Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Saint Aquinas explains these types of situations, like Pharaoh
That God is Cause of Sin to no Man
THOUGH there are some sinners whom God does not convert to Himself, but leaves them in their sins according to their deserts, still He does not induce them to sin.
1. Men sin by deviating from God their last end. But as every agent acts to its own proper and befitting end, it is impossible for God's action to avert any from their ultimate end in God.
2. Good cannot be the cause of evil, nor God the cause of sin.
3. All the wisdom and goodness of man is derived from the wisdom and goodness of God, being a likeness thereof. But it is repugnant to the wisdom and goodness of man to make any one to sin: therefore much more to divine wisdom and goodness.
4. A fault always arises from some defect of the proximate agent, not from any defect of the prime agent. Thus the fault of limping comes from some defect of the shin-bone, not from the locomotor power, from which power however is whatever perfection of movement appears in the limping. But the proximate agent of human sin is the will. The sinful defect then is from the will of man, not from God, who is the prime agent, of whom however is whatever point of perfect action appears in the act of sin.*
Hence it is said: Say not, He himself hath led me astray: for he hath no use for sinful men: He hath commanded none to do impiously, and he hath not given to any man license to sin (Ecclus xv, 12, 21): Let none, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God: for God tempteth no man to evil (James i, 13).
Still there are passages of Scripture, from which it might seem that God is to some men the cause of sin. Thus it is said: I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his servants (Exod. x, 1): Blind the heart of this people, and make its ears dull, and close its eyes, lest perchance it see with its eyes, and be converted, and I heal it: Thou hast made us wander from thy ways: Thou hast hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee (Isai. vi, 10: lxiii, 17): God delivered them over to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not seemly (Rom. i, 28). All these passages are to be understood as meaning that God does not bestow on some the help for avoiding sin which He bestows on others. This help is not merely the infusion of grace, but also an exterior guardianship, whereby the occasions of sin are providentially removed from a man's path. God also aids man against sin by the natural light of reason, and other natural goods that He bestows on man.* When then He withdraws these aids from some, as their conduct deserves that he should, according to the exigency of His justice, He is said to harden them, or to blind them.
Yes, absolutely. Couldn't be much clearer than that. If someone who can't swim comes to a public pool and sees a sign "no swimming without a life-guard on duty" and he decides to swim anyway and drowns, whose faut is it? The one who put up the warning or the one who decided to disregard (disobey) it? The people who built the pool did not do so to drown anyone. Drowing people in the pool was not part of the plan!
The Old Testament says that. The OT is not the measure of Christ, but a foreshadowing of Him. The Jews also expected messiah to be a warrior king who wold smite his enemies the way the OT God does His.
So, you look at what many Jews thought concerning the OT and on that basis declare both them AND the OT wrong? That is, you assume that those Jews were interpreting it correctly. Yet, you look at what NT heretics thought and declare ONLY the heretics wrong. You assume they were interpreting incorrectly. That is an interesting choice in turning God's word against itself, given that it was the Church who gave us God's word, as Apostolics are so fond of reminding me. :)
Christ called us to follow Him and imitate Him. He didn't say "do as I say, not as I do." He wants us to do exactly as He does. He wants us to think as He does. He wants us to love as He does. He wants us to be(come) perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.
So do you think the "highest" question is "what would Jesus do?". I do not. I think a higher question is "what would Jesus have ME do?". Think about it. Perhaps that helps to explain why you hold the opinion of the OT (and Paul) that you do.
It doesn't mean the OT is "wrong;" it simply reflects incomplete revelation of who God is.
Kosta, you CANNOT tell me that you do not think the OT is wrong given what you have said about it. :) The OT tells very clear stories with no misunderstanding in what is being claimed. You claim the truth is completely the opposite in MANY cases. You cannot say that is a simple "incomplete revelation". In a great many cases, what the OT claims is true and what you claim is true are TOTALLY incompatible.
So, you think that Kolo and stafassisi and other brilliant Orthodox and Catholic posters on these treads are wishy-washy, luke-warm, about their faith and witness in weakness and without confidence?
I don't know if they agree with you that faith is blind and objectively baseless. I also don't know if they agree with you that the reason for your faith is objectively no better than the one Muslims have, etc. I believe they do have no assurance in their own salvations, and thus are in no position to witness confidence to anyone else. The only confidence your side is able to preach is in an "if-then" statement that is totally dependent on the smart and independent decisions of "wounded" men. And even then, salvation is predicated on a thousand more "if-then" statements throughout life. To me, all of that is an extremely weak position from which to witness strength and confidence.
Thanks for your answer on justification. Doesn't sound like there's much to talk about there. :)
Well, I genuinely hope it works that way in Orthodoxy. Sadly, it doesn't have that kind of practical effect in the few Protestant denominations with which I am familiar. The commitment isn't taken as strongly as I think it should be. But then, we could say that's what the bio-parents are for. :) But then again, every little bit helps.
FK: "We DO carry moral guilt from our very beginning: Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Again, this is Judaism. Verse 6 is unintelligible!.
What is unintelligible about it? :
Ps 51:6 : Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
David makes a comment about his status at birth, and then he comments on what God wants (for him) now. He is saying that when God teaches those who are able to hear, that He does not scratch the surface and leave it to the person to figure it out. Rather, God teaches directly into the soul and imparts His truth there, so as it will take the greatest root. Verse 6 is NOT talking about God imparting to babies, IMHO, because for one thing verse 7 is clearly back to current time.
Contrast this with our Lord's words "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." [Mark 10:14] Obviously, Christ didn't think they were examples of iniquity. Night and day.
Are you kidding? Look at the very next verse:
Mark 10:15 : I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
Does this not say what Jesus is talking about? He is talking about faith and what kind it should be. It should not be a conditional faith that so many adults would be apt to come up with so as to retain their own autonomy against God. Instead, Jesus says, it should be complete and pure faith, such as that of a child.
Or consider this comparison to the OT "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist the evil one (πονερω, same word as at the end of the Lord's Prayer—a title denoting the crafty or evil one). If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." [Mat 5:38]
In that case you have Jesus telling us not to resist satan when he attacks us. In fact, you're telling me that Jesus' command to us is to invite satan to tempt us, isn't that right? :) I am afraid that God's word in the OT survives just fine this attack. :)
Rom 5:19 : For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
He speaks of "many" not all. How does this square with his other statement that "none are righteous, not one?"
Easily. The key word or phrase here is "made" or "were made". It will be some form of "kathistemi", which means constituting or establishing. Now, consider the two men being compared. Adam, by his sin, established that many (all men) would live under his doing, they would be lost in original sin, or merely wounded, or whatever. The point is that it applied to everyone. However, by Christ's doing only some (many but not all) would wind up saved. That is what Christ established. Both Adam and Christ "completed" God's will for them in full, as always with God.
Now, yes, the sentence does use "many" in two different ways within it, and it's easy to throw rocks at it, but that's not really hard to get around when we just open our eyes and see for ourselves what the real world looks like! :) The real world MATCHES this explanation. For example, would you like to argue that Adam's sin did NOT affect everybody, or in the alternative a universalist belief??? :)
And, the "none are righteous" statement in Rom. 3:10 is clearly referring to those who are not yet saved. As everyone is born he is not righteous. As Paul extensively teaches elsewhere, those who are chosen by God are imputed with Christ's righteousness, by His act on the cross, and are thus fit for Heaven (justification).
While we are born innocent of any wrongdoing, we are bound to commit wrongdoing because our fallen nature inherited from Adam drives us to that end.
And I asked before if you thought it was inevitable that Adam's sin would MEAN that every person capable would, as a fact, sin. That is my view and you appear to agree above. However, I have gotten different messages from other(s) on this ping list. :)
You are most welcome. I hope that you, your family, and your local church had a very blessed Pascha last week.
Eph. 2 doesn't do that. It specifies that grace doesn't come from works, but it also says that both faith (v.8) and works (v.10) are products of saving grace.
Well, faith and works ARE products of saving grace. I perceived your argument to be that faith came first, then grace. In any event, I was answering the question of HOW saving grace shows itself in this world such that it SAVES. It does not do so, per the passage, through works. Rather, it does so through faith ......... alone. Sanctification, which involves works, comes later, after salvation is complete through faith.
It is also true that works of love are a part, the central part, of Christian law. They are not, however, a part of Mosaic ceremonial or Roman civil law; if works of love are done because there is a law that makes you do them, then indeed they are no longer works of love.
Well, first you say that works of love are part of "Christian law". I am fine with this and we both know the scripture to back that up. But then, you say that if we do a work of love because of some law that it is no longer a work of love. How can we follow Jesus then??? :) I try to follow the law we are talking about because I want to please God.
Well yes, that goes without saying. :)
...... Dogmas, however they arise, are only “real” if the laity accepts and approves them by living them. Beliefs within the consensus patrum are not part of the consensus patrum, however, because everyone accepts them. Theologoumenna are not required to be accepted by everyone but they might well be part of the consensus patrum nevertheless.
Well, now that we have that cleared up...... :) I think the original issue had to do with to what degree the Bishops (or whoever constitutes the voting consensus patrum) have benevolent dictatorial powers. Obviously the laity are going to follow the lead of their Bishops, unless the Bishops go crazy, because the structure is to do what they say and follow them.
Its hard for someone trained, however subtly, to think in “canon law”, Latin ways, to think patristicly, especially when it comes to whose beliefs become active and/or mandatory within Orthodoxy.
As someone untrained, I'll second that. :)
The Jews expected a strong, militant, human king as their messiah based on their reading of the OT, so they were dead wrong vis-a-vis Christ. The OT is more like "breaking news" then the full story. It's incomplete.
Yet, you look at what NT heretics thought and declare ONLY the heretics wrong
Heretics, by definition, teach that which the Church doesn't teach, never taught and never will teach. The Church teaches that +John the Baptist is not Elijah. Yet Matthew says (twice) that he is. However, John's Gospel says he is not.
I am sure you will come up with some convoluted "explanation" to this clear-cut contradiction, but then that's how every sect and cult can quote scriptures and be "right."
That is an interesting choice in turning God's word against itself, given that it was the Church who gave us God's word, as Apostolics are so fond of reminding me
The Church teaches what was given her, and NOT all of it is written in the Gospels; Christ taught more than was written. Your side depends on the extant versions of the Bible, none of which is veritably authentic, assuming that what you have is what God wanted you to have (baseless assumption), and that somehow insufficiency suffices.
So do you think the "highest" question is "what would Jesus do?". I do not. I think a higher question is "what would Jesus have ME do?".
Jesus would have you follow His examples, FK. Unless you have an authenticated direct connection to Him and receive His text messages every day, it's you making up what Jesus would have you do (based on those inner "voices" that could be anything, including insanity).
This is why in the west we have a defendant come to a court, and after being convicted of having drowned five of her children, gets to go home free because it was "God" who told her to do what she did!
I have news for you: Christ, as we know Him in the catholic and apostolic Church, would never tell her to do that! In fact, 'what Christ would have ME do' is a dangerous belief that opens oneself to all sorts of satanic attacks because, as the Bible says which you believe to be true, even Satan can appear as the Angel of Light. Stick to the Gospels, imitating Christ, and you will never believe God wants you to kill anyone.
Kosta, you CANNOT tell me that you do not think the OT is wrong given what you have said about it
The OT is incomplete and it is not a measure of Christ. Rather it is Christ who is the measure of the OT. The OT is correct on those occasions where the God as perceived in the OT reflects Christ of the Gospels.
I don't know if they agree with you that faith is blind and objectively baseless
They don't, because that's not my position. That is something you created in your head and are imputing to me. I never said that faith is baseless. Every belief, no matter how extreme or weird is based on something, whether that something is objective or subjective. But a beleif in and of itself is not a proof that ti is true.
I also don't know if they agree with you that the reason for your faith is objectively no better than the one Muslims have, etc.
Maybe they don't, but thy come to the same faith as I do, for their own reasons. Muslims, for their own reasons, come to a different faith which is based on a completely different perception of God.
I believe they do have no assurance in their own salvations, and thus are in no position to witness confidence to anyone else
You are confusing confidence of salvation with faith. Because they tell you that they don't know if they will be saved (neither do you, because no one knows if he is elect or not), you believe that their faith is "weak." That is patently false.
I am sure their belief in God's goodness is unshaken, but they also know that not all become Christ-like. If we die in unrepentant sin, we will not be saved. It is not God's doing; it's ours. By His resurrection He gave us a ticket, but if we throw that ticket away, well then...there is no admission.
So, they can very confidently proclaim the Good News except that they will also cation that saying "Lord, Lord" will not save them. Your side, unfortunately, believes that just because you "accept" Christ you are saved no matter what you do or how Christ-like you are.
To me, all of that is an extremely weak position from which to witness strength and confidence.
It is the weakness of, and lack of confidence in man, not God, FK.
The scripture doesn't say that. It says that grace doesn't come from works of man, but then it says that grace produces both faith and works.
I try to follow the law we are talking about because I want to please God.
Yes, and this motivation: your love of God, -- is what makes your works salvific for you.
The scripture doesn't say that. It says that grace doesn't come from works of man, but then it says that grace produces both faith and works.
I try to follow the law we are talking about because I want to please God.
Yes, and this motivation: your love of God, -- is what makes your works salvific for you.
You are spouting Jewish myths and legends, while dismissing the universal meaning of Christ's redemption.
Well, that is certainly one explanation. :)
Think about it: if people were saved before Christ's sacrifice, what does that make of His cross but a mockery. Then He is not the Savior of the world because some were "privileged" not to need Him.
No, the cross is not made a mockery. :) Everyone who is predestined for Heaven absolutely HAD to have Jesus die for his or her sins on the cross. It is indispensable. Here is a brief explanation from Reformed Answers:
Question - When Moses died, where did he go, since Jesus Christ had not yet come?
Answer - When Old Testament believers (such as Moses) died, they went to heaven even though Jesus had not yet come. Before the foundation of the world, the Father had covenanted with the Son that the Son would die for the sins of believers. Therefore, the forgiveness Christ purchased by his death was certain. Because it was certain, it was available to Old Testament believers.
One reason we know this is true is that even in the Old Testament God forgave people's sins (e.g. Exod. 34:7; Lev. 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10,13,16,18; 6:7; 19:22; Num. 14:19; 15:25,26,28; Deut. 21:8). As we learn in Hebrews 9-10 (e.g. 10:11; etc.), the sacrifices in the Old Testament did not themselves provide forgiveness. Rather, they pointed to the sacrifice that Christ would offer. Thus, the forgiveness received in the Old Testament was based on Christ's atonement. Even though he had not yet come, the fact that he had covenanted to come was sufficient to merit salvation "on credit," so to speak.
Another reason we know that Old Testament saints went to heaven is that we have examples of this, such as Elijah (2 Kings 2:11).
Not only does God transcend time, but His promises and plans do too. To be honest, even my trusty "Got Questions" website that I like talked about Sheol/Paradise as being other than Heaven for the OT righteous (and unrighteous) until Jesus came. But that doesn't make sense to me since Jesus said:
Luke 23:43 : Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise ."
Timing is critical here, because Jesus was talking about AFTER He had said "It is finished" and AFTER He died. At that second there would be no need for a separate "Paradise", so it doesn't fit. What does fit is that God's promise is so rock solid that it applies retroactively. There was never a chance that Jesus on the cross wouldn't happen.
That means some were not captives to death and are immortal; death had no grip on them. They didn't need to wait for Christ to free the world from the chains of death.
All souls ever made are immortal, it's just a matter of where they end up. Death is not a person, it is a state. Jesus freed the elect from that state with His death on the cross and it applied to all of the elect whenever born. That God chose to have this happen within time does not diminish the power of His act.
The NT is confusing, if not outright contradicting regarding Elijah as being John the Forerunner (Baptist). In John 1:21 John the Baptist says that he is not Elijah. But Mat 11:14 says "he is Elijah, the one who is to come" and Mat 17:13 leaves no doubt that he was Elijah "Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist."
I agree that it is confusing, but the Bible solves this by pointing out a logical impossibility. That is, that Jesus could not have been speaking literally. The simple answer is that Elijah showed up at the transfiguration AFTER John the Baptist died. If he had switched identities, (or John was some sort of resurrection of Elijah), then it would have been John, not Elijah.
As far as Enoch is concerned, where does the Old Testament say he never died? Gen 5:24 simply says (my emphasis) "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." Was no more?
It is only in Luke's Gospel that we see inference that he never "saw" death. This is based on Talmudic myth, not on Christian scriptures, unless the Reformed consider Talmud as scripture as well.
Well, we do have this:
Heb 11:5 : By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.
Besides, going back to Luke, I thought the ONLY OT scriptures you would accept were the ones quoted or referred to in the Gospels. :)
"A priori" is deductive, so from what are you deducing your belief? The reason I say that your faith is "baseless" is that you admit that it is blind. Can one deduce from the blind? No. Every time I say that we can have a reasoned faith you say "NO, NO, NO", we cannot. How can you now tell me that your faith is not based on the irrational? You can't. :)
The problem with faith is not the faith itself but when someone claims that his faith is "true." This extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence.
I can't imagine a person bothering to have faith if he wasn't willing to claim it was true. Faith is not akin to "I wish I had a rocket ship". Faith is akin to "I know for a fact that Christ loves me".
I have tried giving you lots of proofs, using scripture and reason. You rejected them, which is fine. I thought that we had agreed that short of my producing the Second Coming in your own living room, that there was no possible proof that I could offer you. :)
I have no idea what you're talking about concerning other Bibles. I have NEVER denounced a Bible that you or Catholics might normally read. I might disagree with some of the wording, but it has never been enough to throw out the translation in my mind. For example, as far as I know (perhaps aside from the Apocrypha) I think that Reformation theology survives just fine under the NAB.
But even 2,000 years later the Church does not come close to evangelizing "all nations". What does that say? In addition, you appear to be saying that pure luck (i.e. chance environment) is a large determining factor of one's eternal destiny. IF you believe in an all-powerful God, then how can you say He loves everyone equally, if something as important as Heaven vs. hell for eternity is largely decided by luck? You can't. Either He does not love as your side claims, OR, He is not all-powerful.
Perhaps if all the Evangelicals stopped trying to evangelize Christians in Russia and Latin America and instead risked their lives for faith in areas inimical to Christianity, the success rate in China and Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Iran and other places would probably be better.
We're already there. My own pastor just got back from a mission trip to China. Christianity is actually doing much better there than most people know. However, we also love and care about lost people in countries that you claim you "own". We are happy to witness Christ to the scraps that you all don't have time for, so that's what we're doing.
Unbelievable! Christ ushered the New Covenant. The Reformed teach that the OT righteus were saved by "absentee salvation!" We are truly not even as close as I once believed we are.
Elijah was an exception and was allegedly taken up in order to return to announce the coming of the anointed One—hence the forerunner. But +John the Baptist (who is known in the Orthodox Church as +John the Forerunner!) denied that he was Elijah (according to the Gospel of John), but the Gospel of Matthew says otherwise.
As we learn in Hebrews 9-10 (e.g. 10:11; etc.), the sacrifices in the Old Testament did not themselves provide forgiveness. Rather, they pointed to the sacrifice that Christ would offer. Thus, the forgiveness received in the Old Testament was based on Christ's atonement. Even though he had not yet come, the fact that he had covenanted to come was sufficient to merit salvation "on credit," so to speak
Unbelievable! Christ ushered the New Covenant. The Reformed teach that the OT righteous were saved by "absentee salvation!" We are truly not even as close as I once believed we are.
What does fit is that God's promise is so rock solid that it applies retroactively. There was never a chance that Jesus on the cross wouldn't happen.
Where are you getting this from? The OT is clear that the dead go to Shoel.
I agree that it is confusing, but the Bible solves this by pointing out a logical impossibility. That is, that Jesus could not have been speaking literally. The simple answer is that Elijah showed up at the transfiguration AFTER John the Baptist died
Elijah showed up along with Moses; by then both were dead if John the Baptist/Forerunner was Elijah. The problem is he denies in in the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew affirms it. There is nothing confusing; it's contradictory.
Heb 11:5 is not making references to the OT; it is rewording the OT, and creating something the OT never said.
Weren't you the one who on this very thread chastised me by noting that the Gospels are NOT ALL in fact eyewitness accounts? I'm glad to see you've come around to seeing beyond the technicalities. :)
We take that God to be the true God who is merely prefigured in uncertain terms in the OT.
And we take the OT to be God's Holy and inspired word. We do not use words like "merely" to describe it.
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.