tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post4224161090679043354..comments2024-03-22T11:37:52.668-05:00Comments on Byzantine, Texas: No Immaculate Conception? Underdeveloped theology.Byzantine, TXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17845681957622343484noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-72770445127132418102012-11-28T07:35:30.240-06:002012-11-28T07:35:30.240-06:00I understand where you're coming from now. It ...I understand where you're coming from now. It seems your problem is not so much with St. Paul, but of erroneous expositions made by Protestants, et al, of his writings. Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288849522994640993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-39776784769654052052012-11-27T21:59:24.631-06:002012-11-27T21:59:24.631-06:00In Romans 3 he quotes or paraphrases out of contex...In Romans 3 he quotes or paraphrases out of context "there is none righteous no not one" from the Psalms against atheists (Psalm 14, Psalm 53) and uses them as if they spoke of all mankind rather than of the fools who say in their hearts there is no God. If you are too ignorant to either find the Psalms being referred to or to read the gospels in which Jesus says things like "I came to call sinners, not the righteous, to repentance" then you would conclude (as the Protestants do) that it is impossible to be righteous so lets just not try but instead believe we are justified by a lazy do-nothing faith.<br /><br />In Romans 4, the interpretation that "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness" leaves the Prot with the impression that faith alone justifies and that nothing else, no baptism, no confession, no morality, no nothing has any part in the process of salvation. Paul's interpretation of Genesis 15 is very problematic and questionable, especially in light of the fact that the Hebrew literally translates to "He believed the LORD and (he) counted it to him as righteousness." The second "he" is not written, but may be supplied (unnecessarily) by the translators. As far as the bare translation of the phrase divorced from considerations of context goes, it is ambiguous whether it means "He (Abraham) believed the LORD and counted it to him (the LORD) as righteousness" or "He (Abraham) believed the LORD and (he, the LORD) counted it to him (Abraham) as righteousness" -- but once the context of Genesis 15 is considered, the first option, that Abraham believed God and counted God as righteous is clearly preferable since the context is about how God has not as of yet kept his promise to multiply Abraham's seed, yet Abraham hearing God reiterate the promise believes God and counts God as righteous or faithful to his promises despite the fact God has not at that point yet kept the promise. Contextually, it has nothing to do with Abraham's justification by God but of Abraham's reasons for counting God as righteous. Despite the problematic nature of Paul's subpar interpretation of the verse, we can still avoid the Protestant heresy that his interpretation would lead to by itself, if we are grounded in the gospels which tell us plainly it is NOT by faith alone, or if we will listen to James who says explicitly that even Abraham was not justified by faith alone for he says faith was working together with his works and places the time of Abraham's justification at the attempt to offer Isaac. <br /><br />Furthermore, if we were to read that Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8) without the gospels in our minds, would we not become Gnostics? Or if we were to read Colossians 2:2 "the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ" without knowledge of the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matthew, would we not become Duitarians? That is, Paul speaks here of the mystery of God only as the Father and Christ, two persons, leaving out the Holy Spirit, and in another place (2 Cor 3) speaking of Jesus says "the Lord is the Spirit" thus compounding the Son and Holy Spirit into one person.<br /><br />By Paul alone, we would be heretics alone. We need the rest of the Bible, contrary to what Prots and Marcionites think who worship Paul as the paraclete!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-73235883862103637312012-11-27T08:47:25.369-06:002012-11-27T08:47:25.369-06:00Saint Paul was an Apostle of the Lord. If you bash...Saint Paul was an Apostle of the Lord. If you bash him, you bash God. <br /><br />Would you please provide examples of his potential outright heresies? Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288849522994640993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-45830595733575991742012-11-26T19:14:27.450-06:002012-11-26T19:14:27.450-06:00Nobody, although you came the closest of anyone. ...Nobody, although you came the closest of anyone. I was just offering a more in depth explanation of what I meant when I said "I don't care who is inline with Paul because Paul is incomprehensible anyway; even Peter thought so" since you seemed to or pretended to take offense to that. What I meant was that on his own, taken as if his thought is self-sustaining or can be comprehended on its own terms, he is incomprehensible. Only by harmonizing him (or really, forcing him into agreement) with Jesus can any sense (especially orthodox sense) be made of his arguments. Read apart from the gospels, or read as more important than the gospels, his arguments are outright heresy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-53756423882227754412012-11-26T09:00:05.076-06:002012-11-26T09:00:05.076-06:00Who here was stating that Jesus must be interprete...Who here was stating that Jesus must be interpreted through Paul? Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288849522994640993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-13133702344596014542012-11-25T16:42:23.366-06:002012-11-25T16:42:23.366-06:00Measuring the glory of God and Christ by the glory...Measuring the glory of God and Christ by the glory of Paul is a big mistake, and trying to interpret the gospels so as to force them into a Pauline mold is a much bigger mistake. This is the mistake of Augustine. He read Romans 9 and tried to force the rest of the Bible into its mold, rather than (what Pelagius did) interpreting Romans 9 in light of the rest of the Bible. Augustine's mistake is the same as Calvin's and Luther's -- taking one little passage from Paul and using it to obliterate the rest of the Bible -- interpreting the clear by beating it into submission to the obscure, rather than interpreting the obscure by harmonizing it with the clear. Jesus is clear; Paul is not. We must therefore interpret Paul in light of Jesus not the other way around. To interpret Jesus in light of Paul leads directly to Calvinist heresy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-11463313630200643902012-11-25T16:35:40.819-06:002012-11-25T16:35:40.819-06:00"Fitting" in the sense of "necessar..."Fitting" in the sense of "necessary" for the church's purpose rather than "necessary" according to some natural law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-67252464035749922112012-11-19T21:55:43.974-06:002012-11-19T21:55:43.974-06:00Thanks, this helps me clarify. I think the hardes...Thanks, this helps me clarify. I think the hardest part for me in trying to understand Orthodoxy is how different the Western and Eastern mindsets are from each other. Josh in FWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446256558444354417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-48333603825217852402012-11-19T18:53:21.651-06:002012-11-19T18:53:21.651-06:00Jose,
If I remember correctly (and I don't ha...Jose,<br /><br />If I remember correctly (and I don't have time to verify; very early flight tomorrow) the Catholic Dogma states that it was "fitting" for Mary to be Immaculately conceived, not "necessary."<br /><br /> - dpDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05572831887998922948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-31048310236300177732012-11-19T11:25:10.807-06:002012-11-19T11:25:10.807-06:00Praising Pelagius and bashing Paul (and indirectly...Praising Pelagius and bashing Paul (and indirectly Christ and God) - where have I read this before? Oh yes, in the comment section of On Behalf of All's "Judaism as Pelagiansism?" post. Wonder if these are from the same author as they sound identical. <br /><br />As regards the linked article, there is nothing conciliatory or helpful coming from that writer on the subject. He is not fair in the least as regarding Orthodoxy's teaching on The Fall and therefore misses the mark entirely. Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288849522994640993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-23665152158920488032012-11-18T22:33:53.089-06:002012-11-18T22:33:53.089-06:00Jose, your understanding of Pelagius makes him sou...Jose, your understanding of Pelagius makes him sound perfectly Orthodox to me. That would explain why there were no anathemas forthcoming on him from the East. <br /><br />It may be just my Protestant background baggage showing here, but I have difficulty hearing the word "sinful" used to describe the Lord as Fr. Raphael does. That term implies to my hearing an inclination in the heart (whether realized fully or not) to sin, which I don't conceive of the Lord as having had, though clearly the Scripture teaches He was tempted in every way as we are "yet without sin." In other words, I think I hear the term "sinful" as indicating the activity of the disordered passions already at work within one, but perhaps this is not the only Orthodox connotation of this word. I do understand that the Lord, being fully human, born into our fallen condition, inherited corruption and death from Adam (as did the Mother of God) and so bore our curse.ofgracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15472912900056438243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-50024258747661650192012-11-18T20:55:37.474-06:002012-11-18T20:55:37.474-06:00That which was inherited from Adam is death and al...That which was inherited from Adam is death and all that goes with it: the most obvious being aging, the decay of the living body (we men go bald, get arthritis in our hands and joints, etc.) and the like. This is the "consequence of Adam's sin. Panaghia Theotokos was as subject to this as is every person born of a woman. This is the "ancestral sin" which she inherited along with all of humankind. <br /><br />In Adam, all partake of this "sin" including His Holy Mother - and Christ Himself. Sinless as to will and purpose (He DID resist temptation, right?), yet sinful in that he inherited "the curse" - for "the wages of sin is death".<br /><br />If He did not inherit this "sin" from His Mother, then it is not healed in you and I. I refer you to Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 51, to Cledonius (First epistle against Apollinarius:<br /><br />"...that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."<br /><br />http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/158Father Raphaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15979934481226917288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-22649970309231633752012-11-18T01:21:03.642-06:002012-11-18T01:21:03.642-06:00As to the immaculate conception. The idea is that...As to the immaculate conception. The idea is that in order to avoid Christ catching original sin, God made Mary be born without it so she could not pass it to Christ. But why couldn't God just make Christ not be born with it, yet without preventing Mary from catching it? I mean, if he can cheat the system at one point, why not another? In fact, if he has the ability to make one person, even just one, be it Mary or Christ, somehow break free of the cycle of original sin, why can't he do the same for everyone? If you're going to cheat, cheat big. If you're breaking the rules, don't just break them small. Why invalidate the spiritual order for only one -- if you are to invalidate, invalidate for all. Therefore, Pelagius makes more sense when he says nobody is damned by Adam's sin to hell but only to mortality and that hell we deserve on our own without inheriting it. Your system requires God to cheat, and yet be so stingy as to only cheat for Mary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-35754124763444296882012-11-18T01:15:27.160-06:002012-11-18T01:15:27.160-06:00So Pelagius basically agreed with Ezekiel 18. Sho...So Pelagius basically agreed with Ezekiel 18. Shocking. At least your CARICATURE of him makes him simply a Jew. But your caricature is inaccurate. <i>"A monk from Britain named Pelagius began to teach that we are only sinners because we sin, and so we can save ourselves simply by willing not to sin anymore."</i> Save ourselves by simply not sinning anymore? Really? He never said that. The reality is that Pelagius like everyone else in the church back then certainly believed baptism was necessary for salvation. But the disagreement between him and Augustine was over how necessary it is for infants. As adults, Pelagius would say, we all need baptism, because although technically we do have the ability to not sin if we will not to, realistically nobody is going to always will not to: so, Pelagius would and did say, all adults need baptism. But do infants absolutely need baptism? Augustine said that any and all infants who die without baptism go to hell. The idea that God would save them was intolerable to Augustine. Limbo was intolerable to Augustine -- they've inherited and original sin and must go burn forever. Pelagius says, no, only the body inherits Adam's sin not the soul (read Pelagius commentary on Romans 5) and therefore Adam's sin makes us born mortal but not damned to hell, we damn ourselves by improper use of freewill, we are not damned by nature. It is NOT that Pelagius said "we can save ourselves simply by willing not to sin anymore" but that he said "we are not damned until we personally misuse freewill and sin." Now, had he said what you claim, he would simply have been a Jew, and perfectly in line with the Old Testament. As it stands, however, he was a Christian, and perfectly in line with the Gospels. I don't care who is inline with Paul because Paul is incomprehensible anyway; even Peter thought so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-44281251005088759642012-11-17T21:44:37.150-06:002012-11-17T21:44:37.150-06:00Babushka Joanna, that's exactly how I put it. ...Babushka Joanna, that's exactly how I put it. It seems very easy to explain to non-Orthodox. My children can understand it that way too. (Honestly, I have been able to bear many things by reminding myself that I live in a fallen world.)Matushka Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10522097149212770814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-9648670521021018032012-11-17T16:02:48.406-06:002012-11-17T16:02:48.406-06:00When my daughter asks me why bad things happen, I ...When my daughter asks me why bad things happen, I usually begin my explanation with, "Because we live in a fallen world." We inherited the conditions that emerged after Adam and Eve's free will decision to sin. Is this a correct way to stating it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-17003524762898267872012-11-16T22:22:05.610-06:002012-11-16T22:22:05.610-06:00The difference is that Orthodox teach that we inhe...The difference is that Orthodox teach that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin not the guilt. Augustine read Romans 5:12 in an incorrect translation. The St. Paul's words "because all sinned" became "in whom all sinned." From this incorrect translation, Augustine developed the doctrine of inherited guilt and from it total depravity, which means that we can do no good until we are freed from the curse of original sin. Since the east read the text in the original Greek, it did not develop the concept of inherited guilt or total depravity. Instead, we believe that we inherit the consequences of ancestral sin which is death. Because we are mortal, we sin. Thus Mary did not have to be freed from original sin to respond to the Archangel Gabriel or even to live a sinless life. Salvation is not a gift for a sinless life, but is healing of the curse of death or ancestral sin. All traditional Protestants build their theology on the basis of Augustine's doctrine of original sin. Thus they see salvation in legalistic terms instead of healing as we do. Both Luther and Calvin were followers of Augustine. Calvin took Augustine to the obvious conclusion and completely denied free will developing the doctrine of predestination, through which God decides who to save and who not to save. According to this teaching we cannot accept or reject God's offer of salvation, but can only be saved if we are one of the elect chosen by God for salvation. Such though could not be farther from Orthodoxy.Archpriest John Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248014086614317924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-69028812969486352252012-11-16T19:45:40.959-06:002012-11-16T19:45:40.959-06:00Catholics would not say thatCatholics would not say thatJasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16441618666419874438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-26455291817786883612012-11-16T17:12:35.648-06:002012-11-16T17:12:35.648-06:00through adam, death entered the world. and because...through adam, death entered the world. and because he sinned, we too now sin. sin is almost like a disease, passed on through genes.<br /><br />catholics would say that because adam sinned, we have sinned. Jared Frederick Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00281741371953367362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-44795849624203343382012-11-16T16:44:51.697-06:002012-11-16T16:44:51.697-06:00Could you describe the Orthodox definition of Orig...Could you describe the Orthodox definition of Original Sin for us inquiring Evangelicals?Josh in FWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446256558444354417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-36479159251112296462012-11-16T16:27:45.745-06:002012-11-16T16:27:45.745-06:00http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/06/imm...http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/06/immaculate-conception-and-orthodox.htmlBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14913685988793874259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73042886598650075.post-7884659982613072892012-11-16T15:57:01.929-06:002012-11-16T15:57:01.929-06:00Lame. I should be used to it. But it still bothers...Lame. I should be used to it. But it still bothers me that Roman Catholics, who frequently and with some justification complain when Protestants habitually misrepresent their beliefs, are forever doing the same thing with us. We don't even agree on the nature of Original Sin. And since the entire theologumen of the IC is based on their understanding of Original Sin it seems to me that we are not even talking about the same thing!John (Ad Orientem)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14329907942477160166noreply@blogger.com