Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
First of all, you're not even quoting me in your post, you are quoting Agrarian's take on my position. I responded by saying that I didn't think God could be blamed for causing evil because He owed man no duty to prevent it. God ordains that evil things happen, but I do not blame Him for the occurrence of those acts.
I suppose God is just kidding when the Scripture tells us that He does NOT desire the death of the wicked - desiring them to return to Him.
The scriptures were written for the benefit of people, not God. Therefore, from our POV, we are to see all people as potentially of the elect, even though God already knows otherwise.
I also agree with everything Harley said in his response in 3929.
No, it is not a "settled" matter. Various Popes have OK'ed it to be venerated as a "representation" of the Shroud of Christ. Pope John Paul II called the shroud "the icon of the suffering of the innocent of all times," which might indicate it had a higher level of reverence in his mind. Here is his polemic on the Shroud at his last viewing:
Sunday, 24 May 1998Dear Brothers and Sisters,
1. With my gaze turned to the Shroud, I would like to extend a cordial greeting to you all, the faithful of the Church of Turin. I greet the pilgrims who have come from every part of the world at the time of this public exposition to look at one of the most unsettling signs of the Redeemer's suffering love.
As I entered the cathedral, which still shows the scars of last year's terrible fire, I paused in adoration before the Eucharist, the sacrament which is the focus of the Church's attention and, under humble appearances, contains the true, real and substantial presence of Christ. In the light of Christ's presence in our midst, I then stopped before the Shroud, the precious Linen that can help us better to understand the mystery of the love of God's Son for us. Before the Shroud, the intense and agonizing image of an unspeakable torment, I wish to thank the Lord for this unique gift, which asks for the believer's loving attention and complete willingness to follow the Lord.
2. The Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.
3. For the believer, what counts above all is that the Shroud is a mirror of the Gospel. In fact, if we reflect on the sacred Linen, we cannot escape the idea that the image it presents has such a profound relationship with what the Gospels tell of Jesus' passion and death, that every sensitive person feels inwardly touched and moved at beholding it. Whoever approaches it is also aware that the Shroud does not hold people's hearts to itself, but turns them to him, at whose service the Father's loving providence has put it. Therefore, it is right to foster an awareness of the precious value of this image, which everyone sees and no one at present can explain. For every thoughtful person it is a reason for deep reflection, which can even involve one's life. The Shroud is thus a truly unique sign that points to Jesus, the true Word of the Father, and invites us to pattern our lives on the life of the One who gave himself for us.
4. The image of human suffering is reflected in the Shroud. It reminds modern man, often distracted by prosperity and technological achievements, of the tragic situation of his many brothers and sisters, and invites him to question himself about the mystery of suffering in order to explore its causes. The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age: of the countless tragedies that have marked past history and the dramas that continue to unfold in the world. Before the Shroud, how can we not think of the millions of people who die of hunger, of the horrors committed in the many wars that soak nations in blood, of the brutal exploitation of women and children, of the millions of human beings who live in hardship and humiliation on the edges of great cities, especially in developing countries? How can we not recall with dismay and pity those who do not enjoy basic civil rights, the victims of torture and terrorism, the slaves of criminal organizations? By calling to mind these tragic situations, the Shroud not only spurs us to abandon our selfishness but leads us to discover the mystery of suffering, which, sanctified by Christ's sacrifice, achieves salvation for all humanity. Death is not the ultimate goal of human existence.
5. The Shroud is also an image of God's love as well as of human sin. It invites us to rediscover the ultimate reason for Jesus' redeeming death. In the incomparable suffering that it documents, the love of the One who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3: 16) is made almost tangible and reveals its astonishing dimensions. In its presence believers can only exclaim in all truth: "Lord, you could not love me more!", and immediately realize that sin is responsible for that suffering: the sins of every human being.
As it speaks to us of love and sin, the Shroud invites us all to impress upon our spirit the face of God's love, to remove from it the tremendous reality of sin. Contemplation of that tortured Body helps contemporary man to free himself from the superficiality of the selfishness with which he frequently treats love and sin. Echoing the word of God and centuries of Christian consciousness, the Shroud whispers: believe in God's love, the greatest treasure given to humanity, and flee from sin, the greatest misfortune in history.
6. The Shroud is also an image of powerlessness: the powerlessness of death, in which the ultimate consequence of the mystery of the Incarnation is revealed. The burial cloth spurs us to measure ourselves against the most troubling aspect of the mystery of the Incarnation, which is also the one that shows with how much truth God truly became man, taking on our condition in all things, except sin. Everyone is shaken by the thought that not even the Son of God withstood the power of death, but we are all moved at the thought that he so shared our human condition as willingly to subject himself to the total powerlessness of the moment when life is spent. It is the experience of Holy Saturday, an important stage on Jesus' path to Glory, from which a ray of light shines on the sorrow and death of every person. By reminding us of Christ's victory, faith gives us the certainty that the grave is not the ultimate goal of existence. God calls us to resurrection and immortal life.
7. The Shroud is an image of silence. There is a tragic silence of incommunicability, which finds its greatest expression in death, and there is the silence of fruitfulness, which belongs to whoever refrains from being heard outwardly in order to delve to the roots of truth and life. The Shroud expresses not only the silence of death but also the courageous and fruitful silence of triumph over the transitory, through total immersion in God's eternal present. It thus offers a moving confirmation of the fact that the merciful omnipotence of our God is not restrained by any power of evil, but knows instead how to make the very power of evil contribute to good. Our age needs to rediscover the fruitfulness of silence, in order to overcome the dissipation of sounds, images and chatter that too often prevent the voice of God from being heard.
8. Dear brothers and sisters: your Archbishop, dear Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini, the Pontifical Guardian of the Holy Shroud, has offered the following words as the motto of this Solemn Exposition: "All will see your salvation". Yes, the pilgrimage that great throngs are making to this city is precisely a "coming to see" this tragic and enlightening sign of the Passion, which proclaims the Redeemer's love. This icon of Christ abandoned in the dramatic and solemn state of death, which for centuries has been the subject of significant representations and for 100 years, thanks to photography, has been so frequently reproduced, urges us to go to the heart of the mystery of life and death, to discover the great and consoling message it has left us.
The Shroud shows us Jesus at the moment of his greatest helplessness and reminds us that in the abasement of that death lies the salvation of the whole world. The Shroud thus becomes an invitation to face every experience, including that of suffering and extreme helplessness, with the attitude of those who believe that God's merciful love overcomes every poverty, every limitation, every temptation to despair.
May the Spirit of God, who dwells in our hearts, instil in everyone the desire and generosity necessary for accepting the Shroud's message and for making it the decisive inspiration of our lives.
Anima Chrisi, sanctifica me! Corpus Christi, salva me! Passio Christi, conforta me! Intra vulnera tua, absconde me!
Pope John Paul II
I think it is obvious from his comments that he believes the Shroud of Turin to be authentic... but he did not declare it so. I hope this answers your question.
This is your evident that the Bible is in error? Classification of animals is a manmade invention based upon some criteria. The criteria used back then was different than it is today. Consider what Aristotle states about the bat:
You cannot make a case of the Bible being in error simply based upon some way people classified animals back then. The writers simply used the current definition of the day.
Augustine made the quote that we should pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything depended on us. I think there is much wisdom in those words and a great challenge to all of us.
Spurgeon is absolutely correct. You will never find a true Christian who do not believe that God did not rescue them.
Evident or not, it is in the Bible, so it must be true, right?1 Now you are using man-made classification and knowledge as being outside of the realm of biblical infallibility? I would say you are making progress, even if you don't see it or admit it. But, isn't there something like "the Holy Spirit would not allow error..." that would prevent such follies? Apparently, that is not the Holy Spirit's concern; the spiritual message is.
So, what am I to get from your reply? That now we need an up-to-date study guide to tell us which is man-made folly and which is God's honest truth in the Bible?
More importantly, then, we can't look at anything in the Bible as it appears to us, such as jo kus's pointed about the Flood involving only the known world and not the whole world.
Consider what Aristotle states about the bat: "...a little bird which flies in the night"
Aristotle? Who cares what follies Aristotle said? He was not inspired! Now you are mixing apples and oranges, HD, to defend another folly at all cost. We are not talking about pagan Greek philosophers; they were rationalists. Faith is not reason; faith based on reason is rationalism. It changes as we learn more facts.
Aristotle, by the way, is well known as an example that rationalism, especially common-sense type, leads to follies and never to truth. At best, it gives an appearance of truth, having some elements of truth in them, but never the whole truth.
It was Aristotle who "explained" why things fall on earth (i.e. gravity). He said things fall towards the center; ergo we must be in the center (of the Universe). Hey, "it makes sense" doesn't it?
Ptolemy, on the other hand used scientific method of observation to construct a mathematical model of predicting where celestial bodies would be. Thus he created one of the first reliable navigational tools that can be used to this day. It is based on the premise that the earth stands still, and the "heavens" rotate around us -- and we know that is not true any longer, don't we HD! So why does it still work?
The reason it works is because science makes working models, even if they are based on false premises. Just because something works doesn't mean it's true. Something many people don't realize. Plain fact is, both Aristotle and Ptolemy used our reason and our perception of things as the measure of truth, which is what we do to this day.
There is nothing wrong with it, as long as realize that reason can give us working models but never the whole truth. Which is why factual truth can never be used as a measure of truth, just as man can never be used as a measure of humanity. The only measure of true humanity is Christ. The more we attain His likeness, the closer we get to our created (true) nature form which we fell.
The Church, believing the Scriptures, holds that man is God's central creation. Having Aristotelian philosophy "explain" that we are at the center because things fall on earth, and having a working scientific model based on earth being a center, it is easy to see how the Old World geocentric order became an impenetrable belief, mixing man's limited knowledge with Biblical spiritual truth as being in perfect harmony based on faith and reason.
After all, we had philosophy, mathematics and religion all coming together, independently, to the same conclusion. How could that possibly be wrong? Well, today we know that it is. Why? Because it was a belief corrupted with reason, a spiritual truth conformed to man's limited knowledge, faith enslaved with factual "proof" and subjected to logic and philosophy.
Which is why I said that historical, factual and other knowledge limited to man's education, time and location on this earth, is irrelevant when it comes to the Bible. The Bible can be understood even by those who do not have education, provided they have a gift of being able to see love in all of it. I admit, I am not one of them and I have yet to be given something more than "trust me it's in there" and an answer to those "difficult" passages.
I believe with all my heart that the spiritual message in the Bible is inerrant. A loving world would indeed be a Paradise. If we all acted in the likeness of Christ, the world would be a different place. I am convicted of that.
But I will not wager that every "i" and "t" in the Scripture is the whole truth because, as you have admitted, it is dependent on "manmade criteria" of the time.
You have also (as you always do) conveniently ignored the fact that I said I would limit my examples to Leviticus only and that there are tons of similar "manmade criteria" that show beyond any doubt that there are things in the Bible that are factually wrong, whether they involve numbers, "manmade criteria," what have you.
When we read the Bible we need to concentrate only on the spiritual and not anecdotal aspects of it, taking the latter with a grain of salt and concentrating on the spiritual truth that is expressed in it; the morality of its stories. We should never read into the biblical events as if they really happened that way, or whether they really happened or not, but in context of the intended message they carry.
However, if there are factual errors (errors of math, for example) that means there are errors in that Book. If there are errors in fact, we must qualify biblical inerrancy in terms of the spiritual, and accept factual statements as subject to error. Otherwise, we will be creating another Ptolemaic folly.
________
1I once heard a Russian colleague of mine say "It mAHst be tRue; it's in the kompYUtor." It struck me as funny and I saw a parallel to some people's belief that everything in the Bible, no matter what version, must be true. The fact is, the computer is always true -- we get back what we put into it. So, if we get what we don't want it's still true, because even a lie is the truth, although we don't want to accept it as such.
Exactly. Those five words embody most of the Christian teaching today. "I have improved my grace...By my intelligence, piety, resolution and good free will I have chosen correctly to believe and to make use of God's grace and the 'offer' of salvation."
Indeed, the word "offer" appears everywhere in Christian tracts these days.
Yet, like Adam, the only "offer" we ever really accept is from the serpent.
I also appreciate when my Pastor does our version of this. I like it when he just quotes directly from scripture to make a point, instead of trying to "improve" on it. Thank you very much for all of your comments.
". I like it when he just quotes directly from scripture to make a point, instead of trying to "improve" on it."
I went to a Protestant service once. As I remember it, the preacher quoted from the bible a couple or three times and spent the rest of his 45 minute sermon fulminating with his own ideas about what the scripture meant. I thought the entire performance was heretical and ghastly, but I was assured that this fellow was well respected in Protestant circles.
I don't mean to be disrespectful of Mary, and yes her role was vital, but in terms of contributing to our salvation, couldn't the same thing be said about Judas? If he hadn't betrayed Jesus, then Jesus would never have died on the cross, etc.? (Isn't Easter a greater Holy day than Christmas, even though it was "vital" that Jesus be born?) We could say there were many actors who played a part in the way the life of Jesus played out. Or, we could say that God ordained and orchestrated the whole thing. That's why I don't see how Mary gets special credit for contributing to our salvation.
FK: "Since sin was brought to the whole world through the one MAN, it is inherited through the man. Jesus was the only one whose father was not subject to the original sin of Adam, which is also why He is the only one who could have been (and was) sinless."
Ah, well your answer is in the distinction stripes1776 pointed out in #3758.
I agree with you and I think Stripes said it well.
Man's nature is not at all sinful. His created purpose is to be wholly like God by grace. The post Fall state of Man is not his true nature at all. Adam before the Fall represented Man's true nature and through him we were to have experienced theosis. His sin distorted our true nature so that we could not respond to God's uncreated energies, grace. Christ, through the Incarnation, restored that potential and thus our potential to become wholly like God.
And I would say that man's nature is exactly as God ordained it to be. There was no mistake. Through Adam's sin, all humanity is born with a sinful nature totally incapable of coming to God, much less of even doing good. Christ, through the Incarnation, death, and resurrection, paid for the sins of the elect and made them fit for entrance into heaven. (Granted, that last part is a minority Western view, but I can only speak for myself. :)
OK, I guess I misunderstood you. Please accept my humble apology for not understanding what you were saying.
Saying the Sinner's Prayer, or some form of it, is what all of the elect will do per God's ordination.
In some form or another. But the question is - "do all who make the Sinner's Prayer members of the elect"? I agree with what you have said, but that does not lead to the question that I ask.
I thought that the sheep do follow the Good Shepherd because they recognize His voice.
All who follow Christ's voice are not necessarily His sheep. One must persevere and continue to follow His voice. Following it for a few years and then not following His voice does not make you a follower of Christ when Judgment comes.
Regards
That is true, it is an acceptable position to take - that some Catholics can see that God chooses His elect without foreknowledge. Isn't the flexibility of the Catholic Church wonderful? However, this does not mean that God CAUSED our acceptance, no more than God CAUSED evil. In each case, God has seen to the end of the world and has planned accordingly to fulfill His will. Whether God "plans around us" or plans "simultaneously" with our actions, who can really say. We DO know that God does not take away our free will. There are too many verses that deal with our responsibility to obey God, for being judged based on what WE do, and for how God reacts to US when we do something. Scripture notes that there is some sort of interaction between God and man. I don't think we'll ever put it all together until we meet Him "face to face".
If God's will is DEPENDENT on man's choices, then we have some measure of power or affect on God.
For the ten thousandth time, you are placing God within time. You make it sound like God is drifting around in some sort of stasis waiting for us to do something, then God reacts to us....I don't really know how else to tell you this, but there is NO TIME for God. How is God DEPENDENT upon us, then??? He sees our response to His graces thousands of years ago. Everything you will do is seen in one moment for God. What can I say? Perhaps we should just move along to something else.
Regards
"We could say there were many actors who played a part in the way the life of Jesus played out. Or, we could say that God ordained and orchestrated the whole thing. That's why I don't see how Mary gets special credit for contributing to our salvation."
Of course there were many actors, of greater or lesser improtance, but I think perhaps you don't fully appreciate the importance of the Incarnation itself. It is completely bound up with our original created purpose, to be come like God. That is what the Church in the East has always believed and which belif the Church in the West proclaims only softly and not at all among the Reformed so far as I can see. You are correct that it is and always has been the theology of The Church that on account of the Sin of Adam, Man could not fulfill that purpose but rather was a slave to a distortion of his true nature. Because of the Virgin Birth, the True Man, Christ, came into the world to restore our potential for divinization. Innovative Western Protestant theology has quite clearly rejected this in favor of something unknown prior to about 600 years ago. +John Damascene explains it thusly:
"After the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. And then was she overshadowed by the enhypostatic Wisdom and Power of the most high God, the Son of God Who is of like essence with the Father as of Divine seed, and from her holy and most pure blood He formed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, the first-fruits of our compound nature: not by procreation but by creation through the Holy Spirit: not developing the fashion of the body by gradual additions but perfecting it at once, He Himself, the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in the relation of subsistence. For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man's compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. So that He is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought. Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of God as having become Man. For being by nature perfect God, He naturally became likewise perfect Man: and did not change His nature nor make the dispensation an empty show, but became, without confusion or change or division, one in subsistence with the flesh, which was conceived of the holy Virgin, and animated with reason and thought, and had found existence in Him, while He did not change the nature of His divinity into the essence of flesh, nor the essence of flesh into the nature of His divinity, and did not make one compound nature out of His divine nature and the human nature He had assumed."
Once a person has turned his life over to God and actually begins to try to live the life God meant us to live, mortal sin is rare, if non-existant. I don't remember the last mortal sin I confessed.
So, future actions do matter. I just believe in God's promises to His elect in that regard. Those actions are future included events to the salvation.
You appear to contradict yourself in these two sentences. First, you future actions do matter - I presume towards salvation. Second, God has already chosen you and you cannot fall. So tell me, why do your future actions matter if you have already declared yourself saved irrefutably?
I don't declare for God who gets into heaven and who doesn't. God picks His elect and they will go to heaven. It only makes sense to me that He would also pick some who lived their entire lives without access to a Bible, etc.
Ah, well this is a new concept from you. Previously, you have told me that one must have knowledge of Jesus Christ and believe upon Him. Why does it make sense to you that God would pick some elect who don't have access to the Bible?
Regards
"One time, WOW!
You ARE an expert."
It was quite enough. Heresy is seldom insidious; its usually quite obvious. I'd be happy to discuss the theology of The Church with you anytime, newbie, as this merry group has been doing among ourselves for some years now, to everyone's edification I might add. :)
I find this answer quite amusing. You know why? You have this paradigm within you and you don't even realize it. You have been TAUGHT a particular way of reading and understanding Scriptures. You have a reference point. Thus, you are able to discern some teachings that don't sound right - such as the docetist idea that Christ "pretended" to be a man and didn't really die on the cross. But reading the Scriptures WITHOUT ANY outside help, you could realistically come to the ANY conclusion. Thus - Protestantism has multiplied into a very large and diverse pattern of beliefs.
There are a number of Scripture references that COULD point to secret knowledge. For example, when Christ interprets His parables ONLY to the disciples, but not the crowds. See, there is really no way to independently KNOW which is correct! Gnostic or Catholic, without the witnesses of the Church who refuted the Gnostics and their concept of secret knowledge. As to "Jesus didn't preach knowledge is the way to salvation", what do you think "He who believes will be saved" mean? Isn't that salvation by knowledge of the Risen Lord?
Christianity is a revealed religion, I just don't believe it is only revealed to a very few of one particular branch of Christianity.
Nor do I. You are misunderstanding the purpose of the hierarchy on such matters. WHEN people come to opposing views (such as man has free will/man has no free will), the Church must make an official statement to protect the true faith. Without this, the Church would break up into many different groups - and NO ONE would know the true faith passed down from Christ. People would claim that their version is true. But no one would REALLY know. Thus, God left an infallible guide - so that during such times that there is such a major disagreement, we of the Church can say -"Oh, man does have free will. We are not puppets and are expected to be responsible for our actions..." The Church established our paradigm, the way we read the Scriptures. During disagreements, we turn to her to tell us what God meant in particular cases. But we certainly are free to read Scriptures and see the many meanings buried with particular verses. Again, the Church is very flexible on such matters. She doesn't lay down a law that says: "Mark 1:1 means ONLY this...". This would be a restriction of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I'm happy and I'll take it. :) Sign me up with the Catholics holding the latter view.
Then you are in good company, as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.
Regards
I've been away and I have lost track of the run of this conversation. But reviewing my answer I believe I was answering Kosta response that he didn't read the Bible but trust God. My answer has nothing to do with your question. However if you must know it was Jewish custom to only refer to the main person who was doing the talking and ignore the second. Consequently in Matthew's account, which was written to a Jewish audience, he properly and quite frequently mentions only one person (or angel) where in the other accounts mentions two. It is not erroreous but simply a style of writing practiced in that day.
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.