Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
So Mary got to skip the perseverance part? Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved? Maybe I should imitate her and not worry about any consequences of sin either.
I personally do not agree that Mary suffered no pain throughout her life. That is not dogmatic teaching. In actuality, that goes against Catholic theological teachings that Mary DID suffer alongside the Savior at the foot of the cross. The prophet Simeon said to Mary "a sword shall pierce your own soul". The Catholic concept of Mary as a co-redeemer depends partially on the fact that Mary suffered ENORMOUSLY as a result of giving her will to the Will of the Father at the foot of the cross.
It sure "sounds" like Pope John Paul II believes that we were bought and paid for by Christ, but of course he doesn't mean that. He really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin. At that moment, Christ's work becomes worthless to the sinner.
This complies with the Bible through and through. One must BELIEVE in Christ, taking Him into our souls, allowing Him to transform us. Forget about the "once saved - always saved". It's just wishful thinking. Why all of that talk about perseverance and the "narrow way" if all we had to do was believe in Christ for a day???
The Scriptures tell us over and over that we know we abide in Christ when we obey Him, His commandments. What sort of "saving faith" is it when we do not respond to our King and refuse to obey Him? Wishful thinking.
He says that Mary's sufferings contributed to our redemption, but he doesn't say how. Mary's suffering helped to pay for my sins? I would worship anyone who paid for my sins. But you all say that you don't worship Mary. Why not?
Mary contributed to our salvation in the same manner as Eve participated in our destruction. Both woman were "bystanders" who were not needed - BUT - participate in the action just the same. This is straight from the writers of the second century AD...
If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?
That's what Hades was for, a place of shades. The righteous of the OT were not allowed into heaven until AFTER Christ's saving death. Otherwise, Christ's death would not be necessary, now, would it? If people were in heaven BEFORE Christ's death, then there is another way into heaven, another name under whom the world is saved. Is that your proposal?
Regards
Yes, I think I remember Joe telling me that Catholics do believe that some are graced more than others (but that all are graced sufficiently for ultimate salvation). So, then would you say that a Bishop is not graced more than a member of the laity? What is your view on the concept of "spiritual gifts"?
Well, they can't receive a Christian funeral. What happens to them is up to God. Orthodoxy does not speculate on this.
Does having a Christian funeral have some significance in reaching theosis? And, if the mother suddenly realized the gravity of her error, why couldn't the aborted baby have a Christian funeral? If the answer is that the baby was discarded after the killing, then I would say that many times there is no body to bury. And further, while we're on this lovely subject :), is there any view in Orthodoxy about cremation?
"And further, while we're on this lovely subject :), is there any view in Orthodoxy about cremation?"
Cremation is forbidden unless the state absolutely requires it (as in Japan.)
Some bishops will allow a memorial service (pannikhida/parastas) to be served for someone who has been cremated, but I don't think that funerals are ever allowed for someone who has been or will be cremated.
Cremation is a pagan practice that symbolically rejects the idea of the resurrection of the body.
Scripture please.
Indeed it is. In fact, the very use of the English word "justice" or the Greek word dikaiosunh is misleading. Here's what an eminent Greek theologian, Alexander Kalomiros says about this:
... "So we see that God is not just, with the human meaning of this word, but we see that His justice means His goodness and love, which are given in an unjust manner, that is, God always gives without taking anything in return, and He gives to persons like us who are not worthy of receiving."
Amen, Kolo. Thank you very much for posting this. I completely agree with where Alexander Kalomiros is coming from. We know God's justice is definitionally perfect, and we know there are many examples in the Bible where what God does fails to line up with the human sense of justice. Therefore, they must be different. And that's not a bad thing. I thank God they are different, otherwise, I wouldn't have a chance! :)
How can God ensure that His teachings are given correctly? Is that what you are asking me? Are you saying that God cannot enfluence the contents of a teaching?
Under my understanding of Catholic free will, God can certainly influence the intellect to give correct teaching. However, God CANNOT ensure that it will actually happen because free will, in Catholicism, can always override what God wants. So, God can give the best advice in the world, which He always does, but there can be no guarantee that the correct teaching will actually be given by a priest or bishop, or anyone else, because free will is ALWAYS a wildcard.
FK: "...but I do think that when it came to the Bible, there was a different standard. Men are capable of error, and so I believe that the Bible was effectively taken out of the hands of man to ensure its inerrancy."
What makes you think that? What evidence do you have to make such a presumption?
It's the same as above. In Catholicism, men always have the freedom to do whatever they want, for or against God. I can't believe God left it to chance that all the authors of the Bible would never choose to ignore His grace on what to write. So, I think it makes sense, that for something as important as His word to His Church, that He would eliminate all possibility of error. And God's foreknowledge is of no help here, because you would still have to believe in an amazing freak of luck that no author strayed, seeing as how "hands-off" you believe God is.
What I am saying is that our human nature's brain cannot understand transubstantiation. As Christ said, it takes the Spirit coming to man and giving supernatural faith from the Father to believe in the Eucharist.
OK, I see what you're saying.
[FK responding to JK:] He tells them to persevere because that is part of the salvation model revealed in scripture, and that is part of the human experience. (We all experience choosing to persevere.) He also tells them that none of His sheep will be lost.
You are not answering the question... How does God expect man to persevere if man cannot do ANYTHING, even when empowered by God?
I could be misunderstanding this question, but I'll try. God does not expect any of His elect to persevere on his own, and He does not expect any of the non-elect to persevere at all. God expects all of His elect to obey, and He gives all of them the necessary tools to do so. Nevertheless, sometimes the elect choose to disobey. This breaks God's wish, and is sin, but it doesn't break God's expectation, since He already knew and expected that the person was going to sin at that moment.
Whenever the elect "choose" to do good, then it is God working through them, and on all of those occasions, the person does not choose to disobey. So, perhaps we are using different meanings of the word "expect". Speaking only about myself, since I do not believe in a deeds-based salvation model, I do not believe God "expects" the elect to perform "X" number of good deeds to merit salvation. Perseverance comes completely from God, so with every good deed I do, I, personally, get 0 points in meeting God's expectations.
God foresees our perseverance. We don't. That is why we don't know we are of the elect. It makes no sense that God will ask the "elect" to persevere - to be on guard. This is a senseless command if man cannot do anything.
It's a perfect revelation of God's will, and therefore a wonderful teaching tool to seekers. It's also a reminder to us that God DOES care whether and how often we choose to sin. These are exactly the types of passages that remind me that, even though I believe I am saved, that I CANNOT go back to a life of unchecked sin. This is what these verses are for! :) Man can choose to sin, so these types of verses help him to not choose to do so.
God COULD have set up a system where He chooses His elect, lets them know it, and then doesn't care whether they ever sin again or not. If the Bible was silent on the issue, I might come to this conclusion. Thank God the Bible is not silent at all, He gives us His will that we are to persevere. So now I know.
IF we persevere, salvation is ours, and we were the elect all along. IF we DO NOT persevere, we were one of those who said "Lord, Lord" - and Jesus will respond "I never knew you". Think on that...
I don't put the burden on my shoulders to perform to such and such a level. God already says He will take the burden for us.
The Bible is NOT the "literal" word of God! Does the Bible say that anywhere? God works through mediators - throughout history. He inspired men to write the Scriptures.
We must disagree on what "literal" literally means. :) What do you think of this verse? :
Matt. 5:18 : I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The "every jot and tittle" verse. The "Law" that Jesus was referring to was the Law found plainly in the scriptures. Here, was Jesus submitting Himself to the work of men? I can't believe that He is. Rather, He is submitting Himself to the "literal" word of God, down to the last jot and tittle. I don't believe that imperfect men could come up with something that Jesus seems to think is THAT perfect.
This is an example of how God speaks through a human writer. If woman speak in church, then they go against the "literal" word of God! Is God's Word unchanging or not?
God's "literal" word was intended to be interpreted at times. Jesus tells us that. God knows that humans relate well to stories which incorporate things familiar to us. He knows that method works, so He uses it. It's how He built us. For the same reason there is a lot of repetition in the Bible. God knows that works too. It makes perfect sense and helps us in our sanctification. He literally intended to include some allegory, so some of His literal words are literal allegory.
You are correct about Orthodoxy allowing cremation where required by law, as is the case in Japan, and memorial service.
The reasoning is that cremation constitutes desecration of the body. There is really no easy or tasteful way to dispose of a body. American Indians would leave the body to be mauled by wild animals. Eskimos did the same thing. Hindus cremate theirs. Egyptians with money used to be altered chemically so as to last forever. We allow the body to rot. No matter how you look at it, the body is destroyed one way or another.
Cremation is natural. It involves no human hands or dismemberment, or chemical alteration (by injecting dies and preservatives into the body, after it has been drained of fluids), etc. It's dignified.
But the Orthodox Church will never accept it.
So, St. Augustine was a hardliner on this one. :) Well, then I disagree with Him too. I agree with the principle of what you are saying. I would phrase it: "God's elect are God's elect no matter what. Since we do not earn our salvation, then no baby can be said to have failed."
We believe that a bishop has been given different gifts, as per 1 Cor 12. God has graced each and every part of His Body with different gifts. All are needed by the Church - can the eye hear? Can a Body without a mouth speak? Thus, the Spirit ensures that the Body is properly outfitted to execute its purpose - to bring more people to Christ and sanctify those who are abiding in Him. It would be impossible to say that a bishop has been given "more" of anything, just different gifts. God can give gifts, but does man always use them?
Regards
NO doubt! God's justice exceeds man's idea - it is transcendant. It certainly does not fall short of it!
Regards
We'll miss you. The beach looks great.
My sarcasm meter is pegging right now... We don't believe that man can "always" override what God wants. We believe that God permits man to have evil thoughts, to sin. But He certainly is not denied the ability to intervene when He sees fit. Don't confuse free will with some power that man has over God. It is a gift that God gives.
I can't believe God left it to chance that all the authors of the Bible would never choose to ignore His grace on what to write.
Again, you are forgeting God's foresight. He sees everything before it happens in time - and KNOWS what is necessary to happen for His will to be done. He knows what events must occur for a man to choose "x" - if that is God's desire.
And God's foreknowledge is of no help here, because you would still have to believe in an amazing freak of luck that no author strayed, seeing as how "hands-off" you believe God is.
How is that? Did I say that man wrote the Bible without any help from God? Did He not inspire it? I am saying that the Bible is a combination of man and God. God did not use man as some sort of puppet, placing man in a trance to move his hand! God wouldn't need man at all if that is the way God planned to give the Scriptures. Why would He need man at ALL to write the Scriptures? God decided to involve man in writing the Scriptures - that much should be obvious. Thus, man's literary genre, style, methods, and knowledge are included within the Bible.
I do not believe God "expects" the elect to perform "X" number of good deeds to merit salvation.
Whoopie, we agree on something...
Perseverance comes completely from God, so with every good deed I do, I, personally, get 0 points in meeting God's expectations.
Everything comes from God. But man is expected to DO something! Thus, man is a secondary cause of his actions. EVERYWHERE in the Gospels, man is asked, pleaded with, given a choice - to believe or not. Certainly, man does not do this alone. Man is given grace to respond to God. Perseverance is not an empty request from God. It DEPENDS on man's cooperation. Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man.
It's a perfect revelation of God's will, and therefore a wonderful teaching tool to seekers. Sorry, it is wishful thinking, not in compliance with Scriptures. God's promises are for those who persevere - from our point of view. NO ONE is given automatic eternal salvation for turning to Christ in one night - while failing to respond in faith to Christ's presence. If one refuses to obey Christ's commandments, the Spirit is not within that person. He will not be saved in the end without this abiding presence.
Thank God the Bible is not silent at all, He gives us His will that we are to persevere
God doesn't say that YOU will persevere. Only His elect. Being regenerate does NOT mean you are of the elect.
I don't put the burden on my shoulders to perform to such and such a level. God already says He will take the burden for us.
God says His burden is light and easy. He doesn't say He "takes it away".
The "every jot and tittle" verse. The "Law" that Jesus was referring to was the Law found plainly in the scriptures. Here, was Jesus submitting Himself to the work of men? I can't believe that He is. Rather, He is submitting Himself to the "literal" word of God, down to the last jot and tittle. I don't believe that imperfect men could come up with something that Jesus seems to think is THAT perfect.
Again, I didn't say that man wrote the Bible without God's inspiration. Everything that God wanted written within it is inerrant. Thus, if God desired to tell of a parable called "Jonah" and a prophet who incorrectly assumes that salvation is only for the Jews - although God does so with a mythical story, does that MEAN that God's Word is not fully inerrant? That it is not truth??? If you have no problems with Jesus telling parables, why can't the OT have parables?
God's "literal" word was intended to be interpreted at times God's "literal" word is eternal and not subject to interpretation by man. Thus, the problem with Islam, brother. Christianity can thrive because we CAN realize that God's Word is mediated through man. The Church CAN interpret it - making the Scripture LIVING. It is through the Church that the Scripture remains alive.
Regards
Yes, God's elect cannot fail in the end, whoever those might be. I suppose, according to the above, NO ONE can be said to have "failed"... However, on subject, theologians have debated over the place for infants PRECISELY because hell is meant for those who choose to reject God - AND heaven is meant for those who choose to believe in Christ. Since God desires all men to be saved, I would agree with most theologians that God is not bound by the sacrament of Baptism and will not condemn infants to hell - although they also may be kept from perfect union with God, as well. We rely on God's mercy in these cases.
Regards
Have I? I wrote "Protestants, on the other hand, think that the Bible needs no outside authority - that the Bible can interpret itself." You above are saying that the "Holy Spirit" guides you. The problem with that is Protestants have a hugely diverse opinion on nearly everything of the faith. Is infant baptism OK? Is Baptism necessary for salvation? And so forth. Basically, what you REALLY mean is that "your opinion" (insert Protestant's name) = "Holy Spirit".
There is no way that the Holy Spirit speaks through such a body as the Protestant community on such issues! I would say that God speaks to you in spiritual matters that pertain to your individual life. Perhaps He leads you through Scripture reading to a closer understanding of His revelation. But He cannot possibly speak to you about matters of the deposit of faith that differ from the Church's, such as "Sola Fide" or the above about Baptism. The Holy Spirit HIMSELF inspired Scriptures to tell us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. It is the Church which guides our interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is not meant to be read outside of the "mind" of the Church.
God did not create the Church so that He could fight against it. A Kingdom divided against itself shall surely suffer.
How is the Roman Catholic Church any different than the Mormons. You both rely on documents not in the SCRIPTURE to determine your dogma and you both claim to have infallible heads.
Mormons claim that their Scriptures are ALSO from God...In BOTH cases, you either believe that the Mormon/Catholic Scriptures are really from God or you don't. The same with the Jewish Scriptures. You weigh their claim, look at their fruits, and listen to "God's voice" within to determine if they are from God. We then WILL to believe that "x" is Scripture because it indicates to us our ideas and paradigms of whom we believe God is and His Attributes. Thus, a Mormon will believe "X" because he was taught it and sees it verified in their "holy books". It is only when confronted with its contradictions and other authorities when people begin to doubt.
Regarding the Catholic point of view, the Scriptures did not determine the paradigm. Our views of God came from the Apostles - given to us orally first, then in oral and written form later. Oral teachings have never been abrogated. As long as they conform to what has been passed down previously throughout the ages from the Apostles, it is a valid teaching given by God to the Apostles. It doesn't matter if this teaching is written in the pages of the bible. The Bible is not a catechism, it is a collection of SOME writings from SOME of the Apostles. Clearly, it doesn't explain matters of the faith too well - at least in comparison to a systematic theology book. It doesn't start off "Chapter 1: Faith" and then detail everything about faith. The proof is in the disagreements that Christians of good will continue to have regarding the meaning of "faith". THUS, we rely on the TOTAL teachings of the Apostles to fully understand the meaning of Scriptures, the intent of the sacred writers.
Do you really think we would get the concept of Trinity from Scripture alone? No. Someone has to point out to us the pertinent passages and how to interpret passages that APPEAR to disagree with the idea of Trinity that the Church had. It is the very idea of Bible without Church that led to the heresy of Arianism - the idea the Jesus is NOT God. Arius used SCRIPTURE ALONE to figure out his point of view. It was only the Catholic Apostolic Tradition that noted that Arius was incorrect because he was reading Scripture incorrectly. And Protestants continue this pattern today. They read the Scriptures under their own "inspirations" - although you may call it the "Spirit". And as a result, they disagree and cannot really know exactly what the Scriptures mean. To fully understand the great gift God has given us through the Scriptures, we should look to the Church to help us understand them.
The LORD left us with SCRIPTURE after the Apostles were gone in order to avoid any confusion, IMHO.
Where does the Bible say that Jesus left any Scriptures? Where does Jesus write ANYTHING in the Bible (not counting His writings in the dirt with the adulterous woman)? You base that presumption on your theology already preconceived, not on any evidence from history or the Scriptures. It should be very clear that Christ left a Church, not a Bible.
Regards
Thankfully, he surmounted worse insults in preaching the word of God.
Hey all...
I believe Paul to be the greatest Apostle too, without a doubt. With the help of Our Lord, it seems to me he saved Christianity from oblivion. In Paul Johnson's History of Christianity he posits that St. Paul, at times was at odds with the Apostles operating out of Jerusalem, the 'center' party. He also posited that this 'center' party would have probably anathematized him if they could, as they tried to get him declared a heretic.
Politics is politics is politics. But St. Paul certainly seems to have been a maverick, and preached in a manner more similar to Christ's than the other Apostles.
James' works/faith Gospel does not really seem at odds to me with St. Paul's Letters, as the works that James mentions as an illustration of his point seem to me to be more 'acts' of Faith, and not works, as I understand them.
Abraham's willingness to slay his beloved Isaac was not a 'work', it was an act of Faith, and that's the message I think St. James is really getting at. It's always puzzled me that his Gospel is used as some kind of 'ace in the whole' for the line of thought that professes works to be kept track of by God, so that you can get to be with God.
Christ declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and they haven't and they won't. I've never fully understood though what the gates of hell prevailing would actually entail, and everybody I've asked hasn't given me an answer that's worth very much. I think it means that no matter what fate befalls the Church, a small segment will always remain, who will unabashedly and passionately confess, as St. Paul confessed, Jesus Christ crucified.
Hope all of you are well, and sorry if my post is a bunch of scattered thoughts.
AG
" But St. Paul certainly seems to have been a maverick, and preached in a manner more similar to Christ's than the other Apostles."
Maybe God raised up Paul for the ministry because Peter could not get the job done?
And your logic, clearly, points out that God raised up Paul because JESUS didn't get the job done, either? If I hear you correctly, you are measuring Paul's worth based on one of two Protestant yardsticks - number of books in the NT Bible, or number of supposed converts "credited" to Paul. This is how success is measured in your community? Warm bodies in the seats paying their tithes?
By these measurements, how does our Lord and Savior fare? You are measuring Peter and Paul by your own yardstick, rather than God's. Peter and Paul both "got the job done" that the Lord intended on them to have!
Remember, brother, God measures our worth based on how we respond to the job He gives us, not your human notions. Many are considered saintly who are janitors and maids. A saint is one who totally abandons his will to Christ. We will not be measured by how many widgets we make or how many converts we bring into the church - but how we respond to the graces (many or few) that God happens to give us.
Regards
Thanks very much, Dr. E.! I was hoping for an answer like this. Since I have spent my entire practicing Christian life as a Baptist, I never knew why (or even if) others of like minds practiced infant baptism. I have read through some of the answers in your most excellent link, and it will take me some time to really get deeply into it. I think it could easily support its own thread! :)
I hope no one is miffed at me for stirring up a hornets nest. :) I figured that since it wasn't salvational that it might be OK to mention. I was obviously under the wrong impression on the topic itself, so I learned something. Thanks again.
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.