Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I disagree. I would put the number at 4,300 for your statement to be true. :)
The point being, the General Relativity allows for such interpretation, not whether there is any need to do so.
I agree that complex scenarios emerge when acceleration is not constant. Likewise when loose objects are acted upon by a changing gravity field. Do we need to discuss them, to further condemn Luther?
There might be weak vs. strong equivalence principles in play, but to do so I need to refresh my knowledge of physics, which is nearly as old as Carl Sagan.
I didn't bring up the subject of reference frames. That was you. If you are saying that you no longer what to discuss the subject--which also includes objects that are accelerated by other forces than gravity--fine. As for Luther, I am not intetested in condemning him. This isn't an Inquisition. It is a discussion and disputation of ideas.
No, that is fine, -- I honestly don't remember how non-constant acceleration is treated in relativity, but I can look into it later.
For now, do you or do you not dispute that the nature can be viewed and its laws understood, albeit with a different amount of effort, form any reference frame, even a variably accelerated one?
It took several hundred years before Christianity hammered out that definition - AFTER the Risen Christ. The Pharisees' problem was that they didn't believe that Christ was the True Messenger of the Father - giving a teaching that excelled Moses. They were blind to the teaching of Love and of self-giving. The Synoptic Gospels do not clearly show Jesus teaching that He was God to the Pharisees.
Those of faith in the OT looked forward to the Messiah, whereas we look backward. The OT prophecies of the coming of Jesus were clear and those who had faith believed in them. Moses and David both wrote about Jesus, so how could they not have faith in Him?
All of those righteous people believed in Jesus? Or did they believe and trust in God, practicing what Jesus was teaching to the Jews in Matthew 5-7?
You are saying that man deserves some credit for his own salvation. That's all I need to know.
So who do you think is being "judged" after OUR deaths? Christ? Have you read the Gospels? Doesn't Christ over and over teach that we must love and have faith and trust in God? WE? WE must be in Christ.
THAT interferes with an all-powerful God's sovereignty.
You keep saying this, not realizing that God condescends to mankind to GIVE man freedom, or ANY gift. It is God's will that He give man free will. When you give someone a gift, does it impose on your "sovereignty"?
That is why God does love His elect.
To me, you are saying God "loves" a random group of people for no particular reason, condemning the rest to hell for no particular reason. I don't think you understand the concept of love. Love is a giving of SELF! It is wishing the best for another for that person's sake. Not for one's own "glory". Any sort of action that is done for one's own benefit is self-love. I don't get that from the Scriptures. I don't see this as a Christian concept.
What does that tell you? He is showing us that we are helpless on our own and need a Good Shepherd to lead us. Sheep do not use their free will to belong to the flock, the Shepherd chooses them.
I never said we do anything without God. I have no problem with your reply. I am not saying we earn anything when we do things. We do the things we do out of love, not for a reward. We are under the system of grace, not the law.
You place a duty on God that does not exist. You would have the potter having to justify to His creations why He made them as he did.
So God is just and judges people based on the fact that they cannot do something? Doesn't that sound a bit sadistic? But yet, God is love? I don't agree with your concept of love.
God credits people with righteousness, most notably Abraham
Why? Random choice? God just chose some dumb and helpless sheep to overwhelm with His grace? That's your idea of love?
True faith is true faith "plus love" at the beginning. My original love was relatively blind and ignorant, but it was real.
So true faith = true faith plus something else? Mathematically, that doesn't add up. You are going to have to explain this better. And your original "love" was ignorant but real? How so? These sound like mere words to me - the "Lord, Lord" and Jesus responds with "I never knew you". Now, it sounds like you are doubling back to make the claim that the Sinner's Prayer is your point of salvation.
I don't think the Bible is meant for the benefit of the non-elect, it is meant for believers, and future believers. God tells us Himself that His word is nonsense to those who do not believe.
How can you be a believer until you have heard the word proclaimed to you? To become a believer, there is some point where you hear the word while not yet believing - perhaps being open to it, maybe agnostic. The Scriptures will make sense only to people whom the Spirit moves and who opens the door of their heart to Christ.
Regards
Science going back to the Greeks was based on an assumption: that the laws you observe on earth are universal and apply everywhere in the universe. That hasn't change with modern physics.
By the way, I read someplace recently that some physicists think they have detected the graviton for the first time. This would be a confirmation of the prediction of quantum physics. But quantum physics and Einstein's theory of relativity contradict each other and both cannot be true. It will be interesting to see if anyone can duplicate the results, or if this is just some fluke in the data.
Here is the context. I am not talking about feeding someone...
"If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him?" Luke 11:11-13
It's about asking God for the Spirit to help us do the good that He commands of us. These are verses about being confident in prayer - that God will hear us. But according to you, God first has a list that He checks before He sends the Spirit? I still don't understand this God that you are talking about.
I have said, and do maintain that God does pass over those of the non-elect and leaves them to choose their eternal destination based on their natures. Of course God has given certain gifts to the evil, who have then misused them. I just don't think we are talking about the same thing here.
What is God speaking of? What gifts does He give and why to "evil" people? And WHY WOULDN'T HE give greater than this - gifts enough to save - to these people? If God is just, He certainly WOULD give EVERYONE an opportunity to turn to Him. But as the Psalmster says, "the wicked never turn to Him" WE have the ability to refuse God's gifts. Do you agree with Scripture or not?
Regards
Physicist,
In an effort to more reliably condemn the error of Luther, we found ourselves stumped by this.
We know that, according to the general relativity, an observer in a car accelerating at a constant rate will not be able to distinguish between the effect of his acceleration and a certain gravitational pull emerging behind the trunk of his car. We know that this equivalence between a constantly accelerated frame of reference and a gravitational pull of a fixed mass reflects the equivalence between a timespace warp of the frame of reference fixed on the car, either effected by the acceleration or by a mass.
But let us imagine a car that is first stationary and then accelerated. Now acceleration is not constant but rather has increased from zero to A. The surface of a cup of coffee on the dashboard of that car will not merely tilt consistent with the cumulative gravity of the earth and the pseudogravity of the inertial force due to the acceleration, but it will splash out before it steadies at an angle. It seems that this effect cannot be equivalently understood in terms of mass, while it is easily understood in terms of inertia.
The question is, does the equivalence principle break for frames of reference with varied acceleration, and if not, how can an observer in the variedly accelerated car interpret his observations as gravity effects?
My theory is that the observer will conclude that a mass grew (or a fixed mass came closer) behind his car. But Stripes1776 theorizes that if a mass had grown behind the car, the coffee would not spill out of the cup, yet if the car jerks forward the coffee will spill.
Tell us what General Relativity teaches.
Spot on, jo. If you are "saved," as they believe, when you say the Sinner's Prayer, and are now the (s)"elect" -- why is there a need for your judgment?!
[FK to jo kus] There is one Godhead composed of three distinct persons. The Pharisees did not believe in this God, and pro-actively REJECTED this God
[jo kus to FK] The Pharisees' problem was that they didn't believe that Christ was the True Messenger of the Father - giving a teaching that excelled Moses. They were blind to the teaching of Love and of self-giving.
First, the concept of Trinity is alien to Judaism or, for that matter, to any other religion as far as I know. I would say that the God of the Pharisees is much closer to Calvinists' idea of a God than to the knowledge of Him held by the Church from the beginning.
What the Pharisees rejected was the idea that man can become God (and to this they refuse to consider that God can become man). The Jews of today consider Trinity "polytheism," again refusing to consider that God is Wisdom and that such Wisdom cannot be without a Word or Spirit.
However, paradoxically, their idea of a God is very-much man-like (anger, favoritism, vengefulness, etc. as portrayed in the OT), and in that sense quite pagan in my opinion. They take the idea that man was created in His image and likeness literally -- like Me and minny-Me, with all characteristics there and disproportionate power. Jesus Christ simply did not fit that idea of a God. Besides, He was reinterpreting the Scriptures, performing "work" (of saving a man's life!) on a Sabbath, and calling them the sons of the devil.
[jo kus to FK] is a giving of SELF! It is wishing the best for another for that person's sake. Not for one's own "glory". Any sort of action that is done for one's own benefit is self-love.
That is a very important distinction between the Church and Calvinists. The whole idea of Trinity is a supernatural revelation to mankind that God is one but not alone, and that He is a perfect Loving Community of Persons, which we are to emulate -- in love, out of love and because of love for others.
God did not create man so He can dominate him. Nor did He make man because he was "bored" or "lonely" in His singularity. Nor did He make man so He can destroy some and save others, for God is the Creator and not a destroyer.
God gives all His love to mankind because self-love is no love. He did not have to make man so He can proclaim His own glory. Only man makes things for his own illusion of glory.
God's glory is manifested in His Creation, as our sinfulness is in its destruction.
I'm not exactly clear on why the coffee would splash out, but if you arrange everything just right so that the final, tilted surface is just at the lip of the cup, then the surface should act as a damped pendulum, and slop a bit on the first few cycles of its oscillation. Is this what you had in mind?
The situation where the car "jerks forward" sounds different. It sounds as if the acceleration of the car is not constant (which is how real cars accelerate). But that's not a fair test of the equivalence principle, that's just a test of the mechanics of the car and driver.
In order to compare this to the gravitational field case, you'd have to have some way of "turning on" the mass behind the car. I don't know of any way to do this, so yes, the fact that you can turn a dynamic acceleration on and off rapidly would probably be a good indication that the acceleration was not gravitational in nature. But this isn't a violation of the equivalence principle: the equivalence principle is a statement about constant, uniform accelerations.
The damped oscillations of the coffee surface wouldn't constitute a violation of the equivalence principle, because that just tells you that the surface of the coffee was tilted somehow with respect to vertical in the recent past. If you tilted it somehow by the same amount in a gravitational field, and then let it go to find its equilibrium state, it would behave in precisely the same way, and slop the same amount.
In a real experiment, there would be better ways to distinguish between the car's acceleration and the gravitational field. For example, any real gravitational field will have some measurable divergence--the tidal force--whereas the car's acceleration will not. But this also is not considered a violation of the equivalence principle. It's just a feature of the specific experimental geometry, an "in practice" distinction rather than an "in principle" distinction.
That is exactly the distiction I was making: between the way real cars on earth accelerate and the equivalence principle. I wan't trying to disprove the equivalence principle. It's two different scenarios.
I don't know of any way to do this, so yes, the fact that you can turn a dynamic acceleration on and off rapidly would probably be a good indication that the acceleration was not gravitational in nature.
That was the distiction I was making: between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to some other force. That is all I was trying to do.
Since you have joined in, do you think Super String theory in on the right path to reconcile the contraditions between quantum mechanics and relativity?
I am perplexed by the dozens and dozens of times that God says man will be judged on what they do! Of course, WHY would He judge those who CANNOT come to God - because God does not give them anything to be able to do this - while those He DOES give His graces to He so overwhelms them that they are actually doing NOTHING??? What exactly is God judging? This is really where Protestantism falls on its face. It is not logical.
What they say is that God judges and condemns people because they cannot pick up 10,000 pounds over there head by themselves, while God judges and rewards other people for "watching" God driving a forklift and doing it for them entirely. THIS IS THE GOD OF LOVE?
What the Pharisees rejected was the idea that man can become God (and to this they refuse to consider that God can become man). The Jews of today consider Trinity "polytheism," again refusing to consider that God is Wisdom and that such Wisdom cannot be without a Word or Spirit.
Very true. I think the Pharisees were not open to thinking outside of their own self-constructed box. When they saw the proof of Jesus, when they heard His preaching, their hearts were closed, their eyes were blind. We see this even today. You can give a bible to an atheist and will he necessarily turn to God? Not if his heart and mind is closed to the possibility. In the same manner, our separated brothers of Protestantism are closed to the apostolic church's teachings that God is love. They prefer the vengengeful God who randomly chooses people to perdition and to heaven. Those He sends to hell can rightfully claim - "why am I here, you never gave me a chance or the ability to do fulfill your commands". The God of love... It saddens me that some people cannot see how much God greatly desires communion with us lowly humans.
You make a good point about paganism. One of the primary concepts in ancient religion was that of fate. It was the mainstay of paganism - that you were destined for a particular fate. Is not Calvinism a return to this paganism with Christian names? One of THE main reasons that people converted to Christianity was that they saw HOPE in their future. Their lives were not already predetermined. There was purpose in their lives again. This return to fate is truly depressing to the dignity of mankind.
The whole idea of Trinity is a supernatural revelation to mankind that God is one but not alone, and that He is a perfect Loving Community of Persons, which we are to emulate -- in love, out of love and because of love for others.
Yes, I think our brothers fail to understand the concept of "TRINITY" and how life WITHIN the Godhead is to be "mirrored" here on earth. That total self-giving of the Father to the Son and vice-versus. God IS love. He does not "possess" love. His very self, His essence, is love. He cannot do "loveless" things, as He wouldn't be true to Himself. We are created in this image. We come to the meaning and fulfillment of our lives when we learn how to give of ourselves to others. This concept, I believe, is totally foreign to Calvinists. Salvation is not based on love, but on random selection - for what purpose? An experiment? A whim? To show off His sovereignty to us puny humans? I don't see the condescending nature of love in Calvin's idea of God. The more I hear about it, the more I see why the Council of Trent firmly refuted this un-Christian heresy that removes Love from our lives. Fear and blind presumption are the watchwords here.
Brother in Christ
That's how I see it, Jo, but I am sure FK will say it's not so, just as he keeps reminding us that (1) If God ordains something He is not the source of it or responsible for it; yet, Calvinists will tell you that each and every one of us is exactly as God ordained! (2) He will tell you that giving us freedom of will somehow "diminishes" Him, but fails to consider that perhaps our free will is exactly what God ordained in order for us to be able to love Him, freely, because love that is not free is no love. (3) Calvinists will tell you that God loves only those whom He created from all eternity to "love" Him. (4) They consider love an "irresistible" obligation from which no one can shirk.
You can give a bible to an atheist and will he necessarily turn to God? Not if his heart and mind is closed to the possibility
Absolutely! The Bible give no one a faith. Faith comes from God calling us to Him. It's an invitation which he makes incessantly with human beings, and gets rejected repeatedly by them.
Just consider 1 Sam 8:7 "And the LORD said unto Samuel,... they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them..."
and again,
1 Sam 10:19 "And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations
God offers; we reject or accept.
One of THE main reasons that people converted to Christianity was that they saw HOPE in their future
Yes, hope. Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
His very self, His essence, is love
That was the missing part in the OT. Love is not an attribute of God, His "characteristic," but as you say -- His essence, His nature. That's what He is.
The more I hear about it, the more I see why the Council of Trent firmly refuted this un-Christian heresy that removes Love from our lives
Just as the Orthodox Patriarch Jeremiah II and his Synod rejected Lutheran divines three times and basically told them to stop writing to him. He also reprimanded them for disparaging the Pope. A God Who does everything for His own Glory is not a God of love, but of someone who is in love with Himself. We don't know such a God. Our God came, became Man, suffered and died so that all mankind may be free. He didn't do that for His own Glory.
Yes and Yes.
I always thought the source of all sin was pride, but it really is as Calvin describes, it is a lack of Faith and Trust in God. Adam and Eve's original sin came about because they lost their Faith and Trust in God, and in the process tried to strike out on their own. It seems to me that unbelief gives rise to pride and not the other way around.
the distiction I was making: between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to some other force
Thank you, Physicist, for piling on Luther with me, it is always fun...
We are on the same page all three. Yes, in practical terms, uneven acceleration cannot come from gravity. I agree. At the same time, an observer in an unevenly accelerating car might conclude that a gravitational force was growing behind his trunk and have all valid laws of nature observed consistent with that hypothesis. He would not be able to explain what is the source of that gravity, because planets do not emerge behind cars.
The reality, as Einstein sees it, is that in the reference frame of the unevenly accelerated car the timespace is unevenly warped. Whether the warp is inertial or gravitational is a matter of differently labeling the same reality.
Imagine a man who grows up very fast: so fast that he reaches maturity while the car increases its acceleration. That man has no knowledge other than what he can observe in a windowless laboratory inside the unevenly accelerated car. He has superintelligence that allows him to master the laws of nature, but he has no knowledge of what planets or cars are. He will observe the uneven warp of the horizontal timespace, period. He will posit two hypotheses: the Inertial Hypothesis, -- the car is unevenly accelerating; and the Gravitational Hypotheses, -- there is a growing or nearing mass behind the car. Being a good scientist he will stop at that; he will not prefer one hypothesis over the other, because, having been brought up inside his lab, he lacks the knowledge that would tell him that accelerating cars are very common and planets chasing cars are not common at all.
Really? So when Jesus ordered His disciples to obey those who "sat in the chair of Moses, but don't do as they do", THAT had no theological purpose??? And Jesus didn't NEED to quote Scripture.
In this case, I think He did. I don't think that was oral tradition, the "seat of Moses" was known. Jesus was speaking based on scripture. :
Ex. 18:13-14 : 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"
---------------
Which ones (oral Traditions) are we NOT to follow? The ones that lead us away from God - such as Corban. It seems pretty easy to ascertain that the concept of Corban was a deliberate means of circumventing the Fourth Commandment.
Yes, exactly those. I agree that the "Corban rule" was used by children to stiff their parents.
Col. 2:8 : See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Of course we would have an honest disagreement as to which traditions are being referred to here. But in more general terms, I would "say" to not follow any oral traditions that elevate man and diminish God. Many of these involve God's delegation of authority away from Himself, and man being partially responsible for his own salvation.
John 3:30-31 : 30 He must become greater; I must become less. 31 "The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.
---------------
Then what is the "correct" interpretation? That Jesus actually breathed upon ALL of His followers, present and future, giving them the power to forgive sins? What is your historical basis for this interpretation?
I don't think Jesus gave away any of His powers to forgive sin, as this would contradict the scriptures that say that only God can forgive sin. It is the same as God not giving away His power to heal to Peter. It was God who did the healing through him, Peter did not have the authority to do anything on his own. If all a priest ever said was "your sins will be forgiven" then that would be fine. It would simply be declaring what scripture says. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is perfectly normal for a priest to say "I forgive you". To me, that is radically different, and is the basis for my objection.
You have not shown me any convincing evidence (nor has anyone else here) that "man has free will" is antithetical to the Scriptures.
That's because there is no evidence that you will accept. :) Wasn't the original point of this whole thread free will? The section "The Battle of the Biblical Texts" lays everything out. I just re-read it and evidence is given.
Thus, Scripture is twisted in so many places...Man is automatically saved by making a simple declaration, Man is saved without doing works of love, man is saved by imputed grace, love adds nothing to salvation, and man is NOT judged to heaven/hell based on what they did in life.
We both think that scripture is being twisted in so many places... Man is saved by Baptism plus the actions of his free will afterwards, man is saved in part by choosing to do works of love, man is saved by earned grace (grace increases with works), man must choose to love God on his own account to be saved, man's salvation is judged based on his actions, not on God's will.
And finally, "lost" people is another strange-sounding term to me and my Orthodox brothers, I believe. NO ONE is lost until that day of judgment. Salvation is viewed from our point of view. NO ONE knows God's point of view or can know it. So it is pointless to theorize and claim "he is lost" or "that person is lost, so he must seek only the evil". This leads me to believe that you think God doesn't really love man.
Methinks you are jumping to conclusions again. :) Of course I can't pronounce anyone individually as being ultimately lost, but I can pronounce them as being currently lost, based on their own admissions. You do the same thing. When I speak of the lost I am just acknowledging that some WILL ultimately wind up in hell. You agree with that too. Due to the fallen nature of man, all of us will only seek evil, UNTIL those who are of the elect are saved. This has nothing to do with whether God loves man, He does love His elect. That's why He saves them.
Nor was Adam. He, too, was born without sin. HOW did God create Adam? In sin? Was Adam's nature sinful and evil? Was he BOUND to sin? Again, this is at the heart of our disagreement. You seem to believe that God made Adam to sin - that his humanity could NOT resist temptation.
I don't think Adam was born with a sin nature, but I do believe he was bound to sin. God ordained it. I don't understand how Jesus not being born with a sin nature translates to Him only pretending to be human. He was fully human, but since the sin nature came from Adam, and Adam was not His paternal ancestor, Jesus did not have it. He was fully human in every other respect.
From your answer, I take it that you think Jesus was born with a wounded nature, that He was flawed and imperfect, just like Adam. I can't agree with this. Jesus was perfect from before the Incarnation, not because He made a free will choice to be perfect.
Yes, fictitious gravitational forces emerging mysteriously out of nowhere can be used to point to real effects. That doesn't mean the explanation is convincing.
Being a good scientist he will stop at that; he will not prefer one hypothesis over the other, because, having been brought up inside his lab, he lacks the knowledge that would tell him that accelerating cars are very common and planets chasing cars are not common at all.
This is why it is good for physicists to get out of the lab once in a while. Walk down to the local pub and have a beer.
A very wise decision, one that I have similarly learned as well. :) ... Thank you for your thoughtful analysis on the Michal-Merab controversy. A very interesting read.
That is the most frustrating of all. Apparently, in their "defense" of God's sovereignty, they restrict what God can choose to do. Like, for example, empty Himself and become a "slave".
They consider love an "irresistible" obligation from which no one can shirk.
Another good point. I think there is a huge gap on our definition of love. To Calvinists, it is an obligation, being forced by fate. To us, it is a self-giving in the image of the Blessd Trinity.
There are many more quotes like yours from 1 Samuel that talk about rejecting the Spirit or God. In the NT, some of these verses are written to people who have already been 'saved'!
That was the missing part in the OT. Love is not an attribute of God, His "characteristic," but as you say -- His essence, His nature. That's what He is.
I believe even in the OT, it is there. I see a cycle of the Jews turning from God, God punishing them (for the purpose of bringing them to repentance, not to be cruel), and the Jews turning back and re-affirming the covenant. I have seen this throughout the historical books in my study. You have to read the OT through the lense of Jesus, though. Otherwise, a person would see a vengeful God.
Just as the Orthodox Patriarch Jeremiah II and his Synod rejected Lutheran divines three times and basically told them to stop writing to him. He also reprimanded them for disparaging the Pope.
I hadn't known that until you and Kolokotronis mentioned that in the past. I find this quite impressive, given the Schism and the view of the Latins towards the Greeks/Russians. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
A God Who does everything for His own Glory is not a God of love, but of someone who is in love with Himself.
Again, I agree. Of course, God loves Himself, but it is more of God the Father loving God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit loving the other two and so forth. It is not a matter of pride or showmanship.
I [am] the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt; open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But my people did not hearken to my voice, and Israel did not love me. So I gave them up unto the hardness of their heart, [and] they walked in their own counsels. Oh, if my people would hearken unto me [and] Israel would walk in my ways! I would soon subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their adversaries. Psalm 81:10-14
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that didst kill the prophets and stone those who are sent unto thee, how often I desired to gather thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!" Matthew 23:37
Reading these gives me goose-bumps, the God of the Universe calling out to us lowly men who don't deserve Him one bit. What an incredible love He has for us. Praise God! This is the God I know and Love!
Brother in Christ
So when Moses sits down, that is supposed to be the chair that passes down all authority from over 1000 years ago? Is this a literal chair, or a concept of authority passed down? It is quite a stretch to see Mat 23 come from Ex 18! In the end, I don't see that Christ gave up ALL traditions. What is the reason? I understand traditions that move people from God, but I think this is a Protestant overreaction.
I don't think Jesus gave away any of His powers to forgive sin, as this would contradict the scriptures that say that only God can forgive sin.
Nor do I. Jesus DELEGATED His authority. He still retains the ability to forgive sins - Catholic priests are the visible instrument through whom we confess to Christ. They act in the "person of Christ", since we don't see Christ or hear Him. The priest offers words of forgiveness and counseling to help us in our walk. It is not an usurping of authority! The Scriptures list several such parables of a ruler going on a long journey and leaving the servants behind to watch matters. For example:
"Who then is the faithful and prudent servant, whom his lord has made ruler over his household to give them food in due season? Blessed [is] that servant whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming, and shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants and even to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he does not look for [him] and in an hour that he is not aware of 51and shall cut him off and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.: Mat 24:45-51
This is a warning to those who God calls to lead the community, the People of God. But at the same time, it clearly shows that men ARE being left in charge - which we see in the Acts of the Apostles. Christ expects His Church to continue for all time - and He will provide leaders who will serve His people - including the ministry of reconciliation.
It was God who did the healing through him, Peter did not have the authority to do anything on his own.
Of course. I think EVERY Catholic realizes this! No, everything that the priests say and do is based on their authority that Christ has given them through the Apostles. Not on their own power. HEAVENS NO!
That's because there is no evidence that you will accept. :) Wasn't the original point of this whole thread free will?
Brother, for every verse you post, I can double it with posts of free will verses. Obviously, we aren't going to find the solution to this by tossing verses back and forth. The original point of the thread was free will. But I have tried to answer all of your other questions. Was I wrong for doing this?
Man is saved by Baptism plus the actions of his free will afterwards, man is saved in part by choosing to do works of love,
Our definitions of "salvation" differ. We don't believe in 'once saved, always saved', thus, the necessity to remain justified in the Lord's eyes.
man is saved by earned grace (grace increases with works
You don't believe that man is being sanctified and becoming more holy as he turns more towards the Lord?
man must choose to love God on his own account to be saved
Sure, we are judged based on our works of love, our faith. All of this is our giving back what God gave us in the first place. We use His gifts. Again, that is pretty clear in Scripture.
man's salvation is judged based on his actions, not on God's will.
When if the two are the same thing?
Thanks, but theses are all Scriptural. What about Sola Scriptura? What about Sola Fide? What about NOT falling away? Anyway, I don't see this being resolved by further discussion. We are returning to ground discussed already - I doubt either will be convinced of the other's point of view.
I take it that you think Jesus was born with a wounded nature, that He was flawed and imperfect, just like Adam.
Of course not! Adam was not flawed - God says Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, WITHOUT sin. That is man's original nature, the one the Christ took on - sinless and with a free will.
Jesus was perfect from before the Incarnation
The Logos was not Jesus UNTIl He took on flesh.
Regards
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.