The Confession
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation.
Chapter 1.
We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature.
Chapter 2.
We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.
Chapter 3.
We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God’s providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just.
Chapter 4.
We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him.
Chapter 5.
We believe that all things are governed by God’s providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify.
Chapter 6.
We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life.
Chapter 7.
We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man’s nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.
Chapter 8.
We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings.
Chapter 9.
We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.
Chapter 10.
We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it.
Chapter 11.
We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat.
Chapter 12.
We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done.
Chapter 13.
We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.
Chapter 14.
We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything.
Chapter 15.
We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament.
Chapter 16.
We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing.
Chapter 17.
We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come.
Chapter 18.
We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.
This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous.
Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629. Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople
http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html
Cf. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.v.html
Very interesting indeed! Wow.
ReplyDeleteAlthough rising to the position of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril was heavily influenced by 16th century Calvinism. As a result, in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and in strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, he attempted to reform Orthodoxy in the direction of Calvinism.
Man, some people don't know a good thing when it kicks 'em right in the catooties.
I might add that the Synod of Jerusalem, which we have been told repeatedly faithfully represented Orthodoxy was intended to repudiate this confession.
ReplyDeleteNow, that same synod declared that Scripture and the Church are protected from error by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church. That synod declared that election is based on foreseen faith.
This is why I have repeatedly asked Orthodox and now Benedict Seraphim to offer up an exegetical argument for election based on foreseen faith. You see, if election on that basis is exegetically unfeasible, in fact, utterly indefensible, then Orthodoxy is either (a) in error, thus undermining the claims of the synod, Orthodox, and B.Seraphim or (b) the Holy Spirit is leading the Church in a direction that contradicts Scripture. Which is it?
>You see, if election on that basis is exegetically
ReplyDelete>unfeasible
Let's first see the exegetical defence of the so-called "Persevereance of the saints" addressing Hebrews 6:4-7, 1Ti 4:1, Jas 5:20.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ca4_loukaris.aspx
ReplyDeleteThe Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch"
It is only by ignoring his many sober theological works and writings, wholly in concord with traditional Orthodox theological concepts, and his synodal confessions and justifications, that one can argue that Patriarch Kyrillos was a supporter of Calvinism. The whole idea of a "Protestant" Patriarch who was forced to betray his Protestant leanings is a bit of Western fancy that the Reformers used to slap at Rome
Well,
ReplyDeleteSince your "unified" church, Mr. O took him out and slit his throat, I guess it was just ALL IN THE FAMILY.
Good thing you didn't let him live long enough to take you back to the orthodoxy of a Chrysostom or an Athanasius.
Brewster
Let's first see the exegetical defence of the so-called "Persevereance of the saints" addressing Hebrews 6:4-7, 1Ti 4:1, Jas 5:20.
ReplyDeleteA. Notice how Orthodox avoids my question by requesting that we do this.
B. But I'll entertain him.
The author is writing to everyone in the sense that a letter is a medium of mass communication. That doesn’t mean that everything in the letter is equally relevant to every member of the audience. For example, there’s no reason to assume that every Jewish Christian in Rome was contemplating apostasy. The fact that it’s written to everyone doesn’t mean that it’s for everyone. Unlike a private letter, the author cannot individualize.
3. In terms of the trajectory and flow of the argument, the leading theme in Hebrews is not the danger of apostasy, but the supremacy of Christ. The author mounts a spiral argument to show that Christ is superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron. Arminians end up refocusing the argument away from Christ to the danger of apostasy. These admonitions come within a larger framework, the supremacy of Christ. If Christ, as the high priest of his people, cannot save his people from apostasy, then how is he superior to the prophets and the angels, to Moses and Aaron? What does the high priestly intercession of Christ amount to if he cannot preserve his people from damnation?
4. It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? "Regeneration" is a Johanine category. To bring it here is a fallacious move. Is this about the New Birth? Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture or the giving of commands? Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? (Hebrews’ author speaks of salvation in externals, not the internal realities. Arminian objections conflate external realities with internal realities.)
5. Let us also not overemphasize the warnings to the detriment of the assurances, for the writer has a habit of beginning with a stern admonition, but ending on a note of encouragement (3:14; 6:9-12; 10:39; 12:4ff).
6. The doctrine of perseverance isn’t simply a logical inference from election, or special redemption, or irresistible grace. There are also direct proof texts for this teaching, viz., Jn 10, 17; Rom 8.
Reformed theology does not deny that there are those in the visible churches who do not persevere to the end. We deny that those who are truly justified do not persevere to the end.
The writer specifically says in 6:9 that his readers have not done these things, for things do not comport with the signs of being saved at all. The passage proves that faith in Christ can be limited to external items and thus false faith. It does not refer to genuine believers at all. Throughout this letter, the author’s emphasis is on the phenomenology rather than psychology of faith. His few references to the work of the Spirit are confined to the Spirit’s agency in inspiration and the charismata or sign-gifts.
What does it mean, then, to the author of Hebrews, to have tasted of the Spirit? It isn’t enough to say that they tasted of the Holy Spirit. You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration? Answer: Inspiration. Is this about the New Birth? No. Or is it related to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture? The latter. Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? No. Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? Yes. The text never mentions the psychology of faith, only the externals of believing. To taste of the Spirit is to partake but at the same time to taste, not to imbibe the whole meal internally. The people are resisting the grace of the inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not their own internal regeneration and salvation. The author is indexing this text to a specific OT example from Deuteronomy/Joshua, where all the referents are also external, not internal.
People "falling away from the faith" in 1 Timothy follows a similar trajectory. We can't know for certain who is and who is not saved in the visible church, and the author does not know who is and who is not regenerate in this letter; Rather, he is telling Timothy about that which is to come and his responsibility for those in his charge in his church - a group which is, ideally composed of the regenerate, but, in reality, is likely mixed. Likewise, we can know who gives a profession of faith and who does not. There are those who give a profession of faith but who are false professors.The Calvinist has never denied the possibility and the reality of people apostatizing and being excommunicated from the visible church, for the visible church is made up of genuine believers and hypocrites, of wheat and tares, of sheep and goats, of the elect and non-elect. Further, this passage is prophesying a coming eschatological event from Paul's perspective. False teachers will arise and lead many astray. We must take care not be lead astray, and as elders, we must shepherd the flock accordingly. Perseverance of the saints does not deny the need to be watchful or the responsibility to persevere to the end. Orthodox is acting like perseverance of the saints = eternal security. That's untrue.Perseverance and eternity security are not interchangeable concepts. Eternal security is associated with fundamentalism, not Calvinism. It is antinomian. It confines the grace of God to the objective work of Christ to the exclusion of the subjective work of the Spirit. Every objection to eternal security is not an objection to perseverance.
James 5:20 simply repeats that same theme. All Christians can backslide. Since we don't know for certain who is saved and who isn't, it is our duty to intercept them. The one who backslides, if he is not truly regenerate, can utterly apostatize. In fact, God winnows the covenant community frequently that way. If a person has made a credible profession of faith and we intercept them if/when they backslide, we do save them from death, since it could well be that they were unregenerate from the start.Let him know,.... And observe it for his encouragement:
that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way; who is the instrument of restoring a backsliding professor, for such an one is meant by a sinner, and not a profane person; or of turning a poor bewildered believer, who is got out of the way of truth and holiness, into the right way again; or of convincing him of the error of his way, whether it be in point of doctrine, or of duty; and so of bringing him to the fold of Christ again, from whence he has strayed:
shall save a soul from death; not efficiently, but instrumentally, as in 1 Timothy 4:16 for otherwise Christ is the only Saviour; and he will be the means of saving "a soul," which is of more worth than a world; and that from death, the second death which lies in the separation of the soul from God, and in a sense of his wrath; which apostasy threatens with, and leads unto, if grace prevents not. The Alexandrian copy and others, and the Vulgate Latin version read, "his soul"; but the common reading is more emphatic; the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "his own soul"; and the Ethiopic version, "himself," as respecting him that is the instrument of the conversion of the other, and not the person converted:
and shall hide a multitude of sins; either "his own," as the same versions read; and then the sense is, he shall be blessed with a discovery and application of the forgiveness of all his sins, though they have been many and great; or rather the sins of the person converted. Sin is only covered by the blood and righteousness of Christ; and thereby it is so covered, as not to be seen by the eye of vindictive justice and in such manner as that the persons of those who are covered therewith are all fair, without fault and unreproveable in the sight of God; and though their sins are many, even a multitude, they are blotted out as a thick cloud, and are abundantly pardoned; yea, all their sins are covered, be they ever so many, for God forgives all trespasses, for Christ's sake; and the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, and his righteousness justifies from all: and whoever is an instrument of bringing a backslider to a sense of the evil of his ways, and to true repentance for the same; as he, upon such repentance, has his iniquities caused to pass from him, or, in other words, to be covered, as from the sight of God, so from his own; he may be said to be the instrument of this also.
Underlying Orthodox assumption that believers can fall away, aside from his view that anybody in the visible church is regenerate, is the old "if Scripture warns Christians against apostasy, then it is possible for Christians to apostatize" argument. But that's a non-sequitur. The warning is itself a means to the end of their perseverance. We order our lives according to the preceptive will of God, and that includes taking the warning to be circumspect seriously. Orthodox is making the old "ability limits responsibility" and "God would not ask us to do that which we cannot" error of the Arminian.
Granted that's quite brief, but I've entertained your red herring Orthodox. So, how about it. Give us an exegetical argument for election based on foreseen faith. You said the Synod of Jerusalem faithfully represented Orthodoxy. Go for it.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ca4_loukaris.aspx
ReplyDeleteThe Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch"
It is only by ignoring his many sober theological works and writings, wholly in concord with traditional Orthodox theological concepts, and his synodal confessions and justifications, that one can argue that Patriarch Kyrillos was a supporter of Calvinism. The whole idea of a "Protestant" Patriarch who was forced to betray his Protestant leanings is a bit of Western fancy that the Reformers used to slap at Rome
Hmmm, if Benedict Seraphim is correct, then this is worthless, since we can't know anything about Orthodoxy because it is a living faith.
And, if you are correct, and we hold you to the standard to which you hold Jason and the rest of us, you're just quoting your sources, and we are as free as you are to dismiss them.
Why don't you actually deal with the confession itself. Further, if you are correct, then why is the Synod of Jerusalem said to have been called to refute this confession? Why did persons in that time simply deny he authored it?
ORTHODOX SAID:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ca4_loukaris.aspx__The Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch"
It is only by ignoring his many sober theological works and writings, wholly in concord with traditional Orthodox theological concepts, and his synodal confessions and justifications, that one can argue that Patriarch Kyrillos was a supporter of Calvinism. The whole idea of a "Protestant" Patriarch who was forced to betray his Protestant leanings is a bit of Western fancy that the Reformers used to slap at Rome
**************************************
It must be nice to be as blissfully ignorant as Orthodox. It makes life so much easier. Orthodox should donate that unused brain of his to medical science so that someone else can put it to use.
Now for a few awkward facts:
“Lucaris, Cyril (1572-1638). The ‘Calvinist Patriarch’…His contacts with Calvinists had led him to adopt many of their positions on church life and doctrine. The teaching of his Confession of Faith, published in Latin in 1629 and in Greek in 1633, on predestination and justification shows Calvinist influence,” The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, 295.
“It was also in Poland that he was likely to have first come into serious contact with Calvinist thought…The contact was continued and deepened through the Dutch Embassy at Constantinople, and it culminated in a Confession of Faith published by Patriarch Cyril in Geneva in 1629. The Confession (here, a statement of religious belief) clearly set forth Calvinist theology, including the denial of freewill, the doctrine of predestination, limiting the sacraments to two, and a negative view of icons. The resulting scandal contributed to intrigues against Cyril and resulted in his murder in 1638,” Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, 208.
Excellent rendering of the verses Orthodox requested by exegeted, Gene.
ReplyDeleteOn an elementary-school level, comparatively speaking, the man who taught a class on Hebrews at my church also warned us that we must pay attention to the pronouns in Hebrews, for the author switches back and forth between a combination of first person plural (us, we) and second person (you), as in "we are convinced of better things concerning you", and third person plural (they, them). Whenever the author speaks of people falling irrevocably away, he uses the third person, meaning he doesn't expect them to be sitting in the assembly.
He was quite emphatic about it, warning that unless the reader pays attention to the pronouns, it's easy to goof up and mistakenly assume the writer meant regenerated people can lose their salvation.
Anne in Fort Worth
It is also worth asking (and hoping against hope for a relevant response) about Heb 6:4-6 - does Orthodox indeed believe what the text says, namely, that those who fall away are DONE? They can't ever come back, no matter how much confession or penance or whatever that they do?
ReplyDeleteThis is just cut and pasted:
ReplyDeleteHello Molly,
Thank you for your kind words. Hebrews 6:4-6 is very interesting.
However, the grammatical structure of the sentence is not similar to
what we find in John 6:44. If you remember from the article, it was
determined that the grammatical (and logical) structure was of the
form: (￢p → ￢q) ∧ r. In the Hebrew's passage the Greek does not
contain a conditional, but it can be expressed logically in terms of a
conditional. The NASB reads:
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have
tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy
Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age
to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them
again to repentance...
If we define the following predicates as:
E=has been enlightened
G=has tasted the heavenly gift
H=has partaken of the Holy Spirit
W=has tasted the good word of God
P=has tasted the powers of the age to come
F=has fallen away
R=is possible to be renewed again to repentance
…, then we can symbolize this in first-order predicate logic as:
∀(x)((E(x) ∧ G(x) ∧ H(x) ∧ W(x) ∧ P(x) ∧ F(x)) → ￢R(x)).
This would read: For all x, if x has been enlightened and has tasted
the heavenly gift and has partaken of the Holy Spirit and has tasted
the good word of God and has tasted the powers of the age to come and
has fallen away, then it is not the case that x is possible to be
renewed again to repentance.
What is more fascinating about this passage is that Paul tells us why
this is the case when he says, "since they again crucify to themselves
the Son of God and put Him to open shame." An interesting study would
be to tease out Paul's assumed and unstated premise that makes his
argument work.
Sincerely,
Brian Bosse
Mike Ratliff:
Molly
Re: Hebrews 6:4
Just as context should always drive our interpretation, so it is here.
Previously we showed that John 6:44 is restated in John 6:37 & 65 and
the surrounding context, validating the fact that its meaning in
isolation is not changed by context, but rather affirmed.
Likewise Heb 6:4 should be considered by stepping back and looking at
the text around it.
Much of Hebrews is written to encourage Jews to trust in Christ and
Christ alone, who is better than the shadows of the law in the OT
because they all point to Him as the fulfillment. The author of
Hebrews is exhorting the listening Jews to never go back to
instituting temple sacrifice, which was a shadow, because this would
be tantamount to believing that Christ's once for all sacrifice is
insufficient. So when the warnings go up about falling away, it is not
saying that if you simply commit any sin you cannot find repentance,
no, rather it says if you abandon Christ and go back to the old way,
the law (i.e. fall away) then your hope is lost. So in context, only
persons who go back by trading in Christ for the now-empty ritual of
the temple (that itself was meant to point to the fulfillment in
Christ), they are then re-crucifying the Son to their shame.
Now take a look at verse 6:9 VERY CAREFULLY: It says, "Though we speak
in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better
things--things that belong to salvation.
In other words, the things the author just described about falling
away do NOT accompany salvation. Falling away is not a characteristic
of salvation in other words. People can be enlighted and taste and yet
fall away. They may be externally a part of the church yet if they
abandon trust in Christ for ritual or something else, there is no hope
for their salvation. They were never regenerate to begin with for
falling away does not accompany true salvation.
So again, the Arminian interpretation of this verse appears to be read
in isolation without any regard to the surrounding context. And that
is why there continues to be division in the church. Bad theology
creates division.
As my buddy in Australia says, "...because life is too short for bad theology."
It's quite ridiculous for GeneMBridges and reformed Christians to see the story of salvation always through John 3. Didn't Christians know anything until John applied his hand to recounting this story? No, John's story explains salvation in a more stylized fashion, but if you're finding something new in John that you can't find in the other gospels or epistles, clearly you've misunderstood John.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'm not the one running off to John to try and deny something about Hebrews.
>3. If Christ, as the high priest of his people,
>cannot save his people from apostasy, then how
>is he superior to the prophets and the angels, to
>Moses and Aaron?
Hmm, what happened to (1) and (2).
Where in Hebrews does it refer to Christ "saving his people from apostosy"? Is this an exercise in exegesis or is it an exercise in overlaying your beliefs onto the text?
>5. Let us also not overemphasize the warnings to
>the detriment of the assurances
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is not emphasis of this versus that, it is what things are taught.
>6. The doctrine of perseverance isn’t simply a
>logical inference from election, or special
>redemption, or irresistible grace. There are also
>direct proof texts for this teaching, viz., Jn 10,
>17; Rom 8.
Runs off to other texts and can't deal with Hebrews.
>Reformed theology does not deny that there are
>those in the visible churches who do not
>persevere to the end. We deny that those who
>are truly justified do not persevere to the end.
Whoa, havn't we just been lectured that the bible doesn't teach a visible church? But there's no mention of the church here anyway, so any talk of people merely hanging around in church but are not justified, is pure eisegesis. It has nothing to do with the text.
>The passage proves that faith in Christ can be
>limited to external items and thus false faith.
Back to eisegesis. Does anything in the passage indicate that those who fall away merely had false faith?
* enlightenment
* tasted the gift of heaven
* partakers of the Holy Spirit
* tasted the power of the Word and the new Age.
Is the writer of Hebrews trying to paint a picture of a hanger-on with false faith? No, this is pure eisegesis, pure and simple.
>It does not refer to genuine believers at all.
How does a non-genuine believer fall away? Is this the terminology the writer would use about a false brother who always was a false brother?
And why would this non-genuine believer have to "crucify Christ all over again", if here were to return? Surely he was never a believer to begin with, so why can't he be born again for the FIRST time? To say he partook, fell away and CANNOT be brought back, surely implies he was in to begin with, otherwise what is there to be brought back to?
>You have to ask how the work of the Spirit is
>delineated in the Book of Hebrews. Is this
>equivalent to regeneration—or inspiration?
>Answer: Inspiration. Is this about the New Birth?
>No.
Undefined terminology and categorization: "work equivilent to inspiration". "work equivililent to regeneration". Unsubstantiated claims. Running off to other passages. In short, bluster.
>Are they resisting the grace of regeneration? No.
Weren't we just lectured that Hebrews doesn't use Johaine categories? So why are we running off to John to define what Hebrews is talking about? If you can't talk about Hebrews in the terminology of Hebrews, how can you call it exegesis?
>Or are they resisting the voice of the Spirit
>speaking in Scripture? Yes. The text never
>mentions the psychology of faith, only the
>externals of believing.
Externals? Is enlightenment a mere external? Doesn't sound external to me. Tasted the gift? Doesn't sound external. Partakers of the Spirit? Definitely doesn't sound external. How come we don't have any dealing with the text here, just an overlay of your beliefs onto the text? Bold assertions completely unrelated to what scripture says?
>To taste of the Spirit is to partake but at the
>same time to taste, not to imbibe the whole meal
>internally.
The "whole meal" is to live the Christian life through to the end. We are given no reason to suppose that tasting the dish is of a different nature to finishing the dish.
>The people are resisting the grace of the
>inspiration of Scripture, the evidences of
>miracles, and the offer of the gospel to them, not
>their own internal regeneration and salvation.
If that were the case, there would be no reason to suppose that they cannot be brought back to repentance, since everybody in their pre-Christian state is resisting common grace. That would mean nobody could be saved.
>People "falling away from the faith" in 1 Timothy
>follows a similar trajectory. We can't know for
>certain who is and who is not saved in the visible
>church, and the author does not know who is
>and who is not regenerate in this letter
Paul does not say that some will abandon the church, or the fellowship. He says that they will abandon The Faith. This implies that they previously held to The Faith. To try and say that this must refer to people who merely appeared to hold to the Faith is to abandon the text.
>a group which is, ideally composed of the
>regenerate, but, in reality, is likely mixed.
Weren't we just lectured not to use Johainne categories with other authors?
>The Calvinist has never denied the possibility
>and the reality of people apostatizing and being
>excommunicated from the visible church
Apostasy implies that you abandoned something which you once had. To apostasy from something you never really believed in the first place, doesn't make sense. Or did they really believe? They believed everything, followed the Faith, and yet were never saved in the first place? Where is the verse saying that you can believe, be following the Faith, and yet are not saved? How can anyone have confidence in their current state in these conditions?
>for the visible church is made up of genuine
>believers and hypocrites
So only hypocrites fall away? All the people who fall away were just faking all along?
>False teachers will arise and lead many astray.
>We must take care not be lead astray,
Why bother to take care? Will you change the eternal outcome through your mere human will?
>Perseverance of the saints does not deny the
>need to be watchful or the responsibility to
>persevere to the end.
What responsibility? I thought salvation was purely an act of God? Now you are taking credit for persevering to the end by making it your own responsibility? Now you have a ground for boasting.
>James 5:20 simply repeats that same theme.
>All Christians can backslide. Since we don't know
>for certain who is saved and who isn't, it is our
>duty to intercept them.
It doesn't merely say it is a duty, it says you will "save his soul from death". How are you going to save a backslidden Christian's soul, when he is regenerate and most certainly saved? All you could hope to achieve is help with his present world sanctification, but you could never save his soul from death.
>The one who backslides, if he is not truly >regenerate, can utterly apostatize.
More Johainne categories overlaid on James.
And if he is not truely regenerate, it is pointless to try and go after him, because you cannot save his soul. In fact, he would be one of these pretend brothers you claim exist in Heb 6 who cannot be saved.
>If a person has made a credible profession of
>faith and we intercept them if/when they
>backslide, we do save them from death, since it
>could well be that they were unregerate from the >start
How is pulling an unregenerate person back into the church going to help anyone? James says the problem with this hypothetical person is not lack of regeneration, nor lack of faith. Their problem is being caught up in sin. How is discouraging mere externals of sin going to help anybody's regenerate state?
>the old "if Scripture warns Christians against
>apostasy, then it is possible for Christians to
>apostatize" argument. But that's a non-sequitur.
>The warning is itself a means to the end of their
>perseverance.
So scripture warns us of an impossibility. To suggest that what scripture warns us against shows it as possible is mere "non-sequitur".
Here we have presuppositions totally ruling interpretation to result in the most flagrent case of eisegesis one is ever likely to witness.
>We order our lives according to the preceptive
>will of God, and that includes taking the warning
>to be circumspect seriously.
Seriously.... Just how seriously CAN I take a warning against a scenario that cannot occur? WARNING WARNING Smoking causes cancer (*).
(*) Not really, it is impossible to get cancer.
Yeah, that would really get people to stop smoking. Are scriptural warnings only aimed against the Arminian believers? The Calvinist believers are left warning-less?
>Orthodox is making the old "ability limits
>responsibility" and "God would not ask us to do
>that which we cannot" error
More bold claims without substance.
What we've seen here is the clearest case one is ever likely to witness of someone overlaying their beliefs OVER a text, and coming to conclusions that bear no relationship whatsoever to what the text says. By utilizing double-think, logical absurdity, bold and unsubstantiated Calvinist philosophy, he actually believes he has engaged in exegesis. How sad.
>It is also worth asking (and hoping against hope for
ReplyDelete>a relevant response) about Heb 6:4-6 - does
>Orthodox indeed believe what the text says,
>namely, that those who fall away are DONE? They
>can't ever come back, no matter how much
>confession or penance or whatever that they do?
LOL, do I believe what the text says? So you admit that the text says that there are people who are DONE? Why would God make unregenerate people DONE? Wouldn't he reserve the right to regenerate these really bad people in Damascus road style?
Yes, I believe the text. There are people who are DONE. That doesn't mean everyone who is backslidden is DONE, but those who very specifically have REJECTED the gospel, in no uncertain terms are DONE.
Now, do YOU believe the text?
That doesn't make sense, Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteIf they were believers and they fell away, they are DONE. No turning back.
So if you're going to make these people equal believers, you have to be consistent for anyone to take you seriously.
???? Don't understand the point
ReplyDeletemy names jason and i have tasted the heavenly gift its actually the true light that shines from within. you can see it shining out the eye. it looks like a bright star.also everything is brighter and more beautiful.its an overwelming feel of love sent from heaven.hebrews 6:4 actually is all together.you will see the power of the coming of the age which is the illuminati,satan legion.you also are filled with the light.the light has a heat to it.It burnt the tears coming down my face but didnot hurt,only left red marks.and also you are filled with the holy spirit who is kind and gentle.ill never forget it.How i recieved this gift was laying on of hands.It was a woman i call my wife who turned her life around and were waiting for his return.feel free to write to me becuase i need some understanding and true freindship. enlightened1777@hotmail.com
ReplyDelete