/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7242

No, the rock is the confession of Christ as Lord that Peter had just given

>>7248

Good exegesis, friend

>>7248

Remember that the original words of Jesus were in Amaraic. Although it is true that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ have different spelling, this is only because because rock in Greek is feminine, and Saint Peter is male, so Petros would be a neologism to refer to Peter as rock but masculine.

The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha, and here there can be no disctiction between Peter and rock, because they are genderless. The actual word Jesus described Peter as was that, Kepha, and we know this because Peter is referred as Cephas many times in the bible. So what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

>>7251

Agreed and remembered. Doesn't change the fact that Christ is the foundation of the Church, not Peter. Peter was an instrumental figure, and an authoritative one, but not in the way the Roman church claims.

>>7251

Wait a minute you're changing the meaning of scripture by speculating what the words might have been in English, I'm not going to let you get away with that.

The Greek document is the one that was infallibly penned by inspiration of God. That is where we draw our doctrine from.

>>7166

Since not everyone in this board knows the concept about the aerial toll houses and your post has suggested (incorrectly) that this is something similar to the purgatory, an explanation of the Orthodox teaching is in order. Intentionally, I'm gonna use a quote by a Western author, Pope Gregory the Great:

"The evil spirits seek in the dying soul what they have accomplished there; they remind it of the faults they have inspired it in order to draw it into their torment. But why are we speaking here only of sinful souls, while the evil spirits also go to meet the dying elect ones, endeavoring to find, if they can, something that would belong to them? Now there has never been more than one man who can say boldly before his Passion: "I will not talk much with you, for here comes the prince of this world, and he has nothing in me." (John 14:30). Indeed, the prince of this world, seeing that Christ was a mortal man, imagined that he could find in him something that belonged to him. […] So we must take care to meditate every day in tears with what fury and under what terrifying aspect the prince of this world will come, the day of our death, to claim what in us belongs to him, since he dared to address even to our God when he died in his flesh, to seek in him something [which belonged to him], without being able to find anything."

The above quote contains the essence of the concept about the aerial demons. To try to understand this concept from a single tale (such as the tale of Theodora you quoted) is unwise, especially if one is not at home with such kind of literature and don't know "how to distinguish between the spiritual realities described there and the incidental details which may sometimes be expressed in symbolic or imaginative language." "Of course, there are no visible “houses” or “booths” in the air where “taxes” are collected". (both citations are from Fr. Seraphim Rose)

Some of the tales about after-death experiences tell us about something like measurement of the good and the bad deeds. This is so because our bad and good deeds are presentation of the inclinations inside our hearths, of what we love, what we hate, what we desire, of our remorse. "Out of the good treasure of his heart, a good person brings out what is good, but out of the evil treasure of his heart, one who is evil brings out what is evil." (Luke 6:45) "Indeed, it is from the heart that evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies come forth. (Mat. 15:19)

While our souls are still in our bodies we are able to change the inclinations inside our hearths. For example about the alms our Lord says that "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:34) In other words, the alms we give install good inclinations in our hearths.

After we die our inclinations change no more. Some of the inclinations of a Christian are in accordance with God's good will but others are bad. So when a Christian dies he has both kinds of inclinations. The soul is torn between them. In the tales about the aerial toll houses this is presented as an examination of various good and bad deeds while the soul is tormented by fear.

Misconception 1: The torment of the soul by fear is analogous to the torment in the purgatory

Refutation: The torment of the soul by fear is not caused by God, the cleansing fire in the purgatory is. The torment by fear is not punishment, the cleansing fire is. The torment by fear is fearful but short test what is going to win – the good or the bad, the torment by cleansing fire can be prolonged.

Through our prayers the dead get some comfort, some of the dead may even be freed from the hell. This, however, does not happen because God is "persuaded" by the prayers to forgive the sinner. God forgives everyone who can be forgiven. The prayers help because through them the spiritual state of the soul can improve.

Misconception 2: Some souls are in the hell only temporary. This is analogous to the temporary torment by fire in the purgatory

Refutation: Contrary to the popular opinion, the Scripture does not tell us that God tortures the souls in the hell by fire or whatever.

>>7166

>Overall, I see Orthodoxy and Catholicism as two sides of the same coin.

No, they are not.

Hell

Catholics: God tortures the souls there.

Orthodox: God does not torture the souls there.

Salvation by torture

Catholics: Some of those who do not have enough merits to enter the heaven will go to the purgatory where they will be tortured by a cleansing fire. Even while alive one can torture himself (self-flagellation) in order "to pay" for some of his sins.

Orthodox: God admits in the heaven all souls whose disposition (will, desires, etc.) permits them to be in the heaven. Torture can not and does not give ticket for heaven.

Heaven

Catholics: There can be circumstances when God wants one thing, a saint wants different thing but God listens to the prayers of the saint because of that saint's merits.

Orthodox: The Kingdom of God is a kingdom of perfect accordance and unity of men and God. There is no need for a saint to "persuade" God in anything because what God wants the saint wants and what the saint wants God wants. God listens to the prayers of the saints not because of their merits but because the prayers of the saints are prayers of the Holy Spirit and the prayers that the Spirit makes for the saints are always in accordance with God.

"The Spirit helps our weaknesses, because we do not know how to pray as we should. But the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. He who searches the hearts knows the way of thinking of the Spirit, because the prayers that the Spirit makes for the saints are always in accordance with God." (Rom. 8:26-27)

Prayers for the dead

Catholics: The prayers for a dead man are substitute for the lacking good deeds of that man. If the deceased man does not have enough merits by good deeds to secure his entrance in the heaven, he can use the merits given to him as charity by the prayers for him.

Orthodox: God wants the good of the dead and we should want what God wants. Our prayers for the dead (for those who can be helped) are expression of the alignment of our will with the will of God. Through our prayers the dead can get some comfort, some of the dead may even be freed from the hell.

Alms

Catholics: The alms give us merits through which we can obtain admission in the heaven.

Orthodox: God admits in the heaven all souls whose disposition (will, desires, etc.) permits them to be in the heaven. Alms are useful not because they give us merits. They are useful because through the alms we obtain the disposition which we need in order to be in the heaven.

"Sell your possessions and give to those in need. […] For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Luke 12:33-34)

>>7248

That doesnt matter because in your worldview, what Jesus said to Peter must be false. This is evidenced by the fact that all the fathers like Cyprian, deny your view of salvation, worship and so on. All cannot be sola fideists in your view, because some affirm that almsgiving can merit atonement for sin, final judgement and whenever baptism is mentioned, it is always regenerative.

Even the fathers closest to sola fide say the same. Like Marius Victorinus who is explicit on the need of baptism and attach an entire Platonic framework to his soteriology. Hilary says all believers will be judged by their works and baptismal regeneration. Ambrioster does too.

But Jesus said not even Hades will prevail over his church but it seems it does

>>7278

In my view, the "shall not prevail" promise is eschatological. No falsity from Jesus there.

>>7255

>and we know this because Peter is referred as Cephas many times in the bible

>>7280

I'm not denying Peter's name was cephas, I'm saying that you can't wave away the different Greek terms in Mat 16:18 between rock and rock because that Greek document is the inspired one.

>>7279

It does when for thousands of years, everyone believed wrongly. No prophet. No one came out with your baptist dogma at all. When Jesus said that, he means that what he is going to establish, the community of Christ followers, isnt going to fail. It will endure. That's the eschatological meaning of it. No matter what, the people of God will endure because God says and promises so.

>>7287

I agree with your reading in application of the "shall not prevail" passage, but I reject your conclusion on church history as conjecture.

There are countless cases for the Protestant soteriological position in early church history, but they're really only ancillary to exegesis. I know for a fact what the Bible says about salvation and I do not care how many members of your Roman cult have been preaching a different gospel for how many years, it does not change a thing.

Hell did not prevail against the true church because the gospel is still going out to the nations.

>>7290

There is if one revises sola fide to accept a final judgement according to works, add in some Platonic stuff, synergism and baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, no, it is impossible to make the case for it. In fact given the fact that you and many Prots dont even consider baptism as salvific, that already means all of the church fathers deny your position by default!

And here's the thing, if Hell didnt prevail, then where are your ancient baptist cult? It cannot be Irenaeus because he says people will be judged according to works and baptismal regeneration.

It cannot be 1Clement because he says believers are not justified of anything they do but he still says believers will be judged, obedience and faithfulness is what faith requires and love between believers covering sin.

Even the Bible denies you because of basic texts like James and how Paul describes faith for us.

At best, the Fathers are just Synergist Lutherans with some sort of double justification going on

>>7321

Can i get a golden medal also?

>>7309

>Ephesians

Which refers to Grace and the fact that outside God you cannot be saved. So one needs to trust God and be dependent on him. That is Paul's concept of faith as shown in the beginning of 1Thesselonians 1:3. There he makes clear the active nature of faith by pairing it with works which flow from that. Paul always praises an action there whenever he speaks of faith. Like verse 7 of chapter 1, chapter 2 verse 12-13, chapter 3, where faith is more than just a mere passive thing and include faithfulness!, chapter 5 verses 8-9

Anyone who looks at that, can see James and Paul DONT contradict each other.

And no, works that comes after faith isnt going to help you. Because I already MADE CLEAR what works are important, the one enabled by Grace, not men. So saying that is making strawman. Given what James said, those works enabled by Grace actually count for salvation somehow at Final Judgement.

So good job with the strawman. Keep it up, Baptist!

>>7369

By grace, through faith, not of works.

It doesn't say "of works enabled by grace", it says not of works.

I'm trying my best to represent your position the way you're articulating it but you're pretty incoherent.

>>7404

It is you who are incoherent, claiming works as merely demonstrative when there is clearly more to it in James 2. It cannot accomodate for all the numerous ocassions where Paul speaks of works that flow from faith. 1 thessalonians is an example of this. Faith in God enables action but the action isnt some mere demonstrative thing. It's causal, i.e the faith causes the works which only make sense if faith is actually active. If faith is active, it's works salvation in your view because faith must work. Faith must assert effort, exercise will eventhough it is Divinely enabled and actively relying on the Divine.

If your view is true, the saved are but automatons simply moved by God the puppeteer

>>7408

I agree with everything you're saying about faith causing the works, works flowing from faith.

No, my view is not determinist.

>>7409

Denying the role of works, entails determinism because it makes the active nature of faith redundant. So you have to be consistent or admit your version of sola fide is stupid

>>7410

What? No, it doesn't. I'm giving you the standard articulation of sola fide.

You are saved by grace, through faith, not of works. You are the one who chooses faith, it is not determined for you.

>>7417

Except that isnt what Calvin said. Even Luther follows Calvin in his determinism which later Lutherans toned down. So ironically, the earliest form of Sola Fide presupposes, hard determinism. Only later is the condition of faith which one can fall away from is emphasised in Lutheran tradition and perhaps some Arminians who see what is wrong with Calvinist double predestination.

But unfortunately for those Lutherans and Arminians, the fact that free will is retained as the Catholic answer actually supposes in spite of predestination, they cannot account for consistency on the issue of works. Because if faith is free will and free will exists, then the very work which one can decide not to perform, is also one which includes the agency of the believer who actually have to will to perform, divinely enabled, the case is the same. This entails work factors into salvation in some way since those are practically faith in action from diposition which is actively exercised which as James tell us, is required. Paul says the same in Galatians and even describes faith in Romans as tested faith.

Thus your presentation is stupid. Because to be consistent, it must say the believers are basically automatons, not actively doing from their faith and reliance on God. Otherwise it is synergism, not monergism. As two wills are active

>>7419

We're done. You have proven to be incapable of making an exegetical argument. I've been here ready to listen and debate that argument but I couldn't pry it out of you and I only have so much patience.

>>7421

The fact that you are unable to display any remembrance of James or Thessalonians shows that you are the one who is incapable of making an exegetical argument.

This is proven by how you deliberately left out the other part of Ephesians that literally confirms what had been saying, that faith is not mere belief, but is in fact active reliance on God, as Paul immediately says predestined to good works and throughout the letter implores his audience to act because of what God has done.

The worse thing is that you also create a strawman of the views of Papists who actually believe in unmerited predestination, so Ephesians is not incompatible with that, as it is by Divine action by grace that one is enabled to be saved and do the works predestined. And the fact that we have constant references to the future aspect of salvation, that also means that what is done now, will be considered in this future vindication which James references.

bump for the gospel

>>6605

Mary venerating will cast you to HELL

>>8067

No, there are entirely appropriate ways to venerate Mary just like any other saint. The problem with Roman Catholics (and some lutherans) is that they go a step further and their veneration constitutes worship, which is idolatry.

>>8071

>and some Lutherans

Which branch of Lutherans do this?

>>8071

>there are entirely appropriate ways to venerate Mary just like any other saint

No there are not.

>>8200

How are you defining veneration

>>8211

No, that's idolatry like the filename says. Read the post again.

>>8212

>idolatry

No, it is not. "Idol" comes from Greek εἴδωλον and means "shape, figure, image, image of the mind, idea, fancy"

Therefore, idol is any image or representation of the Godhead you make, whether material or only in your mind.

And the Bible agrees with this definition:

"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven." (Deut. 4:15-19)

In other words, don't make images of the Godhead because the Godhead is unlike anything in the world and unlike our imagination can create. Any material or intellectual image of God tells us what God is not, not what God is.

Depending on your beliefs, you can say that what is on this image is good or bad, but regardless of whether it is good or bad, it is not idolatry because this statue doesn't pretend to be an image of God.

>>8215

The treatment of Mary amounts to elevating her to divinity in the minds of the worshippers

>>8215

When Baal worshippers created idols and bowed down to them they weren't thinking of the Trinitarian God, it was an idol of one of their false gods. So it is with idolatry. And that clashes with your definition.

For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

– Psalm 96:5

Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:

– Isaiah 2:8

Also falling down at the feet of said objects is the definition of worship. As we can see in Daniel chapter 3 where it was commanded that all nations "fall down and worship" the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up. Also in Revelation 22 John fell down at the feet of the angel, and the angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God."

So then those who are falling down at the feet of their hand-made images are committing idolatry by worshipping them. In direct contradiction to everything the Old Testament and New Testament says not to do.

>>8303

Any image of the Godhead (or of a god) is an image of false god. So I agree with the first half of your post.

As for your identification of "falling down" with "worship" I must disagree. "Falling down" was not something reserved only to God, in the ancient word this was a common gesture for showing respect before your parent, before the king, etc. Ap. Peter said "fear God, honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17) and this honoring included falling down before the pagan emperor "for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1)

>As we can see in Daniel chapter 3 where it was commanded that all nations "fall down and worship" the image which Nebuchadnezzar set up.

The expression "fall down and worship" shows that "falling down" is not the same as "worshiping". The problem here is that Nebuchadnezzar wanted the nations to worship his image as image of god. Falling down before Nebuchadnezzar in a way which did not create the impression of worshiping was ok. For example, Queen Esther fell down at the feet of King Xerxes and pleaded with him. (Esther 8:3)

>Also in Revelation 22 John fell down at the feet of the angel, and the angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God."

In Revelation 19:10 Ap. John fell down at the feet of the Angel and the Angel immediately told him not to do this but "worship God". Ap. John, however, didn't listen to the Angel and in Revelation 22:8 he does the same for second time. And you are suggesting that this makes Ap. John an idolator. But no, he was not. At that time he "was in the Spirit" (Rev. 1:10,4:2) and unable to sin. He fell before the Angel because the Spirit told him that showing humbleness before the servant of God was the right thing to do. And the Angel told him not to do this because the Angel, too, just as anyone else in the heaven, was humble. In fact, a similar thing happened with our Lord Jesus Christ who, too, was "gentle and lowly in heart":

Behold, a man came to him and asked, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do in order to have eternal life?”. Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:16-17)

We are not inferring from these words that our Lord is not God, aren't we?

>So then those who are falling down at the feet of their hand-made images are committing idolatry by worshiping them.

Those who are worshiping images (of any kind) are committing idolatry.

Those who make images of god (whether they fall down or not) are committing idolatry.

But just falling does not make you automatically idolater. Just as our handshaking, falling down is a common gesture of respect; something we have forgotten in our modernized haughty society.

>>8388

>As for your identification of "falling down" with "worship" I must disagree.

Scripture itself makes this identification

https://biblehub.com/greek/prosekyne_san_4352.htm

>this honoring included falling down before the pagan emperor

When directed toward a secular figure it is not a religious action. They fell down before Caesar as their earthly lord, but to fall down to something in a religious context is to recognize it as one's spiritual lord which, when given to something other than God, is called idolatry.

>And you are suggesting that this makes Ap. John an idolator

He fell down before the angel in ignorance thinking it was Christ, but it identified this as worship. Either the angel was wrong, which is impossible, or John was worshipping him.

>He fell before the Angel because the Spirit told him that showing humbleness before the servant of God was the right thing to do. And the Angel told him not to do this because the Angel, too, just as anyone else in the heaven, was humble

If the Spirit told John to fall down then the angel sinned by countermanding His will.

>But just falling does not make you automatically idolater

It does in a religious context.

>>8303

This is false and shows ignorance of Ancient Near East culture. It is practically known that cultures at the time believe the deity to be present in its symbols and images

bump to keep reminding :^)

>>6577

>guy in gigantic funny hat who wants your shekels says you absolutely NEED to give him shekels or else you go to hell

How is this different than any number of personality cults?

>>8407

Your whole argument is an ipse dixit. "It isn't worship because we say it isn't worship". Why should I care about your ipse dixit?

Threadly reminder,

Those who are born-again children of god, baptized in the Holy Ghost, CAN be reasonably sure they can understand the Bible without vain tradition.

We have THE author of the Bible dwelling in us, who guides us to all truth.

>What about the gnostic gospels??? How do you know they're not the Word of God without our vain tradition???

I've read them. They're retarded. They contradict the four Holy Gospels (and the rest of the Bible) so blatantly, that to not be able to tell their forgery shows you aren't indwelt by the Holy Ghost.

>I know who you are, you come from the Immortal Realm of Barbelo

-Judas, to Jesus, The Gospel of Judas

See, retarded.

>>10642

The bible clearly says we are all "indwelt by the Holy Ghost". Some people just don't listen to it.

>>7166

>>7167

>>7172

>TollHouse Memes again

when will this end?