Questions and Answers on Salvation

Catholic Family News ^ | first published in 1875 | Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

[Stubborn]

Father Michael Muller was one of the most widely read theologians of the 19th Century. He ranks as one of the greatest defenders of the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in modern times. Father Muller always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication, thus we are sure of the doctrinal soundness of his teachings. This article, first published in 1875, is one of the finest treatments of the doctrinal truth that Our Lord founded one true Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Father Muller’s firm writings are desperately needed in our time when this doctrine is denied by those who are the most influential members of our Holy Church. We publish Father Muller’s excellent little Catechism as an antidote to the prevalent religious indifferentism — an indifferentism that is the direct result of what Blessed Pius IX denounced as “Liberal Catholicism”.

[Stubborn]

Well, maybe it wouldn't amount to anything, but I noticed that there were only two replies to post #52 where Kosta50 itemized a few key differences in beliefs, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory etc. and thought that post could possibly serve as a type of base for discussion. - I dunno, might be beating a dead horse.

[NYer]

If and when the Romans renounce Uniatism, and the discovery is made that union won't immediately follow, Orthodox are going to be accused of false advertising by Roman Catholics who thought that this was the hurdle.

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15). Pope John Paul II said that "the Catholic Church is both Eastern and Western." It recognizes 22 different liturgies that make up the "two lungs" of the Church. The Eastern Churches have their own hierarchy distinct from the Latin Rite, system of governance (synods) and general law, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches. The Supreme Pontiff exercises his primacy over them through the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The term 'Uniatism' was dropped many years ago. The Eastern Rites are the rites used by many of the ancient Christian churches of Eastern Europe and the Middle East that are in the Catholic Communion but do not follow the Latin Rite. The churches that use these rites are called the Eastern Catholic Churches. The faithful who use these rites are technically members of "Eastern Catholic Churches", not rites. Their union with the Catholic Church, in which they are sui iuris Churches, gives rise to the term Uniate, which is not used by the Vatican.

Western (or "Latin-Rite") Catholic bishops are subject directly to the Pope, but most Eastern-rite Catholic bishops are subject indirectly to the pope via one of six Catholic "patriarchs of the east", who sit in Alexandria, Antioch, Antelias, Baghdad, Beirut, and Damascus but who acknowledge the primacy of the Pope. (There is a seventh "patriarch" of the east in Jerusalem, but his church follows the Latin Rite, as his title is honorary, not juridical.) These churches accept Catholic dogma, but retain hierarchies and liturgies distinct from the Western church, and follow many laws and customs that differ from those of Western church. They are subject to the "Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1991. For example, their priests need not be celibate, and their parish priests, rather than diocesan bishops, normally confirm parishioners, using the chrismation rite rather than the rite used in the west.

We have Roman Catholics who occasionally attend our Orthodox parish and are visibly shaken by the differences between what they encounter here compared to what they are being offered "back home"...

This same distinction can be made with regard to Roman Catholics who attend the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Church. It was true for me and for everyone I have sent "East", in their search for orthodoxy. Perhaps we, who have "breathed with both lungs" can evangelize those who are disconsolate, believing there to be only one liturgy.

Watching the live coverage this morning, of the transfer of the relics, was to witness a major event in the reconciliation of our churches.

[Tantumergo]

"Regarding Catholic-Orthodox relations, Archimandrite Sotiriadis said: "The problem that remains to be surmounted is 'Uniatism.'"

As Agrarian rightly points out in a subsequent post, the above statement is probably a little too simplistic to describe the extent of issues that need resolution. However if the return of the relics can build bridges to the extent that it will aid Latins and Greeks speaking to one another with good will and honesty, then this can only be a good thing.

"The archimandrite said he believes that a future of unity passes through the path traced "by all our Orthodox theologians and all our historians, as well as by famous theologians of the West, of the Catholic Church, such as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who speaks about a unity or reunification according to the historical models of the first millennium.""

If both East and West can agree that there must be first a process of going back before we can go forwards, then that will at least provide us with common goals and a common direction. I do believe that it is in a common and honest appraisal of the past that we will find much more that we have in common. Somehow both sides need to recover the phrenoma of the Church of the first millenium - a unity which incorporated sufficient room for legitimate diversity of culture, expression, and theological tradition.

As far as the "Uniatism" issue is concerned, one of the few good fruits of Vatican II (IMHO) was that a shift in ecclesiology commenced which would facilitate the communion of Latin and Greek without resorting to the structures of uniatism. The Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches have moved this to the top of their agenda and, despite the controversies the East has with their mere existence, they could well be the catalyst for the West returning to an ecclesiology that permits the re-emerghence of the unity of the first millenium.

A report of their recent meeting follows:

"Restore rights of Eastern patriarchs, Melkite bishop urges Vatican

Rome, Nov. 19 (CWNews.com) - The Church has not fully implemented the vision of Vatican II regarding the Eastern Catholic communities, according to an influential Melkite bishop.

At a Vatican symposium on the Eastern churches, marking the 40th anniversary of the Vatican II decree Orientalum Ecclesiarum , Bishop Ignace Dick of Aleppo, Syria, said that while there have been "certainly some happy results" from the post-conciliar approach to the Eastern rites, "the application of the decree has been only partial." The Melkite bishop went on to say that "there is still a great force of inertia to overcome" in changing Roman attitudes toward the Eastern churches.

The Eastern Catholic churches still need "fully to revive their tradition," Bishop Dick said. At the same time, the universal Church must "become accustomed to breathing again with both lungs," and the Roman Curia must recognize the ecclesial rights of the Eastern patriarchs. He explained that the Eastern patriarchs should be given all of the rights and responsibilities that they enjoyed during the first Christian millennium.

The new Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches does not give adequate recognition of the Eastern churches' identity, the bishop argued. He added that the Code was "not an Eastern codification, but a Roman codification for the Eastern" churches.

In opening the symposium on the Eastern churches, Cardinal Ignace I Moussa Daoud-- the prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, who formerly served as patriarch of the Syrian Catholic Church-- remarked that the Vatican II decree was "a point of departure" in strengthening the communion between the Holy See and the Eastern patriarchates. The Vatican, he said, had "listened to the patriarchs and Eastern bishops with respect and gratitude." "

[AlbionGirl]

The Eastern Catholic churches still need "fully to revive their tradition," Bishop Dick said. At the same time, the universal Church must "become accustomed to breathing again with both lungs," and the Roman Curia must recognize the ecclesial rights of the Eastern patriarchs. He explained that the Eastern patriarchs should be given all of the rights and responsibilities that they enjoyed during the first Christian millennium.

I have a very positive impression of our Eastern half, and hope that re-unification is possible.

It seems that all goes well until we really try to address the issues that separate us -Primacy being chief among them. Once we begin to handle the issues, the schism that seemed lifeless before begins to breath.

If the Eastern patriarchs are to be given all of the rights and responsibilities that they enjoyed during the First century, wouldn't they be able to say no to Roman decrees and/or doctines they consider novel or ancillary?

Also, does Rome believe the Eastern Catholics will eventually accept the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility?

[Kolokotronis]

"Thanks for the ping. I find this whole line of "we're returning icons/relics, therefore it's time to talk theology" quite curious, but perhaps I'm just out of touch."

Note how the Archmandrite speaks of the gifts which have been exchanged. I suspect that the return of the relics of two very great pre-schism saints, saints for whom union with Rome was very important, is symbolic in two ways. First, the obvious one I just mentioned. St. John Chrysostomos was particularly favored by and favorable to Rome yet was twice Patriarch of Constantinople and fully Orthodox in his teaching. Second, and perhaps less obvious is cultural/historical. I can remember numerous instances over my lifetime when someone, laity, clergy or hierarch, here or in Greece, would in some public forum launch into a tirade on the sack of Constantinople by Papal Crusaders. The story of the pillaging of The City and the desecration of the Churches, especially of Agia Sophia has become a basic culture myth in Greek Christendom. I can remember my own mother coming home from a trip to Italy and being enraged by what she saw in Venice at St. Mark's. The belief developed, wrongly in my opinion, that 1453 was a direct result of that sack. The return of the relics, taken in the sack, has powerful meaning for the Greeks. I'll propose that these gestures had to happen before any serious talking could take place.

"You as an Orthodox Christian understand that in the Orthodox Church, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop, and while different honor is given to different bishops, the authority of each bishop only extends to the limits of his own diocese. But most non-Orthodox do not understand this, particularly Roman Catholics who are used to a system of organization where the Pope has the authority to act unilaterally throughout the entire Roman Church worldwide."

You are of course correct. And our Roman brethren must keep this in mind. Each of the Patriarchial jurisdictions and the national churches will have to speak for themselves. But Constantinople is the first among equals and one has to start somewhere. Past experience tells me that Antioch and Alexandria will be intimately involved in these discussions. If the Uniate problem is solved, Moscow will be along too. Many of the national churches already have close relations with Rome and/or Constantinople. But in the end, its up to the churches themselves and the people like us. The EP can't tell them what to do in this area.

"There are large segments of the Orthodox Church who feel that we are a very long way from being able to "discuss a speedy process of rapprochement of the Churches" for a variety of reasons of theology and praxis."

The only way to deal with the theological differences is by discussing them and seeing if we can come to an agreement on what the Truth is, so we must discuss theology. Praxis is another, much broader realm. Much, probably most praxis is of a disciplinary/cultural nature and should be left to the churches to decide. In other areas, however, praxis reflects and teaches and preserves dogma. In those areas where praxis and dogma intersect, and I would think that will be true in much ecclesiology, more intensive discussion will have to take place. As for "speedy rapprochement", I suspect the Archmandrite is speaking of the development of very close relations, even a sort of communion like we seem to have developed with the so called monophysites or what goes on in Lebanon between the Orthodox and the Maronites and Melkites. I trust we all realize that a Great Ecumenical Council isn't going to happen next month and when it does, it won't be over in a week.

You point out a very practical, potential problem with socially or theologically liberal Roman Catholics. The truth is they will be extremely uncomfortable with the Orthodox. Contrary to some opinions expressed on FR, we are light years more conservative than even the Romans on matters of established dogma and praxis. I don't know what will happen with the "Liberation Theology" crowd, the "ordination for women" group or the "Catholic Worker Movement" cabal. What will all the silly lefty nuns do when they are told to get back to their convents or missions or the syncretist RC priests when they are told to be silent? As I have shared with you before, my real fear in all of this is that "modern world" Romanism will infect the Church in the East. In many ways, I see that as the biggest stumbling block of all for the Orthodox people to accept any reunion.

I sincerely doubt that you will find any Orthodox talking reunion because we think the RCs want to hear that, though I think they do. The "only" reason for reunion is that Christ has told us that we are to be one. A false union, like that from the Council of Florence, will only make matters much worse. In fact, I think that is why the Archmandrite, speaking for the EP, has asked us to have this discussion. Unless the Laos tou Theou are on board, this simply won't work, as we learn from history.

Let me make a suggestion that we discuss matters in the following order:

1. Uniatism; hopefully someone on each side is fully informed on the problem. That would not be me!

2. The Role of the Pope

3. Filioque (though I think this really is sort of a dead horse)

4. Original Sin (because so much Roman theology and dogma rises out of Blessed Augustine's formulation), and thus,

5. Purgatory/ Toll houses

6.Immaculate Conception

7. Liturgics to the extent that the Liturgies reflect Sotirology, Christology and Mariology.

Comments?

[deaconjim]

I assure you, I am not leaving the discussion because we disagree. In fact, I entered the discussion precisely because we disagree. That is, after all, the point of a discussion forum, is it not?

I have ended my participation partly because I feel that I have adequately stated and defended my position, and partly bacause of time constraints.

I have enjoyed the discussion, and have learned from it. I hope others have as well.

[NYer]

Excellent posts ... both of you! Kudos! Ecumenism means setting aside prejudices, pulling our heads out of the sand, and sitting down for a meaningful 'dialogue'. As Kolokotronis pointed out, this will not happen overnight, nor would anyone truly be confident in any resolution that occured in the span of a week.

In watching today's ceremony, I noticed that the Holy Father wore his stole and not his pallium. I interpreted this as signifying he acted in his role as Bishop of Rome, is that correct? If so, then essentially, he was on equal footing (poor choice of word) with the EP, is that correct?

The Holy Father, at the conclusion of his presentation, referred to the symbol chosen by the Ecumenical Commission for their work - it is a ship. He spoke of the ship sailing across the sea and reaching port, hoping that it would traverse smooth seas.

Your 2nd item - The Role of the Pope. As the procession was leaving the Vatican, the EP and the Holy Father 'walked' (obviously the pope's illness prevents him from actually walking, so he rode in his chair), side by side. The commentator specifically stated that the next step in the discussions (and I presume she was referring to the Ecumenical Commission), would be the role of the pope. If I understood this correctly, then surely this dialogue is occuring and moving forward.

Let us, as Orthodox and Catholic christians, offer up our prayers for the work of this commission and the ultimate goal of re-unification.

May I also make a request? Could we follow the lead of the Vatican and drop the word "Uniate"? This is one time where the Orthodox can take the lead from the Eastern Catholics who have discarded its use.

[pachomi33]

I've seen it phrased that the righteousness of Christ is reckoned upon us by grace moreso than the sinfulness of Adam, and this being only one of some forty or so things which we receive at salvation.

I'll admit I also find far more significance in Romans 5:12-21 in regards to spiritual death than physical death, but I have also seen where this one set of Scripture seems to discern between many denominations and doctrinal perspectives. Some perhaps more in error than others, but all might give more testimony to the richness of His grace.


I came from a Calvinistic background- so I don't won't to misrepresent the Protestant interpretation of imputation. Again like I said there are elements of truth to it. But the whole truth is much more expansive than simple reckoning to our account. Much,much deeper.
In the Orthodox interpretation- as held universally prior to Augustine's interpretations in this regard:
1. the fall renders us depraved of the grace of God which is called deifying- ie partakers of the divine Nature (2 Pet.1:4) We are now just flesh and blood and hence cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Christ being divine cannot inherit it for flesh and blood (communication of properties )
2. this fall introduced the passions (pathemata in Gk Rom.7:5) also called concupiscence and anger.
3. the reason became darkened by the fall because ofthe withdrawal of the divine Vision of God. We now only see through a glass darkly.
3. finally this leads to physical death.
4. Adam's sin is not specifically said to be imputed to us. Again we suffer the consequences mentioned above. This depravity- bondage to death- leads to sin which is the basis of our condemnation.
5. The devil then has the power of death (heb.2:9-14) He is the prince of this world and rules throuh stirring the motions of sin within men. He is a king over the children of pride (Job.41)
6. Christ is born apart from Adam's seed- of one nature with us (homoousious) in order to impart life to fallen man. It is not so much judicial as it is healing.
7. The devil is destroyed by the cross (Col.2:15;Heb.2:14;Jn.12:31)
the cross literally was the destruction of the devil's dominion and the introduction of Christ's exaltation over all creation to be the Head over all things for the Church (Col.1:18;Eph.1:18-22)
8. The cross judged sin and condemned it (Rom.8:1-4) Satan was cast out and his house was spoiled by Christ- he harrowed hell after descending into it.
9. Christ then laid down his Life to deliver us from the Wolf who came to destroy. "the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep" why? to deliver from the wolf- the devil as the context in Jn.10 indicates.
10. The benefits then of Christ's obedience are given to those who are in Christ.
11. We are in Christ by bying baptized into Him (Gal.3:26-28) we then receive the inheritance.
12. However we are in Him only as we are joined to Him. Union with God is not just by fiat or decree of God. It is an ontological union- "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (I Cor.6:17) This means that only as we walk in the Spirit of God the new pedagogue (Gal.4:1-6) will we receive the inheritance to be a son of God- the grace of adoption.
12. Faith itself is reckoned for righteousness. Again salvation is not a legal transaction- it is inherently graciously. Was always and will be no matter what dispensation- or administration- God gave to the children in His house. The reason why God demands faith is because the basis for any relationship with God is trust. Eternal life IS knowledge of God. That is experience of His Spirit's powers (energies in GK) This kingdom is experienced only as we turn from Satan to God.
Acts 26:18 explains this well.
The legal metaphor is strained because in Eze.18 one could be righteous one minute and wicked the next depending on whether they stayed in covenant with GOd.
Perhaps you are trying to say in different terms what we accept though believe we term more accurately. Christ work is finished we cannot add to it or subtract. But being volitional creatures we must participate in joining ourselves to Him- He will not force salvation. If man were deprived of free will he would cease to be in the image of God, for God is SOvereign. He is free in all actions. He does not have to do anything. For us to be restored into the the fullness of the likeness of God we must have freedom from the passions etc. God bless you and I hope you perhaps understand the idea of works salvation is anathema to us (as Catholics as well!) We just believe it is not the most precise way to speak we must speak orthodox or correctly. Here is a thought as far as imputation. If CHrist's obedience were imputed to HIm. If I were considered as righteous than Him than why differing degrees of glory? Why are some saints great in the sight of the Lord and others are not? WHy is Mary highly favored and others not? This is the concept expressed in Lk.2:52 , "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and FAVOR with God and man" We do the same. we grow in grace- in favor with God. Certainly I do not have the efficacy in my prayers that JOhn the Baptist- the greatest of all men had or has even now? Just some thoughts to consider. We are individuals called to partake of the Life of the Trinity.

[pachomi33]

As I have shared with you before, my real fear in all of this is that "modern world" Romanism will infect the Church in the East. In many ways, I see that as the biggest stumbling block of all for the Orthodox people to accept any reunion.

This sentiment reflects many of the conversations I have had with my wife over this. The lukewarmness- pardon my not being pc- of the Roman communion in America is a tremendous scandal to all of my relatives who are Protestant. They won't even consider some Orthodox teachings because they resemble Catholic dogma in many respects. It is a shame, but a truth that truth is blasphemed because our lives don't reflect the truth (Rom2).

Now, I am new to much of the uniate discussion. Could someone enlighten me to the history here? I am a little in the dark in this as well, but I think it rightly stands at the top of discussion.

[Kolokotronis]

"In watching today's ceremony, I noticed that the Holy Father wore his stole and not his pallium. I interpreted this as signifying he acted in his role as Bishop of Rome, is that correct? If so, then essentially, he was on equal footing (poor choice of word) with the EP, is that correct?"

Interesting observation. You may be right since the pallium in the Roman Church has come to have a specific meaning having to do with Papal supremacy over time. I did notice that +Bartolomeos does not appear to have his Omophorion on, which is the Orthodox equivalent of the pallium in its more traditional and ancient sense. I can't say what this means but perhaps neither have theirs on because this service was not a Liturgy.

"As the procession was leaving the Vatican, the EP and the Holy Father 'walked' (obviously the pope's illness prevents him from actually walking, so he rode in his chair), side by side. The commentator specifically stated that the next step in the discussions (and I presume she was referring to the Ecumenical Commission), would be the role of the pope. If I understood this correctly, then surely this dialogue is occuring and moving forward."

You may again be right, but another way to look at this is that the apparent equality in position is precisely because we are not in communion. In other words, the Pope is walking with the first among equals of the Orthodox Patriarchs, who is his guest. One could observe that if there were communion between the two, the Pope would have come out last as the first among equals of the ancient Patriarchs. It undoubtedly has a meaning, what it is I can't fathom.

" Let us, as Orthodox and Catholic christians, offer up our prayers for the work of this commission and the ultimate goal of re-unification.

"May I also make a request? Could we follow the lead of the Vatican and drop the word "Uniate"? This is one time where the Orthodox can take the lead from the Eastern Catholics who have discarded its use."

If names made a big difference to me, I guess I'd point out that from my pov, the Orthodox are the Eastern Catholics! :)

We should decide which thread to follow this on. I personally don't care but perhaps "the other one" would bet better.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

4. Adam's sin is not specifically said to be imputed to us. Again we suffer the consequences mentioned above. This depravity- bondage to death- leads to sin which is the basis of our condemnation.

It's a busy day for me but I would like to have addressed some of what I see are the errors in what you have written. I will only look at one issue which is your point 4. So when it says in Romans 5:12 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:' and again in 1 Corinthians 15:22 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.', you don't take these verses directly to mean that Adam's sin meant that all mankind forever after is born into a sin nature? I could quote you more but I can't see how more specific the imputation could be. (By imputation, I am using the definition of 'laying the responsibility or blame by transferal'.)

[Quix]

Sadly wrong on a number of counts.

Christ showed quite clearly how He felt about RELIGIOUS leaders who construed THEIR constructions on reality and THEIR ORGANIZATION to be above Scripture and God's priorities.

Scripture is also sufficient and sufficiently clear about Salvation without any other mediator.

In fact, Scripture declares with God's voice: HE THAT SEEKS ME SHALL FIND ME.

I believe God.

I don't trust even local congregations and leaders THAT much even in the denomination(s) I prefer.

Humans are fallible. The Pope is fallible.

And, the Roman church did not arise until a few hundred years after in a masterful political move.

Deceiving people about these facts is not very honorable and certainly not Scriptural.

[pachomi33]

Am I responsible for Christ's obedience? No obviously but being organically united to Adam we suffer the consequences of what the head of the race has done. Adam diseased the whole tree because he corrupted the root. It is a subtle difference.
"For as in Adam all die" Yes but it is not called imputation- suffering the effects and being repsonsible for it are two different things. Do you suppose then logically that a child is damned because of Adam's sin? At least the Roman's are kind enough to have a limbo. God does not impute where there is not law as our very text says.

"I could quote you more but I can't see how more specific the imputation could be"
Imputation is not mentioned. The text says nothing of it. " I could quote more" Quote me more then- they are inferences only- based on wrong presupppositions. Let the scripture define it.

"The judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification....
by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"
The Lord is obedienct unto death. He was then glorified (Jn.7:38) thus giving us the promise of the Father because He had received the promise of the Father Himself (Gal.3:16)Thus the righteousness of Christ is the basis for God giving us His Holy Spirit-the Gift of God which is poured into our hearts justifies us- making us the children of God (Tit.3:5; Gal.4:4-6; Rom.8:13-14) Since you do not view this righteousness as infused there is no point really discussing imputation. We are accounted righteous, like I pointed out as we are in Christ, His Spirit makes us partakers of His righteousness.(Rom.8:9) We are partakers of the Divine Nature only as we partake of HIs Spirit by faithful obedience, not by fiat or decree. As the scripture says," we are witnesses of these things and so is also the holy Spirit whom God hath given to them that obey Him" As we walk in the light of His grace we reflect more and more that righteousness infused into us.
The root of this difference then lies in infusion/ versus forensic external imputation. And the notion that one is in God's sight as righteous as they ever will be. I do not wish to get into diatribes here. The whole history of exegesis dealing with this is clear. Luther introduced a new concept. Even Alistair Mcgrath an Anglican says so in his study Iustitia Dei which I am sure you are aware of. God bless you

[Stubborn]

As I have shared with you before, my real fear in all of this is that "modern world" Romanism will infect the Church in the East. In many ways, I see that as the biggest stumbling block of all for the Orthodox people to accept any reunion.

I strongly agree that this is a very legitimate and real concern. As repeatedly demonstrated since V2, any eccumenical dialogue will bear no good fruit unless the parasites of the West are purged clean first.

Let me make a suggestion that we discuss matters in the following order:.......

Seems like a good list to me. Not sure about #1, but IMHO, seems like disecting them one at a time might be good. I was not aware that the east/west had different beliefs on most of these things but since Original Sin happened first in creation, why not start there?

[Stubborn]

Sadly wrong on a number of counts.

Per your personal interpretation, which is of course, shared by at least as many as interpret it otherwise.

I dunno, to me, the fact that so many contradicting interpretations of the same Scripture is alone enough to KNOW that God did not mean for this to be the way that leads to salvation.

When was the last time ANYONE purposely wrote a life or death letter to a group of people - and everyone got a different message even though they all read the same letter?

[pachomi33]

Yes, considering I am just embroiled in an ancestral/ original sin discussion with a Protestant, my sleeves are already rolled up :)
It is much more fundamental than normally thought. The beginning determines the End.

[viaveritasvita]

Oh Holy Righteous God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and Earth, THANK YOU for delivering me from the false ideology of Roman Catholicism!! THANK YOU for showing me, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, the real Christ, the one and only High Priest, for He alone is worthy. THANK YOU for opening my eyes and ears to Your word! THANK YOU Father God for saving me. THANK YOU for making a way for me, a sinner, to approach Your holy throne without having to depend on the knowledge, worthless statues, and empty words of men. THANK YOU GOD! For it is by Your Holy Spirit, through the blood of Christ that I pray. Amen.

<><

[Quix]

I think I understand your point.

Appreciate your tone.

Probably won't go around with you about it.

I also have other priorities this weekend.

Blessings,

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

When was the last time ANYONE purposely wrote a life or death letter to a group of people - and everyone got a different message even though they all read the same letter?

2 Peter 3:5 'For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:'

Now I think that the above passage would appear to take dead aim at the evolutionists that would arise in the future but before I'm jumped on for taking it out of context, perhaps the application (or at least the principle) is a little broader. I suppose that you could say that the differing views on this thread are all about 'contradictory interpretations' and 'different messages' but the Bible does talk about those that are 'willingly ignorant'. Those are not people that simply got a different message - these are people that have flat chosen to disbelieve the obvious (and do so by obfuscating and fooling their own inner self in a desperate attempt to make something true appear to be false and vice versa). Why? Because they simply don't like what they read/hear and don't like the attendant implications. What litnus test would you apply to tell the difference between those that genuinely have 'misinterpreted the message' and those that are 'willingly ignorant'? Well, I can't plug directly into your mind and soul to know how and what you truly are thinking but I know that God can. And it's obvious that God doesn't look kindly on those that go through all kinds of gymnastics and contortions to get around the plain truth that's contained in His Word.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

"For as in Adam all die" Yes but it is not called imputation- suffering the effects and being repsonsible for it are two different things.

I wonder if we have slightly different definitions for 'imputing' which is why I included mine in the earlier post i.e. (By imputation, I am using the definition of 'laying the responsibility or blame by transferal'.) Under the definition that I provided, I think that the verse 'For in Adam all die....' shows that Adam's sin has been imputed on to us. No, you and I were not the ones physically present in the Garden of Eden.... but because of Adam's sin, we are now all born in sin and fall under a judgement just as if we were there and just as if we were surely guilty of committing the original sin ourselves. It has been transferred completely to all of mankind. Not to get off base here but I think that when Mel Gibson (in his only acting role in The Passion of the Christ) held the nails that were being being driven into Christ's hands and feet, he got the symbolism exactly right. We are all guilty, even if we weren't the soldiers who physically carried out the deed.

Do you suppose then logically that a child is damned because of Adam's sin?

And what good is my logic compared to what God knows? He is all-knowing and all-wise and He has set the rules of the universe. Tell me, in Exodus 34:7 it states 'Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.' Is it 'logical' that a father's iniquity would be visited upon his descendants through to four generations? What did the descendants have to do with their father's sin? As I said, I didn't set the rules for the universe but I know who did and I know that He makes no mistakes. And for those many things that I don't understand, I am instructed to accept them on faith.