If you say the Church teaches that, then OK. However, :) if a priest denies absolution to a confessor, then isn't that person "presumptively" still damned? The important part is that I would imagine that is exactly what the person would think. In his mind, his only job would be to do whatever it takes to convince the priest of his sincerity. I would counsel him to channel his thoughts in other directions (i.e. directly to God). :) This is the power angle I harp on all the time.
Christ died to destroy our soul’s death and rose again to restore our eternal life. That makes it possible for us to be saved. We could not otherwise.
AAARRRGGGHHHH!! :) 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. If Christ ONLY set the stage for man to do it himself, then Christ actually accomplished NOTHING other than setting the stage for the real actors (deciders). This is why we think the Apostolic view SO degrades what we think Christ actually DID accomplish on the cross.
In the Sermon on the Mount, we are instructed to do and are told what happens if we do not do - we are eternally punished in hell. The words of Jesus are plain and require little interpretation.
Well, we agree that those who don't look like the Christian model we are given are very subject to being lost. However, we disagree on w(W)ho is in charge of the whole thing. 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. One could only hope that he makes the right number of each selection. So, we would both say the words are plain, but we have extremely different interpretations. :)
Yes. He came into the world to save sinners - to save all sinners - and there are going to be some that refuse to be saved.
Then, by definition, Christ is a failure. How does the Church reconcile that? We say Christ CAN'T fail because He is God.
***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.
AMEN!
This realization is at the heart of the Reformation -- declaring God alone to be the single source and means of our salvation.
Isn't it amazing how throughout history the heresies creep in and yet they are always the same heresy -- men; then God.