Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
An impossiblility, if you believe that Christ protects the doctrinal statements of His Church. At what point do you believe that Christ abandoned His Church? If you believe that the first Seven Councils are infallible, then Vatican I, a validly convened ecumenical council by the Successor of Peter, is also infallible.
But, the Church is only one, both Apostolic and Catholic. All other Christian congregations to some extent touch, or share part of that Church, or are fully included in it.
Agree.
Regards
If you meant this as an example of your comment: "You are reading the Bible but not asking yourself what you are reading.", then you missed because I agree.
We therefore believe, based on what the Bible says, that we are judged upon physical death immediately (cf Heb 9:27), and that those who died in flesh are alive in spirit and that those are destined to be saved at the Last Judgment continue to pray in the heavenly church, because they prayed in church on earth.
With all due respect, this paragraph is completely misleading. First, you say that "based on what the Bible says", that we are judged upon physical death immediately, but then you add "based on what the Bible says", that suddenly the dead are floating around in the spirit world, waiting to take our calls, and are fully willing to continue praying for us. All of this is solely through the logic that they prayed while on earth. Will I have a lawnmower in Heaven, I had one on earth? If you want to believe in this then more power to you, but you cannot pass it off as being "based on what the Bible says" as you tried to do. If the Bible really supports this idea, I'd love to take a look, but if it is really tradition then I'll deal with it as tradition.
... but your redacted Bible does not contain 2 Maccabees, so no wonder you don't know.
I admit that I do not recognize 2 Maccabees as authority, and I have no idea how many other ancient texts you would put on a par with the writings in my Bible.
There is also biblical reference to angelic intercession (Zech 1:12-13).
You seem to have left out the little part that this was a vision of Zechariah. In this same vision there were talking horses who roamed the earth. These horses reported back to the angel of the Lord:
[Zech 1]: "11 And they reported to the angel of the LORD, who was standing among the myrtle trees, "We have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace. 12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?" 13 So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who talked with me. "
Again, these were the horses talking in the vision. At that time the angel (v. 12) asked of God. Notice there was no prompting whatsoever from Zechariah at all. No request. No beseeching. No nothing. This was not an intercession in the sense we have been discussing. This was an intercession in some kind of sense that the HS does it, without being asked. You don't think there was any symbolism in the vision with talking horses who roamed the whole earth?
It certainly does follow. IF God takes specific action to save a particular person it WILL happen. Certainly we have no doubt that God took a specific step to save Paul and bring him to repentence. Does anyone see Paul's "free will" in action and Paul making some kind of decision?
The thought that "God gives man the ability to repent" reduces all of this down to an inactive God who just threw out some mass repentance grace to everyone and is sitting back watching what will happen. This is not consistent with the God of scripture who blinded Paul and specifically chose him for the task of going to the Gentiles.
I would submit that God does this for every single believer in various ways. Some people have dramatic salvation stories. Others simply bow their heads and say a pray. But in every case it is God who directly worked on that heart to call us to a specific purpose for His church just like He did with Paul. There is not ONE person saved who God did not want saved. There is not ONE person lost that God cannot save if He set His mind to it.
Our differences are hair breath in length but the theological implications are profoundly significant.
The Church clearly limits WHAT the Spirit will protect infallibly. ONLY dogmatic declarations made on faith and morals by the entire Church in unity with the Pope are considered infallible, ordinarily. The Pope by himself CAN also make official declarations, but this is extraordinary. And finally, an unanimous teaching of the Church that reaches back to the distant past is also considered ordinarily infallible. Political decisions, utterances made by one bishop, football decisions, statements not made in an official capacity are not considered protected by the Spirit. This way, we are sure that when the Church DOES speak authoritatively, it is infallibly giving God's Word on the matter. In this capacity, we know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Your references to Mark 2 appear to say only that if Jesus, as God-MAN, can forgive sins, that fully human men should be able to also, if given the ability by God. I don't believe it was the human authority in Jesus that was forgiving sins, it was the God authority, which He fully held. This was the point and revelation of the story.
Ah, but then you are ignoring the full implication of the incarnation! By becoming MAN, what JESUS did on earth was done by God AND man. When God forgave sins, the "man" part didn't recede into the background while His divinity took over. Jesus' divinity and manhood are within His person. What the person does applies to both natures. Thus, Christianity believes that the dignity of man has been raised and God has humbled Himself through the incarnation.
{Regarding "But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)} I suppose I would have to disagree that on men (who are not God) forgiving sins, the meaning is plain. I assume you are keying in on "unto men" (plural). Since the crowd had never recognized the authority of any man to forgive sin before, they must have been only been thinking of this one man. I don't see anything in this companion passage that even hints that other (non-God) men would ever be given such authority. How could the crowd have concluded that other people would be given this authority?
The people did NOT KNOW Jesus was God. Recall that ONLY PETER knew as a result of the Father's divine intervention in Mat 16 that Jesus was God! Thus, in Mat 8, when the people connect physical healing with spiritual healing - and see a man - Jesus - FORGIVING SINS, the crowds would naturally say "men have been given the power to forgive sin"! They saw a man in Jesus, not God. They considered Him a great prophet, but they had no concept of God incarnate while He was performing these works. Thus, a man, perhaps a prophet, was forgiving sins. They proclaimed that it was wonderful that men (note, plural) had been given power and authority to forgive sins. And of course, I again point to John 20:23. Did the Apostles say "no, Lord, we are merely men, we do not or cannot have the power to forgive sins"?
The final proof to look at would be "what did the Early Christians who read the first Epistles and Gospels believe"? They, too, believed that God had given certain men the authority to forgive sin in God's name - Baptism is for the remission of sins, is it not? Through men, Baptism is administered to other men. Thus, through Baptism, we already begin to see that men CAN forgive sins. THEY are the visible sign of God's forgiveness working in a repentant heart.
You did not address my point about how a person can forgive sin if he has not been wronged? If I hurt my neighbor, I hurt him and God, how can you (or a priest) forgive me? Both my neighbor and God can forgive me, but not another man. In addition, following Mark 2:7, why does Jesus rely on the truth of the "error" to show He is claiming to be God?
Sorry if I skipped that. The priest not only represents or is the sign of God forgiving our sins in a visible manner, but he also represents the Church, the community. So while we do not sin against the priest directly, the priest, representing the community, offers forgiveness to the person, not only from God, but from the community. I am not sure what you are asking regarding the truth of the error of Mark 2:7. Could you please explain?
In my NIV, the word "saved" is "well", as in being physically well. Are you saying that a prayer from a clergy can save another man? I don't think I've heard you say that before, but that is the only interpretation that goes along with the final clause being read as that the praying clergy (elders) can forgive sin.
That is probably due to the NIV bias. The word "saved" has more than just physical healing as an intent, especially when you consider the final words of the verse "if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them". IF sin is spiritually debilitating (which it is, even more so then physical pain is debilitating), then forgiving sins is part of the healing (saving) process, correct? There are numerous examples of God working physical healing through the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. While it ALWAYS heals spritually through forgiveness of sins, it sometimes also heals physically. Does not James give this impression?
Also, there is absolutely no mention or implied requirement of confession here. This verse simply says that the prayer of faith on behalf of the sick man will cause his sins to be forgiven. NO CONFESSION.
If men have the power to bind and loose, to forgive sins - doesn't it follow that they must know the sins that they are forgiving? "Confession is good for the soul". Apparently, this was well known by the ancient Christians. I point to the practice of the Church. Recall the Scriptures were written to the first Christians and were well aware of what the Apostles taught, whether orally or in letter. If they confessed their sins, who did they learn this from? Who taught them to do this?
If so, then why does the clergy not simply pray for all who are physically or spiritually sick to be forgiven sin?
If a person cannot admit their faults to another person, how repentant are they of their sins? Is this pride what Christ is looking for among His disciples? Christ desires we truly are repentant. Such a confession helps to begin the healing caused when one is guilty and is sorry for the pain they caused another. That's the way God made us. Saying sorry in your mind for hurting your spouse doesn't do much good, does it? While the priest is not directly sinned against, he represents the community AND God forgives sins against Himself through the visible signs and words of the priest.
I KNOW that I've been told by others that salvation is partly achieved through the fulfillment of the sacraments
This is true only because we become more virtuous as a result of the sacramental participation. God graces us through these sacraments, which enables us to love more. If salvation is based upon abiding in God and loving others, than the sacraments are "necessary", as they are ordinary means of God's graces, something absolutely essential for a person to love.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, final salvation is ultimately determined by initial salvation, the (Godly) love of a person throughout life, and whether the person abided in God during life. (You see me licking my chops, right? LOL!)
I believe salvation will be determined by whether we abide in Christ at the time of our death. "Initial salvation" is only the first step of justification. If we are found righteous in God's eyes (as a result of God's graces and our cooperation to do His will) at the time of our death, than God is abiding within us. BUT. Does a person abide in Christ who willingly refuses to fully enter into His visible Body? What I said earlier about not entering the visible Church does not apply to people who are knowledgeable about the fact that Christ's Church DOES subsist in the Catholic Church. Only God will judge our "ignorance" on the matter. "He who rejects you (Apostles and their successors) rejects Me".
My side says the ability to do this comes only from God, and yours says it is a cooperation between man and God (free-will). Is this a huge deal? We both agree that this is the portrait of an ultimately saved man before God. Isn't that the most important thing?
So what are you protesting, then?! Why haven't you returned home yet?! I cannot answer for what happens to the individual Protestant. I know that following error in teaching does NOT bring a person closer to God. In that respect, one's salvation is jeopardized. While being a Catholic doesn't guarantee salvation, it is the means that God set up to come to Him in the most sure way. For example, Jesus talks about that one must eat His Body in the Eucharist to have life (to abide in Him). Can you be sure that you are doing this? You are basing your salvation on what humans of the 1500's have rationalized, opposed to what the first Christians believed and taught. God will judge us based on the contents of our hearts, and whether we follow HIS teachings, rather than our own. People who are "invincibly ignorant" will be held to different standards then a person who was born and raised Catholic, then fell away. In the end, we believe that no one can have the Father without the Church as their Mother. (normally!)
Regards
In your view, does God make up His plan as He goes along? Does God experience time as we do? Does God wait for our input before deciding what is going to happen next, thereby denying Him omniscience? Why would He need to change anything if He already knows what is going to happen, why wouldn't those events already be incorporated into the original "perfect" plan? (No truly perfect plan can change unless there are unknown variables. For God, are there unknown variables?)
I ask because by my view for God to change His plan would require Him to admit that He was wrong about the original plan. Else, why change it? Of course it is true that God CAN do what He likes, the question for us is what WILL He do? To the best of human ability, we have an idea based on our knowledge of His nature and His promises. The Bible tells us that He is perfect in will (plan) and knowledge (omniscience), along with many other things. How do you combine a perfect will with perfect knowledge and come up with changes?
Does God wait for our input before deciding what is going to happen next, thereby denying Him omniscience?
I don't think God "waits" in any sense and I definitely believe that HE is omniscient. He's not dependent in any way, but He chooses to let us choose. He KNOWs what we will choose, but He doesn't make us do these things, He doesn't make us SIN.
Why would He need to change anything if He already knows what is going to happen, why wouldn't those events already be incorporated into the original "perfect" plan?
I think He can change anything to anyway -- He knows all of the choices of His actions. He can create multiverses at will. A "perfect" plan is like putting God in a strait-jacket. He is a slave to His plan. Is that what you say?
So, you say that the Bible is lying when it says that man was made in the image of God? Or is it possible that even by being in the very image of God, we have something good?
As far as man being made in "the image of God" it doesn't mean we are like God which is what you are implying. Man in his fallen state is evil. Our Lord Jesus stated that we "who are evil knows how to give good gifts to our children" (Matt 7:11). We can do good things. But it also means God looks at us as evil. Our Lord Jesus said so. You may wish to take the matter up with Him.
Men, ALL men are borned into sin-original sin. The elect need to be given a "new heart and a new spirit". They must be born again.
It's perfectly consistent.
Well, I would fully agree that God promises everlasting life to those who are saved, but I'm not sure on the scriptural philosophy that supports that while they are alive "up there", they have interaction or contact with us. I'm still not solid on the scripture that supports this.
The clinical death of a saint has nothing to do with his ability to hear us and communicate with Christ.
I suppose one key issue here would be: who is a saint? As you may very well know, we believe that a Biblical "saint" refers only to any saved person. Who exactly are the "saints" for Catholics? Is it only those who have been so designated through the Vatican, or does it include all "deceased" fully saved Catholics? Can a Catholic pray to (deceased) "Aunt Joan" for intercession?
Scripture is clear that grace can be given in vain. It does NOT follow that God's graces will ALWAYS bring a man to be righteous. Otherwise, why do saved people sin? Mentioning Paul, the exception, does not disprove the norm. And even Paul STILL had to battle with sin. God's graces SAVED Paul, but they did not inexorably force him to always follow God's will. The fact that even Paul sinned, I believe, is proof enough to show that God's graces to do a specific action - to be loving to my brother today - are not always efficacious.
There is no doubt we agree that it is God who is the driving force behind any good we do. We are not Semi-Pelagians. Even after we are "saved" by Baptism, we STILL require God's actual grace to abide in His love in EVERY good action that we potentially can do. That we fail is evidence that man's free will to choose good or evil exists even AFTER our regeneration.
There is not ONE person saved who God did not want saved. There is not ONE person lost that God cannot save if He set His mind to it.
Of course. Having free will does not take away anything from God's power and freedom.
Our differences are hair breath in length but the theological implications are profoundly significant.
Probably what is more important is how our beliefs translate into action. If we do not love, it doesn't matter what we believe on this subject. We aren't going to heaven because of our knowledge on this subject. Frankly, I consider this a mystery. Who can say how God's graces and man's freedom interact on a given specific situation.
Regards
Catholics believe that man is wounded and CANNOT ALONE come to God. That does not make him "neutral", first of all. Secondly, the sacraments are not means of "working" ourselves into a better situation. They are God's means of allowing us to grow in love. In a visible manner, God comes to us to ENABLE us to love, since we cannot do it alone. Salvation is not about earning, but about conversion, which can be done only WITH God.
Catholics do not consider Luther's anthropology correct, but a deviance from the Christianity of 1500 years. It is a mistake to say that man can do NOTHING good, even in Christ (which would require a big clean horse-blanket thrown over me to sneak me into heaven!), just as it is a mistake to say that man can do what it takes to be saved ALONE. Luther's mistake was imputing man's righteousness SOLELY to Christ - which is against the Scriptures and Traditions of the Church. Unless OUR righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes (not Jesus' righteousness imputed to us), we shall not enter into the Kingdom. (cf. Mat 5:20). Matt 5-7 clearly states how OUR righteousness can exceed the Pharisees'.
Regards
Indeed, the question is will a man freely choose to do good or choose to come to the cross without the intervention of the Holy Spirit ?
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Man will always act according to his nature, and make his choices according to that . Unregenerate man will make unregenerate choices without the intervention of Gods grace..
Your will is not really totally free there are many things you can not " freely choose". Your choices are limited by the choices available to you, and God determines that, not you
God does not give anything including His grace away in vain. To assume so is to say that God is limited in either His knowledge or abilities.
Saved people sin simply because we are not free from the flesh. We spiritually want to do what is right, we physically fail from time to time.
That being said, it is incumbent on us to understand God's nature. In scripture God demands that we have a right understanding of Him and that we know the right way to worship Him. After all He spent a great deal of time writing a book for us about Himself. Christians shouldn't just dismiss theological points or scripture without careful consideration. Mary, we read "treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19)
Quite frankly, it's the same lie in the garden that we will know "good and evil". Isn't that what this is? God has given us our "free will" to choose between "good and evil". It was a lie back then. It is a lie now.
God has shown that He saves people through other people. Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles, and your pastor. As a result, God has different plans for different people. Remember Eph 4:11-12: He {God} gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints in the work of the ministry. As a result, some will be called in a special way. But really, God has formed them people in the womb of their mother, such as Jeremiah. They are "made" in such a way that their free will chooses God. Even Jeremiah was given the choice.
God wants everyone saved doesn't He? Isn't that what people tell me? Then all He needs to do is zap Joe and be done with it
God wants all men saved AND He wants all men to freely come to Him. Apparently, God condescends to give us the ability to choose or reject Him - since we are given a choice, in Scripture, of choosing the good or the evil. If God desires that men be free, then apparently some will reject Him.
It's a little crazy for Him to zap Paul to preach to Joe in hopes that Joe will accept the gospel.
Why? Isn't that exactly how the Gospel went out to the world? Jesus told His Apostles to preach what He had taught them - and preach it to the world. Why didn't God just "zap" it into our beings? Apparently, that was not God's ways. He loves us and chooses to allow us to participate in His work of redeeming others.
God does not give anything including His grace away in vain. To assume so is to say that God is limited in either His knowledge or abilities.
Again, you are forgeting the choice that God has made to give man free will to choose or reject God. Paul himself says that God's grace can be given in vain. The parable of the Sower and the Seed implies that some of God's Word (seed) falls in vain. God's graces fall on the wicked and the good - but are the wicked responsive? No, there are too many Scriptures that teach that God has given man a choice to choose good or evil. To obey the Commandments or not.
That being said, it is incumbent on us to understand God's nature. In scripture God demands that we have a right understanding of Him and that we know the right way to worship Him. After all He spent a great deal of time writing a book for us about Himself. Christians shouldn't just dismiss theological points or scripture without careful consideration
I agree, but I wonder how much even Mary knew about her Son's Divinity and Nature. There is a major school of thought in Christianity called the "negative way", big esp. in the East, that says we can know more about what God is NOT then what God IS. In the end, it is only in heaven when we will see God as He is. And while God "wrote" Scriptures through men, it is clear that the Scriptures are not self-interpretative. In this case, there is room for flexibility here. I am not sure if it is important to know the exact relationship between God and myself when I do action "x", as long as I know I can't do it alone AND that I am certainly involved in making the decision to accept or decline God's promptings of grace.
That is the typical response. It isn't a mystery if people are willing to do away with their "free will" paradigm.
Wonderful. However, the fact of the matter remains that there are numerous verses from Scriptures that tell us that God allows man to choose. God JUDGES us based on HOW we choose. God lays before us two ways. We choose. Certainly, He knows what we will choose. But this doesn't mean He pushes us down that road. Your paradigm is dangerous in that it makes God the creator of evil in the world. Only a free willed being can commit an evil act that warrants punishment. Thus, how is man evil if he has not free will? If man is not responsible for His actions whatsoever - why does God judge men based on what He DOES?
God has given us our "free will" to choose between "good and evil". It was a lie back then. It is a lie now.
Is God responsible for Adam and Eve's disobedience? Or did He just foresee it? Your anthropology makes a distinction between Adam and the rest of man to an extreme degree. But at what point does the Scripture say that man lost his free will in Genesis 3?
Regards
If man is not guilty of anything but obedience to God's predestined steps, why is there a need to "redeem" him? If God created us good and then turned us into evil, willingly and intentionally, then God is the author of evil and man must be innocent!
And what kind of justice is it to not only punish an innocent man, but all his generations as well? Is that not a Tyrant? So, then, your God, being the source and cause of everything good -- and evil, is neither unchanging nor impassionate, but evil and corrupt as well.
Why? A free will does not mean unchanging singlemindnedness. Jonah repented, that is to say he changed his mind, something impossible absent free will. God gave him a reason to repent, to be sure. God also asked Cain to repent. Jonah obeyed. Cain did not. That illustrates free will.
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.