Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, as the book of Acts makes clear, and St. Peter was not a pope yet.
You understand what is scriptural?
So we won't be hearing any of that Calvinist nonsense from you any more?
A monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the particular order to which he belongs.[...]
the word monachus in the fourth century was freely used of those consecrated to God, whether they lived as hermits or in communities. So again St. Benedict a little later (c. 535) states at the beginning of his rule that there are four kinds of monks (monachi):
It is probably due to the fact that the Rule of St. Benedict so constantly describes the brethren as monachi and their residence as monaslerium, that a tradition has arisen according to which these terms in Latin and English (though not so uniformly in the case of the corresponding German and French works) are commonly applied only to those religious bodies which in some measure reproduce the conditions of life contemplated in the old Benedictine Rule. The mendicant friars, e.g. the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc., though they live in community and chant the Divine Office in choir, are not correctly described as monks. Their work of preaching, mixing with their fellow men in the world, soliciting alms, and moving from place to place, is inconsistent with the monastic ideal. The same is to be said of the "clerks regular", like the Jesuits, in whose rule the work of the apostolate is regarded as so important that it is considered incompatible with the obligation of singing office in choir. Again members of the religious congregations of men, which take simple but not solemn vows, are not usually designated as monks. On the other hand it should be noted that in former days a monk, even though he sang office in choir, was not necessarily a priest, the custom in this respect having changed a good deal since medieval times. Besides the Benedictines with their various modifications and offshoots, i.e. the Cluniacs, Cistercians, Trappists etc., the best known orders of monks are the Carthusians, the Premonstratensians, and the Camaldolese. The honorary prefix Dom, and abbreviation of Dominus is given to Benedictines and Carthusians.
- cenobites who live together under a rule or an abbot,
- anchorites or hermits, who after long training in the discipline of a community, go forth to lead a life of solitude (and of both of these classed he approves; but also
- "sarabites" and
- "girovagi" (wandering monks), whom he strongly condemns as men whose religious life is but a pretence, and who do their own without the restraint of obedience.
Actually, lack of shavenness is scriptural. Clean shavenness is not.
I watched on the Satanic TV (History/Discovery) not so long ago a "reconstruction" of what Jesus might have looked like! They dug up a skull of a man from that area and era, and showed how the Jewish skulls differed dimensionally from Gentile skulls (funny, that's what Hitler was trying to prove!), being more oblong or round than the skull of a non-Jew. After some computer engineering graphics trials, they came up with this olive-skinned Middle-Eastern looking character they said was "probably" what Jesus looked like.
Of course, they planted on him short, somewhat curly hair, and a short beard. The truth is, even +Paul says that man should have short hair, which seems to contradict the OT commandment, but the truth is that the Jews had styled hair and beards. Pious Jews didn't. Any kind of styling is seen in Jewish and Christian humility as being vain, drawing attention to one-self, and is to be avoided.
Thus, Orthodox icons always depict Christ with unstyled beard and long hair, which is what you will see in Orthodox clergy coming from Orthodox cultures -- Russia, Serbia, Greece, etc. In America, Orthodox priests are either clean shaven or have styled (clipped) decorative beards which is completely out of character with the Orthodox mindset and 2,000-year-old practice.
Which only shows that everyone picks and chooses to his liking and that egos play a much more prominent roles in our lives than the illusory image we have of ourselves would allows us to admit.
"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes and live according to judgment and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die" Ez 18:21
I think Paul is talking about unrepented sin. That leads to permanent spirtual death.
I am not sure I am following you. Are you saying that one has to believe in hell to be subject to going there?
No, a person doesn't have to know of its existence, per sec, to be subject to the possibility of going there. However, a person of today does not necessarily believe it exists. It is a matter of faith. We trust that the Word we have received is from God and vouches for its existence - one that cannot be empirically proven until we witness its existence after our physical death
So according to you, Jesus DOES lose some of His sheep
Reciting the Sinner's prayer does not make someone Christ's sheep. A person can follow Christ's voice for a time - and then choose to ignore it later. That person did not persevere. If a person dies in this state, they have rejected God, no matter how much they followed God ten years ago.
"But if the righteous should leave his righteousness and commit iniquity, [and] do according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] does, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned; by his rebellion in which he has trespassed and by his sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die." Ez 18:24
Seems pretty clear. But I imagine that you will tell me that I am somehow twisting Scripture's meaning.
Regards
In +Paul's Epistles.
They are dimly seen in Scriptures themselves - thus, it is perfectly correct to see that the Apostles taught these concepts in nascient form from the beginning. For example, how much of a stretch is it between these two verses:
I am certain that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor any creature shall be able to separate us from the charity of God, which is in Christ, Jesus our Lord" Romans 8:38-39
And
"The effectual prayer of the righteous [is] very powerful." James 5:16
To come up with prayers of intercessions from the righteous who have died physically but are with Christ? It is certainly a Scriptural teaching that can be clearly inferred from the Scritpures. There are other verses that also speak to the belief that the prayers of the righteous were efficient, for example in the Book of Revelation. Christian practice of the very first century shows that it is a legitimate concept that was taught by the Church. It didn't just crop up somewhere and then it caught on gradually as the "heresy" spread. The people on the ground must have believed it came from the Apostles, or they wouldn't have done it.
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."
James isn't the first "true Pope". Get over it. And wisdom comes from God, not man. I don't think the Church ever makes the claim to ignore God and seek wisdom in man. The Church's claim to infalliblity and correct teachings stem from God's own protection, not the "wisdom of man".
Regards
according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.Another word, doctrine, is sometimes used to differentiate between "truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God and taught by the Church", and anything else the Church teaches, even if not strictly speaking a dogma. For example, the late John Paul II advanced a certain view on human sexuality, so-called Theology of the Body. It is something the Chruch considers true and helpful, but a good Catohlic may still disagree with it, or over time it may be reviewed and changed.
A discipline is something pertaining to ceremony and behavior; it does not teach anything in itself. It comes from the authority of the Church, but is not claimed to be a revealed truth. It can change, but perhaps not for simply practical reasons, -- there has to be a connection to the formation of the faith. This is why I hesitate to agree that priestly celibacy can change merely to get more priests; for one thing, celibacy not only forms an obstacle for some, but it also attracts those who seek a more complete transformation of self. Celibacy connects to the theological fact that a priest is married to the Church. It is not likely to change as a matter of convenience.
Here is a good overview of these three terms: Dogma, doctrine, and discipline
As well as in the Gospels, -- anywhere Christ is described as bridegroom of the Church either expressly or by parable.
Apparently, it wasn't a concept that important to note in Scriptures. However, we can figure it out by theological thought. God is outside of time. He created it. Thus, He is not subject to it. Time = change. Thus, God is unchanging. THIS is in Scripture. God's ways do not change. Since God operates outside of time, He is currently in the PRESENT. There is no past or future - that indicates change. God is unchanging, thus, He lives in a PRESENT NOW. God views all time, past, present, and futute, as one moment. If this is so, there is a sense of simultaneity involved in God's decisions. Certainly, He foresees and chooses us. But since He ALSO is able to see our response at the same "time" as He chooses, it follows that our response effects His "choice" before we were even born in a particular year within time. Thus, when He created the heavens and the earth, He already seen our ultimate end: Our choosing and response to His graces that He would give to us within time - but to Him, an event that is unchanging.
Again, think about the "eternally begotten Son". He is ALWAYS being begotten from the Father in that unchangeless existence that is God's - outside of time. I admit, it can be difficult to wrap your mind around this concept, since we are not privy to God's ways outside of time. However, Scripture notes God's attributes of timelessness. Thus, theological reflection leads us to see that God acts in a different fashion than we do in time. The Church has recognized this in an undefined manner since the beginning. How? Because they have said from the beginning that we take part in that event of Calvary when we participate in the sacrifice of the Mass. Since Christ is God, that one event occured in our time of 33 AD AND HIS "time" of NOW. Thus, Christ, through His incarnation, makes Himself available to us today, just as He was available and will be available to ALL times.
Regards
Jonah recognized the storm and its source - and why God called it up. Thus, Jonah, rather than continuing to run or denying the source of the storm, chose to accept God's will. People fail to see God's power in their daily lives all of the time. Just because there is a storm doesn't mean that God is reaching out to Jonah - so the doubter can say... When a person has such an experience, it is subject to interpretation - was it God? was it natural forces? Is there a 'who cares'?
It is God who brings us to repentence (Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9, 2 Tim 2:25) yet you are saying Jonah brought himself to a point of repentence.
I agree, God brought Jonah to repentance - but as St. Augustine says - NOT without man! Again, you forget that Catholics believe that BOTH are operative in these actions. Jonah realized God's work and acquised to it - but it was God working in Jonah to move Jonah's will. It is not a case of either/or. It is NOT Pelagianism, as I have explained over and over. NOWHERE do I say that we come to God ALONE. You are twisting my words. When I say "Jonah did "x", it doesn't imply that Jonah did it WITHOUT God. I have quoted Phil 2:12-13 more times than I care to count. Is this really such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
While spiritually we are born again to a new hope, as Christians we are continuously rebellious children due to our sinful nature. God is constantly and lovingly reproving and chastening us to perfect us for His glory.
Of course.
St. Augustine didn't teach that man's will was destroyed. I have read enough to know that is flat out false. As to the Church's teachings, I have posted from the 4 greatest Fathers of the first 2 centuries of Christianity and they all talk about free will as existing, even after the fall. You are delusional if you think that Christianity taught that there is no free will - the ability to choose life or death. Your problem stems from your paradigm that man is evil and can do nothing, even WITH God. God is required to do EVERYTHING. Thus, you are blinded by what the Scripture says when it talks about being judged for our deeds, for being told to follow commandments, etc...We aren't commanded to do something that we are not able to fulfill - through the power of God's gifts!
It was condemned by the Council of Orange.
Prove that my point of view was condemned by the Council of Orange (2). Stop asserting it. As to my Orthodox brothers, the Council of Trent reaffirmed everything from Orange, so I will not be using that line of defense (which is a legitimate one for them. I bind myself to Rome's decisions on such matters - they do not. That is fine for this argument). Now, prove to me that Orange and today's Catholicism differs regarding grace and free will.
The only "action" we can do is what Christ does through us. Paul makes it very clear that Christians have a new nature and they will no longer want to go on sinning...
YES!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!!! AMEN! It's sinking in!
Oops...there's that "slaves or righteousness" again. How would you interpret being a "slave" to righteousness?
We are slaves to sin or to God. We are not "our own". When we turn away from God - even then, we are not truly free. When we follow God's ways, we become free - being slaves to righteousness. But Paul doesn't use "slave" in a negative fashion. A slave follows His master - whether it is satan or God. We were bought at an expensive price, correct?
I thought ALL scripture was inspired by God
It is. But Scripture makes it clear that the OT is not perfection of revelation to mankind!
"God, having spoken many times and in many ways in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last times spoken unto us by [his] Son" Hebrews 1:1-2
Isn't the OT covenant a shadow of the NT covenant? Why is it a shadow? Because it is not perfected. God's revelation to mankind is clearly not perfected in the OT. The question regarding evil is a big example of imperfect revelation found in the OT. Only through the Passion and Death of Christ does evil make sense.
Our Lord Jesus stated a prerequisite for believing in our Lord Jesus' words was believing in Moses' writings. Your statement indicates you have this entirely backwards. If we don't understand the fundamentals then we don't understand the message of Christ-that He came to seek and save which He lost.
Read Matthew 5-7 to see what Moses said - "but I {Jesus} say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall insult his brother shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou art impious, shall be in danger of hell. (no provision for the 'saved')" Matthew 5:22
Imperfect revelation was given to the Jews. Christ fulfills the Law with these teachings and His life.
BTW-It was never the Old Testament that didn't make any sense to me. It was the New Testament especially John and Romans. Now it makes perfect sense.
That's interesting. As a Catholic Christian, we always concentrated on Jesus Christ and His revelation. We then read backwards into the OT to figure out what it means. Thus, our paradigm is with Christ in mind - and why we refuse the idea that man is evil or man has no free will.
Regards
I have told you that God and I don't work in shifts, or crews, or I do part A while He does part B. There is no way we can determine how God interacts upon my thoughts and my will. It is an unknown. But we realize that I am making a free will decision - this is evident by the very fact that I realize I can ALWAYS refuse to do the good.
A man must freely choose to persevere, right? That cannot be with God, or it isn't free. Man does it on his own with God's guidance, which he is free to accept or reject.
Every choice a man makes, God is either aiding us to make, or allowing us to make it (in the case of sin). We don't realize He is there in most of our daily decisions, thus, it is a free will decision.
Man does it on his own with God's guidance, which he is free to accept or reject.
Man doesn't "do it on his own". God ALWAYS is guiding us when we do the good. But God's guidance is not so strong as to force us to do either. This is clear when God says that WE will be judged on OUR actions in Christ. We aren't judged on God's workings through us! We are judged on how we use the gifts that God has given us - to choose the good.
Do you believe that a lost person can do good deeds and have them be "good" in God's eyes?
That is interesting how you judge people to be lost before they are dead...
What is the statistic, that over 80+% of Americans call themselves Christian? How many of them do you suppose are actually going to heaven? I think substantially less as well.
It is impossible to make a statistical guess on such matters. I don't know how I will act in 10 years, so HOW can I determine someone else's eternal destiny?
Regards
You responde "That depends on who you think the writer is, and how much of his/His own intent went into the writing.
How so? We both (I think) believe that God inspired the Scriptures through human Apostles. But what does that have to do with knowing the reference point?
For example. How do you know if Jesus was married? Did He have kids? Well, some supposed Scripture from the Gnostics say that He did. The Da Vinci Code makes the same claim. With all of these writings spread out on a table, the NT and the Gnostic writings, how do YOU pick and choose which is FROM God and which is NOT from God? Without a reference point - the Church - you wouldn't know much ABOUT God. If He was a Trinity, or ONE God ONE person, or if Jesus was an archangel, or if the Spirit was a person, etc....
But you don't really interpret the scripture at all, do you, even inside the Church?
LOL!!! Sure I do! What makes you think that? The Church has a broad way of looking at the entirety of Scripture. But they don't analyze and define EVERY SINGLE VERSE! They don't relegate definitions to each verse - "it can ONLY MEAN THIS". Not at all! There are only about a dozen verses that the Church says "this means 'x' and that is it." Most regarding the Sacraments. The we look to the Scriptures and interpret them according to the Church's deposit of faith given to it by the Apostles. Thus, we have been taught that man has free will, as I have posted previously from some of the Church Fathers who appear unanimous on the subject. Thus, when some one comes along and claims that the Scripture means something else, we defend the totality of God's revelation and look to the context of the Bible given this paradigm that we have been given.
Sure I read Scripture and look at Commentaries. But when I see something that I know is not correct - that is a false teaching, I ignore it. Commentaries are very helpful. Also, I have my own private ideas on Scripture. However, if I later learn that they are not in line with Catholic teachings, then I submit my obedience to the Church - the pillar and foundation of the truth. I am not the center of the universe. God is. So when He reveals THROUGH HIS CHURCH a particular teaching, it is up to me to form my conscience to God's teachings, not my own that disagree with them. But you would be surprised on how flexible the Church is on specific verses.
Regards
Good point. We would presume that when Jesus talks to the disciples about marriage and those who would do with NOT getting married - "to those who are able", we would presume that our Lord would be able!
Regards
My discussion of the relevant passages in St. Paul should show that I am not unaware of them. They also underlie the Orthodox clerical guidelines regarding marriage, which differ from those of Catholicism.
If you look at the context of my exchange with Forest Keeper, the question was asked, since clerical celibacy in the Roman church is a matter of discipline, not dogma, whether it could, in theory, be changed.
My reply was directly to that point -- namely that Orthodox celibacy guidelines for clergy are found in the canons of Councils that we consider to be Ecumenical, and thus only would only be able to be changed, if at all, by another Ecumenical Council.
Clearly, mandatory universal clerical celibacy is found neither in the epistles of St. Paul nor in the words of Christ. If it were that clear, we would find that clerical celibacy would be universal throughout every Christian body -- except those that chose to ignore Scripture.
Mandatory universal clerical celibacy is also not the universal Apostolic tradition -- if it were, we would find plenty of polemics early on in the East on the subject. As it is, there is no such record, and all the Eastern Churches -- including non-Chalcedonians -- have married priests. This goes back as far as we have records, and the decisions in Trullo codified customary Eastern practice. Married clergy were common in the West early on, and continued on here and there into at least the 11th century. Were this not the case, there would have been no need for the Roman church to go out of their spell it out. For that matter, there were clearly cases of married bishops in the East prior to Trullo -- otherwise why would this Council have felt a need to make very specific canons about this matter?
We know that clerical celibacy was mandated here and there in the West by local councils, and that it was mandatory and universal throughout the Western Church shortly after the Great Schism. The fact that Uniates were allowed to keep their married clergy, and that certain non-Catholic clergy who convert to Catholicism are ordained within the Roman rite in spite of being married (and are not required to become celibate within their marriage) indicates that Rome acknowledges that clerical celibacy is not a a tradition of the level of authority as, say, the all-male priesthood.
What I don't know the answer to, and thus my comment, is what level of authority decreed or confirmed mandatory universal clerical celibacy in the Roman rite, and thus, what level of authority would be required to reverse it. Of course, a Pope could change it by fiat, but current conditions make it unlikely that a pope would take such a step outside of some sort of council. Or that is my impression.
At any rate, annalex can certainly answer Forest Keeper's question regarding whether the local discipline of clerical celibacy in the West could be changed -- and if so, how.
I call them "conventions" that have taken hold within various communities and do not alter theology, liturgy or faith. They are outward expressions of a particular "rite" within the universal (catholic) Church.
I believe the answer to your question is either the Lateran Council (but don't take my word for it). It was one of those 13th or 14th century Councils in the West that made it absolutely unacceptable for a Latin Catholic priest to be married.
I cannot, really. Catholicism considers married priesthood a possibility, and as we all know allows it as an exception in the Latin rite. Nevertheless, centuries of tradition militate against it; I think it would be sheer foolishness to contemplate abolition of celibacy in the Latin rite now, because it is certain to be misunderstood as a modernizing trend. It is not needed for Church unity -- which would have been the only valid reason to drop it. It is a torch of light aiming at the heart of the sexual revolution, -- since the epicenter of sexual license is in the West, it is needed in the West more than ever. But this is just my opinion, -- God knows we have enough modernizers waiting to do their evil work any chance they get.
Are we born with sufficient knowledge of God to make an informed decision, and is there scripture to support it? If we all know God, how is it that most of us make an informed and reasoned choice in favor of (spiritual) suicide? Don't we have any instinct for survival?
For instance, there are few women in Churches whose heads are covered, and that is decreed in the New Testament.
I agree with what you said about bishops. I know that women are supposed to dress modestly, but head covering, as in a veil? That is really in the NT?
FK: "We are born with a sin nature, through Adam."
I hear this over and over and wonder what that means. We are born spiritually separated from God. God gave us body and soul. Bodies have needs. Our needs are not in themselves sinful but how we go about satisfying them that is -- our intent and direction.
Here is an excerpt from GRACE ALONE: An Evangelical Problem? by Kim Riddlebarger (if you click on the link, just go directly to question "2"):
"The Scriptures are also clear that our sinful nature is something with which we are born. According to the Psalmist in Psalm 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Thus we are born sinful, sinful from the very moment of conception. The Psalmist goes on to say in Psalm 58(3), "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." We go astray from birth and we are born liars. We do not need to learn how to sin, it comes quite naturally to us."
"The sinful nature (i.e., "the flesh") with which we are born produces a host of sinful actions. The author of 1 Kings (8:46) contends "there is no one who does not sin" and the author of Proverbs (20:9) laments, "Who can say, `I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin'? Indeed Moses writes in Genesis 6:5, "the LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Thus because we are born in sin, every thought, every inclination is purely evil. This is not something that we enjoy hearing, but it is what the Scripture clearly teaches about human nature."
"And this doctrine of human sinfulness is not only clearly taught in the OT, it is found with equal force in the New Testament, even on the lips of our Lord. For our Lord says much the same thing in Matthew 15:19, when he declares "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." Thus the specific sins which we commit come from the sinful condition of our hearts. For as it is used in Scripture, the heart is the seat of our very personality - the heart is the true self, what we really are."
"Jesus went on to point out in Matthew 7:16-20, that "By their fruit you will recognize [wolves who come in sheep's clothes]. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Can any one of us here pretend for even a single moment that unlike everyone else, we are born good trees, and that we somehow escape the effects of sin which befall the entire human race? For out of each of our hearts inevitably spring the evil deeds and sins that all of us commit on a regular basis."
In addition, this passage specifically calls out Adam as the reason we are born doomed (without God):
Rom. 5:12-18 : 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
I can't remember who it was, but I think someone has made the argument that this only refers to physical death. But if that's true, then the corresponding references to life would have to be for physical life, and that wouldn't make sense. No one has immortal physical life.
FK: "You imply that we think God forces us to sin. None of this is correct."
Yet God is in full control and ordains our steps? Did God not 'set up' the whole scenario in the Garden of Eden so that Adam would fall, as Harley D implies? What do you call that, FK?
I call that exactly correct! :) God sure did set up the whole scenario in the Garden, didn't He? Who put the tree where Adam and Eve could get to it? Who allowed satan access? Could God have prevented it, or was it an accident? You agree that God already knew what would happen, and yet He set the conditions. Why would God do this if He loves us? Because He is sovereign and it was His will. I can't begin to explain all the "whys" behind His will, but I can see the facts before me and conclude that it was His will.
However, I do not see how this would translate into God forcing us to sin. I am still thinking about the Pharaoh example that Harley brought up a couple of days ago. The Bible does say that God proactively hardened his heart. I am not sure if the idea is that God "zapped" him into doing evil, or if the idea is that God simply removed all grace from him and left him to his natural sinful nature, which would be a hardened heart. I think I have been arguing the latter, but I would like to hear more about it, if that puts me off the reservation. :)
I think it is very simple, regarding the Pharaoh. The Bible says in some places that God hardened his heart and in another that the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. But in either case, a hardened heart means merely a predisposition for lack of compassion. Nowhere does the scripture say that God made the pharaoh actually decide against Moses. The interaction of divine will and Pharaoh's in that episode is exactly how the Church undertands free will: that God allows man to act in an evil manner and turns that evil into good in His unfathomable ways. Note that when God encourages Moses to act for something good, God gives Moses specific orders and performs miracles for him. Yet both Moses and the Pharaoh act on their own, albeit predisposed by God.
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.