***However, :) if a priest denies absolution to a confessor, then isn’t that person “presumptively” still damned?***
It is not the priest’s place to do so. It is the Holy Spirit that judges the repentence, not the priest. If the priest denies someone that is truly repentent, the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the priest (rather vice versa) and presumably would forgive that person’s sin.
*** Don’t you see the internal inconsistency here? If Christ’s resurrection ONLY made it POSSIBLE for us to be saved, THEN He did NOT rise to “restore our eternal life”. He only rose to make that possible. This is an ABSOLUTE DAY AND NIGHT DIFFERENCE. :) It is one of the main differences between our respective faiths. These two concepts do not mix at all.***
No I don’t see any inconsistency. It is not only Scripturally supported, it was declared doctrine and practiced by the fledgling Church of the Apostles. To deny that is to deny not only what the Apostles practiced and believed, but also Scriptural verses that support this view.
***With God in control, all of the statements in the Sermon are taken at face value and as a matter of fact, they describe a true believer and what he looks like. But, with man in control, those same statements look like a buffet of choices for any man to partake of.***
With God in total incremental control, the Sermon on the Mount means nothing. If I recall correctly, you consider yourself a true believer. Do you display everything that is contained within the Sermon? If not, then you cannot be a true believer; there is no man that displays them all, therefore no man is a true believer.
That is makes the doctrine of the Reformed impossible. Therefore, you have no option but to swim the Tiber or head East. :)
***Then, by definition, Christ is a failure. How does the Church reconcile that? We say Christ CAN’T fail because He is God.***
God spent the entire OT and most of the New trying to get the Chosen People to be saved and, generally speaking, He failed. That by itself should be proof that He gave us all free will which includes the ability to reject God.
Mark: No I don’t see any inconsistency
Neither do I, Mark. Christ did rise in order to restore our eternal life. He destoryed the power of death and broke the gates of Hades and let everyone out. But He did not force anyone; nor does He force anyone today. Instead, He offered salvation to all willing to come to Him. This is no different than saying "I opened the door for you, it's up to you to get out."
The Prots not only wait to be lead out, but expect Him to carry our luggage as well!
***If the priest denies someone that is truly repentent, the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the priest (rather vice versa) and presumably would forgive that person’s sin***
Then the priest is not necessary at all, just the HS.
***God spent the entire OT and most of the New trying to get the Chosen People to be saved and, generally speaking, He failed.***
God failed? GOD FAILED??????? What are you smoking? God doesn’t fail, God cannot fail. Everything God does is PERFECT!
It is not the priest’s place to do so. It is the Holy Spirit that judges the repentance, not the priest.
Well, that isn't what very knowledgeable FR Catholics have told me before. I have been told that the priest has full discretion as to whether to grant absolution or not. For example, if a priest knows that Fred is an alcoholic, and Fred comes into confession and has obviously been drinking, then the priest can and SHOULD deny forgiveness and absolution. I have not been told that this kind of thing happens very often, however, the power is still there and that's what I was talking about.
If the priest denies someone that is truly repentant, the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the priest (rather vice versa) and presumably would forgive that person’s sin.
In this situation, more than one FR Apostolic has quoted this to me:
John 20:22-23 : 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
This usually comes up in Apostolic succession arguments, and it has been used to point out to me that the clergy really does have the power to determine if sins are effectively forgiven or not. Most FR Catholics I have spoken with, but not all, have said that it IS God who does the actual forgiving, but that the priest has the power to "block" the request from going through according to this passage.
FK: *** Don’t you see the internal inconsistency here? If Christ’s resurrection ONLY made it POSSIBLE for us to be saved, THEN He did NOT rise to “restore our eternal life”. He only rose to make that possible. This is an ABSOLUTE DAY AND NIGHT DIFFERENCE. :)
No I don’t see any inconsistency. It is not only Scripturally supported, it was declared doctrine and practiced by the fledgling Church of the Apostles.
Let's say that your car dies on you and you have it towed to your favorite mechanic, me. I examine the car and then I tell you "I promise I will have it fixed for you by tomorrow". You come back the next day and I smile and tell you that the repairs went fine. You hop in and turn the key but nothing happens. Then you get out and ask me what's going on. I smile again and say that I actually didn't touch your car, but I have assembled all the tools you'll need to fix it yourself. According to you I fully kept my promise to fix your car.
Just for fun, let's extend the analogy. :) Now, let's say that the next time I actually do fix your car, just as I promised. You thank me and ask if my work is guaranteed. I say "Absolutely" and then hand you a certificate which says "Eternal Guarantee". Well, after a while your car breaks down again and you bring it back. You present the "Eternal Guarantee" and expect me to fix it for free. I say "No way. You see, the Eternal Guarantee is only good until the next time your car breaks down. As soon as it breaks down, the Eternal Guarantee expires. Therefore, if you want it fixed you will have to pay full price" (confession/penance). Under Apostolic thought you have no problem with this and think it is perfectly fair. :)
With God in total incremental control, the Sermon on the Mount means nothing. If I recall correctly, you consider yourself a true believer. Do you display everything that is contained within the Sermon? If not, then you cannot be a true believer; there is no man that displays them all, therefore no man is a true believer.
While God does not call for it, He nonetheless knows that we are still going to sin because of the remnant of the old man. So, we give thanks that John tells us:
1 John 2:1 : My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: KJV
Therefore, your logic only applies to a man who is under law. As Paul says, we are not under law but under grace. The law shows us that no one will be able to LIVE by it. So, by God's design we have a Savior. If the Sermon on the Mount meant as you say, then God would be contradicting Himself. That can't happen. God is fully in control, knowing that we will sin. His call is still unto perfection, even as He is perfect. How could He call for less? But He knows that we all still need a Savior so out of His abundant love He gives us one.
God spent the entire OT and most of the New trying to get the Chosen People to be saved and, generally speaking, He failed. That by itself should be proof that He gave us all free will which includes the ability to reject God.
Only a weak God can fail. Only a God who is not omnipotent can fail. If your above is representative of Apostolic belief, then it also proves the belief that man can and DOES thwart God's will. That is, the only explanation of God failing would be at the hands of man. Is this really the God whom you know?