Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
1) honest;To begin to give an answer with regard to Mariology, one way is to argue that more fully-developed Mariology is not inconsistent with biblical analogies. In other words, if a Protestant is objecting to the very notions as "unbiblical," then if you can show them that directly analogous notions are quite biblical, then the Mariological ones must be, too. Therefore, they are not excessive, because they flow from explicitly biblical modes of thought, at least. It's a bit subtle, but I have come to love this form of analogical argument. That comes right from Cardinal
2) not proud or arrogant and claiming to know everything, but humble, with an admission of your own limitations;
3) fully aware that such journeys (including your own) are not all based on reason and apologetics in the first place, but on God's grace, which often goes beyond words and quick responses.
As Hilaire Belloc truly remarked, the Church must be in God's hands because, seeing the people who have run it, it couldn't possibly have gone on existing if there weren't some help from above. I also felt unable to take completely seriously . . . the validity or permanence of any form of human authority . . . There is . . . some other process going on inside one, to do with faith which is really more important and more powerful. I can no more explain conversion intellectually than I can explain why one falls in love with someone whom one marries. It's a very similar thing . . .The conversion process is very strange - even frightening at times -, yet wonderfully exhilarating as it comes to a conclusion (as any of us who have experienced it can testify). We mustn't rush people who are going through this. And we must accept the genuine, sincere nature of their struggles. Those are my "guiding principles" - at any rate - when I counsel people in this life-situation.
You were concerned with the “male child” part. I posted the NIV translation I was using in which “male child” appears.
After the ascension, when did Mary hide in the wilderness for 1260 days?
Where is the bible account of it?
The natural reading of it is that there is the ascension of Christ (v.5), an exile of Mary for 1260 days (6) and then the assumption (14). The span of time since the assumption that she is to be taken out of Satan’s reach is given in imprecise terms because that is the era still continuing, till the Second Coming of Christ of which hour we are not to be informed.
There could, I am sure, be other ways to read this, — there are certainly readings that complement this and give us a view of the Church Militant, and I am not wholly unsympathetic to the reading of Israel into that — but for anyone who asks where the Church found the assumption of Mary, that is the answer.
Annalex, I think we’ve had a good discussion up to this point, and I don’t want to give you a canned answer.
The short of it is that Mary fell off the chart after the Ascension. Except for a tradition of her being cared for by John, a tradition that could easily be nothing more than a conjecture based on Jesus’ ‘behold your Mother’, there is no mention of Mary.
There is no record of an exile. There is no record of an assumption.
There are no witnesses.
Historical evidence is very scarce and can easily be dismissed as legendary. But the same can be said of any figure of the early Church except Sts. Paul and Peter, and even in their case the record of their martyrdom is preserved only through tradition. The absence of a relic, however, points to the assumption — or at least to some unusual circumstance of death.
Or to the type of significance that Protestants tend to assign to Mary.
Importance and respect, but no human is worthy of reverence.
I need to correct you — last appearance of Mary in Gospel narrative, — not counting Apoc. 12, that is, — is at Pentecost or at least right before it (Acts 1:14).
For nearly all figures of the Early Church we have relics, including quite minor ones. We have, for example, relics of Mary’s parents Joachim and Anna, — and I was able to venerate them last year.
You are right. I stand corrected.
Thanks for both of your lengthy and thoughtful replies.
Though we may not reach an agreement, I will respond later when I have more time to study and reply.
Take care.
My pleasure, thank you for your questions.
Your question above is not what I’m saying at all. In fact, I have never said anything like that, especially saying that it is a “theory.” Your next statement is a straw man nature because of your question preceding it. The third sentence is strictly your own opinion that shows me you are not all that acquainted with the early church fathers and a very poor exegesis of Mt. 25:46 in the context it is spoken in and in many other statements of Scripture on that topic. Now having said that, let me clear up what I believe is the true meaning of that verse in respects to everything else said on what that verse teaches us.
The verse of Mt. 25:46 is the last verse of Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is found in Mt. 25:31–46. Verse 46 cannot be separated from its context if one wishes to speak as Jesus spoke. So, what is the context?
Verse 31–45 tells us the “time period” this parable refers to, which is the Day of Judgment and the day that Jesus comes the second time. One cannot read it otherwise and stay in context! Verse 46 is the kicker, and the verse that causes confusion to those who hold to the teaching that man has a soul and it is immortal, i.e., not subject to death. It says: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Note: I have absolutely no problem in accepting this verse literally and saying that I wholeheartedly accept it without any doubt. It says just what I preach and teach!
However, also being a student of the Koine (street usage) Greek language of the 1st century, I like the way the Greek manuscripts record it word for word into our English language of today. “and will go away these (the ones spoken of in verse 45) into punishment (kolasin) eternal (aionion), but the righteous unto life (zoen) eternal (aionion).” Punishment and life are equated here, as is the duration of each. The result of punishment (death) and the result of life (immortality) are of the same duration. Both last the same amount of time, if we can speak of time in a place of timelessness.
Is your theory that the soul is immortal if saved but undergoes destruction if condemned? That seems to contradict, for example, Mt 25:46. I don’t think the consensus of the fathers ever veered off this concept, that the soul is eternal both if saved and if condemned, based on the very clear teaching in Mt 25.
Your question above is not what I’m saying at all. In fact, I have never said anything like that, especially saying that it is a “theory.” Your next statement is of a straw man nature because of your question preceding it. The third sentence is strictly your own opinion that shows me you are not all that acquainted with the early church fathers and a very poor exegesis of Mt. 25:46 in the context it is spoken in and in many other statements of Scripture on that topic. Now having said that, let me clear up what I believe is the true meaning of that verse in respects to everything else said on what that verse teaches us.
The verse of Mt. 25:46 is the last verse of Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is found in Mt. 25:31–46. Verse 46 cannot be separated from its context if one wishes to speak as Jesus spoke. So, what is the context?
Verse 31–45 tells us the “time period” this parable refers to, which is the Day of Judgment and the day that Jesus comes the second time. One cannot read it otherwise and stay in context!
Verse 46 is the kicker, and the verse that causes confusion to those who hold to the teaching that man has a soul and it is immortal, i.e., not subject to death. It says: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Note: I have absolutely no problem in accepting this verse literally and saying that I wholeheartedly accept it without any doubt. It says just what I preach and teach!
However, also being a student of the Koine (street usage) Greek language of the 1st century, I like the way the Greek manuscripts record it word for word into our English language of today.
“and will go away these (the ones spoken of in verse 45) into punishment (kolasin) eternal (aionion), but the righteous unto life (zoen) eternal (aionion).” Punishment and life are equated here, as is the duration of each. The result of punishment (death) and the result of life (immortality) are of the same duration. Both last the same amount of time, if we can speak of time in a place of timelessness.
Future punishment for the sins of the present life is universally allowed to be taught in the scriptures of the New Testament, but with respect to its nature and duration, very different opinions have been and are entertained as being each of them the doctrine (teaching) of God’s revelation. I speak only of punishment to be inflicted subsequent to the General Resurrection as recorded by Jesus in John 5:28–29 and the Day of Judgment (John 12:48, see also Mt. 12:36).
Let me reveal some results of my studies: Before the preaching of the Gospel, the highest order of pagan philosophy had framed for its satisfaction a theory of the immortality of a soul within mankind. While the great mass of mankind had absolutely no hope of any future life in the body (Plato, Phaedo, par. 29); and while by far the greater number of philosophers taught that death was for all an eternal sleep (Athenagoras, Plea for Christians, C. XII; Tatian, Address to the Greeks, C.SSV; Tertullian, De Anima, C. III, ibid., De Spectaculis, S. 30; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, I. 31); these were “high spirits of old” that strained their imaginations to see beyond the clouds of time the dawning of immortal life of the soul. Unable to connect it with God as its source, and with an assurance, they framed the idea of an immortal self-existing in the human body. Egypt, the prolific mother of religious error, appears, from the best authorities in our hands, to have been the source of this idea (Perowne, J. J. S., Immortality, page 37; Herodotus, Book II, S. 23; Bunsen, Egypt’s Place in Universal history, IV, 639; Witmore, Immortality, C. I). But it was extracted from the tombs and the hieroglyphics of Egyptian priests by the brilliant and restless curiosity of Greece. Socrates, and his pupil, Plato, presented it to the human mind wherever the Grecian intellect penetrated, and the language of Greece was known. Cicero recommended the theory of the Academy to his contemporaries in his “Tusculan Questions.” They did not teach it at all consistently, nor do they appear themselves to have relied with any firmness on its reality (Perowne, J. J. S., Immortality, preface CII, page 45). It was with them a great hope fitfully entertained, rather than a sober conviction. “I have perused Plato,” Cicero sadly complains, “with the greatest diligence and exactness, over and over again; but know not how it is, while I read him I am convinced; when I lay the book aside and begin to consider by myself of the soul’s immortality, all the conviction instantly ceases.” It is indeed doubtful whether any of the great minds of antiquity in their esoteric or inner faith held more than the tenet of Buddhism, which teaches that the soul, originally derived from Deity, is at length to be re-absorbed and lost in Deity again.
However this may be, those of whom we speak presented to the common mind an idea not so vague as this. The conception of it kindled their imagination, and the discussion of it afforded a theme for their logical powers. According to it, the soul was possessed of an inherent immortality; it had no beginning and could have no end. What was true of one soul was equally true of all souls, good or bad. They must live somewhere, be it in Tartarus, or Cocytus, in Pyriphlegethon, or the happy abodes of the purified. This idea, sublime for a pagan, passed readily and early into the theology of the Christian Church. Philosophers, converted to Christianity, brought with them into their new service too much of their ancient learning. Heedless of Paul’s warning voice against philosophy in general (Col. 2:8), they considered that a considerable portion at least of Plato’s philosophy must be exempted from the apostolic condemnation. We find accordingly the Platonic philosophy of the soul’s immortality running through and blending with the theological reasoning of Athenagoras and Tertullian, of Origen and Augustine (Athenagoras, p. 31 A, 53 D., Edition Paris, 1615; Tertullian, De Anima; Origen, Vol. I, 483 B, ibid., Vol. II 108, C. E. Rothomagi, 1668; Augustine, De Civ. Dei. 21 3). Teachers who should have consulted only the teachings of God, leaving behind them the pagan lore as Moses left behind him the learning of Egypt, supplemented those scriptures with theories drawn from a brilliant Greek Philosophy, which was in its turn suggested by the priest-craft taught in Egyptian temples. Their theory was that the life of the wicked must be as eternal as the life of those redeemed and brought to Christ, because every soul of man was immortal.
A moment’s reflection will show that a dogma of this kind could not remain idle. It must influence irresistibly in one direction or another this whole question of future punishment. It must mould the entire doctrine of the Church upon the subject. Accordingly, as men connected it with one truth of Scripture to another, it must give rise to two opposite schools of thought. Connect the immortality of the soul with the scriptural doctrine of the eternal result of punishment, and you inevitably create the dogma of eternal life in misery, i.e., of Augustine’s hell. Connect it with another great truth of scripture, the final extinction of evil and restitution of all things, and you as inevitably create Origen’s Universal Restoration. For each of these opposing theories there is exactly the same amount of proof, viz: Plato’s dogma and a dogma of the Bible; and if Plato’s dogma could be proved to be a scriptural doctrine, then, by every law of logic, Scripture would be found supporting two contradictory theories, or, in other words, would itself destroy all its claims to authority.
Unfortunately, this philosophical idea of Plato is found influencing powerfully and most unfairly the understanding of Scripture from the mid-second century down to our own time. It is true, indeed, that while the church fathers (so called) from the mid-second century by the four brilliant philosophers named previously, and after Augustine, as a general rule considered the question of future punishment under the impression that every soul of man was immortal, But I give them credit in that they did not attach to the soul the idea of an essential immortality and an existence from all eternity as Plato did. Their higher notions of the Deity prevented their going to this length; and they generally acknowledged the soul as the creation of God, having a beginning in time, and allowed that He who had given it existence, could take that existence away. But in supposing that God gave to the soul an inalienable existence, i.e., an immortality not affected by any conduct upon man’s part, of which no creature could deprive it, and of which God would not deprive it, they in effect laid down a dogma which had the very same influence upon their views of future punishment as if they had adopted the dogma of Plato to its fullest extent. An immortality that never would be taken from the soul, and an immortality that never could be taken from it, would have precisely the same bearing upon the future of man. In either case he must live on for ever, whether in misery or in happiness.
Now the immortality of the soul, whether as held by Plato, or by the fathers in general, was an imagination of the human mind. As to any essential immortality which belonged to it of its own proper nature there is no Christian writer or thinker of any weight who now dares to maintain it. It was, as Pliny justly called it, a figment; and even Socrates, with all his noble language, evidently feared that his favorite notion was no sounder than the figment which the Epicurean Pliny contemptuously called it (Pliny, Natural History, book 7, chapter 56; Apology of Socrates, chapters 32 and 33). Scripture denies it altogether: an essential immortality it does not allow to be the attribute of any creature, however exalted. To one Being only, God, does it allow to have “life in Himself;” of one Being only, God, does it allow such an immortality to be an attribute (John 5:26; I Tim. 6:16).
The idea that God has bestowed upon men, or upon any part of human nature, an inalienable immortality finds absolutely no sanction in the Scriptures. The expression “immortality of the soul,” so common in theology, is not once found in the Bible from beginning to end. In vain do men, bent on sustaining a human figment, ransack Scripture for some expressions which may be tortured into giving it an apparent support. The phrase, “living soul,” applied to man at his creation, has been used by many Christian writers, utterly ignorant of the Hebrew, supposedly to imply such an immortality. The very same phrase, however, in the original language of Scripture, had been applied to the creatures of the sea, the fowl of the air, the animals of the land, and of all creatures that breath. The threefold description of man, as having body, soul, and spirit, has been supposed significant of his inalienable immortality. Whatever is meant by this distinction, it cannot in any measure support the inference based upon it; as the lives of all creatures lower than man are also allowed in Scripture to be possessed not merely of body and soul but of spirit likewise (Gen. 7:15-22, Psa. 106:29; Eccl. 3:19–21).
An inalienable immortality, according to Scripture, was not put into man at creation, as many suppose was done. I do not deny that man was made in God’s image; and that a very important part of this resemblance consisted in man’s not being subject to death as all creatures below him were created to be. Immortality was made available to Adam and Eve through their eating of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. This immortality was not a part of the pair, period. They could remain immortal strictly by partaking of the fruit of the tree. God had warned them that if they didn’t obey him in not partaking of the tree of good and evil, they would loose the availability of the tree of life, and that dying, they would surely die. Man sinned, and lost access to immortality. As Irenaeus expresses it, “Man, disobedient to God, was cast off from immortality” (Against Heresies, book III, s. II; Landis, Immortality of the Soul, p.i., e. III, s. 26). Adam and Eve were not created with a natural immortality, but were strictly mortals; and by sinning lowered themselves to the level of the beasts that perish. If immortality is to be gained, it must be as a gift restored, and not inherited. It must become man’s by virtue of some new provision of God’s friendly disposition (His grace) which reinstates access to immortality. This was the Gospel of Christ! As Ignatius said to the Ephesians, c. xix; Landis, Immortality, p.i., c. 3. s. 21: “God was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.”
Subsequent examination of the Scriptures will, however, show us that Christ has not, as some suppose, bestowed this priceless gift on all; but only on those who believe and obey Him. It is only the believer who can say with David, “He redeemed my life from destruction” (Psa. 100:3–4, 102:28, John 5:20, 40).
Heb 9:27 says, “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;” mentions the first death, and what comes after. This is a perfect analogy, the first death versus the “second death” as spoken of in Rev. 2:11, 20:6, 14, 21:8. And this pertains to Mt. 25:46 also, among many, many other verses spoken by Jesus and His Apostles. From the earliest records of our race capital punishment has been reckoned as not only the greatest but also the most lasting of all punishments; and it is only reckoned the greatest because it is the most lasting. A punishment of life-imprisonment on a criminal inflicts more pain than execution inflicts upon a murderer. Why? Because it has deprived the sufferer of every hour of that life which he would have had. Augustine says, “…do not estimate the punishment of a criminal by the brief period during which he is being put to death; but by their removing him for ever from the company of living men” (City of God, book 21, chapter two).
The wages of sin is death! This is not in reference to that death that all men are appointed to have; the wages of sin that were suffered by all mankind since Adam and Eve. Because of the promotion of the idea of an immortal soul teaching since Augustine systemized it as church doctrine, writings, preaching, and teachings made it a common practice to declare that the wages of sin is “spiritual death,” meaning “separation from God.” The Bible never says that! The word “spiritual” has been added to evade the reality of death as the wages of sin! The fact is that the “separation from God” contributes to the final result of death. The apple, plucked from the tree which is its source of life, ultimately deteriorates and dies as a result of the separation. So it is with the man who is severed from God by sin. Without God, the source of life (“in whose hand thy breath is” [Daniel 5:25]) man cannot live. Unless that sin that severs the two is removed, that severance becomes permanent and in the Day of Judgment the death becomes final, total and irrevocable.
Therefore, “separation” from God is a result of sin, but the final and ultimate outcome of sin and separation is death!
One man who was a writer, preacher and theologian, Curtis Dickinson by name, wrote a summary in his book, “Man and His Destiny.” I reproduce it here by permission. You may see some of the many articles he produced over 40+ years of writing at Ken's Web Site.
Summary: Man is mortal, under the sentence of final death, and unable to save himself from it. His body, like beasts and plants, returns to dust and his spirit (call it “soul” or “being”) is held in a place or condition called Sheol (O.T.) or Hades (N.T.) until Judgment Day. These words are often translated “hell” or “grave,” but in the Hebrew and Greek simply meant a hidden or unseen place. The consistent teaching in both the Old and New Testaments as to the state of man in Sheol/Hades is to refer to it by the figure “sleep,” indicating a condition of oblivious of the passage of time but subject to the sovereign command of Christ (the “shout” of the archangel in I Thess. 4:16) to return to life.
Being created in the image of God and for His purpose, every soul must be recalled from this first death to stand before God in the Judgment, where each will hear the final sentence for eternity from Christ Himself (Acts 17:30). The outcome of this judgment will be eternal life in a perfect environment for those who are redeemed, but eternal death by fire for the unsaved. This is called the “second death” because it is similar to the first death except that it is final and eternal.
Salvation is nothing less than the salvaging of man from this ultimate destruction that he might have life in God’s image, and it is accomplished through Christ receiving the sentence of death, “the just for the unjust,” Thus satisfying the just penalty for sin with regard to all whose who through faith are called His people. We may have full assurance for our salvation because Christ paid the full price of our sins: death — nothing more and nothing less.
Judgment is described as a total cleansing of the creation (Matt. 3:2, II Peter 3:7–12) of all that is contrary to God’s purpose. The sinner is not merely put out of sight so he can go on in rebellious sin against the Creator; sin and sinner must perish together, so that God may be “all in all” in the midst of His holy, eternal people.
The power of the Gospel (the death, burial and resurrection of Christ) is the power of life, when it is understood that man has no innate immortality of his own but that life is imparted to him by the fiat act of God in resurrection. Either he believes in Christ to eternal life, or he perishes (John 3:16).
“Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness” (II Peter 3:11–13).
Note: While the Bible gives us these challenging and exciting descriptions of the resurrected saints, nowhere does it describe the body of the resurrected sinner. And, why not? Perhaps because the sinner is raised a mortal person only to face judgment and death, not to live!
I can furnish a large and fairly complete list of scriptures that show that the judgment is death, and anyone who honestly examines them with the object of being educated in the “knowledge of Christ” can be assured of finding the truth. One just has to ignore “traditional teaching” that are man-created, and look to God for enlightenment. The pagan idea of an “immortal soul” that can never die is not true, and this false teaching must be purged from ones mind and replaced with what God, Jesus and His apostles teach us about immortal life.
It’s up to you, whoever reads this article, to examine what is said and read the Bible for yourself; not what other try to tell you it says. Annalex, I hope you understand what I’ve revealed herein. It answers your statement and shows that what you said is not based upon any “very clear teaching in Mt. 25.
BTW, this is not an attach on, or an anti-Catholic post; it is simply a statement against what I perceive as a false teaching or most church bodies.
Exactly! That is exactly what I've been saying! However, you apparently haven't checked up to see what God said the "judgment" is to be. Jesus, Himself, said it was "death." The apostles said it was "death." What authority denies these things and then says that the judgment is not death? Is not "The wages of sin death?" Does not the prophets say that "the one who sins shall die?"
How about that?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
You seem to be criticizing something that is nowhere claimed in the article nor anywhere in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
If I ordered a free copy of the book of mormon would that mean they will baptize me into their church?
I’m Catholic.
It is, still, speculation. This is what is true:
- Both reward of heaven and punishment of hell are for eternity.
- Punishment of hell is often referred to as second death or spiritual death.
This is what is not true:
- “Man is mortal, under the sentence of final death”. Ontologically, man is not mortal: he was not made mortal. Death is the consequence of original sin, and has been conquered by Christ.
I encourage you, however, to post Dr. Ken Fortier’s theory on a thread of its own. Since this thread is about Protestants in general, and with virtually all of them we Catholics agree on this matter of immortality of soul, I don’t want to digress too much into it here.
Seeing as how you have not said what was speculation in what I posted, there is no way I can make a statement on that part of your short non-specific statement. However, I can respond to your “This is what is true” part.
- Both reward of heaven and punishment of hell are for eternity.
First point: I agree 100 percent that the reward of heaven and the punishment of “hell” are for all eternity: provided, of course, that by “hell” you meant “the lake of fire” or Jesus’ reference to being “thrown in Gehenna.” If you meant “sheol/hades” then I think you need to examine those terms, and how the writers of Scriptures, both the OT and NT, use them.
- Punishment of hell is often referred to as second death or spiritual death.
Second point: I again agree 100 percent that the punishment in “hell” (see above explanation) is referred to as a “second death.” On considering the “second death” the unmistakable reference is in one’s “first death.” However, I absolutely disagree with the idea of it being referred to as a “spiritual death!” Search as you will, you will never, I repeat, never find that idea in the whole of the Bible (and if you think you have found something, please let me know where so that I can correct my beliefs).
This is what is not true: - “Man is mortal, under the sentence of final death”.
Hmmm….I stand solidly by that statement you quoted from me.
Ontologically, man is not mortal: he was not made mortal.
Your statement is not to be found in the Bible. I made specific mention of that in my post. Man, as God created him, was “mortal,” which means “subject to death” because he was made of the dust of the earth’s ground. If he had not disobeyed God by partaking of the tree of good and evil, instead partaking of the tree of life, which gives one immortality, i.e., “not subject to death,” he would have been able to live forever (see Genesis, chapters 2 & 3).
Death is the consequence of original sin, and has been conquered by Christ.
Yes, death is the consequence to all mankind because of Adam’s sin! And yes, for those who believe and obey Jesus’ commands, death has been conquered. However, God, because of man’s sinful nature, has appointed all men to suffer death, even those who are “in Christ” and redeemed (see Heb. 9:27–28, and many other verses in the NT). Then comes the Day of Judgment! And the sentence! Immortality to the redeemed, and the “second death” to those whose names are not found written in the Book of Life! This is the TRUTH, regardless if one believes it or not. God’s word is truth, not speculation.
I encourage you, however, to post Dr. Ken Fortier’s theory on a thread of its own.
I take personal offense at your ascribing my post to another person! Especially to a “Dr. Ken Fortier.” What I posted is from my own typing-sore fingers. I realize your “Dr.” title was made sarcastically, and I forgive you for that. Ken is no “Dr.” by any means. He only admits to being a “biblical student,” and shuns all titles. Yes, I did think of posting a thread with that post, but what I wrote was in response to your statements and questions. Maybe next time...:-)
Since this thread is about Protestants in general, and with virtually all of them we Catholics agree on this matter of immortality of soul, I don’t want to digress too much into it here.
I realize that a great majority of Christians, Catholics, and Protestants (let’s include Evangelicals) who kept this idea of Catholicism in their teachings, agree on the “immortal soul” theory, for the most part, of Plato as propagated by those I mentioned in my post. Numbers of adherants does not impress me, nor do I imagine that they impress our Lord and Savior. The majority of Jews at the time of Jesus didn't believe Him. I can understand perfectly why you wouldn’t want to discuss this topic! It would destroy some cherished beliefs.
I, personally, don’t believe you can refute what I’ve just said from the Scriptures. You would have to bring in philosophical ideas, ideas gleaned from pagan sources and propagated by Christian teachers over the centuries. This idea has been so encrusted with the sands of time over the centuries that it has virtually scraped away what God has said on the topic in Scriptures. What say you?
I think it is possible to square your belief with the Scripture, yes. This does not make them the only interpretation of scripture, or even the correct interpretation. The reason I am reluctant to debate it at length here is that it deserves a separate thread. Since it is not a typical Protestant objection to Catholicism, I think it would be better if you discuss this with the Protestants first, because they would do so from the same methodological background you have, — relying on the scripture alone. As a Catholic, I accept the teaching of my Church regardless of any other interpretation of scripture that can be found. I am not bothered by the fact that the Church blended the classic philosophy and Christianity; I think it was a good thing to do so.
I meant no disrepect to you or Ken Fortier; somehow I thought of him as a doctor of divinity.
I understand completely. I was once a Catholic (36 years). It was reading the Bible that led me to research all religious beliefs of Chrisianity. Philosophy is a process that is actually man trying to find God, while according to the Bible, it is God seeking man. I am anti-philosophy because their methods of making simple things difficult and the self-worthiness of intellectual powers.
I'm curious why you would say that blending pagan beliefs with Christianity was a good thing. Could you add to that a little?
I meant no disrepect to you or Ken Fortier; somehow I thought of him as a doctor of divinity.
I imagine he would laugh a lot at someone thinking him to be a Doctor of Divinity. I'll forward this to him and find out.
PS: I may just start a thread or two on some of what I gleaned from the Scriptures on the end-time destiny of man. So far, no one has been able to refute much of what I have written or preached.
Interetingly, Ken Fortier must be on to something because the larger quote form chapter five, below, seems to also hint at the utter detruction of the wicked.
Here is a collection of quotes that underline the Catholic outlook on wisdom and nature of man.
wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul (Wis 1:4)God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world (Wis 2:23f)
we also being born, forthwith ceased to be: and have been able to show no mark of virtue: but are consumed in our wickedness. 14 Such things as these the sinners said in hell: 15 For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by. 16 But the just shall live for evermore: and their reward is with the Lord, and the care of them with the most High (Wis 5:13f)
the multitude of the wise is the welfare of the whole world (Wis 6:26)
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.