Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Why? I thought you were "once saved, always saved"... How can you "just barely be saved"? Either you are or you aren't, in your scheme.
If so, then because the Trinity is such a core and basic concept for us, I can't believe Paul didn't essentially get it. For example, Paul mentions them as all being distinct:
Yes, for US it is core. For the Apostles and Paul, I do not believe that the Trinity was a core concern. This developed only later as the Church meditated on what was given. IF Paul and the Apostles were clear on things concerning the Trinity, there wouldn't have been so many heresies on the subject - heresies that continued for 500 years. Note, there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it. The Trinity, in my opinion, was not taught in the fullness of detail that we have today - or even 325 AD. Thus, Nicea to Chalcedon concentrated so heavily on WHO Jesus Christ was and what His relationship was to the Father and the Spirit.
I have a very hard time believing that there are men today who understand God better than Paul did. Paul's mentor was Jesus Himself, one on one.
You seem to forget that God is quite capable of acting even TODAY in our world. As such, God can enlighten men in the history of the Church. God CONTINUES to gradually reveal more about Himself through the one-time "tradition" given by Christ to the Apostles. Paul HIMSELF shows a development of thought on various subjects, to include the time of the second coming of Christ. We note in his writings that his ideas on justification also develop over time. Paul is no different than any other person who has been given revelation from God. It is not ALL INCLUSIVE. Apparently, Paul, like everyone else, learns about God through the same school that everyone else learns - through the school of obedience and humility and prayer. Paul, like everyone else, had to THINK and REFLECT on God's Word.
Did Jesus keep secrets from Paul, etc.? I doubt it.
Did Jesus keep secrets from Mary? Yet, the Scriptures tell us that Mary ALSO contemplated what happened to her in her heart - reflecting on these matters for 30 years to the cross. Again, I do not believe that God has revealed Himself fully to ANYONE. His ways are to lead man to reflect on Him through our lives. It is not God's intent to merely write the Catechism or whatever into our logical brains. He desires we experience Him in life - DAILY. Thus, our ideas of God develop as we mature in Christ.
But surely you knew that, if you say you are in Christ...
Besides you appear to be freely admitting here that the later Church ADDED to what even the Apostles taught and understood. OOPS! :) So much for "always and everywhere", not to mention the specific scriptural prohibition against this.
I am saying our UNDERSTANDING increases. If I give you a math book at the beginning of a college semester of calculus, do you understand it all on day one??? Again, I thought you were beyond such mindless mantras repeated by other of my separated brothers...
And, Protestants do not see Mary as only an incubator. We honor her for her great faith and devotion to God.
I apologize, but after what I have read on Free Republic over the last few years, I find that as BS. You do not honor her one bit. She has been dishonored continuously here. IF Jesus really IS fully human, I can imagine what He must think about all these Protestants who "honor" her with their incessant attacks that strive to make her as just another person, rather than one who has been blessed above all other women.
If I'd know any better, I'd think some Protestants consider her as merely a utilitarian tool that God HAD to use to save man while following the "script"...
Regards
Hope your feet are well.
This post sounded more cranky than usual. Hope you are OK.
Yes, science can only prove the greatness of God, when it is true science, not conjecture.
The Genesis account is totally accurate.
He tried to show that it did not conflict with the Bible It doesn't. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials
Correct. However, the Church imposed on both scholars a requirement to state that their work is mere speculation and not the way things really are (because we can never really know how things are and all that jazz...). This "disclaimer" appears in all their books at the very beginning.
And for something to be considered be scientifally proved it has to be tested.
That is why evolution is regarded as a 'theory'. Well, as it turns out, it is the way things are (as far as humans are concerned).
And it had nothing to do with undermining any Bible truths.
And where does it state anything about the moon having craters or not in the Bible?
How could it, when one cannot seen them with a naked eye? Bible authors had no way of seeing the craters or strange "appendages" (as gailleo called unresolved Saturn's rings in his small telescope).
And again, that has nothing to do with Genesis 1-3 or the Bible in general.
The Church believed, however, that the sky above was the "heavens," an erroneous belief that comes straight from the Bible.
No, the heavens are 'above' you and when you die, if you are saved, you go up just as the Lord ascended into the heaven.
Since the Church maitained that only that which is pure/perfect can be in heaven, the 'logical' conclusion was that celestial bodies were also perfect anfd without "blemishes."
And once again, that has nothing to do with the Bible.
The Vatican officials were dealing with defending a RCC position, not a Biblical one
No, they were just making 'logical" conclusions based on Biblical assumptions.
No, they were coming to conclusions that had nothing to do with the Bible.
There is no real evidence for anything that contradicts the Genesis account of Creation.
And your definition of "real" is?
Evidence that cannot be disputed.
No evidence exists that proves that the Creation did not happen exactly the way God said it did in Genesis 1-3.
Once again, the RCC was not defending the Bible, but its own interpretation of it, one mixed with philosophic speculation.
No it is nice trick to cite something without any backing of it with evidence.
I gave you a citation from a Jewish source that stated that David had a great empire.
Honestly demands that one back up what one asserts.
Charles Warren's (1867) (see Keller, The Bible as History: p190-191), which claimed to have discovered the water shaft purportedly used by David to attack his enemies has been debunked when it was established that it is a natural fissure that contains nothing even close to Davidian times, but rather much older Canaanite and much younger Israeli artifacts. (see Sturgis, It Ain?t Necessarily So: p143-144) In fact, there is not a single mention of any of the surrounding settlemts and kingdoms of any powerful king by the name of David, or his "vast empire." The Tel Dan Stela fragments (late 800's BC) discovered in 1993, seem to suggest (without universal agreement, however, because of the poor match of the two fragments suggesting they were not of the same origin) the existence of Davidian offspring. Truly, so much power and so little written about him. History has no problems recording powerful leaders great empires and significant events with utmost pedantry, except when it comes to Israeli claims. Extensive redactions and machinations about David can be traced to the 7th c. BC Israeli king Josiah. Davidian myth grew proportionally as more time elapsed after his death. Too bad, archeology doesn't seem to be able to find anything even close to the myths we find in the Bible about David, mainly contained in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. All these myths, beginning with Genesis (which clashes with anthropological evidence) and Exodus (which lacks any archaeological evidence of that ever happening), are part of oral tales that were passed on from one generation to another, with obvious variations, exaggerations and alterations. As such they are man-made received text that was carefully and deliberately doctored to create a providential message. There is a strong probability that Jerusalem did not even exist during the time of David (11th c. BC) and that it became a more prominent place some 300 years later. (see Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: p132) The first and extensive redactions and machinations about David can be traced to the 7th c. BC Israeli king Josiah. Davidian myth grew proportionally as more time elapsed after his death. Too bad, archeology doesn't seem to be able to find anything even close to the myths we find in the Bible about David, mainly contained in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. I wish it were otherwise, but even the Bible uses "miracles" as "proof" to make believers; taking someone's word just doesn't seem to cut it even in the Bible. An ap priori acceptance of something that has so much evidence of human tampering is only fit for the gullible who confuse their wishes as reality, and man-made traditions with divinity.
And to bad that your 'history' is as flawed as your theology.
In fact, the history shows otherwise, that David had a great Kingdom, as well as Solomon.
Read James 2 closely - the first 15 verses or so. Are we any less guilty than whom James was writing to 2000 years ago? Humanity may be more technologically inclined, but we still are the same wounded creatures.
I do agree with you that people are responsible for damning themselves with regard to salvation. Our difference is whether God allows that to happen after salvation is objectively held.
The New Testament is very clear on this. Men fall. Even AFTER receiving God's Word!!!
Fate has never, nor will it ever, be a Christian idea. Such is the mindset of the "Reformed" Protestant theology. One is saved (fated) before even being born. I think if you read about ancient cultures, you will find that one of Christianity's greatest draws was that it broke free from such a mindset. That men's salvation was determined before they were born. It gave hope to the poor, the malcontent, the everyday "joe's" of the world who barely got by in THIS life.
Christianity teaches something different. It teaches that man CAN COOPERATE with that almighty Creator and come into union with Him if man follows the lead of this Creator. Calvinism is just another system that moves man back into paganist ideas of fate. Does this "take away" from the Sovereignty of God? Only in the mind of those who believe they are fated to eternal life before they were born...
Just as an example, could two Catholics commit adultery under identical circumstances and for one it would be a mortal sin, but not for the other, and it's all based on how well each knew his own faith?
I believe faith is not an exercise in black and white logical rules. The Roman Catholic Church went through that sort of period - and frankly, it stifled love and forgiveness. You are asking me to return to a Pharisaical understanding of our relationship with God... A relationship that is judged by dotting our "i's" and crossing the "t's". Perhaps you are aware of the Jewish Talmud and it extensive rules laid out for everything situation done in society. The Talmud is the place to look for such detailed rules. Fortunately, the Canon of the Catholic Church is not in the Western mold of tort law.
To simplify my answer to you - I do not know. Only the individual can judge whether his relationship is merely wounded or is destroyed with God. The Church, the Body, the community, has rules of thumb to judge from the outside looking in. But they are not absolute. I have found in my dealing with the Catholic Church this : that it has many rules - but it is very flexible in adhering to them. Again, we are not a tort-law society. Pastorally speaking, the Church must reach out to people. Sometimes, interpretation of these rules are given latitude by the priest - that is the point that Christ makes, I believe, in expressing Christ's love to people, such as the adulterous woman in John's Gospel. The "rules" would have Jesus throw the first stone. He didn't. But the "rules" are still there for us to follow.
Double predestination is a disgusting idea? :) Well, all of us know good people whom we call friends, who also happen to be unbelievers. Many of them would consider much of what God did in the OT, "disgusting". :) God's ways are His own.
That is comparing oranges and apples.
While I am not so bold as to claim full awareness, I can say that I have learned much about the Eucharist as practiced by the Church. However, I can also say that I honestly know that I have not received anything I could call as a revelation from God on the subject to cause me to accept the Church's view on the matter. It hasn't been revealed to me, spiritually. I don't even say defiantly that it never will, for who would I be to deny a revelation from God? (I would be a lost person.) It just hasn't happened yet. So until then ....... :)
Fair enough. God says in John 6 that He sends such faith to those whom He will - and Jesus also says it takes the Spirit, not the flesh, to understand it.
This builds on the same theme. Of course, the Eucharist is "available" to me, physically. Yet, I have no honest leading, that I perceive, from the Lord to partake appropriately. OTOH, does the doctrine of invincible ignorance include the possibility that God has not made it "available" TO ME, e.g. through God-given understanding?
I suppose it depends on what you would require for God to have "revealed it" to you. Some atheists require a divine visitation before they believe... I don't know what you would require, but I think the evidence is there for those who are seeking the truth.
Regards
It’s not unreasonable to consider the Hebrew canon to be authoritative as to the books of the Old Testament.
You should seriously consider writing a novel or something.
"neither death, ... shall be able to separate us from the love of God".
"we are made a spectacle ... to angels"
It is the job of the saints here
1 Timothy speaks of interceding of the living. The notion that the living can intercede but the saints in heaven cannot is speculation. Write a novel.
And so should you if scriopture matters to you. Apocalypse 12:
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.[...]
10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb
really don't venerate her, it's much more than that.
Like I said, we venerate all saints, but given Mary's unique role in the Incarnation and her mystical position as the mother of the Church indeed gives her veneration a special role in spiritual formation. Per Mariam ad Iesum.
Shh. Think happy thoughts.
That gulf was in a different place: between the condemned and the blessed.
There’s mention of the “cloud of witnesses.” But we are given little to no elaboration of what that means
I am Catholic, and I just elaborated, for your benefit.
Thank you. Likewise.
I wish it were otherwise, but even the Bible uses "miracles" as "proof" to make believers; taking someone's word just doesn't seem to cut it even in the Bible. An ap priori acceptance of something that has so much evidence of human tampering is only fit for the gullible who confuse their wishes as reality, and man-made traditions with divinity.
And rejecting God's truth is the mark of the scorner, a scorner seeketh wisdom and findeth it not (Pr.14:6).
As for mixing man-made traditions with the divine, that is precisely what your religion does.
if a baby gets baptized in a Catholic Church and then dies on the way home, the presumption is that he was saved and goes to Heaven
No, it is a certainty because the Child was brought into the Body of Christ, and has committed no sin. A child who has not been baptized is presumed saved by the Orthodox (and most Catholics I believe).
If that same child grew up and never went to Church, then the presumption would be that he is doomed for not having taken of the sacraments
We don't know that. But chances are that such a person has rejected God and the Church would be concerned about his spiritual wellbeing.
But we do know that we can lose our grace the same way Adam and Eve lost theirs: by willful rejection of God. By Baptism, we are restored in grace. By rejecting it we are doomed. God's grace is lovingly offered to all, for God is not partial (cf Rom 2:11), but we are not shackled by it.
Therefore, in Catholicism salvation can be either held or lost. If lost, once held, it can be recovered
Yes, we can always repent; until our last breath. repentance means bearing fruit (cf Mat 3:8). Christ came to call sinners to repentance (cf Luk 5:32) and as long as we are sinners we are in need of repentance. repentance is for the forgiveness of sins and restoration of grace. It is our willingness to cooperate with the will of God.
We do not "hold" salvation in our hands. Go does. Being under grace means that we are cooperating with God's will, making our salvation more likely. The salvation is based on God's judgment, for either we will be the sheep or the goats by His decision, not ours.
But we do know that His decision will be based on what we have done, the life we chose. Those in "invincible ignorance" (people who without their own fault don't know Christ) as the Catholics call it are outside of our concern, for God will deal with them in a merciful and just way.
We, as Christians, fall under a different set of rules, and we know that our choice is either to stay on the narrow path, making corrections, or to fall from grace by our own choice.
And how do you know it is not YOU and not the Lord who is leading in that perception? Adam certainly thought it was God Who set him up with Eve.
What they did was their act of wilful disobedience. We know when we commit sin. We know what is morally wrong because we are all Christians. We can't claim "invincible ignorance," FK.
You can't be a Christian and commit adultery and say "I didn't know..."
I give annalex credit for being willing to say it. At least he has made it clear how they view Mary and what they truly mean by Co-Remptrix, Queen of Heaven, etc.
As Christians all we can do is keep pointing out the error and pray for them to turn away from this path.
Jer. 44:16-17 "As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven,..."
Luke 11:27-28 "....Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You! But he said, More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it."
1Cor. 10:14 "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry."
1Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,"
Scripture is very clear, it is about JESUS and no one stands between us and JESUS.
I did? I don't remember admitting any such thing. Your reference to John simply reaffirms the belief of the Church, which you do not belong to, that Baptism is a necessary step towards salvation.
Did I ever say anything about not knowing Baptism? You are dreaming again.
No. One judgment. Scripture speaks of judgment, not a judgment.
Those who are in heave are saints. If we are going toi live in bliss, do you suppose some of us will be more blissful? Is heaven going to be "new capitalism?"
And since John took Mary in as his 'mother' Mary is therefore the mother of the church, is insane!
Thank you ftd. It is insane.
I think Jesus gave John the responsibility for Mary because he was the bravest of the Apostles. He was at Calvary. The rest had gone into hiding. John was at the most dangerous place for an Apostle to be. As a follower of Jesus it would have been very easy for the Roman soldiers to do away with him, or for the crowd. Mary was obviously faithful, but a mother would not be crucified a follower might.
I don't recall the nomination as my school marm or librarian.
I didn't write the sentence stating an equality between Mary and Christ--which was:
Faulty mariology is faulty Christology.
Faulty mariology = faulty Christology.
= is the standard substitute symbol for "is."
Equating the two haves of that sentence is the same as making Mary EQUAL to Christ.
Simple straightforward statement. Simple, straightforward meaning. Simple, straightforward conclusion.
Trying to waffle out of it afterwards just doesn't impress me.
Out of the abundance of the heart, the fingers type.
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.