Jaffa

lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>> >I wrote and sent of a lengthy reply to this post. I guess it must have
>> >got lost. I was hoping you had merely chosen not to post it until you
>> >could post a reply. Oh well.
>>
>> What you describe is not my practice. If I recieve a post that is on
>> topic, I post it. If it's not, I attempt to return it via email. This
>> often fails for a host of reasons. I checked my logs and can not find
>> any record of such a post from you.
>>
>Its' been almost 8 yrs since I was involved with tech services. But I
>still haven't forgotten how it all works. I never intended any
>inference accusing you of any administrative mischief. Honestly, I
>leave these things in the Lord's hands.

Excuse me?? You wrote:

"I was hoping you had merely chosen not to post it until you
could post a reply. Oh well."

I guess you're technically correct - this isn't an inference. It is
an accusation - that I hold back articles when I am involved in the
thread.

>> One more time - my rejection of "sola Scriptura" is based on the Scriptures.
>> They refute it. The Scriptures support *our* position, not yours.
>>
>> As for a definative list, I'll provide one as soon as you can provide
>> a definitive list of Scriptures, using ONLY the Scriptures themselves.
>>
>Is this how you reply to someone who asks you to prove that Jesus is
>real? This sort of reply is really immature. It is also
>disrespectful.

Excuse me? You ask me a question, knowing full well that it's not possible
for me to produce a definitive list of traditions, that would include ALL
traditions. And by ALL here I mean ALL, not some subset.

>For I am honest in my search. I have honestly sought
>out just what these "traditions" are which supersede the scriptures.

Straw man. We do NOT say that our traditions supersede the Scriptures.
You again accuse us of what the ROMANS do. There is only tradition -
the Scriptures are part of it.

My question was exacty on target - and exactly the question to show that
you are off base here. Why? For you cannot provide a source list of
the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, and thus, you rely on
*tradition* for your list of Scripture. There is no other way, except
for personal authentication (ie 'these are Scriptures because I beleive
they are Scriptures, for whatever reason).

So, your rejection of "tradition" is quite disingenious. You have no
leg to stand on, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

It is incumbant on you to demonstrate that you do not rely on tradition
for your canon list by showing exactly where it comes from.

Let's see if you can do this.

>IMHO, part of being made in the image of God is that man is reasonable.
> Therefore, when one declares that there is something beside what God
>has provided in the written word which it at least it's equal (though
>as I have stated, they can no more be equal than serving God & mammon)
>in authority, it is reasonable that such a one declare what that is
>-exactly.

Except that this principle is, in and of itself, unScriptural. Nowhere
do the Scriptures insist that they alone have the proper doctrine. When
Paul writes his letters, he must argue for their acceptance - that is,
that they carry equal weight with his oral teachings.

Name one single Orthodox dogma which violates the Scriptures. Just one.
Not Roman Catholic. Not your charicture of the dogma, but the dogma
itself.

>If it remains undeclared, then it is immediately open to
>suspect for there is no object means of verification for there is no
>definition. It floats on the ocean of relativity where all humanistic
>venues necessarily traffic.

But it is not undeclared. It is simply not collected in a single place.
Get real - in order to do a proper Orthodox Matins or Vespers service,
we need half-a-dozen books for the various prayers and hymns, and even
then, we often omit some hymns which have not been translated into
English from Russian, Arabic or Greek.

Does this mean that all of those hymns are not Orthodox? Are not part
of the tradition? No - of course not. But they certainly are not
readily acceible to you or me.

I suspect you could come close to your goal (if you were willing to be
reasonable) by buying a few thousand dollars worth of books. But even
then, to claim that it was "complete" would be erroneous.

>So my question was not to defame you, but rather to seek definition.
>If you can't provide a listing of these "traditions" and their origin,
>then why should anyone grant them a second thought? Is that an
>unreasonable request.

I suspect you cannot produce a complete, exact, list of every doctrine
that is believed by your particular version of Protestantism. In fact,
I suspect that you can't produce a list of major doctrines on which even
most Protestants agree.

>1 Cor. 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion. . .

There is no confusion simply because things are not written down in a
single collection. Frankly, there is WAY more confusion sown by the
thousands of competing Protestant groups than could possibly be
attributed to Orthodox tradition!!

If confusion is the measure we're going to use, you have a FAR bigger
problem than we do!! Physician heal thyself!

>> >Also, in this reply of yours, you repeatedly made statements that led
>> >me to believe that you believe in total depravity. You stated that man
>> >cannot of himself save himself. This indicates two things. 1) Man is
>> >ruined. 2) he doesn't really have free will. He is a slave.
>>
>> No, it does not. It indicates that without *grace* man can not do
>> these things, but God gives grace to all men to *enable* them to do
>> them. Yours is a false dichotomy - known in formal logic as the
>> "either or" fallacy.
>>
>It is also termed, antithetical thought. When God gave the Decalogue,
>He again illustrated the fact that He holds men to the either/or
>proposition. Either you believe in Jesus or you are lost. There is no
>middle ground.

Hmm. Define "believe in Jesus" - and be careful, your definition had
best include the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful of Israel...

>You and Matthew have objected to any thought of the perspicuity of
>Scripture.

Well of course. All one has to do is examine the situation of Western
Christianity to see that it can't possibly be true! I mean, come on,
name the set of doctrines on which all Protestants agree. And by all,
I'll let you even stick to the main-line denominations and groups. And
leave out the Mormons & JW's (who aren't even Christian in my view).

If the Scriptures are so clear, why is there so much disagreement and
discension in Protestantism??

>But I see little if any difference between your objections
>and that of Erasumus in his Diatribe, which was easily dismantled by
>Luther's answers. The seriousness of this has been continuously
>manifested by both you and Matthew objecting to the normative reading
>of Rom 3:10ff where in the Pauline argument is the universal nature of
>the ruin of man. I cannot but help ask, "Are not these words perfectly
>clear?" Does not Paul teach that ALL men are unrighteous? That there
>are no exceptions to this rule? That ALL men are ignorant of God and
>that none seek for Him.

All men inherit a fallen human nature from Adam. This fallen nature
places us at odds with God, and in need of salvation. Said salvation
does not have its source in our own will.

THAT is Orthodox teaching. And I don't see it as outside of the teaching
of Romans 3.

It is your inference from this that man is so utterly destroyed that there
is nothing good left in him. And that grace operates in such a way as to
exclude our real articipation.

>And as I have sought to define what the
>Pauline argument is seeking to establish, that "none seeks for God" is
>equivalent to stating that there are none who are inclined unto God.
>THIS is the crux of the argument concerning free-will. When God
>looks down from heave, what does He declare? He declares that none
>seek after Him. "All have gone astray." The fall in the garden ruined
>man for the "knowledge of good and evil" is the separation from having
>an inclination for God, to having the inclination for self. What man
>amoung us has ever adjudicated, reasoned, inclined apart from self
>interpretation? The whole purpose of the Pauline argument is to prove
>that grace is necessary to ALL men because all men are slaves to sin.
>If all are slaves to sin, as Paul clearly states, then all men are
>ruined.

I don't think this is in dispute - at least in so far as you have
written it here. We would object if you said that the image and
likeness of God was utterly destroyed and there was nothing in
man left of said image.

You depart from Orthodoxy (and from Scripture) when you teach TULIP.
Or even 4 of the 5 points. At least one point ("Limited Atonement")
is so unscriptural that I cannot beleive that Calvinists try to teach
it.

>I'm sorry, but the reasonable man cannot accept "they have all gone
>astray" (Ps14) and yet retain that some chose not to go astray.

I'm not speaking for Matthew here, but I have never claimed, nor have
I heard it claimed, that there are any human beings (and this would
include Jesus in his humanity) who have a nature which is not fallen.
In fact, without said fallen nature, man is not mortal! Christ assumed
this fallen human nature, in order to join our nature to God's nature.
In his humanity, Jesus was mortal.

>In my
>line of thinking, I can see no distinction from this and that of a man
>who has just choosen to commit suicide and then, with equal causality,
>understand that wasn't such a wise decision and then chose to make
>himself alive again. It doesn't work in the physical realm, why should
>I believe that it is posible in the spiritual realm? "In that day you
>shall surely die" was alienation from God. And death through that one
>man, Adam, this alienation passed on to all even as the freedoms gained
>by the signing of the US Declaration of Independence passed on to all
>Americans because of the federal nature of its original signers.

Who said that I can, of my own volition, do this? I have never claimed
this. What I have said is that *by grace* man can accept God's offer
of salvation - he cannot do it without God's grace. I have never said
that any person, in and of themselves, without the operation of grace,
can chose life.

>>>I will not again go through your reply line by line. But I would like
>>>you to put forth a real effort to explain to me and the others how you
>>>can maintain that man cannot save himself and yet dismiss the doctrines
>>>of TD and bondage of the will?
>>
>>Because God gives grace to us to enable us to overcome sin. That's the
>>key. It's not of ourselves, but of God.
>
>WHY? If I have true free-will, then why do I need to be redeemed?

Because you are mortal and fallen. You share in Adam's fallen humanity,
as we all do. If you wish eternal life, you must be redeemed. I think
part of this stems from a wrong view of what it means to be saved. It
is not simply a judicial declaration by God (though that is part of it),
but ultimately, salvation is union with God. Said union is made possible
by Christ joining fallen humanity to divinity.

>> But it is not forcing in that
>> God does not save us without are cooperation.
>>
>You elsewhere accuse objectors to your position as unfairly
>representing it, so too, I, here object to your representation of the
>Reformed position concerning enablement. The argument plays both ways.
> If God enables man to live righteously, does he enable man to live
>unrighteously? If not, then is not the one who lives unrighteously a
>slave to unrighteousness? Is this not the very argument which Paul
>raises?

Our fallen nature leads us to unrighteousness, God's grace leads us to
salvation. It is up to us to chose life.

>Again, Paul specific in his employment of a Hebrew idiom in Rom 1:18.
>"All men are ungodly and unrighteous, holding down, enslaving the truth
>in unrighteousness: All therefor merit wrath."

Yes. And yet, the Scriptures say that God desires that all men would
be saved.

Now, if we follow your logic, and God desires all men to be saved, then
God must work against his own will to send some to hell! Please explain
this, if you can.

>If, as all recognize that the theme of Romans is declared in Rom 1:16,
>17, "the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who
>believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16) then
>ALL men are in need of salvation (from the wrath of God, Rom 1:18). To
>the Greeks, (Rom 1:18-1:32) as well as the Jews, who, despite all
>their mighty 'righteousness' and knowledge of the oracles of God,
>nevertheless, though " they have a zeal for God, yet not in accordance
>with knowledge, not knowing about God's righteousness, seek to
>establish their own, not subjecting themselves to the righteousness of
>God" (Rom. 10:2, 3 ) also "fall short of the glory of God."

Note well: the *power of God for salvation for everyone who believes" -
and THAT is where we disagree. You say that God gives belief to some
and withholds it from others, deciding in his inscrutible will which
are which. We say that grace *allows* us to believe - and that it is
offered to ALL men.

>Paul illustrates this fact by his
>own conscious experience in Rom 7. It is only when being led by the
>Spirit, when not quenching the Spirit, when being filled with the
>Spirit, is the regenerated man inclined toward God, externally
>evidenced, discerned, by the generation of the fruit _of_the_Spirit,
>NOT of_the_free-will_of man.

BUT, BUT, man *can* quench the spirit!! That's my point.

>If man has free-will, then why in Rev does he cast his crowns at the
>feet of Jesus? The better understanding is the normal understanding of
>the Pauline conclusion to his great argument, that "IT is ALL from Him,
>through Him, and to Him." PLEASE, for once, provide a reason why
>this should not be understood as meaning absolutely-all. What gift has
>any merit attached to it? Only fallen men so give gifts because they
>are always self inclined, hoping somewhere in the back of their (our)
>conniving little minds, that they are rewarded with as little as a "Oh!
> You shouldn't have" to outward religious exhibitions as noted by
>Christ Himself in Mt 6:2ff.

All grace comes from God. What's your point??

>ALL the scriptures clearly teach that men are slaves, and therefore,
>not free. Only slaves need a Redeemer. It is hypocracy to say that
>men are "free" and yet require "enablement." Rather, men are *dead*
>and require the movement of God to regenerate them (born again) to "see
>the kingdom of God" because "none understand. None seek after God. "
>"No not one!"

All men are fallen and immortal. Without God's grace, they cannot have
eternal life. God grants to us grace to allow us to 'chose life' but
does not force us.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Categories: Unknown etymology | Cricket

Jaffa

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

English

Etymology

Proper noun

Etymology

Noun

Related terms

Search

Navigation