Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] reply to Mr. Sola

Expand Messages
  • StAthanasius373@aol.com
    I am at a terminal that doesn t give me the ability to quote Mr. Sola, so this will have to do. To say that Lutherans and Presbyterians are as different as
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I am at a terminal that doesn't give me the ability to quote Mr. Sola, so this will have to do.

      To say that Lutherans and Presbyterians are as different as Buddhists and Muslims is not only illogical, but insulting to both Lutherans and Presbyterians. They both worship the same God that all on this group worship, the Holy Trinity, but Buddhists and Muslims worship differing conceptions of deity (though I would admit that both are in idolatry for this). The Lutherans and Presbyterians both have common strains of philosohpical and theolgical thought, with sacramentology being the major stumbling block between them. I would hesitate to consider Brandon a Presbyterian, because I do not think Brandon is under the care of a Presbytery, which is the indivisble unit of government in Presbyterian governance.

      Brandon did respond emotionally, even venomously, which is what Brett took issue with. He always has to me. I have offered to speak on the phone so as to clear up this hostility, but he didn't respond to my offer. Jim and I have had rather heated debate, but it has always been civil; whether in person, e-mail, or on the phone. This hostility isn't necessary, and may end up exterminating the group.

      As to the logic of this group: I dare you to refute me. You will lose, quite badly. You made some blanket statements, but didn't back them up. "God's logic" is an oxymoron, because we do not have the ability to think on His level, all we have the ability to do is make intelligible in human terms what He has revealed. In Reformation doctrine, the starting point is predestination; which is a poor starting point because it anthropomorphizes and explains God according to supposed actions of His that can be explained sequentially in time. In Orthodoxy, the starting point is Mary's womb, which is why Orthodoxy and Protestantism end up with radically different doctrine.

      Don
    • Dan Leaming
      Don, In reading your response to Brandon and myself, are you yourself not going against what you are blaming Brandon for. I looks like it me. And to make
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Don, In reading your response to Brandon and myself, are you yourself not
        going against what you are blaming Brandon for. I looks like it me. And to
        make the statement of "God's logic" as an oxymoron, that is blasphemy. I
        understand that we are not able to understand things at God's level, but as
        creature of God, able to think and reason, does not God give us the ability
        to think logically, if He did, would He not have given us the ability
        because He is also logical. When we study anthropology, do we not start
        with the Creator, so that we are able to understand the creation. To state
        that Reformation Theology is based upon predestination is a presupposition
        of yours. I would like to see you defend that arguement. As a Student of
        Reformation Theology, I can assure you that is not the basis of my doctrine.
        Yes I acknowledge that predestination is a major key to Reformation
        Theology, but it is not the key. The scripture outline predestination quiet
        clearly and to try and explain it away would be a feet to see and I dare say
        would also blaspheme to Holy Spirit.

        If Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of Mary, than I am glad that I am not
        orthodox. My roots are at thus saith the LORD, period. It might help to
        reread John 1 and the old testement. When we make Mary the root of
        theology, we make Mary the God, instead of God being the God. Mary was just
        a vessle, as we are also vessles, used by God to bring Him glory, not Mary
        or any other human. To say otherwise again would be blasphemous. And
        blaspheme is something that I don't want to do. The Lord of Host is my
        sufficiency, not anythings else. God has revealed Himself to us in His
        scriptures, and that should be enough for us.

        Dan
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <StAthanasius373@...>
        To: <TraditionalDogmatics@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:28 AM
        Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] reply to Mr. Sola


        > I am at a terminal that doesn't give me the ability to quote Mr. Sola, so
        this will have to do.
        >
        > To say that Lutherans and Presbyterians are as different as Buddhists and
        Muslims is not only illogical, but insulting to both Lutherans and
        Presbyterians. They both worship the same God that all on this group
        worship, the Holy Trinity, but Buddhists and Muslims worship differing
        conceptions of deity (though I would admit that both are in idolatry for
        this). The Lutherans and Presbyterians both have common strains of
        philosohpical and theolgical thought, with sacramentology being the major
        stumbling block between them. I would hesitate to consider Brandon a
        Presbyterian, because I do not think Brandon is under the care of a
        Presbytery, which is the indivisble unit of government in Presbyterian
        governance.
        >
        > Brandon did respond emotionally, even venomously, which is what Brett took
        issue with. He always has to me. I have offered to speak on the phone so as
        to clear up this hostility, but he didn't respond to my offer. Jim and I
        have had rather heated debate, but it has always been civil; whether in
        person, e-mail, or on the phone. This hostility isn't necessary, and may end
        up exterminating the group.
        >
        > As to the logic of this group: I dare you to refute me. You will lose,
        quite badly. You made some blanket statements, but didn't back them up.
        "God's logic" is an oxymoron, because we do not have the ability to think on
        His level, all we have the ability to do is make intelligible in human terms
        what He has revealed. In Reformation doctrine, the starting point is
        predestination; which is a poor starting point because it anthropomorphizes
        and explains God according to supposed actions of His that can be explained
        sequentially in time. In Orthodoxy, the starting point is Mary's womb, which
        is why Orthodoxy and Protestantism end up with radically different doctrine.
        >
        > Don
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Brett Eustace
        ... Sola, is a post thats sums itself up with repent you idolator and bible hater as brandons last post not emotionalism ? Give me a break, his last post
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >>Brandon did respond emotionally, even venomously, which is what Brett took issue with. He always has to me. I have offered to speak on the phone so as to clear up this hostility, but he didn't respond to my offer. Jim and I have had rather heated debate, but it has always been civil; whether in person, e-mail, or on the phone. This hostility isn't necessary, and may end up exterminating the group.<<

          Sola, is a post thats sums itself up with ''repent you idolator and bible hater'' as brandons last post not 'emotionalism'? Give me a break, his last post was only one of many containing that sort of ad hominem. I almost have to wonder if you really have read through the archived posts.

          He deserved the rebuke, and it certainly isnt self righteousness to call the man on it. Tammy, don, and jason have also taken issue with him on occasion concerning the same thing.

          Its this sort of behaviour that really will kill an e-mail group and i dont make any apologies for getting a bit impatient with it after well over a year. Like i said ''You suck, you stupid heathen' is really not theological discussion.

          Brett<><





          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
        • Brett Eustace
          ... theology, we make Mary the God, instead of God being the God. Mary was just a vessle, as we are also vessles, used by God to bring Him glory, not Mary or
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >>If Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of Mary, than I am glad that I am not orthodox.  My roots are at thus saith the LORD, period.  It might help to reread John 1 and the old testement.   When we make Mary the root of
            theology, we make Mary the God, instead of God being the God.  Mary was just a vessle, as we are also vessles, used by God to bring Him glory, not Mary or any other human.<<
             
            If i may clear up dons statement a bit,
            ''Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of mary'' as in ''Orthodox Theology has its roots in the Incarnation'' And that began in Marys womb in that it is from marys humanity that Christ received of her substance and received His Humanity, She became His mother and He her Son. Hence, Christ calls Himself 'the Son of Man'.
             
            It is also due to the Incarnation that Orthodoxy contemplates and gives honor to marys role. Understanding mary and what truly took place in her womb can help to understand how fully human Christ became. This also works the other way around, understanding His true Humanity helps us to grasp and appreciate more fully her role.
             
            Most of us can easily understand that Christ is Truly and fully God the Son, but understanding just how completely Human he became is often tough and possibly even offends us sometimes. If you are wanting to understand any aspect of Orthodox theology then the best angle to approach the given issue from is the incarnation...this also includes the use of sacred art which has its apologetic placed soley upon the truth of the Incarnation. 'Marys Womb' isnt a bad place to start.
             
            Brett<><



            Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
          • Dan Leaming
            Thank you for clarifing Don s statement for me. Why is the incarnation so important to apologetics? I completely understand how important the incarnation is
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you for clarifing Don's statement for me. 
               
              Why is the incarnation so important to apologetics?  I completely understand how important the incarnation is to the Christian faith.  How God became very man and very God in the same being, it is not a problem for me and it does not in the least offend me.  In fact it is more of a comfort to me, to know that my LORD and Savior knows exactly how I feel as a human, both emotionally and physically.  He was able to live a life without sin.  But to place ones aplogetic foundation upon the incarnation is not wise.  Why do we know what we know?  Do we know what we know thru the incarnation of Christ, no.  Do we know what we know thru Mary, no.  Do we know what we know from the tradition of man, in around of bout way.  Do we know what we know because God has revealed Himself thru special revelation to the men who wrote the Bible, yes.  Do we know what we know because of God's omniscience, yes.  That is why I don't place my doctrine or apologetics in the incarnation.  Yes I respect Mary, but what is so different about Mary than the rest of humanity.  Mary was just another vessle that God used to glorify Himself, there was nothing special about her.  She obeyed God, thats all. 
               
              I hope this clears up my stance on apologetics alittle more.  We need to base all knowledge, everything upon God, and nothing else.  If we don't, we make God impotent, and I don't worship or I image and of us would worship a wimp.
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:53 PM
              Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] reply to Mr. Sola

              >>If Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of Mary, than I am glad that I am not orthodox.  My roots are at thus saith the LORD, period.  It might help to reread John 1 and the old testement.   When we make Mary the root of
              theology, we make Mary the God, instead of God being the God.  Mary was just a vessle, as we are also vessles, used by God to bring Him glory, not Mary or any other human.<<
               
              If i may clear up dons statement a bit,
              ''Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of mary'' as in ''Orthodox Theology has its roots in the Incarnation'' And that began in Marys womb in that it is from marys humanity that Christ received of her substance and received His Humanity, She became His mother and He her Son. Hence, Christ calls Himself 'the Son of Man'.
               
              It is also due to the Incarnation that Orthodoxy contemplates and gives honor to marys role. Understanding mary and what truly took place in her womb can help to understand how fully human Christ became. This also works the other way around, understanding His true Humanity helps us to grasp and appreciate more fully her role.
               
              Most of us can easily understand that Christ is Truly and fully God the Son, but understanding just how completely Human he became is often tough and possibly even offends us sometimes. If you are wanting to understand any aspect of Orthodox theology then the best angle to approach the given issue from is the incarnation...this also includes the use of sacred art which has its apologetic placed soley upon the truth of the Incarnation. 'Marys Womb' isnt a bad place to start.
               
              Brett<><


              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

            • StAthanasius373@aol.com
              In a message dated 4/27/01 2:52:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 4/27/01 2:52:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                solascriptura2@... writes:


                And to
                make the statement of "God's logic" as an oxymoron, that is blasphemy.  


              • solascriptura2@home.com
                And to make the statement that God is illogical, is blasphemous. IF God is not logical, then where do you obtain your logic, and ability of reasoning? and
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 27, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  And to make the statement that God is illogical, is blasphemous. IF
                  God is not logical, then where do you obtain your logic, and ability
                  of reasoning? and what is your ultimate authority?
                • StAthanasius373@aol.com
                  In a message dated 4/27/01 2:52:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... How so? Scripture doesn t say it is blasphemy. God never says that His thoughts are subject to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 28, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/27/01 2:52:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    solascriptura2@... writes:


                    And to
                    make the statement of "God's logic" as an oxymoron, that is blasphemy.  


                    How so? Scripture doesn't say it is blasphemy. God never says that His
                    thoughts are subject to man's notion of what logic is. Take, for instance,
                    the doctrine of the incarnation which you seem so confused about: we don't
                    know how exactly God became man in Mary's womb without human sperm, but we
                    know that He did, and we are not called upon to submit it to the realm of
                    logic, but we are called to confess and believe it.

                    <<I
                    understand that we are not able to understand things at God's level, but as
                    creature of God, able to think and reason, does not God give us the ability
                    to think logically, if He did, would He not have given us the ability
                    because He is also logical.>>

                    The best quote I have heard regarding this is, "Reason completes our faith."
                    (St. Gregory Nazianzen) Rationalizing revealed doctrine leads to
                    reductionism, which you will discover next in reference to Reformed
                    sacramentology.

                    <<To state
                    that Reformation Theology is based upon predestination is a presupposition
                    of yours.  I would like to see you defend that arguement.  >>

                    Surely. Look at the argument between Calvinists and Lutherans on the
                    sacraments. Lutherans confess baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence,
                    which every passage dealing with both sacraments bear out. However,
                    Calvinists cannot go there, because they have no way of dealing with losable
                    regeneration in baptism, or that a non-believer can recieve the body and
                    blood of Christ, so Calvinism has to set the efficacy of the sacraments aside
                    to fit the anthropomorphized notions of predestination, that God is bound by
                    decrees He made in the past. God using material objects to communicate a
                    spiritual blessing makes a Calvinist's skin crawl, so they seperate the
                    Spirit from the physical objects involved in sacraments. Presto, reductionism.

                    <<.  The scripture outline predestination quiet
                    clearly and to try and explain it away would be a feet to see and I dare say
                    would also blaspheme to Holy Spirit.>>

                    The scripture also outlines that the Father has a right hand, feet, nostrils,
                    breath, eyes, and a face, but we know that these are condescensions of a
                    transcendent God to our puny humanity, and not to be taken literally. We also
                    know that since God is transcendent, He is not subject to time, and attempts
                    to pull Him into time by positing a past, present, and future are contrary to
                    His being outside the confines of creation. God decreed NOTHING in the past,
                    because He has no past. And yes, I noted how quickly you trotted out
                    blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which those who think they can use fear tactics
                    to subdue opponents resort to quickly.

                    <<If Orthodoxy has its roots in the womb of Mary, than I am glad that I am not
                    orthodox.  My roots are at thus saith the LORD, period.  It might help to
                    reread John 1 and the old testement.>>

                    Maybe you should, since you just denied the incarnation. John 1 is about God
                    becoming man, which happened in the womb of Mary; and it happened in her womb
                    prior to the gospel writers recording it. God becoming man didn't happen on
                    the pages of a book, but in history and in time & space.

                    <<   When we make Mary the root of
                    theology, we make Mary the God, instead of God being the God. >>

                    Mary is confessed by all to be nothing more than human. In taking on flesh
                    from Mary, God assumed a human nature for us and our salvation. Our salvation
                    is not only found in His deity, but in His humanity as well. Our salvation is
                    in His flesh, which was crucified and rose again, not in some abstract sense
                    of "spirit".

                    << Mary was just
                    a vessle, as we are also vessles, used by God to bring Him glory, not Mary
                    or any other human.  To say otherwise again would be blasphemous.>>

                    Thou hast drunk deeply from the gnostic well. Scripture clearly states that
                    Mary is His Mother, not His incubator. God took our nature, and NOT another
                    human nature, to save us; and He drew this nature from His Mother Mary. ALL
                    of His humanity came from her.

                    <<  And
                    blaspheme is something that I don't want to do.   The Lord of Host is my
                    sufficiency, not anythings else.  God has revealed Himself to us in His
                    scriptures, and that should be enough for us.>>

                    God the Son did it in time and space BEFORE the New Testament was written.
                    The faith was complete and deposited to the Apostles BEFORE it was put to
                    paper.

                    <<But to place ones aplogetic foundation upon the incarnation is not wise. >>

                    Much deeper. I place my salvation, my body and soul (as well as my family's),
                    on this foundation. This is THE faith, and nothing less.

                    <<.  Why do we know what we know?  Do we know what we know thru the
                    incarnation of Christ, no.  >>

                    Simeon thought otherwise in Luke 2:30, when he knew he held salvation itself
                    in his hands. Hebrews 1 also speaks of the finality of God's speaking in His
                    Son. St. John speaks of "handling the word of life" with his hands. The
                    Apostles didn't wait until the New Testament was written to speak of
                    salvation, because they already had the faith in its fullness without waiting
                    for the books to be written. It would be centuries until the canon was
                    somewhat finalized.

                    <<Do we know what we know thru Mary, no.  >>

                    We see through her the "fullness of grace", and an example of piety borne
                    witness to by God and angels. She held in her womb the fullness of the
                    Godhead, yet it did not consume her. She was, quite literally, a temple in
                    which God dwelt in a way that no other person will ever experience, but she
                    wasn't consumed.

                    <<Do we know what we know from the tradition of man, in around of bout way>>

                    To a degree. We know some things naturally, some by revelation.

                    <<Do we know what we know because God has revealed Himself thru special
                    revelation to the men who wrote the Bible, yes.>>

                    Did He also use the natural faculties of these men; yes. God didn't dictate,
                    He inspired. Big difference.

                    <<
                    Do we know what we know because of God's omniscience, yes.  That is why I
                    don't place my doctrine or apologetics in the incarnation.  Yes I respect
                    Mary, but what is so different about Mary than the rest of humanity.>>

                    Because God drew His humanity, the humanity that saves you, from her. That
                    can be said of no other human.

                    << Mary was just another vessle that God used to glorify Himself, there was
                    nothing special about her.  She obeyed God, thats all.  >>

                    She is His Mother. Since He obeyed the Commandments, He honored His Mother.
                    Perhaps you should honor her too; something about all nations calling her
                    blessed.

                    <<
                    By the way I'm not making my protestant denomination.  I was raised in the
                    SBC, was hired as a youth director for a Pentacostal Church, and started
                    studing Calvinism in the early 90's.
                    >>

                    What are you now?
                      

                    <<
                    Why would I go outside of the scripture for any knowledge, it is the very
                    words of God, or at least that is what I have read in the Bible.   
                    >>

                    There isn't many first person statements in scripture. Mostly we have the
                    words of men inspired by God. St. Paul offered a private opinion once, and he
                    also asked the Church of Corinth to judge what he says. Some was
                    correspondance between Apostles and Churches, and some was just recording
                    historical facts and events. It is a means God uses to communicate Himself,
                    not a god in its own rite. The Holy Trinity is God, and beside Him there is
                    no other.

                    Care to explain the cosmology used in Joshua, in which the sun stood still,
                    or any of the other geocentric passages? If God was dictating, why the
                    pre-Galileo cosmology? Unless, of course, you would like to argue for a flat
                    earth. That would be fun.

                    <<
                    I don't deny that the incarnation is a critical part of the Christian
                    faith, but again who is Mary.  Yes she is blessed among women, and
                    thats it.  She is just like any other woman.  I don't understand why
                    you keep going on about Mary for.>>

                    We know you don't.

                    <<And to make the statement that God is illogical, is blasphemous.>>

                    Drop the fire and brimstone. It's boring.

                    <<  IF
                    God is not logical, then where do you obtain your logic, and ability
                    of reasoning? and what is your ultimate authority?>>

                    The Church, the pillar and the ground of the truth. "The Church is the place
                    of angels, of archangels, the kingdom of God, heaven itself." St. John
                    Chrysostom

                    Don
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.