advice wanted

[ProdigalSeeker]

What if I believe in some beliefs in a denomination, and some of another denomination, yet there aren't any denominations that have everything that I agree with. I am thinking about issues like "real presence" "inerrancy of bible" "apostolic succession", that type.

What's your input?

Thanks family.

[Edial]

What if I believe in some beliefs in a denomination, and some of another denomination, yet there aren't any denominations that have everything that I agree with. I am thinking about issues like "real presence" "inerrancy of bible" "apostolic succession", that type.

What's your input?

Thanks family.
In my opinion, if one believes everything that their denomination teaches, one believes that they have the entire truth and other denoms err in some of their teachings.

The Bible however, presents that the Bride (the church) is not perfect yet and is in the process of being made perfect.

EPH 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingher by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Note in v.27 He is yet to present the Bride to Himself as holy and blameless. That will be at the marriage of the Lamb, in the future.

If the total invisible church is not yet perfect, there definitely is no denomination that is perfect in their walk and teachings.

I disagree with the Lutheran church on some things that are normative in their daily teachings.
Amillenianism, as an example.
I find this teaching lacking any scriptural foundation.

I also disagree that the pope is the Antichrist - no scriptural foundation to state that.

I believe one could lose salvation, yet cannot lose personal justification once he is justified by God.

I am certain I could find some other things.

Yet I find the Lutheran understanding of the Communion elements as a middle ground between symbolic and physically transformed, as the most scriptural understanding.

Thanks,
Ed

[ProdigalSeeker]

I agree with what you said, would you be able to clarify this... interested.

I believe one could lose salvation, yet cannot lose personal justification once he is justified by God.

What then, would be criteria for deciding which denom you really belong in. Agreeing with a majority of the doctrine?

Thanks!

[Edial]

I agree with what you said, would you be able to clarify this... interested.

I believe one could lose salvation, yet cannot lose personal justification once he is justified by God.
In most of the cases in the Bible, the terms salvation and personal justification are synonymous.
But not in all the cases.

In some cases, the Bible presents salvation as a lifetime process.
Personal justification however, is presented as a certain point in time when one is proclaimed justified by God, like in Abraham's case.

(Now there is a difference between a personal justification and a general justification. I am talking about the personal justification only).

Salvation is a process when God starts drawing a person towards Him.

Infant baptism is one of the means when God is doing that. The grace of God is upon that infant.
That is why Lutherans say, if a baptized infant dies, he/she goes to heaven, because he/she died under God's grace (God's smile).

Now, this infant grows up and receives Christ by an adult and sober faith.
That adult is now justified (like Abraham) and cannot "lose" that justification, since it is the Judge who justified that person.
And once the Judge proclaims the judgement, it stays.
Some might object: "What is that adult rejects Christ after being personally justified?".
It is impossible, since Christ already lives in that person and influences him/her from within.
(Rejecting Christ does not necessarily mean to "disown" him under pressure as Peter did, but to reject him based on disagreeing with his mission, as Judas did).

Let's say the infant grows up and rejects Christ with a sober and adult "faith".
That adult now loses his/her salvation that was imputed during the baptism.


What then, would be criteria for deciding which denom you really belong in. Agreeing with a majority of the doctrine?

Thanks!
This really is a great question.

I would present my personal view.

I take the Bible as a written foundation for Christianity.
It was written in ink on paper, so we could refer to it for an objective guidance.

I believe Christianity consists of the Biblical and Sacramental parts.
Christ works through these.

Traditional churches - EO, RC strayed far away from the Bible. They still believe the "basics" of Christianity, but they believe that their personal teachings are at par or even trump the Bible.
Each also state that they contain the entire truth ... while disagreeing with each other.

Bible-based churches - many of them take the Communion as a purely symbolic representation of Christ body and blood.
I do not think it is Biblical, since Christ presented the Communion as mystery and said "This is my body".

Charismatic churches - these believe in extra-Biblical revelations. If they do, how would one know if what one says is false? Besides, times proved them wrong on many occasions.

The Middle Ground.
Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.
All these have Liberal and Conserbative sects within them.

Concerning the Lutherans.
I do not agree with the Conservative Lutherans on two points - closed Communion and on a point that some believe that they are correct on all the doctrinal things.
Closed Communion (the way it is practiced there) is un-scriptural in my opinion.
Some Conservative synods even do not commune with each other.
I agree with them on about all the other things.

I do not agree with the Liberal Lutherans concerning their rather loose attitude towards the Bible.
Yet I agree with them concerning the Open Communion. It is Biblical.

Currently, I am a member of ELCA (open Communion) while being a member of a conservative ELCA local church.

Thanks,
Ed

[ProdigalSeeker]

There is a lot of wisdom in what you have said. Myself, I find myself agreeing with the ELCA stance on open communion, and yet identify with Episcopalian "ritalistic" (don't know if that is a good word, but it will have to suffice) services.

Let me get your opinion on something if you will, on "real presence"? At which point do the ingredients that make up communion become the flesh and blood of Jesus? At the factory, on the truck (really not trying to be facetious, btw), during consecration. If it is during consecration, wouldn't that mean the Priest/Pastor has some type of divine role in the transformation? If it is truly Christ's presence, wouldn't it be that way from the ingredients to final product?

There is a great South Park episode, that deals with confusion this topic brings:

Sister Ann : Now let me explain how communion works. The priest will give you this round cracker and he will say, "The body of Christ" and then you eat it.
-- Jesus was made of crackers?
No.
-- But, crackers are his body?
Yes. In the book of Mark, Jesus distributed bread and said, "Eat this for it is my body".
-- So we won't go to hell as long as we eat crackers?
No, no, no, no.
-- Well, what are we eating then?
The body of Christ.
-- No, no, I get it. Jesus wanted us to eat him, but he didn't want us to be cannibals, so he turned himself into crackers and then told people to eat him.
No.
-- No?
-- Well, I can't whistle if I eat too many crackers.
Look, all you have to know is that when the priest gives you the cracker, you eat it. Okay?
-- Okay.
And then, you will drink a very small amount of wine, for that is the blood of Christ.
-- Ah, come on now. This is just getting silly.
Eric, do you want to go to hell?
-- No.
Then stop questioning me.

[Edial]

There is a lot of wisdom in what you have said. Myself, I find myself agreeing with the ELCA stance on open communion, and yet identify with Episcopalian "ritalistic" (don't know if that is a good word, but it will have to suffice) services..
Oh, I also like liturgical services.
I forgot to mention that the ELCA church that I attend is fully liturgical.

Let me get your opinion on something if you will, on "real presence"? At which point do the ingredients that make up communion become the flesh and blood of Jesus? At the factory, on the truck (really not trying to be facetious, btw), during consecration.
... If it is truly Christ's presence, wouldn't it be that way from the ingredients to final product?
During consecration.
Yet in the Lutheran understanding the elements do not physically change into the body and blood of Christ, like the RC and EO teaches.
It is still physical bread and physical wine.
Christ is just somehow present there, since he plainly said "This is my body".
Cannot explain this mystery.

If it is during consecration, wouldn't that mean the Priest/Pastor has some type of divine role in the transformation? ... .
No. Pastor is just asking for Christ's presence.

Now, do the elements get changed each and every time that Pastor is asking?
Lutherans say "Yes". Even in cases if the Pastor himself is a non-believer.

I however, am not certain.
There are some absurd practices in some of the Lutheran churches (God is called Mother, as an example).
I find it hard to believe that Christ's presence is there in such communion practices.

Unless someone could show me scripturally that Christ is present each and every time even at the most heretical communion practice, I have no choice but to doubt it.

In my church I believe that Christ is present every time.

When there is a normative communion practice, God would honor the request (or the invokation) of the Pastor.

There is a great South Park episode, that deals with confusion this topic brings:

Sister Ann : Now let me explain how communion works. The priest will give you this round cracker and he will say, "The body of Christ" and then you eat it.
-- Jesus was made of crackers?
No.
-- But, crackers are his body?
Yes. In the book of Mark, Jesus distributed bread and said, "Eat this for it is my body".
-- So we won't go to hell as long as we eat crackers?
No, no, no, no.
-- Well, what are we eating then?
The body of Christ.
-- No, no, I get it. Jesus wanted us to eat him, but he didn't want us to be cannibals, so he turned himself into crackers and then told people to eat him.
No.
-- No?
-- Well, I can't whistle if I eat too many crackers.
Look, all you have to know is that when the priest gives you the cracker, you eat it. Okay?
-- Okay.
And then, you will drink a very small amount of wine, for that is the blood of Christ.
-- Ah, come on now. This is just getting silly.
Eric, do you want to go to hell?
-- No.
Then stop questioning me.
Unfortunately this South Park skit has wisdom in it by presenting the misunderstanding that regular folks have concerning Communion.

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Regarding ProdigalSeeker's question of when the elements used in Holy Communion become the body and blood of Christ: First, if the question is framed in terms of the elements "becoming" body and blood, as Lutherans we would say that they don't. The notion of the elements "becoming" Christ's body and blood is a Roman Catholic notion that is foreign to a Lutheran understanding of the sacrament.

In Christ's own words, he simply tells us "this is my body," not "this becomes my body." To say that there is a point in time at which the elements become Christ's body and blood is to say more than what is given to us in Scripture. In other words, it's a mystery, and the notion of rationalizing away that mystery by identifying a temporal point of becoming is nothing more than the invention of Roman Catholic theologians who were too enamored with Scholastic philosophy for their own good. It was their attempt to make sense of something that our rational minds really can't fully make sense of, but it came at the price of saying far more than scripture has to say on the matter.

So, at what point does it become true that "this is [Christ's] body"? When the words are spoken? When the host is placed in our hands? When it touches our lips? From the moment the yeast rises or the grapes are pressed? It simply isn't given to us to know, and I can see little use in speculating on the matter. Some Lutherans have, historically, been consecrationists (i.e., they believe that Christ is truly present when the words are spoken); others have been receptionists (i.e., they point to the moment that the communicant receives the elements). Some believe that the elements continue to be Christ's body and blood after the distribution is over; others think that's hogwash. In the end, though, the there just doesn't seem to be much at stake in such disagreements.

Finally, regarding Edial's doubts about the efficacy of the words of institution "even at the most heretical communion practice," the reformers themselves did, in fact, condemn the very position that you espouse (in those days it was referred to as Donatism). In technical terms, this was an ex opere operantis understanding of the sacrament; in layman's terms, it was the view that the efficacy of the words stemmed from the worthiness of the celebrant, rather than from God's sure promises. This view has been rejected by Lutheran theologians from the earliest days of the Lutheran church.

Of course, not even the most pious and competent pastor is truly worthy in and of her- or himself to distribute the body and blood of Christ (nor is even the most pious congregation truly worthy in and of themselves to receive it); hence we affirm that even in the hands of scoundrels and heretics, God's word will not return to him empty. Surely there may be other very good reasons not to commune at such altars (e.g., not wanting to offer public support to what you see as their error), but rest assured that even in the midst of the least among us, God's word still has the power to accomplish precisely what God intends to accomplish.

[Edial]

...
Finally, regarding Edial's doubts about the efficacy of the words of institution "even at the most heretical communion practice," the reformers themselves did, in fact, condemn the very position that you espouse (in those days it was referred to as Donatism). In technical terms, this was an ex opere operantis understanding of the sacrament; in layman's terms, it was the view that the efficacy of the words stemmed from the worthiness of the celebrant, rather than from God's sure promises. This view has been rejected by Lutheran theologians from the earliest days of the Lutheran church.

Of course, not even the most pious and competent pastor is truly worthy in and of her- or himself to distribute the body and blood of Christ (nor is even the most pious congregation truly worthy in and of themselves to receive it); hence we affirm that even in the hands of scoundrels and heretics, God's word will not return to him empty. Surely there may be other very good reasons not to commune at such altars (e.g., not wanting to offer public support to what you see as their error), but rest assured that even in the midst of the least among us, God's word still has the power to accomplish precisely what God intends to accomplish.
I appreciate this post. And I do know that Lutherans in the main forum do agree with you.
Now, I am not claiming that God's word cannot accomplish whatever he wants.
What I am wondering is whether he will do it at any call of any Lutheran pastor at any time.

Could you show me scriptural support for what you say?

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

I don't know Ed, something tells me the Lutherans in the main forum wouldn't really agree with me on much of anything! On this particular point, though, I think you're probably right. Now, once I start agreeing with you on open communion, I'm sure I'd lose quite a bit of their support, but that's a different matter!

As far as scriptural support is concerned, I'll offer the following: "For as often as you eat the bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" -- I Corinthians 11:26. I italicized as often as for a reason. Note that it doesn't say as often as the presiding minister is sufficiently orthodox, or as often as he's a pretty good guy, or as often as he's a member of a certain church body. St. Paul doesn't put any restrictions on when Christ is truly present in the sacrament; he simply says as often as we celebrate it--i.e., every time, even when the pastor isn't a Lutheran at all, even when the pastor is an outright scoundrel, or even when the pastor is <hushed tone>a feminist</hushed tone>.

Though not scripture (which is what you asked for), the Lutheran confessions also speak to the Lord's Supper. Article X of the Augsburg Confession gives a broad overview, and Article VII of the Formula of Concord discusses in detail the particular question we're concerned with.

[Edial]

I don't know Ed, something tells me the Lutherans in the main forum wouldn't really agree with me on much of anything! On this particular point, though, I think you're probably right. Now, once I start agreeing with you on open communion, I'm sure I'd lose quite a bit of their support, but that's a different matter!
:)

As far as scriptural support is concerned, I'll offer the following: "For as often as you eat the bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" -- I Corinthians 11:26. I italicized as often as for a reason. Note that it doesn't say as often as the presiding minister is sufficiently orthodox, or as often as he's a pretty good guy, or as often as he's a member of a certain church body. St. Paul doesn't put any restrictions on when Christ is truly present in the sacrament; he simply says as often as we celebrate it--i.e., every time, even when the pastor isn't a Lutheran at all, even when the pastor is an outright scoundrel, or even when the pastor is <hushed tone>a feminist</hushed tone>.

Though not scripture (which is what you asked for), the Lutheran confessions also speak to the Lord's Supper. Article X of the Augsburg Confession gives a broad overview, and Article VII of the Formula of Concord discusses in detail the particular question we're concerned with.
1CO 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1CO 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

OK, vv.23-25 present Paul's description of the original bread and cup that is referred to as "This is My body".

In v.26, by referring to word "this", it is unclear whether Paul is associating his cup with the original cup, or if that word "this" is making a point in distinguishing the cups from each other.

However, in v.27 Paul calls his cup as "the cup of the Lord".
This appears to be a strong evidence for "Paul's" cup and the Lord's cup being the same thing.

And if these are the same, so would be the contents.

And when you say that "as often as" means "always" or "whenever" - I agree with you.

I think you are changing my mind here. :)

Let's say that Christ would be present in the Communion even in the most heretical environment (it would be to their judgement, I understand that).
How do you answer the following?

Is Christ present in the elements during the Baptist Communion, which many of them consider symbolic?

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

Here's a point on which I'd likely disagree with our more conservative sisters and brothers in the main forum: I do believe that the Baptists have the true sacrament, for their benefit and not for their judgment. Wherever the word (in this case, Christ's words of institution) is joined with the elements (bread and wine), the sacrament is there, regardless of the disposition those present have toward it. So, those who are heretical or inhospitable may unworthily eat and drink it to their judgment, while Baptists (who understand it differently and even inadequately) eat and drink it to their benefit, even though they may not know it or understand it. Again, FC VII outlines this view in great detail, that only those who reject Christ are unworthy to receive the sacrament. I hadn't looked at it in at least a few years until this thread popped up; it's been good for me to try to wrap my mind around these issues again!

[TheCosmicGospel]

Hi Ed and Joe,

Ed, do you understand why Luther called the Pope the Anti-christ? It pointed more at his office than himself personally and it was because he put the justification by faith in such jeopardy. Usually it is said without such framework and probably why it rasies as many hackles as it does.

I see more and more the church operating as a political institution. I see closed communion working in that framework. I supported it as a LCMS clergy and now that I am AALC I really don't see much need for. Same Scriptures but the climate is very different.

I just don't see much clear Scriptural support for a clear millenial position. That to me is what the amill position is really about. It is a lot of thin ice that lends itself well to over reaching conclusions on any side.

Thanks for the discussion.

Peace,
Cos

[ProdigalSeeker]

What I wonder is... Jesus spoke in a lot of parables. Isn't it possible, he meant the cup/body as an analogy of what the christain fellowship is all about (the "heart" of it/ the "lifeblood") christians gathering to celebrate and support each other? Why would Christianity be so dependent on flesh eating... are we Aztecs? I agree that Christ's presence is in the communion... in the act of it and in the bread. God is omnipresent, though, so what is that really saying? Christ is also present in the smile of a newborn, but we don't go around eating babies... well most of us don't thankfully. :D

[Edial]

What I wonder is... Jesus spoke in a lot of parables. Isn't it possible, he meant the cup/body as an analogy of what the christain fellowship is all about (the "heart" of it/ the "lifeblood") christians gathering to celebrate and support each other?
Just a note...
When Christ spoke in parables, the Bible always stated so, like here ...
MT 13:33 He told them still another parable: ...

Some say that he always spoke in parables, like Harold Camping's teachings in Family Radio. But this is simply not so.


Why would Christianity be so dependent on flesh eating... are we Aztecs?
This has a deeper theological meaning than that.

One of them is that the life is in the blood.
LEV 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life ,,,
That is where life is "located".

Another is that eating flesh is a source of pjysical life. We eat flesh of animals.

Christ is our sacrificial Lamb.

(There are of course other ways of looking at it).


I agree that Christ's presence is in the communion... in the act of it and in the bread. God is omnipresent, though, so what is that really saying? Christ is also present in the smile of a newborn, but we don't go around eating babies... well most of us don't thankfully. :D

Omnipresence of God does not mean that he is present in all things, like rocks, trees, emotions, as a part of their essense. That is Pantheism.

Omnipresence ia when God is present everywhere at once, yet is not a part of this creation.

Communion however, is different.

Christ said, "This is my body" - go figure. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[ProdigalSeeker]

ok.. still a little confused. The dictionary definition of omnipresent is:

Definition: 1. always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation

2. found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere

Whereas the defintion for pantheism, is that all things are God.

I can see where all things can't be God, but as all things were created by God (including 'nukes- for that matter), all things have an element of the "divine spark" in them, no?

[ProdigalSeeker]

One of them is that the life is in the blood.
LEV 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life ,,,
That is where life is "located".

Also, even though we are no longer under "mosiac" law, I thought drinking someones blood is still looked down on, no? I could see where it would be scripturally condoned, "Call no thing clean, which I have made clean".

[Edial]

... Ed, do you understand why Luther called the Pope the Anti-christ? It pointed more at his office than himself personally and it was because he put the justification by faith in such jeopardy. Usually it is said without such framework and probably why it rasies as many hackles as it does.
I understand that.

I also understand that there is THE Antichrist, the "disciples" of THE Antichrist and the spirit of the Antichrist that is working in the "disciples" and the world as we speak.

--- All the instances of direct references to antichristos in the Bible ---

1JN 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

1JN 2:22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son.


1JN 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2JN 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Does the office of papacy believes that Jesus is not from God? (1John 4:2,3) I do not think so.

There were some popes that worshipped the devil.
But the "best" category these individuals might fall under is one of the anti-christs. But not THE Antichrist.

Now, is there a well-concealed plan within the papacy of being the office of the anti-christ?

Theoretically it is possible, since I read the Jesuits' handbook where they are openly encouraged to lie in order to promote a hidden agenda.

But to say that they are the Antichrist?
I do not see it in the Bible.

Yet, maybe good old Martin is correct. :)
And if he is, the time will show. :)

I am not saying I am correct. I just do not see it.

... I see more and more the church operating as a political institution. I see closed communion working in that framework. I supported it as a LCMS clergy and now that I am AALC I really don't see much need for. Same Scriptures but the climate is very different.
OK.
...
I just don't see much clear Scriptural support for a clear millenial position. That to me is what the amill position is really about. It is a lot of thin ice that lends itself well to over reaching conclusions on any side.

Thanks for the discussion.

Peace,
Cos
There is one clear text that I see for a millenial position. Rev.20:1-8.
To me it is very clear.
And I did not yet see one scriptural argument that annulled that text. And I've seen many.

And thank you too Cos, for a discussion ... before the mods drum us out for an "unequally-yoked" debating in this sub-forum. :)

Oh, wait a minute ... I am one of the mods. :doh: :sorry:

[Edial]

One of them is that the life is in the blood.
LEV 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life ,,,
That is where life is "located".

Also, even though we are no longer under "mosiac" law, I thought drinking someones blood is still looked down on, no? I could see where it would be scripturally condoned, "Call no thing clean, which I have made clean".
Drinking physical blood was frowned upon in the NT when referred to the heathen Gentiles that were converting to Christianity.

AC 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

The reason for these was that their consciences would be defiled by doing that, since they were doing all these things when practicing idolatry.

And old memories do not fade easily. :)

In itself, all food is clean, as proclaimed by Christ (and you referred to it above).

Paul further explains concerning such defilement of consciences of "ex-heathens" in Romans.

It is something like an ex-alchoholic better not drink wine, despite of Christ's first miracle of turning the water to wine and having it presented to the "bartender" to be distributed.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

ok.. still a little confused. The dictionary definition of omnipresent is:

Definition: 1. always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation

2. found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere

Whereas the defintion for pantheism, is that all things are God.

I can see where all things can't be God, but as all things were created by God (including 'nukes- for that matter), all things have an element of the "divine spark" in them, no?
Divine spark? Not really.

All matter was created ex-nihilo (meaning from nothing).
God did not create all things out of Himself, but out of nothingness.

Concerning humans.
We we made out of clay. A matter.
However, we were made in God's image.
We are not really certain what that means exactly. :)

But, the spark of divinity that you are referring to in humans is only being referred to in this text when referring to born-again believers in Jesus Christ.
They share in God's divine nature.

2PE 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

(Now, some denominations take this verse and run away with it (the Eastern Orthodox) by saying that when they die they become God with a capital G.
They quickly add that they do not become God in essence, ... but that's too far away from the biblical text).

Also, humans have spirit and soul. These two are certainly spiritual ... yet not divine.

Divinity was in Christ alone.

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

As far as I am aware, the only Judeo-Christian text that explicitly precludes all other possibilities is the deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees. I'm a panentheist and reject ex nihilo creation accounts, and have encountered no scriptural evidence that mandates acceptance of an ex nihilo account of creation. Is it your view that all accounts that reject creation ex nihilo stand against the clear word of scripture; if so, whence do you derive this view? Thanks!

[Edial]

Ed,

As far as I am aware, the only Judeo-Christian text that explicitly precludes all other possibilities is the deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees. I'm a panentheist and reject ex nihilo creation accounts, and have encountered no scriptural evidence that mandates acceptance of an ex nihilo account of creation. Is it your view that all accounts that reject creation ex nihilo stand against the clear word of scripture; if so, whence do you derive this view? Thanks!I did not even know about the 2 Maccabees text.
I was referring to the scriptural texts.
There are probably more.

HEB 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

But let me ask you a question.

How did all things come to be?
And please also give scriptural references conerning your view.
Since we really have no other way to know about such things, but through the Bible,

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

None of the texts you cite seem to mandate an ex nihilo view of the creation of the universe. The passage from Hebrews states only that what ws created was not made out of anything else that was visible (i.e., as I understand it, other mere ordinary matter). It doesn't preclude the possibility that God created the world out of some sort of formless, divine energy (i.e., some sort of spiritual but non-physical substance) through which God now continues to inhabit the universe and all things in it. Such a substance would not have a temporal nature the way that ordinary matter as we know it does, and so would not be created (i.e., brought into existence at some particular time) in the way that ordinary, physical matter came into existence. This was, in fact, the view of many of the church fathers, though many of them who held it derived it more from Platonic philosophy than from scripture.

I'm afraid that scripture simply doesn't say enough about the "how" of the creation of the universe for us to claim that any one particular view is the only possible correct interpretation of the issue. So, in keeping with what scripture says on the matter, I'll just respond to your question about how all things came to be by quoting the philosopher Jerry Fodor (he was responding to a different question, but his answer applies just as well here): "I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody knows, and anybody who says that they do know is lying; the only person who knows is God, and he hasn't told me yet." Since you're right that a clear word from scripture is the only possible source of a definite answer on the question, Fodor's
response is the only one I know of that we can honestly offer. Beyond that, each of us may hold to whatever interpretation is most helpful for us in making sense of what makes no rational sense, but there's just not enough there for any of us to say with certainty that anyone else's interpretation is necessarily wrong.

[Edial]

Ed,

None of the texts you cite seem to mandate an ex nihilo view of the creation of the universe. The passage from Hebrews states only that what ws created was not made out of anything else that was visible (i.e., as I understand it, other mere ordinary matter). It doesn't preclude the possibility that God created the world out of some sort of formless, divine energy (i.e., some sort of spiritual but non-physical substance) through which God now continues to inhabit the universe and all things in it. Such a substance would not have a temporal nature the way that ordinary matter as we know it does, and so would not be created (i.e., brought into existence at some particular time) in the way that ordinary, physical matter came into existence. This was, in fact, the view of many of the church fathers, though many of them who held it derived it more from Platonic philosophy than from scripture.

I'm afraid that scripture simply doesn't say enough about the "how" of the creation of the universe for us to claim that any one particular view is the only possible correct interpretation of the issue. So, in keeping with what scripture says on the matter, I'll just respond to your question about how all things came to be by quoting the philosopher Jerry Fodor (he was responding to a different question, but his answer applies just as well here): "I don't know, and you don't know, and nobody knows, and anybody who says that they do know is lying; the only person who knows is God, and he hasn't told me yet." Since you're right that a clear word from scripture is the only possible source of a definite answer on the question, Fodor's
response is the only one I know of that we can honestly offer. Beyond that, each of us may hold to whatever interpretation is most helpful for us in making sense of what makes no rational sense, but there's just not enough there for any of us to say with certainty that anyone else's interpretation is necessarily wrong.

But the second verse that I quotes states that invisible things were also created.
COL 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

And if invisible things were created, it is impossible that they were created from other invisible things ... since it stated above that invisible things were created.

And Christ is over "all things" in the text below, presuming "visible and invisible" things.

HEB 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ...

And He sustains them by his "powerful word".

And we know from the scriptures that all things were created, visible and invisible.

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

Yes, even the "invisible things" (I take this to mean human souls, angels and such things, since it's not clear to me what else it could be referring to) were created. But from what? When I mentioned "spiritual substance" and "divine energy," what I had in mind was what the Eastern Orthodox view of the Energies of God. Said energies, being truly a part of the Godhead, are understood as being uncreated; they cannot be created because they are a part of God himself.

On this view (which is nowhere, as far as I am aware, directly contradicted by scripture) God created the universe and everything in it out of his own energies--themselves uncreated because they are a part of God himself. It is for this reason that God could look upon his creation and say, "it was good." Christ himself, as you recall, tells us that God alone is good. And yes, God sustains the universe by his powerful word (which, of course, we recognize as having its ultimate fulfillment in Christ's Incarnation).

Paul Tillich, one of the great theologians of our Lutheran tradition, took such a view when he wrote that it is an inadequate conception of God that views him as just one being among all others, differing only in that God is uncreated. On Tillich's view, God is not just a being, but the Ground of Being, the ultimate reality underlying all things in the universe, visible and invisible. Again, I see nothing in scripture that directly contradicts this view or mandates your ex nihilo interpretation of God's role and actions in the creation of the universe. If it were so, it would be news both to me and to the church fathers and theologians who reject your view in favor of the one I have described.

I cannot emphasize this enough though: scripture gives us no clear word on whether either of these views (or another view altogether) is the correct view. Thus let no one mandate acceptance of any particular view on the matter (no matter how convinced he might be in his own mind of its truth) as an article of faith. As far as I can tell, the Gospel itself does not hinge on how we answer this question. So, with a. no clear word from scripture, and b. the Gospel not hanging in the balance, this matter seems to me a paradigmatic example of adiaphora. The best we might be able to do is to defend one view against another by engaging in systematics, but that's not what you asked for; so long as we limit ourselves to the clear teachings of scripture, this matter shall remain in the realm of pious opinion.

I must also note that, though it seems we're destined to continue to disagree on this issue, I find your insistence on taking what scripture says seriously and your willingness to dig into the texts admirable. My purpose in this conversation has not been to dissuade you from your view or prove you wrong in it, but only to discuss some other possibilities that both scripture and tradition seem to accomodate just as well.

[Edial]

Ed,

Yes, even the "invisible things" (I take this to mean human souls, angels and such things, since it's not clear to me what else it could be referring to) were created. But from what? When I mentioned "spiritual substance" and "divine energy," what I had in mind was what the Eastern Orthodox view of the Energies of God. Said energies, being truly a part of the Godhead, are understood as being uncreated; they cannot be created because they are a part of God himself.

On this view (which is nowhere, as far as I am aware, directly contradicted by scripture) God created the universe and everything in it out of his own energies--themselves uncreated because they are a part of God himself. It is for this reason that God could look upon his creation and say, "it was good." Christ himself, as you recall, tells us that God alone is good. And yes, God sustains the universe by his powerful word (which, of course, we recognize as having its ultimate fulfillment in Christ's Incarnation).

Paul Tillich, one of the great theologians of our Lutheran tradition, took such a view when he wrote that it is an inadequate conception of God that views him as just one being among all others, differing only in that God is uncreated. On Tillich's view, God is not just a being, but the Ground of Being, the ultimate reality underlying all things in the universe, visible and invisible. Again, I see nothing in scripture that directly contradicts this view or mandates your ex nihilo interpretation of God's role and actions in the creation of the universe. If it were so, it would be news both to me and to the church fathers and theologians who reject your view in favor of the one I have described.

I cannot emphasize this enough though: scripture gives us no clear word on whether either of these views (or another view altogether) is the correct view. Thus let no one mandate acceptance of any particular view on the matter (no matter how convinced he might be in his own mind of its truth) as an article of faith. As far as I can tell, the Gospel itself does not hinge on how we answer this question. So, with a. no clear word from scripture, and b. the Gospel not hanging in the balance, this matter seems to me a paradigmatic example of adiaphora. The best we might be able to do is to defend one view against another by engaging in systematics, but that's not what you asked for; so long as we limit ourselves to the clear teachings of scripture, this matter shall remain in the realm of pious opinion.

I must also note that, though it seems we're destined to continue to disagree on this issue, I find your insistence on taking what scripture says seriously and your willingness to dig into the texts admirable. My purpose in this conversation has not been to dissuade you from your view or prove you wrong in it, but only to discuss some other possibilities that both scripture and tradition seem to accomodate just as well.
In this case you might be saying that all things were created out of the divine energies that themselves are uncreated and eternal.
Therefore these divine energies are a "part" of God.

You also mentioned that church fathers and the EO thoughts promote that.

But I object on the following grounds.

1. Technically speaking, all Christianity comes from the same written source, the Bible.
The EOs and some church fathers came up with some conclusions that cannot be found in the Bible.
What were their sources, in your opinion?

2. Church fathers were simple people that were saved and commented on Christianity. They were not much different than some of the saints we have now. Same Holy Spirit.
What makes one believe that they were always correct in what they said, especially when other church fathers disagreed with them?

3. EO openly states that their view is very mystical and that their traditions trump the Bible , or to say it more precisely, shape the biblical text in the light of their traditional teachings.
Since we both agree that the Bible should be the primary source of reference, where do the EO views that you accept are found in the text?

The simple understanding of the text is that God said this and that, and things came to being.
Why would we want to claim to know the mechanics of how it came to be?

Also, there are two Hebrew words for making things that are often used while describing Creation.
To make - which is to shape out of something.
Tp create - which excludes the making and shaping process.
Most of creation was "made", yet the foundation of the chaos in Gen.1:1 was created.

Any engineer would say that when he creates something, this is a new idea.
And when he makes something, he designs it, or bases it on of a previous thought or foundation.

We think and an idea comes.
Why can't God's "idea" be manifested in creation, like a stamp?
In this case it is "the word". Or, "Let there be".

If God's thought mainifests itself in creation, why say that creation contains divinity?
Now, God closely maintains that creation.
But so do our engineers when they create something.

Obviously, the purpose of the dialogue is not to change each other's mind. And that is not my purpose here.

What I am saying is that a creation out of nothing is supported by a plain understanding of the text.
To say that all was created out of God's divine energy needs to be scripturally supported.

Again, it is not my intent to escalate this into more than it calls for. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[JoeCatch]

Ed,

I'll address your points one-by-one:

1. As I've already conceded, scripture is silent on the issue of how the creation took place. It's been my understanding that the view you're advocating is that scripture mandates that we accept the ex nihilo view. As I've also conceded, conclusions on matters such as the mode of God's creation are derived primarily from the systematic theologies of the various Christians and communities of Christians who have taken positions on the matter. This is as true of advocates of the ex nihilo view as it is of the advocates of any other. Since I've already admitted as much, it's not clear to me exactly what your objection is here.

2. Yes, the church fathers often disagreed. My point in mentioning that many of them accepted the view of creation out of divine energies was not intended as a proof that this view is correct, as I've already made clear that I'm not purporting to pass anything off as a proof. My point in mentioning the church fathers was merely that the view of creation out of divine energies is not unattested among learned Christians who were very familiar with the scriptures, even in the earliest days of the church. They may have been ordinary men just like you and me, but I'd still take their knowledgeability regarding the scriptures any day over yours or mine or that of any of our contemporaries. Yes, they disagree; no, I don't offer the opinion of those who agree with me as a proof. Again, what exactly is your objection here?

3. As I've already commented, the ex nihilo view is as guilty of going above and beyond what the text actually says as the divine energies view. You keep asking me to offer you proof from the text for the view of creation out of divine energies, and for the third post in a row I'll reiterate that none of the texts address the matter explicitly. This means they don't offer definitive evidence in favor of the ex nihilo view, either. For what it's worth, even we as Lutherans interpret the texts of the bible through a unique lens, namely Christ and Him crucified. This is what makes our theology unique in all of Christianity. We all (even us Protestants and, more specifically than that, Lutherans) shape the biblical texts in light of our respective traditions. The main difference between us and the Eastern Orthodox is that, for whatever reason, Protestants love clinging to a denial of that reality.

On to your unnumbered comments:

Yes, the bible's words on the matter are simple and unelaborated. I find your view peculiar, though, that your particular view of the "how" of it somehow doesn't require scriptural support though everyone else's does. I also find your comparison between God and engineers suspect; engineers don't sustain the existence of their creations moment by moment. The example seems entirely disanalogous to me.

For what it's worth, I find the view of creation out of divine energies (along with creation and sustaining of the universe through the word of God) to evoke a far richer Christology than the ex nihilo view. On this view, something far more profound was going on than the author of the first book of Genesis could grasp, as the fullness of God's revelation in Christ had not yet been manifest. Nevertheless, God's revelation in Christ was implicit (i.e., its manifestation was not yet made fully explicit) from the moment of creation, for this is what it means for God to create through the word, which we know is ultimately revealed in fullness in Christ's Incarnation.

So, your view may have simplicity on its side, but mine has on its side the classic Lutheran teaching that all theology is ultimately Christology, and all the scriptures are rightly understood through the lens of Christ Incarnate, crucified and risen. This, on my view, is scriptural support not in the sense of pulling passages out as proof texts (perhaps the most un-Lutheran way of all of doing theology), but by appealing to what we as Lutherans ultimately believe that the scriptures are in the first place: a revelation of Christ. We gladly leave the ideas about revelations of God's sheer power to the Calvinists. So, between the two of us, each of our view has its respective virtues; whose virtue is superior, who can say?

In the end, though, we're in agreement that this ought not be a church-dividing issue. Since we've both conceded that neither of us will definitely prove his view or dissuade the other, it might be best to leave it at that. I don't know if I've really got much else to say!

- Joe