Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I have a low tolerance for people who ignore what is plainly written. What specifically can't you follow about the argument?
" 1) Can a person come to the Father unless God the Father draws that person?
2) If a person is draw by the Father will Christ raise him up?"
1. I suspect not
2. If that person attains a level of theosis and receives God's mercy, yes.
" Why was it necessary for Christ to die for all men?"
To destroy the power of death over mankind. By becoming the New Adam, Christ restored our potential to attain our created purpose, which is union with the uncreated energies of God. Its easy, HD! :)
To bring us out of darkness (He is the Light) of the pit of man's Fall, that we may see the Truth, and follow Him (the Way) back to God.
That question is something you should ask yourself daily, HD, because it is your theology that makes Christ's sacrifice meaningless.
John 6:44....
1 Sam 10:19 "And ye have this day rejected your God." And by whose will, HD, have the Israelites rejected their God?
And by whose will did Adam and Eve sin? By God's will? Apprently you beleve that. If everything we do is God's will than none is ours.
So, I will repeat what I have stated before: if everything we do, good or eveil, is God's will, then we are not responsible or guilty or in need of redemption, or repententence, or slavation.
It is not a gun that is to blame, it's the shooter, HD, especially if the shooter is also the maker. The gun is innocent. If you are to be consistent with you "it's all God's will" theology, you must give all the credit to God, including for our misdeeds. Including our sin. We are, as you say, exactly the way He made us. So, why would He send and torture His own Son so that we may be "redeemed?" When it comes to the need for prayer, redemption, and repentance, your theology is nonsense.
God did not create man so that man can commit sin.
That is what the East always held and believed. That is why we magnify Theotokos. That is why she is our model and hope to revere and love. That's why she is the Saint of Saints, the cleanest Window in the Church, through which we only see the Light of God, and never the glass.
In our Divine Liturgy we sing:
It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blamelesss, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify thee
When we think what she accepted upon herself, what she achieved in her own humanity, and what she gave to the world, how can we ever thank her properly.
The consequences of our ancestral parents' sin is our mortality, because their sinning corrupted the nature God gave us. Falling away from God, man forgot God and could not on his own find his way back to God.
Christ came to the world to provide the means for our return. That's why He says "I am the Light, the Truth and the Way." He did not come to compel us to follow Him, but simply to provide the Light of knowledge of the Truth, so that we may follow Him, our Way, back to God.
He gave us everything short of forcing us to follow Him. He gave us the sight and the understanding. But we must make that decision to follow Him in His steps. And BEV Mary is the one who did. God knew from all eternity that she would do so freely. That's why she was the one to give us our Savior. Her will and faith was stronger than that of others.
" In our Divine Liturgy we sing:
It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blamelesss, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify thee
When we think what she accepted upon herself, what she achieved in her own humanity, and what she gave to the world, how can we ever thank her properly."
The older I get, the more I realize how very important the Theotokos is to me personally. All through my life, in those "dark nights of the soul" we all experience, she has been there for me, comforting and strengthening me, like a mother. There hasn't been a day in many years during which I didn't have a "little talk" with Panagia to ask for her help, maybe a spiritual pat on the head. And I find, again as I am getting older, that when I pray before her icons, I am blessed with the gift of tears. My great grandmother, with her eyes shining, always said Panagia was her best friend. I've lived long enough to begn to understand what she meant by that.
FK, it would be a wonderful thing if you ever came to fully understand and experience what I am writing about.
I'm only talking from a common sense POV. Have you ever had a roommate? These people traveled together, ate together, slept together, prayed together etc. They did all this and yet you are saying that they didn't share with each other, EVER?! Don't Christians share with each other? We can debate whether Matthew was purposefully revealing it, but I still believe he had to know one way or the other.
I appreciate your thematic explanation that Paul was talking to the Jews. I see it even more broadly, that he was talking about the righteousness of Jews and gentiles alike. I respectfully disagree that salvation is achieved by doing good works, as you appear to say. Salvation is achieved by grace through faith. You know that Abraham's FAITH was accorded to him as righteousness, not his works.
I thought this whole line of discussion started with whether "all" really meant "all" in 3:23. Let's look at the whole thought:
Rom. 3:21-24 : 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
I believe Paul is talking about righteousness for all, not just to the Jews. The righteousness comes TO ALL WHO BELIEVE, whether Jew or gentile. (Unless, of course, if this "all" doesn't mean "all" either.) What does THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE mean to you? To me it means that there is no difference between Jew or gentile, there is no difference between prostitute, tax-cheat, or murderer. ANYONE who comes to Christ will be saved. All have sinned and are unworthy on our own. Only Christ saves. Judgment is based on faith. True faith DOES result in works.
We, on the other hand, utilize the various writings of men to ascertain what the common beliefs of the time were. “How did Christians consider Mary during the first few centuries”? ... Thus, we use inferential evidence to determine that Mary is sinless, rather than empirical.
Another popularity contest to determine truth. There is nothing at all in the Bible that proactively supports a sinless Mary. To the contrary, there is plenty in scripture to prevent it. The best you can do is massage all those verses to ALLOW for it. But even then, you have no explanation as to why such an exception only applies to Mary and no one else. It seems like a ton of work to go through to prove that the Bible doesn't say what it says.
“Paul does NOT say that Jesus is the only sinless person in Romans 3. Thus, Paul (and the Spirit) leave room for exceptions to the universal "all".
FK: An argument from silence is a lousy argument. ... :)
LOL! That’s not an argument from silence – as elsewhere in Scripture, we KNOW that Paul doesn’t mean that Jesus has sinned:
Yes, it certainly is an argument from silence. :) I know your point is not to say that Paul thought Jesus was sinless. Everyone knows that. You are arguing that "all" does not mean "all", and therefore Mary was also sinless. That's arguing from silence. You are saying that because Paul gives Jesus a pass, he must have meant that others get a pass too. That just isn't there. You all have to make that part up completely with extra-Biblical work.
Since Scripture cannot contradict, we infer that Paul has exceptions in mind.
There you go again, arguing from silence. Why do you use "exceptions" plural? We agree that Paul gave one pass to Jesus, after all, He is a special case. You then must make a huge leap to say that Paul had other exceptions in mind. No scriptures support you in this, they are silent as to any other exceptions. It is totally made up, Biblically speaking.
Read the Gospels, brother. Notice how the Pharisees act, those who "knew" they were saved. Read the letters of Paul. Notice how he attacks the Judaizers, those who "knew" they were saved.
That doesn't respond to the question. I never said that everyone claiming to know is right. Clearly some are not. They aren't Christians. But I say that some know AND are right. How does this challenge God's sovereignty?
Only yesterday morning, I listened to EWTN's daily reflections provided by Franciscan Brother Leo Clifford. These repeat and I thought I had heard them all but this one seemed new.
In this particular commentary, he reflected on God's need for us. He needed Mary to give birth to Jesus; He needed St. John to baptize Him in the River Jordan; He needed the young boy with 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes in order to perform the miracle; He needed Simon to help Him carry the cross; He needed Joseph of Arimathea to provide Him with a burial tomb .... etc.
Mary, of course, was the first to say "yes" to God's needs. It is through her that our Salvation was born.
On Monday, February 27, our Lent will begin. Throughout these 40 days, each Friday we will gather in Church to say the Stations of the Cross, culminating with the song of Mary at the base of the Cross, as she beholds her Son.
O My Son O My beloved
See the plight Love brings you to
What distress and What affliction
Wicked men have Laid on you.
O My Son O what transgression
Or what evil Did you do that you
Should be vexed and wounded
with no hope for any cure
Look on me Daughter of Sion
Crushed beneath this might wave
Anguish fills my very marrow
And it leads me to the grave
There is none to be a friend now
And this angry mob to brave
Coming forward to console me
For the suff'ring I endure
Were it not for Mary's "yes", our Savior would not have been born.
You took the words out of my mouth...everything you said, Kolo.
I have no problem with God giving praise. He does it. My worries are about any prideful man thinking he has accomplished something good on his own account. You appear to be arguing that man deserves some, not all, credit. You appear to be saying that man deserves to be glorified partially from his own merit. That's what I disagree with.
[Quoting yourself from an earlier post:]"I had thought that common sense - having {dozens} of different denominations that all equally claim to be led by the Spirit - would be enough for you to determine that the Spirit does not lead on the dogmatic front to individuals."? The question to you remains the same. How does the Spirit lead Christians in diametrically opposed directions on key elements of the faith? The ONLY response is that the Spirit is NOT leading people in this manner.
I look at it from the other side. It seems so unlikely to me that if the Spirit doesn't speak to individuals that so many Protestants agree on so much. If the hundreds of millions of us were wandering around out there aimlessly, then there would be thousands (or more) of distinct denominations that have nothing to do with each other. Instead, most Protestants agree on most of the major points, even if they are reached by different means. That indicates to me that the Spirit is involved.
I told you already that oral traditions from the Apostles (such as infant baptism) ARE written down! What telephone game? We aren't relying on someone passing down a teaching by word of mouth!
Then all infallible teaching is written down? I didn't get that impression before. One example I thought you brought up was in liturgies.
However, I understand that you have been taught that everything must be in the Scriptures explicitly to be believed. What I am curious about is "where is that rule located at within the Scriptures?" Where is the "Table of Contents" in the Scriptures? Where does it say that men are saved by faith alone? Should we go on? There seems to be a double standard here. Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK.
The scriptures are the inspired word of God, and are therefore, trustworthy. Men are not trustworthy. Here are some verses that self-authenticate. They don't say one cannot believe anything else, but your side has beliefs that directly contradict what the scriptures actually say. That's why I can't accept them. Scripture must be butchered beyond all recognition in order for some tradition to even be POSSIBLE, nevermind actually being supported by scripture.
Ps. 12:6 : And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.
Is. 55:11 : so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
John 5:39 Jesus said: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, ..."
You have been shown at least a dozen scriptures that show that man is saved by faith alone, and not of works. You are forced to interpret them all away to conform with your hierarchy, no matter what the words actually say. I'm not sure what you mean by "Anything that Protestants believe but is not in Scriptures are OK". This must go back to our different views of scripture. I assume you're saying that any difference from the Catholic interpretation is not actually in scripture, regardless of what the words are. By that definition then, half of our beliefs would be unscriptural because of the Catholic revision of the meaning of the Bible to conform to Tradition.
Why should a Muslim take the Bible as superior to the Koran, when they have been raised with it and indoctrinated to follow it?
God will bring to the truth those whom He will. The Bible is nonsense to the lost.
Unless you are aware of its history and the witness of the Church, I don't see how you would be able to determine that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture but the Letter of Philemon is Scripture. You seem to evade that over and over again...
I'm not evading anything. God didn't touch me to decide what should go into the Bible. He touched other men. You would give credit to the men of the Church for being wise. I would give credit to God for loving us enough to give us a wonderful revelation. This is a recurring theme.
No, God gave His Word to particular men and women, who shared it with the community at large.
Yes, I have no problem with that part. My problem is with the interpretation and the meaning of those words. Only the Catholic hierarchy has the keys to these meanings, and I have seen time and time again how those keys are used to twist the plain meaning into its opposite. That's what bothers me, that's why I protest.
Utterly ridiculous. By reading the bible without any verification, you might as well be in the same category as the Muslims and Mormons, who "get a feeling in their bosom" to "know" they are reading the Word of God. They don't think they need outside verification, either.
As I have said before, I have nothing against outside verification. But, you have framed this whole part of the discussion to claim that only YOUR leaders can do the authenticating. I disagree with that. I must say that, because if I didn't, then I would have to accept all of the interpretations that change the meaning of the Bible into something else, a very different book.
Until you can prove to me WHY Philemon belongs in the Scriptures, is considered God's Word, based on its OWN merit, you might have something. We have gone over this over and over. How do you know Paul even wrote it???
So, is this the part where I say that Philemon belongs in the Bible because it's in the Bible? OK, fine. I believe that God alone determined what went into the Bible, not men. If men determined it, as you appear to argue, then I would have no case.
If you were to go into a court room today to prove that the Bible is the Word of God based on YOUR evidence, you'd be laughed out of court.
To a jury of unbelievers, I certainly would use outside evidence. But since I am a believer, I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me that the Bible is the word of God. That has been your claim.
You have contradicted yourself. YOU WERE TAUGHT! Thus, you didn't come to that conclusion yourself. The teachings of the Catholic Church came to you through Protestants and you discovered that the Bible IS REALLY the Word of God. You didn't come to that conclusion yourself, thus, the Bible is not self-authenticating.
Well of course I was taught, but there is no contradiction. When I accepted the Bible I had not yet come close to reading the whole thing, that came much later. I trusted a teaching that was confirmed when I did read the whole thing. What's wrong with that? I see you are seeking more credit for Catholic men in how I learned. That seems consistent. I would give the credit to God for revealing the truth to me.
OK. I'm not really sure who he is either. He just seemed to talk in terms I have heard annalex use before. His name is Gary Zeolla and he apparently runs a website called "Darkness to Light". Oh well. :)
It's not my job to convince, it is my job to present.
As for the rest of this particular post, you either already know how I would answer or you specifically asked me not to answer how I would. :)
"His name is Gary Zeolla and he apparently runs a website called "Darkness to Light". Oh well. :)"
What would an Italian know about Greek? :)
Odd site by the way.
FK, the catholic hierarchy held those views from the beginning of the Church to this very present day. They are no different now than they were back in 1 AD. What you see as catholic hierarchy today is not an outgrowth of a 16th century revolt by a local priest over selling indulgencies that grew out of proportion into a man-made "church", but the interpretations held by those whom the Apostles in person ordained bishops (+Ignatius, +Polycarp, etc.). If they were wrong, then the whole Church, including the Apostles, were wrong from the get go!
You keep harping on this sola scriptura nonsense. Let me tell you: there are two possibilities only. One, the Apsotles, and the Church that continued in their steps, as documented from the beginning, was wrong or you and all the Protestants are wrong. Either the Apostles were wrong or you are wrong.
You keep saying that yuou want to make sure that man's pride doesn't take over, yet that is precisely what the Protestants do -- they exalt individual interpretations over those held by Apostles and their disciples. You take it upon yourself to re-interept Apsotle's own teachings and those of their successors, simply by reading disconnected verses. Being one's own "pope", or your own "Peter" or "Paul" or "John" or "James," etc., i.e. relying on one's own interpretation (supposedly under the Holy Spirit) is the worst example of human pride and arrogance as I see it.
From God's point of view, the Elect cannot fail! But I believe your point of view presumes too much. You have admitted repeatedly that your "Sinner's Prayer" potentially could have no effect on whether one is saved or not - thus, IT does not tell you that you are saved (since people have been known to fall away). Last night, I heard a Protestant give a witness that he was "saved" on 9 separate occasions before he was 18. Really, this is no way of determining one's eternal destiny...
Regards
No, but that is because error in religion has graver consequences than error in science. Of course my analogy is very limited, -- all I am saying is that sola scriptura is an instrument of introducing error through irresponsible preaching, and it is hard for me to imagine that the concept was invented with an innocent intent.
No, Luther's theory had and still has followers. It is theological solidity that it lacks.
His hymns are beautiful. I wish he had devoted his life to music, where he obviously had a calling.
Thanks very much for the link, Kolo. I read the whole thing, and thought it was very interesting. Many of the bases we have been talking about were covered. Maybe the thing that surprised me the most was Mary coming from a rich family. I'm not sure why, but I always imagined her coming from humble beginnings. Jesus didn't grow up wealthy, right? I don't know, that just struck me.
The other thing that caught my eye was that it said that Mary was given grace at three years old. Is this the same grace that the angel mentions later?
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.