Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Don't argue. I agree it was not perfect knowledge. The point is, within the knowledge they had, they could choose between good an evil, and that they were not cursed. Or at least their descendants did, since the Bible does not tell us much about Adam and Eve following their fall.
Those who are not descendants of Abraham are cursed
Doesn't follow from the verse you are citing, Gen 12:3, but regardless, I agree that some people are cursed, e.g. descendants of Cain are, and there is some bad luck if not a whole curse laid on Ishmael -- despite him being a descendant of Abraham. The point is, Man as a race is not cursed, but rather promised redemption from the very start, and of course, given it.
Others commented on this. I actually agree that given the entire philosophy of utter depravity of man, Luther's comment can be better understood, as Harley explains. But what really is happening is that the fact that Luther could make that comment at all shows the bankruptcy of Luther's theology.
As I googled the "sin boldly" quote, I found several embedded in actual sermons by Lutheran pastors. I dod not see any assertion that the quote was somehow inaccurate or out of context. The reason I chose a Catholic website to give a link to is because there were several corroborating quotes there, all rather shocking to an unbiased reader, and they were all meticulously sourced.
That sentence is an oxymoron.
Destiny, by definition, is preordained, and by this same definition, cannot be changed.
Whatever occurs has been preordained by God and as such, is unchangeable from His decree.
Or else the world is open-ended and up for grabs with God watching from the sidelines while He ponders our next steps right along with us.
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37
Apparently he does. This is, I speculate, why. The saints are people we can become ourselves. We cannot become the Third Person of the Trinity. For examples, many saints are martyrs for the faith. The martyrdom os St. Stephen is described in the Acts; other, numerous cases are known from solid historical records, and some from tradition. Other saints had extreme intellectual fortitude of conviction and knowledge, or extreme strength of character. But these are qualities we can develop ourselves. As we focus a prayer on a Christian martyr, for example, we make his example vibrant for us in our own situation.
A classic intercessory prayer is Hail Mary:
Hail Mary, full of graceWhat is happening here? First we honor Mary as mother of our Lord and the divinely chosen to bring Him forth. We marvel over the miracle of Incarnation, and we praise Jesus. This allows us to contemplate moments in our life where we had agreed to follow God's will like Mary did; or perhaps the moments that we regret when we did not. The entire sections from the Gospel of Luke, the Annunciation and the Visitation, are compressed in the first part of the prayer (less so if you are only familiar with the Protestant translations that all mangle Luke 1:28). The second part is intercessory. In it we recall that as Christ was dying on the cross he asked Mary to adopt his beloved disciple St. John the Theologian. Being disciples of Christ ourselves, we place ourselves in the person of St. John and consider ourselves children of Mary. We imagine our own death an ask her to be present at the time of our death just like she was present at the time of Christ's death. We fear that at that moment, like the Evil Thief, we would fail to turn to Christ, perhaps wracked with pain. We know that we want to be like the Good Thief, and we ask Mary to ask Christ to have mercy for our sins. The most memorable scenes from two gospels, the story of the Incarnation and the Good Friday, race through our mind as we say Hail Mary. It is a profound experience.
The Lord is with you
Blessed art thou among women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb JesusHoly Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and in the hour of our death
Amen
it is not even clear that Mary fully knew the divinity of Jesus at that time because of her language, and also that it may not have been an intercession by Mary at all.
Mary knew the divinity of Jesus because the archangel told her. We can of course speculate that she merely observed the lack of wine, rather than was asked for help, but even so she still interceded, moved by a human want. It is significant that her intercession did not take a form of a command, but rather left it to her Son to exercise -- or not -- His divine power. This is what any intercession of a saint is, -- a humble request for help, tha thumility illustrated by the evangelist by meek and faith-filled "do as He tells you". In case you are wondering if she even meant her remark to be a request, evidently it was understood as a request by Jesus, and indeed in a context of a wedding running out of wine is the worst embarrassment, so not much needed to be said.
Is there a Church-decreed structural difference along this line in how you pray to a saint and how you pray to God directly?
A good form is to begin and end the prayers with "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". I don't know if there is any difference depending on the content. A short prayer, for example, a single Hail Mary or "Christ have mercy" would often be said without the necessary preambles. I don't think there is any mandated form of prayer, generally, although as you know Catholics are big on memorized and poeticized prayers, such as the Rosary.
The whole thing was Jesus' answer to Peter's question of how often should he forgive. I don't see how a purgatory extension is reasonably drawn here.
The answer to the question is short, "seventy times seven". The parable is preceded by "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who ..., etc.", so it is clear that it gives us an extensive explanation about the Kingdom of Heaven.
He didn't show any sort of faith, how is this salvation?
To humbly ask for mercy is the foundation of faith. He also promised to pay back the debt, that is to repent. He did all the essentials.
why do you think the second condemnation was only temporary?
Because the parable concludes (Matthew 18:34) "And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt". It expressly says that the punishment was temporary. Also, in v. 25 repayment is made a part of the condemnation, and in v. 26 it is promised. The fact that the payment is to be made out of prison indicates that the time to make material payments in goods and money is past, and this time the payment is made through suffering.
It is of course true that the parable teaches forgiveness, but the elaborate story with the debtor being called two times, and two punishments being meted out, tells us much more than verse 22, "I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times" would have told alone.
You may be right. I think that Luther found a way to look at sin that is very satisfying for the modern, self-congratulatory mind, and at the same time appears to be in superficial agreement with Christianity. People are attracted to Protestantism because it doesn't ask all that much of them yet promises salvation. They are not attracted to Protestantism because of some deep analysis of what Luther's theology would logically lead to. This is why there was such divergence of Protestant theologies following Luther: because they all have the same therapeutic qualities but none is satisfying scripturally or theologically.
It is one who is reasonably believed by the Church to be worthy of emulation and is by virtue of his or her exemplary faith enjoying the beatific vision in heaven.
I do not think prayers for intercession to men we personally believe to be saintly are forbidden, but only prayers to canonized saints are encouraged.
Jo, correct me if I am wrong please.
Broadly speaking, a saint is one who is living in sanctifying grace, whether here on earth, in purgatory, or in heaven. A canonized saint is one who God has chosen to work a minimum of two miracles through as a result of intercessionary prayer from a believer on earth - and subject to the Church's scrutiny. Also, the Church will explore the writings of the person under consideration (no heretical saints!) as well as their life here on earth - by their fruits, they shall be known. But it is only by miraculous intervention does the Church know for sure if someone is truly enjoying the beatific vision.
I do not think prayers for intercession to men we personally believe to be saintly are forbidden, but only prayers to canonized saints are encouraged.
I believe that since we are ALL part of the Body of Christ (Church Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant) and death cannot separate us from Christ or the Body, we CAN ask for the intercessionary prayers of the souls in Purgatory.
"The Provincial Synods of Vienna (1858) and of Utrecht (1865) teach that the poor souls can help us by THEIR intercessions. Pope Leo XIII in 1889 ratified an indulgenced prayer in which the poor souls are appealed to in dangers to body and soul... (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, pg 323)
While St. Thomas Aquinas argued against this, the Church never frowned on the invocation of the poor souls - a practice widespread among the Faithful, and which has been advocated by many theologians. It is possible that the poor souls may acquire knowledge of the invocations of the Faithful by Divine Revelation.
"The veneration of dulia may not be offered to the suffering souls." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogman, Ott, pg 323)
Regards
That sentence is an oxymoron.
Destiny, by definition, is preordained, and by this same definition, cannot be changed.
Hence, you prove that there is free will. If there was such a thing as destiny, then the people of Nineveh could not have repented and God could not have changed His plan to destroy them. There would have been no chance of God changing his mind.
Whatever occurs has been preordained by God and as such, is unchangeable from His decree.
Including the fact that you or I sin? So God says Doc E and Cronos would sin in this way and that and Hitler in this way and that and because of these sins, some will go to Heck. So, God says -- ok, let's plan this person's life to sin and go to heck.
Or else the world is open-ended and up for grabs with God watching from the sidelines while He ponders our next steps right along with us.
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37
No, the fact that God has not already decided who will sin and go to heck and who won't does not render God impotent, rather, forcing God to be a slave to a Plan is rendering God impotent. God is not watching from the sidelines -- He can choose to act, as He did by chasing Jonah or by parting the waters of the Red Sea. He chooses not to control us like puppets because that is His will.
Read Numbers 16. To our modern ears, Korah makes sense: ...
Well, that's a nice story. LOL! Since the intent was to compare Protestants to Korah and his merry band, then at least God has spared us for 500 years and counting. :)
Why do we question God's ways of worshiping Him? Why do we question the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His Book, His practices? Is it a religion of man or of God? That is the question you must ask yourself. If it is FROM God, we OBEY. We don't question!
"We" don't question God's ways, we question man's. The same goes for the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His book, and practices. You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with. Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost. Were he so, he would either be part God, or cease to be human. I agree that if the faith is from God, we should not question. We just don't put our trust in men.
What will be the excuse for those who refuse to follow the claims of the ONLY Church that traces back to Christ? The SAME Church that claims to have the guidance of God Himself - as written in Divine Scriptures? "Well, God, I did it my way"
You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles. You might also say that the millions of men who have been in its charge ever since cannot error as a group over time. Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings? There certainly are ministers of my faith who commit such and such a sin habitually, and are thus outside the faith, too. I wouldn't trust them either. My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5
There is not "one God" among several gods. There is not "one mediator" among several mediators.
One God. One mediator, Jesus Christ.
Have you ever read anything written by a Calvinist or are you just spewing stereotypes that have been passed down to you by others who don't know what they are talking about? Or did you make this up on your own?
I guess it really doesn't matter. Officially you now have ZERO credibility on this issue.
If God wants people to follow Him, He will go to them in whatever way He decides to take be that through someone or acting on His own accord. But it is always God acting just as He did with Nathanael.
On the other hand Catholic and Orthodox completely reject Augustine's Trestise of Predestination so what does it matter?
No one doubt that man has a will. Jonah had a will. But God has to bend that will to conform to His will.
Jonah repented. Cain didn't. Was Cain's steps directed by God?
It's kinnda hard not to repent and do what God want's when you are in the belly of a fish for three days.
I would say Jonah's will was violated.
It has long been my experience that quotes on posts like this are often taken out of context . I generally perfer to go to the source. If that is not possible I go to the website that generally support the person. You will find that when I discuss Catholic doctrine I usually refer to Catholic websites. Also with historical documents such as these, it is important to understand the background with which these are written.
Luther was not a rabid scholar. He was highly esteemed by the Catholic Church so long as he agreed with the Church's position. It's only after he broke with the Church that he lost all sense of reasoning. Catholics do not look very favorably on Luther. It is unlikely a Catholic website would give an unbias look at Luther's quotes.
In this truly simple and truly innocent statement lies a cornerstone of my protestation.
"The Church limits the Spirit."
I believe you innocently just said this to begin a point. It was so natural, you didn't give it a second thought. This is exactly what scares the heck out of me about trusting in men. :)
By becoming MAN, what JESUS did on earth was done by God AND man. When God forgave sins, the "man" part didn't recede into the background while His divinity took over. Jesus' divinity and manhood are within His person. What the person does applies to both natures. Thus, Christianity believes that the dignity of man has been raised and God has humbled Himself through the incarnation.
On your first statement I'm afraid we will never agree. When Jesus did His Father's work, it was all from the "God side". When Jesus went to the bathroom, it was all from the "human side". You are transferring attributes from the ONE AND ONLY GOD-MAN to mankind in general. How? Why? Because Jesus did something and He was in the form of a man, then Catholic clerics should be able to do it too?
You said: "What the person does applies to both natures."
In this case, does it really? What were the two natures of Christ? Surely He is divine. But, what of this human nature of His? To me, it seems rather unique because Jesus was without sin. That leaves in the dust every other human who has ever lived (putting the Mary argument aside). So, I don't think you can translate the condition of Jesus to that of ordinary men. And, I don't think God humbles Himself for the purpose of honoring man, but rather to cause glory to Himself. God created us from nothing. Why should He honor us? He loves us, yes, but we are not worthy of honor from God from the choices we make on our own.
[Regarding the opening passages of Matt. 9] The people did NOT KNOW Jesus was God. ... They saw a man in Jesus, not God. They considered Him a great prophet, but they had no concept of God incarnate while He was performing these works. Thus, a man, perhaps a prophet, was forgiving sins. They proclaimed that it was wonderful that men (note, plural) had been given power and authority to forgive sins. And of course, I again point to John 20:23. Did the Apostles say "no, Lord, we are merely men, we do not or cannot have the power to forgive sins"?
So, in this case you're putting your money behind what the crowd thought when you admit that they did not even know who Jesus was? The crowd was right that multiple men could forgive sins, but the crowd was wrong on the identity of Jesus? Interesting crowd.
John 20:23 : "23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
I admit this is a difficult passage to interpret. My standard line would be to say that it is a declarative statement giving them the authority to state what God has already done. You might say that it confers authority. By my own standards, this is a tough one.
They [early Christians], too, believed that God had given certain men the authority to forgive sin in God's name - Baptism is for the remission of sins, is it not? Through men, Baptism is administered to other men. Thus, through Baptism, we already begin to see that men CAN forgive sins.
According to my beliefs, Baptism is NOT for the remission of sins at all. Believers' Baptism is an obedience to God, and is symbolic of a salvation that has already occurred. Forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with Baptism in any SB church of which I am aware.
I am not sure what you are asking regarding the truth of the error of Mark 2:7. Could you please explain?
I agree that I may not have been real clear on this, so I'll try to be more focused. Here is the passage:
Mark 2:6-11 "6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11 "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
In verse 7, the people said that only God has the power to forgive sin. In verse 8, Jesus knew their thinking and asked why. Then, in verse 9, Jesus compares a statement by any man "your sins are forgiven" to a command (by Jesus) "get up and walk". Jesus is showing that the true authority is shown by the power of the causing of the latter. Any man can say "your sins are forgiven". But Jesus appears to be saying that is worthless. Only Jesus has the authority to forgive sin. Jesus was demonstrating His authority. Sure, later, Jesus gave the authority to men to heal physical ailments, but nothing here shows that He also delegated the authority to forgive sin.
The whole point was to show that Jesus was acting on His authority as God, regardless of whom in the crowd understood it completely. In making His point, Jesus did not challenge the truth of the assertion by the people (that only God could forgive sins). To make His point, Jesus did just the opposite, He relied on that assertion to prove He was God. In effect, Jesus said "assuming [correctly] that only God can forgive sins, which is easier to say...?" Jesus actively uses the premise (that only God can forgive sin) to prove that He is God. I was asking why Jesus would rely on the truth of a lie (if the premise is false) to prove a point.
Only God will judge our "ignorance" on the matter. "He who rejects you (Apostles and their successors) rejects Me".
Someone finally said it. If I reject the Pope as authority, I am rejecting Christ. A very strong statement.
So what are you protesting, then?! Why haven't you returned home yet?!
Because, I can't give up my invincibly ignorant status or else I'm toast. :)
God bless.
I think the story is in the Bible to teach future generations that God has put people into positions of authority and men should not usurp what God has established. I don't think it is meant to tell us that all people who disobey authority will be condemned to die, or to eternal death. It is a precedent for the attitude of humility that is demanded of us.
You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with.
Not at all. I came to the faith by first exploring the claims of Christianity, as I did for all religions. I searched for the truth, not taking for granted that the Bible was the inspired word of God. I took it to be just another historical book with religious writings, no different than any other "holy" book. I believed that there was a God, and so I explored whether we could see if He has spoken to man or a select group of men. Once I found that Catholicism had a legitimate claim, that its book WAS inspired by God, then naturally, I submitted to their authority. If this Church was established by God (which I believe it was, historically), then I follow ITS interpretations of its holy book, not my own. I didn't come up with my own theology, and then decide who was closest, and then followed them. I came a different route to Christianity. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. The points of convergence end in the Catholic Church.
Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost.
You misunderstand what the charism of infallibility is. It has nothing to do with a PERSON, but the person's OFFICE. Peter was not infallible. Galatians makes that clear. BUT when Peter was teaching the faith, he WAS infallible by nature of the Holy Spirit's protection. Paul ALSO thought HE was infallible:"
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8
As an Apostle of Christ, Paul KNEW that the Gospel he taught could NOT be incorrect - it was from God (not because Paul was perfect). The Church teaches that it is infallible ONLY when it makes a solemn definition of faith or morals. Individual bishops are not infallible, with the exception of the Bishop of Rome - and this is considered an extraordinary charism (not normal). This particular infallibility was only used twice in 150 years, for example. Ordinarily, though, the Church is considered infallible when it has taught something "all the time, everywhere, in every age". Again, don't confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.
We just don't put our trust in men.
You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded charecters and cannot be relyed upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?
You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles.
The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.
Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings?
Yes, some have been a source of scandal to the faithful. Again, we place our trust in the fact that the Spirit guides the Church as a whole, not individual priests or bishops. Christ said that there would be weeds within the Church, wolves in sheep's clothing. Christ said these would be...
"...better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2
To whom much is given, more will be expected. Thus, those priests will be judged accordingly. Bishops who were lax with their charge. Priests who were perverts or taught heresy. Christ promised we'd see such things. But He also promised that He would guard His Church from error. The teachings of the Church, not the individual priest or bishop, is guarded. The Sacred Deposit of the Faith cannot be corrupted by men. We believe that DESPITE man, Christ will continue to have the Word presented to future generations - the Kingdom of God must go out to all the world.
When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life. But it is not our place to lead the Church. We have confidence that Christ will provide new men to lead His sheep. We trust in God that He will provide a way to cleanse His Church. If we relyed on unguided men, the Church would have fallen hundreds of years ago. Its existence throughout its checkered history is proof that it is guided by God, despite the devil's efforts to destroy it.
My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.
As a Catholic, we have sources to go to and check against what a priest might teach. We don't have to take his word for something. The job of a priest or bishop (regarding teaching) is to preach the FAITH, not HIS spin on it. We take the Deposit of Faith seriously because we believe it was handed down from generation to generation, beginning with Christ and the Apostles. As a result, we, knowing that the faith is presented in the Catechism or in Counciliar documents, can figure out if a priest is on the level or not. WE do not judge whether a priest is incorrect. We weigh his word against what has gone before him - the Deposit of faith. Thus, WE are not using private interpretation. Catholics believe what has been passed down from Peter and Paul and their successors who have plumbed the depths of the Apostles' teachings.
Regards
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.