You mean, St. Paul is clear about that? What Paul says in those verses is an "amalgamated" mish-mash of different saying, mostly found in his other works, and a few out-of-context quotes either from St. Matthew or Deuteronomy (the first one uses the kingdom, which is meant in the Jewish messianic sense, and the second one refers specifically to the Jews; St. Paul uses them as heavenly kingdom and to all respectively).
What? St. Paul IS part of the Bible, so they are both clear. Every time you declare Paul wrong you are saying the Bible, the one your Church claims to contain a modicum of truth, is wrong. Your Magisterium (or anyone else) can interpret him out of existence, but what he actually wrote is still correct. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Paul was taking things out of context and was wrong.
Double or single predestination, taken in the Reformed sense, simply means that God pre-fabricated some people to be good people and also some to be evil. There is no hint of that anywhere in Genesis. If anything, Genesis 6 tells us that God was "grieved" over man's wickedness. If this were all his predestination, then why would he be "grieved?"
Because God does not derive "jollies" out of men doing evil. He was not "laughing" while Jesus hung dying on the cross. But it had to happen because He ordained it for a higher purpose. Besides, I thought that you would disagree with any notion of God being "grieved" about anything. Used here, I don't take that word in its common sense either.
Oh, gee, now we have corrupted even the first cause concept! If Christ died because the Father pre-destined him to die, then Christ certainly didn't do it willingly!
Christ said that He "could" have summoned an army of angels to deliver Him from the cross. He wasn't kidding. Plus, He specifically prayed for the will of the Father, and that was granted. Of course it was willingly.
You are suggesting that God (the Father), who is without cause, and through whom everything was made, predestined the Son as well! How can that be when the Word was with God and was God in the "beginning?"
I'm not suggesting that because I don't know the mechanics. GOD predestined that Jesus die on the cross. Of that we can be sure. If that is false, then when do you say the decision was made, and by whom specifically?
What Orthodoxy says is that Christ took the sins of the whole world and offered himself to Death in exchange for our captivity. That was his sacrifice.
How is this not satan holding power over God? What if God did not want to pay satan? I mean, did they strike a mutual agreement among relative equals? I've never understood this part of Orthodoxy. If God sacrifices to meet His own standards, then I can understand, but if God is all jammed up and "owes" another for the freedom of His children then it makes no sense to me.
........ And there are many such Christological problems in the New Testament, which is precisely why Christological heresies continue to this day; even heretics use the scripture to "prove" their heresy! Bible is very accommodating indeed.
I guess we heretics DO follow those NT Christological problems, that's why we're heretics. :) But some do have the Church to correct those Biblical errors and lay out the true faith. Us Bible-followers do tend to get in theological trouble when we trust that well-meaning, but flawed book. :)
Won't argue the "choice" part, but here does it say in the Bible that God made a plan?
You keep asking that and I keep answering it with scripture, and then you ask it again. Why? :)
“What Orthodoxy says is that Christ took the sins of the whole world and offered himself to Death in exchange for our captivity. That was his sacrifice.
How is this not satan holding power over God? What if God did not want to pay satan? I mean, did they strike a mutual agreement among relative equals? I’ve never understood this part of Orthodoxy. If God sacrifices to meet His own standards, then I can understand, but if God is all jammed up and “owes” another for the freedom of His children then it makes no sense to me.”
And yet for 2000 years this is what The Church in the East has believed and taught. This is the consensus patrum. The West believed the same thing though expressed a bit differently. Prior to the 16th century, contrary to subsequent theological spin, no one believed the bloody slaughter to satisfy the wrath of a monster god theory of theosis that some groups of reformed theologians have taught over the past 400 years. As I have said before, FK, given such a theology, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the West has fallen deeply into apostasy, atheism and secularism. If I thought for one minute that God was some divine blood thirsty Dagon Who created men in His image and likeness so he could torment the majority of them in everlasting hellfire, the massacre of His Son not really quite cutting it in the slaking of wrath area, why FK, I’d loath that monster with every fiber of my being.