Pope: Whatever religion works for you, cool

[T.Lex]

Ok, help me out with the players here. Latin (me) v. Greek (you?) v. Orthodox(?)?

Frankly, this:

Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire

I see as a distinction without a difference. The key (common) element is purification. Had I been there (with a nature similar to what I have now), I would've begged for a resolution that emphasized that process, leaving the details to further personal enlightenment.

But then this:

To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour's words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.

I agree with the "nothing was known for certain" part. But I think the punishment-or-forgiveness is a false dichotomy. I believe penance is a common feature; one must repent to be forgiven.

 

[rambone]

In Rambone's reply he clearly illlustrates what I am saying about penalty and satisfaction. Both Catholic and Protestant systems have to account for this to make things right with God. What is confusing to me is, both sound like God undergoes a change. He is angry then He is appeased. He is offended and must be satisfied. Both systems, if one steps back and trys to see them from the outside, require a change in God for salvation to work.

It is not God who changes it is us.

God does not change and neither do his characteristics. He is eternally loving, but he is also eternally wrathful toward sin. Psalm 7:11 says God is "angry with the wicked every day."

His law requires that the soul that sins be put to death. Once the sentence has been carried out then God has nothing to be wrathful about. His nature hasn't changed, but the outstanding offense no longer exists.

The only person capable of enduring the wrath of God -- the death sentence over sin -- and walking away victorious was God the Son. Jesus Christ assumed the penalty we deserved ourselves and therefore bridged the infinite, insurmountable gap between All-Holy God and sinners on Death Row.

 

[traderdan]

I hope you don't misunderstand me, I'm not going out to the local strip club tonight. I'm not saying we should go try and sin. I'm just saying that we will sin. We can (and should) strive for perfection, but we will fall short every time.

I understand what you are saying, and I do agree that we often must repent...My argument is against the idea that no matter what we do we cannot fall from "grace"...Grace is our teacher, (Titus 2:11) to help us deny ungodliness and worldly lust...When we are in Christ Jesus, we are new creatures.

 

[historian]

I understand what you are saying, and I do agree that we often must repent...My argument is against the idea that no matter what we do we cannot fall from "grace"...Grace is our teacher, (Titus 2:11) to help us deny ungodliness and worldly lust...When we are in Christ Jesus, we are new creatures.

OK. We agree on that.

Besides our local strip club closed down about half a year ago

 

[foszoe]

Actually,
Latins=Roman Catholic
Greek=Orthodox

Ok, help me out with the players here. Latin (me) v. Greek (you?) v. Orthodox(?)?

Frankly, this:

I see as a distinction without a difference. The key (common) element is purification. Had I been there (with a nature similar to what I have now), I would've begged for a resolution that emphasized that process, leaving the details to further personal enlightenment.

What you see as a distinction without difference, I would see as an addition that's not necessary. A common Orthodox refrain in modern times, paraphrasing: Orthodoxy preserves the fullness of the faith without any additions (usually this is aimed at the Roman Church) or subtractions (this is aimed at the various Protestant variations). I believe these to be so and I will provide one example below.

In the actual book I have been attempting to write for sometime about my conversion and how Orthodoxy "saved" me from agnosticism, i tell of how i came to terms with almost all of the Roman Catholic additions to the faith, except 4: Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the Immacculate Conception, and the Assumption.

At the time, I didn't know anything about the Orthodox other than it was a group in the east where 4/5 Patriarchs fell into one heresy after the other and only Rome had stood steadfast (No Catholic texts talk much about Pope Honorius much). I considered myself well read for a 20 something in regards to Church history so I didn't call these things additions for the Roman Church was the only Church I knew to make the claim of being the true Church. It was only after I encountered the Orthodox Church about a decade later did i know the Orthodox made basically the same claim as the Roman Church.

At that time, I realized some of the additions I had come to accept by logically thinking through them were not necessary in the Orthodox teaching. Several of them, one could hold as a personal opinion, but they were not dogmatic about near as much as the Romans. This was liberating.

But then this:

I agree with the "nothing was known for certain" part. But I think the punishment-or-forgiveness is a false dichotomy. I believe penance is a common feature; one must repent to be forgiven.

I noticed you use the word penance. This is another word that is Latin in origin, from my understanding. It also gives rise to a marked change in the mystery of confession in the Western Church and leads to a very formalized system of sins and their punishments AND to....here it comes....indulgences which leads to....the Reformation!

This is another difference between East and West.

In the West, Catholic and Protestant, there exists a tendency to think of God, Salvation, sin, people etc as Things and things are manipulated and do actions. Sin is a thing to be punished. Salvation is a thing to be obtained or possessed through the actions of one party or both. If people do this or that then God is obligated to do this. This is the reason between many English versions of the Bible missing the point in several verses where the continuous present is used.

What is Salvation? How do I "get" saved? How can I "obtain" salvation?

God is God, if we obligate God into "having to do anything", he is no longer God but god, a god of paganism.

In the East, God is a being, salvation is a state of being, People are beings. So back to penance.

Let's Look at Matthew 4:17, a popular verse that several know by heart if not by citation in order of its historical understandings.

From the ESV, a protestant version

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

That is pretty much the recognizable form for most.

From the Douay Rheims, a Catholic version

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

First some background, most Protestant English versions use Hebrew texts, specifically Masoretic texts from the (8th century or so) for the Old and Greek for the new (Mostly from critical texts, Nestle Aland etc).

Orthodox Bibles will use the LXX Greek for the OT, and the BMT (Byzantine Majority Text). The BMT is the basis for the KJV and the NKJV. The BMT has also seen a revival in Protestant theological circles over the last 30 years with some advocating that the BMT is more accurate than the critical texts.

Catholics historically used the Vulgate, I think this is the official Bible of the Catholic Church but i am not sure of that. The Douay Rheims version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate.

Anyway, lets approach Matthew from an Eastern Point of view, being. Orthodox pastors will say this verse means be penitent, or, be repenting, constantly in a state of turning towards God and build a theology centered around a struggle to turn to God with all our hearts, mind, and soul that is continuous. Think telling a child, "Quiet". This means be quiet, not for a second but start being quiet now and continue on until some future point.


Now for a Catholic Interpretation. The Latin Vulgate was a Latin translation of the Bible. It wasn't the only one or the first, it was, however, the first to use the hebrew where possible for the OT instead of the LXX. There are some interesting letters between St Jerome, the translator, and the Blessed Augustine over this choice. Anyway. Augustine was not well versed in Greek and preferred Latin in his study and writings. As the Vulgate rises in popularity, a question needs to be answered. What does "do penance" mean? Over time a rather elaborate expression of sins, the temporal punishments required by these sins, and possible ways to lessen these temporal punishments arises. Well what if one doesn't complete "do" their part? God must still be satisfied so these temporal punisments must be meted out. This gives rise to purgatory. If a soul has an unforgiven (not confessed) mortal sin, purgatory is not an option for that soul. If however, one has unforgiven venial sins ( an answer to "I am not that bad a person, its not like I've killed someone") or has been forgiven mortal sins without satisfying the temporal punishment aspect, then purgatory takes care of this satisfaction and the soul eventually goes to heaven.


The Protestant approach fixates more on salvation at a moment in time so this verse will be used to build a theology of a one time commitment to God. It becomes popular because Luther, railing against the elaborate system outlined above and its abuses, discovers this error in the Latin Vulgate rendering but he doesn't take it completely back to its original interpretation and application as the Orthodox and the early Church understood it. He uses it as a one time salvific act and his lead is followed by the rest of the protestant reformers.

 

[foszoe]

God does not change and neither do his characteristics. He is eternally loving, but he is also eternally wrathful toward sin. Psalm 7:11 says God is "angry with the wicked every day."

You may be able to scripturally support your eternally wrathful statement, but not with Psalm 7:11 which is clearly an expression of God's interaction with the wicked in chronos as witnessed by the "every day". My version renders the verse "God is a righteous, strong, and patient judge, NOT bringing down wrath every single day". Regardless, if one reads the various English versions, one will not come to your conclusion concerning God's "wrath".

His law requires that the soul that sins be put to death. Once the sentence has been carried out then God has nothing to be wrathful about. His nature hasn't changed, but the outstanding offense no longer exists.

Did Jesus keep the law when it came to punishing sinners?

When it comes to the wrath of God towards sin, is that only the Father or is it all 3 persons of the Trinity?

The only person capable of enduring the wrath of God -- the death sentence over sin -- and walking away victorious was God the Son. Jesus Christ assumed the penalty we deserved ourselves and therefore bridged the infinite, insurmountable gap between All-Holy God and sinners on Death Row.

 

[historian]

First some background, most Protestant English versions use Hebrew texts, specifically Masoretic texts from the (8th century or so) for the Old and Greek for the new (Mostly from critical texts, Nestle Aland etc).

Orthodox Bibles will use the LXX Greek for the OT, and the BMT (Byzantine Majority Text). The BMT is the basis for the KJV and the NKJV. The BMT has also seen a revival in Protestant theological circles over the last 30 years with some advocating that the BMT is more accurate than the critical texts.

Minor Quibble. The KJV's Basis is the Textus Receptus not the BMT. Both are similar but there are some minor differences.

ESV used the UBS/NesleAland version.

Both used the Masoretic for the OT, as it is better to translate from the original, than to translate from a translation (the LXX). Translating from one language then to another can really mess up words (for instance, translating "Good Morning" to French gets "Bonjour" which back to English is "Hello").

 

[T.Lex]

(I read all of this one, too.)

Actually,
Latins=Roman Catholic
Greek=Orthodox

That's what I thought, but then there was the part about the Orthodox position being forgiveness/punishment being opposed, and yet the Greeks spoke of temporal "punishment" although not by fire.

What you see as a distinction without difference, I would see as an addition that's not necessary.

I would agree. And I would add (coincidentally), the addition of "fire" is not dogmatic. Rather, I believe it illustrative.

"Purgatory" as a purification is the common denominator. Even Catholic texts allow it as a "condition" rather than a place.

In the actual book I have been attempting to write for sometime about my conversion and how Orthodoxy "saved" me from agnosticism...

Perhaps this is better left to PM, but I'd be willing to test-read the book!

I noticed you use the word penance. This is another word that is Latin in origin, from my understanding. It also gives rise to a marked change in the mystery of confession in the Western Church and leads to a very formalized system of sins and their punishments AND to....here it comes....indulgences which leads to....the Reformation!

For the record, I'll concede that indulgences were a bad path to take.

I did use penance on purpose. It has the same Latin root as "repent" and "penitentiary" I believe. It signifies that one is truly sorry, in actions.

Anyway, lets approach Matthew from an Eastern Point of view, being. Orthodox pastors will say this verse means be penitent, or, be repenting, constantly in a state of turning towards God and build a theology centered around a struggle to turn to God with all our hearts, mind, and soul that is continuous. Think telling a child, "Quiet". This means be quiet, not for a second but start being quiet now and continue on until some future point.

Like "Be quiet."

I like language. And, English - particularly in modern usage - doesn't always have the nuance of other languages.

But, I'm still left wondering about the forgiveness/punishment dichotomy.

Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.

Going back to your language point, is this a temporal thing? One can be forgiven only AFTER punishment - not at the same time?

 

[foszoe]

TThanks for the corrections!

I confess to writing my last few posts from memory and should say so. This one is as well.

As to the Masoretic texts being the originals. I would disagree. They may be in the original language, but they are certainly not the original texts. The Masoretic tradition arose as an attempt by the Jews to stop Christian apologists from using the Jewish scriptures to support Christianity 800 years or so after Christ. In doing so, the translation was slanted. The LXX in many ways is more representative of the original because the LXX was a translation by Jews for use by hellenistic Jews in the diaspora whose primary language was Greek and knew very little if any Hebrew. To approach from a scholarly perspective, I would readily accept and agree that some renderings appear more correct in the LXX and others in the Masoretic.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective, the LXX is the divinely inspired text. To paraphrase an old evangelical phrase, If the LXX was good enough for St Paul, it's good enough for me! Most (I won't say all ) quotations of the old in the new are from the LXX.

From Wikipedia

The Masoretic[SUP][1][/SUP] Text (MT, , or

) is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. However, contemporary scholars seeking to understand the history of the Hebrew Bible’s text use a range of other sources.[SUP][2][/SUP]These include Greek and Syriac translations, quotations from rabbinic manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch and others such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of these are older than the Masoretic text and often contradict it.[SUP][3][/SUP] While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with theirvocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.
The Masoretic Text is widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.[SUP][4][/SUP]
The Masoretic Text was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by the Apostle Paul).[SUP][5][/SUP]

Minor Quibble. The KJV's Basis is the Textus Receptus not the BMT. Both are similar but there are some minor differences.

ESV used the UBS/NesleAland version.

Both used the Masoretic for the OT, as it is better to translate from the original, than to translate from a translation (the LXX). Translating from one language then to another can really mess up words (for instance, translating "Good Morning" to French gets "Bonjour" which back to English is "Hello").

 

[foszoe]

But, I'm still left wondering about the forgiveness/punishment dichotomy.

Going back to your language point, is this a temporal thing? One can be forgiven only AFTER punishment - not at the same time?

As to fire or not in that account. Please remember that was an historical account, so I wouldn't take too much from it in a dogmatic sense. It was more to illustrate a difference in mindset or approach, if you will.

The Latin are asking for an affirmation of the doctrine and the Greeks are saying , well we understand it differently. Now the Latin are speaking from a dogmatic state. X must to be affirmed. The Greeks are responding with NOT X, but they are not seeking affirmation that NOT X is correct.

Cataphatic vs Apophatic.
Uh oh battery is dying.

 

[T.Lex]

Hopefully, your battery can be resurrected within 40 days. (A little Ash Wednesday humor.)

Before you go too deep into the thesis/antithesis part, I get the procedural situation.

My evolving sense of it, and this might be what drew you to Orthodoxy (or part of it), is that within the overall framework, more is left to personal opinion. Orthodoxy rejected "fire" because it wasn't necessary to the core belief. If someone believes fire is involved, that's fine, but it isn't doctrinal.

I guess my question is, then, more specific. As an issue of dogma, is punishment a precursor for forgiveness? And yes, I can sense my Protestant brethren preparing a retort along the lines of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient punishment for all of our sins that we either chose or were predestined to commit.

I would only say that often the most effective punishment is self-imposed. I am truly sorry for my transgression, so I want to make it up to you/Him. In the salvation sense, it simply means that there is some downside to sin, a consequence to actions that are counter to God's will.

 

[historian]

TThanks for the corrections!

I confess to writing my last few posts from memory and should say so. This one is as well.

As to the Masoretic texts being the originals. I would disagree. They may be in the original language, but they are certainly not the original texts. The Masoretic tradition arose as an attempt by the Jews to stop Christian apologists from using the Jewish scriptures to support Christianity 800 years or so after Christ. In doing so, the translation was slanted. The LXX in many ways is more representative of the original because the LXX was a translation by Jews for use by hellenistic Jews in the diaspora whose primary language was Greek and knew very little if any Hebrew. To approach from a scholarly perspective, I would readily accept and agree that some renderings appear more correct in the LXX and others in the Masoretic.

From an Orthodox Christian perspective, the LXX is the divinely inspired text. To paraphrase an old evangelical phrase, If the LXX was good enough for St Paul, it's good enough for me! Most (I won't say all ) quotations of the old in the new are from the LXX.

I should have said language rather than text.

The textual debate is interesting to me because I went to school at one of the main fighters in the translation debate. I like Bibles based on the TR, because the critics haven't trashed it. From what I've just recently read, the BMT looks good (but a BLT sounds better).

I understand the quotations of the Old to New because the new was written in Greek, and that would have been the easiest for the writers to use, and the differences would be a minor quibble. I would just rather base my translation out of something in the original language. Now if I could read Greek, the LXX would be fine...

 

[rambone]

You may be able to scripturally support your eternally wrathful statement, but not with Psalm 7:11 which is clearly an expression of God's interaction with the wicked in chronos as witnessed by the "every day". My version renders the verse "God is a righteous, strong, and patient judge, NOT bringing down wrath every single day". Regardless, if one reads the various English versions, one will not come to your conclusion concerning God's "wrath".

You said I implied that God changes and I say I do not. My theology has no difficulty with an immutable, unchanging God. I'm glad God doesn't change.

Unless you are implying God is NOT eternally wrathful (or even temporarily wrathful??), then I think the point was made.

Did Jesus keep the law when it came to punishing sinners?

When it comes to the wrath of God towards sin, is that only the Father or is it all 3 persons of the Trinity?

Jesus felt all the eternal indignation and wrath toward sin, every bit as much as His Father. However it is His prerogative to delay the execution of that wrath until the appointed time. Scripture says it is "appointed for man to die once, and then comes judgement" (Hebrews 9:27).

Jesus's message warned of His coming wrath (Luke 21:23, for example) and eternal Hell. It was His divine right to use the extent of His power to punish sinners, but to delay it didn't make Him a lawbreaker. First He wanted people to have time to repent and abide in a new covenant, not to mention fulfilling the work of our redemption on the cross.

If you have any doubt that Jesus is wrathful, read of the "wrath of the Lamb" spelled out in the breaking of the seven seals (Rev. 6), then the seven trumpet judgements (Rev. 8-11), then the seven bowl judgements (Rev. 16). Observe that Jesus Himself bears a sword and makes war (Matt 10:34; Rev. 2:12 and 2:16).

The Holy Spirit agrees, too. He is the voice of the prophets and the author of Scripture, and He has therein included hundreds of passages about wrath and judgement.

All three persons of the Trinity are in perfect accord. Yes, Jesus kept the law, all the laws. Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[foszoe]

But, I'm still left wondering about the forgiveness/punishment dichotomy.

Going back to your language point, is this a temporal thing? One can be forgiven only AFTER punishment - not at the same time?

I am addressing this more to the Catholics than the Protestants, at least the latter part about confession. I just want to note sins can be forgiven by asking God directly, but to take that view of confession is incomplete and lacking in understanding of what is accomplished by confession. In fact, I only call it confession because thats what is popular in the west. In reality, it should be called the Mystery of Reconciliation which is a more apt description for it is a healing of a rift not a transactional rite.

I would ask is this dichotomy necessary? Must all sin be punished? Why? Can a sin be forgiven without being punished? Is it necessary that a forgiven sin be punished?

Going on just my gut, I would say all sin must be forgiven, but I don't think I could say all sin must be punished.

I think of temporal punishment this way. If I commit a murder....and I am convicted and sentenced to life imprisionment. The victims family forgives me but that doesn't change the fact that I "do the time".

Purgatory is an extension of this basic reasoning. God is the "victim", using the word loosely, and until i am sufficiently punished, even though I have been forgiven, if I do the crime I must do the time.

However when God forgives, it is unconditional for that is love and God is love. A state of communion and being which is damaged by our sin is healed. This happens not by punishment but by love. If I fall into the same sin, I don't ask forgiveness for all previous occurrences of that sin, but for this occurrence only. Otherwise the result is madness.

This plays into Confession. As an Orthodox, I go to confession, and I am forgiven when the priest says the prayer of absolution, if i am sincere in my confession. Now he may tell me to to do something to create in me a penitent heart, but I am forgiven. There is no temporal punishment required by God. Now that doesn't mean I will not suffer any. My life with my family can create temporal suffering due to sins. In reality all the sin in the world has created an environment I would argue that is a consequence and sort of a temporal punishment for all those alive on the planet Earth. However, there is no concept of the above though that I must do the time for divine satisfaction.

For the Catholic. If a Catholic goes to confession and receives absolution and performs the prescribed penance, is the Catholic still obligated to a temporal punishment?

I believe that unrepentant sin inflicts suffering on the unrepentant sinner, but not one who repents of sin. And I am not saying one says a prayer and is forgiven type of repentence, an action. I am saying a true repentence which means turning away from sin and towards God. Being penitent.

 

[historian]

Orthodox have confession? Sorry, not fully versed on Orthodoxy, so I wasn't familiar with this.

(adds to list of reasons to stay Protestant )

 

[T.Lex]

just want to note sins can be forgiven by asking God directly, but to take that view of confession is incomplete and lacking in understanding of what is accomplished by confession. In fact, I only call it confession because thats what is popular in the west. In reality, it should be called the Mystery of Reconciliation which is a more apt description for it is a healing of a rift not a transactional rite.

That's what we technically call it, too. Well, the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And, the priest is optional. A good idea, but not required.

I would ask is this dichotomy necessary? Must all sin be punished? Why? Can a sin be forgiven without being punished? Is it necessary that a forgiven sin be punished?

I think we agree, although the mechanics of it might part ways. All sins CAN be forgiven. Some sins are worse than others (rambone's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding). All sins must be purified before admittance to Heaven.

Going on just my gut, I would say all sin must be forgiven, but I don't think I could say all sin must be punished.

I tend to agree, with the goal being to sin as little as we can.

For the Catholic. If a Catholic goes to confession and receives absolution and performs the prescribed penance, is the Catholic still obligated to a temporal punishment?

Probably not. The whole "sin you forgive here is forgiven up there" thing. (John 20:23.)

I believe that unrepentant sin inflicts suffering on the unrepentant sinner, but not one who repents of sin. And I am not saying one says a prayer and is forgiven type of repentence, an action. I am saying a true repentence which means turning away from sin and towards God. Being penitent.

Agreed.

 

[foszoe]

You said I implied that God changes and I say I do not. My theology has no difficulty with an immutable, unchanging God. I'm glad God doesn't change.

Unless you are implying God is NOT eternally wrathful (or even temporarily wrathful??), then I think the point was made.

I asked a question. You said God was eternally wrathful and used Psalm 7:11 as a proof text. I am asserting that your proof text made no reference to God being eternally wrathful, requested you to revisit the text in question, either agree or disaagree with me and say why. Then I requested other scriptural texts in lieu of doing this.

Jesus felt all the eternal indignation and wrath toward sin, every bit as much as His Father. However it is His prerogative to delay the execution of that wrath until the appointed time. Scripture says it is "appointed for man to die once, and then comes judgement" (Hebrews 9:27).

So it is the perogative of the 2nd person of the trinity to delay the execution of the wrath of God? I don't see that in 9:27. I do see it as speaking of Christ sacrifice reconciling God and man, but I don't see the word wrath in the passage. I would be interested in how you scripturally support this interpretation of the passage.

Jesus's message warned of His coming wrath (Luke 21:23, for example) and eternal Hell. It was His divine right to use the extent of His power to punish sinners, but to delay it didn't make Him a lawbreaker. First He wanted people to have time to repent and abide in a new covenant, not to mention fulfilling the work of our redemption on the cross.

If you have any doubt that Jesus is wrathful, read of the "wrath of the Lamb" spelled out in the breaking of the seven seals (Rev. 6), then the seven trumpet judgements (Rev. 8-11), then the seven bowl judgements (Rev. 16). Observe that Jesus Himself bears a sword and makes war (Matt 10:34; Rev. 2:12 and 2:16).

The Holy Spirit agrees, too. He is the voice of the prophets and the author of Scripture, and He has therein included hundreds of passages about wrath and judgement.

All three persons of the Trinity are in perfect accord. Yes, Jesus kept the law, all the laws. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I read Luke 21:23, and saw the word "wrath". I didn't see an indication that this was the wrath of Jesus or a divine wrath in the text itself. Why do you reach this conclusion? I see it in the context of a passage regarding the destruction of Jerusalem which happened in AD 70??

The Revelation readings are quite extensive and require more time than available right now, but I will look at them.

My question to you is, how do you interpret God's wrath? I am most interested in how you differentiate it from human wrath? Specifically, how is your interpretation of God's wrath avoiding the anthropomorphizing of God.

How did Jesus keep the law by touching those with leprosy or not stoning the adulterous woman or other examples which you may wish to cite?

 

[foszoe]

Orthodox have confession? Sorry, not fully versed on Orthodoxy, so I wasn't familiar with this.

(adds to list of reasons to stay Protestant )

But but a strict sola scripturist would have to confess his sins to others! Besides I told you in the intro not to read that post

That's the problem with you Protestants! Never willing to submit to authority....um wait....thats what the Catholics say to us. Perhaps I should go nuance this post into 5 pages too.

nah ....

On a serious note, My wife and I would appreciate prayers from all of you, Calvinist, Catholic, Armenian, etc as we are working our way through some difficult times, with God's help. So all you, rambone included! If I offend by something i say I ask forgiveness and prayers. Should have some answers in 2-3 weeks.

 

[foszoe]

In general on this whole wrath vs sin vs punishment thing. I would like to make a general statement and hear opinions.

All actions have conseqences, sins lead to negative consequences. Virtuous actions lead to positive transformations. This is why Orthodox and Catholics sometimes get accused of works salvation.

i think I am too simple minded. I see it simply. I do not do well at applying logic to Theology, but I am going to try.

If God does not change
If People experience the wrath of God
If People experience the punishment of God
If People experience the love of God

Then it must be the People's experience of God that is changing.

If it is experience of the People that is changing
If God is love
Then it is the experience of God's love by the People that changes.



Go ahead and critique my logic, even better restate it so it is a proper argument for the point you know I am trying to make. I hope you see my overarching point in spite of my horrible logic. I am aware of only the statement God is love being biblical.

If I work at giving what i have to the poor or donating time to a charity, or reading my bible and prayiing, I am redeeming the time and the more I do these works the more I am transformed into being Christ like and in so doing, I become more aware of God's love through communion with God.

If I give myself over to my passions, anger, hatred, lust, then the suffering of the conseqences of these sins are felt as punishment, but are in reality still an experience of God's love but in a state of broken communion.

My limited understanding of Calvinism says the human being never really changes. The human being is still totally depraved and full of sin with no hope of transformation, only forgiveness.

The above I am not holding out, strictly speaking, as Orthodox doctrine for we would speak of God as Essence and Energies, roughly parallel with trancendence and immanence, but Orthodox theology would hold the Energies are uncreated and the West would hold they are created for, in the west, the energies are sometimes equated with grace(s).

 

[T.Lex]

Prayers outbound, my friend.