Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
From the Catechism
SIN
I. Mercy and Sin
1846 The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy to sinners.113 The angel announced to Joseph: "You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."114 The same is true of the Eucharist, the sacrament of redemption: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."115
1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."116 To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117
1848 As St. Paul affirms, "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."118 But to do its work grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts and bestow on us "righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ ourLord."119 Like a physician who probes the wound before treating it, God, by his Word and by his Spirit, casts a living light on sin:
Conversion requires convincing of sin; it includes the interior judgment of conscience, and this, being a proof of the action of the Spirit of truth in man's inmost being, becomes at the same time the start of a new grant of grace and love: "Receive the Holy Spirit." Thus in this "convincing concerning sin" we discover a double gift: the gift of the truth of conscience and the gift of the certainty of redemption. the Spirit of truth is the Consoler.120
113 Cf. ⇒ Lk 15.
114 ⇒ Mt 1:21.
115 ⇒ Mt 26:28.
116 St. Augustine, Sermo 169, 11, 13: PL 38, 923.
117 1 Jn 8-9.
118 ⇒ Rom 5:20.
119 ⇒ Rom 5:21.
120 John Paul II, DeV 31 # 2.
OK, thanks for the clarification and the links.
Then John was having delusions of grandeur when he referred to himself several times as the "one Jesus loved"?
FK: "No, He was a guest [at the Cana wedding] and talked with people just like anyone else."
Extra-Biblical beliefs?
Sure. I also have the extra-Biblical belief that Jesus had bodily functions which are not specifically described in scripture. Your extra-Biblical belief is that Jesus had personal relationships with no one, including Mary, which the Bible in NO WAY says. So, readers can decide which is more reasonable. The weight of scripture is clear to me.
How can you venerate Mary if you think Jesus regarded her as you say? Do you appreciate something Jesus did not?
Ah, then you must see our relationship with God as being mechanical only. You must see God's love for us being alien and detached. Perhaps, you would say that God's love for us is like we say we "love a good book"? That is impersonal too. Do you see the word "agape" as being impersonal? If not, then I would ask why you believe that God has personal love for us, but refuses to ever show it.
I didn't know that you had read the Koran so you would know enough to say that. While I have not read it, I do know someone who has and he tells me something very different. He tells me that the Koran is a comparatively stale read, that we should worship Allah basically just because. In contrast, the Bible shows man the nature of himself. We see stories that are thousands of years old, but are still just as true today as when they were written. We can point to them and say: "That's me!". My friend tells me the Koran doesn't read like that at all. The Bible matches "what is", making it unique.
No, it doesn't sound familiar TO ME. To the shaman, the basis for his faith in the volcano god was whatever he made up himself, or was told by other men. IOW, nothing. THAT sounds familiar to me. :) By contrast, we have the Holy scriptures which are God's revelation to us directly. The shaman didn't have God-breathed words.
Here, for example, the verses about Jesus (Isa)
This is a faint shadow of John 6, to give you a taste:
[5.110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
[5.111] And when I revealed to the disciples, saying, Believe in Me and My apostle, they said: We believe and bear witness that we submit (ourselves).
[5.112] When the disciples said: O Isa son of Marium! will your Lord consent to send down to us food from heaven? He said: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.
[5.113] They said: We desire that we should eat of it and that our hearts should be at rest, and that we may know that you have indeed spoken the truth to us and that we may be of the witnesses to it.
[5.114] Isa the son of Marium said: O Allah, our Lord! send i down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a sign from Thee, and grant us means of subsistence, and Thou art the best of the Providers.
[5.115] Allah said: Surely I will send it down to you, but whoever shall disbelieve afterwards from among you, surely I will chastise him with a chastisement with which I will not chastise, anyone among the nations.
The Muslim I spoke to would compare the Koran favorably to the Holy Scripture, noticing that it is (we trust their Arab ear on this) highly poetic, speaks with a single dignified voice, and contains plenty of direct instruction to men, that is hard to misinterpret, such as
[5.6] O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.
No, the man who wrote Exodus says that God said that's how it's going to work. There is absolutely zilch proof that God said anything. We only have evidence that someone wrote claiming that God said something.
Then as I have said before, for you there is no proof that George Washington ever lived. We only have evidence that people SAY he lived. The papers ascribed to him could easily be forgeries since no one is alive to testify as a witness. I do not find this worldview to be reasonable.
Most Orthodox are firm believers. As such, the OT is "true" because they already believe it is true.
I suppose those of us who think God commands us to share the faith with others need a little more than that as a reason for our faith. :)
“I suppose those of us who think God commands us to share the faith with others need a little more than that as a reason for our faith. :)”
Really? Why?
There is a big difference. Frist, there are outside sources (British, French, etc.) that corroborate American sources.
We don't have that when it comes to the Bible. The Bible "proves itself."
Second, no one is making etxraodinary claims about George Washington. No one is expected to believe that any of the sources about G.W. are necessarily inerrant, that he could perform extraordinary, supernatural acts, that it was God speaking to the author, etc. as is the case in the Bible.
The truth of the Bible is based on an a priori faith. As such it is "true" only to the believers, and it doesn't require proof (but that's not unique to the Bible, as I mentioned elsewhere; this is common to other revealed religions and their sacred books).
Because the Bible makes extraordinary claims, you'd need extraordinary evidence (proof) in order ot provie the Bible as "fact," and that is simply not there.
Kosta: Most Orthodox are firm believers. As such, the OT is "true" because they already believe it is true.
FK: I suppose those of us who think God commands us to share the faith with others need a little more than that as a reason for our faith Faith is not enough?
Hinduism is a revealed religion, and so is Manichean Gnosticism (Blessed Augustine of Hippo belonged to that Christian cult before becoming Christian). In fact, the latter was seriously competing with Christianity.
The shaman didn't have God-breathed words
How do you know that? Origen was a superb theologian, and yet he believed the true revelation to be that of Gnostics. They all believed in Christ too, and used the Scripture. What proof do you have that any of the books in the Bible are "God-breathed?" Do they glow in the dark? Do they have a seal of authenticity on them?
I didn't read it through. My statement simply reflects the fact that those who are Muslims hold that the Koran is a proof in itself that Islam is a "true" religion.
You see, faith requires no ordinary proof. Those who believe do not seek proof. That's why all faith is blind and irrational. The "reason" comes afterwords, and differs from individual to individual. We all have a story of our "own journey."
No, not at all. First of all, "predestination" simply being God's knowledge of man's sovereignty makes a complete mockery of the word. That isn't extra-biblical, it's anti-biblical. Second, why do you insist that either God FORCES us, OR man is completely independent of God in his sovereignty? There is no evidence of that, as MD's example with the child showed. For good, God leads us as a loving parent would lead a small child. I suppose for you the parent should close his eyes and turn his back in all things so as not to "interfere". :)
I think you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you will insist that God loves us and "guides" us toward the right things, but then on the other hand you will say that if God's guidance has any REAL, or decisive influence, then it is interference.
It's not mechanical; it's spiritual.
You must see God's love for us being alien and detached. Perhaps, you would say that God's love for us is like we say we "love a good book"? That is impersonal too. Do you see the word "agape" as being impersonal? If not, then I would ask why you believe that God has personal love for us, but refuses to ever show it
The word agape was used by Christians in a different way as understood by Greek pagan philosophers. Just as the word "gay" used to mean something different 50 years ago as opposed to the present usage (not that the term is in any way related to agape!).
In the Christian context, agape is not intimate love between you and your family; it is a self-sacrificing love of God for humanity. It's pretty impersonal. It's given to us all, but it is not intended for any one of us individually; therefore it is not intimate.
Speaking of John, the disciple Jesus loved, the Bible uses the word "agape," John 13:23, 19:26, etc. as well as the word "philia," i.e. John 20:2 (both of which are translated as "love")
The word agape is found all over the NT, but it is used both as the perosnal love between Jesus and the Father and as a spiritual manifestation for our love for others, indeed the whole world, imperosnally.
Thus in Mat 24:12 (written c. 70 AD) it is used impersonally. Yet, John (whose Gospel is written c. 90-100 AD) uses it as personal love in several places. Paul, on the other hand takes a lot less personal/intimate approach with agape (but remember he wrote between 50-60 AD), such as 1 Cor 13:10, 2 Cor 2:4; he almost defines it in Gal 5:22; in 1 Tim 1:5 and 2:15 it is used as charity, also in Titus 2:2; in Heb 6:10, it is again used in an impersonal manner, 1 Pet 4:8, and 5:14 use agape as charity; also in 2 Pet 1:7; 1 John 2:5 associates it with faith; in 1 John 2:15 it refers to the "love of the world." (doesn't get much more impersonal than that!); but it also associates it with the "love of God;" and in 3 John 1:6 it is used as charity.
The hesycastic fathers postulated, however, that God's love, which exists between the Father and the Son, is not agape, but ἔρως (eros)! The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is that eros or love between the Father and the Son. Of course, we understand that the word is used to reflect the intensity and not the sexuality of that term.
...
Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it." St. Gregory Palamas ["Topics of Natural and Theological Science" no. 36, The Philokalia Vol. 4 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pgs. 361-362)
Not really. But you are exaggerating our Father-child relationship with God. God created man to be a rational, moral being, capable of mercy and compassion, not some little child.
It was God's decision to give man freedom to choose. It was God's decision that man's freedom shall be limited, lest he becomes like God; of course, freedom carried the possibility that Adam would abuse it and he did, and God knew he would, but it is much more impoertant to come to God freely than to be forced, because forced love in no love.
Sure they do claim that. (Or, the Orthodox Church claims it for them.) Isn't that what defines "consensus patrum"? If any other group gets together and comes up with "dogma" or "doctrine", then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God.
But you claim (a) that 1 Peter was written by Apostle Peter (who was dead when that book was written!), and (b) that the words in 1 Peter are those of God Himself, no less.
God's word says that God's word is God breathed. In addition, 1 Peter begins with: " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, ...". God's word is good enough for me. To disbelieve this one must place a higher authority on some other source than God's word. What is that authority for you?
I am simply asking you (again for the nth time) to prove to me that it is God speaking through the author and that the author is indeed St. Peter even thought we know he was dead when 1 Peter was written (between 80-110 AD).
We have already established that attempting to "prove" anything concerning God's word to you is pointless. In addition, whatever your higher-than-the-Bible authority is that tells you that 1 Peter was written after Peter died is unknown to me. My particular Bible estimates that 1 Peter was written around 63-64 A.D. The note says:
"That the apostle Peter was the writer (as stated in 1:1) is confirmed by the many similarities between this letter and Peter's sermons recorded in Acts (1:20 and Acts 2:23; 4:5 and Acts 10:42). The same Silas who accompanied Paul on the second missionary journey was his amanuensis, or secretary (5:12; Acts 15:40)."
Obviously, denying the very authorship of the sacred scriptures is an easy predicate to denying the truth of anything inconvenient found in them. :)
1 Peter begins in a positively Pauline language:
Perhaps they were both right. :)
You will have to show me that God wanted you to be born on Long island (that it would really matter where you were born) and that the color of your eyes is also something God willed. Then you can also tell me why is He making so many suffering children in this world!
All this God willed because it happened. From the Westminster Confession:
Chapter 3. Of God's Eternal Decree. 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; (a) yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (c)
a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (a) yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (b)
a. 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mat 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels (a) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. (b)
a. Mat 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21. • b. Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. (a)
a. John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19.
5. Those of mankind that [Kosta, here would be a good use of "sic" since the correct word is "who". :)]are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (a) out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; (b) and all to the praise of his glorious grace. (c)
a. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:4, 9, 11; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Tim 1:9. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9. • c. Eph 1:6, 12.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. (a) Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (b) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, (c) and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. (d) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (e)
a. Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2. • b. 1 Thes 5:9-10; Titus 2:14. • c. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13. • d. 1 Pet 1:5. • e. John 6:64-65; 8:47; 10:26; 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; 1 John 2:19.
7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (a)
a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.
8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (a) that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. (b) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; (c) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel. (d)
a. Deut 29:29; Rom 9:20. • b. 2 Pet 1:10. • c. Rom 11:33; Eph 1:6. • d. Luke 10:20; Rom 8:33; 11:5-6, 20; 2 Pet 1:10.
At least there is some good scripture there on the sovereignty of God. Now, on the matter of why children suffer we can only know that God is in charge and in control of everything. We weren't built to have all the answers to God's ways, as you have pointed out from scripture. However, THAT we don't understand something IS NOT prima facie evidence that it is not of God, as you seem to imply.
And as far as where we are born, it could be just pure chance or luck (bad luck or good luck, depends). But we really don't know, do we?
Well, I know, and so do many others here on FR. :) There is no chance or luck.
FK, gravity is a property of matter. We don't know why bodies attract.
You just need the presupposition that there is an intelligent CREATOR. If we can get there, then we can accept that all matter has (reasonably consistent) properties. Gravity doesn't surprise me at all since it is a perfect part of the reality that we know. Without it, our reality would be completely different.
You can's say that something is "logical" if you don't know the cause of the effect.
The cause is God. :) You appear frustrated if things cannot be explained without God. I'm afraid I don't have good news for the future. :) Schaeffer wrote extensively about Renaissance philosophers and practitioners of what he called the "new theology" who were and are in the same boat.
For one thing He is carrying out the salvation of His elect. He chose to do that within time, so here He is. I suppose if men just saved themselves by their good decisions, then there wouldn't be much need for God to be here within time.
If everything will happen according to His will, then why does He need to intervene?
If you are asking whether everything is on some sort of auto-pilot or does God manage things within time, that is fair. My best guess would be that to God the question is irrelevant. But to us, I would suspect that God is active and not static. That would match better what the Bible tells us of Him. The Bible describes God as a "Doer" rather than a bystander. Therefore, it would make more sense to me that He is actively involved in our lives within time.
Is there a danger that His "plan" will not work, or that someone can railroad it? I don't think so.
That's right, and in your faith and mine, we "experience" God every day, so I can't see any problem with our thinking that God is actively THERE, everyday, watching over us and caring for us within time.
Does it require divine intervention and guidance given that everything has been preordained? I don't think so.
I don't think it's a matter of that. In our reality we think of it as the execution of something NOW that was ordained BEFORE. That takes action.
One might really wonder what is God doing outside of time! After all, His work is done, isn't it? Or is it incomplete, which is to say imperfect?
Because He is God, it is "as good as done", which can be said in no other case. However, God chose "time" as a forum in which He would execute His plan. Therefore, just like all other elect, I started out a lost sinner, God graced me, and then I had faith. All within time. It is not correct to say that if God's work is incomplete it is imperfect. God chose to work within time, but He didn't have to. We still have the second coming to look forward to, among other things. All in God's good time.
FK, have you ever heard of the concept of “sporoi”? The word means “seeds” and the Fathers spoke of flashes of the revelation of God to mankind among, generally, pre-Christian pagans as “sporoi”. These seeds of The Truth are seen through history and throughout the world. Hinduism and Buddhism are full of them. Since we don't and can't know where the Spirit goes, it seems to me we ought not to make such blanket statements as yours above.
Kosta: “The Church Fathers give their opinions. The Church Fathers do not claim God is speaking through them. They merely express their faith.”
FK: “Sure they do claim that. (Or, the Orthodox Church claims it for them.) Isn’t that what defines “consensus patrum”? If any other group gets together and comes up with “dogma” or “doctrine”, then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God.”
No individual Father claims that God speaks through him. The Church teaches that God speaks through the consensus patrum. And FK, in Orthodoxy, the hierarchy is not even remotely the final word on dogma, the People of God, the laity, are. You have to get this straight, FK! Its a very important point.
Without knowing it, of course. When one listens to his conscience, he listens to God.
Well, then we have a fundamental disagreement about what the word "obey" means. By your definition, if you wish for a sunny day tomorrow, and tomorrow it is a sunny day, then God has "obeyed" you. :) Your definition simply matches wish with result, ignoring everything in between. So, all of your favorite sports teams "obey" you when they win, all doctors "obey" you when they make a correct diagnosis anywhere in the world, and even you obey your dog when you pet him spontaneously. I just don't agree with that use of the word. :)
In addition, one cannot listen if he does not have ears to hear. They come only from God and He does not give them to other than the elect. "The conscience" can either be led by God or satan. "The conscience" by NO MEANS always leads to good. I can tell you that before I was a Christian I washed many stupid decisions through my "conscience". It was a joke. My "conscience" today is through the Holy Spirit. Very different. :)
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.