Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Saying that what he did was good for Christianity is "trashing Paul?" Interesting.
In this case, how can God ENSURE that any one man's intellect is taught correctly without overriding the free will of the teachers? If a teacher has correct knowledge, what guarantee is there that he will faithfully pass along that knowledge based on his free will? There can be no guarantee without God's intervention. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. :)
FK: "I realized that you think the Bible itself is infallible for EXACTLY the same reason that you think the writings of the Church Fathers are infallible."
That's not true. Individual Church Fathers can be wrong about a particular doctrine - individual verses in the Bible can NEVER be wrong, as every word is inerrant.
I meant that your view is that the Bible is inerrant NOT because God says so, but because your hierarchy took a vote and declared it so. Likewise, the writings of any particular Father are declared infallible by a similar vote.
When the mind of the Church says that something is an Apostolic teaching, though, what reason will you give me that they are lying on this issue, but they are not lying on what IS Scriptures?
I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but I do think that when it came to the Bible, there was a different standard. Men are capable of error, and so I believe that the Bible was effectively taken out of the hands of man to ensure its inerrancy. I also believe that God gave a special grace to the compilers to ensure inerrancy. It is self-evident because no error appears. This does not apparently transfer over to the writings of the Fathers, because errors were made. Your case would be stronger if any of the true writings of the Apostles was rejected as uninspired. To my knowledge, that did not happen. Writings of Fathers were rejected many times.
FK: "So anyone who disagrees with the Catholic interpretation on this is a "man of the flesh"? Wouldn't that mean that all of the rest of us are unregenerate and unjustified? "
Whew! Where is this going? No, the "rest" of you are not unregenerate.
When we were talking about the literal sense of the sacramental flesh, I was responding to your statement:
FK, this is something that ONLY the Spirit can enable us to comprehend. It is not something that can be explained and understood with the man of the flesh: ...
Since this is a Catholic belief, I thought you were saying that all others are "men of the flesh", thus, unregenerate.
FK: "Therefore, if God did nothing else, and just sat back and watched, then all humans would wind up in hell. Would God be just in doing this? I suspect you would say "No", and I would say "Yes". What does God owe us? I don't think a thing at this point."
I would agree IF God hadn't made a promise with man IN THE GARDEN to send a redeemer... If God is just, then God will uphold His promises. If God is not just, then we can agree - God owes us nothing. He binds Himself to us out of love for us, not out of any "owing" anything to us.
In our system of justice a unilateral promise is not necessarily binding, especially if there is no reliance. So, say I promise to pay you $1,000 one year from now and ask nothing in return. A year passes and you ask for payment. I say I was just kidding. If you can't show that you altered your life significantly based on the expectation of that payment, then you can't sue me. Even if you did alter your life, it would be a very difficult case to win.
But since God's system of justice is not like man's, His unilateral promises are always binding on Him. This is not in the sense that God "owes" us, it is in the sense that God owes His own nature, since it is axiomatic that God is not a liar. He can't say "just kidding" because it isn't true to His nature.
IF God establishes commandments to be obeyed, but doesn't give man the ability to obey them - then He is not just in any definition of the word.
That would be true only if your definition of justice was the only one. God's justice is different. You place many more duties and obligations upon God based on your interpretation of scripture. You even place duties upon Him for non-decreed wishes. Your above makes me wonder what you think the purpose of the Commandments was. Was it salvation to you in the OT? If you believe that all men were given the ability to obey all the Commandments flawlessly through life, and if you believe that only two in all of human history ever did it, one being Jesus, then what kind of ability do you think God gave all men? If the score is 2 wins and 20 billion losses, then God must not really have given everyone something of value, did He?
I ask you to consider what would be the point of Jesus telling the elect to persevere if they are infallibly saved? Or the non-elect to persevere if they cannot but sin? The whole idea of perseverance is lost on the Protestant theology of OSAS or TULIP.
He tells them to persevere because that is part of the salvation model revealed in scripture, and that is part of the human experience. (We all experience choosing to persevere.) He also tells them that none of His sheep will be lost. Jesus knows that everyone of the elect will still sin to some degree, even after salvation. He wants to minimize that amount as much as possible, so He says encouraging things like this. Paul follows up with his series of "By no means" statements. We are told what a saved man looks like. That helps us to sin less often. A person of the elect, though, will nevertheless be saved, even if he is unaware of these teachings explicitly.
The idea of perseverance is not lost on Protestants. We just give God all the glory and credit for it. Others believe that man should get partial glory and credit. The principle that it must/will happen for the elect is the same for both of us, right?
Then we can no longer call God "fair" if there is no possibility of a man pleasing God when God actively chooses to withhold from that man the ability to please God. We should stop kidding ourselves and stop calling God "fair" if this is your idea of what happens at Judgment.
Again you impose a human sense of fairness on God. You truly are the saucer who complains to the potter that he did not make you into a vase. God never promises us that He will make all of us into vases. God makes some people who are born with horrible genetic deformities. Is God fair with that? God makes some people with severe mental handicaps, who, during life on earth, will never have any kind of understanding about Him that we enjoy. Is that fair of God? Many humans would say "No", that's not fair. God's sense of fairness is different, AND better.
FK: "Well, if I was the pastor of my own church, I certainly wouldn't have those rules, [women not speaking in Church] ..."
AH, but IF the Bible is the LITERAL word of God, you have gone against it! God's Word is independent of our own opinions.
The Bible is the literal word of God and should be interpreted as it was intended to be. This includes allegory and context. Jesus Himself interprets the Sabbath Commandment as something other than the literal letter. That doesn't mean we are free to interpret everything in any way we want, it just proves that there are examples of the phenomenon. It seems logical to me that whatever verse says that women should not speak in church is of this kind. I don't see other evidence in the Bible that shows that it serves God to have women be silent in Church, so I don't take that as a literal command written in stone, as it were. :)
I'm glad you're reconsidering your assessment.
And you are without sin I suppose. Are you then the pure and unadulterated interpreter of God's word? One of the reasons the monastics "know the Bible" better than others is because they read it much much more than you or I, and because they (most of them anyway) devote their entire life to God.
One day you'll be with them again.
Yes, those are the ones. I had a memory that one of the six was St. Peter, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. Thanks for the correction.
There you go, reading that book again.
So, whoever wrote Job received the text word-by-word I presume? I mean, it's almost choreographed. Or was the writer there as it was happening, and he recorded what God said and what Job said?
Job is a story with a moral behind it; it's message is true and eternal: do not blame God for your misfortunes. What is your point anyway?
I am? I just repeated what I said in my previous post. What is tere to reconsider?
I am without THOSE sins!
"All creatures" being the men and women God has created.
If by "creatures" you think God means non-humans, where do you draw the line?
To be consistent with your reasoning, you must also preach the Gospel to gnats, worms, viruses, spiders, raccoons, mice and flies.
Do you preach the Gospel to flies?
I guess they all realized that things were not going so well in Israel and that the Church was not going to make it there, so I suppose the Gentiles became the "next best thing" right after those despised, mixed Samaritans.
But I thought it was Paul who reprimanded Peter for not wanting to eat with the Gentiles. So, it seems to me that Paul had it right from the start -- go to the Gentiles or die! It was Paul who argued with the rest of the Church leaders about circumcision and other Jewish practices.
A "creature" is that which God created and animated. All living things posses a "soul" or anima ("that which moves"). Preaching to animals does not have to be in words. You can be kind to them.
It doesn't matter; you break one, you break them all (James 2:10-11).
And when we depend on Scripture as our guide, we learn that good works are the fruit of the Spirit, gifts of God, and not something we do in order to merit salvation. No creature merits salvation.
But thank God, "Mercy triumphs over Justice." (James 2:13.)
Doc, you really need to work on your reading comprehention. Because in the next 13 (thirteen!) passages (vs 14-26), James goes on a rant about how faith without works does not save.
Faith without works is not faith.
If a person has Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, knowing in their hearts that He has bought and paid for them, then works will follow as morning follows the dawn.
Inevitable.
Fascinating. This gets stranger and stranger. So a fly has a soul? A gnat has a soul?
I think you demean what a "soul" is and you demean the fact that Christ died to save the souls of God's elect.
Did Christ die to save the soul of a bat? Does Christ's blood cover the roach?
And if good works are necessary to save a soul, how does the centipede perform good works?
Bizarre.
I agree. But that makes "faith alone" a charade, now doesn't it.
I experienced the same 16 years ago May 31. The LORD is with us and they are with the LORD.
Yes.
I think you demean what a "soul" is
Why?
and you demean the fact that Christ died to save the souls of God's elect
I do?
Did Christ die to save the soul of a bat? Does Christ's blood cover the roach?
No.
All living things have a soul. The difference is that only we were created in God's image and likeness, as rational and capable of making free and virtuous choices, as opposed to choices by necessity. We are capable of being kind and merciful if we cleave to God. Animals can't. They don't know God. But it is a biblical message that all of Creation became corrupt through our Fall. Through Christ all Creation will be restored, so why not "preach" Gospels to the animals by practicing it?
By wanton destruction of everything God gave us, we demean God's Creation on a daily basis.
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.