Hospitality of Abraham! :)
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Forgive me for thinking you were insulting me. My bad.
Not incompatible, but distinct. Inasmuch as the Son (Word) is of the same divine essence (nature) as the Father (Wisdom), and the Spirit, He is not the Wisdom, nor is He the Spirit, yet all Three are One (Godhead). For the Father is the source and cause of everything and all -- including the Son and the Spirit, and of their divinity.
An easy analogy is to say that your mind generates words, and your words reflect the spirit which originates in your mind. All three are separate, yet all three are equally human, and all three are you. The mind is the source of your words and your spirit.
God is generally taken to mean "The Father," in the New Testament:
Clearly, +Paul makes a distinction here between the Son and God (Father), which is why Jesus never says "I am God." He says a lot of things that hint to His divine nature, as you point out, even to the effect that He and the Father are One (in nature), but He never, ever calls Himself God.
But I am curious as to your idea of The Trinity, and, indeed, the duality of Christ's nature (divine and human), so maybe you can share with us your belief in that regard. I want to know how does someone form the idea and even belief in The Trinity by just reaidng the Bible, and what that idea is.
Hospitality of Abraham! :)
Agree. "Thus, you should pray: 'Our Father...' "
God does not change His mind, but we do not know how He has already made up His mind...We experience "answer" to prayer because we are subject to time
So far so good. :)
I also try to include a prayer for God's will, because I know that is what is ultimately going to happen
"Thy will be done..." is an expression of complete confidence in His mercy and justice. I am impressed.
You continue to be the only one on this thread to assert [that God makes us sin]...God does not cause sin, God allows sin to happen (doesn't prevent it) for His own purposes
This is where your theology begins to break down because it implies, in – fact it asserts – that God created evil for His purpose. When I say "created" I mean that He conceptualized the need for evil from all eternity. Needless to say, mainline Christianity would completely disagree.
Furthermore, you are bouncing back and forth between God "allowing" and "controlling" everything to the tiniest detail (predestination). If He "allows" evil, then it must exist because he wills is, and if He wills it, He causes it!
If God is in control of everything, inlcuidng our own will, than we cannot be responsible for our sin. Only God can! Even St. Augustine stopped short of that conclusion!
And if we are not responsible for our own sins, but are compelled by God to sin, for His own purpose, then we are not guilty. And if we are born dead in the flesh, it is so by God's will, or else He is not in control, which is impossible.
Thus, your theology leads to God causing evil to exist by His own will, and causing man to sin by His own will. In all this, the only decision-maker is God. Hence, man is neither guilty nor in need for any redemption, since nothing he does is his own will; only God's will.
Thus, your prayers are meaningless, since it is not you who wills to pray, but God. Otherwise you would be doing something that could possibly be not God's will, which is impossible.
Did God not pre-plan every step of very human being that was born or will be born? Is this not your theology? Then if it is why do you introject such concepts as being "allowed" to do something when in reality it is simply what God compels you to do.
The real apex of this theology is that God imputes guilt onto a man, as if he were responsible for his own misery, when in fact -- according tot his predestinational theology -- it is all God's Sovereign will.
That would be because God willed it so, in Calvinist theology, I am sure.
So we all would be perfectly content sitting in hell shaking our fists at God
Again, your theology asserts that we would be shaking our fists at God only if He willed it, just as we would be sitting in hell for the same reason. We can't oppose God's will; God compels us. Calvinism 101.
God in His love and grace had mercy on some of us for unknown reasons and changed our hearts
No, He made us "love" Him just as He made us hate Him. We are exactly the way He made us, isn't that what you would say? Calvinism 102.
Furthermore, if God in His mercy and love for us saves some, by what means does He condemn and destroy those whom He made to hate Him? Love and mercy?
The quotes from the Proverbs that you offer have nothing to do with double predestination. The distinction, by the way, is precisely that, double predestination of the reprobate versus the divine foreknowledge of the predestined elect. The latter is, I agree, abundantly clear from the scripture.
I have showed you several times how the very episodes you wanted to talk about, -- Jonas, Jacob, Mary, Eve, -- reflect the presence of free will in the human actors in these episodes. If you did not understand the explanations, please ask questions. This is how rational people behave when confronted with what they don't understand.
:)
So much for just anyone grabbing their scrolls and interpretating for themselves the Word of God. Seems the first followers of the Lord meant for the Church to continue through THEIR teachings from God, not only in space, but in time...
Thank you for the verses. I just don't see how any of them speak of transferring supernatural powers. I do see them as an exhortation to train the next generation in correct teachings so the faith may continue in tact. I am just not assured that this has actually happened flawlessly over the last 2000 years. I would agree that no one should interpret scripture based on only their own authority.
WHO gave the Apostles this power [to forgive sin]? Christ did. And WHO was given ALL power and authority on earth? Christ. So Christ, upon HIS Divine authority, commissioned the Apostles. I don't quite understand the disagreement, it is pretty clear in Sciptures that "As My Father has sent me, so I send you (Apostles)" with power and authority.
Well, it seems that we both find ourselves in an interesting predicament. :) If I want to argue that the verse in John does not really transfer the power to forgive sin, but rather only the authority to DECLARE that God will forgive sin, then it seems I am rejecting a plain reading of the verse. That is unlike me. If you, however, take a verse reasonably subject to interpretation at its face value, then that is unusual for Catholicism. This is most difficult for both of us. :)
It just grates against all of my instincts to even grant that the Apostles had the authority to forgive sin. I really don't know. But, I really don't believe that even if the Apostles could do that, they could pass the ability on to others. I just don't see God delegating to that level across time to wholly fallible humans.
We don't know at what point various doctrines were ORALLY taught! However, it would be fair to say that some were discovered after more profound meditation on God's Word.
That's what I thought. Some oral teachings came later, and yet they are still infallible. I was focused on your saying that all teachings originated orally. Is it correct that some of extra-Biblical Apostolic tradition originated on the printed page?
FK: "I agree that there is only one truth and I believe the Spirit has recently either brought me to the absolute truth or closer to it, and I am thankful.
So we really cannot know, of ourselves, if we have achieved the truth on a doctrine, correct? So how is a Christian supposed to KNOW these important issues?
It depends on what your degree of certitude is. Throughout, it has seemed that you do not believe in assurance because you set the threshold so high, as in beyond, beyond, beyond a reasonable doubt, and covering certainty philosophically, scientifically, and in other ways. I have resolved to not need that level in order to live my life with what I call "assurance". About my salvation, I am as sure as I know how to be. If there is a higher level of assurance, it doesn't matter to me. That is how I lead my life.
On doctrine, I absolutely know that I have so much to learn, and that some beliefs I have now may very well be "no longer operative" when I die. I think that is a wonderful thing about sanctification. It's a lifelong process with continual growth. The Spirit will bring me down the path as He sees fit, and I will stray, and He will bring me back, NEVER EVER losing sight of me.
FK: "That's because you don't believe the Spirit talks to scrubs like us. :) We believe in a personal God."
You keep misunderstanding me on this concept. God speaks to us. We have a personal relationship with God through the Scriptures, through our daily lives, and for Catholics, through the sacraments, visible comings of God to us. I think it should be obvious, though, that we can't determine doctrine individually, though.
How can you have a "personal" relationship with Christ when nothing that you actually experience and nothing that you "know" counts for anything? It appears that the Church tells you what your experience is, the Church tells you what your knowledge is, and the Church tells you what your feelings (opinions) are. I understand that this gives you all a sense of security, but from an outsider's perspective, it looks like the "relationship" is equally important between man and (the men of) the Church as it is between man and God.
If there can be only one truth, and men separately cannot agree on it, what does that say about the Spirit of Truth revealing such matters to you and me? God reveals DOCTRINE through the Church - ONE truth.
But even good Catholics cannot agree on it. Even good hierarchy cannot agree on it. On many things in the past, there were many great Catholic hierarchy who disagreed. Your solution has been to say that any single man may error, but the Church as a body cannot error. In other words, take a poll! Whatever is most popular, that's our doctrine. :) I know, I know. You'll say that the Church is both "full of grace" from the beginning, and also "highly favored" from the beginning.
---------------
Thank you very much for all of your comments on the Eucharist.
It is the Spirit that makes the Eucharist "operative" in our transformation into another Christ. But note that all Three are present and all Three are giving of themselves to us and transforming us. We, as men, "assign" different roles to each of the persons of the Trinity.
I don't think I understand "transformation into another Christ". (See, I'm being good, I'm waiting. :) On your last sentence, is it wrong for us to identify different roles for the three persons of the trinity?
[Re: after the Eucharist is performed] But it is His effects, the Spirit's gifts, that remain. As long as His effects remain within us, He continues to grace us with His presence, in a different manner. Thus, He doesn't "leave us", unless we sin mortally, a proposition that is not very likely in a communicant who has worthily received the Lord in this manner.
The last sentence puzzles me a little because I thought I learned on this thread that a "mortal sin" was not nearly as bad as it sounds. It is serious, and intentional, but it doesn't have to include things like murder or anything. Another possibility would be if a mortal sin is what is the subject of Heb. 10:26. Is the "high hand" and defiant sin of Hebrews what is meant by a mortal sin?
God bless.
Hello Stripes1776 -
I have been reading your posts since you joined this thread and have noted that you seem very comfortable with speaking on behalf of "most Protestants". From your posts I know for sure that you do not speak for Baptists, the largest Protestant denomination. In general, nor would I imagine that you speak for Lutherans. Nor would I imagine that you speak for Presbyterians.
I just named three of the top four most populous non-Catholic faiths in this country and none of them agree with you. I'm just wondering where is this Protestant majority that you are championing?
In other words, it's a mystery, right Harley? How's that crow, BTW? I know, feathers don't go down real easy. Enjoy.
Fair enough. And I see that you agree with my last sentence, so that is a point of agreement. To our disagreement on the first statement, I would ask you how long do you think Christ meant for His Church to be operative in the world? Why would He only grace the first generation of Christians with an infallible body to preach and teach all that He gave them?
If you, however, take a verse reasonably subject to interpretation at its face value, then that is unusual for Catholicism.
That's not fair. You must be refering to Romans 3... Our first rule of interpretation is that we are to look to the literal sense FIRST. It is only rejected when another more likely verse or infallible information contradicts that literal interpretation. Thus, as a Catholic, I COULD believe that Genesis 1-3 is not meant literally - but there is not infallible proof that God DIDN'T create the world in 6 days. We also recognize that there are often many meanings within the same verse - spiritual meanings, that exceed the face value of literal interpretation. No, brother, we do look at the literal interpretations - such as John 6:48-58...
It just grates against all of my instincts to even grant that the Apostles had the authority to forgive sin. I really don't know. But, I really don't believe that even if the Apostles could do that, they could pass the ability on to others. I just don't see God delegating to that level across time to wholly fallible humans.
I can understand you doubt - you have been taught something for a long time and are now being asked to accept something else. As Catholics, we believe that the Church, the community of men and women that He established, is a CONTINUATION OF THE INCARNATION. This is a key understanding to figure out what Catholics think (trade secret?!) We believe that Christ's ministry on earth, the spreading of the Kingdom of Heaven, is continued by this Church, this community. They continue Christ's teaching ministry. His healing ministry. His reconciling ministry:
"And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor 5:18-20.
Christ came to heal men - of sins, primarily. Christ came to give us knowledge of the truth. And Christ CONTINUES to do this through a visible body, us - the Church (not only the heirarchy). I minister to other people. I teach. I heal. I comfort. I aide others. I love. And Christ continues HIS ministry THROUGH my actions.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal 2:20
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Mat 5:13-16
Thus, other people see Christ through our actions (and this answers one of your later questions on how we become another Christ). When people see our actions, they give glory to God. They recognize Christ working in the world today, 2006, not just in 33 AD. Thus, we are the CONTINUATION of the enfleshment of the Word of God. WE, the Body of Christ, continue His earthly presence, making visible the love of God for mankind. When a Christian offers a glass of water out of love to a homeless person, God is being made known, God is being glorified.
Thus, we believe that God DOES continue to grant his ministry of reconciliation, healing, through visible priests who act in the person of Christ. Christ's continued presence is seen and HEARD when the priest says "I absolve you of your sins". At the Mass, we hear "Christ" say "Take and eat, this IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you". The Paschal Mystery of Christ is made present again to us, its fruits applied to us in time. All of this says that God continues His work here on earth, and has empowered men to grant His graces through the actions of other men. The precedent: the entire Bible - Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Peter, Paul, etc...
How can you have a "personal" relationship with Christ when nothing that you actually experience and nothing that you "know" counts for anything? It appears that the Church tells you what your experience is, the Church tells you what your knowledge is, and the Church tells you what your feelings (opinions) are. I understand that this gives you all a sense of security, but from an outsider's perspective, it looks like the "relationship" is equally important between man and (the men of) the Church as it is between man and God.
The Church adds an OBJECTIVE voice to our SUBJECTIVE experiences. Can we not admit that many different types of thoughts cross our minds? Different ideas of God, some quite fanciful and false? We do not rely on our own subjective experiences alone, without an objective, universal reference point. In other words, if a person has an "experience" of God being a Duality, rather than a Trinity of One God, how would you know WHICH experience is correct? Thus, we have an objective knowledge, something outside of ourselves provided by God infallibly - that the former is imagination and NOT a real experience of God. The Church's teachings set the reference point. But our experiences of God, provided they are within the broad confines of the Church, are absolutely important. We believe that God does NOT contradict His revelation that He gave in the Scriputre and Apostolic Tradition.
But even good Catholics cannot agree on it. Even good hierarchy cannot agree on it. On many things in the past, there were many great Catholic hierarchy who disagreed.
All "good" Catholics agree on infallible teachings of the faith. The Nicean Creed lays out many of these teachings. We may disagree on some teachings, or the proper liturgical procedures, but these are not infallibly defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. Part of the coming to a defined doctrine IS this process of give and take among theologians. But the boundaries of this agreement/disagreement are broadly set. If a man begins to teach that Jesus was married, the Church says "hold on now..." If someone teaches that Jesus was only a demi-god, the Church says "that is heresy". But there are many topics of the faith that the Church teaches, but not infallibily so - for example - "was the world created in 6 days"? The Church has not infallibly declared either way, although one can have either opinion, given the advances of science and knowing that God COULD have meant Genesis 1-3 in a metaphorical way - His message was not on the "how" of creation, but on the "why" of creation. Thus, a Catholic could have either opinion - which is comforting to know that I don't have to fight against science (and nature, of course, was established by God, who cannot lie).
is it wrong for us to identify different roles for the three persons of the trinity?
No. We see the Second Person of the Trinity as the Redeemer, the One who died for our sins - but technically, the Father and Spirit were there, as well. I think the term is called approbation? Anyways, Jesus Himself says that He can only do what He sees the Father doing - and He and the Father are One. If Jesus could do something that the Father was not doing or involved in, we'd have two Gods, correct?
I thought I learned on this thread that a "mortal sin" was not nearly as bad as it sounds. It is serious, and intentional, but it doesn't have to include things like murder or anything.
That is incorrect. A mortal sin, whether it is murder, or stealing, or whatever, is a sin that "kills" the sanctifying grace that is within us. We no longer can enter heaven in this state. As 1 John states, our soul "dies" as a result of such an action. We no longer can inherit heaven, as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Hebrews, for example. For a sin to be "mortal" or deadly, it must be a serious sin, we must know it is a serious sin that can separate us from God, and we must DO it ANYWAYS! Thus, we WILLINGLY separate ourselves from God. Certainly, we can come back, as the Prodigal Son did. But what do you think would have happened to the Prodigal son IF he DIDN'T come back? Him and his father would never have reconciled (although the father would have continued to wait by the road for his return... a lesson on how WE cast ourselves out of God's presence).
Brother in Christ
The last sentence puzzles me a little (FK)
Here is where the fine line between the East and the West might be perceived. God never leaves us. God does not change. God is always good, just and merciful. God is like the sun Who sends His warmth all year round. The sun doesn't get colder; we get farther.
God never leaves us; we always leave God. And the Lord said "they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (1 Sam 8:7), and "ye have this day rejected your God" (1 Sam 10:19). When we commit sin, we get farther from God; we shut Him out. The more "mortal" the sin, the father we get from God. But, all sin is separation from God and all separation from the life-giving God, is death and thus "mortal."
In the East, sin is, by definition, separation from God and His grace. In doing so, the suffering caused by deprivation of God's grace is imposed by the sinner; we can only blame ourselves. In the West, sin is underastood as breaking a rule for which God is somehow "compelled" to punish us, which is nonsense.
Ping 2731
Kosta replied: Here is where the fine line between the East and the West might be perceived. God never leaves us...God never leaves us; we always leave God...In the East, sin is, by definition, separation from God and His grace The effect is the same. When one mortally sins, God is no longer within us. We turn away from God, and His sanctifying grace is no longer present. Without this, we cannot enter heaven. So while it is true, God doesn't leave us first, we leave Him, His absence within us is what I am speaking of - in that sense, God has "left us". We have "kicked Him out". He no longer abides in us - because of our decision. Thus, He HAS left us - because we don't want Him there.
In the West, sin is underastood as breaking a rule for which God is somehow "compelled" to punish us, which is nonsense
You'll be happy to know that since Vatican 2, the Catholic Church has been moving away from that. Unfortunately, we in the West were subject to the Jansenism error - its effects still often prevade in the legalistic attitudes of some of our older priests and nuns. This legalistic heresy, I believe, is finally, slowly, after generations, is dying off.
With all of that said, I think we can agree that this is just another way of looking at God which is found within the writings of Scripture and the Church Tradition. They both speak of disobedience bringing vengeance from God - thus, it is a viable teaching - although I personally prefer the path to God through the virtues and love.
Brother in Christ
Ah, but it is in the very earliest creeds of the Church attested to by many of the Church fathers. I'd like to know if our Orthodox and Catholic friends are in agreement that Jesus is God.
That is a poor interpretation even among our Aminian Protestant friends. Sin, by their standard, is similar to your view that we can turn our back on God. Those who believe in OSAS will hold that God will loving bring them back forgiving their sins.
For us of the Reformed persuasion, we believe that even our sin is known and understood by God. Christ has already died for those sins when we became Christians. God uses our sin to help our Christian growth. All things, including our sin, works for good with those who love the Lord and are called.
I find that John Calvin's commentaries, and the Protestant's Confessions of Faith (e.g. Westminster, Baptists) to be one of the most comprehensive systematic theology ever put together by theologians. When I was researching this material and the Reformation, the standard complaint that I came across time and again by those in opposition was, "Calvinists have an answer for everything."
I thought this was a rather strange complaint. While this isn't quite true the theology is one of the most thorough examinations of scripture and has stood the test of time for over 500 years. I have yet to find anyone here offering a similar comprehensive analysis of scripture.
Then you haven't been reading closely enought. I have stated that I cannot speak for all Protestants who believe in free will. I have also stated that most Protestants are not Calvinists. And I have stated that most Protestants today do believe in free will. I stand by that statement because it is true.
Here is an essay by a Calvinist who says "Most modern Protestants are Arminian." Althought I do not agree with his characterization of Arminianism in many of its details, that is one of the few statements made by a Calvinist that I would agree with.
I find that anyone, who takes feebleminded and evasive systematic distortion of the Scripture done by Calvin seriously, would be an excellent guest on David Letterman show.
Absolutely correct. The problem is that "free will" or "cooperating" is a Catholic concept. That's why there is very little differences between today's Protestants and Catholics. The core theology is the same. Most Protestants today are no longer Calvinists. During the Reformation almost all Protestants were Calvinists.
I'd be interested in reviewing the documented systematic theology of the Catholic Church. Could you please direct me? You had, after all, 2,000 years to compile it.
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.