn't come from revelation, but from men reasoning things out, and probably looking into things that they can't fully grasp.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #120 on: November 01, 2014, 05:52:46 AM »
Tertullian said, "No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end."

Does that mean that no one is a Christian? Or is Tertullian speaking about enduring till the end to show that he indeed without any doubt whatsoever is a Christian?

Ignatius when ready to be martyred said that now he was beginning to be a disciple. Does this mean he or others are not actually disciples? Or is this speaking of 100% certainty once someone bears witness in the arena of martyrdom without a doubt that one has had true faith?

I read some things from Orthodox writers online and it does not seem that they are speaking the same as you guys are.

I really don't see where I'm in error when I admit I have yet to endure and that if I died right now it is possible that I would not be worthy enough for eternal life, and that I have to fear and not become prideful. That I have growing to do. That I have worthiness to prove, especially considering my past deeds of evil. But if someone has been awakened to the truth of Christ and delivered from darkness to light and is living a new life in his Word, how is that not salvation? 

Tony
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 05:54:20 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #121 on: November 03, 2014, 09:49:15 AM »
I am done refuting your selective quoting of Scripture.

Here's all you need to know. God did not give us the Bible so we can figure out Christianity on our own. He gave us the Church (1 Tim 3:15), and promised Hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18-19). You can pick some Bible verses and say they fit your view, and they might seem as they do, but you have to ignore or rationalize other verses in order to avoid contradiction. The Orthodox view encompasses ALL of Scripture--and why is that? Because the Catholic/Orthodox WROTE the Bible, and handed on their teachings not just by words on paper, but also by tradition. The Church has sustained those traditions. Protestants have to invent their own understanding of Scripture.

Best wishes and God bless you.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #122 on: December 04, 2014, 05:56:09 AM »
I must fess up. When I was saying that I was saved, in the right with God, that God had pardoned me for all my past evils, that my repentance was sufficient, there was a part of me that wasn't 100% certain. But I had been doing quite well in my walk and so I convinced myself that I was, though another part of me was doubting, but I ignored it. I shouldn't have done that. So I confess and apologize for my bearing witness that is possibly false. I know it's probably not doing that much harm to you guys, so I first and foremost do so to God, for it his his name I did come in, and it is him who has authority over repentance, whether or not someone is right with him he knows.

I did this out of pride. Because of my ministry. Not wanting it to look bad. The ministry leader possibly not yet being forgiven for his past sins, and being clear with God for certain. It doesn't look too good, so I wanted it to be true that I was for certain now saved 100% as possible as one can be in this life. It was self-justification. A deadly thing that got me into trouble in the past, and I don't want to repeat this anymore.

Now, my beliefs about salvation still stand. And I believe that you guy's view contradicts not mine--just to be clear.

I also am still convinced that if I was to do that thing which I said before, that I would have no hope for repentance. I'm quite certain, it's strongly etched into my conscience. I believe I would be condemned. I believe God is not mocked and what a man sows he reaps.

This is hard to do because it is so humbling, but it is the right thing to do, which I always want to do, and thus I must do it, if I truly want to, and if I want to be accepted of the Righteous One.

I had asked God that if what I said was wrong, and if he wanted me to confess, then he should torment my conscience with conviction until I confess. In my procrastination, I was just about at the point where I was forgetting about it, and I think my conscience was being seared because I was not obeying it still, but it came to me now, and I realized this. So here I am doing so now, and I thank God for it. Blessed be the Lord.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,183
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #123 on: December 04, 2014, 05:49:13 PM »
Salvation is not something that we posess and can lose, it is something that we continually strive for throughout our life. Just to take your Ephesians verse. Paul does not say "for by grace were you saved", he says "for by grace ARE you saved". Salvation is in the present tense, because it is aways happening.

Trisagion,

As per my understanding of the Greek it literally says, "By grace you are having been saved." Meaning, by grace you exist in the state of having (already) been saved.

Tony
I am not at all a Greek scholar, so perhaps someone else can give a better answer, but the Greek word is ἐστε which is the second person plural present indicative of εἰμί (the word for "I am").  The word for "saved" is σεσῳσμένοι which translates to "save, resue heal". The actual literal translation would be "For by grace you (plural) are (present tense) rescued through faith..."

The ἐστε isn't the salient bit (as you say, it means "you-all are") -- the σεσῳσμένοι is. Σεσῳσμένοι is a participle, which were very fancy words in Greek, both declining and conjugating -- and having all kinds of uses. This one is in the passive mood and perfective aspect. At any rate -- I suppose a hyper-literal translation of the part in question could look like this: "You-all are ones having been preserved-alive by-means-of the trust" (the "ones" is more than implied, as the participle comprises a plural nominative). In my notes here, I have the whole sentence as: "Since by his favor you have been preserved alive; by means of trust, although this was not on your part: the gift of God is not a result of industry, lest one boast of oneself."
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 06:19:49 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy