Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 6   [ 105 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5072
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Peetem wrote:
I understand your point, but must disagree somewhat.

In my mind, I have no absolutle certainty. Zero. And I’m just fine with it. In fact, it motivates me to pray and ask for the grace to improve and grow more holy; to become more Christlike.

In fact, my lack of assureance, I think anyway, provides an conduit for me to have hope. And it seems to me that having hope is greater than assurance, for is assureance even a virtue? If its not, then wouldn’t it be better to gain a virtue?

So from that perspective, assurance could be quite damnable because it presumes something and removes all need for hope.

And I have a serious problem with your lack of certainty being a motivating factor to serve God. (I also read your comment about receiving the grace to improve and grow more holy to mean that you find your sanctification your own work. It is not. See 1 Thess 5:23-24.) I sure hope you would never try to raise children that way or live with your spouse that way . . . with them not knowing that you love them unconditionally so them always doing things to try to get in your good graces.

As far as absolute certainty, more strictly, the kind of certainty I have is the logical certainty of faith. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." I believe in Jesus. Ergo, I have everlasting life. To doubt that I have life is to doubt Jesus, which is to say, to lack faith. Thus Calvin was correct when he said, "Assurance is of the essence of faith." To say you lack assurance is necessarily the same as saying you lack faith, which is the same as saying you do not believe Jesus, which is to say you do not believe the gospel.

Lastly, you and I apparently have a different definition of hope. As far as I understand, hope relates to expectancy, or as is often said from pulpits, it's the present enjoyment of a future blessing. Thus on the one hand you can't hope for what you already have, and on the other, you can't hope for what you don't expect. I absolutely expect, I have full assurance, and thus full hope or confidence of my salvation, and that not because of my faithfulness, but because of Christ's. Were He not faithful, I would not have full assurance. Or if it depended on me, I wouldn't have hope or faith or assurance. But since it doesn't, then not only do I have full assurance, I must have full assurance.

edit:

But I expect this has really become more of an apologetics discussion. I don't mind exploring it with you, but in the right place, yeah?

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Last edited by theJack on Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Quote:
Explain to me why God could not and should not do this to everyone at some time in their existence. Scripture states that God is love, therefore, the idea of God turning His back on any of His poor, dumb, sinful creatures seems completely out of sorts with the actions of love properly understood.

Because not doing it doesn't make God less loving. Heck, God would still be love if all men are in hell. They deserve it. Plus, if I remember correctly from Ott or Summa, the punishment in hell is leaner than it should be.


God is not "loving." God is love. This is the challenge I give to Muslims when I speak with them. What is the difference between loving and being love? If you are love, or you love someone, you can also choose to hate them. God cannot do this because He is love - period. Therefore, all His actions must be based in the ontological reality that He is love.

I'm curious. when you say that all men deserve hell, does that include infants who have not reached the "age of reason?" Do all men deserve hell who have never even heard the Gospel and do not know right from wrong by dint of their being in darkness?


Quote:
So God allows heresies to flourish so that we ignorant beasts can be tortured forever? It would be more merciful of God if the second a heretical notion passed the lips of a heretic that the heretic be struck dead in order to save the souls of millions who would be deceived into eternal torment.

God allows heresies because with heresies comes an aspect of the virtue of faith (that aspect would be submission of intellect and will).


If the penalty for believing in heresies is eternal torment, then it does not seem within the definition of love (i.e. wanting the BEST for another, for the beloved) to allow any heresy to flourish ever. How does allowing something to exist that will destroy a person coincide with the reality of love as wanting the best for that person? The only answer must be that like the Calvinists say, God does not love all men, but only the "elect." Which means then that He hates those who are not of the "elect".

But a more reasonable approach to this is that God allows heresies as a means of testing in order that rewards be given out in the next life. The greater the fidelity to the truth, the greater the reward and honor in the next life. That is the only way I can make sense of this.


Quote:
I ponder about the problem of evil for so long that I came up with the thought that evil and the good that comes out of it, are two side of the same coin (in a way). For example without lust, we wouldn't have chastity. Being chaste would be a good thing for human. But how to bring out that good without having lust come into the picture? It's impossible. Thus, the solution is God gives sufficient grace to overcome that lust. This way we could have chastity and people have the mean to attain it without succumbing to lust. The fact that some succumbed to it is their own fault.


I find the same principle at work here. Men who have chosen chastity, who have, by their own choice, chosen to eschew the wickedness of fornication, shall have greater reward and honor in the next life than those who did not and who fell in to the mire of such sin.

Quote:
Question: Does God owe anything to His creatures by dint of their creation? If I create a new life by union with my wife, am I not obliged to care for and love that new life as a very part of me? If God moves with favor towards St. Ratisbonne in his hatred of the Church, then why not move with favor towards all mankind in a similar fashion? You cannot say there was something that merited God's grace, for that is a heretical statement. We do nothing to merit grace - ever. But why stop there? Why give St. Ratisbonne the grace to believe and not all others? To what good or purpose is it to torment men and women eternally. Does it somehow increase the glory of God, as the woeful Calvinists say, making God to be a beast whose lust for revenge is satiated by the suffering of poor, ignorant creatures?

Lastly, the punishment in hell does increase God's glory. Men deserve hell. Just like your gardener deserve your hard-earned dollar, so does the damn deserves hell. There's really nothing to pity. On General Judgment, everyone will know that each of us who is in hell deserves it (And those of us in heaven doesn't deserves it).


Sons and daughters do not "deserve hell." They deserve to be healed, not punished. Sin is a sickness. I find it interested that those who are always so very sure of their standing before God and their own rightness are so lacking in compassion for those who are still trapped in sin. I remember when I was in a Fundamentalist church many years ago and after their service, a couple of us where talking about the lost pagans in Africa and their fate. I don't remember exactly the words that were said, but they went along the lines of "Well, too bad for them." Cold-hearted. Kind of like the same coldness I think of when I read of certain people in the Roman Catholic Church stating that God and the redeemed will see the torments of the damned and enjoy seeing them for the glory they bring to God.

There could be nothing more glorious to God's power and absolute might than the ability to turn all men's hearts back to Him - even the most stubborn and wicked of men. Not only does that bring
Him far more glory than tormenting poor, blind, sinful, dumb, and stupid creatures, it makes Him above and beyond the "gods" of the pagans, who in their fables are blood-thirsty monsters who torment humans at the slightest offense to their "divinity."

No, I will continue to believe and hope in a Father who IS love and because He is love, can do no other but constantly work for the restoration of all Creation and all creatures to experience that which the best for them - His love and presence forever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:34 am 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 3848
Religion: Catholic
EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:
Peetem wrote:
theJack wrote:
EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:
I know exactly what you meant.
I am just overwhelmed by the fact that you are so easily able to erase the core purpose of God's communication with man.

The fact that there is a canon stating that the most basic human need is inconceivable,
... is inconceivable.

I wonder what it is that privileges the moment of death as the moment that determines one's eternal destiny. It's pretty absurd from a divine, timeless perspective. I think it's equally absurd from our perspective. God saves persons, and persons subsist through time. The whole idea of being in and out of a state of grace and the only moment that "counts" is the one that you be in at the moment of death, well why that one? Why not four seconds before your death? Why not a random point for any given person? In fact, why must any point be privileged at all?

Of course, one answer is that there is no necessity, that God could have made any point the privileged point He so desired, and that He chose to make death the privileged point. You then make an argument for fittingness from there. But since I don't think God made that the privileged point, I don't think that any argument for fittingness works precisely because the first premise is flawed. In fact, I tend to think (given the atemporality of God) that it is unfitting for one particular point to be privileged.

Anyway, to your point, it just seems silly to me that the NT goes to such lengths to meet that "most basic human need"--the need for assurance--to tell us that we might "know that we have eternal life" for us to then turn around and say, "Yeah, but you can't REALLY know after all because you don't know what state you are going to be in at some privileged point down the way." I don't do that to my kids. I don't think God does that to us. But then to go further and claim that if a person says that they do have that assurance, that they do believe that they are saved, that that very claim to knowledge removes you from the state of grace such that, if you die with this claimed knowledge, you miss out on the privileged point . . . that's worse than absurd. That's abusive. By all means, tell people you think they are mistaken in their claim to assurance. But to tell people that their very claim to assurance is damnable is, to me, damnable in and of itself.


I understand your point, but must disagree somewhat.

In my mind, I have no absolutle certainty. Zero. And I’m just fine with it. In fact, it motivates me to pray and ask for the grace to improve and grow more holy; to become more Christlike.

In fact, my lack of assureance, I think anyway, provides an conduit for me to have hope. And it seems to me that having hope is greater than assurance, for is assureance even a virtue? If its not, then wouldn’t it be better to gain a virtue?

So from that perspective, assurance could be quite damnable because it presumes something and removes all need for hope.


I understand your logic.

I dont understand why faith in the promise of Jesus is anathema.
Doubt is a canon.


I have total faith in Christ’s promises - He will hold up His end of the “deal” if I hold up mine. For example, scripture is clear - deny Christ and He will deny you before the father; “Those who believe in me will have eternal life”, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you....”. Those are promises with conditions - we must do our part, we are not idle spectators who simply “believe in Christ”. Even the devil “believes” that Jesus is the savior.

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible a convenant from God being one-sided. In fact, they all require us to do something on our end (i.e., circumcision)....

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81307
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The covenant with Noah is one-sided. No matter what, no more Flood.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
The covenant with Noah is one-sided. No matter what, no more Flood.


With all due respect for your priesthood, Father, it can't be one-sided. Then it is simply not a covenant. Both sides have to agree to the fourth principle of covenant, that is, oaths and sanctions.

The problem with many people is that they think that there are multiple and different covenants spoken of in the Scriptures. There is only one covenant. It is the Eternal Covenant of God. It existed before it was extended to mankind and Creation by dint of the creation. Each mention of the covenant in Scripture (i.e. the Noahic Covenant, The Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant) is simply a further revelation of the one eternal covenant of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus Christ and the New Covenant is the final revelation of the eternal covenant. The New Covenant is not a different covenant, but "new" in the sense that all the revelations of the divine covenant which were revealed in all the Old Covenant revelations, i.e., the Davidic, Abrahamic, etc. are now fulfilled and thus no longer in force. But it remains one covenant, not many.

The language of the Scriptures themselves show us this. It took me a while to catch on to this, but the language is unmistakable when properly understood. For instance, God does not say to Noah, I will make "A" covenant with you, but rather, I will make "MY" covenant with you. This speaks to a pre-existing covenant into which Noah is being introduced as the new covenant head over Creationl

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establishmycovenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Gen 9: 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Box Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Not "A" covenant, indicating a new covenant entirely different from a pre-existing one. So what was the promise then that the world would not be destroyed? It was simply a change in the existing covenant with mankind and a revelation of that change. The parameters have changed so that whenever mankind sins in the future and breaks the covenant, there will still be curse, but it will not be utter and total destruction by flood ever again.

It was not a "one-sided" covenant because no such thing exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5072
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Peetem wrote:
I have total faith in Christ’s promises - He will hold up His end of the “deal” if I hold up mine. For example, scripture is clear - deny Christ and He will deny you before the father; “Those who believe in me will have eternal life”, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you....”. Those are promises with conditions - we must do our part, we are not idle spectators who simply “believe in Christ”. Even the devil “believes” that Jesus is the savior.

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible a convenant from God being one-sided. In fact, they all require us to do something on our end (i.e., circumcision)....

In addition to the Noahic as Fr Obi pointed out, the Abrahamic Covenant is also "one-sided." In Gen 12, there are no "ifs." And if that isn't explicit enough, we have this in Gen 15:

    8 But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”

    9 So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”

    10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.

    12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

    17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[e] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Notice that God alone goes through the cut animals. The tradition was that the two parties would swear to uphold their end, hold hands, and walk through together. But Abram didn't go through. Only God did. He guaranteed He would do for Abram what He promised, and that based on His own faithfulness, not that of Abram's or even of his descendants! He said He'd do it, and that is that. I believe this is why Paul's talks about God's promise to Abram. Interesting terminology he went with there.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 81307
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
It may be that the mists of time have garbled my memory. It's certainly not a ditch I'm prepared to die in.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:
Peetem wrote:
I have total faith in Christ’s promises - He will hold up His end of the “deal” if I hold up mine. For example, scripture is clear - deny Christ and He will deny you before the father; “Those who believe in me will have eternal life”, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you....”. Those are promises with conditions - we must do our part, we are not idle spectators who simply “believe in Christ”. Even the devil “believes” that Jesus is the savior.

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible a convenant from God being one-sided. In fact, they all require us to do something on our end (i.e., circumcision)....

In addition to the Noahic as Fr Obi pointed out, the Abrahamic Covenant is also "one-sided." In Gen 12, there are no "ifs." And if that isn't explicit enough, we have this in Gen 15:

    8 But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”

    9 So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”

    10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.

    12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the Lord said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

    17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[e] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Notice that God alone goes through the cut animals. The tradition was that the two parties would swear to uphold their end, hold hands, and walk through together. But Abram didn't go through. Only God did. He guaranteed He would do for Abram what He promised, and that based on His own faithfulness, not that of Abram's or even of his descendants! He said He'd do it, and that is that. I believe this is why Paul's talks about God's promise to Abram. Interesting terminology he went with there.


I should have expected this.

Abraham upheld his part of the covenant two chapters later when he was circumcised.

A so-called "one-sided covenant" is the equivalent of rape, using the biblical analogy of marriage. We are given that analogy as a picture of the covenant which is made between God and man. No man takes a woman, rapes her, and then tells her that they are married. That violates any possible idea of a relationship, which is what a covenant is. That is, in fact, a crime.

God as divine Spouse, offers Himself to Israel and Israel accepts and becomes His bride (Book of Hosea). Jesus comes and offers Himself as the divine Bridegroom of the New Covenant and we either respond or reject. Unlike the ridiculous assertions of Calvinism, God does not force Himself upon us and then claim that we are a bride. The offer is made to us to respond to in our free-will, just as human marriage is made in a similar fashion.

Covenants are made by two parties, not one. No one can make a covenant on behalf of another. Both parties must enter into it willingly and without coercion. Both parties set forth and understand the terms of the covenant they are about to make (think wedding vows). Both give their lives to each other. Rape, analogous to what you are suggesting in Genesis 15, is hardly the same as marriage. And if I went up to a strange woman on the streets, told her I had made a covenant with her and done the vows and ceremony for both of us and we were now in a covenant relationship --

I would be spending some time in jail.

There is some significance to Jehovah going through the pieces by Himself, but the covenant between God and Abraham was not finished until Abraham did his part. I will be pondering what that significance might be, but it doesn't change the reality of covenant principles, which must be adhered to in order to have a functional covenant relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:09 am
Posts: 271
Religion: Catholic
Speaking of covenants...


The Covenant With Israel by Avery Cardinal Dulles - An article well worth reading on the complexities of the subject.

_________________
Michael

---
Good can exist without evil; whereas evil cannot exist without good.
The Summa Theologica - St. Thomas Aquinas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5072
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Light of the East wrote:
A so-called "one-sided covenant" is the equivalent of rape, using the biblical analogy of marriage.

And yet again, I should expect that you would continue to deny the sovereignty of God and place Him under the constraints of the moral law. So what official church documentation do you have to back up your claims? Or is this merely your private interpretation?

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
MichaelD14 wrote:
Speaking of covenants...


The Covenant With Israel by Avery Cardinal Dulles - An article well worth reading on the complexities of the subject.



I got to here:

"In particular, it left open the question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today. Are there two covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians? If so, are the two related as phases of a single developing covenant, a single saving plan of God? May Jews who embrace Christianity continue to adhere to Jewish covenantal practices?"

then dismissed the rest as utter bologna.

Anyone who even remotely thinks that the Old Covenant is still in force is A.) theologically ignorant B.) untrained in covenant realities C.) lacking understanding of analogies in the Bible and what they point to or D.) a guilt-ridden Zionist Pre-millenialist with a desire to make up for the Holocaust.

PS.....I took a minute to quickly scan the rest of it. It's bologna. A big, thick slice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:23 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:09 am
Posts: 271
Religion: Catholic
Light of the East wrote:
[
PS.....I took a minute to quickly scan the rest of it. It's bologna. A big, thick slice.


IMO, it shows the correct tension of the complex topic. In my view, God doesn't make a promise that doesn't remain perfectly intact; while humans are incapable of making any such perfect commitment. It's uneven from the conception.

_________________
Michael

---
Good can exist without evil; whereas evil cannot exist without good.
The Summa Theologica - St. Thomas Aquinas


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
MichaelD14 wrote:
Light of the East wrote:
[
PS.....I took a minute to quickly scan the rest of it. It's bologna. A big, thick slice.


IMO, it shows the correct tension of the complex topic. In my view, God doesn't make a promise that doesn't remain perfectly intact; while humans are incapable of making any such perfect commitment. It's uneven from the conception.


God is bound by the vows He makes just as we are bound by the vows we make. Both sides have to make vows. During the making of the vows, the shedding of the blood is symbolic. It is a statement before witnesses "If I break these vows which I have just made, may my blood also be shed" In the case of God walking through the severed animals in Genesis 15, it is to say "If I do not keep all that I have promised to Abraham, may I be torn asunder as these animals are." In Abraham's case, when making his part of the covenant vows, he is declaring "If I do not keep my vows which I have made to day before witnesses, may I be cut off just as this piece of flesh was cut off."

The interesting part is that God is no vow breaker, so His promises are inviolate in a way. It is we who do not keep our vows to Him.

The problem with the idea that there is still a covenant between national Israel and God is this: national Israel killed their divine Spouse when He offered Himself to them. Not only that, it was the covenant head - the high priest - who did this. In doing so, he acted on behalf of the entire nation and thus sealed the condemnation of the nation. The analogy for this understanding is marriage as found in the book of Hosea. God describes Himself analogously as the Spouse of national Israel. In doing so, we are to understand the relationship as we would understand an earthly marriage. That is how analogies work - the difficult or dimly understood is clarified by that which we are familiar with.

Here's the problem for national Israel - in the earthly covenant of marriage, when one spouse dies, the covenant that existed between the two is finished. Over. Done. There is no such thing as a covenant between a living person and one who has died. Israel did worse than that...they murdered their Spouse. That finished the covenant, since no covenant can exist between the dead Spouse and the living national Israel. The Resurrection does not solve this either. What it does is to introduce a new chapter, a final revelation in the Covenant of God which is the sole covenant of the Scriptures.

The other sign that apparently Cardinal Dulles and others completely missed is the tearing of the veil of the Temple. That veil covered the Holiest of All where Yom Kippur was performed once a year. No one - upon penalty of immediate DEATH - was allowed inside (i.e. to view) this sanctuary. It was reserved for the high priest alone, and even then, he could only enter once a year to perform Yom Kippur, not for individuals, but to renew the covenant between God and national Israel. This is the corporate covenant between God and His people as a congregation.

When the veil was torn, it exposed the Holiest of All to human eyes, thus profaning it and making it unfit to ever use again. It was a sign that the Old Covenant between God and national Israel was KAPUT! Done. Over. You can see this in Mel Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. When the high priest sees the exposed Holiest of All, he wails aloud. The look on his face shows that he knows exactly what this means. Matthew 21: 33-46 also supports this understanding of no further covenant relationship between God and national Israel.

I am surprised beyond belief that brilliant minds do not see this. To me it is as clear as day. I honestly think there is some residual guilt within the Church over the ways the Jews were treated by Christians for long time. That's the only thing I can think of.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:42 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13610
Location: Inverted Cross domain
EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:

I understand your logic.

I dont understand why faith in the promise of Jesus is anathema.
Doubt is a canon.


I did say that Catholics can have moral certainty, but not an absolute one.

And the certainty of faith is about the fact that this or that revelation is from God, thus they are true. Not about whether you are going to be saved. God, almost all cases, doesn't reveal that a particular person is guaranteed heaven (one case where He did is the good thief).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:
Light of the East wrote:
A so-called "one-sided covenant" is the equivalent of rape, using the biblical analogy of marriage.

And yet again, I should expect that you would continue to deny the sovereignty of God and place Him under the constraints of the moral law. So what official church documentation do you have to back up your claims? Or is this merely your private interpretation?


The Eternal Covenant of God is not a question of the moral law. Theologians have stated that the Trinity is a unity in covenant. It is a relationship. The establishment of covenant principles is simply an extension to mankind of these existing principle of relationship which existed before the cosmos. The Father freely gives Himself to the Son, the Son freely gives Himself to the Father, and this union produces the Blessed Holy Spirit.

The "constraint" of the covenant is love, not a moral law. All moral law is based in love, as Jesus reduced the Commandments to two: love God supremely and love your neighbor as yourself. The covenant promises are statements from God that He will be faithful in love, not responses to a demanding moral law. You appear to be thinking in terms of a binding contract rather than freely given love.

This is an interesting question to ponder (and probably one we cannot fully answer)....what constraints are placed upon God in understanding that God is love? How does love constrain Him within the context of your aforementioned sovereignty? Are there actions which are impossible for Him (i.e., He is constrained from doing them) by the ontological reality that He is love and therefore can only act in love towards all Creation? Can God ever not act in love, and if He can, how?

Don't make the good of sovereignty the enemy of the best, which is love.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13610
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Light of the East wrote:
God is not "loving." God is love. This is the challenge I give to Muslims when I speak with them. What is the difference between loving and being love? If you are love, or you love someone, you can also choose to hate them. God cannot do this because He is love - period. Therefore, all His actions must be based in the ontological reality that He is love.

I'm curious. when you say that all men deserve hell, does that include infants who have not reached the "age of reason?" Do all men deserve hell who have never even heard the Gospel and do not know right from wrong by dint of their being in darkness?


God is loving because He is love. Potato, potatoe.

Yes, infant who have not reach the age of reason deserve hell. This is the Christian doctrine of original sin. If they don't deserve hell, there's no need to baptize them ASAP.

And you need to think of "soul" not as cute little tiny baby. Infant are human. Upon judgment all men are going to be in a full grown body. There's no baby being judged by God, nor old man/woman.

Quote:
How does allowing something to exist that will destroy a person coincide with the reality of love as wanting the best for that person?


Love comes in when God gives sufficient grace to overcome that evil.

Quote:
Quote:
Lastly, the punishment in hell does increase God's glory. Men deserve hell. Just like your gardener deserve your hard-earned dollar, so does the damn deserves hell. There's really nothing to pity. On General Judgment, everyone will know that each of us who is in hell deserves it (And those of us in heaven doesn't deserves it).


Sons and daughters do not "deserve hell."


Yes they do.

Quote:
They deserve to be healed, not punished. Sin is a sickness.


Not if they chose sin by their own will after being told not to, after given the grace to resist it.


Quote:
I find it interested that those who are always so very sure of their standing before God and their own rightness are so lacking in compassion for those who are still trapped in sin. I remember when I was in a Fundamentalist church many years ago and after their service, a couple of us where talking about the lost pagans in Africa and their fate. I don't remember exactly the words that were said, but they went along the lines of "Well, too bad for them."


This erroneous thought is part of the problem that traps you into universalism.

Quote:
Cold-hearted. Kind of like the same coldness I think of when I read of certain people in the Roman Catholic Church stating that God and the redeemed will see the torments of the damned and enjoy seeing them for the glory they bring to God


When a criminal is punish for their crime, for example Ted Bundy given capital punishment or thief punished to 30 hours community service, do you think it's cold-hearted to be joyful for their punishment?

Quote:
No, I will continue to believe and hope in a Father who IS love and because He is love, can do no other but constantly work for the restoration of all Creation and all creatures to experience that which the best for them - His love and presence forever.


That is heretical.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5072
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Light of the East wrote:
Theologians have stated that the Trinity is a unity in covenant.

What theologians say this? The unity of the Trinity is substantial, not covenantal. As far as God keeping His promises, that's true. But it isn't because He's obligated to us to do so. You keep talking about what's best for us. Yes, God loves us, but first and foremost and principally God loves Himself. You speak as if God somehow gains something by loving us.

God is constrained by absolutely nothing. All that He does is identical with what He is. Yes, He acts out of love. But He acts out of His sovereignty, for He is love and He is sovereignty, and, indeed, in God, love is sovereignty and vice-versa. God is absolutely free. That's why I'm encouraging you to set aside your attempts to constrain God. He, and He alone, is free. He is under no obligations. He simply is, and what He does, He is.

edit:

And you did not answer my question. Your comments on covenant, are they your own private interpretation or are they church teaching? You've already corrected a priest. I want to know your authority.

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10462
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:
Light of the East wrote:
Theologians have stated that the Trinity is a unity in covenant.

What theologians say this? The unity of the Trinity is substantial, not covenantal. As far as God keeping His promises, that's true. But it isn't because He's obligated to us to do so. You keep talking about what's best for us. Yes, God loves us, but first and foremost and principally God loves Himself. You speak as if God somehow gains something by loving us.

God is constrained by absolutely nothing. All that He does is identical with what He is. Yes, He acts out of love. But He acts out of His sovereignty, for He is love and He is sovereignty, and, indeed, in God, love is sovereignty and vice-versa. God is absolutely free. That's why I'm encouraging you to set aside your attempts to constrain God. He, and He alone, is free. He is under no obligations. He simply is, and what He does, He is.

edit:

And you did not answer my question. Your comments on covenant, are they your own private interpretation or are they church teaching? You've already corrected a priest. I want to know your authority.



You will need to give me a bit of time to do my due diligence. I know I read that somewhere. Need to get into my links. May take a while. I'm busy doing customer billings for the week.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5072
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Works for me. Real life definitely has to come first! :)

_________________
Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. ~ Pope Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes 24.3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Free Will and Pelagianism: Will Non-Catholics Go to Hea
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:33 am
Posts: 3848
Religion: Catholic
Look, apparently I opened a can of worms.

I could go back and restate what I’ve said to make my points more clear, but I suspect we are discussing a couple of subjects from two faith-traditions....which means another forum would indeed be more appropriate.

....and while I do respect and understand Fr. Obi concerning the Noahic covenant (which I had thought of when I made my original comment and considered it might open another can of worms), I disagree that it’s completely one-sided. However the nuances of my position would even further derail this thread and things are already confusing enough.

So I’ll just bow out and watch from the sidelines.

_________________
"So mercifully blessed to be free from the ravages of intelligence." - Taken from Time Bandits


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 6   [ 105 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: