Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
If God predisposed the heart of Pharaoh, isn't that the same as God specifically directing the heart to follow one path? Couldn't God have predisposed Adam's heart to take the fruit?
Hmmmm....I would read that as a caution against believing in what men say about God and not relying upon our own interpretation. It is an excellent verse for sola scriptura.
Hardly. Don't you know that the teachings of the Apostles are from God??? I would beware of your own private interpretations, considering you would be one of those "cursed men who trust in man" (yourself). Catholics trust in what God has revealed through the Apostles, the teachings from God.
"As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:9-12
Take heed, brother. Accept the teachings of the Apostolic Church, not your own teachings.
Regards
God hardens stomachs and God softens brains, apparently.
No it is not the same. I don't do a lot of stuff God gave me a hardened organ for, if you know what I mean...
It is an excellent example of sola scripturologists reading whatever pleases them in whatever you quote to them.
This is what is in the reading:
5 Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.Some hearts depart form the Lord. Hardened or not.
7 Blessed be the man that trusteth in the Lord, and the Lord shall be his confidence.And some hearts do not depart. Note that in either case, both departing and not departing are described as acts of men; the cursing or the blessing is in response to these movement of heart.
9 The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable, who can know it? 10 I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins [...]God knows the heart and God gives laws, but the heart acts in its own perverse way despite all that.
10 I am the Lord [...] who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices.That fickle heart leads to act, and God judges the fruit of the act. Free will, in other words.
That fickle heart leads to act, and God judges the fruit of the act. Free will, in other words.
What a loving Father we have! Praise the Lord
Regards
1. This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honour," he says, "to every one that doeth good."
4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;" referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,. for this is not expedient. And again he says, "Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour." And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks." And, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord." If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God. St. Irenaeus Against Heresies, Chapter 37, Book 4. (c 180 AD)
But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, 'Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin;' that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God; and not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them.(so much for imputed righteousness) St. Justin the Marytr, Christ refers all things to the Father and other articles. Chapter 141 (c. 150 AD)
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made. St. Justin the Marytr, First Apology, Chapter 43 (c. 150 AD)
I won’t bother with Alexander of Clement. There are too many to post regarding man’s free will….
...Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon him in both tendencies; so that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by spontaneous observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous avoidance; because, were man even otherwise circumstanced, it was yet his bounden duty, in the judgment of God, to do justice according to the motions of his will regarded, of course, as free. But the reward neither of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to have been either good or evil through necessity and not choice. In this really lay the law which did not exclude, but rather prove, human liberty by a spontaneous rendering of obedience, or a spontaneous commission of iniquity; so patent was the liberty of man's will for either issue. Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will, it is not right, after ignoring the original definition of goodness and purpose which it was necessary to determine previous to any discussion of the subject, on subsequent facts to presume to say that God ought not in such a way to have formed man, because the issue was other than what was assumed to be proper for God. We ought rather, after duly considering that it behoved God so to create man, to leave this consideration unimpaired, and to survey the other aspects of the case. It is, no doubt, an easy process for persons who take offence at the fall of man, before they have looked into the facts of his creation, to impute the blame of what happened to the Creator, without any examination of His purpose. To conclude: the goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed. Tertullian, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book 2, Chapter 6 (c. 200 AD).
Reading those closest to the original writers of Scriptures is quite revealing to what God meant when He inspired the Sacred Authors.
Regards
Very good collection, thank you.
Good work!
And they stone adulteresses...(sacrasm)
Awesome post, jo. Blessed Fathers knew that the Church would be attacked and left records of their faith as it was, lest there be any doubt. It also serves as a proof that our faith today has not deviated and become something it never was.
Regards
You mean Clement of Alexandria.
"I am writing to all the churches and am insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will - unless you hinder me. I implore you: do not be unseasonably kind to me. Let me be food for the wild beasts, through whom I can reach God. I am God's wheat, and I am being ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I might prove to be pure bread."
And this from +Clement of Alexandria in 190 (real late in the game!)
"A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace."
And then this from the same +Clement:
"Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary."
That's what I don't understand. How can someone with sufficient knowledge choose hell over heaven? If everyone got a 5-minute "sneak-peek" of both places, THAT would be sufficient. There are many other examples that would also be sufficient, but the way it is now doesn't really seem sufficient for the lost.
What??? Paul NEVER says that we are saved by faith alone. What are you talking about? Paul's Gospel is consistent. He never holds faith in contradistinction against love, like Luther did. If anyone holds to very different theologies, it is the Sola Fide group.
Hey Paul, now how is it we are saved?:
Eph. 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (emphasis added)
Where does Paul mention man-generated love, man-generated good deeds, or man-generated anything?
What is ironic is that you ALSO accept the claim of these same men – such as that they have given us God’s Word unadulterated. What proof do you have besides their word?
I suppose part of it is faith and part is necessity. Even with all of our differences, you and I and every other bona fide Christian has come to the conclusion that the Bible is God's inerrant word. Even if we disagree on the exact path, we both had faith to get there. In addition, to me the alternative wipes out Christianity. I realize that the early Christians did not have the NT, but if both the OT and the NT never existed, and everything was always oral, I don't see how any faith could be maintained correctly throughout the centuries.
YOU look at it through the lenses of man being totally corrupt and being unable to do ANYTHING good, even WITH Christ. You look at Scripture through the notion that God does everything and we do nothing.
I'll give you the part about being totally corrupt at birth, but when have I ever said that we can do no good, even WITH Christ? All the good that we do is with Christ. Yes, I give Him the credit, and I physically do the thing. I participate.
Psalms make it clear that men DO come to God. Thus, you would have Scripture contradicting itself. Go ahead. Read Psalm 119. And then read Romans 3 (or the Psalms that Paul is quoting, such as Psalm 15. Are you ready to say that the Word of God is contradicting itself, or does PAUL mean something else than what YOU claim?
I am ready to say neither. Where is the contradiction? I read Psalms 15 and 119 and saw no contradiction to my interpretation of Rom. 3:23. I also checked and noted that none, zero of the reference verses throughout either Psalm ever mention anything in Rom. 3. There were hundreds of verses, none in Rom. 3. I also notes that there were no reference verses in Rom. 3 that went back to Psalm 15. The plain meaning does not contradict, only through your lens is it even arguable.
Isn't it true that the only reason you have to change Paul's words is to save Mary? I still can't get over that the true meaning of the verse is that all lost people sin. Who didn't know that?
Perhaps you still disagree with this interpretation. But can you show it to be false? That is a problem I run into with Protestants.
Sure I can, but it would never be to your satisfaction. Imagine if there were somehow a lawsuit about this. The 12 jurors were all neither Catholic, nor Protestant. They were all religiously neutral. I would feel more than confident arguing my side.
2 Peter 3:15b-16
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "warning". Here is my version:
2 Pet. 3:15b-16 : ... just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
I don't think Peter is saying anything against Paul here, which is what I thought you meant. I agree with Peter that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. Thank God we have the Spirit to guide us.
However, you seem to forget that the Scripture was PART of the Tradition given by the Apostles. Thus, the Scripture did not "form" the Tradition. Apostolic teachings were given in both forms.
Unfortunately, it is very easy to forget that the two have anything to do with each other, given the interpretations I have heard from many. I would submit that no honest and unbiased reader of the Bible, no matter how smart or wise, could possibly read the Bible and come away with a consistently Catholic theology. The words just don't match the tradition. If they did match, then you wouldn't need much of a lens. Our lens is the Bible itself, not extra-Biblical teaching. Thus we say that the Bible interprets itself.
Scripture was a PART of this revelation given to us by the Apostles. They did not set out to write a systematic theology book. They were writing letters to communities that had requested pastoral help.
I suppose the Church gave you what God's intentions were about the Bible? Did God tell the Church this and no one else? I suppose so since God only talks to the Catholic Church.
Thus, when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.
How can you say just before this that the Bible is God's word, and then talk about the intent of the writers? Which is it? If the writers have any of their own intent, then the Bible cannot be God's word, it is a collaboration between God and each author, at best. Besides, if you open the Bible up to man's intent then you subjugate it to error. ... I understand why you say that the Bible was never intended to be interpreted outside of the Church. If your theology is right, no one would have a prayer of finding it in the Bible without that interpretation. :)
Nope, just God.
It sounds like this bothers you - that you can't have "St. Forest Keeper's first letter to the Arizonians" :0
My first letter would have to be to the Missourians. But, I do like the sound of "St. Forest Keeper". :)
What about these?:
Rom. 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 14:23-24 : 23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
---------------
EVEN IF this knowledge is made available by being taught Christian beliefs on this matter, it still requires faith that after one dies, one would go to hell - if they disobeyed a God that they cannot see. Faith is required to believe in this God AND to adhere to that promise of eternal hell (which we have no empirical evidence for).
I am not sure I am following you. Are you saying that one has to believe in hell to be subject to going there?
Again, WHO are the sheep? The ones who hear His voice. We don't know who will continue to hear His voice into the future. Thus, we can only know whether we are CURRENTLY of the flock.
So according to you, Jesus DOES lose some of His sheep. They ARE snatched out of His hands. Some of the sheep He has today, He allows to be lost forever. This just isn't scriptural. If this is how bad a shepherd He is, I guess He should have stuck to carpentry. After all, what kind of shepherd allows his sheep to be lost forever? Certainly NOT a good one.
Jam 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Funny, James (the true first Pope) said if you want wisdom ask it of God. One would have thought he would have said, "Run to Peter."
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.