Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Our civilization has a lot to do with Christianity (still), and Christianity has a lot to do with respecting the dignity of the enemy. Insulting them is not fighting them, all it does is degrade ourselves.
The cartoons have this to do this with Christianity: the same yahoos that drew them will mock Christ with even greater relish, and some, as if to show us who is who in the secular culture, just did.
I'm not sure I can buy God letting us run our own destinies, at least in the sense that it would interfere with His plan. I would distinguish it by saying that according to my beliefs, before we are saved we can do no good in God's eyes. After we are saved, God's power causes us to do good, and we have some freedom to sin. God always has the authority to prevent us from sinning for His purposes.
Take, for instance, Genesis 6:3 [:] "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man..."
God always allows man to sin for His purposes.
[On Gen. 6:5-7] "Doesn't sound like He was much in control there, does it? Nor does it sound like that was His plan. Obviously, there is more to this then to conclude that God was surprised, but it is clear that He had a change of heart and wanted to destroy that which He originally created."
You have said so many times that our side humanizes God and yet that is what you are doing here. How can an all knowing God change His mind? Humans who do not know what the result is going to be can change their minds. God already knows, so why would He need to change His mind? Wasn't the Bible written for us, not God? Wouldn't God's words be in terms we can at least attempt to understand? God was grieved at the sin of man, but not surprised at it. You appear to be asserting that God was admitting a MISTAKE, and I just can't accept that.
And then He made a Second Covenant, that made the first obsolete as we learn in (Heb 8:7), which quotes the Old Testament:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." as St. Paul concludes (Heb 8:13)
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
So, obviously what we do on earth does affect our salvation. That certainly does not mean that we are passive riders on His conveyor belt, where he placed some on one and others on the other belt, and now some destined to salvation and other to perdition.
I don't understand your connection between doing good deeds and the new Covenant. Doesn't it seem from your verses that the first Covenant referred to was the Mosaic Law? As I learned on this thread from Jo, wasn't this the only Covenant that required action on both sides? In contrast, the new Covenant is a one-way deal. God promises, we don't. So from these verses, how do our actions affect salvation?
What happens to us in this world, in this time-space bubble outside of the eternal continuum, is our dominion and God helps and even sacrifices Himself for us when we are in dire straits, but He gave us life to live and to come to the Truth on our own with His unceasing help and blessings.
You do give God much credit, but when you speak of our "dominion" on earth (I thought satan was the prince of this world.), and of our "come[ing] to the Truth on our own" yes with help, but, it just seems to me that God isn't getting all He is due. :)
...although He [God] would prefer that all be saved, He does not force all to be saved; thus, no doubt some will end up there and some won't, and some are there already.
Wouldn't this go back to "does God get what He wants"?
It isn't "can't", its "won't". We have free will as part of our created essencesn because God wanted it that way. ... Its up to us to accept what has been and is given to us. The parent concept works only so far and at some point anthropomorphism becomes a hinderance to a recognition of the complete ineffability and transcendence of God.
Then is "anthropomorphism " the main argument you would use to answer the question: "How could God love all and let so many slip through His fingers when He has all power and authority to prevent it"? I agree that the human parent-child relationship isn't perfect, but the Bible seems to use it in a lot of places as close enough. :)
FK: "OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death."
Perhaps better said it occurs after death because the soul can do nothing for itself after death.
But I thought that petitioning the departed to pray on our behalf was an accepted practice. Can they not pray for themselves as we can pray for ourselves?
FK: "I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal?"
God's mercy. We are told that at the Final Judgment we are judged not by good or evil deeds but rather by how much we have become like Christ (not, I suppose, if we have reached complete theosis, at least I hope not).
OK, would it then be fair to say that your closest equivalent to what I call sanctification is what is the most important thing to you? I'm sorry because I'm sure I am confusing Catholic with Orthodox beliefs, even though they are so close. Honestly, before this thread my knowledge of Eastern Orthodox was zero, so I really appreciate the conversations with you and Kosta. Sorry if I am mixing ideas when I shouldn't. :)
I am saying that a loving GOD will bring His pre-selected elect home to Him, regardless of their human natures. I don't believe God makes people hate Him, instead He allows some to follow their own natures without Him interfering. I understand what you're saying about love. How can love be true if it isn't a choice, right? I believe this is a perspective argument. From our POV, we experience the free will choice of accepting God in all love, etc. However, from God's POV everything was sealed from the beginning, He ordained that a specific sum of us would be saved, and gave them the grace to come to Him. It was an offer we couldn't refuse! :)
Once your children are grown, no matter how much you love them, you must let them go -- if you love them! It doesn't mean you don't care, it only means that love is giving freedom and not keeping captive.
I agree with what you say, but I don't see how the closest comparison to our relationship with God is ours with our adult children. Are we not like sheep, among the dumbest animals? I believe the closest comparison is that of a human parent and a small child, who doesn't know what is good for him, who is completely dependent, and needs guidance every step of the way or else doom is certain. In some manner do you believe that God sees and respects us as we might our adult children?
As for Him creating us with the knowledge that we will fall, you must look at it transcendentally; otherwise you have an evil God back on stage. :-)
Transcendentally??? That sounds like code for "trust me"! :) We must have very different definitions of "evil".
Sorry, I don't consider Elder Cleopa a "church father" if he lived in the second half of the 20th century. That's like tell me what the Pope Pius has to say about Vatican I. It's meaningless since all he is going to do is parrot the Church's line. There is no real critical thought. To plop his name in among the other REAL church fathers is a bit dishonest and only reinforces that he bought into the Pelagius lie.
If you want to tell me what St. John Cassian has to say then I'm open for discussion. Of course he was condemned by the Council of Orange as a heretic. But, then again, you guys don't buy into all that Council of Orange stuff.
Not really. I would, of course, answer questions and defend the Church against calumny, like I do here, but the Church does not expect the converts to come because they made up their mind that they like the teaching; they come because it is where Christ is, like it or not.
I would agree with Annalex. In my experience, most who come to the initial classes have already decided that they want to be Catholic. They don't understand much about it, but they desire to become Catholic. Lots of reasons. Some, because the spouse. Some, because they know a Catholic who has impressed them. I would say those are the biggest reasons. Most Catholics don't know the faith very well, so I don't expect the seekers to know much. This year, we had one young lady who was there because of her Grandma, but she dropped out - I don't think she even believed in God, because of the questions.
Those who complete the class and convert can't wait to get in, they are hungry on a visceral level. The instructors tend to try and slow them down, so that they don't rush into the church headlong on sheer enthusiasm, and they try to get some doctrine into them even though they are too impatient to ask. Questions come later; the first year or two, anyway, the converts just live it.
Each RCIA is different. Each class has a "heart and soul" that differs each year. Last year, I had mostly young people. They were not quite as interested in doctrine. This year, there is no one under 35. They are much more interested in the reasons of "why do Catholics believe that"? Questions come eventually. You are right regarding the desire to "get in". Most cannot wait to receive the Eucharist, knowing the fullness of what is at stake.
Regards
And a great many Protestants these days as well.
I would think a better and scriptural illustration is Lot:
That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The plain meaning here is not that all sin, but that through Christ all are free from sin. Which, of course, includes Virgin Mary, sanctified at her immaculate conception. Romans 5:12 does not contradict her sinlessness at all.
While I would agree that 5:12-21 is one argument, I don't agree that you can apply the same meaning to all verses. You interpret the last sentence and then say that wipes out all the other verses. Remember what 5:12 says:
Rom. 5:12 : "12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—"
Paul is also explaining how sin came into the world through one man, and that it will be taken out through one man. Death came to all men, all sinned. So, you are forced to say that "death came to all men" really means "death came to all men except Mary", and "all sinned" really means "all sinned except for Mary". You know there is zero Biblical support for a sinless Mary, so you have to take these verses and stretch them beyond all recognition to justify your belief. In fact, the only way to say that Mary was sinless is to equate her with God.
I thought that we could agree that Paul gives Jesus Himself a pass here, but I guess not. Paul clearly refers to Jesus being sinless in 2 Cor.:
2 Cor. 5:21 : "21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Therefore, Paul was clearly not referring to Jesus in Romans 3 (unless, of course, Paul changed his mind, which I don't claim :). He was, though, referring to all of the rest of us. Where does Paul give Mary a pass like this? Of course in the world there are those who follow God and those who don't. How does this explain away Romans 3? Are you saying that Paul is saying that some are born righteous and never sin, that he only is referring to those who are not following God? In saying that "All" does not mean "All", Paul's point is to say that all sinners sin? How profound! You're putting Paul into an impossible corner.
That's "Monday morning Quarterbacking"! The Romans didn't get the fax version of the letter of Paul to the Corinthians. It probably took many years before the various communities had even most of the NT that we now possess. Thus, you can't use Paul's comments to the Corinthians to explain Paul's comments to the Romans to exclude Jesus. Naturally, Jesus is excluded. Other Christians who proceded the Letter to the Romans MUST have taught them differently - that Christ was without sin, etc. This is why I contend that Paul did not imply that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God. First, he is quoting from OT Psalms that speak of the wicked, not a universal claim for all men. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves call other people righteous - in the OT and the NT... Thus, I really don't think anyone reading Romans would think that Paul meant ALL in a universal sense! Do you think Paul thought that HE wasn't turning towards God?
He was, though, referring to all of the rest of us. Where does Paul give Mary a pass like this?
We don't know what Paul thought about Mary. However, we DO know that two generations later, men were writing about Mary as the New Eve and refering to Romans 5.
Of course in the world there are those who follow God and those who don't. How does this explain away Romans 3?
Paul, like David, is trying to teach the Jews that the People of God were not given a pass on being righteous. Read the first three chapters of Romans. NO ONE is righteous based on their heritage or upbringing. One is a Jew only SPIRITUALLY (see the end of Romans 2 - which immediately follows Romans 3 and the many quotes that Paul uses to prove his point). Thus, he is writing to Jews in Rome who thought they were righteous on account of their Jewish traditions - of the flesh...He is denying that, just as David did in the various Psalms that Paul quotes.
In saying that "All" does not mean "All", Paul's point is to say that all sinners sin? How profound! You're putting Paul into an impossible corner.
Paul is not making a point that men sin. He is saying that the wicked will not turn to God. If Paul's point in Romans 1-3 was that all men sin, it wouldn't make sense to say that some men are spiritually circumcised, or that men will can follow the Law written on their hearts. Note the end of Romans 3 - Paul again attacks the Jews by saying the works of the Law do not save. It is by faith, as Abraham DEMONSTRATED (a point that we agree on, I think, but some Protestants do not). Thus, again, the point of this portion of Romans is to show that the Jews were not "People of God" because of their circumcision and their dietary laws, or even following the Decalogue begrudgingly without love. People were "Jews" by faith - either by following the Law on their hearts, or through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (we believe that the Logos was active in people BEFORE the incarnation - within Jews or Gentiles - to whom He chose).
Regards
18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.Verse 18 says, all condemned and all justified. Verse 19 says, many are sinners, and many are justified. Unless "all" is used in the sense of "many" in Verse 18, St. Paul contradicts himself in these two verses. But verse 18 picks up from verse 12. I do not see how verse 12 should be read as "absolutely all", when verse 18 must be read as "many".
Is Paul saying in verse 12 that since all, including Mary, die, then all, including Mary and John the Baptist, sin? Verse 14 explains that not all sinned in a similar way. Paul makes clear that death came from one man, Adam. The implication is that the sin of Adam alone is sufficient to cause death of all. It is not logically necessary for all to sin in order for all to die.
God is not competing with us. We can run our own destinies without affecting His plan. Take, for instance, our earth. We do pretty much what we want on it, and none of it changes the direction in which the earth moves, or the direction of its rotation. The earth acts as if we are not even on it – it's taking us through space where it is going whether we want to cooperate or not, and is going to take us to its destination whether we will it or not. The only thing our will affects is ourselves and those around us. We have until the last breath to come to God and be saved spiritually.
God did all the work for us, and the Protestants would have Him make up everyone's mind as well!
I agree with you here. :)
If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states.
I would say that if God loves some, He brings some home. From the human perspective, the elect experience God's love and make a "free" choice. To the elect, they "choose" God. But from God's perspective it was a sealed deal from the beginning. From our perspective, God chose us first for real, then the elect "chose" Him in their experience.
Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter?
Yes, I actually do remember it, and that was a long time ago! :) The mother obviously did not need the daughter but let her participate out of love. The daughter experienced that she was a help, but it wasn't real. The daughter may have smeared some dough on the sheet, but she certainly did not run the oven. All the important tasks were completed by the mother, and the mother was in 100% control at all times. The daughter had the very nice experience of appearing to help her mother, but it wasn't real. The mother gave the daughter this experience out of love, and God does the same for us.
FK: "I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children."
So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!!
This goes right back to the cookies. I was obviously "there" and God let me have the experience of apparent helping (Thank you God! :) but it is God who gets all the credit for the creation of my children, just like the mother really gets all the credit for the making of the cookies.
If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.
I suppose this is our disagreement. I don't see the Bible as merely a history book. I see it as God's word revealed to His believers, past, present and future. I agree that God chose a particular group of men to write it, but I don't see how it follows that only a particular group of men can say what it means. This is especially so, since these men have apparently found it necessary to contort the interpretations of scripture into something so different from the actual words of scripture.
Given these contortions and stretches, no one could read the Bible and have any real idea what is going on. Now I don't blame the Church for discouraging its reading. The layman wouldn't have a chance. This makes God the most cryptic writer in history. The Bible is therefore not a revelation of God to man, it is a revelation of God to the Church hierarchy only, just those few men. Since the Bible doesn't say what it says, you probably wouldn't counsel a seeker to read it. He wouldn't have a chance. What a restriction on the most powerful witnessing tool.
FK: "How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?"
By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands.
OK. We also having laying on of hands. One example I have witnessed is at the ceremony to ordain a new deacon. I suppose we would just define it differently. :)
Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. ... I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.
No, I think you are doing a great job of explaining, and I appreciate it. :) I suppose we would say that God clears the acre for us because we have no tools.
Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing.
I do not understand this. Is free will not used to sin?
When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostolic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!
But, you are throwing into Eph. 4 that the teachings of these men are outside of or contradict scripture. I don't see that anywhere. Extra-Biblical teachings are fine if they match what the Bible says. Teachings that take the Bible and reverse its meaning 180 degrees on some verses are not fine. I don't see how God could approve of this as an alternate way to Him.
NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions[.]
But, if the traditions are right, and sometimes contradict the Bible, then how can the Bible be the word of God? I know you'll say that tradition does not contradict the Bible and then it goes back to my argument that, therefore, God is the most cryptic author of all time. You would then have to say that the Bible really wasn't written for all men. It was only written to a selected few in the Catholic hierarchy. This I cannot accept.
IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well.
This logic does not follow if you believe that the Bible is God's word. Either all the books across all time are connected and inerrant or they are not. One verse authenticating scripture authenticates them all.
You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.
I don't know what Luther said about it, and I am not bound by him. Luther was a fallible man, just like any Pope. I do not give credit to the Church for the Bible, I give all credit to God.
Well then why bother to pray for anything since we run the shot? God can go about His business and we can go about our. This is Open Theism.
God did all the work for us, and the Protestants would have Him make up everyone's mind as well!
See tagline. The Bible states it-not Protestants.
And why would a Protestant bother to pray when God has already decided each and every one of your moves, your fall or your salvation, whether you will be Peter or Judas. In your world there is nothing you can do, nothing, that God has not already done, for you.
We pray when we turn to God on our own free will and not because some loving God compels me to worship Him. We pray to God because He taught us that it is never too late for us to come to Him, that He is a merciful God Who accepts our repentance, and forgives us our wrongdoing.
You, on the other hand, have no reason to repent, because whatever you did or will do or are doing right now is but a mechanical obedience to God's subliminal commands.
We pray because we believe that prayers can change our destiny. You don't. To you virtue or sin is all God's doing because He's "in charge."
With all due respect, this is another huge stretch. If the person does not drink alcohol, then the first statement is nonsequitur. It would be the same as saying "I did not axe-murder my three next door neighbors till the blood test." There is no point in mentioning it if you don't do it. By all reasonable construction, the first sentence clearly implies that the person does drink alcohol, generally. The only point of the sentence is that he did not before the blood test. We are absolutely led to believe that he did at some point after the test.
As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers and they were not blood relatives; he in fact taught us all to do the same. In large families there is a mixture of cousins, second cousins, half brothers, milk brothers, and of course bolld brothers. It is natural to refer to all of them collectively as "brothers".
Of course with this interpretation, we are now forced to throw out other Bible verses, such as the following:
Matt. 13:54-56 : "54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
So, first Jesus is identified as the carpenter's son. Then He is identified as the son of Mary. Then, His four half-brothers are specifically named, along with the fact that He has sisters. But we can't have this can we? No, we have to make a drastic veer in mid sentence no less. Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY! The Church doesn't allow this family relationship so we just interpret it out of existence. No problem. This continues to floor me. :)
"So, first Jesus is identified as the carpenter's son. Then He is identified as the son of Mary. Then, His four half-brothers are specifically named, along with the fact that He has sisters. But we can't have this can we? No, we have to make a drastic veer in mid sentence no less. Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY! The Church doesn't allow this family relationship so we just interpret it out of existence. No problem. This continues to floor me. :)"
Actually, your interpretation comes from a Western European context. In the east the term brothers or sisters could as well have meant members of the extended family. There are parts of Greece where this is true to this day. There is tradition which says these people were cousins and another which holds that +Joseph was a widower with children, thus the 1/2 brother business, the people of course assuming that +Joseph was Christ's father. Again, you must remember that the men who decided what was to be in the canon of scripture believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and saw no contradiction at all in these passages of scripture you present with that belief. That's because they lived in the cultural context the scriptures were written in.
God, of course, would know all of this so he gave us Holy Tradition and the Fathers so people 2100 centuries later in another culture entirely could understand what was written and not assume that the culture they live in and the language they speak are and were the only languages and cultures which ever existed. :)
This is the impression I am getting as well. Thank you for your whole post. Very informative.
Sin is passed on by the male. It is not carried by the female.
I agree that Eve was duped, and I know that Adam is the source of original sin. Does this mean that Eve did not sin? I know there are provisions in the OT for unintentional sin. Is there any connection? It just seems strange to me because Eve had full knowledge of what God commanded.
The statement "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" is a necessary statement to validate the blood test. Even if I never drink alcohol, it is necessary to make if the test requires such period of abstinence. But the statement "I did not murder my neightbor till the blood test" is nonsensical because there is no relation between my blood and the murder. Perhaps my use of "I" in the examlpe is misleading because of course I know about myself both before and after the test. Remember, it is Matthew, who does not know the intimate life of Joseph and Mary speaking to us. It is exactly analogous to a nurse speaking to a doctor: "the patient did not drink till the test". The nurse knows the condition before the test because of the chemical analysis. The nurse does not know, and is not interested, in the condition after, so he is not speaking about the after. Matthew knows the condition before, because he has a statement form Joseph (for example) made at the time of Jesus's bith. He does not know and is not interested in the condition after that.
Son of a carpenter, fine. Son of Mary, fine. Brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, NO WAY!
But this is consistent with the fact that a man has one father and one mother, but many relatives of the same generation. "Brother" can be used expansively; "mother" cannot. Besides, "son of carpenter" is indeed used imprecisely here, just like "brothers" is used imprecisely.
To this day, in Serbia, 1st cousins are referred to as "brothers" or "sisters." In Serbian, there isn't even a word for the fist cousin. The complete neme is "borther/sister of aunt." This is, however, alient to the West.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.