Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I lost you here. Why?
Originally, you said:
Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.
So, I took your test of sound Christian teaching correctness to be that if it brought someone to Christ, then it was correct. Then you said:
If Jake and Jim met a man and each spoke to him, and Jake sent him to Christ then Jake spoke the truth, even though Jim might have succeeded in sending him to Satan.
I took this to mean that Jake was the true Christian. However, Jake failed to bring the man to Christ because Jim succeeded in sending him to satan. Therefore, Jake's true Christian teaching must have been incorrect because it failed to bring the man to Christ.
... because that is [what] Protestantism is all about: find out what you think the Bible said and find a church that fits you. If you can't, start your own.
I would respectfully disagree that Protestantism is all about coming up with one's own theology and then finding validation in one of a million different Protestant churches. I see that as an unfair stereotype. I know it wasn't true in my case. I chose my church because of its emphasis on following the Bible generally, not because of any pet belief that was relatively unique to that church. The only reason I am a Southern Baptist is because they were the first REALLY Bible believing church that I found. I could just as easily have wound up somewhere else, as long as the heart of the church was focused on God and the Bible.
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)
The above is quoted most effectively by Protestants as they defend the salvation by faith alone. (They also quote many other passages, but this is one where "saved" is not in the future tense; likewise Romans 8:24, 11:5, 1 Corinthinas 1:18, 15:2, Ephesians 2:5, Titus 3:5).
Well, is "are saved" referring to a completed event or continuing process? Likewise, is "Jake sent him to Christ" referring to a completed event or continuing process? The quotes alone do not say (checking with the original Greek of the Epistles, "este sesosmenoi" is no help, as the same dilemma exists in Greek). We need to look elsewhere for the answer, and we find it:
But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. (Matthew 24:13)
Likewise, Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, and dosens others where "save" is also in the future tense or conditional mood, point to salvation being a lifelong process. That view is also consistent with multiple excoriations to do works of charity for the sake of the salvation (most explicitly in Matthew 25, Phillipians 2:12).
Going back to Jake, my meaning becomes clearer if we observe that it is possible to be sending one to Christ without the poor devil arriving there. Still, Jake spoke the truth, did he not?
I would respectfully disagree that Protestantism is all about coming up with one's own theology and then finding validation in one of a million different Protestant churches.
It is less true of the Baptists than of doctrinaire Protestants, I admit. This is why I like them; after all my own wife is a Baptist. Of course most Protestants of every description today simply go to church they know and love in a positive experience of Christian faith, and could care less about protesting anything or developing their own doctrine. Still historically, all branches of Protestantism developed as I describe: someone reads the Bible, feels dissatisfied with the religious practice he finds around him, protests them, convinces others, and voila, a new denomination is born. Also, when one discovers religion as an adult and seeks to join a church, the Protestant denominations would all, typically, try to convince him by describing their doctrine, when the Orthodox or the Catholic would say simply, this is the Church Christ founded, come and we'll tell you what you need to know in the fullness of time. No marketplace of ideas where I come from.
It is in this context that he declared that "all have sinned and need the glory of God". It is clear now, is it not, that "all" refers to the Jews who rely on the law of Moses and the pagan Greeks who only have natural law. It does not refer to the Christians at all, -- it describes the state of mankind before the sanctifying grace of Christ.
This kind of reasoning is precisely why I am a protester. Sometimes it seems that the only way for Catholicism to work is to throw out the plain meaning of the verse. Notice that the verb and form used in Rom. 3:23 is EXACTLY the same used in Rom. 5:12 -
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— ...
I don't see any reasonable interpretation that says this does not refer to ALL of mankind, save Jesus. This is why I will not trust any hierarchy. The need for a preferred philosophy requires stretching scripture into the most unnatural shapes. I know that you will say that your hierarchy has special insight directly from God, but it doesn't make sense to me that God would write so cryptically. ("All" doesn't mean "All") I think of Christianity as being a revealed religion, not to just a few hierarchs.
If I see my son pursue a course I KNOW, because of my experience, will lead him to doom, I will stop him because I love him. You (and Tertullian) seem to be saying that God either can't or won't do that for us. How is this love when He has a million times more authority over us as I have over my own son?
Sort of, but what it means is that God is neither the author of nor responsible for Evil; we are.
On this we are in full agreement. :)
Once we attain theosis, if we attain theosis, then we have no ability to sin because we wouldn't sin, our entire essence being focused on God rather than the self. But FK, that seldom, very seldom, happens in this life.
OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death. I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal? Is it an immediate judgment of the life led, or is there activity that occurs after physical death that is needed?
Yes, that is exactly right. This is why I struggle so much with the idea that God loves all equally, since He knows what's going to happen and has the full power and authority to affect it.
But, that is assuming way too much about God. Let's just say that He foreknew the effects of their decisions: If they sin, they fall; if they don't sin they stay.
But you're implying that God both loves us all and that He doesn't care whether we choose Him. He has the full power and authority to affect the outcome, but you seem to be saying that He will sit on the sidelines and let us march off into our doom.
"If I have given you that impression, then I have been in error, and I apologize. I believe that the process of sanctification is very distinct from salvation. I see the truth of salvation as a single moment in time, from our point of view, with future included events (works). I believe sanctification only begins after salvation is accomplished. Sanctification, in part, teaches us how to love God, and appreciate His love for us more. Sanctification is a lifelong process (after salvation) and brings us closer to God. Salvation, according to me, is what gets us into heaven."
I didn't understand what you were saying. For us Orthodox its quite the other way around. What you call salvation we might say is the first time the Holy Spirit takes up in our souls.
"Does this mean that spiritual gifts are not bestowed until after physical death? (Maybe I am misinterpreting "battle is over"?) Regarding the last sentence, does this mean that man is spiritually dead until theosis? If so, then most people spend their entire lives spiritually dead?"
No, but the state that +Thalassios is speaking of is way up near the top of the Ladder. The death to life comment is a comparison of this life and True Life. Compared to True Life in Christ, our life is like a state of death.
"[+Gregory Palamas :] "Through this life it [the soul] makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."
Sorry for coming up with such a weird question here, but does this mean that a soul doomed to hell will be without body? (From the context, I'm assuming that a lost soul will not make the body immortal.) In that case, how can there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?"
Kosta answered this one as well as I could.
""As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost,...
This is another good point that I haven't been able to understand. Isn't it clear in this passage that we are stronger than the hand of God? God's hand is strong, but not strong enough to overcome our desires? To me, interpreting "no one" into "no one except me" renders the whole verse useless. It completely negates the point of the verse."
Why do you think this negates the scripture verse? Is it because you believe that once you have gained salvation the struggle is over? From an Orthodox pov the struggle usually continues through life and since it is we who cut ourselves off from God, not other people, what +John Chrysostomos says seems self-evident.
You know, the Bible is full of examples where God allows us to run our own destinies and exercise our corrupt, but free will. Take, for instance, Genesis 6:3
and then later on (6:5-7)
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
Doesn't sound like He was much in control there, does it? Nor does it sound like that was His plan. Obviously, there is more to this then to conclude that God was surprised, but it is clear that He had a change of heart and wanted to destroy that which He originally created.
But out of love for humanity, and because of the few just among us (in a Hebraic sense of "just"), He gave man a second chance (and many more since then). He then revealed Himself to the Hebrews and made a Covenant with Israel, the people of God. But the people of God betrayed His love over and over and made His Covenant corrupt once more.
And then He made a Second Covenant, that made the first obsolete as we learn in (Heb 8:7), which quotes the Old Testament:
as St. Paul concludes (Heb 8:13)
So, obviously what we do on earth does affect our salvation. That certainly does not mean that we are passive riders on His conveyor belt, where he placed some on one and others on the other belt, and now some destined to salvation and other to perdition.
From these verses, none of this seems scripted and pre-ordained. What happens to us in this world, in this time-space bubble outside of the eternal continuum, is our dominion and God helps and even sacrifices Himself for us when we are in dire straits, but He gave us life to live and to come to the Truth on our own with His unceasing help and blessings.
What happens in this space-time bubble of our world does not affect His will and desire to see man in Paradise, because, although He would prefer that all be saved, He does not force all to be saved; thus, no doubt some will end up there and some won't, and some are there already. But those who are or who are on their way way are the elect because they willingly followed the footsteps of our Savior, and not because they were made to do so. When +Paul says we were predestined to be saved, he simply knew what their free choices will be; it doesn't mean He actively "put a spell" on them. :-)
"If I see my son pursue a course I KNOW, because of my experience, will lead him to doom, I will stop him because I love him. You (and Tertullian) seem to be saying that God either can't or won't do that for us. How is this love when He has a million times more authority over us as I have over my own son?"
It isn't "can't", its "won't". We have free will as part of our created essencesn because God wanted it that way. He is constantly showering his uncreated energies on us and has restored our original pre-Fall potential through the Incarnation. In short, he has endowed us with everything we need to become like Christ. Its up to us to accept what has been and is given to us. The parent concept works only so far and at some point anthropomorphism becomes a hinderance to a recognition of the complete ineffability and transcendence of God.
"Your ways are not My Ways, neither are your thoughts My Thoughts
As high as the Heaven is above the earth, even so high are
My Ways above yours." Isaiah 55:8-9
"OK, so then for the "regular" saved person theosis is achieved after physical death."
Perhaps better said it occurs after death because the soul can do nothing for itself after death.
"I'm sorry if I am asking you to repeat yourself, but after death, what seals the deal?"
God's mercy. We are told that at the Final Judgment we are judged not by good or evil deeds but rather by how much we have become like Christ (not, I suppose, if we have reached complete theosis, at least I hope not).
So, you are implying that a loving God should make us love Him, as much as He makes others hate Him? Tue love is never selfish, FK. What we often call love is self-love or selfishness.
God cares if we love HIm, but He doesn't compel us to love Him. Reason tells us that it is better to choose God over evil, yet evil has the power over us because evil things are something we can see and believe, which is why our Lord reminded us that blessed are those who believe and have not seen (cf Jn 20:29). Evil things we can feel instantly, physically, etc. and although we know they are perishable, while they last they seem forever rewarding.
Faith is hope and hope is of things that have yet to come, which is why it is so difficult for us, subject to sin, to live in hope. Our mind tells us we should, but our flesh says otherwise.
Once your children are grown, no matter how much you love them, you must let them go -- if you love them! It doesn't mean you don't care, it only means that love is giving freedom and not keeping captive.
As for Him creaing us with the kowledge that we will fall, you must look at it transcendentally; otherwise you have an evil God back on stage. :-)
To read the scripture one must inderstand the context, that is all. In fact, it often amazes me how complex doctrines of the Church are confronted by the Protestants with single-phrase quotes, -- quotes that come invariably from a lengthy explanation of some other dictrine of the Church. And as invariably the Protestant prooftext collapses once the quote is seen in context. But then, of course, we face this "plain meaning" accusation. The plain meaning comes from the context, does it not? Did I not give and explain the context?
Let us examine Romans 5 now. The same prooftexting rigmarole repeats here. The topic is the connection between sin and death, on one hand and Christ and eternal life on the other. It concludes in verse 21 thus
That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The plain meaning here is not that all sin, but that through Christ all are free from sin. Which, of course, includes Virgin Mary, sanctified at her immaculate conception. Romans 5:12 does not contradict her sinlessness at all.
You are familiar with the legal language in which contracts and product manuals are written. There are overloaded with clauses, caveats, subclauses and footnotes in order to escape some or another prooftext that would incriminate the partner of the contract. So we read that lawn mowers are not to be used to do haircuts, that the back side of a ladder should not be used as the front side, that frying pans are harmful if swallowed, etc. I suppose St. Paul could have written Romans in a similar way:
all Greeks and Jews, prior to they conversion by Christ have sinned; where Jews are to be understood for the purposes of this discussion as either natural Jews or converts, as well as members of the household of thus defined Jew, as per the Law of Moses and matrilinearly, while Greeks are to be understood expansively as any citizens or residents of the Roman Empire, or members of their household inasmuch as they keep pagan worship; none in this group or groups shall apply to children before age of reason or the mentally ill, or Virgin Mary at all time of her life. The members of the above group or groups need the glory of God.
Brother, regarding Romans 3. Realize that when Paul quotes the Old Testament, he always considers the context. He is quoting from several of the Psalms. Here is an example from Psalms 5:
For thou [art] not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. But as for me, I will come [into] thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: [and] in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple. Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face. For [there is] no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part [is] very wickedness; their throat [is] an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee. But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as [with] a shield.
Over and over, the Psalms speaks of the two "ways". Those who follow God and those who do not. Those who do not follow God, there is not one righteous among them. Not even one. They all follow their own ways...and so forth. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 3. King David was speaking of unrighteous JEWS. Just because one is a Jew doesn't mean he is righteous. One's birth does not determine whether one is saved.
IF one was to say that Paul actually means that ALL men are wicked, then Paul ALSO must mean that Jesus is wicked as well. Paul does NOT exclude Jesus anywhere in Romans 3. Thus, we know that Paul is NOT refering to ALL mankind when he says they are ALL wicked. Only those who turn from God are wicked. Every last one of them. Otherwise, you would have the Bible disagree with the numerous times that it refers to men and women as righteous!!! And Jesus is wicked?
The need for a preferred philosophy requires stretching scripture into the most unnatural shapes.
I wonder why it took Christianity 1500 years to figure out the "truth" of the Gospel according to Luther! If Paul means ALL men are wicked, then ALL men are wicked. That would include Jesus. Simple as that. You can't have it both ways.
Regards
BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE? :) That's my whole issue here. Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?
But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming.
But who is responsible? Where does the buck stop? Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants? When you say that we can't add anything, that sounds like you are agreeing with me. But, yet you say that we are secondary causes. Who earned the paycheck for the work? I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children. I was a vessel in their creation, but deserve no credit. I made no independent decision of my own merit. I do not think of myself as having cooperated. All the glory of God's creation goes to God, none to me. You might say that God gets all the credit, but you also say we are a cause. Are we a cause because we are used, or are we a cause because we added something from ourselves?
... but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.
OK, this makes it more clear to me. "Man used his own abilities". Therefore, man deserves some credit for writing and compiling the Bible. If true, then I just hope that the men did a good job. I suppose there is no way for us to know for sure if they did. I hope that whatever errors they made weren't "big ones" :)
Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant".
I can live with that. :)
FK: "I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require. "
God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves??
Can you show me how men routinely transferred supernatural abilities to other men? God certainly touched many people with special abilities, but I am not aware that it was common that these people then empowered other men. How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?
Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about?
Yes, Christ said that, but we disagree on the meaning of "Christ's Church". I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.
Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infallibility? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods.
The whole tenor of your argument sounds almost Protestant. :) Now, for the first time ever I have heard from a Catholic, God is willing to step in and prevent a human from screwing something up. I suppose I must assume that God is still fine with letting us doom ourselves to hell, but if the Deposit is on the line, then He will step in? Where is the free will?
FK: "But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians..."
Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that.
I know that! You're not being fair. Did you read my qualification? I followed with:
(I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)
You must believe that some self professing Protestants are lost just as you must believe that some self professing Catholics are lost. That is only reasonable. I was trying to discern whether your side thinks that most of my side is lost, or most are saved, or nobody knows, or whatever your view is.
LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings.Paul clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures.
When I say that you are "ordered", I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.
I'd like to take a quick look at whether Paul recognized anything in what is now the NT as "scripture". Consider the earlier writing in 1 Tim. 5:18 :
18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
Now let's look at Luke 10:7 :
7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?
But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!
I'm an evangelical Protestant, of course I believe in evangelism! :) Let's look at your passage and see if it has "nothing to do with the Bible".
Eph. 4:11-13 : "11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
So, I think I see how we view this passage differently. You might say that preparing God's people, reaching unity, becoming mature, and attaining the whole measure of Christ have nothing to do with the Bible, but these teachings are accomplished by men. (You said this passage has nothing to do with the Bible.) I would counter by saying that the scripture at the time (including available NT scripture) plus oral testimony that would later become the NT are what would accomplish all of these Godly goals.
My question regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripture is not self-attesting.
I am no scholar on Philemon. Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate? I'm not sure I can help you with that on a book-by-book basis. I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.
You replied : BUT GOD DOESN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT DOES HE?... Most are lost. God doesn't ensure anything, although He could. Why is that if He loves us all equally?
God obviously takes our response into some sort of consideration OR He chooses whom He will for His own reasons. If God loves, He desires we willingly come to Him. Thus, He gives us the means to convert. It is also reliant on us to accept His Graces. We CAN refuse God's Graces, as the NT clearly states. Again, it becomes more clear IF you recall that God sees all as one big NOW. God doesn't live within time. He doesn't "wait" for our response. He knows it already. Thus, it is pointless to argue about God "ensuring" things.
Does God need a secondary helper to get what He wants?
Back to love, brother. Those who love DESIRE the loved to freely participate in actions. Thus, God DOES allow humans to participate in creating life. God DOES allow humans to participate in saving other men. Not because He needs us, because He desires us to participate in the divine nature. All in Scriptures.
When you say that we can't add anything, that sounds like you are agreeing with me. But, yet you say that we are secondary causes.
It is not "either/or", it is "AND". Do you remember the cookie analogy I gave many posts ago? Does the mother need the two year old to help make the cookies? Why does the mother have the child participate in this, if the mother doesn't need the daughter? You need to think outside of the "pragmatic, utilitarian" box that Protestants put themselves into and realize that God does things out of love, not out of necessity. Our existence relies on God's love, not any necessity.
I would say that God gets all of the credit for the creation of my two beautiful children
So you had nothing to do with it? Your wife did nothing? I suspect she's disagree! Saying you participate does not take anything away from God!!! I smile when I write that, because I know that God DESIRES for me to participate in His work. This is love, brother.
I suppose there is no way for us to know for sure if they did. I hope that whatever errors they made weren't "big ones" :)
Our premise of inerrancy of the Scriptures is built on the argument that Christ was God and left an authoritative Church to continue His teachings - promising them that they would be protected. If you approach the Scriptures as merely historical works FIRST, and work your way through history, you will conclude that the Scriptures ARE God's Word. But to do so, you must ALSO believe that God is protecting a PARTICULAR group of men to have written it and interpret it today.
Can you show me how men routinely transferred supernatural abilities to other men? God certainly touched many people with special abilities, but I am not aware that it was common that these people then empowered other men. How does a human bestow Godly powers on another?
By laying hands on them. This is found all over Scriptures, both in the OT and NT. The Spirit found within the prophets were transferred by this laying of hands. By the passing of the mantle. Note in the Acts, ONLY those who had the elders lay their hands on them were considered legitimate teachers of the faith. In other words, you just didn't SEND YOURSELF. Apostle means sent. By someone else.
Ex. Acts 14:22 "and when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commanded them to the Lord."
"For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God that is in thee by the imposition of my hands" 2 Tim 1:6.
Neglect not the grace that is within thee: which was given thee by prophesy, with the imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Tim 4:14
"Impose not hands lightly on any man" 1 Tim 5:22
Power passed through the imposition of hands from one of the priesthood to another. As the Father had sent Christ, so He sent the Apostles - and they sent other men.
I believe that God intended His Church to include many more of those whose honest Spirit-driven consciences cannot follow the Catholic hierarchy.
One should explore WHY they don't follow the "Catholic heirarchy" when it is the same heirarchy that gave us the Scriptures and the very teaching that Jesus was Lord...
Now, for the first time ever I have heard from a Catholic, God is willing to step in and prevent a human from screwing something up.
??? The whole concept of Papal infallibility PRESUMES that, doesn't it? I have already said that the Holy Spirit, not the Pope's inherent abilities, make him infallible. Thus, I am consistently saying that God steps in to ensure that the Apostolic Faith is transmitted without error. I think all Catholics would agree with that.
Where is the free will?
God desires that His teachings are truly available to people, to come to the knowledge of His truth. Knowing the Gospel, then we are free to decide to follow Him or not. If we COULDN'T know the truth (such as the typical Protestant), then how can we be assured that we even believe what God has taught? Sure, we know the Scriptures, but the same verse can be taken in different ways...
(I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)
I apologize. What are you asking me here? Whether Protestants will enter heaven? Of course they will. Christ said that tax collectors and harlots would enter the Kingdom before the religiously self-righteous, so why would I expect holy Protestants who are ignornant of the Catholic Church's true claim will not be there? I can't even know if I myself will end up in heaven, absolutely speaking, so I can't answer for you. I would say that if all things were equal, a Catholic has more access to the "tools" that God has given the world to come to Him and receive His graces.
Basically, God has given us a one acre yard to cut. The Catholic Church is the John Deere Lawnmower. Protestant communities are various other tools, from a weedeater to a pair of moustache trimmers...But they are only such BECAUSE they are somehow still teaching what the Church teaches. There is nothing in opposition to the Catholic Church's teaachings that are salvific. A person can be saved IN SPITE of being a Protestant - because of his unknowing ties to the Catholic Church. I don't know if this is helpful to you understanding what the Church means by "no salvation outside of the Church", but I am trying my best.
I mean that you are not free to disagree. Your free will must be quashed for the supremacy of the hierarchy.
Free will means doing what God intended me to do, not whatever I feel like doing. Following the Church grants me MORE free will because I can learn more about what God has in mind for humanity by following her teachings. I can more effectively come to God through her.
Wasn't Luke written just a few years before 1 Timothy? Doesn't it seem that Paul is quoting Luke as actual "scripture"?
Are you saying that Timothy was reading Luke while a youth? Otherwise, your argument is merely deviating from the whole point of my argument.
So, I think I see how we view this passage differently. You might say that preparing God's people, reaching unity, becoming mature, and attaining the whole measure of Christ have nothing to do with the Bible, but these teachings are accomplished by men.
When I say that Eph 4 has nothing to do with the Bible, I don't mean that the teachers do not use Scripture. I am saying that the Scripture ALONE is not mentioned. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that men are to use ONLY the Scripture to teach men. The Bible is not mentioned at all - yet men are able to perfect other men to be better Christians. Thus, the premise, that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, is denied by this passage. IF another means of coming to the faith is given (Apostlic men), then the Bible CANNOT be the SOLE rule of faith!
I would counter by saying that the scripture at the time (including available NT scripture) plus oral testimony that would later become the NT are what would accomplish all of these Godly goals.
I would say you have absolutely NO evidence to make such a statement. That is a presumption based on "Bible alone". NOWHERE does the Scripture say that IT encapsulates ALL oral tradition. NOWHERE does the Bible say "after the Scriptures are written, ignore anything else outside of it". No. It even tells us to FOLLOW oral traditions:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15
I find NO command within Scriptures that tell us to "do not follow Oral teachings no more". THAT, brother, is clearly a tradition of men invented during the Protestant Reformation. Can you show evidence to the contrary? That you are following a rule that is not even found in the Bible? That you disobey a command found in the Bible that was NEVER rescinded or abrogated?
Do you mean that to pass your test that each individual book in the Bible must independently self-authenticate?
IF the Bible is self-authenticating, then EACH BOOK MUST be, as well. The Bible was not written as one big book, but is a compilation of letters taken from different writers of different times. For heaven's sake, we don't even KNOW WHO wrote most of the New Testament letters, without external witnesses of the Church! Were some forged? Paul specifically warns others of this possibility!
I simply believe that God wrote His word, and there is a lot of evidence saying so, self-contained within the Bible.
You don't want to admit that if it wasn't for the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW WHAT WAS the Bible...At least Luther admitted this regarding the Church and her protection of the Word of God and its transmittal to future men.
Regards
As you know, we cannot judge another person - but if they are obstinate in heretical beliefs, they are separating themselves from the Body, even if the Bishop doesn't do it officially.
I agree I was asking for speculation, but it wasn't on salvation, only on Catholicism. I wouldn't venture to guess whether Bill Clinton is saved, but I think I could say that he is not a good Baptist, based on what I know of his beliefs and conduct. The last person I see in him is Christ.
I would quote Gal 1:10 to them... By refusing to discipline someone, we are trying to please other men, rather than please God. Love is not "getting along" with other people, it is leading people to the truth.
An excellent answer, thanks.
Fortunately, we don't make the decisions. The Catholic Church doesn't condemn specific people to the confines of Hell, because NO ONE can know that relationship between God and the person ...
Amen, brother. I also think that God teaches that we shouldn't beat ourselves up about such a loved one, I didn't witness to her enough, etc. Satan is the accuser, not God. So, I'll find out when I find out, and whatever the answer is, I'll be able through God to accept it.
Annalex: "Note that it does NOT say that the family included children born of Mary or that Joseph did not keep Mary a virgin after Christ's birth."
So Mary had a perpetual headache throughout her marriage? Was Joseph gay? :) Why would he not touch his wife as a husband? There are many Bible verses evidencing that Jesus had blood related siblings. How do you interpret them all away?
I think I am stuck on your calling free will a divine attribute. Jesus never sinned, yet we all do, through our free will. As you said, we even sin after Baptism, during the process of theosis. Therefore, I don't understand how free will is a divine attribute because sinning is obviously not divine. By this reasoning, you might say that Jesus could have chosen to sin, but didn't. I would say that while Jesus did have free will, He never had the potential to sin within Him, so He "couldn't" have.
Remember what the English word "sin" is a translation of, the Greek word "amartia" which means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ, which is a rather different concept from that in the West.
OK, then would you equate sin with "evil", as I would? Or, is "missing the mark" more like mistake, or something else? How do you see the concept of evil?
Following the Fall, the union of sacred marriage was darkened and disordered by withdrawal from divine grace and missapplied, concupiscent lust. This is what the appearance of clothing as a necessity of life indicates. Were it not for the original sin, we would walk amid the prettiest young women, all stark naked, and have lust only for our wives. However, God continued to command us to multiply and fill the Earth, and also and at the same time, seek Him and love Him. He wanted to restore the sacred union. So he put in us the yearning for truth and the sexual desire, unitive and procreative in origin, as a foretaste of Heaven. Sex done right, -- in the context of the loving marriage and open to creation of new life, -- is a glimpse at the eternal joy of paradise. Its hormonal effects are tools to an objective, not the objective itself.
Mary had arrived to the unitive and procreative marriage to the Holy Ghost abundantly. Sinless, she was united to Him at all times. Her body gave birth to the perfect new man. She was walking in paradise all her life. The hormonal urgings a lesser woman goes by had no purpose in her; if she had them they were not significant and probably not noticeable to her enlightened mind.
The Catholic world, by the way, is filled with celibate men and women that are not bothered by their celibacy in the least. They have learned to sublimate their sexual energy to intellectual and spiritual creativity. It is not a unique phenomenon.
Regarding the verses. The Greek word in Matthew 1:25 is "eos" and it simply means "prior to".
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25, Douay-Rheims)Sometimes "eos" means that the action (or in St. Joseph's case, inaction) before the moment it points to has ceased and sometimes it means that the action continued. We understand which is the case from context, and when we need to translate into English, which has a more finely defined words, we choose between "until", "till", "to" or "before". Both Douay and King James translate it as "till"; I am not suprised that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning. For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" the likely context is that my blood work should be good, not that I went to the bar right after I went to the clinic. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol till I joined a fraternity in college" then the context is, most likely, that I drank once I joined because that is what fraternities are for, are they not? In Matthew 1 the context is that Christ's birth was miraculous, not the relations John and Mary had after the focus of Matthew's story shifted away. It is reasonable to assume that Mathew's focus was on the absence of marital act before the birth of Christ, not after, all the more so since the testimony of Joseph to that effect had to me made at the time of Christ's birth, but testimonies of one's sex life for reasons other than establishing paternity are not common. Matthew simply had no way of knowing what Joseph and Mary's intimate life was the rest of their days.kai ouk eginosken auten eos ou eteken ton yion autes ton prototokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou iesoun
Go to The Unbound Bible and select any Greek NT as fist choice. Byzantine/Majority (2000) is the easiest to read and is authoritative. Select any other translation unless you fluently read Greek. Configure the criteria New Testament, Matthew, 1, 25. The results should be just that verse. Find the word "eos" ("o" is "omega", looks like "W") in it, copy it and paste it in the search engine. Clear the Matthew, 1, 25 boxes. This will give you the list of all occurences of "eos". See for yourself if it is used in "before not after" sense all the time. For example, see Matthew 23:35 "That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed", -- surely the Pharisees did not stop killing the just after Zacharias. Or see Matthew 27:8 "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day" -- did Matthew indicate here that the field is about to be renamed?
As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers and they were not blood relatives; he in fact taught us all to do the same. In large families there is a mixture of cousins, second cousins, half brothers, milk brothers, and of course bolld brothers. It is natural to refer to all of them collectively as "brothers". In Greek to this day "adelphoi" (the word used in the Gospel) is used to indicate all kinds of kinsfolk. Likewise, in the Old Testament Lot is called "brother" of Abraham even though the Bible is explicit about his genealogy and he is his nephew. There is no warrant to assume that "adelphoi" in Matthew 12 referred to physical children of Mary (we are all her spiritual children).
Matthew 1:25 shows Mary to be a virgin UNTIL she gave birth. There are other places in scripture that talks about the brothers of Jesus. While some suggest the meaning of this word could also mean "cousin" I remain skeptical. James (from the book) identifies himself as the "brother" of Christ; others books written by Peter, Paul and John do not do this. Another point is that God only came to Mary once choosing to work through Joseph after they were married; since Joseph was now head of the house as God intend. But there is no mistaking the conjunction "until" in Matthew 1:25 which even John Calvin had a hard time explaining away.
To me the problem isn't with Catholic doctrine of Mary being a virgin because we all would agree that she was and remained a virgin until Christ was born. The problem is that this virginity is elevated far beyond reasonableness which has spawned other errors, the chief believing Mary was not tainted with original sin in order for Christ to be born. New Advent states:
This is where this perpetual virginity has led the Church; to compare Mary against Eve. Jesus is to Adam as Mary is to Eve and as Jesus was untainted by original sin so was Mary. Thus Mary becomes a “co-redeemer” in the work of Christ by being untainted with original sin, she freely gives herself to God unlike Eve who gave herself to temptation.
While this is very poetic it is wrong theologically speaking. The scriptures plainly says that Eve was deceived (2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:14). In other words, Eve was duped. This is important in that sin came into the world through the willful act of Adam-not Eve who was the FIRST to eat of the fruit. It was through Adam that the world was corrupted and condemned-not Eve. (We'll leave out why God didn't give Adam the wisdom and understanding of his action for now.)
One more note of interest as I was looking something up. Please look at how the Catholics interpret Gen 3:15
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
New Advent on Mary
15 "She shall crush"... Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.
It is acknowledged as St. Jerome's mistake. You are wrong however to insist that anything deep comes out of the mistranslation since the entire verse still speaks of the victory of the Woman.
I explained both the reasoning for perpetual virginity and the lack of scriptural support for the denial thereof in my previous post.
The parallel between Adam and Christ and Eve and Mary is perfect. Adam is the first to sin and Christ is the first to redeem. Eve is listenes to Satan, questions him, and agrees with the Devil. Mary listens to the angel, questions him, and agrees with God. Adam sins through the mechanism of the seduction of Eve cooperatiing with Satan, and Christ redeems through the mechanism of His incarnation through Mary cooperating with the Holy Ghost.
I would certainly agree that Jesus defines ultimate humility. Praise and glory be to God. Where I think we disagree is over whether He showed humility out of respect for us OR out of love for us. I would say these are completely different reasons. If you made a list of people you respect, what would they all have in common? They would all MERIT your respect, wouldn't they? Many of them would even have something or some quality that you do not have. I don't see how man can merit God's respect. Love, of course, requires no merit.
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.