Tear it down...
rip it out...
make it right.
Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
It is indeed Old Testament when the sacrifice and the High priest were types of Christ and the sin of the man was" covered" by the blood on the altar..but that had to be repeated for every sin.
That was as you note not the New Testament when Christ died "once for all" of our sin
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (NASB) Hebrews 10:12-14
My go-to metaphor is a bug crawling through a carpet.
Two fleas talking:
- sometime I wonder if there is a dog.
You cannot point to a single line in the New Advent stuff which says "New Advent specifically talks about the fact that the Catholic Church no longer believes as the early church fathers that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sin."
Two can play at this game.
Instead of going through the rest of your points, let me ask you one question:
No. You are making false representations about what we teach. I am going to address that. I'm not going to cooperate in your changing the subject from risible falsehoods about our teaching to my personal belief. I note you have not addressed the difference between development and change.
But stfassisi presents some good stuff from the CCC. I will repeat it with relevant sections emphasized and footnotes removed:
613 Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the “blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.
Now, I get that a lot of Protestants have a problem with the connection between the sacrifices of Christians generally and the Sacrifice of the Mass in particular on the one hand and the Once for all sacrifice on Calvary.
One of the things we think of when we think that the Incarnation happened "in the fullness of time" is that not only was the Pax Romana in place so that communication was comparatively safe and easy from the Near East to Spain and Britain, but also there was a cultural network with learned and thoughtful people all around the Mediterranean. So even though the Gospel as "Folly to the Greeks" there were among the Gentiles as well as among the Alexandrian Jews, people who had thought about basic things. The relevant 'thing' for this conversation is time and eternity.
It is not that the philosophers determined doctrine. And by philosophers I do not mean the hack metaphysicians with their weird systems such as one can still find in bookstores in San Francisco. Even the great neoPlatonist Plotinus disapproved of them. He wrote - and I have read - a treatise "Against the Gnostics" which argues from a Platonist position that the dualism of the Gnostics and their contempt for creation did not make sense.
Instead they provided an extensive body of thought on things like time, justice, beauty, and fate, and this body gave language to the expression of the Gospel truth.
(Philosophy can be helpful. I don't get involved in the Predestination debates because my readings in philosophy have satisfied me that it makes no difference "on the ground." Whether my struggles are preordained or freely entered into, I still experience them as my struggles. And I'll get the answer to Predestination soon enough. It's like looking at your watch when you're late. You already knew you were late; your watch won't speed you up; why not focus on getting there as soon as you can?)
So, to cut to the chase, the "once" that you all think of "back then," we think of as eternal, and therefore as "now" just as much as back then.
Now you all think this means the we think that Christ suffers forever. No, that's not it. "Eternal" does not mean "forever."
In the passage from the CCC Christ;s sacrifice is described thus:
it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.
The Mass, in our view, is not essentially distinct from the sacrifice of Calvary which defines and completes the Mass. It is an appropriation in its locus in time and space of the Eternal action which is perfected and perfectly revealed at Calvary. To be glib and inadequate both at once, it is a portal from the little 'here and now' to the great 'Here and Now' where the Last Supper and the Crucifixion are united with the feast which Isaiah tells us will be celebrated "on that day," and also in the small here and now we proclaim Christ's death until He comes again.
He IS the Alpha and the Omega. It is not that He WAS the Alpha and WILL BE the Omega. Right here and now He IS, for Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
Larson is a genius. What can I say. I guess I was channeling him in my Adult Christian Edumication class ....
Our latest theory is that I'm allergic to my house. It's an 80 year old house and on the other side of the wallboard is a menagerie. We have cats not so much to eliminate our boarders as to persuade them to stay on their side of the wallboard.
For me, as would-be theologian, one thing to take away from this is a reminder that all the language we use about mysteries is highly inadequate.
That explains (if I'm right) the multitude of "doctrines of the Atonement." Not one single image or account can do the job.
Here we have "forget," even though we cannot really think that God does not know every minute and every intention of my life. There, in a flat earth metaphor, we have our sins as far from us as East is from the West (which means they meet somewhere around Canberra, right?) And over THERE we have "covered" in the blood of the lamb.
All are wonderfully evocative and helpful. None is sufficient to capture and convey the wonder. To gaze upon the crucifix or on the broken bread is to jump into a quiet maelstrom which has no bottom, but which we hope will spew us out,once day, on the other bank of the Jordan.
While I agree that there can be layers of meaning in the text, it seems to me that the text is not some kind of code. By that, I mean that the normal rules of language must be applied to the words, sentence structure, and grammar. Otherwise, the text could mean anything, and therefore, nothing.
If it says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” then I am compelled to take that at face value so far as the sentence itself is concerned. There are subjects, predicates, articles, nominates, objects, and prepositions. They are arranged in such a way as to indicate a particular relationship.
It is only in comparing text to text that I can venture into understanding the layers of meaning and richness of theology that is present.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16739/16739-h/16739-h.htm
The Greatest Thing
In the World
And Other Addresses
BY
HENRY DRUMMOND
Seriously: we're looking at a translation. You are insisting that she says what the text presented to us does not say. I am saying that we should look at the text as it is. And I did not rely ONLY on parsing the high points of the sentence. (There was a time when "parsing" was not a bad word; it was what we did in Latin class.) I also looked at the next sentence.
It seems to me the burden is on you. You have to look through the English to the Polish (good luck with that!) and/or explain why the translator chose to say she saw the light when St. Faustina said (according to your theory) that she saw the Father.
If nothing else, Occam's razor makes your construction unlikely. When we look a the data we have, we do not see an express claim that she saw the Father. So what other data can we find that indicates that she did not mean what she actually said? If there is none, then why not go with the actual meaning of the words?
What of the ass?
The ass is the guy who interprets parables like this.
You can't believe it? That's good.
Because it's not true.
What exactly is Mormon terminology? Bible scripture?
Thank you for the scriptures. I will most certainly use them!
We are watching the creation of a Protestant myth. A misreading so astonishingly completely in error that it is hard to believe it’s not intentional is uncritically accepted and stored in the magazine of blanks some of the Protestants use for ammunition.
Not only can we do so, we already have done so.
Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.
617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451
But it does not use the exact same words. So that means we’re parsing and evading and generally cheating by looking at what the words actually mean instead of whether they meet the exact formulaic requirements of our antagonists.
“The point is if we are “healed or saved” by grace we will look to Christ, repent, obey and believe.”
Except that is not the order presented in scripture.
“8 And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.” - Numbers 21
Not, “he would live, and look at the serpent”, but, “he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”
“14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” - John 3
Not, “whoever has eternal life may believe”, but, whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.”
Calvin can teach unconditional election, but God offers unlimited grace - and “whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” These are conditional statements. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Why is someone condemned? It doesn’t say, “because he has not been chosen to receive belief”, but, “because he has not believed”.
Look at when Jesus healed. Again and again we see:
Mar 5:34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Mar 10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
Before Jesus saves us, we are blind. And if we would be healed, we must have faith - “your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight”.
There are roughly 450 verses in the New Testament alone about believing and faith. And they are presented as something WE do. The scripture is not ambiguous. The scripture is not misleading. It is not complex, needing great theologians to explain it. It is explicit, and clear enough for a little child.
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
“And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” - Acts 16
“and he was baptized at once”. No catechism classes, no prolonged delay.
Calvin can say what he wants, but Paul and Silas taught a different Gospel:
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Search the scriptures. Those who ask ‘What must we do to be saved?’ are not rebuked or corrected - but encouraged. I’m quite fond of monergism.com, but neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught monergism.
We are not saved by works - if work is defined as doing things to impress God with our innate goodness. We are not saved by works of the law - by obedient acts. But when the Jews asked Jesus what work they must do, Jesus replied - sarcastically, I think - “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Paul wrote, “8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [salvation] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Faith is not a work, when work is defined by the Apostles. Faith is contrasted with works of the law.
Dr E “I’m always amazed the Arminian offers Ephesians 1 as some kind of rebuttal for election when the doctrine is contained in every word, if read with eyes to see...”
Yes, and one must take it as written.
” 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”
He chose that we - and Paul is writing “ To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” - he chose that we...what? “should be holy and blameless before him.” Before the founding of the world, he destined us to be holy and blameless before him. But that describes our blessing, not the means. We believers - for that is who Paul specifically addresses in verse 1 - are chosen FOR holiness.
Are we chosen, and then given belief? Or has God chosen that those who believe will live holy and blameless? Don’t take my word for the answer. Go here and read the 218 verses yourself:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4100&t=ESV
“In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.”
He predestined us - those who are faithful in Christ Jesus - “for adoption as sons”. Not kidnapping as slaves, but adoption as sons. Not compelled obedience under irresistible power, but loving obedience, as a son.
Ephesians 1:6 reads, “6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” NASB
He has freely bestowed grace on us. Neither Jacobus Arminius nor I dispute that. We would both strongly endorse it. We do not save ourselves. We cannot reach up to heaven and pull Him down. He came from heaven, “and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.
Dr E “We didn’t make ourselves accepted by anything in ourselves. That’s the error of Rome that Arminians sadly embrace.”
No, we don’t make ourselves accepted - but we do obey his command to repent. We obey the gospel. That isn’t heresy, it is scripture:
“For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” - 1 Peter 4
Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” - Mark 1
Nothing subtle there. We are commanded to repent and believe. Those who do not obey will face the wrath of God. Jesus didn’t say, “If chosen, you will accept the gifts of faith and belief, and then repent”. He said “repent and believe in the gospel.”
If you are commanded to do something, then it is something YOU do. I spent 25 years in the military. If I gave an order, it was something for the subordinate to DO, not ME. If I ordered an airman to show up at 1 AM, I sure didn’t go lift him out of bed and carry him there at 1 AM. I expected him to DO it. When Jesus commands us, “Repent and believe in the gospel”...it is an order. Not a gift.
Salvation IS a gift, for there is nothing that compelled God to come to us and rescue us. Nothing we have or will do required God to become Incarnate. But he did. And while we were not looking, he looked for us. When we were astray, he came and found us and took us back.
Dr E “After awhile the Arminian argument simply looks ungrateful and a bit arrogant — “I did it.” Or at the very least — “I permitted it.””
Ah, yes. The arrogant Arminians, unlike the humble Calvinists - “God’s New Chosen People”, recipients of God’s special grace, a grace hidden from all who are not Calvinists because God hates them and wants to punish them eternally!
Nope. No pride there...
As a side note, one of the things Arminius opposed about Calvinism was that it put the emphasis on election, and took it away from Christ.
I LOVE that guy!!
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.