Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict

catholicculture.org ^ | July 2, 2010 | Phil Lawler

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ordain and prepare are not synonyms

My, what a swift change of subject. That not's what we were discussing, is it?

We were discussing the phrase which was translated as "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" -- Romans 9:23

"Prepared unto glory." "Ordained to occur." "Willed and caused to come about." A "vessel," designed and created by God to be filled by God with His desire for that vessel."

Same thing as "ordain."

Paul tells us men will boast of their own creative wills. It doesn't matter. It's to be expected. It doesn't change the nature of the sovereign Creator or the grateful/ungrateful creature.

If you're happier believing you're on your own, designing and fulfilling every moment that comes along according to your own desires and purpose, go for it.

Having believed both sides of this free will/predestination debate, I can say without pause that the latter perspective is more gratifying, more assuring, more productive and best of all, brings more glory to the Triune God "in whom I have my being."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What is this the third or fourth time? No, I asked you a question: If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it? The point of course was for you to demonstrate it by answering the question. Which you obliged.

Like I said before, I thought maybe we were going to get something interesting out of this exchange.

Instead, your daffy punch line is "see, you answered the question. You have free will."

BZZZ! Wrong.

Do you think God knew I was going to answer your inept question? When would He have known this? Probably from the moment He created all existence. Probably even before that, since there is no time constraint with God.

It is Scripturally-accurate to say that God had a plan and purpose when He created the world, and that that plan and purpose were perfect to achieve whatever He desired.

Within that plan and purpose is every person's choice for every decision made on earth for all time.

Or else He's a pretty incompetent diety who doesn't really know what's going on here on planet Earth while His plan for creation can be thwarted and His purpose nullified by His own fallible creature. That's truly inconceivable if God is who He says He is.

Moreover, this divine prescience isn't limited to simply "knowing beforehand." Because nothing exists before God's desire for something to exist. He is the first cause of all things, and that fact establishes second causes. It is poetic and true to state that we live God's thoughts after Him. And that includes every "choice" we make.

Now these choices certainly feel free and unfettered, but if there is a God and if that God is who He says He is, then life is unfolding exactly as He wants it to unfold at every particular moment along the way. Read your Bible.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Col. 1:16-17

I realize free will types think they're oh-so-sophisticated and rational and astute. Just as I once thought I was when I dismissed God's sovereign control over all things, "visible and invisible."

And then, thank God, I was given a better, truer perspective. One which actually requires a renewed mind which is able to hold on to the paradox while not denying it.

So bottom line, you have NOT demonstrated free will because you have NOT demonstrated that my decision to do anything was determined by some kind of libertarian free will, and not according to the will and purpose of God. You remember that God? The one who "declared the end from the beginning."

Your "demonstration" is null and void. You lose.

If you're ever so inclined, some morning when you have nothing more pressing to do, read the following argument by a stalwart Italian (no less.) Writing like this changed my mind and my life. It's no small thing. And we who now love God's predestination of all things hope the rest of the world comes to the same joyful, satisfying knowledge of this often confusing, seemingly contradictory life on earth. (I've pinged a few others who might be interested in the link.)

THE ABSOLUTE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION
by Jerome Zanchius

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thought you guys might like the link in post 1282, too.

[D-fendr]

Now these choices certainly feel free and unfettered…

That would be a confusing reality. So that I'm clear on your view:

Are you saying you're not making these decisions and choices of your answers here freely? That you only feel like you're making choices on what to reply, but you know you're really not?

[kosta50]

My, what a swift change of subject. That not's what we were discussing, is it?

Sure it was. We were discussing Eph 2:10 and Rom 9:23. The KJV reads them as follows (my emphasis):

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Epj 2:10]

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, [Rom 9:23]

Alex (who knows Greek) and I objected that KJV translated one and the same Greek word hetoimazo as two different words with different (not synonymous) meanings: ordained in Eph 2:10 and as prepared in Rom 2:23.

Your objection to our objection is that the way the text reads it means exactly one and the same thing. Any Greek lexicon will show you that you are wrong. And changing manuscripts to fit doctrine is blasphemy.

Unlike you, realizing the mistake, the editors of KJV chose not to pull a Scarah Palin and try to wiggle out of this one, but admitted and then corrected it. So, the New KJV reads:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them [Eph 2:10]

Maybe you should call them and tell them this wasn't necessary because in your expert opinion to ordain and prepare mean exactly the same thing and fully reflect the original Greek manuscript. 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It means the same thing.

Our good works are not our own. They were prepared for us to perform. They were ordained for us.

No difference.

[betty boop]

Mathematically speaking, in between the two extreme perspectives of cosmos and quantum is the geometric form of a particular man, rocketing through space and time from a definitive beginning space/time coordinate of his mortal life to a definitive ending space/time coordinate of his mortal life.... But that is just the physical man.

What a magnificent observation, dearest sister in Christ! Of course, as a fellow Platonist, I truly can appreciate "the geometric form of a particular man rocketing through space and time" in mortal existence, "in between the two extreme perspectives of cosmos and quantum," from Alpha to Omega....

IMHO your explanation from Holy Scripture of God and man in their relations, His four revelations, and the nature of man in his mortal limits, is comprehensive and impeccable. All thanks and praise be to God!

I truly appreciate the "big picture" or "whole system" approach you take to such questions. Which it seems to me is the Christian way, and also the Platonic way — and Plato was very likely following in the Pythagorean tradition. When you get to Pythagoras, you really get into the proposition that the universe is founded in number and geometry.

But that's probably beyond the scope of the present discussion. More generally, here's a great description of how Pythagoras conceived of the "whole system" problem:

The Universe is One, but the phenomenal realm is a differentiated image of this unity — the world is a unity in multiplicity. What maintains the unity of the whole, even though it consists of many parts, is the hierarchical principle of harmony, the logos of relation, which enables every part to have its place in the fabric of the all....

The Pythagorean view of the universe as a living, harmonic mixture is not only indispensable as a scientific concept, but it beautifully articulates the position of man in the cosmos as well. If, along with Plato, we view time as a moving image of eternity, then each generation of humanity stands poised between the present moment and the timeless immensity of the eternal. Rather than being a worthless speck meaninglessly situated in in the infinite expanse of space, each person, according to the Pythagorean view, is a microcosm, a complete image of the entire cosmos, with one foot located in the realm of eternal principles and the other foot rooted in the particular world of manifestation. Poised as he is between time and eternity, matter and spirit, man possesses an incredible freedom to learn, create and know, limited only by those principles on which creation is based. From this vantage point, humanity is engaged in a never-ceasing dialectic between time and eternity, possessing the ability to incarnate eternal principles in time (and in this sense mirror the creative work of Nature), yet also possessing the ability to elevate the particular to the universal through conscious understanding. — David Fideler, ed., introducing Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie's, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library [1988]

Of course, Pythagoras (~600 B.C.) is speaking the language of Nature, not of God (unless the Tetraktys — the "perfect number" — is God in his book). What I find interesting is that Saint Justin Martyr applied to study at a Pythagorean school, but was turned down owing to his insufficient skill in mathematics. So he applied to the Platonists; and they accepted him. Later, he became a Christian. Then he said that he believed that Christianity was not only the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but of classical philosophy as well.

Indeed, I think a case can be made that Justin Martyr was right about that.

Thank you ever so much for your absolutely magnificent, thought-provoking essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!

[annalex]

It is not contrary to humility to recognize the fact that Christ condescended to save us and not a hole between the galaxies.

Yes, the universe is held together by the will of Christ and exists for our enjoyment. If we don’t ask for it Christ surely doesn’t need it.

[annalex]

the same προετοιμάζω which in KJV Eph 2:10 reads as "before ordained" is translated in Rom 9:23 as "afore prepared".

Yes, Eph 2:10 is the issue. Apparently, in some translations it is rendered "ordained" in order to mask the intended meaning. Of course it is "prepared". Since no one would argue necessity of good works for salvation based on Romans 9:23, the crafty translator decided to translate that one accurately.

Liars all.

[annalex]

I never argued that we are not weak or should not be humble. I simply argue that God made us, such as we are, the center of His attention.

[D-fendr]

you have NOT demonstrated free will because you have NOT demonstrated that my decision to do anything was determined by..

You?

The demonstration is for you. Did you determine how you would answer the question or not?

Is how you will answer this question being determined by you right now? Or are you just looking for your lines in the script?

[annalex]

God "prepared unto glory" those vessels He had created to display His mercy.

Right; and He also had prepared good works for us so that we walk in them (Eph 2:10). God prepars, we walk. Or not. You earlier (1,152) argued something how these works were as good as done, based on a mistranslation and a marginal meaning of "ordain" not found in "prepare".

[annalex]

KJV made a mistake

It is not a mistake. The Protestant translations systematically substitute one word for another in order to make the scripture sound Protestant.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If God prepares a good work for a man to do, that man will do that good work for the very simple reason that it is God's will that he perform it according to the indwelling Holy Spirit who does not fail.

Roman Catholics deny God's sovereignty to possess what He wants. Instead, they presume to hand over power to their magisterium. God is secondary.

[count-your-change]

Yes, thanks for the link, I've not had a chance to read it yet but I will.

Possibly being numbered amongst those “free will types think they're oh-so-sophisticated and rational and astute”, I should be afforded the indulgence of a question or two.

When You quote Col. 1:16, 17 and emphasize the “all things”, would you say that “all things” includes all the evil in the world?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I spent most of my life as a free willer, so I'm sympathetic to their position. From one perspective, it certainly makes a lot of sense.

But from another, what I think of as a "better" perspective, God's will trumps human will. If God wants something, He will get it because He already has it. The world and everything in it are His.

The problem of evil is a puzzle, isn't it? Romans 8:28 tells us even the bad things in life are for our benefit, somehow.

The evil men do belongs only to them. God permits some men to remain in their fallen state. At any time He could give a sinner the Holy Spirit to guide him and lead him to Christ. But sometimes He chooses not to.

To some men God gives new eyes and new ears and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind to know the things of God which equips those men to become spiritual beings who will learn to hate their sin and love Christ alone. Those men have been acquitted of their sins by Christ on the cross; justified by His righteousness and obedience alone.

And all of it, the good and the bad, the grace and the sin, are all part of the perfect purpose of God which He ordained from before the foundation of the world for His glory and the welfare of His saints.

For me that is the only perspective that makes real sense. And as an added bonus, it makes life a lot richer and more solid than before. I trust God to do what He says He will do. And even that trust is by Christ, for Christ, through Christ.

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4

[annalex]

"center" refers to a single, unique point.

Yes. That is indeed the problem and a paradox: that Christ chose to rescue the multiplicity of us and therefore somehow was able to maintain the focus on that multiplicity.

From that I conclude that it is healthy and truthful for everyone to consider himself, -- not above others, but for himself -- the center of the universe. What is means practically is that it is the salvation of our soul that should be our focus as well. That we cannot do so but in a community of believers whom we are to love is, perhaps another paradox.

This task is made easier by the fact that were are made that way: Our natural frame of reference is ourselves. Interestingly, modern physics agrees that that is a perfectly valid frame of reference for the observation of the created world (remember Einstein's elevators). It also finds its parallel in the miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and of course by the Eucharistic miracle that we take part in weekly if not more often.

defining me

I apologize if I sounded like I was trying to "define you". I made a point about a particular modern heresy that is common and your post sounded similar. If you denounce scientism, then you are not defined by my criticism of it.

3.I'm not at all sure I understand your concept of "the Created world".

The Created world is everything that naturally exists: the planets, the stars, the galaxies, the time-space continuum, etc.

where would God, our Father and Creator, fit in that diagram

God is not, as we know, constrained by time and space, so He does not "fit" in it. He is not a part of the Created world. He did though, and that is the critical point, choose to become incarnate of the Virgin Mary and become man. So if you want the single center and are uncomfortable with the multiple centers, I propose the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God as such center.

Observe how the blessed iconographer finds no inconsistency in both Mary and Christ being simlutaneously the center.

In his Spiritual Exercises St. Ignatius of Loyola proposes that we reflect on the incarnation in these cosmic terms:

First Prelude. The first Prelude is to bring up the narrative of the thing which I have to contemplate.

Here, it is how the Three Divine Persons looked at all the plain or circuit of all the world, full of men, and how, seeing that all were going down to Hell, it is determined in Their Eternity,7 that the Second Person shall become man to save the human race, and so, the fullness of times being come,8 They sent the Angel St. Gabriel to Our Lady (p. 133).

Second Prelude. The second, a composition, seeing the place: here it will be to see the great capacity and circuit of the world, in which are so many and such different people: then likewise, in particular, the house and rooms of Our Lady in the city of Nazareth, in the Province of Galilee.

Third Prelude. The third, to ask for what I want: it will be to ask for interior knowledge of the Lord, Who for me has become man, that I may more love and follow Him.

The Spiritual Exercises: The Incarnation (Second Week First Day)

Note the three concentric circles: the Universe, the house of Mary, my soul.

[annalex]

hear the meaning

Yup. I know the meaning: I can read and do so often. You?

[count-your-change]

“The evil men do belongs only to them. God permits some men to remain in their fallen state. At any time He could give a sinner the Holy Spirit to guide him and lead him to Christ. But sometimes He chooses not to.”

But sometimes he chooses not to.
Then although God has all power He may choose NOT to use as He sees fit? As when God says He will go down and see if the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so and He will get know it. (Gen. 18:21)

How could He not know it before? If all were part of His plan would He NOT know this particular part?

[annalex]

what a swift change of subject. That not's what we were discussing, is it?

That is exaclty what we are discussing. When someone reads a bad translation he arrives at bad theology. When these mistranslations become systematic, one becomes a victim to a lie as well.