| Author |
Message |
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb
Post Number: 678
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:25 pm: |     |
But it's very different from the SDA, Jeremy.
1. The Orthodox church IS the original and can be traced back directly to the Apostles.
2. They do not believe in a mentally ill false prophet like the Adventists do. Church tradition is the "extra-Biblical" authority in the Orthodox Church whereas the SDA extra-Biblical "authority" is a mentally ill woman who if not herself was used by Satan was used by people such as her husband who probably were being used by Satan.
3. At least Salvation is possible in the Orthodox Church, there is not the perfectionism taught by Adventists, which make Salvation actually IMPOSSIBLE by Adventist standards.
The Bible does say in James that faith without works is dead. I just don't see the emphasis on works in Orthodoxy to the extent of Adventism.
There are differences, Jeremy.
(Message edited by Reb on September 10, 2007) |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 278
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 1:50 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Faith plus works is bad if salvation is of a contractual, juridical nature. This is what the Evangelicals are running away from. This is a reaction to one of the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy.
However, if salvation is not a contract, but instead an experience of union with God, a relationship with God, then both parties can put all the effort they want into it without feeling like it's never enough.
If you listened to the podcast about imputed righteousness here; http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/P8/ by Matthew Gallatin you would hear that what Abraham did by faith was begin the journey. And then, all the very difficult things God and Abraham did together were done by faith. If Abraham were to have simply said that the promise would happen anyway since he believed it, and decided not to follow any of God's directions, we would correctly say Abraham's faith was dead.
Jeremiah |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 764
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 3:03 pm: | |
Hi Jeremiah, interesting material.
I'm still trying to get my head around what is actually so different between eastern Catholicism and western Catholicism.
For example, don't they both have Popes?
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/36145.htm states
quote:Death of Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and Africa Petros VII
The United States expresses its deep condolences over the tragic death of His Beatitude Petros VII, Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, in a helicopter crash on Saturday. According to media reports, fifteen others were also killed in the crash, including three bishops of the Greek Orthodox church. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and communities of those who were lost.
Gilbert Jorgensen
It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 19 Days since October 22, 1844 |
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh
Post Number: 716
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 3:17 pm: | |
Found some interesting links:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=easternorthodox
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/orthodoxy.htm
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/beliefs%20of%20the%20orthodox.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/greek_eastern_orthodox.htm
In His wonderful grace,
Martin |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 279
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 7:12 pm: | |
Gilbert,
One reason people think the Orthodox Patriachs are popes is that they are used to the concept of popes.
What you'd find though is that if the Pope did something really evil or taught some awful heresy there would be nothing that could be done to remove the Pope from office. If an Orthodox bishop did that, whether he was bishop of a small city or whether he was a Patriarch, he could (and likely would) get removed from office. A Patriarch doesn't have any more authority than any other Orthodox bishop.
Jeremiah |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 391
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 9:11 pm: | |
Jeremiah:
Hi. I don't think we've met. I'm not terribly active here anymore, but I do lurk from time to time.
I've been doing a study on Christian mysticism and The Emergent Church and "emergents" claim to use Eastern Christian chants and meditations that put a mind into a state of openness to be able to experience union with God. (I noticed you used that term "union with God") Given your understanding of the Eastern Orthodox church, would you say that is an appropriate use of the term "Eastern Christian"? Or would you say that the gnostic relationship to Christian Mysticism is trying to hide out by attaching themselves to the coattails of E.O. Church?
I guess I'm trying to ask if the Eastern Orthodox church practices and/or condones the kind of meditation that "opens the mind" for "experiential union" with the Father?
Patria |
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb
Post Number: 682
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:57 am: | |
It is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox Church has NEVER had a Pope and that Pope issue is one of the reasons why they and the RCC are split.
In fact, I read that when the Roman Catholic Pope decleared himself infallible on doctrinal issues, the Eastern Orthodox Church considered this to be blasphemy. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2135
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 11:59 am: | |
Reb,
1. Even if it can be "traced back directly to the Apostles," that doesn't mean it is a true church (much less the only true Church), if it has apostatized at some point along the way. In other words, of what value is being able to "trace back" your bishops to the apostles, if the church has apostatized since then? Wouldn't it be better to teach the faith of the apostles, "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3 NASB), than to teach an apostate faith contrary to the faith taught by the apostles, regardless of the succession of bishops? What if those bishops fell away from the true faith and into apostasy at some point?
Additionally, since Christianity is NOT united in denomination, it is wrong for any church to claim to be the one true church. That would mean that the various Protestant churches are not true churches. Also, according to the Bible, "the Church" is not an organization, but is the universal body of all believers in Jesus Christ.
2. Regarding extra-Biblical authority:
The New Testament tells us that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. Church "tradition" cannot add to, subtract from, change, or contradict the faith of the New Testament. Only the Word of God is inspired and authoritative. Having an extra-Biblical authority that tells you how you must "interpret" Scripture is dangerous, period--whether it comes in the form of Popes, false prophets, or "Tradition." Those of us who have experienced that should know better than anyone how dangerous it is to let another fallible human (or humans) tell us what "the truth" is that we must believe/follow.
3. Regarding the Gospel:
Salvation is not possible by believing in a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). A person cannot be saved by trusting in Jesus plus their works or anything else. Salvation is only through faith in Jesus alone.
James' point is that true faith (which, according to the Bible, is a gift that is given to us by God) results in good works. The good works contribute nothing to our faith or salvation. To teach otherwise, as the Eastern Orthodox Church does, is to teach a false gospel which damns millions of people to an eternity in Hell, separated from the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not a trivial issue. People's eternal destinies are at stake.
Jeremy |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 280
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 12:27 pm: | |
Patria,
The book "the way of a Pilgrim" is an accurate account of practices and experiences of Eastern Christianity. http://www.amazon.com/Way-Pilgrim-Walter-J-Ciszek/dp/0385468148/ref=pd_sim_b_4/105-9391387-0832462
If you are looking at sources other than Eastern Christianity, there are certainly going to be mixtures of New Age with the real thing. Even Eastern Christians are cautioned to be careful of false experiences because the Devil will use any avenue he can to mislead Christians. These techniques are only to be practiced with the guidance of an experienced spiritual father.
Jeremiah |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6758
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 1:49 pm: | |
The only safe route is to pursue what the Bible actually teaches. To be sure, some things are permissible if the Bible is silent about them. The bottom line for a Christian, however, is to submit one's practices and disciplines to the Lord Jesus and ask Him to teach us the truth and to show us how He wants us to worship Him.
He is faithful to teach us. The biggest hurdle for me, at least, is to be willing to submit my desires to Him.
Colleen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 281
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 7:15 pm: | |
Jeremy,
If you're saying that you agree faith without works is dead, then you're saying the only way you can have faith is if you also have works. Otherwise faith is dead... and dead faith won't do any good, will it?
There are all those instances in Hebrews 11 where "by faith" people "did" things. This is the way it works I think.
Jeremiah |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 394
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 8:36 pm: | |
Jeremiah:
You said this:
"Even Eastern Christians are cautioned to be careful of false experiences because the Devil will use any avenue he can to mislead Christians."
Then why do it? If there is the possibility of opening our minds to the demonic realm, why even get close? Is this a requirement of the faith?
Patria |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2137
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 9:17 pm: | |
Jeremiah,
Hebrews 11 is not saying, as the SDAs misinterpet it, that "faith" actually is, or includes, "works." The "works," or actions, are merely evidence that shows, to us, that they had faith.
In the same way, James is not saying that we need to make sure to do good works in order to have true faith. He is saying that true faith (which, again, is a gift given by God) results in good works. If a person does not really have faith if they don't have works, then it would not help them to start doing good works. They would still not have faith. Works cannot produce faith. Rather, faith produces works. They must have true faith, and then they will do good works. But these works have nothing to do with obtaining, maintaining, keeping, or contributing to salvation--that is a once-and-for-all thing that happens the moment we are born again by the Holy Spirit and trust in Jesus Christ's sacrifice alone to save us.
The point of James 2 is that while men are justified by faith alone before God (he cannot contradict this clear teaching of the NT), men are justified before men by their works (which show other people that they have faith).
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on September 11, 2007) |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 395
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:25 am: | |
Jeremy,
What a great explanation of James 2! I hadn't ever considered the last point you made that James' perspective is that men are justified before men...
Great thought!
Patria |
Jorgfe
Registered user
Username: Jorgfe
Post Number: 772
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:51 am: | |
Jeremy, that is really profound. I gain so much from your posts. Thank you!
Gilbert Jorgensen
It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 21 Days since October 22, 1844 |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 282
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 11:49 am: | |
Jeremy,
I've heard that explanation before. I'm not sure that it fits the story of Abraham though; how was Abraham justifying himself before men by offering Isaac?
You're still operating with the contractual definition of salvation. If it's a contract, in theory it can be a one time unrevokeable pronouncement.
I would wonder if the promise to Abraham would have been revoked in the case of Abraham deciding not to obey God.
I agree that there has to be faith before there can be works of faith. Doesn't every man have a measure of faith? Is faith increased by various actions?
Jeremiah |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 283
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 11:55 am: | |
Patria,
I think the answer to why Orthodox Christians continue to use these techniques by which it is possible that the devil could decieve them lies in the fact that we are discussing communication and interaction with the spiritual world. God is a Spirit. The devil is also a spirit. They probably have similar methods of interacting with humans.
Jeremiah |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 1:00 pm: | |
Jeremiah,
Regarding Abraham being justified before men: We all know about what Abraham did, right? 
No, the promise could not be revoked. God keeps His promises!
quote:"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.'
27'THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.'
28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:25-29 NASB.)
Paul is also very clear about how Abraham was justified before God:
quote:"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'
4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness," (Romans 4:1-5 NASB.)
The Bible nowhere teaches that every man has a measure of faith. It says that God has given a measure of faith to every believer/Christian/member of the body of Christ. How could a non-believer ("non-faither") have faith? That doesn't even make sense. The context of the passage makes it clear that only Christians have faith:
quote:"3For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
4For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function,
5so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (Romans 12:3-5 NASB.)
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on September 12, 2007) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6771
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 1:00 pm: | |
Jeremiah, God's promises are unconditional and do not depend upon our participation or obedience. Within the Mosaic covenant, God's promises were set up originally to be conditional. He promised Israel that they would have blessings if they obeyed; cursings if they rebelled.
God's own unilateral promises, however, are not conditional upon any human response. God's promises to Abraham did not depend upon Abraham's obedience. Further, Abraham's faith was not his own faith. Genesis 17:17 reveals that not only Sarah but Abraham laughed when God said he and Sarah would have a son and questioned God's promise. Abraham had no instrinsic faith. But God told him (v. 19) that Sarah WOULD have a son, and God Himself would establish His covenant with him, just as He established His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15.
We do not have intrinsic faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 show that even our faith is a gift of God. And God's promises are completely unconditional. Hebrews 8:6 states that the ministry of Jesus is superior to the Mosaic covenant because "it is founded on better promises." Those "better promises" are God's own unilateral promises. The Mosaic covenant was based on Israel's promises to do all God said.
Further, Romans 4:2-3 clearly states that "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness'."
Abraham's obedience had nothing to do with God's keeping His promise to Abraham. Those who inherit God's promises to Abraham, according to Romans 9, are "the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: 'At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.' "
In other words, the children of promises are those who are born of God, "something out of nothing", as Isaac's birth was a miracle of God where there was no human possibility of life.
Paul goes on in Romans 9:16: "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
The Bible is really clear that we are not born with "a measure of faith". We are born "dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph 2:1), "by nature objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3), in "the domain of darkness" (Col 1:13). We are supernaturally, through Jesus, brought to life by God Himself (Eph 2:4) and transferred into the kingdom of Jesus (Col 1:13). "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephe 2:8-9).
So no—God's promises to Abraham were unilateral. Read Gen 15. God put Abraham to sleep and did not allow him to participate in the cutting of the covenant with him. God Himself ratified that covenant, just as Jesus ratified the New Covenant with the Father on our behalf. Only the Mosaic covenant was conditional. God literally made it with Isreal. They participated and promised. In the covenants with Abraham and in the New Covenant, God alone keeps the terms of the covenant.
Nowhere does the Bible suggest that God was faithful to Abraham because he offered his son. Genesis and Romans 4 and Galatians are very clear that God justified Abraham and counted his belief in God as righteousness. Ephesians 2 and Romans 4 clarify the circumstances of Genesis 17 when Abraham displayed absolutely no faith. He laughed in God's own face and doubted that Sarah would have a son.
But God gave Abraham faith, and Abraham believed God. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac had nothing to do with God honoring His promises to him. This event does, however, play a HUGE role on several levels. First, it foreshadows God's gift of Jesus. Second, it shows us what a life of trust and faith looks like: Abraham knew God's voice (remember Jesus said His sheep know His voice?), and he obeyed because he believed God.
Once God gives us His faith to beleive, He reveals Himself to us in deeper and more profound ways. Our faith in Him deepens. But all of our salvation—even our faith—is a gift from God.
God's promises are always unconditional. The Mosaic covenant was unique among all God's covenants in that it involved human participation. This fact is why the Mosaci covenant cannot continue to apply to those who are in Christ. Jesus was the human whose participation fulfilled the Mosaic covenant. He did for us what we couldn't do. When we trust Him, we enter God's unconditional new covenant in which all our righteousness, all our obedience, all our security is found in Jesus.
Nothing in our new birth and our redeemed lives originiates with us. Even our obedience is not our own. Jesus' obeidence is what God accounts to us. He transforms us, but this transformation does not secure our salvation nor keep us saved.
Jesus alone does it all. And as Jeremy said, our works, when we are born again, are an evidence to others that we are in Christ. To be sure, we learn to live by the Spirit, but this life is generated by God as we submit to His discipline—which BTW, He only administers to true sons (see Heb 12:1-12)!
It is ALL of God—not any part of our justification, sanctification, or glorification springs from us. But when we are born again, the Holy Spirit teaches us to live by the Spirit, submitting our flesh and desires and habits to Him. Yet even while we still inhabit unregenerate bodies, our now-living spirits are secure, and there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus! (see Romans 8).
Colleen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 284
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:49 pm: | |
If God's promise to Abraham was completely unconditional, it seems an unusual choice of words here in Genesis 22;
Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Language like this seems to favor the understanding that God actually let Abraham choose to obey or not and that if Abraham would not have obeyed the promise would not have been fulfilled.
God did of course know what Abraham would choose. It's a paradox how God could know and also let Abraham make the choice himself.
Jeremiah |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2139
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:43 pm: | |
Jeremiah,
Notice what the writer of Hebrews says about that passage (Genesis 22):
quote:"And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end,
12so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
14saying, 'I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU.'
15And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.
16For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.
17In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,
18so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
19This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
20where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:13-20 NASB.)
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on September 12, 2007) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6772
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:37 pm: | |
Also, Jeremiah, Genesis 22, where the "sacrifice" of Isaac occurred, is not the passage where God made His covenant with Abraham. That happened in Genesis 15. Everything that happened in Abraham's life from then on happened in the context of God's promises already being made to him. The covenant was ratified while Abraham was asleep.
Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was definitely a test of his faith, but it wasn't for the purpose of establishing God's covenant with him. That test happened within the context of an already existing unconditional covenant, as Genesis 15 and Hebrews 6 (as Jeremy quoted above) show us.
Even circumcision was given after God made His covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 17, God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision which established the external framework that became the mark of Israel—before Israel existed. But Galatians makes it clear that circumcision, along with the rest of the Mosaic law, was fulfilled in Jesus. So all these "obey and be blessed" exchanges between God and Abraham happened within the context of His unconditional covenant standing firmly and eternally as the background framework for everything else.
It's much like our living within the new covenant as living sons of God, made alive by His Spirit, but still struggling with the unredeemed flesh. God commands us to put away all that defiles, and there is blessing for our obedience—but none of this affects the fact that when we have been made alive in Christ, He guarantees our eternal life by His indwelling Spirit, and our day-to-day discipline and offering of ourselves as living sacrifices is within the context of our eternal security.
God disciplines and grows us while our living spirits are still housed in mortal flesh. But our mortal tents and our failures do not change or negate the unconditional promise of Christ's keeping the covenant for us and giving us life by His Spirit.
Colleen |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 401
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 7:34 am: | |
Colleen:
Beautifully said. The Lawgiver keeps us in the grip of His grace.
To demonstrate what you're talking about, I am thinking of Elizabeth Inrig and her circles. I'm going to hijack the visual.
If justification/salvation is a large circle on a chalkboard, then we can put smaller circles for obedience/blessings and disobedience/discipline within that larger circle. Justification cannot be a smaller circle inside obedience/blessings though because that takes the power of salvation away from God. It makes my actions bigger than God's actions and effectively nullifies the Truth of His omnipotency. As evidenced by Scripture hundreds of times, God is omnipotent and the gifter of our salvation. So that is not possible.
Patria |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 285
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 4:43 pm: | |
Here's another verse;
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
To me a straight forward understanding of this passage would say that the reason God can make a sure promise to Abraham is because God knows Abraham and based on this knows that Abraham will obey God's directions. The passage indicates that Abraham's obedience is necessary for the promise to be fulfilled. To me to say that God made an unconditional promise to Abraham conflicts with what this passage clearly states.
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
If this covenant with Abraham is actually conditional upon Abraham's obedience to God, and it is the precedent for God's covenant of salvation for us, I can see how this interpretation would worry those who believe in eternal security.
You know, God could make a conditional promise that would never be broken... here's how; God knows the future of everyone like an open book. God would simply make the conditional covenant with someone God knows will meet the conditions.
Jeremiah |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 286
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:02 pm: | |
Isn't the context of Hebrews 6:19 talking about the possibility of a baptized Christian reverting to Judaism? That's in verses 4-6. Traditionally this book is written to Jewish converts to Christianity who were tempted to return to Judaism.
So when it speaks of a hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, it's encouraging these Jewish Christians to continue to believe in and obey Jesus, and to endure to the end, because if they do, they will indeed recieve the promise. It's not necessarily saying that once a person believed in Jesus they cannot fall away and lose their experience of salvation.
Also notice that God repeated the promise to Abraham several times, and after Abraham proved willing to sacrifice Isaac, God swore by himself. Abraham was finally willing to sacrifice the promise itself in order to continue obeying God. This was a journey for Abraham and his faith was stronger at the end than at the beginning.
Jeremiah |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6779
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 7:27 pm: | |
Jeremiah, I understand what you are saying, and to be sure there is tension built into these passages. Yet the warnings in Hebrews 6 can easily be seen to be addressed to people who, like the seeds that fell on rocky soil and germinated plants but put down no roots and perished in the heat, give a joyful, superifical assent to the gospel but do not commit themselves fully to the Lord Jesus. They, also like the seeds that germinated among the weeds, get caught up in "church" and even "Bible study" and like being with the people of God, but they themselves, like the rich young ruler, are not willing to give up all they hold dear for the sake of Jesus. These people are not placing their trust in Jesus. Judas was one of these; he healed the sick and cast out demons with the rest of the twelve, but he was not transformed.
I would say, Jeremiah, regarding Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, that it was NOT an issue of Abraham's being willing to sacrifice the promise in order to continue obeying. First, Hebrews 11:17-19 gives us more insight into this situation. Abraham never considered "giving up the promise"; he believed God. He believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead if need be. God had promised that the seed and the blessing would come through Isaac, and Abraham never gave up on believing God's promise. He was willing to carry out what seemed an improbable and impossible command not because obedience was his motive but because belief in God's promise was his motive.
Abraham's obedience was rooted 100% in his faith in God. He never considered (according to Hebrews 11) giving up the promise. He believed God could do a miracle to fulfill His promise, and he believed that He would if necessary.
The issue for Abraham was always belief and trust. Obedience was simply a byproduct. It was never Abraham's motive or destination.
Yet, as you said, his faith was stronger at the end than at the beginning.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6780
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 7:28 pm: | |
Patria, I love your "circles" illustration! That so works!
Colleen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 287
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:23 pm: | |
Colleen,
I would agree that obedience wasn't Abraham's motivation or destination; but without obedience Abraham would not be on a journey with God. Abraham's motivation had to be love for God. Abraham's destination was to be the friend of God, and actually to be one with God, or as the Bible puts it, to have God as his God. You know, where God is referred to as "the God of Abraham".
Relationships don't go far without activity. Abraham and God did many things together. You aren't going to do things with God if you don't believe and trust God, and you don't really believe or trust God if you say no to His instructions.
Jeremiah |
|
