Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
No, it means he probably wouldn't push an old lady to her death in the first place.
But if he did, he would be ashamed of his sin, repent of his sin, ask God to forgive his sin, and ultimately, he would know even that terrible sin has been covered by Christ on the cross.
That's what Scripture says, and I believe it.
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:4-10
I know -- I am Catholic.
The short answer is yes.
It's cute how these discussions can be so one sided. RC's are always saying we fail to understand the depth of the meaning in their beliefs. Yet at every turn we see RC's misquote responses or come up with farcical situations.
Well, I was being facetious, responding to a farcical situation offered by Irishtenor in 4,537.
I understand the stuff about either repenting or not being “saved” in the first place. I think all it is a superstitious fear of “works salvation” leading people to such convolutions, but I do understand the convolution quite well, in all its ineffable subtlety.
My apologies then.
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- Romans 8:31--39"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
When I "check my work" on theology and stuff, I think it good to "savor" every articulation, and to sniff out all the (apparent, if not real) tensions and seeming contradictions.
For example IF Jeremiah says (Lamentations 3:33) that God does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men, the sheer wonder of how an inspired prophet could make the suggestion that God does something "unwillingly" ought not, I think, to be explained away with a bunch o' talk about contingent will and this will and that will. That the Holy Spirit could think for a second that a good way to talk about God is to portray Him as doing something unwillingly, well... hush my mouth! That's amazing.
And so with God "cannot" lie. The strict sense of "cannot" is a limitation on ability, as though, well, He tried as hard as He could, but He just couldn't do it.
But a circle "cannot" have corners. That inability is, as it were, the glory of the circle - no matter how closely we look at it, it always curves with the same rate of curvature .... No jaggies.
So I am looking at the statement, God cannot lie, and trying to find another way to express the same truth without a suggested negative, is all.
No, it's okay. I LIKE lowering my head and running into brick walls. Sometimes I learn something, even if it's only, "Whoa! That there is one tough wall!"
And I think we agree about IHS and the obedience. 100% Man qua nacheral critter, with or without Fall, wants to live. 100% Man qua (allegedly) rational animal deduces that the fulfillment of all his desires is in God's Will, and wants what God wants. 100% unfallen or full of Grace, natural, rational, human-type personnel sees clearly what the merely rational Man sometimes deduces vaguely, and doesn't have to worry about rebellion of the "members" trying to talk Him into rationalizing disobedience.
And once again it seems that if we want to see what the fullness of God's wisdom, power, justice, beauty, and joy are, a man on a cross is NOT a man limited, but the Son of Man blossoming as one who came to do God's will.
NOT in any meaningful way a limitation.
At the end of the Memorare, a prayer to the virgin supposedly by St. Bernard - he of the brandy cask around the neck - no, maybe that's someone else, those of us who like furrin or dead languages pray: audi propitia et exaudi. Hear prayer and REALLY hear it. Which is usually translated hear my prayer and answer.
I mention this because "obey" is, at its heart, an intensive of the verb audire, so, "listen intently" (as a servant might listen to an exigent master.) The Word listens intently to the Father's words, and this is not a limitation but His Glory.
WM:The short answer is yes.
What am I missing here? I would have thought it depended on the old lady.
Just sayin'
Amen, sis.
“Doctor”,
I read Romans often,— I am Catholic.
Good point, HP. And I agree with you about the Muzzie problem, especially if a RAT gets elected.
Taking dictation is not a mental note. It doesn't necessarily require comprehension. Iy can be quite mindless.
God's "plan," however is an oxymoron. A plan involes actions anticipated for and in the future. To a transcendental God, there is no past, present or future.
LOL! So glad you noticed dear 'pipe!
A very ancient insight states that man is a synergistic resolution of "body" (i.e., matter) and "soul" (i.e., spirit). As Plato put it, for instance, man is zoon noon echon, the "ensouled animal who thinks."
Your wonderful analogy says that the soul (spirit) component is the "rider"; and the body (material) component the "donkey." Yet in the general disposition of nature, the donkey is usually stronger than the rider.
Well chalk that up, I guess, to the second law of thermodynamics: Any body (or closed system) left to its own devices will eventually fulfill the expectations called for it according to the laws of physical nature, as if the crittur in question was only a body, a riderless donkey. Which begs the question in the first place.
For this analysis leaves out the "rider" component of the question entirely....
Well go figure dear brother in Christ!
May He ever bless you and your dear ones!
The Donkey Rodeo does indeed have its clowns...
You know that reading the Bible for half an hour (with the “usual conditions”) is “indulgenced”? I think it’s a plenary indulgence.
Exactly... thats why what Jesus says and does in scripture is in view of and knowing about future events.. i.e. the cock crows thrice(comment to Simon peter)..
Also the Sheep pens in John ch 10.. are in view of the future.. almost prophecy.. maybe not almost..
They are mutually causative.
LOL!
Yeah, but you all quote from the Fathers all the time, which is fine, but you know they would carry as much weight with us (in terms of authority) as the Deuterocanonicals.
Off the top of my head, among the Deuterocanonicals we find the clearest textproof for prayers for the dead (for the Purgatiory itself we are fine with 1 Corinthians 3), the freedom of will (Sirach 15:14), the concept of the communion of saints, guardian angel, demonic possession and exorcism in Tobias.
I didn't know that, Alex. Thanks.
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.