I'm a protestant Christian....ask me anything!

[Seekingthetruth]

Is your view similar to the kind of “pan-entheism” in Eastern Orthodox theology?

That’s exactly what it is actually!

 

[rom]

Do your masses look like Ted talks?

I am not sure if Baptists even have masses because they don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They may have services, but not masses.

Classical theism teaches that God is completely separate in everyway. So God wound up the universe like a clock and let it go. Classic theism is leaning more towards stoicism and i believe makes a more impersonal God.

What you described applies more to the deism of Aristotle than to the classic theism of many Christians. Aristotle’s Prime Mover was an impersonal God. However, the God of the Christians was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is a personal God (indeed, a tri-personal God), who didn’t just wind up the universe like a clock and let it go. On the contrary, the God of the Bible is a providential God who cares for His people. He cares for the world and watches it very closely. He feeds the birds of the air and clothes the lilies of the field. The Bible also said that not a sparrow falls into the ground without the Father’s knowledge (Matt 10:29).

Palamite ( or soft or weak) Panentheism teaches that creation is distinct and contingent from God but wholly dependent on his divine power to sustain it.

I still don’t see it being different from the classic theism of the Christians. Indeed, if that is what weak Panentheism believes, then I can say that I, too, am a weak Panentheist. But I’d rather just call myself a Christian theist, only because it is a more familiar term than “panentheist.”

Are you familiar with Arch Bishop Gregory Palamas, he formulated this idea of the essence-energy distinction or Maximus the confessor who also taught on it?

Gregory Palamas was not one of the Fathers of the Church, so I am not very familiar with him. I heard of him, though. Maximus the Confessor was one of the Fathers, and I know a little bit about him. But when it comes to Christian theology, I stay more closely with the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas (a Doctor of the Church, but not a Father of the Church) because his theological expositions are systematic, logical and clear.

 

[Seekingthetruth]

then I can say that I, too, am a weak Panentheist. But I’d rather just call myself a Christian theist, only because it is a more familiar term than “panentheist.”

And like i said above, i think in the details we agree on almost everything. I think it’s the terms that are getting in the way.

I stay more closely with the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas

I like St. Thomas Aquinas! Would you consider yourself a Thomist?

 

[rom]

I like St. Thomas Aquinas! Would you consider yourself a Thomist?

Yes, I am. And since you also like St. Thomas, let me make a comment on a sentence you previously made:

i believe the soul and the body are two aspect of the same substance.

The dual aspect theory is the idea that there are two ways of viewing, or looking at, the same reality. For example, you can view an electron either as a “particle” or as a “wave.” Matter and form, however, are two different substantial principles in any material substance. They are not merely two aspects or views of the same material reality. They are really two different principles because matter and form are related to each other as potency to act. Thus, in the philosophy of St. Thomas there is a dualism of substantial principles, not a dualism of aspects.

You are right, though, in standing against many Baptists who think that there is substance dualism in man, or that man is comprised of two substances: body and soul. The truth is there is only one human substance, as you said. Matter and form (the soul) are two different substantial principles, not two different substances in man. Again we have here, not substance dualism, but a dualism of substantial principles. We call matter and form “principles” because they are the sources or origin of substance, without each one being a complete substance in itself.

One more comment on your previous post. I believe that, if evolution occurred, then I also would be a theistic evolutionist because I don’t think evolution would happen by chance. I think that if evolution occurs, then God is the driving force of evolution. However, I don’t call myself an evolutionist yet because, while I recognize the reality of “microevolution,” I still find the evidences inadequate to support the evolutionary hypothesis on a macro level. In other words, the idea that all organisms derive from a single, primitive form of life, is just that – a hypothesis.

 

[TheMortenBay]

Welcome! What drew you to a Catholic forum? Are you interested in Catholicism, are you hoping to convert some of us? Or what?

Also, what (in your view) makes one a Christian? And what makes a good Christian?

Also, what’s your view on Catholics? Are we saved? Do we need saving? Do we share a common truth? Or the opposite?

 

[annad347]

Being a theistic evolutionist just means i accept the evolutionary theories but i believe that its only made possible by God ordaining it to be.

I was in a Catholic bible study class… I came in late and they were just finishing up the Old Testament. Because of that I try not to ask too many questions that will take them off course. So when the class was a review of the books of the Old Testament… they of course started with the 7 days of world creation.

It was said as many people believe 7 days weren’t literally 7 consecutive days, but was like each “day” could be counted as centuries… which explains how the earth is so old but yet only 2000 some years passed.

Anyway, as the teacher was going through the time line he stated that the dinosaur was before Adam and Eve… what do you think? and if so when do you believe evolution started?

 

[Seekingthetruth]

Welcome! What drew you to a Catholic forum?

To be honest, everybody i know are the “don’t ask those questions” southern Baptist and i long for intellectual and theological debates and discussions haha

Are you interested in Catholicism

I’m super interested in high church traditions but not looking to convert…besides if i did convert in any way it would probably be to Eastern Orthodox

are you hoping to convert some of us? Or what?

Nah, i consider catholics to be my brothers and sisters in christ, i don’t believe they need to be converted.

Also, what (in your view) makes one a Christian? And what makes a good Christian?

Accepting the divinity and lordship of Jesus and attempting each and everyday to emulate and become more like him to bring glory to God the father. As far as a “good” Christian… it would be to bring glory to the father in everything they thought, said and did. In the end I believe it’s all about his glory, not our goodness.

Also, what’s your view on Catholics?

As stated above, i believe they’re my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Do we share a common truth?

I think we do, we have many many differences but i believe we also have more in common than we think.

Do we need saving?

We all need saving, no matter who we are or how we choose to worship.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Why EO over RCC?

 

[Seekingthetruth]

Why EO over RCC?

To be honest, my biggest issue is the papal supremacy. I just don’t see enough evidence to conclude it.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

So, how do you interpret Matthew 16 about the Peter being the rock on which the Church is built?

Thanks!

 

[Seekingthetruth]

So, how do you interpret Matthew 16 about the Peter being the rock on which the Church is built?

I don’t deny that St. Peter may have had some primacy. However, it always seemed like the apostles were given equal authority. (Matthew 18:18)
Also during the council in Acts 15 it seemed like the decision was made by the entire council. Plus at times it seemed like James was given equal authority and respect as Peter. And it could be a misunderstanding on my part and God just hasn’t seen fit to enlighten me yet. I’ll always accept being in error and being corrected.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

So I was a Protestant before I started becoming Catholic, but I had a similar view.
What changed my mind was that in Matthew 16, while St. Peter is given the binding and loosing as the other Apostles are, St. Peter is solely given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and he is the primary one that the Church is built on, for only St. Peter’s name change from Simon to Peter/Cephas. This was a big convincer especially when one sees that OT allusion to Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim is given the Keys to the House of David and given the authority of the King. It says in Isaiah that Eliakim is the Steward of God’s people and that he would be as a father to God’s people. This is strong Papal language here. I believe, as the does the Church, that Jesus was drawing on this in Matthew 16 and ascribed it to St. Peter, making Peter that Steward and Father/Papa/Pope of God’s household, the Church.
In Acts we have the Council of Jerusalem. When I read that I see St. Peter as the one who leads the discussion and actually resolves it in the start. I’ll quote it:
"The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers,you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
It’s only after this that St. James speaks. The most common understanding I have heard and I think I agree with is that Peter spoke first as the faith defining speech. He defined that circumcision isn’t needed to be saved. Then James speaks in a pastoral manner, since he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, affirming what Peter had said.
I personally don’t see James having equal authority to Peter in Scripture and not in the Patristic writings.
And finally when one considers John 21, where Peter is told thrice to feed the sheep of God, showing St. Peter as the Shepherd of the Flock of God seals the deal for me.

Hope this helps, God bless!

 

[anon82945206]

Do you have to get a badge to have the ability to post because I can’t figure out how to?

 

[GladTidings]

I’m having difficulty believing you are ten years old.

 

[rom]

Do you have to get a badge to have the ability to post because I can’t figure out how to?

You just posted. Are you asking how to start a new topic? In that case, you have to get out of the topic or thread first. To do this, go to the top of the page and you will see a category of topics, such as “Apologetics, Eastern, Traditional, etc.” Click the category where you want to start a new thread. A window with a list of topics will open for you. Then at the bottom right corner you will find a blue circle with a “+” inside it. Click that and you are on your way.

 

[anon82945206]

What do you mean? As in you think I’m younger or I’m older?

 

[anon82945206]

Thank you for the help.

 

[rom]

It was said as many people believe 7 days weren’t literally 7 consecutive days, but was like each “day” could be counted as centuries… which explains how the earth is so old but yet only 2000 some years passed.

Some people interpret the “days” of creation, not as 24-hour periods, but as referring to indefinite periods of time, which can be several years, or even centuries. Accordingly, they say that the six days should be interpreted as six stages of creation. Then they describe each stage to follow the timeline of evolution so popular among scientists today. But I think that is bad exegesis. I think that the sacred writer who wrote the book of Genesis actually used the word “day” to mean a 24-hour period, not hundreds or thousands of years. Because the sacred writer is writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit was not teaching Science or the Big Bang theory. He was telling the story of creation, not only to show the true origin of the world, but to give us a pattern of how we should live. He said that the world was made in 6 days and on the 7th day he rested because He wanted us to sanctify the Sabbath. It has nothing to do with the “six stages of creation.” We don’t have to inject scientific meaning in the sacred text just to make it agree with the latest picture of world development depicted by modern science. That is bad interpretation and commits the fallacy of “concordism.”

 

[rom]

Thank you for the help.

You are welcome and good luck. I, too, can’t believe you are ten years old. Gee, I am old enough to be your great, great grandpa. Haha.

I read your profile and it said your religion is “Lutheran, Catholic.” Does that mean one of your parents is Lutheran, and the other Catholic?

 

[annad347]

We don’t have to inject scientific meaning in the sacred text just to make it agree with the latest picture of world development depicted by modern science. That is bad interpretation and commits the fallacy of “concordism.”

okay…