'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

Eve did not make a "free decision" to disobey; she was deceived. It states this twice in scriptures.

I agree. But her failure to repent,,when given the opportunity to do so, was a free decision.

To say Eve made a "free" decision while being deceived is like saying people who are tricked into signing a document made a free decision.

Absolutely. But she was not tricked by God when Who gave her a chance to repent.

This is a rather important point in understanding the fall of Adam. It was because of Adam that the race died, tainted by original sin (which the Orthodox don't believe); not because of Eve.

It was his fault because Eve was his, she belonged to him, and he was responsible for her. The Bible authors believed that man is the head and the head is responsible. It had nothing to do with deception but with who is in charge. And who is in charge takes the blame.

The unforgivable sin was not that they abused their freedom, since freedom carries the potential to disobey, but their refusal to show remorse, their failure to repent when given the opportunity to do so.

There are only two choices; God's way or sin. That's it.

That is correct. Not only are they our choices, but they are our free choices.

PS [the original sin] "which the Orthodox don't believe in."

The Orthodox do believe in original (ancestral) sin, as the sin committed by Adam and Eve. We do not believe that we are born with the blame that they they deserved; only with consequence of their wrongdoing, just as a drug-addicted infant born of a drug-addicted mother suffers the consequence of being addicted to drugs, but is free from any guilt associated with its mothers' sin.

Where does it say in the Scriptures that the prayer was preordained?

Several places. Here are a couple:

Rom 8:28-29 : 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Eph 1:11 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ...

Surely we know that these absolutely include believers, and so prayer must be included here. It is by no means any idea of God forcing me to pray. All I mean is that God made me the way He did, differently from the next Christian. I will pray so often and in such a way, and the next guy will too, and differently. There's nothing necessarily wrong with either of us. God built the model, with the individual specs, knowing how it would "perform". The HS also leads all Christians to prayer.

FK: "The Christian who prays more is a better off Christian on earth. Prayer is good for him."

You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence or even reason for it. There are people who never pray and enjoy fantastic blessings.

I DID already give you an analysis on this. Prayer is both an obedience to God, and is communication with Him. Both of these are good for the believer. Before I repeat myself, do you have arguments AGAINST these propositions? ...... Who are these Christians (I specified Christians) who never pray and enjoy fantastic blessings? I don't know any Christians who never pray. ...... I am not talking about "getting stuff" in exchange for prayer, as you seem to imply. I am talking about sanctification, becoming a better Christian, deepening the relationship with God. You seem to be saying that prayer does not help us in these areas. Why do you pray then?

FK: "I don't believe it is possible for God to sanctify a person, without also preordaining that person to prayer."

Huh? Where do you get that from?

Sanctification brings us closer to God. A principle way this happens is through prayer. God promises that He will sanctify His children, so He WILL draw His own to pray to Him. Do you know any people you consider good Christians who never pray? I have never had to defend prayer before to another Christian, so I admit I am at a loss on how to approach this. :)

FK: "That would make no sense for God to talk to us, but not arrange for us to talk to Him."

And raising people from the dead "makes sense?" Since when is "making sense" a pre-condition for God's work?

You are mixing apples and oranges. When God created the platypus, He was not required to "make sense" by my standards. HOWEVER, God is required to make sense by HIS standards. The Bible provides that it is God's wish that we talk to Him through prayer. In fact, He commands it and encourages it. For God to wish that, but not create a mechanism, such as prayer, for that to happen, would make Him an irrational God. God CANNOT be irrational, OR He is not the God depicted in the Bible and our faith is pointless. God does not have to follow our logic in all cases, but He cannot be internally irrational.

You are asking someone with a completely different mindset. Of course I would say [prayer] enriches my life, but in my case this makes sense. Looking through the prism of the Reformed theology doesn't.

I have thrashed the single argument you have made for this. :) Whether what is going to happen is going to happen regardless is completely irrelevant to the usefulness of prayer. WE don't know what's going to happen, so how can we know what is a "waste of time"? We can't, so it is our lot to still pray about everything. In addition, I have given you other reasons, under our view, that prayer is good for the believer. What else can I do?

The same type of argument against Calvinists says that we don't believe in evangelism because God is going to save who He is going to save, regardless. This is UTTER nonsense. We don't know who is going to be saved, so our mission field is the WHOLE WORLD. Just like prayer, the act of evangelizing is NEVER a waste for the person doing it, even if it does not produce noticeable fruits for others (or our prayer is "predestined" to "fail"). Why do you find this illogical? If we had the power of God's omniscience, then sure, you would be right. But we don't. So, we just follow the teachings of the Bible to pray always, and to teach all nations.

Thanksgiving is not a supplication, FK.

I know that, but you haven't sounded like YOU know that. :) You have said that prayer is all about supplication. So, I ask myself whether you think thanksgiving is part of proper prayer. I say it is. Sometimes, my whole prayer is in thanksgiving and then I'm out. Is that bad? :)

And what would you have said if He didn't let you duck? Shake your fist at Him? Seems like you give thanks for "getting" something, and then you call it supplication, which is preordained, so you have no choice but to press the "Play" button.

You are extrapolating from nothing. If the weird neighbor had cornered me I would have said "oh well, as God wills". That's it. He owes me nothing, but when something goes my way I give Him thanks. So, my prayer to "spare" me was either in accordance with His predestined will or it was not. I'm fine with either result, as concerns my relationship with God. So far, He has been more than good to me, as I perceive it, so when things don't go my way I feel I'm in no position to complain. Everything isn't going to go as I "think" I want it to. I am thankful for that too!

Yet you never talk about disasters. Do you give thanks for bad days too? Should you? I think you should give thanks to the Lord for every day of your life that you know Him, not only when he helps you duck.

Again, where in the universe are you getting this stuff from? I said that I gave thanks to God for a little thing, and you presume that means I ONLY give thanks when something I want happens???!!! That's just not fair, Kosta. I didn't "thank" God for when both of my parents died in their mid 60's a couple of years ago, but I didn't curse Him for it either. It was His will, and that is life. I even had problems because of that, but it didn't negatively affect my relationship with God. My relationship with Him has actually improved since then. I do thank God for every day I am alive and for all He has blessed me with.

He knows your thoughts whether you have a personal relationship with God or not. Him knowing them does not constitute a personal relationship with you. You bringing them to Him is also "preordained" in your theology, so it is not your decision but His. Ergo, what you have is instructions to bring your thoughts to God and you simply react as told.

Completely untrue. Your habit is to translate God's POV to man's, and this simply doesn't happen. If God knows something, you assume that we think man knows it also. Why do you think that? We never say that. I experience my relationship with God from an unknowing posture in terms of what is to come in the future. I do know some general principles, such as the Biblical promises we are given about the relationship, but I don't know if the next few years will be prosperous or in poverty, etc. God knows it all, but I know nothing. How can you say that I'm following instructions, when none of the type you speak of have been given to me? All I know that is that I am totally dependent on Him no matter whether things are going well or badly.

I wouldn't call that a personal relationship. That's something you may have with your boss, or a superior officer in the military. Obedience is not a personal relationship. Personal relationships are spontaneous and personal. In your case they are preprogrammed instructions.

Then I truly regret that you do not know what it is to have such a relationship with God. Perhaps it isn't fatal, but I think you really are missing out on something. I would have guessed that with a hierarchical structure that such a relationship would be very difficult, but I thought that it would be much more possible with the Orthodox than with the Latins. But ...

Anyway, I believe I have a very fulfilling Christian life knowing that God cares and treats me as an individual. He knows all my quirks and all my faults, and He loves me anyway. In my prayers, I can flub a thought and know that it is OK. I can laugh with Him and cry with Him, and I know He cares. I can open myself COMPLETELY to Him, as it happens in real time. Sometimes, my prayers are all over the map, especially if I'm emotional at the time, but that never stops me from talking to Him. As a believer, every single time I pray I KNOW He WANTS to hear it. Whether you want to call this "programmed" or not, Kosta, I know it is very real to me.

This is what I don't get: how can an elect fail at this point if the sin is unforgivable? Can an elect lose his salvation? I have never heard of that given the definition of an elect. Wouldn't that be Christ losing one of His sheep?

Yes it would be Christ losing one of His sheep. It is very unlikely. Put yourself in that place. Loving God as you do, knowing the truth of what will happen at the end of days and that it is Satan sitting in Jerusalem, pretending to be Jesus - would you either start to worship him or would you not allow the Holy Sprit to speak through you? In order to commit the unpardonable sin that is what you would have to do. So, yes, they can lose their salvation but I don't believe anyone will.

That is the destiny of one of God's elect. Those that die before that time are referred to as the remnant. They bring His Word forward but the elect have a specific duty.

BTW, what is the difference between chosen, called, and faithful? I have never heard of that distinction before among the elect.

They all refer to the elect. They are faithful, to the end and will not follow Satan. They are chosen by God from the foundation and they are called by Him. The others are of free will. God will interfere in an elect's life and move them where He wishes them to be but He will not do that to one of free will, unless asked by them.

Rom.11:2. God hath not cast away His people which he foreknew......
4.But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
(Remember, he deceives the whole world and, as he has the others already, he is coming for Christians. They may love God but they haven't been taught that he is coming before Jesus and they will embrace him with open arms, believing he is Jesus)
5.Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
7.What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8.(According as it is written, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear";) unto this day.
25.For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Israel means the House of Israel, not the present nation of Israel. The ten lost tribes whom God scattered. They may not be aware of who they are but God knows them.

I do not believe it is possible to believe without having repented, that is, at the point of salvation. Who is a person that truly believes, but has not repented? That would make no sense to me. To believe requires minimal understanding, which would require the understanding of the necessity of repentance, i.e. that's a huge part of what "belief" and "salvation" means. Now, whether the idea of repentance is something that must be repeated over and over again throughout life towards justification, is a matter of strong contention I have with the Roman Catholics. :)

I agree with you in that if you believe and love God how could you not repent? The point I'm not certain about is unrepented for sins. Are they blotted out as the ones we repent for or is there some type of punishment or correction? As far as loosing our salvation I know that He would never leave us but I do believe it is possible for us to turn our back on Him.

........Ping

The reason I maintain there is SOME sin in the second scenario is that there is IMHO what I think of as an "automatic" act of will. (Oxymoron anyone?) It's kind of analagous to the state of sin in that when I learn that I am a sinner, I've already sinned (darn it!) so on a way the question of free will is moot. I become aware of myself in a state and often in an act (even if it's only interior) of sin. [Basketball buzzer noise. Oops!]

Now in the case of the, if you will pardon the theological jargon, BABE!!!!: There is the natural male response to the curve of bust and hip. You know, the kind of thing that leads to self-inflicted whiplash injury as you drive through a university campus as the warm days of summer approach.

That's NOT a sin. I think it's at least partially hard wired, or a conditioned reflex. No intention, no foul; and in fact the very gift that leads to the whiplash also leads to a process which can end in life-long commitments reflecting the mystery of Christ and the Church. Mere "noticing" isn't, by my account, a sin, it's a gift.

But my impression is that the noticing is accompanied by at least a momentary flash of something that I use words like "endorsement", "choice", and "will" to describe. (Of course I myself am far too pure for this ever to have happened to me, I know this only by extensive research done to benefit humanity and glorify God.) And ~~at least in my experience,~~ from what I've heard one, so to speak, catches oneself in the act of endorsing the lust of the eyes or whatever .....

I think that's a sin, though venial. It is as it were lust of the eyes in the third degree, more analogous to accidental homicide than to murder one, "with malice aforethought". And it has the nature of sin in that it encourages us to slip into deeper sin and distracts us from the opportunity to practice the virtue of charity.

Jesus in the desert is, after 40 days, "anhungered". (Well DUH! I'm anhungered after 40 minutes!) But in my scheme he doesn't ever entertain the concept of working bad mojo to satisfy his hunger. If it were moi and if I had any mojo, bad or good, to work, I would be going, "Hmm, should I conjure up a Big Mac or not?"

IS that any more plausible?

In the sense that "venial sins" don't in themselves require the down elevator, you're right. MY own personal (but approved by the Dominican guys I hang with) idea of purgatory is much more therapeutic than legal in nature. Not only is sin a harm to our neighbor and an insult to God , but it harms us.

I used my arm and shoulder wrongly for a while. So I harmed them, and lost their use. I could do neither good nor evil with them. So I went to a place where lovely young ladies (see the discourse immediately preceding this one) made me do exercises to grow stronger so I could use them properly, put hot and cold wraps on them and anointed them with exotic oils -- and sometimes made me lie on the table and hurt me so much it was all I could do not to cry out!

At the end of this, I was able to use my arm and shoulder properly and to do good things, things which glorified God, helped my neighbor, and made me feel good.

So I view Purgatory was the place where I am healed from all the hurts I have done myself and made able to enjoy God to the fullest. Purgatory is merely the fringes of heaven and everyone there is happy and full of hope -- just as all my fellow sufferers were at the PT place. One of the nicest groups of people I've ever messed with.

And if this weren't already approaching Tolstoyan length, I'd develop the analogy further. Let's say, though, that one thing one can do upon noticing the curve of bust and thigh is say a little prayer for a blessing on the child of God who is sporting the aforementioned bust and hip.

It is by no means any idea of God forcing me to pray.

Agreed.

The HS also leads all Christians to prayer.

I am totally with you on that.

Kosta: There are people who never pray and enjoy fantastic blessings.

Prayer is both an obedience to God, and is communication with Him. Both of these are good for the believer. Before I repeat myself, do you have arguments AGAINST these propositions? ...... Who are these Christians (I specified Christians) who never pray and enjoy fantastic blessings?

Yes I do have arguments against these propositions. Prayer is not mere communication; it is supplication for God's favor, mercy, attention.

There are many who rarely if ever go to church who are Christians. Some of them are fantastically blessed.

I don't know any Christians who never pray

So, you are a Christian only if you pray?

You seem to be saying that prayer does not help us in these areas [sanctification, etc.].

Sanctification doesn't depend on prayer.

Why do you pray then?

My theology is different the yours. In my theology, prayer makes sense. In your (Reformed) theology it doesn't.

Sanctification brings us closer to God.

Agreed.

A principle way this happens is through prayer.

Yes, we agree on that. But it doesn;t mean prayer is the only way to reach God. +Paul on the way to Damascus did not pray when he was struck. Prayer does take us to God, but our sanctification (our degree of living the faith) is not "bought" with prayer. It has to do with how much we are willing to cooperate with the HS. Your talents do not multiply proportionally to prayer. In fact, they multiply disproportionately. God gives even though we are never deserving of receiving.

Do you know any people you consider good Christians who never pray?

No.

I have never had to defend prayer before to another Christian, so I admit I am at a loss on how to approach this.

It's not the prayer, but your theology. My theology is not based on double predestination, so prayer and intercession makes sense. In your theology, the movie will end the same way whether you sleep through it or watch it intently. In my theology, prayer is cooperation (with the HS).

WE don't know what's going to happen, so how can we know what is a "waste of time"?

But you tell me that you are already saved (whether you pray or not, whether you go to church or not, whether you commit adultery or not)! So, of course you do claim to know what is going to happen! Besides, you don't believe that prayers change what is going to happen (although the Bible says otherwise). You believe that whatever happens happens by God's will, as it was preordained aeons ago, so what you do or say will not affect it one way or another.

You have said that prayer is all about supplication.

It is.

So, I ask myself whether you think thanksgiving is part of proper prayer.

No. It is part of what we do/say as we get ready for supplication. The introduction and the finalé, the entrance and the exist. In our Divine liturgy, we have the Small Entrance (liturgy of the catechumens), and the Great Entrance (after the catechumens were dismissed); and we have a dismissal (end of service). All three of these start with praising the Lord and progress to supplication (except the dismissal part).

We pray three times a day (Jewish custom). But one can praise the Lord hundreds of times, every minute of the day, without a single supplication! Not the same as prayer.

I say it is. Sometimes, my whole prayer is in thanksgiving and then I'm out.

No, FK, it's great! :)

You are extrapolating from nothing. If the weird neighbor had cornered me I would have said "oh well, as God wills".

Then why thank Him then? It really didn't matter if you ran into the neighbor or not. Either way it would have been "God's will."

And when things don't go your way?

So, my prayer to "spare" me was either in accordance with His predestined will or it was not. I'm fine with either result

But you said you are certain of your salvation, so how can you sound so confused?

I said that I gave thanks to God for a little thing, and you presume that means I ONLY give thanks when something I want happens???!!!

Because you make it sound that way. Quote: "He owes me nothing, but when something goes my way I give Him thanks."

That's just not fair, Kosta.

I didn't "thank" God for when both of my parents died in their mid 60's a couple of years ago, but I didn't curse Him for it either.

I am sorry about that. I do understand, believe me, and I am not making light of it. I am very sorry you lost your parents so early, FK. May our beloved God have mercy and provide comfort on his servants and accept their souls in His Kingdom.

But we Orthodox do give thanks for the departed. For God's mercy, and for love, for allowing us to pray for their souls and commemorate them. But above all we give thanks in knowing that the Lord is merciful and just, which give us hope that those who are asleep in Him have been saved. God gives life and God takes it back when the right time comes.

But we need to thank the Lord even on bad days, for even if the day was bad, we have still been blessed all other days and He gave us air and water and food and shelter and many other things we didn't deserve.

All I know that is that I am totally dependent on Him no matter whether things are going well or badly.

Maybe it has to do with your choices. Your brain counts too, FK. :)

Then I truly regret that you do not know what it is to have such a relationship with God.

FK, all I can hope for is for God to hear my prayers, even though I don't deserve Him. I am sorry that your sense of reverence allows God to be your "buddy." My sense of reverences is that my knees tremble as I receive communion, and most of the time I feel like falling on my face in order to just pray.

You don't sound anything like your theology, FK. For if you believed your theology of double predestination you would be letting God drive and you could sleep, safe and sound, and not have a worry on your mind.

I can laugh with Him and cry with Him

God laughs?

Bottom line, FK: prayer is not communication; it is supplication. People communicate. People do not pray to each other. God know what we need and want before we even verbalize it by lips or in our thoughts. And it's not like he talks back, not very often, that is. :)

Our prayers do not come as "news" to Him. We pray because we need God, because we are not secure. If we truly believed with all our heart, mind and soul, we would only give God thanks and never ask for anything.

Our Cherubic Hymn expresses that in the last verse

Let us set aside all cares of life that we may receive the King of all, Who comes invisibly escorted by the Divine Hosts.

I did not mean that at all. I have never said such a thing.

OK, then my mistake and I'm sorry.

We as Catholics have a wide latitude in reading the Scriptures. I have tried to explain this ...

I remember. I think you said something along the lines that there were really only a few specific verses that MUST be read as "x". I countered that those readings, though, necessarily affect the interpretation of many other verses, thus affecting their "allowed" interpretations indirectly. But the bigger issue is the decrees by Councils and Popes. Those decrees affect MANY verses all at the same time.

Quick example, while I'm sure there is no direct edict on how to read Rom. 3:23, you are not free to interpret it as you wish because it must comply with the dogma (doctrine?) that Mary was sinless. Another example would be all the abortion verses. Now YOU and I would fully agree on those, but the same issue arises. I do know that on the little stuff good Catholics are free to take very different stands. I just don't see a lot of wiggle room on anything of great importance. AND, that is a principle that I see Catholicism standing on! So, I don't understand how one can say simultaneously that Catholicism is good because it is a monolithic faith of unity and surety, and yet Catholicism is also good because you are allowed to freely read the Bible with a wide latitude. To me, those conflict.

But in any event, the topic we were discussing was whether the Holy Spirit leads people to read the Bible, and to what level reading the Bible is helpful to the Christian. I simply believe that the Holy Spirit leads all believers to come closer to Him. One of a few different ways to do that is by learning His word. And, there might be a wide scale on the usefulness of reading scriptures to different believers, but I think that the more faith one has, the more useful they are. We don't need to flash a library card to get into Heaven, but I can report that learning God's word has made a tremendous difference in my life.

Also, I do not find where the Bible says that the Spirit leads individuals, even Roman Catholics, to understand the Bible SEPERATELY from the community.

When you first said "community" I took that to mean RCC, and that's how it all started (yada yada). If you mean community of all believers, then I would agree with you. If we took all the things that you, I, the Orthodox, and anyone else we all agree are Christians, all believe in, then the Spirit would not lead anyone to believe outside of THAT. Are we getting better? :)

There is a huge difference in "taking in God's Word" and fully understanding every verse to the point of disagreeing with what the Church teaches.

I do disagree with much of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't claim to have any sort of global understanding of every verse. Not even close.

Faith comes from HEARING the Word proclaimed - seeing it in action, not from reading.

I would say that faith itself is a gift of God via grace, but my faith has certainly grown by witnessing the word in action by others. There can be no doubt. We are all commanded to "walk the walk" and live an outward faith as well as have it inside. By "HEARING" do you mean watching others act in every day life? I thought you meant oral preaching, and didn't understand how that was so different from reading the same thing, just on the level of the "word" itself.

FK: "However, what do you suppose would have happened if [Adam and Eve] passed the test?"

They would have lived happily and multiplied, just as God commanded them I suppose [in perpetuity, with no one ever physically dying].

So, then would you say that it didn't really matter to God which outcome happened, and that either could have? God just sat back and watched? I would have answered the same question by noting that it was moot because it didn't happen. What did happen was what God wanted to happen, so that is what happened. Perhaps this is a good illustration of our differing views on the level of God's control in our world.

Christ's human nature was no different than Adam's, so it too had to have a potential to sin.

I disagree because my view on this is IMPECCABLE, Jesus could not have sinned (nyuk, nyuk :). While both Adam and Jesus did not have the sin nature, Adam had only one nature and Jesus had two. Were those natures wholly separate in every respect, or were they separate, but did support each other? Was Jesus one person or two? He was one, so the natures, while not "mixing" worked together.

Besides, if Jesus could have sinned then, then He could also sin now. What is different about His essence today vs. back then? Nothing. (Col. 2:9 : For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.) Christ is still the God-man today. But we would say if Christ sinned today it would violate His nature, so it is impossible. I wouldn't expect anyone to argue that Christ could privately use only His human nature in Heaven today to sin, so likewise He couldn't have while walking the earth.

Wrong. In order to be free, one must allow that potential.

So, for Adam and Eve to be free, God was obligated to let the serpent into the garden? OK, what about all the time in between creation and when the serpent came? Were Adam and Eve NOT free then? Were they not created free, IOW? If you say that the serpent was always free to enter, but just decided to wait, then you bely everything we know about satan and how he operates. Does he EVER just leave us believers alone? No, it is a constant attack. That scenario wouldn't fit. The serpent would have entered to hurt God and His people at the first opportunity.

They could have repented. The act that sealed their fall was their refusal to repent when caught.

I still don't get where you get this two-step process from. Apparently, you are saying that a real sin is the initial commission PLUS a failure to repent. The Bible doesn't say that. The Bible says that just sin equals death. When you ask your priest for forgiveness, and get it, do you then say to yourself: "well then I never committed that sin"? I HOPE not. :) But this is what you are saying when you say that the failure to repent "sealed" the Fall. The Fall was over and complete when Adam blew it, whether he repented right after or not. There MUST be sin before repentance even enters the picture. ....... Don't we all agree that at SOME later point Adam DID repent?

If God created Eve "ditzy" enough as you say to be easy pray then God set her up.

In a matter of speaking, YES! :) We know for sure that God, by instruction, BANNED them from the knowledge of good and evil. So, what chance did she have against real evil? I imagine she was a very trusting sort, and why not? She had never been lied to before, and couldn't possibly discern the difference. This was all by God's design.

It's no different than leading a child consciously to step into the traffic and then blame the child for getting hit.

That doesn't work unless you have the power to bring the child back to life. I'm not positive, but I assume Eve is in Heaven today. So, it's not the same. It also doesn't work because God did not coach (lead) Eve into blowing it. He did allow the traffic, but He didn't send her into it.

God gave her freedom to choose and she abused it. That's why we have lawyers.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. :)

Of course. Interpretation of such things as the Trinity and the Eucharist are based on the "proper" understanding of Scriptures. Defending EITHER dogma depends on reading the Bible a certain way - a way that is taught OUTSIDE of the Bible, whether it be oral preaching, liturgical worship, daily prayer, or the teachings of the Church that followed the Apostles. Now, the question becomes "what is the 'proper' interpretation and where do we find it?" I contend we find that in the Catholic Church. You contend that the "spirit" leads you one way and simultaneously, the "spirit" leads another Christian in the opposite direction.

I just don't see a lot of wiggle room on anything of great importance.

You must have forgotten our discussions on free will and grace...

But in any event, the topic we were discussing was whether the Holy Spirit leads people to read the Bible, and to what level reading the Bible is helpful to the Christian.

You are changing your argument, FK. You are taking up a "new" argument that I will not disagree with. Of course the Spirit leads people to read the Bible and of course the Bible is helpful to Christians. That is not debated here, although now you are trying to make that as your point of discussion. Your previous argument was that the Spirit leads people to understand the Bible and God's Word, with or without the Church's aid - and as people read the Bible, they grow in holiness, which enables them to understand the book that much more. That is what this discussion was about. If the original topic was as you have laid it out, I never would have argued with it!!! How could I?

I do disagree with much of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't claim to have any sort of global understanding of every verse. Not even close.

So understanding your own falliblity, what argument are you going to show me that you are more knowledgeable then 2000 years worth of preaching and meditating on the Word of God? Why are you relying on your own human abilities to determine what the Word of God means? And saying that the Spirit leads you to understand the Bible's individual verses is obviously a false argument, because you have admitted that you do not have a global understanding of the Scriptures, and you have also admitted that you have been wrong before. Your being right on verses, again, does not depend on your personal holiness, which returns us to your initial mistaken argument, but on your interpretations as they are in line with the "pillar and foundation of the truth"

By the way, we have already discussed Romans 3. Interpretation of it does not depend on anything to do with Mary, but with common sense and a cursory reading of the Psalms... It is you that is ignoring the Word of God, now The Bible over and over again speaks of righteous people. We must view Romans 3 with that in mind, unless you want to say that the Bible contradicts itself.

Regards

I feel I should share the REAL story of what happened in Eden.

The actual command was do not MOVE the tree in the middle of the ~~house~~garden-keeping, she began to get ideas.

The average guy thinks things look fine and work fine right where they are. Adam was like that.

But Eve wanted to rearrange things, just a little.

And the snake was actually an interior decorator named Stanley. Like a certain group of allegedly male individuals who are not matrimonially inclined, his deal was to side with the woman against the man.

AND he NEVER said to Eve,"You shall not surely die." What he said was,"Oh, sweetie! You've done a wonderful job with this place! It's so CUTE! But, hmm, well, Honeycakes, let me tell you, it's still not right. That tree there, you know, the one in the midst? It's just so, oh I don't know, so BLAH there. It doesn't SAY anything. It's just sitting there.

"What you need to do, honey, you need to move it just a little over to the left - break up the symmetry a little."

Eve says, "Gee. I don't know. I mean God put it there. And it looks okay to me."

Stanley said, "Oh Honey, take my advice, move it over there. When you see what it looks like, you'll just DIE!"

So when Adam got home from a hard but rewarding day of tilling and keeping and all he wanted to do was sit down. His left hand kept curling as though it expected to grasp a cold cylinder of some kind and his eyes rested on the middle distance, while his right hand just naturally felt comfortable holding a rectangular object which he would periodically point at the middle distance while his thumb or index finger played on the surface.

But Eve said, "Dear, before you get settled, could you just move this tree over for me a little?"

Of course Adam said, Honey, it's fine where it is." But Eve said,"Oh darling, you're so big and strong, it won't be hard for you to move it. I just want to see what it looks like over there."

The rest is history.

The study of the Bible is full of surprises.

So, then would you say that it didn't really matter to God which outcome happened, and that either could have?

I say that's very possible. We chose the hard way, but in the end the result will be the same.

God just sat back and watched?

No, God remained and remains very active, leading, coaching us, knocking on our hearts, showing us the way...

What did happen was what God wanted to happen, so that is what happened.

Yes, God wanted us Adam and Eve to decide. They did. He allowed it.

Perhaps this is a good illustration of our differing views on the level of God's control in our world.

I would say so.

While both Adam and Jesus did not have the sin nature, Adam had only one nature and Jesus had two.

Adam was no more compelled to sin that Christ in his human nature. It was a choice. If Christ was incapable of committing sin in his human nature than he was not the Second Adam, He was not human as God created humans, He was not true Man, but only true God, and then we fall into Nestorianism (Assyrian Church of the East).

Were those natures wholly separate in every respect, or were they separate, but did support each other? Was Jesus one person or two? He was one, so the natures, while not "mixing" worked together.

Christ's natures were never confused. Christ's human nature was always in harmony with His divine nature because, as pre-Fall Man He could choose good.

I have no clue if Christ had foreknowledge in His human nature or whether He knew that because Adam failed He must not. Frankly, Christiology is, like Trinity, above reason.

Besides, if Jesus could have sinned then, then He could also sin now.

His natures haven't changed. Pre-Fall human nature was capable of sinning. But it was also capable of rejecting sin. Christ chose perfect obedience.

Col. 2:9 : For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.

Pauline Christology is interesting to put it mildly. One can read all sorts of things in that statement.

So, for Adam and Eve to be free, God was obligated to let the serpent into the garden?

God gave Adam and Eve freedom. he also planted to tree to remind them that their freedom is not unlimited. There was no serpent; there was only the temptation, the tree, and God put it there. The Bible calls the temptation the "serpent."

OK, what about all the time in between creation and when the serpent came?

There was no commandment, so there was no possibility of disobedience to God. Once God planted the tree and commanded that they not eat of it, the possibility for disobedience was created and the tree that was otherwise neutral became the object of temptation that Adam and Eve could not ignore.

I still don't get where you get this two-step process from.

Genesis.

Apparently, you are saying that a real sin is the initial commission PLUS a failure to repent.

They sinned when they disobeyed. When given a chance to confess and repent, they blamed someone other that themselves.

The Bible says that just sin equals death.

Of course. Rejecting God, Who is Life, is choosing death, which is absence of God. By choosing sin we choose non-existence, which is death.

When you ask your priest for forgiveness, and get it, do you then say to yourself: "well then I never committed that sin"?

First, I don't ask the priest for forgiveness, I ask God. The priest hears my confession and commiserates with me, because he commits similar sins, and he prays to God to forgive me knowing that we are all sinners and that we continue to sin even when we don't want to. Second, the sins are forgiven. They are committed to oblivion, and no memory of them shall be used when I am judged. I will be judged for my unrepeneted sins. So, whether I committed them or not is not the issue, of course I committed them, but what counts is that they are erased, as I am brought back into communion with God.

But this is what you are saying when you say that the failure to repent "sealed" the Fall.

Absolutely.

The Fall was over and complete when Adam blew it, whether he repented right after or not.

No, we can repent at the last breath and be saved.

There MUST be sin before repentance even enters the picture.

Absolutely. There was sin. They ate the forbidden fruit. They were given a chance to repent; they refused.

Don't we all agree that at SOME later point Adam DID repent?

Not sure, but failure to repent by Adam and Eve is like losing virginity. One can forgive it but you will never be a virgin again, unless you are born again as one. For that to happen, Christ had to come first.

We know for sure that God, by instruction, BANNED them from the knowledge of good and evil. So, what chance did she have against real evil?

Obedience to God...she was created perfectly capable of it.

It also doesn't work because God did not coach (lead) Eve into blowing it. He did allow the traffic, but He didn't send her into it.

No, but he put her right smack in the middle of it. No fence, no mote, nothing but reach out and touch...the next thing would have been handing the fruit to her. It doesn't get much closer than that.

Yes it would be Christ losing one of His sheep. It is very unlikely. ... So, yes, they can lose their salvation but I don't believe anyone will.

I don't think anyone will either and look to verses like John 10:27-29 : "27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

God will interfere in an elect's life and move them where He wishes them to be but He will not do that to one of free will, unless asked by them.

I don't see how a non-elect would be in a position to ask God for anything. I thought we are told that God does not hear their prayers.

[Re: Rom. 11] Israel means the House of Israel, not the present nation of Israel. The ten lost tribes whom God scattered. They may not be aware of who they are but God knows them.

I'm not sure you are trying to say this, but I don't think that Paul is saying here that anyone is of the elect by birthright. Paul would completely contradict this idea in passages such as:

Gal 3:26-29 : 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

---------------

The point I'm not certain about is unrepented for sins. Are they blotted out as the ones we repent for or is there some type of punishment or correction?

I think there certainly can be/is earthly punishment and correction for sins we commit after belief/salvation. However, I do not think the failure to repent for those sins jeopardizes our saved status. Jesus died for ALL of our sins once and for all:

1 Peter 2:24 : 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

1 Cor 15:3 : For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ...

There are others, and it must certainly be true that some of the directly intended audience was not even born yet when Jesus made His sacrifice, i.e. they were in the same boat we are in now. There is no distinction between pre- and post-belief sins. Therefore, it must apply to all sins ever committed.

As far as losing our salvation I know that He would never leave us but I do believe it is possible for us to turn our back on Him.

Yes, we can turn away, but God promises that He will always bring His elect back to Him before it is too late for salvational purposes. We have already noted the end of John 10. There is also:

Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3-5 : 3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade — kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

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.