tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post111082276110294586..comments2023-06-19T11:08:54.896-04:00Comments on Crimson Catholic: Out of his depthCrimsonCatholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1111299616353401882005-03-20T01:20:00.000-05:002005-03-20T01:20:00.000-05:00"Compare how the scriptures vary from what the men..."Compare how the scriptures vary from what the men you follow are told. Compare how allegedly infallible men you follow have contradicted each other. The answer is plain for someone who seeks the truth."<BR/><BR/>I agree that the answer is plain for someone who seeks the truth. Someone who seeks the truth sees that Scripture supports historical Christianity. Someone who seeks the truth recognizes that the "contradictions" allegedly identified by skeptics in both Scripture and Tradition are based on worship of human reason above everything (including God). Someone who seeks the truth inevitably returns home to the successors of the Apostles. We can only pray that God will one say give everyone the gift of seeking the truth. Peace.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1111073824756582512005-03-17T10:37:00.000-05:002005-03-17T10:37:00.000-05:00It's more like I'm following the witness of the ho...It's more like I'm following the witness of the holy Fathers then my own autonomous authority. It sounds like to me anyway, you don't know what a church Father is.<BR/><BR/>If you think I'm saying these men's writings are canonical, of course not. But to say that they aren't inspired you are dead wrong. There is no higher inspiration then vision of God's uncreate glory, that's what makes one a theologian in the fullest sense like a Gregory Palamas, Symeon the theologian, or a Maximus the Confessor--which is why you don't have any since your views are rationalistic, even if buttressed with divine preemption, about what you THINK about God. This is why you can't have formal doctrine. Doctrines are just the views of men, since they are built on the back of what you think about Him and not grounded in experiencing and being united with the very BEING of God: God's energies. Every doctrine is in PRINCIPLE revisable because of this. There just isn't formal doctrine that can be infallible.<BR/><BR/>Your ideas are also Arian, since all you can be united with are voluntarist *created* relations--which would also say something about how you view revelation in the first place.<BR/><BR/>DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1111022378775123622005-03-16T20:19:00.000-05:002005-03-16T20:19:00.000-05:00Sigh.....Once again someone has decided on their o...Sigh.....<BR/><BR/>Once again someone has decided on their own authority that non-inspired authors should be held on the same plane as inspired Scripture. Despite a lengthly quote, you are wrong to assume that these other men should be follwed the same as Scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110994605712151532005-03-16T12:36:00.000-05:002005-03-16T12:36:00.000-05:00Scripture is not an end in itself, but it is a mea...Scripture is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end. Strictly speaking vision of God IS revelation and that end, and scripture is ABOUT that revelation. That is why those who have experienced God's glory can guide you to theoria but can never describe what theoria is because there is absolutely no similarity between the created and uncreated and that "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him"--St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus) Second Theological Oration, IV. Scripture is clear and perspicuous to those who have co-operated with God in purifing their heart and have attained theoria. Gregory the Theologian points to the revelatory experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints in order to set the theological grid that confutes the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, etc., but also his own same experience as well: What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and initiates, and fellow lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold of God, and thus I went up into the Mount, drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I scarcely saw the back parts of God; although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the first and unmingled Nature known to itself, to the Trinity I mean; not that which abideth within the first veil, and is hidden by the Cherubim; but only that (Nature), which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the Glory which is manifested among the creatures, which It has produced and governs. For these are the Back Parts of God, which are after Him, as tokens of Himself..." (Second Theological Oration, III)<BR/><BR/>This is why someone like an Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Maximus are safe guides and equal in authority to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul the apostle, John the apostle, and all the rest. They've had the same experience of the divine uncreated glory.<BR/><BR/>Those who know nothing of this are simply quack doctors.<BR/><BR/>Daniel JonesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110936621266851762005-03-15T20:30:00.000-05:002005-03-15T20:30:00.000-05:00Johnathon says to me:"I imagine that you are putti...Johnathon says to me:<BR/><BR/>"I imagine that you are putting your faith in fallible men without knowing it, which is a far worse thing." <BR/><BR/>I agree that putting you faith in infallible men without knowing it is a far worse thing. So which of the two of us is putting our faith in men instead of God? Pray that God will help you to see the truth, then read the scriptures. Compare how the scriptures vary from what the men you follow are told. Compare how allegedly infallible men you follow have contradicted each other. The answer is plain for someone who seeks the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110844797918915182005-03-14T18:59:00.000-05:002005-03-14T18:59:00.000-05:00James:
Thanks!
-- Jonathan :-)
Anonymous:
"I am g...James:<br />Thanks!<br />-- Jonathan :-)<br /><br />Anonymous:<br />"I am going to put my faith in the hands of an infallible God, rather than the writings or traditions of fallible men."<br /><br />I imagine that you are putting your faith in fallible men without knowing it, which is a far worse thing.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110843589536066522005-03-14T18:39:00.000-05:002005-03-14T18:39:00.000-05:00The question is wether you will use the Theopneust...The question is wether you will use the <I>Theopneustos</I> writings of God to interpret the writings of men, or the writings of men to interpret the <I>Theopneustos</I> writings of God. I am going to put my faith in the hands of an infallible God, rather than the writings or traditions of fallible men.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110843011852091952005-03-14T18:30:00.000-05:002005-03-14T18:30:00.000-05:00White: None of those things change you, none of th...White: None of those things change you, none of them conform you to the image of Christ. <BR/><BR/>Prejean: And this statement is the best elucidation of exactly why White is completely and totally outside of the scope of historical (or even Biblical) Christianity. Heck, this is outside the scope of the Reformation. In fact, the liturgical and Eucharistic worship is exactly the context of the Body of Christ in which the Word conforms you to the image of Christ. White has essentially given up everything necessary to give the Word meaning, and thus, he has stripped the Word of its life.<BR/><BR/>These men do not know anything about recapitulation. As the One Logos recapitulates the many logoi, so do we recaptitulate these virtues through prayer, purification of the heart, and the sacraments of the Church. Their idea of Grace is a voluntarist relation that is cashed out in terms of appropriation. It can either be viewed as Nestorian or Monophysitism depending on how they understand that union. It is also Arian, since grace is not the very being of God. Recapitulation cuts at the heart of any doctrine of Limited Atonement.<BR/><BR/>For Svendsen: Is the nous a person? What is an hypostasis Eric?<BR/><BR/>DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8971239.post-1110838779109797732005-03-14T17:19:00.000-05:002005-03-14T17:19:00.000-05:00Dear Jason,I really enjoyed your interaction with ...Dear Jason,<BR/><BR/>I really enjoyed your interaction with Mr. White's comments. I had no idea he viewed Christian history in such a jaundiced manner. I'm plodding through the entire patristic corpus at the present moment (At least what's translated into English) and I have not found these writings to be a jumbled hodgepodge of contradictory notions such as White portrays them. Conspiracy theory history is a good term for that kind of benighted approach to the faith. Why bother calling Christianity historic in the first place?<BR/><BR/>I love reading you. Keep up the good work!<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/><BR/>James Caputo:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com