Melkite
Member
Gender: 
Posts: 4,211
|
|
« Reply #140 on: July 21, 2012, 10:29:PM » |
|
1. Do you admit that some of the people that Paul addresses will make it to heaven? If so, then you believe in the elect -- those that go to heaven.
Probably, but we don't know, and it has nothing to do with the context of the passage.
2. Do you admit that some the people that Paul addresses will freely choose to do the sins he warns about? (Keep in mind that Paul is addressing all of us).
Probably, but we don't know, and it has nothing to do with the context of the passage.
Do you agree that those who die this way will not be saved? If so, then you have the justified who have fallen. They don't go to heaven, and they are not elect.
The two groups are different. And the two groups are "there".
The point I was trying to make was, the context has nothing to do with the groups that you say were there. You said that this passage was proof that there is a group of elect that is not coterminous with a group of justified. Whether both groups are being spoken to in the passage is irrelevant. Because the passage does not specifically have to do with either, nor is either specifically referenced, this passage contains no proof, nor even suggestion, that such divergence exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but this passage doesn't speak to it, anymore than it speaks to whether the elect ate figs that morning and the eventual reprobate ate bananas. It does not prove what you are trying to make it prove. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 10:30:PM by Melkite »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
James02
Member
Gender:
Posts: 6,935
|
|
« Reply #141 on: July 21, 2012, 10:36:PM » |
|
Probably? You are now being insincere.
You asked is there evidence that the "Justified" are distinct from the "Elect" in scripture. I showed you this, but to be precise the elect are always justified at the point of their death.
So another question. Is it possible for the justified to sin mortally and go to hell? If so, then the justified are not all elect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"
"We can not guarantee success. We can only deserve it."
"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things. What if: all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"
And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.
|
|
|
Melkite
Member
Gender:
Posts: 4,211
|
|
« Reply #142 on: July 22, 2012, 01:28:AM » |
|
Probably? You are now being insincere.
You asked is there evidence that the "Justified" are distinct from the "Elect" in scripture. I showed you this, but to be precise the elect are always justified at the point of their death.
So another question. Is it possible for the justified to sin mortally and go to hell? If so, then the justified are not all elect.
No, what you showed me was St. Paul warning the elect, i.e., the Christians in Ephesus, that they could lose their salvation. He didn't anywhere state or even imply that some of them were safe from ever losing their salvation. It is possible for anyone to sin mortally and go to hell. In the passage you quoted, the elect St. Paul was referring to was the entire body of Christians at Ephesus. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Walty
Member..
Gender:
Posts: 14,503
|
|
« Reply #143 on: July 22, 2012, 05:10:AM » |
|
I feel bad. I got caught up in other things and totally forgot about and missed this thread.
Have we gotten anywhere? Melkite, are you feeling that you understand the Thomist position any better than you did before? Do you still find it as objectionable as you used to?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes;
she is tolerant in practice because she loves.
The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe;
they are intolerant in practice because they do not love. Timorem Domini docebo vos. |
|
|
Melkite
Member
Gender:
Posts: 4,211
|
|
« Reply #144 on: July 22, 2012, 07:03:AM » |
|
Melkite, are you feeling that you understand the Thomist position any better than you did before? Do you still find it as objectionable as you used to?
Not really, but a little bit, and yes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walty
Member..
Gender:
Posts: 14,503
|
|
« Reply #145 on: July 22, 2012, 07:31:AM » |
|
Melkite, are you feeling that you understand the Thomist position any better than you did before? Do you still find it as objectionable as you used to?
Not really, but a little bit, and yes. Haha. Well, good. Then I've missed nothing! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes;
she is tolerant in practice because she loves.
The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe;
they are intolerant in practice because they do not love. Timorem Domini docebo vos. |
|
|
Silouan
Member
Gender:
Posts: 505
|
|
« Reply #146 on: July 22, 2012, 05:43:PM » |
|
The whole church didn't accept Chalcedon Yes it did.  The Copts, Jacobites and Armenians were part of the Church prior to Chalcedon. They didn't accept it, so since they were part of the Church, by the Orthodox definition, Chalcedon is not ecumenical. And yet the Chalcedonian Orthodox believe it is. By the same token, the Latins could say, Florence was ecumenical, and the moment the Greeks refused to accept it, they stepped out of the Church, and since the whole church accepted it, it's ecumenical. When they ceased to be Orthodox they were no longer part of the Church. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 We will not remove the age-old landmarks which our fathers have set, but we shall keep the tradition we have received. For if we begin to erode the foundations of the Church even a little, in no time at all the whole edifice will fall to the ground. St John of Damascus |
|
|
Melkite
Member
Gender:
Posts: 4,211
|
|
« Reply #147 on: July 22, 2012, 06:46:PM » |
|
When they ceased to be Orthodox they were no longer part of the Church.
When did they cease to be Orthodox? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Silouan
Member
Gender:
Posts: 505
|
|
« Reply #148 on: July 22, 2012, 06:54:PM » |
|
When they ceased to be Orthodox they were no longer part of the Church.
When did they cease to be Orthodox? When they rejected orthodoxy and left the Church. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We will not remove the age-old landmarks which our fathers have set, but we shall keep the tradition we have received. For if we begin to erode the foundations of the Church even a little, in no time at all the whole edifice will fall to the ground. St John of Damascus |
|
|
Melkite
Member
Gender:
Posts: 4,211
|
|
« Reply #149 on: July 22, 2012, 09:16:PM » |
|
When they ceased to be Orthodox they were no longer part of the Church.
When did they cease to be Orthodox? When they rejected orthodoxy and left the Church. I trust it's not lost on you that you're making a circular argument? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
