R_C related my position quite well.
If Christ had to die, He had to be fully man. He a;so had to be fully God. I think in many ways the Incarnation is central to salvation.Ha, gotcha!But Iām still curious as to why it matters if Christ was born of a virgin . . . how does that have an affect on my salvation?
Perhaps I should clarify; how do you know these donāt apply to Orthodoxy, or maybe just the pre-schism Church? For me, the schism brings with it doubt as to which patriarch(s)?
I think thatās similar to what Lutherans would say about them.
Again, how do you know that, viz a viz Orthodoxy?
History is certainly involved in the mix, and you are probably right that its not so much interpreting scripture, more doctrine.
Not necessarily. There are perhaps many things Luther said that you would agree with, but you are not held to Luther. The Book of Concord contains the writings of many, though Luther is very prominent. The first section is the three creeds, followed by the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Augsburg was written by a group of men (luther was not there, but his approval was requested and received). The Apology was primarily Melanchthon, who also wrote the Treatese on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
If Jesus was 100% God and man, wouldnāt it be the same as saying God came in the form of a man?
He didnāt come in the form of a man, He was a man. I believe it was the Gnostics who claimed that Christ only āappearedā to be a man (in the form of a man) because of their views on matter. I could, of course, be incorrect on the heresy but I am sure it was one of them.
I think you make an important distinction, here. To say that Jesus was just in the form of man, ISTM that would contradict the Incarnation. True man, true God, not true God in the form of man.
Look,
Notice that Matt. 1:23 does not state:
Like Christ was a true man, He too was true God. He was not a form of a man, and, going the opposite direction, he was not a* form *of God.
There is no argument. There is no debate. The Church settled this matter. Christ was truly a man. He was not a form of a man. Just as I wouldnāt say that I was a* form *of a man.
Correct Jon. At first glance to say that Christ came in the form of man would not seem that out of the ordinary until you realize the implications of Christ only appearing to be a man and not truly being a man.
10-4 there good buddy!It may very well be.
Christ was truly God and truly man.
God bless you
I think I am close to beating a dead horse; but unless you believe that everybody in heaven believed exactly the same while on earth and had no disagreements, then you hold to the concept of āessentialā, at least in the sense I am using it.
Please excuse my intrusion. This part intrigued me. If the question is āwhich patriarch(s)?ā how is ānone of themā an acceptable answer? I have often heard appeals to perceived diversity or the Schism as a means to legitimize Protestant beliefs, but Iāve never found it convincing. It follows a āI donāt know which one was right, therefore theyāre all wrongā sort of reasoning which runs afoul of my logical convictions. How does one defend this position?
Not an intrusion, but rather a good question, but it is not my position. Iām not necessarily saying that ānone of themā is the acceptable answer, nor am I saying that all are wrong. All Iām asking is which one is right, since they donāt agree?
Canāt speak for Zach, but I appreciate the question, and I hope I answered it.
I think I like this guy.
Jon, if scripture *(and of course you are right, it does) *- warns us against personal interpretation, even the most obvious scripture passages, then how does the practice of sola scriptura work? To whom, should Christians, regardless of denomination, defer for correct interpretations? I believe, if I remember correctly, you suggested that the pastors/teachers of each respective isolated autonomous church should do the interpreting, but arenāt these pastors, regardless of church affiliation, warned against personal interpretation?
Hi Joe,Hey JonNC, you said to Zach:
Jon, if scripture *(and of course you are right, it does) *- warns us against personal interpretation, even the most obvious scripture passages, then how does the practice of sola scriptura work? To whom, should Christians, regardless of denomination, defer for correct interpretations? I believe, if I remember correctly, you suggested that the pastors/teachers of each respective isolated autonomous church should do the interpreting, but arenāt these pastors, regardless of church affiliation, warned against personal interpretation?
Agreed. However, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus the Christ on Pentecost circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, (HS is ultimately responsible for preserving doctrinal truth in the church founded by Jesus) - then logically and practically speaking, the CC lacks the necessary credentials to be in charge of hermeneutics - right? That leaves us with only one other church - the EOC. I love that church too, and that church can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles as well, as you know, but Jesus built (is still building) - His church on Simon renamed Kepha and said that the gates of hell would never vanquish it. Jesus built His church on the rest of the apostles as well as per sacred scripture, but He said that even Satan and his minions, (let alone mere human sinners) - would never destroy His church (preservation of doctrinal truth cannot not be tampered with by Satan) - and this was said in relation to Simon renamed Kepha - only. There is a reason why Jesus renamed Simon Rock donāt you think?. Plenty of sinners can come and go, in Jesusā established church but His established church circa AD 33, thanks to the HS, will forever defend and safeguard doctrinal truth from the most ardent sinner, until the end of time - right? Jon, I have to believe that this mission of the holy spirit is not beyond His capability/power. I recall asking you some questions about Matthew 16 but you didnāt respond. I believe you said something about Jesusā church being built on the confession (I could be wrong though; if I am I apologize) - and that makes no sense to me; it never did as a former Lutheran.
I understand and that makes sense to me. But, for me the Lutheran church simply did not meet the necessary criteria. I wanted to belong to the church founded by Jesus and no one else, but thatās just me. I love all Lutheran churches, (all churches regardless of denomination) - however, these churches were not founded by Jesus in the first century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost, and this was a problem for me as a former Lutheran for the simple fact that the Holy spirit was sent to only ONE church, and as I always say, never to impugn the wonderful works of these churches (all churches) - and I really mean it. I truly believe that the holy spirit is still guiding the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, and will continue to do so until the end of time, and I donātā¦canāt believe that the sin of mankind could, in any way, interrupt, jeopardize or prevent the holy Spirit from safeguarding Jesusā doctrinal truths through every century, even in the face of apostasy and schism, such as the one that occurred in the CC in the 11th century. I have to believe that things such as heresy, apostasy and schisms are not obstacles to God. I have to believe that nothing is impossible for God. I donāt think that I could be a Christian if I thought that God had limitations, and God does if He canāt preserve doctrinal truth in the church founded by His Son Jesus the Christ. This is not important to most non-Catholics but it was crucial to my conversion to the CC.