The Town of Odyssey

Hey everyone, I have read a lot of Theology from the Reformers so if you have any questions about Theology ask them and I'll answer them.

How, in your understanding of Scripture, is the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility resolved?

I was just reading about the idea of predestination in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

John Calvin wrote:By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.

God has created us with an end in mind, to that end we have a God given nature. We are given a choice in all things but our nature dictates our decision, we cannot go against our nature.

Do you believe that every single action of man is predestined by God (e.g., my choice of shirt this morning), or does He primarily work through the moral choices that we make according to the limitations of our wills?

I think God primarily works through the moral choices we make according to our nature. Your choice of shirt, unless it has some curse words or horrible image on it, is usually morally neutral.

What, if any, link does Philo's "Logos of God" have to do with the use of "logos" in the Prologue of St. John's Gospel?

What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?

Margaret Thatcher wrote:What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?

The question is backwards, it should be: "what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?"
The answer to which is when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine , he imposed Hellenistic ideology upon all of his lands. Though his reasons were not evil, he simply wanted unity among his holdings. The imposing of Hellenistic culture, however, would have exposed Jews to the ideals and meanings of Greek thinkers and language. Ergo it is safe to assume that St. John would chose a Hellenistic (Koine) Greek term very cautiously. Also, it could be argued that he would have been versed in the thoughts of Philo and known his "Logos of God" and may even slightly allude to Philo in his own writings (with some adjustment and enhancement of the ideal). Ie, when the Logos became flesh, because Philo's logos was an ideal reality, not a person. But Jesus is the ideal person, and an ideal person would lead to an ideal reality.

As Tertullian says in A Treatise on the Soul "From God you may learn about that which you hold of God; but from none else will you get this knowledge." I don't think that what we know of the Logos of God would come from such a person as Philo, I think instead John would have gotten this knowledge from God.

What are your thoughts on the Nicene Creed?

Would you classify yourself as infralapsarian or supralapsarian? And if you have an opinion, why do you choose one over the other?

I think all of the councils were called and run by the Roman emperors who were using the corrupted church to further their own political agendas. Especially after Constantine, probably before, the church was wholly corrupted until the Reformers came along.

I would classify myself as a infralapsarian, Ephesians 1 makes it clear to me that we were predestined, both for grace and destruction, before the creation of the world.

I'm not sure that that answers my question. Both sides would say that there were parties predestined to grace and destruction before creation, but the question is, where in the theoretical eternal council of God did that selection take place? Was it before He ordained the Fall, making it utterly of His sovereign and groundless choice, or was it after the ordinance of the Fall, in order that all mankind would be viewed as equally sinful in His eyes before He chose to save some?

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I had thought supralapsarian put the ordaining of the Fall after Creation, hence why I thought my answer was sufficient. Having cleared that up I would say before both Creation and the ordaining of the Fall.

At what point do you think the church fell away from "correct" teachings, after the Apostles?

So then you would be a supralapsarian, correct?

Paul was warning of false teachers even in his time, I would say that man made traditions were introduced almost from the start but that it really came to a head with Constantine. He was the one who brought many pagan elements into Christianity.

You are correct, it's so easy to mix those two up

What were these pagan elements? And how did the reformers get back to the uncorrupted Church?

The pope as a religious leader akin to the Roman emperor, Constantine was the head of the various pagan religions and he just made himself the head of the Christian religion. The use of images of Christ and Mary, akin to pagan art of the time, despite clear Biblical commandments against the use of such images. The overemphasis of Mary in worship to make pagans used to worshiping goddesses more comfortable, now I have read the threads here and I know that you don't worship Mary but I feel like there is an undue amount of emphasis placed on her in the Catholic church. The emphasis on Saints, again I know you don't worship them, that borders on pantheism. The introduction of a hierarchy instead of the home churches and local congregations of the New Testament.

All of those were a result of placing man made traditions above the Bible. The Reformers returned to the uncorrupted church when they returned to the Bible alone.