Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, I understand your position on the Saints in Heaven, though I still would be interested in your view of them, those Saints, where they are, what they perceive, what time/place they exist in, are they "asleep", etc.
Other than this disagreement on whom we ask to pray for us, you do agree that intercessory prayer is biblical, yes?
Their idea of a messiah was very different from what it turned out to be (which is why they rejected it and reject it to this day). Messianic Judaism was of a relatively recent origin, preceding our Lord's appearance on earth. It was mainly political and not religious.
BTW the Scripture is confusing about looking for sings in the heaven and certainly the magi were not considered anything but sorcerers in Judaism.
The disciples believed on him, as did many many others, but they were people, like ourselves, with lots of responsibilities, and let's not forget, both a fear of their leaders and of the occupying army of the Romans
What responsibilities did the Apostles have? And if they believed they were in presence of God, what fear would they have shown. Once they became believers (at Pentecost) they lived their faith and died martyrs' deaths for it. before the crucifixion, they scattered like scared little rabbits!
I do not see any evidence that they believed except as lip service. as I said, even St Peter sank when given the opportunity to show his faith.
1000 silverlings: What an astounding statement. How can one anticipate what you will say next!
Christ established a Church and His own royal priesthood, the Apostles, thereby dismantling the Jewish system whose royal priesthood was given to the Jews by God in the OT. The Apostles were kicked out of synagogues and had to seek support among Gentiles who know nothing about, nor lived by the Law. The Apostles then went to change dietary, worship, liturgical, circumcisional, etc. laws of Judaism.
As for God, not only do we believe in a Man Who is also God Himself, which Judaism vehemently rejects, but we introduced the concept of a Trinitarian God -- a God Who is One, but never alone. :)
And you find my statement astounding?
Well, it you were to take it as a gambling game, I think St. Mary would be a pretty safe bet. If you were a real cautious bettor, you could stick with her. Some may feel the Apostles are a good risk. But pretty soon the gambling metaphor becomes a bit.. odd?
I believe the Church's position is that a great many more Saints exist in Heaven than are recognized by the Church - a great great many more.
As far as those closer to us personally, family and friends, I can only speak for myself as I did above.
thanks for your post..
I would be interested in finding out what other's teaching/belief is about the Saints departed from this existence.
I mentioned earlier that I have been told by some that they are sleeping or asleep, something akin to that.
I don't really know the official Calvinist position.
The Catholic position has been pretty well spelled out, so I'd appreciate hearing the Protestant view.
I wouldn't be dumb enough to reject your gift. It would be, effectively, no decision at all. Likewise, God knows how to offer the "equivalent" of that gift, which He already knows I must accept. He might offer it in different ways to different people, but for the elect, I don't think there is a real or meaningful "Yes-No" type of decision.
I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...
Didn't we just cover this? God doesn't drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven. The real estate is much too valuable to waste on such people. Rather, God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?
Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.
satan says to Eve:
Gen. 3:1 : Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
satan is misquoting God when He said:
Gen. 2:16-17 : 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
satan knew DAMN well :) what God said, so this was an intentional misquote. ... In the desert, satan says:
Matt. 4:6 : 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
satan is misquoting from:
Ps. 91:11-12 : 11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
---------------
God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world.
So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this.
IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just?
I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.
If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God?
Yes, of course. I didn't create heaven, and I have no moral claim to live there from myself. In addition, I am against illegal immigration. You, OTOH, appear to be in full support of illegal immigration as you place a duty on God to offer to let everyone in. God's sovereignty says that He can decide who will go to heaven. You reject that and place a duty on Him to measure up to your sense of justice.
If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.
No, we can still call him "Just". We just can't call Him subject to man's idea of justice.
FK: "I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone."
But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.
No, just the opposite. In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically. My experience in the real world is the same as yours, making choices.
The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!
This was my understanding of your belief. But I don't understand why you still call it "God's word". It really isn't in your view, is it? The Church wrote it, so the Church owns it. The Church then declares it to be correct. The Church seems to take on the role of God's ghostwriter, doesn't it? It's more like "The Holy Bible...... by God ... with the Roman Catholic Church."
I only say that the hierarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught.
That means always. Heresy is defined as anything that disagrees with the Church. I'm sure that everyone is a legitimate interpreter AS LONG AS he agrees with the Church. I know you've said you have some freedom on minor issues, but really, on anything of real importance, your view is that only the Church knows best, only your men are good enough, as I said.
IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct?
Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me.
You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.
I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved). I admit I cannot give you an unbiased answer. :)
In either event, the reality is that there are going to be dissensions and separations among the faithful. I would not say absolutely that this is a bad thing. Unity would be best (God's non-decreed will), but if that cannot be had, I would not favor something like coerced faith in the name of unity, over separation. (And I don't think you're in favor of coerced faith :)
Can you say unequivocally that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.
I just told you in the other post that I do not say that. I told you that my current belief is in a young earth. I am happy to listen to Biblically supported arguments to the contrary, and I might change my view. Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.
How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth?
It is a matter of discernment. If I have enough, then I will see it, if not, then I will wander aimlessly. I believe that discernment is a gift that strengthens through sanctification.
I'm with you for the beginning of your post, but here I get confused. If I understand you, then man's use of free will to initiate good deeds, or acceptance of His gifts doesn't count as real initiative because God first took the initiative to offer us the gifts. This is initiative and merit in the secondary sense? To me, that sounds like a simple timing issue. If my boss simply tells me to accomplish "X", and gives me the tools, but does not tell me what to do step by step, is my initiative in completing the task really secondary?
I still do not understand why the distinction makes a difference in whether we earn our salvation or not. Are there not tons of things in normal life that we would consider to be fully earned, even though they would fit your definition of being a secondary cause? When a baseball player hits a home run, would you call that "secondary" because technically, he couldn't have done it without the owner hiring him, and the manager putting him in the lineup?
I know you wrote this sentence, but did you read it? :) "Eternal" means incomplete and conditional??? That can only speak for itself.
Heaven is union with Christ, brother! I cannot believe this is new to you! What part of this don't you get?
The part that stands John 3:16 on its ear! :) To me, "eternal life" means eternal life in heaven in the presence of and in communion with, God. "Eternal death" means eternal life in hell, permanently away from God. You appear to be saying that "eternal" means "maybe". However, the more I think about it, this may be the best "out" you have in Catholicism. If the promise in John 3:16 was actually true, and since it is in the present tense, then that would concretely confirm the ideas of salvation before death, and assurance while alive. Such ideas must be eliminated. So, if "eternal" can be changed to mean "not eternal, but fleeting", then that kills two birds with one stone. Whoever thought it up, I do give him credit.
The word "justice" means the same thing to God and to us.
Really??? How about the word "love"? Does that mean the same thing to God as it does to man? You're giving us corporeals a wee bit too much credit I think. :)
How exactly does man persevere if God does everything? Don't you mean "God perseveres"?
Yes, the elect of men persevere by God acting through them. So, your correction is better.
FK: "I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that no Catholic baby has a punched ticket into heaven upon infant baptism."
You are wrong. Our salvation ABSOLTULEY DEPENDS on the presence of sanctifying grace within us to enter heaven. Without this, we cannot enter heaven. It is a freely given gift by God, as a seed planted in the ground, that bears fruit later in the infant's life.
Huh? Could you read what I said again? If I am still wrong, then I am not fairly safe, but fairly lost. :) You are now espousing a OSAS model from infant baptism. For you, this is a bit.... irregular. :)
Sanctifying grace, while present, guarantees heaven to those who have it. This presence does not necessarily remain with us once we receive it at Baptism.
LOL! So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?
Adam was born with a human nature that had no effects of original sin. ... In addition to this unadulterated humanity, Adam was given the "breath of God", the Spirit. This is something that exceeds the natural world. God's Spirit was not given to any other material creation.
Except ........., or as some good Catholics believe also .........., or if you're Orthodox perhaps even ......... :)
FK: "My argument is that it was necessary, to satisfy His own rules."
Love is not necessary. Love is freely given, not something required.
I wasn't referring to His rules of love, but His rules of His justice. Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does. So He decides to pay it Himself out of love for His creation. But what is this price exactly? What would be enough to "cover" the debt? My argument was that if the true answer was a finger snap or a prayer, AND He decided to die on the cross anyway, then that would have been unnecessary suicide. That would not have been true love at all.
My position is that therefore, the God-determined price, according to His justice, must have been the death of Christ on the cross. That makes the sacrifice real, and fully selfless. It was necessary and He did it because if He did not do it, none of us are saved.
It's my understanding that an infant baptized as a Roman Catholic would have a punched ticket into heaven by virtue of being baptized into the Roman fold.
This is too funny because when I first said this I thought it was the most innocent of comments. :) I was thinking along the lines that because there is no assurance in Catholicism, the ticket is never punched into heaven. Never during life. Therefore, Catholics spend their entire lives sitting on the train, even with a ticket (stub), but it is never legitimated by the conductor coming through and punching it, thus, verifying it. The punching cancels out the ticket and stub in order to prevent fraud. My little analogy was that Catholics can never be sure that they will not become a fraud in God's eyes, and lost forever. Therefore, their tickets are never punched.
"LOL! So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?"
FK, you didn't read the link I posted on Palamas, did you! You'll never get that M.Div in Orthodox Theology at this rate! :)
Jo, was the light at Mount Tabor created or uncreated in your understanding? It seems to me that we are fast approaching a point in this discussion where differing understandings of grace/divine energies is becoming important. It is clear that both Latin and Orthodox theology have well developed theologies of grace. It appears to me that the Protestants have a rather less developed conception. Might it not be time to start defining our terms a bit more precisely since I think we are reaching a point where we are using the same word, grace, to describe rather different concepts.
I won't be around much this weekend...still in the process of opening up the cottage and I've a problem with the water system (as well as a failed hot water heater element) which will take up a good deal of time.
Apostolic Churches teach that the souls are alive and conscious after physical death. They even "feel" and "see" and "hear" and understand our prayers, but it is not clear how -- given that modern science has established that our senses are intimately tied to our bodies' sense preceptors.
No body, no senses! But, maybe, just maybe, this is not entirely true. However, Protestants and Jews believe that the souls are "asleep," so there is no sense talking to them, praying to them, or for them. In other words, they are "dead."
Now, we are all Christians in our hearts and our God is a God of life not death. Through His own sacrifice in Flesh, He conquered death, our last enemy, and made it possible for us to live even after we physically die. If we do not believe that the souls are alive, we do not believe in afer-life, the hope that made Christianity's appeal so strong.
Roman documents show that Romans considered Christianity a "dangerous superstition" and that its major appeal was the idea that Christians "cannot die."
Just because we don't see radio waves or understand why gravity exists does not mean they don't or can't. We are not the final arbiters of what is real and what is not, or what is possible and what is not.
Whether valid or not, it certainly cannot hurt to pray for the souls of the departed or to ask for their intercession through prayer on our behalf. The intention is what really counts.
Yes, between humans, one billion dollars is a no-brainer. But in God's offer, it is based on FAITH! When if I offered you one billion dollars conditionally? Then, you'd have to trust me. Then, the analogy becomes more like the decision we make with God. It is NOT a no-brainer, because the reward is not clearly given here. It is based on faith and trusting that God will reward us for our response - which often calls for us to refute the present "good" things in life.
God transforms the minds of His elect to want to go to heaven. Isn't Paul the perfect example?
Yes, but He does it without destroying a man's free will. He doesn't erase our will, He inclines it towards Him. Saul already had zeal for God, it was just misdirected in defending the Old, rather than the New Covenant. Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".
Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.
I wrote :God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world.
You responded : So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this.
Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise! Our hope is based on this assumption. Just because Jesus rose from the dead doesn't mean YOU will - UNLESS we rely on God's righteousness and promises. What is so difficult about this?
I'm sure it doesn't match your sense of justice. God owes you an apology.
Sorry if I call good - good and evil - evil. From what you are saying, you call evil - good, good - evil, justice - injustice; mercy - harshness. Etc. When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.
When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?
Yes, of course. I didn't create heaven, and I have no moral claim to live there from myself. In addition, I am against illegal immigration. You, OTOH, appear to be in full support of illegal immigration as you place a duty on God to offer to let everyone in.
Oh boy. I live only a few miles from the Mexican border. We see them alright. Don't go there. Regarding God, we DO have a "claim", because God made a promise. The Untied States didn't make a promise to illegals. Knowing that God is righteous, knowing that God has told us if we respond to him positively, He would reward us, then He does "owe" us in a secondary sense. Not strictly, but He binds Himself, being that God is righteous. Or are you again going to say that God does not even live up to human standards of righteousness?
First, God is not just, now God is not righteous? What do they teach you at that Sunday school?
I wrote But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING.
You responded No, just the opposite. In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically.
LOL! Read that last sentence again. Are you some sort of disembodied person, separated from your body? Perhaps your paradigm is incorrect? Are you living in the Matrix? Again, do you think God is "tricking" us?
This was my understanding of your belief. But I don't understand why you still call it "God's word". It really isn't in your view, is it? The Church wrote it, so the Church owns it.
Men of the Church wrote it inspired by God. Of course it is God's Word. That is our faith. I believe it based on the word of the Church. The Church verifies its source because it witnessed the Christ. Unless you think they made the whole thing up. You, on the other hand, believe the Bible is God's word because...God's word is the bible because...the Bible is God's word...and the vicious circle continues...
The Church seems to take on the role of God's ghostwriter, doesn't it? It's more like "The Holy Bible...... by God ... with the Roman Catholic Church."
LOL! I never thought of it that way. That's a fair analysis, I guess, except you could drop the "Roman" from your statement... God DID form the Church FIRST. God DID task this Church to spread the Word - whether by oral word or written letter or by deed.
I'm sure that everyone is a legitimate interpreter AS LONG AS he agrees with the Church. I know you've said you have some freedom on minor issues, but really, on anything of real importance, your view is that only the Church knows best, only your men are good enough, as I said.
Yes. That's the way God planned it. Only they have the power to bind and loosen, not every individual. Otherwise, how is the faith supposed to remain ONE?
Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me.
That is not the smartest thing you have written over the course of our discussions(that is the nicest way I can say it). So I guess man determines the revelation of God, now? Is Christianity a revealed religion, or a philosophical argument? You are basically giving credence to Relativism - every good opinion is as good as another. Every nut case with a bible can decide for himself the revelation of God? Next, you'll be crowning the god of human reason... This is exactly the problem the Church has been fighting since the "Enlightenment" when such men as Kant came along and placed human reason above even God. Utterly ridiculous.
I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved). I admit I cannot give you an unbiased answer. :)
Utterly corrupt? Please. The lengths Protestants go to villify the Church so as to assuage their guilty conscience on leaving or remaining outside the Church established by Christ. "well, it's corrupt, God, you know, that time when a priest stole some money, well, the whole Church MUST be false...". At what point in the Old Testament did God create a new "people"? Did He do away with them, despite their "corruptness"? No, God's people, the Church, will always continue to be His people, no matter its outer form.
Since I do not see persuasive evidence that it is allegory, for now I will take Genesis at face value.
Explain the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. They are not in the same order. Or did God create the universe twice in two different ways?
Regards
If Mary had taken a childhood vow of virginity for all her life, then why in the universe would she have agreed to become betrothed? As you well know, this was before the angel appeared to her. In fact, as I think about it, if she entered into a betrothal with the full intention of remaining a virgin, then she would have been guilty of the sin of fraud.
For example, given the frequency of reconstituted families after a divorce, note how often "brother" means really "half-brother" in modern American usage. Just as the expansive usage of "brother" common in the East seems lacking in recognition of direct brothers to you, the pedantic "This is John my brother, and Jake my half brother from mom's first marriage, and Jim my half brother from dad's first marriage" that you apparently would insist upon in modern America sounds unnecessarily offputting to many today.
Well, the term "half-brother" is no problem to me because that is exactly the relationship I claim between Jesus and his "siblings". There is still common blood. If I had one, I would think of my half-brother as just "my brother". The interesting relationship in today's world is step-siblings. (I actually expected that to come up as an explanation from someone, but it didn't.) I don't have any step-siblings either, but I would guess that in most cases, the connection would be less than that of a blood relative. It is my impression that blood connections were extremely important in those days, as they are today.
[Re: the world without scripture] There would be more heresy, yes. But we have the promise of Christ that the Church will prevail and that Christ is with Peter when he teaches others (Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32). So the Church would prevail even without the scripture, as the scripture itself tells us.
There have been comments saying that the Bible was compiled for the reason of thwarting heretical sects such as Gnosticism. How would you define "prevail" without scripture? Today, and if scripture never existed, do you think that global Church membership would be somewhat less, or drastically less? I would guess the latter for any faith that believed in scripture.
Either you don't read everything we say or you don't understand it, FK. It's not that difficult. Everything comes from God, including our faith and our salvation. God does not need us to cooperate with Him, but He wants us to do so (for a good reason, trust me), which is why He gives us the freedom to either accept His merciful offers of grace or to reject them.
Acceptance of His grace does not "earn" you points for salvation. Your salvation is not a simple one-moment event. One Orthodox priest once said it's like getting a visa to America and all you have is a dinghy at the coast of France (and a whole Atlantic Ocean in between)! You have been given the visa and you have a dinghy, but it's up to you to undertake the voyage; you must want it, and you must initiate it.
There will be tribulations and temptations and storms and obstacles that you must overcome to get there, and the only way you will accomplish this is if you persevere to the end, even if you perish trying. Living or dying is not an issue here; nor is it important as far as our salvation is concerned.
What counts is that you, for the love of God, and not because He coerced you or brainwashed you or because He attached a tractor beam to your forehead, stay the course and follow Christ's footsteps -- forgive others, repent, be merciful, and above all trust that whatever happens will be merciful and just, and what you really "deserved" in God's eyes.
If you can do that, you can also calmly and without any further speculation simply say "Thy will be done" and be done with it. You must be clear and without any doubt that whatever obstacles you encounter in good faith will not count against you; they will not earn you points; they will only bring you closer to God.
Our sub deacon the other day said his grandmother told him "first the cross then the crown." He said "it bothered him" to hear that when he was younger, but now he realizes how much she knew her theology. :)
Accepting Christ does not stop the world around you. You still have to deal with the world and everything it dishes out to you. Just because you are "saved" does not mean you now "rate" special treatment. How many Christians say "How could this happen to me? I go to Church, I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and yet these things happen to me..."
Let me tell you, getting a visa for America for many people is a "salvation." Getting there sometimes requires a lot more faith and perseverance than you think.
Ultimately, what matters is not whether we "succeed" or not, but whether we remain Christ-like in our hearts. No one is immortal, so we are all slaves to death whether we believe or not. The only "guarantee" we have is our faith that Christ can unshackle us from it.
Success is a relative term. It can be measured not with how much you have or make but how happy you are. And in Christ we are greatful for every day, for everything even if it is small and meager; when we get sick we don't complain "how can this happen to me...' but thank the Lord for all the health you have been given until now, or thank Him that you are blessed enough to have the means to be healed with.
If you can concentrate on that, intellectual discussions on whether we earn or salvation points or not become meanignless chatter.
We understand God's grace differently, but without us being the object of that grace, being able to accept it freely, or freely cooperating with God in that grace, makes grace meaningless too. So, salvation does depend on our being here to receive it. Otherwise, what's the point? No man, no grace. :)
In no human example can we compare to God and man completely. This is because God has given us EVERY gift. Both natural and supernatural. He has given us our talents that we consider ingrained, as well as the supernatural gifts of faith, hope and love. Thus, God is ALWAYS the First Cause. But He allows ALL of His creation to be Secondary Causes of their own actions. Thus, plants grow of their own accord, under God's laws of nature. Animals procreate and move on their own accord. All the while, though, they are under God's "indirect" guidance and Providence. When need be, I would presume that God would ensure that an animal was in the right place at the right time if it suited God's plan of salvation for mankind.
With man, we are dealing with a creature with intellect and free will. God continues to allow His creature to be a secondary cause. Thus, man eats or sleeps when it suits him. However, this does not take away from God as the First Cause. He is always indirectly involved because He gave man all of his abilities - AND can intervene when it suits His purpose. Because man always has the choice to do "x" or "y", free choice remains. God does not take that away, but He does make "x" look as the best choice - and God foresees that man will choose "x". This doesn't take away man's free will AND God's will was done. Thus, we can say that man did "x", though we also say that man cannot brag, because God "moved" him to choose "x", making it more to the man's desire. Man is given credit by God for choosing "x", he is given merit, since He cooperated with God's will. Merit is given to man because and ONLY because God binds HIMSELF to pay man a reward for his obedience - which God enables but not without the possibility of man's rejection.
Regards
I thought minors in Judea in the 1st century AD did not make decisions; they did not live in 21st century America, where teens rule. I believe their marriages were arranged by their parents, or guardians (given that women really could not earn their living in those days).
I never paid much attention to the actual bethrodal issue of BEV Mary, but I believe the context in which it is revealed in the NT is that she "was bethroded" and not that she "bethroded herself" to +Joseph.
Yes, I made that statement. There were hundreds of scrolls of various "gospels" circulating in the developing Chirstian world, especially those written by Gnostics. Such Gnostic "scriptures" were interspersed throughout churches and read in public, masquerading as apostolic writing. The Church had to separate the inspired from the profane.
How would you define "prevail" without scripture?
The Church did not just "memorize" and verbalize. The entire liturgical life of the Church from the beginning contains the same faith you find in the NT. All you have to do is follow liturgical texts and practices dating back to the beginning and you will find what's in the NT with OT references included.
You could learn the entire NT by reading all available liturgical texts that pre-date compiled NT. These liturgical texts were written and worship tailored around them based on the Apostolic knowledge of the faith, which is why the Church, and the Church only, could separate Gnostic forgeries from genuine gospels and epistles.
But, more importantly, without man capable of receiving grace, the entire idea of grace becomes meaningless.
To further explain. "Eternal Life" is not a status or a condition given to us. It is an Object, a Person, Jesus Christ, who comes to abide within us if we are born anew or obey the Commandments. This "Eternal Life" in John is synonymous with "Kingdom of Heaven" in the Synoptics. It is Christ's presence within the grace-filled man. It does not follow that "Eternal Life" will remain within us ETERNALLY! A man can disinherit himself from the Kingdom of Heaven - which casts out "Eternal Life" that was formerly residing within us. We ALWAYS have the ability to reject the Spirit while here on earth. "Eternal Life" in John's Gospel refers to a Person, not a status. Do you think Catholics believe that if they go to Communion (eat Christ's Body) that they are guaranteed heaven? That is what your interpretation of John 6 would tell us... I do grant you that context is important, and that sometimes, eternal life refers to life in heaven. But usually, John means the Person of Christ.
"eternal life" means eternal life in heaven in the presence of and in communion with, God.
Jesus DEFINES Eternal life : "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3
That is the message of John's Gospel. To believe that Christ is God's messenger. HE is life eternal. He is not a status! In some instances, Paul talks about eternal life as you mention, but he also qualifies this by saying we can become disinherited by our actions. So even in Paul's case, eternal life is not guaranteed until after death.
How about the word "love"? Does that mean the same thing to God as it does to man? You're giving us corporeals a wee bit too much credit I think. :)
Our definitions are the same. It is our execution that is lacking. God taught us what love was through the death of His only Son. We "know" what love is. The problem is putting it into action.
Yes, the elect of men persevere by God acting through them. So, your correction is better.
So when Jesus tells us to be awake, to persevere, He really is talking to the Father? I disagree. God expects MAN to persevere by using the grace God gives men in each situation. God is not persevering through men. That is ridiculous - God judges MAN. We don't judge God for His perseverance through men.
If I am still wrong, then I am not fairly safe, but fairly lost. :) You are now espousing a OSAS model from infant baptism. For you, this is a bit.... irregular. :)
A baby has his "ticket punched" as a result of infant baptism because he has no stain of sin remaining. He has received sanctifying grace, and has no personal sin. What would keep him out of heaven, FK? Original sin and personal sin keep us out of heaven. A baby has had the former removed and doesn't have the latter. I don't see this a problem. Of course, we are presuming that the infant subsequently dies. Once a child commits mortal sin, all bets are off on this "ticket being punched".
So to those who have it, sanctifying grace is really, truly a "guarantee" of NOTHING. It is a temporary condition, that when lost, may or may not be restored. You call that a "guarantee"? When you go to get your car fixed, and the shop owner gives you a "guarantee" of his work, is this the sense in which you accept it? The work is guaranteed, until the car breaks down, and then it is no longer guaranteed, but might be again if you hire the same guy to fix it a second time?
A guarantee doesn't guarantee the problem will not re-occur. It means that IF it DOES, they will fix it for free! How can a human shop owner "guarantee" that a car will not break? The sacrament of Confession is our guarantee for us when we sin after Baptism. We call upon the work of Christ to free us from our self-imposed sin (not authored by God). Just because we have been Baptized doesn't guarantee we won't sin - but we have a guarantee that we can get fixed. Again, I don't see a problem here.
Man is sinful, making him wholly unfit for heaven. All men. A price must be paid in atonement. This is God's way as we see throughout the OT. Man does not have the required price, only God does.
So who does God pay?
My position is that therefore, the God-determined price, according to His justice, must have been the death of Christ on the cross. That makes the sacrifice real, and fully selfless. It was necessary and He did it because if He did not do it, none of us are saved.
I disagree with this concept of "Atonement", that God owes something to someone as to ransom man from something, although it is not necessarily a false belief, since some Church Fathers have held it. I realize that Paul uses this in comparison to Hebrew sacrifices, which discuss man atoning for sins through sacrifice. But God? Who does God owe anything to? I think this is a misinterpretation of the bible and has led to many problems in our relationship with God. It tends to cause us to forget that God is Love and rather focus on God as being Just. Of course, this is true, but God is Mercy and Love first, as James and John say. God sent His Son to die on the cross to show us His love for mankind, not because He was forced to out of some debt. Who can make God pay them anything? Even Satan cannot. The Catholic paradigm is that God is Love and Mercy first.
Regards
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.