for theo: questions about Orthodoxy

[Theognosis]

I don't know what you're talking about, Meta. I posted an article about Pope Leo XIII's view of true liberty, which happens to be my view even if I'm Orthodox.

If you disagree with the concept--and I expect that every Protestant would--then it's fine.

[KR Wordgazer]

It's odd to me, Theo, that you would think "every Protestant" would disagree that man has no "natural right" to sin! From my reading of what you posted above, I hear Pope Leo saying that just because one has a civil right to freedom, the exercise of this freedom by sinning is not a "natural" right-- a right we have before God. Our civil freedoms do not extend into the spiritual and moral realms-- if we sin before God, it is God who has the right to judge us, not we who have the right to do whatever we want.

I have heard versions of Pope Leo's ideas taught specifically in my own churches, and I have never been to a Protestant church which did not assert that choosing evil makes you a slave of sin, and not free in the spiritual or moral sense at all-- that civil liberty and liberty before God are two different things.

This does not negate the fact, however, that modern civil liberties mean only God has this right to judge personal sin. Civil governments are to judge civil wrongdoing, not moral sin. I believe this is a right and just distinction. A civil government which tries to regulate personal religion and personal behavior is an oppressive government. One of the difficulties I have with Protestant Fundamentalists is that they appear to lose sight of this distinction. They appear to want the government to be the supporter of their particular faith and to enforce the tenets of that faith civilly. No, part of our liberty before God is that our personal choices cannot be dictated to us by other men. It is in that sense, and that sense only, that we have a "right" to sin. As for choosing our own religion-- that is a very real civil right. I certainly wouldn't want my government making atheism, or Budhhism, or Christianity, a crime! But in the moral/spiritual sense, we all have an obligation to seek the truth and to get as close to it as we can. Our consciences should condemn us if we follow a religion/worldview for any other reason than that we sincerely believe it to be true. But we also must recognize that we are finite beings of finite understanding, that we must go on seeking and learning our whole lives, that we can and will come to new understandings that will change our views in certain areas, and that we can't impose the dictates of our consciences on others.

In any case, you may think Protestants are heretics, Theognosis, but most branches do read and try to follow the Bible. And the Bible does teach about our moral obligation to God and against slavery to sin. We're not quite as far gone as you think.

[Theognosis]

This does not negate the fact, however, that modern civil liberties mean only God has this right to judge personal sin. Civil governments are to judge civil wrongdoing, not moral sin. I believe this is a right and just distinction.

I see no distinction between government, family and person.

A civil government which tries to regulate personal religion and personal behavior is an oppressive government.

I'm not sure if Moses and King David would agree with you.

One of the difficulties I have with Protestant Fundamentalists is that they appear to lose sight of this distinction. They appear to want the government to be the supporter of their particular faith and to enforce the tenets of that faith civilly. No, part of our liberty before God is that our personal choices cannot be dictated to us by other men. It is in that sense, and that sense only, that we have a "right" to sin. As for choosing our own religion-- that is a very real civil right. I certainly wouldn't want my government making atheism, or Budhhism, or Christianity, a crime! But in the moral/spiritual sense, we all have an obligation to seek the truth and to get as close to it as we can. Our consciences should condemn us if we follow a religion/worldview for any other reason than that we sincerely believe it to be true. But we also must recognize that we are finite beings of finite understanding, that we must go on seeking and learning our whole lives, that we can and will come to new understandings that will change our views in certain areas, and that we can't impose the dictates of our consciences on others.

Then you disagree. That's essentially the Protestant model. But I respect that, make no mistake.

[Metacrock]

we do not live in ancient Israel. we do not have the kind of coveanat that they did. Paul said the Moseic law was nailed to the cross.

[Theognosis]

we do not live in ancient Israel. we do not have the kind of coveanat that they did. Paul said the Moseic law was nailed to the cross.

Who ever said that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect?

It's not the mosaic covenant per se. It's the MODEL we're talking about.

[KR Wordgazer]

The model of the nation of Israel was not a model for all peoples and all times; it was a special case. God chose a people through which to bring the Messiah. He gave them the Law to set them apart as a nation and to bring forth knowledge of sin and the need for atonement. He also placed the king and the prophets under the same Law that the common people had to follow.

When Christ came and His gospel began to be spread to the Gentiles, it was understood that this new Kingdom of God was "not of this world." It was not an earthly kingdom like Israel under David; it was a spiritual kingdom. The new idea was not a "chosen people" but "whosoever will may come." The Gentiles were not commanded to set up their own earthly kingdoms based on the Israel model.

The logical extension of "whosoever will" is religious civil liberty-- that each person must be free to make his or her own choice about whether to "come," and that earthly rulers, being "whosoever" just like all the rest of us, cannot make that choice for anyone but themselves.

[runamokmonk]

I agree there's nothing un Christian about freedom. See Galations, "liberty" is just a conservative word for freedom.

Just for clarification, I don't consider myself conservative or "libertarian" (which I believe ultimately boils down to the "freedom" from restraint for the powerful).


Two scriptures I like and I believe are relevant for the topic of the kingdom of God

27 Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
28 “So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Matthew 6:27-29

42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
Mark 10:42-43

[Theognosis]

The logical extension of "whosoever will" is religious civil liberty

Talk about taking a verse out of its proper context and then equating it to a form of government!

Wow... You just beat the ones who relate the teachings of Christ to Communism!

[KR Wordgazer]

I'm not going to dignify that with a reply, except to say that "religious civil liberty" is not a form of government.

Theo, is it your intention to be insufferable? If not, you might want to change your tone.

I'm going away for a week or so, on vacation. Have a good discussion, if you continue it. I'm done here.

[Theognosis]

I'm not going to dignify that with a reply,

My nick is on the title of this thread, so I had no choice but to reply and "dignify" the more recent posts.

except to say that "religious civil liberty" is not a form of government.

In the context of your reply earlier, it is implied. Recall that we have mentioned the Byzantine model, Moses, King David, Robespierre, liberty and religious freedom.

Theo, is it your intention to be insufferable?

To those who can defend their position, no.

If not, you might want to change your tone.

Sorry if you find me insufferable.

I'm going away for a week or so, on vacation. Have a good discussion, if you continue it. I'm done here.

Have a happy vacation! Hope to see you on another thread.