Posted on 05/12/2015 12:17:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
Pope Francis warned the rich and powerful on Tuesday that God will judge them on whether they fed the poor and cared for the Earth
"We must do what we can so that everyone has something to eat. But we must also remind the powerful of the Earth that God will call them to judgment one day," he said. "And there it will be revealed if they really tried to provide for him in every person, and if they did what they could to preserve the environment so that it could produce this food."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Don’t agree with you very often, but the Pope should spend more time reading the Bible rather than opining on scientific issues for which he is grossly unqualified.
It is most interesting that you raise the same arguments thrown at Paul in Romans 9.
“You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? (if you are right). On the contrary, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” Keep reading...some prepared beforehand for glory, some for destruction. Does this disturb you?
“If He did know what you were about to choose to think, do or say in the next minute, that “thing” He knew about you would be “fixed” because it would be the only thing that you could do. If that were the case, you would not be truly “free” to do something without His control.”
That’s a non sequitur. Just because God can foresee our choices does not mean He controls them.
All good points.
I totally agree. We are to be good stewards of the earth, but not worship it. Global warming fools have been using it to make money. Al Gore is a prime example. Talk about a sin.
This might not be a totally satisfactory answer, but it's what God caused me to say. :o)
And it reminds me of an argument I had with a behaviorist, who said the only explanations of our thoughts, decisions, and actions are factors over which we have no control: genetics, intrauterine environment, early nurture/training and operant conditioning, social patterning, environment, hardwired material determinism, brain chemistry.
Asked him if there were anything he could do if I were pre-programmed by nature/nurture to shoot him dead. As I went rummaging around in my purse for (by implication) a firearm, he did take a step or two backwards.
Tagline.
“It is most interesting that you raise the same arguments thrown at Paul in Romans 9.”
No, I don’t think the argument is the same. In Romans 9, Paul is discussing God ordaining certain peoples or nations to either blessing or wrath. That’s the context of the entire chapter. He isn’t speaking of sin or righteousness, or damnation and redemption for individuals.
He does mention sin and righteousness in verse 11, but only to illustrate (in the case of nations blessed before their founding individual was born) that God’s election in these matters is not based on the works of the founder.
Not so...Paul is discussing the reason that God loved Jacob and hated Esau and was not unjust in doing so. It is because He wants the choice to remain His. That is why He can harden Pharaoh’s heart and have mercy on someone else.
“So then it does not depend on the MAN who wills (chooses) or the MAN who runs (acts), but on God who has mercy...So then He has mercy on whom He desires and He hardens whom He desires.”
The old saw about this being about “nations” doesn’t wash. Your argument is that this is NOT unfair...but Paul knows that this is exactly what they will claim. Go read the entire argument...it is about you, personally. Just as Eph. 1:4 is about personal election before the foundation of the world.
Okay, let’s take this one step at a time. Do you affirm that the future is unknowable by God since the decisions of “free agents” have not yet been made? OR, do you agree that God can foresee our choices?
LOL...
Your confrontation with the B.F. Skinner guy was hilarious. Sweat instantly forming on his little bald head.
However, he as a “biological determinist” is in another world altogether from theists. He does not recognize God’s intervention in His world, really at all. The control he speaks of is mechanical and “hardwired” by impersonal forces of what they call “nature”. All of this is patently debunked by Scripture as the product of blindness (induced by God).
What I am referring to is the thinking, loving, planning, managing, control of divine determinism. And, the Scriptures describe this as something you cannot “feel” (just as Pharaoh had no idea that his heart was being hardened by God), something that operates on you and in you in ways that are genius.
It is not, repeat not, puppetry, since puppets cannot feel, think, or realize anything is happening to them. But, humanity is being managed, moved, controlled by the most impressive Mind of the Universe, causing one to cling to Him and another to reject Him (Rom. 9). That we cannot “feel” it does not make it unreal. We can often see the results of His work on our lives, as well God’s work on others.
With all due respect, this is not a “paradox”. It is something described in the Scripture which admittedly is difficult to accept (unless He permits). But, the substance of it is plain...God is controlling everything. If you wish to read some additional references from the Scriptures which teach this, let me know.
I vaguely remember (don't ask me to cite a source) that 13th century Dominican, Augustinian and Franciscan students used to argue over this at the University of Paris, even to the point of fist fights (I wonder if there may have been alcohol involved?) The bishop of Paris, Étienne (Stephen) Tempier tried to ban dispute over unresolvable propositions, e.g. the Omnipotence Paradox.
I don't know if the ban worked out or not. It may have been more effective to ban beer instead.
Anyway, most people don't believe they have no free will, which must mean God doesn't want them to believe that.
Okay, I will let you alone...but, if we ever meet at a beer fest, let’s start a food fight just to “re-enact” this famous historical event.
“Not so...Paul is discussing the reason that God loved Jacob and hated Esau and was not unjust in doing so.”
But this is in the context of discussing the concept of “the promise”, God’s election to bless Israel. That’s why Jacob and Esau are discussed, because the promise was given through Jacob, to his posterity, the nation of Israel, before his birth. The individuals are only mentioned to illustrate that the promise was not given based on their merit, as the promise was given before they were born:
“10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”
“It is because He wants the choice to remain His. That is why He can harden Pharaoh’s heart and have mercy on someone else.”
No, Paul specifically says that it is to demonstrate God’s power to men and to glorify Himself among men:
“7 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”
“The old saw about this being about “nations” doesn’t wash.”
The entire chapter is speaking of God’s dealings with nations, specifically with the nation of Israel, which is contrasted with other nations like Egypt and Edom, and with the gentiles who were adopted as heirs to Israel’s promise. This is clear from the first verses and the last, and the entire narrative is consistent.
It is your interpretation that doesn’t “wash”, since if the chapter is about what you want to make it out to be, then only a handful of verses are sensible, and the vast majority of the chapter is unconnected and speaking of unrelated subjects.
“Just as Eph. 1:4 is about personal election before the foundation of the world.”
Sure, but that chapter says nothing about there being no free will, and says nothing to invalidate all the other assertions in the Bible that salvation is based on our faith, rather than an arbitrary choice made by another. You are trying to build your contention on a foundation that is too flimsy to support it, and conveniently ignoring the glaring contradictions and objects that your hypothesis necessitates.
Explain to us, for example, what sense there is to even talk of “sin”, if nobody has any choice in the matter. How can you even define sin? Is it not trespassing against the will of God? If so, how can God will me to trespass against His will? If God commands us to disobey Him can we call that disobedience?
“Okay, let’s take this one step at a time. Do you affirm that the future is unknowable by God since the decisions of “free agents” have not yet been made? OR, do you agree that God can foresee our choices?”
That’s another fallacy, a false dichotomy. God exists outside of our universe, and isn’t constrained to our limited perception of the things in it. To speak of the “future”, from God’s perspective, as something not written, is not sensible, as time is an attribute of God’s creation and He is not bound by it. Even to speak of something being “unknowable” to God is not sensible, for He is omniscient. In order to try to force this bad logic, you are forced to downgrade your conception of God to that of a lesser being. I think that should be a big clue to you that you are on the wrong track.
And, you are incorrect (again) on the derivation of "faith". It is not something a person "does" or it would be a work (check the entire argument of Rom. 3 & 4). You have removed Paul's explanation of how salvation works (by the gifting of faith to a person the way it was gifted to Abraham) to another works oriented religion.
I suppose we should ask you where you believe your "faith" came from. Was it something you generated, and therefore deserve salvation, or was it gifted to you without any merit of your own? The answer here will tell us if you have a Religion or Christianity.
Please notice Acts 2 where Peter makes it clear that the plan to have the Messiah, the Son of God, turned over and crucified was done by the foreknowledge and predetermination of God. Of course He manages disobedience! Here is the worst sin in the history of the universe planned, organized, timed and executed by God. Do you actually believe the there are a whole group of beings just running around doing anything they want? Read the Book, my FRiend...He is in control. And, that is why you pray asking Him to do something, anything. Because intuitively you know He can.
That's fair enough but I will predict that most Catholics here will defend whatever he writes or explain that what he wrote wasn't really what he meant.
“Paul has already said, “Not all Israel is Israel.” He cannot possibly be speaking of “Not all folks born into the nation are folks born into the nation.””
Now you are cherry picking verses and ignoring context. Paul makes it quite clear he is talking of physical Israel, (according to the flesh), in the beginning of the chapter:
“3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
He reinforces several times in those three verses that he is referring to national Israel: “my kinsmen according to the flesh”, “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came”. This reference can’t be spiritualized in face of the clear statements that he is speaking of those called Israelites due to their fleshly lineage.
Now, AFTER those verses, he goes on to talk of the other aspect of Israel:
“6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
This Israel is contrasted with the “fleshly” Israel, and distinguished as “children of the promise”, by comparing it to the distinctions God made between Abraham’s descendents (”Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children”). Paul then goes on to explain the distinction:
“9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
Here Paul explains that although the promise was given based on earthly lineage (a blessing given to Sarah regarding her child), God still did not apply the promise to all of her children and their descendants, but only those whom God elected to bless (Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated). It is reinforced that this choice was not based on their works, but on God’s will (”that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”).
He’s still speaking of a group of people, the people of the promise, but he is drawing a distinction between those that the world calls “Israel” and those whom God calls “Israel”.
“He is telling Roman believers (Gentiles)...”
Ah, even the verse about gentiles is speaking of nations and groups of people, not individuals. The word itself literally means “nations”, and it is contrasted with the nation of Israel, which would not make sense if he was talking about individual believers, as it would be an “apples and oranges” comparison:
“30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles (nations), which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”
“And, you are incorrect (again) on the derivation of “faith”. It is not something a person “does” or it would be a work...”
I didn’t say faith was something that a person does. My point was that our salvation hinges on that faith, not on God making an arbitrary decision that is meaningless and devoid of any judgement. For what meaning could any judgement have if God is playing the roles of the judge, the prosecutor and the defendant? It would have as much meaning as a child making dolls have a conversation with themselves. All it could tell us was about the mind of the child and nothing about the dolls themselves.
“You have removed Paul’s explanation of how salvation works (by the gifting of faith to a person the way it was gifted to Abraham) to another works oriented religion.”
I’ve removed nothing, I simply didn’t mention it. You are trying to seize on my silence on that subject to leap and insert your own guess as to what I might think about it, so that you can argue against a strawman. That isn’t really a proper way to argue.
“I suppose we should ask you where you believe your “faith” came from.”
Well, now that you have asked, it comes from God.
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.