Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.
The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).
The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.
The Intentions Made Plain
The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
|
"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization
"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.
"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.
"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.
"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.
|
Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.
This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!
In Their Own Words
The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.
[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]
Two Comments
First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.
This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.
Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.
Latins have four Marian dogmas. Two are ancient dogmas of her being the Theotokos and Ever-Vrigin, pronounced by the undivided Church in the 4th century in response to Chrisotlogical heresies, and therefore not about her. Then, somewhere in the middle of the 19th century the Pope, all on his own, declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In 1950, again, the Pope makes another "ex cathedra" dogma about her bodily assumption into heaven.
Both of these "ex cathdera" dogmas were made without any heresy to defend, and are therefore about Mary. Dogmatic teaching about human beings is a heresy in itself. As Kolo aptly observed, all Orthodox dogmas are about God—for God and because of God, never about man.
Nothing Marian, other than that she is the God-Bearer and that she is Ever-Virgin (as mentioned in the Nicene Creed) is required to be baptized Orthodox. But in order to be baptized Latin you must believe that she was conceived immaculately and that she raised into heaven body and soul. In other words one cannot be a Catholic unless he believes these things about Mary.
To me that is as idolatrous as it gets. I can understand it as a de fide tradition, but not as dogma involving a human being.
But Paul doesn't say that Christ is the life-giving spirit, but that he came into existence (became) a life-giving spirit the way Adam became (came into existence) as a living soul (psyche). He is talking about their coming into existence.
No, and Paul knew that. Here Paul was looking at Christ's actions, not His existence
The Bible does not support your view.
1 Corinthians 15:45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν
The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.
It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses.
Well, likewise. :)
He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible
Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.
There is a fuller explanation in God Questions?
Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity."
That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.
He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction."
Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)? John's purpose and agenda was completely different, as was the situation with Christianity vs. Judaism, and Christianity vs. Hellenism.
Then the author uses Hebrews 1:3, saying "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself. he is also saying that it was the Son who was sustaining all things with his powerful word rather than being the Word himself.
Then he quotes John 1:10 to show that Christ pre-existed the world.Ppre-existing the world doesn't preclude him form being creatured. Angels pre-existed the world and they are created. Creation did not only unlocked the material world. But calling something the first born of all creatures can only mean one thing: the first creature.
I realize that Christians will never admit to that, even if in the back of their minds they understand that this is precisely what Paul is saying, because it would be a devastating admission.
Then the author states a classical heresy: "In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed. with humanity." Good to see that ancient Christological heresies submit alive and well in triniatrian Protestant communities. :)
No doubt, but if Christ is God then he is not only pre-existing creation but rather exists eternally, without regard to time of the Mormon of creation.
He continues "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word 'first-born' (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority."
Really? here is a definition form a Biblical Greek lexicon (my emphasis):
Prototokos: the firstborn
Beasts too...
Then he says "Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: 'I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth' (Psalm 89:27)."
Needless to say Psalm 89 is not at all about Christ. But more importantly, your apologists is either misquoting Psalm 29 or his version of the Bible is. You see the Bible doesn't says "higher than the kings on the earth" but "the highest of the kings on earth." (in other words one of the earthly kings).
I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he? It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free. Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in ahmrony with God's will.
He knew the story and it's a very long stretch, imo, to say he ever wrote anything contradicting the idea.
He did, he called Mary "a woman" when her virginity is of such central importance to overlook or ignore, or disregard.
Even if we translate it "born of a woman" it is very conspicuous that Paul would not mention the (human) father at all.
I don't think so, FK. First, he wasn't making a genealogy, and second the two genealogies we do have identify +Jospeh as the father. Either way, the Chirtsians will find a way out by rationalizing that if a father is mentioned he is only a "legal guardian" and if not that much better... :) The matter was about him coming into this world, and Paul said he came into existence by a woman under the law. That sounds pretty ordinary to me.
submit = subsist
The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.
It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses."
Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ. We proclaim Christ:
"καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ, and
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·
Words like Μονογενῆ, and γεννηθέντα "only begotten and "begotten" are contrasted with ποιηθέντα, "made" or ἐγένετο, "came into being". Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. , τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
Mormon of creation = Mormon of creation
Psalm 29 = Psalm 89
Chirtsians = Christians
sorry
"1 Corinthians 15:45 οὕτως καὶ γέγραπται Ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος Ἀδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν ὁ ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν
The bolded word he uses is ginomai, that is—to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being, to be born, to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events, to arise, appear in history, of men appearing in public, to be made, finished, of miracles to be performed, wrought, to become, be made, based on how ginomai is used throughout the New Testament.
It's not about Christ' actions, as you claim, but how he came to be—at least in Greek. What they do with it in English may be a whole different story. No wonder we don't see the same thing in the same verses."
Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ. We proclaim Christ:
"καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
and
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·
Words like Μονογενῆ, and γεννηθέντα "only begotten and "begotten" are contrasted with ποιηθέντα, "made" or ἐγένετο, "came into being". Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. ,
AMEN, brother! It IS all about Christ. Without sharing Him as the absolute center friendly debate among Christians becomes witnessing.
Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.
True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism).
Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity." ---- That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.
But naturally, different words are used for "image". In Col. 1:15 it is NT:1504 eikon (i-kone'); from NT:1503; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: KJV - image.
In Gen. 1:26, "image"is - OT:6754 (tseh'-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew. ------ And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
The author's statement is therefore perfectly permissible.
He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction." ---- Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)?
Because he/she sees the Bible as I do, as coming from a single source not affected by time. Therefore, nothing in the Bible is ineligible to be used as corroboration of anything else scriptural due to author or time written.
Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself.
I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".
You raise a perfectly good point. Interestingly, the NIV translates it the same as you, and the context is clear in any event. The "him" in that passage is David. So, if the author was making a new point for his "finally" then I agree with you that he/she is wrong. However, if he/she was following up from two paragraphs earlier in describing the inheritance and authority aspect of "firstborn", i.e. "The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership." then he/she might deserve a pass because the example was of "firstborn" generally, not of Christ specifically. It wasn't written well in either case.
FK: I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he?
It depends on how we define "human". I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free.
Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will). That plays out clearly when He asks to have the cup taken away. So really the concept of a completely unencumbered free will is not present in Christ on earth.
Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in harmony with God's will.
Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)
[FK: True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism]
But Paul was preaching to pagan Greeks. There is a lot of similarity between Paul's idea of the "firstborn of all creatures" and the Platonic demiurge the Greeks could relate to. It is no coincidence that Gnostics found Paul's gospel dear and near to their own (Maricon, Valentius, etc.)
The demiurgic theology of Paul seems evident all over his Epistles, but nothing as clearly stated as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (see also Hebrews 1:2).
different words are used for "image". In Col. 1:15 it is NT:1504 eikon (i-kone'); from NT:1503; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: KJV - image. In Gen. 1:26,
An icon is not considered the thing itself, FK. The Orthodox do not worship the 'picture' of Christ but the Christ which the pictures represents. If Paul says that Christ is only an icon of God then Christ (icon, a graven image) is not to be worshiped.
"image"is - OT:6754 (tseh'-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew.
Tselem is used in Genesis 1:26, for example and it is defined as (a) images (of tumors, mice, heathen gods), (b) image, likeness, (of resemblance), (c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively). The word tselem is translated in the Septuagint as eikon, a physical image.
And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
Demooth is also used in Genesis 1:26 and corresponds to the Greek homoiosis, which is to say similitude, likeness. This is a qualitative term, not a physical image or representation. It is the quality man lost in the Fall, and it is the quality man must regain in order to be saved, i.e. become Christ-like or God-like.
In the West, especially in the English-speaking West, the two terms are synonymous; for example Dictionary.com defines image (eikon) as physical likeness (homoiosis). Thus, in English being made in "the image and likeness of God" is understood as distinction without a (real) difference. In the East, however, the theological and soteriological implication of the difference cannot be overemphasized.
Okay, but that is not based on evidence. Evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".
My point is that radiance is not the object that radiates, nor does it have the same nature or essence as the object that radiates. For example, our bodies radiate heat. That heat is not "human." It is heat that radiates from human beings, but that doesn't make the heat human by nature.
It depends on how we define "human".
That sounds positively Clintonian. :)
I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
FK, first human nature is created. Not even God can change that. Second, the nature of all living things, not only human, is that they die. No exceptions. Whether you believe you are "saved" or not is irrelevant. Even the "saved" must die. What happens after that is speculation.
Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will).
And therefore he is not like Adam.
Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)
No, it seems rather certain. God's will is not what we do when we sin (by definition). If we know what constitutes sin (as everyone claims they do), then we also know that God's will is just the opposite of it! :)
Kolo: Kosta is correct. This is an important, indeed fundamental point of Christian theology. The Creed demonstrates this when speaking about Christ.
Kolo: ... Add to these such words as "σαρκωθέντα ","enfleshed" and "ἐνανθρωπήσαντα", "became man" and remember that Christ is called "Ο ΩΝ", basically "the Being Who Creates Existence", and you can see who either +Paul got it very, very wrong, or Protestantism, especially using bad English translations, has distorted what in fact was being taught by +Paul. , τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
This is what Strong's says: NT:1096 ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee); a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"- erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.): KJV - arise, be assembled, be (-come, -fall, -haveself), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought. (emphasis added)
The Protestant view of Paul is easily within these parameters since it is by no means required that ginomai can ONLY mean "come into existence". So, as is always the case, Bible-believing Protestantism AND Paul are both right and in agreement. :)
So, what does in the "Protestant view" ginomai mean in 1 Cor 15:45?
If I remember correctly, you said it meant Christ's mission or work. Your own definition doesn't support that, FK. Especially since Paul uses it only once for both Adam and Christ.
I’m not surprised that Strong translates the way he does, consistent with the Methodist theology he embraced. But here, Strong is wrong.
FK, I am curious. Why would anyone think a 19th century Protestant from NJ who likely never went to Greece, maybe even never knew a Greek, let alone a Greek Orthodox theologian, would be an authority on koine or Byzantine Greek?
First, it is interesting to see that Jesus "was made" (which term is not in the Greek in 1Cor. 15:45b, but is rightly supplied, and is often translated "become/became") a lot of things.
Jesus preexisted with the Father, (Mic. 5:2; Ps. 90:2) through whom He made the worlds, Heb. 1:2) and all things, (Col. 1:16) who prepared for Him a body, for "when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me," (Hebrews 10:5) and thus "the Word was made flesh," (Jn. 1:14) In John, Jesus inference of an ontological oneness with the Father is protested by the Jews. (Jn. 5:18; 19:7)
Paul, who "was made a minister," (Eph. 3:7) states that in His incarnation, Jesus positionally "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2:7); as He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," Rm. 1:3) and Hebrews likewise states that Jesus "was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death," (Heb. 2:9) resulting in men having "crucified the Lord of glory." (1Cor. 2:8)
And having died and rose, Jesus was functionally made "both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) and thus "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," (1Cor. 1:30) and was also "made a surety of a better testament." (Heb. 7:22)
As a result of His death and resurrection, and with the latter being the context here, Jesus functionally became a life-giving spirit, as by faith in Him believers have life, not only eternal life but regeneration of the Spirit, (Eph. 2:1,5) who was not poured out upon all believers (Acts 2:17,18) until Jesus resurrection, (Jn. 7:39; 14:26) for "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1Jn. 4:9)
As far as being is concerned, as Jesus had to take on flesh, He essentially was/is spirit, as God the Father is, (Jn. 4:24) and after His resurrection appeared in a glorified, incorruptible physical body, not simply as a spirit, which could materialize at will yet eat food (Lk. 24:36-43) and which type of body believers will have, (1Cor. 15:49; 1Jn. 3:2) as "in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Cor. 15:22; and which is termed a spiritual body. (1Cor. 15:44,46)
To God be the glory, and "as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," (1Cor. 2:9) even the “spirits of just men made perfect.” (Heb. 12:13) And less than Jacob, “I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which” He hast shewed unto me
Then Paul could not have been a Christian since demiurgic theology and Christianity are absolutely mutually exclusive. To hold demiurgic theology REQUIRES that one utterly reject key sections (and large sections) of scripture. I don't see any other possibility.
And if Paul was not Christian then of course his claim to having received the true Gospel from Christ must have been a complete and utter lie. That would make the majority of the NT completely unreliable for its truth, since it was authored by a known liar. If that is the essence of the Church's position (and I hope that it isn't :), then I assume that the resolution is that the Church simply determines which of Paul's teachings are COMPLETE lies and should be ignored altogether, and which are only partial lies and can be salvaged through interpretation. But even so, it seems a little surprising that the Church would have ANYTHING to do at all with a Christian-murderer who never became Christian and was known to have been a serial liar.
Demooth is also used in Genesis 1:26 and corresponds to the Greek homoiosis, which is to say similitude, likeness. This is a qualitative term, not a physical image or representation. It is the quality man lost in the Fall, and it is the quality man must regain in order to be saved, i.e. become Christ-like or God-like.
Even so, the qualitative similarity could not possibly have included nature. Nobody thinks that Gen. 1:26 says that God and man share the same nature. However, Paul's use of "eikon" DID include nature. The only way Paul could have been Christian would be if there is more than one legitimate use of "eikon". Although a layman, Bruce Hurt gives at least a credible sounding explanation in his commentary on Col. 1:15. Please forgive the length, but here is an excerpt:
I see this explanation at least being on the right track as the only way one could possibly consider Paul a Christian. Otherwise, your analysis holds and Paul was not a Christian (as I interpret it).
That sounds positively Clintonian. :)
Well, I suppose if it was as easy as it should be then we wouldn't lawfully be killing millions of our own children every year.
FK: I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
FK, first human nature is created. Not even God can change that.
Why can't God change any part of what He has already created? He created our natures "as was", and since then they have been changed according to His will.
Second, the nature of all living things, not only human, is that they die. No exceptions.
But I believe you have correctly said before that this only applies AFTER the Fall, that is, after the human nature had first changed. IIRC, Orthodoxy sees the verse "the wages of sin is death" to refer to physical death. If so, then the Orthodox would see man's original nature as NOT including physical death. Do you see it differently now?
FK: Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will).
And therefore he is not like Adam.
Yes, in this sense. But in other senses, as the "second Adam" Christ is the antithesis of Adam. Adam doomed "the world" and Christ saved "the world".
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.