M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
sigh
Simple Question # 1: How does God prevent sin from happening?
Please remember God has forgiven us while we were yet sinners. Our reconciliation from these sins, however, does not happen automatically.
- Status
Simple Question # 1: How does God prevent sin from happening?
Please remember God has forgiven us while we were yet sinners. Our reconciliation from these sins, however, does not happen automatically.
A
apophasis
Guest
Not through the cross. The cross gives GOD the power to forever forgive sins. The cross deals with sins committed.
That is a lie.Rom. 5:11 “And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11)
2 Cor. 5:18 "Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,"Reconciliation is a major work Christ accomplished on the cross. A work He finished there and is applied to the believer, in full, at the time of personal faith in Christ.
A
apophasis
Guest
The Holy Spirit came “upon her” and it was the “power” of the Most High that overshadowed her to do what He was about to do to her. The contextual focus of that verse is not Mary but the Child she would bear. The purpose of the Holy Spirit coming upon her and the Most High’s power overshadowing her was that she would conceive a Child, yet a virgin. A Child that, through the shedding of His blood, would be the cause of the propitiation (Gr. hilasterion) of the sins of the world (Rom. 3:25; 1 Jn. 2:2).
This Catholic teaching of a direct parallel between the “ark of the covenant” and Mary as the “ark of the new covenant” is misleading, even bogus. It was not what was INSIDE the ark that mattered as much as that which was on top of it - the golden “mercy seat” (Heb. kapporeth; Gr. hilasterion).
It was this “mercy seat” that became the meeting place between the sons of Israel and their God who just redeemed them from the bondage of Egypt (Yehwah):Ex 25:21-22 "You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.
Ex 30:6 "You shall put this altar in front of the veil that is near the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is over {the ark of} the testimony, where I will meet with you.On the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) the high priest presented before Yahweh two goats: one slain, the other onto which the sins of the people were imputed by laying on of hands, led out into the wilderness and set free. A prefiguring of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
The blood of the slain goat was brought into the Holy of Holies. There the high priest sprinkled it upon the “mercy seat” seven times (the number of completeness). Through the blood the holy and righteous claims of the throne of God as to sin were completely met and God and Israel could commune. A prefiguring of the “once for all” blood sacrifice of the Messiah she would bear.
Now in the Greek Septuagint the Hebrew word for “mercy seat” (kapporeth) is always translated hilasterion, which we find translated “propitiation” in the N.T. in verses such as Rom. 3:25 and Jn. 2:2, which speak of Christ.
In other words, the Child Mary would bear would Himself become God’s “Mercy Seat,” the divine “meeting place” between an infinitely holy God and a sinful world. This through the shedding of His blood on the cross by which the holy and righteous claims of the throne of God are completely met and satisfied (propitiated).
Now as to what was IN the ark:Heb 9:4 "…having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;“Catholic theology agrees that these are all types of Christ: He being “the Bread of life;” His holy Priesthood;” and the “Word of God.” Though this is true concerning each these entities, the significance lies in why they were put into the ark.
They were put within as a testimony to Israel’s sinful rebellion connected with each of them. (1) They rejected the manna He graciously provided for them in the wilderness (Num. 11); (2) they rejected His selection of Aaron as High Priest and mediator (Num. 16-17); and (3) they rejected (broke) the covenant He made with them at Sinai (Jer 31:32).
But above the testimony of their sin and rebellion inside was the golden “mercy seat,” where on the yearly “Day of Atonement” the blood was sprinkled. And because of this sacrificial blood God could meet there with his people. All prefiguring the Person and work of His beloved Son.
None of this has anything to do with Mary. It ALL prefigured Jesus Christ and His now, once for all, propitiatory, blood sacrifice on the cross; the place where God and a sinful world could now meet.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
"Mr. Ex Nihilo:
Mr. Ex Nihilo:
apophasis:
Some of your claims are rather anti-Catholic. Some of them seem to move into the direction of redemption. Others seem to be nothing more than empty claims, such as claiming that I’m lying.
Either way you look at it, nothing you’ve offered so far actually answers Simple Question # 1:
How does God prevent sin from happening?
Simple Question # 1: How does God prevent sin from happening?
Mr. Ex Nihilo:
You seem to be making a lot of claims apophasis.
Some of your claims are rather anti-Catholic. Some of them seem to move into the direction of redemption. Others seem to be nothing more than empty claims, such as claiming that I’m lying.
Either way you look at it, nothing you’ve offered so far actually answers Simple Question # 1:
How does God prevent sin from happening?
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
For real? I thought God was all powerful? How can an inaminate object give God power?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
There is nothing in the context that of the Gospel passage that requires “all” to be taken in a strict sense to mean “excluding no one at all”. The Romans passage, OTOH, requires “all” to be understood in that strict sense; the argument St. Paul is making requires this. If this passage is true & if that dogma about the BVM is true, neither needs to be sacrificed to the other - both can (on that basis) be maintained. Something is very wrong indeed, if Scripture has to be emptied of its force to accommodate a dogma.If Mary is not as genuinely saved by Christ as anyone else, & on the same terms, she is (implicitly) not a member of Christ. She needed grace to be saved no less than we do - possibly even more ##
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Bump
There are 3 degrees or usages of “All” in the New Testament.
Starting with the least restrictive usage:
It is pretty general. Context is “Many”.
Now for the intermediate word:
This verse uses these two "ALL"s:
Here is a verse that uses hapas and you can see why it is absolute in its usage:
holos is used 112 times
hapas is used 44 times.
If Paul had intended for us to believe that all have sinned without exception, he would have used hapas. PERIOD.
kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/ check the Ancient Greek ( of which was used ) and search for “Many” or “Some”. It comes up empty.
this is correct. In the Ancient Greek(what was used to write the New Testament) That can be verified by going here: kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/ and checking the Ancient Greek and doing a search on “Some” or “Many”.
There are 3 degrees or usages of “All” in the New Testament.
Starting with the least restrictive usage:
The Above word is what is used in Mark 1:5 and the verse by Paul that says “All have sinned”.
It is pretty general. Context is “Many”.
Now for the intermediate word:
The above world is more strict in it’s context.
This verse uses these two "ALL"s:
The most strict form of all is this word, which leaves no room for anything context than “ALL” without exception is as follows:
This is used very sparingly since it is an absolute whereas the other two uses is not.
Here is a verse that uses hapas and you can see why it is absolute in its usage:
pas is used 1238 times
holos is used 112 times
hapas is used 44 times.
If Paul had intended for us to believe that all have sinned without exception, he would have used hapas. PERIOD.
kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon/ check the Ancient Greek ( of which was used ) and search for “Many” or “Some”. It comes up empty.
A
apophasis
Guest
God “prevents” no one from sinning. However, it was your contention that the cross prevents one from sinning. But it was my argument that the purpose of the cross was not to “prevent” sin, but for the purpose of divinely forgiving sins committed. The power of prevention in the cross is that of keeping the one who believes in Jesus from being eternally damned (Jn. 3:14-18).
Now Paul does instruct the believer how he can prevent himself from sinning:Gal. 5:16 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh."It is the believer walking in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit that can prevent himself from sinning. It is part of his faith walk.
But now if a believer does sin, John instructs that his "sins have been forgiven for His name’s sake" (i.e., because of the cross, 1 Jn. 2:12), but if he does, "we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn. 2:1-2)
(1) I’ve said nothing “anti-Catholic.” Lately, disagreeing with any Catholic doctrine is deemed “anti-Catholic.” Why is that? (2) My “claims” are always based on “the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” (3) I did not say YOU are lying, but the doctrine that states that a believer is not reconciled to God through the reconciliatory work of Christ on the cross is truly a lie. I furnished you with the Scriptures.
S
sandusky
Guest
Joey Warren:
2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
Matthew 24:8
8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Matthew 24:9
9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
Matthew 24:14
14 “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Matthew 24:22
22 “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Matthew 24:30
30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:33
33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Matthew 24:34
34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Matthew 24:47
47 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.Joey, can you explain how any of those usages of pas does not mean “without exception” with respect to the objects in view?
That’s right; you can’t; such is the case with Rom 3:23 whose context is Rom 3:9, Greeks and Jews are the objects in view; all of them without distinction, and all of them without exception.
Joey Warren:
There is more to Greek exegesis than looking up words in a lexicon; though you are quite adept at eisegetical imposition of your presuppositions onto the biblical texts.
To intimate that the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Matthew is the standard for Paul, or any of the other NT writers, is absurd; you might as well insist that Hemingway should have written with the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Twain. :whacky:
Paul uses hapas twice, compared to the umpteen number of times that he uses pas.
Clearly pas is Paul’s choice of expression for “all” without exception.
Pas, the root for hapas is also used liberally in your chapter of choice for hapas, Matthew 24 Matthew 24:2
2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
Matthew 24:8
8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Matthew 24:9
9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
Matthew 24:14
14 “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Matthew 24:22
22 “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Matthew 24:30
30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:33
33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Matthew 24:34
34 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Matthew 24:47
47 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.Joey, can you explain how any of those usages of pas does not mean “without exception” with respect to the objects in view?
That’s right; you can’t; such is the case with Rom 3:23 whose context is Rom 3:9, Greeks and Jews are the objects in view; all of them without distinction, and all of them without exception.
Joey Warren:
That illustrates your bankrupt, “free-for-all” hermeneutical approach to scripture.
There is more to Greek exegesis than looking up words in a lexicon; though you are quite adept at eisegetical imposition of your presuppositions onto the biblical texts.
To intimate that the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Matthew is the standard for Paul, or any of the other NT writers, is absurd; you might as well insist that Hemingway should have written with the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Twain. :whacky:
Paul uses hapas twice, compared to the umpteen number of times that he uses pas.
Clearly pas is Paul’s choice of expression for “all” without exception.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Have no problem with the usage of all in matthew at all.
Next?
Next?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
[shoving oar in]:
When the OP said……it’s not clear that he was saying anything different from what you say. Reconciliation has to be provided, if it is to be effective - it also has to be appropriated by the individual. It is all of it the work of God, just as a sphere is all of it a sphere. It does not follow from its being wholly & in every respect the work of God, that a man has nothing to do: he definitely does; he has to accept this work (which he can do only by the power of God), or else it will avail him nothing.
It is one thing to say “Jesus saves” - something else & something more to say with St. Paul, “…the Son of God gave Himself for me…”. St. Paul is adding nothing to the work of God in Christ - he is describing that work insofar as he has appropriated it as something that is effective, not in a general or abstract way, but, effective for him in particular; to save at all, is to save specific people - salvation-in-general is an abstraction, a concept; not an act that benefits any one. ISTM that different posters are emphasising different aspects of the same act - but not disagreeing, except in words. AFAICS ##
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Then why did you say this?
So first of all you say that God “prevents” no one from sinning.
Then you say that the believer walking in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit can prevent himself from sinning.
Are you actually suggesting that people earn their own own salvation in proportion to how much they obey the the prompts of the Holy Spirit?
Are we not saved solely by grace?
Is it not the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit that can prevent someone from sinning?
Is the Holy Spirit not God?
Is God the Holy Spirit not in the process of “preventing” people from sinning as he moves us by the power of the Holy Spirit?
Are you saying that humanity itself prevents itself from sinning totally by its own human effort without God’s Holy Spirit?
Of course not.
You believe as well as I do that when someone is prevented from sinning it’s because of the Holy Spirit has been active in them and the person was docile to the Holy Spirit’s motion.
You also believe as well as I do that when someone does sin it’s because they have resisted the motion of the Holy Spirit and thereby rebelled against God himself in the process.
Am I not right?
If I am right, then why are you saying that God “prevents” no one from sinning?
A
apophasis
Guest
Reconciliation is provided, by God, through the finished, once for all, reconciliatory work of Christ on the cross. And it is God Himself who “appropriates” this work, in full, to the believer at the time of personal faith in Christ.
It is God who reconciles men to Himself (through Christ), men do not reconcile themselves to God (nor does God reconcile Himself to men).
It is instantaneous, at the time of personal faith, it is not progressive. Progressive reconciliation is intrinsically a reconciliation based on self-works. The same applies to a progressive justification. It is a work the Son came to do, and a work He began and finished on the cross.
No, “Grottle,” Mr. Ex Nihilo and I are not at all saying the same thing.
“Grottle,” I have read many of your posts and often agree with you, and throughly enjoy your ability to communicate your reasoning. But on this major doctrine of the cross I think you’ve totally missed the mark. And to miss the mark on this major, N.T. doctrine is like cancer, it shows up in many other parts of one’s theology.
V
Verita
Guest
Wow. This is one of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever seen posted here. Are you actually denying God’s power to do something? Seriously?
P
Pryority7
Guest
How sad apo…
I haven’t heard from you since your famous quote from the Purgatory forum…“I don’t know what you’re talking about”…
You never answered the presentation I gave and you dissappeared, only to reappear here to once again challange the Catholic faith. I don’t understand your “duck, hide and then come out” approach…
P7
Wait I know…you don’t know what I’m talking about…
A
apophasis
Guest
Seriously I am denying that the power and purpose of the cross was/is to “immaculately conceive” anyone. But its glorious purpose was to give an infinitely holy and just God the power to judicially and forever forgive the sins of those who trust completely in the sacrificial work of His Son on their behalf.
The cross could in no way prevent Mary from sin prior to or even after her birth, since the purpose of the cross was to be the divine means by which God forgives sins committed. In respect to Mary, of what value then is the cross (the blood of Christ) if for her sin was never an issue. Christ died for the unjust, not the just (see below).
As I posted earlier, the power of the cross was not that of preventing anyone from sin, but preventing the sinner from eternal damnation and instead being given the free gift of eternal life:John 3:14-15 “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up (i.e., the cross); so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Rom. 5:21 "…so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life (how?) through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Pet. 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;"So the divine power of the cross, Verity, is not to prevent sins from ever happening, but to forgive those that have, and to bring a sinner into a justified relationship with an infinitely holy God.Rom. 3:22-24 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (i.e., between Jew and Gentile); for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace (how? ) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (i.e., the cross);Am I denying God the power to do something? No! But I am denying that God did something based on the cross of Christ - something God never intended it to do.
A
apophasis
Guest
Priority7:
Actually, I didn’t “duck, hide and then come out” again. I simply moved on. In fact, I think I discussed the issue on a couple of other threads since then. You could do a history of my posts if it means all that much to you.
What’s that P-7? That God, through the power of the cross, instantaneously reconciles men to Himself at the time of personal belief in Christ? There’s no room for sadness there, my friend, only great joy in the Spirit!
Oh, I’m sure I answered you many times over in previous posts. If I recall rightly (that was some time ago) it was a rather lengthy thread. But, P-7, one can try to convince someone, Biblically, that “Narnia” doesn’t actually exist only so long. Then you must allow them to wallow in their own folly. Read the Gospel accounts, even Christ knew when to back off. But the Pharisees continued to seek Him out, only for their own reasons.
Actually, I didn’t “duck, hide and then come out” again. I simply moved on. In fact, I think I discussed the issue on a couple of other threads since then. You could do a history of my posts if it means all that much to you.
P
Pryority7
Guest
Dude…I stayed on that thread for weeks after you dissappeared…you never responded…What’s that P-7? That God, through the power of the cross, instantaneously reconciles men to Himself at the time of personal belief in Christ? There’s no room for sadness there, my friend, only great joy in the Spirit!Oh, I’m sure I answered you many times over in previous posts. If I recall rightly (that was some time ago) it was a rather lengthy thread. But, P-7, one can try to convince someone, Biblically, that “Narnia” doesn’t actually exist only so long. Then you must allow them to wallow in their own folly. Read the Gospel accounts, even Christ knew when to back off. But the Pharisees continued to seek Him out, only for their own reasons.
Actually, I didn’t “duck, hide and then come out” again. I simply moved on. In fact, I think I discussed the issue on a couple of other threads since then. You could do a history of my posts if it means all that much to you.
Everything else you just addresessed in that post is irrelevant to the point I’M making…that you duck, hide and come out again somewhere else…namely in this thread.
Why don’t you post your response to me in the Purgatory thread here since you so claim to have answered it…
The only response you gave me was…
“I don’t know what you’re talking about”…
Be honest…give a testimony my brother, not a testiphony…
P7
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Talk about restructuring the entire gospel to be centered on the efforts of man.
So let me get this straight, you’re saying that God is powerless to save us unless we let him save us?
You said that it is God Himself who “appropriates” this work, in full, to the believer at the time of personal faith in Christ.
Christ sacrifice on the cross applies throughout all human history-- past, present, and future. This means that Christ’s sacrifice not only redeems us after we sin. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross also prevents us from sinning too.
Christ crucified is the singular timeless event by which God distributes all graces to us apophasis. If Christ had not experienced this sacrifice on the cross, no one would have had access to God’s grace, preventive or redemptive, ever.
Now if you disagree with this, fine. But at least make an effort to answer the question I’ve repeatedly asked…
Consequently, the answer you’ve provided so far amounts to our own human effort preventing sin from happening-- which is nonsense. You’re basically ascribing some ‘token’ reference to the Holy Spirit and yet saying that man ultimately prevents himself from sinning-- which is, theologically speaking, plainly stupid.
And even if you give the ‘token’ reference to the Holy Spirit, you still have not answered how people who do not believe in Jesus are prevented from sinning since they do not have access to the Holy Spirit.
In other words, if a non-Christian does not have the indwellling of the Holy Spirit, then how does the Holy Spirit prevent non-Christians from sinning?
My contention is that God has poured out all grace via Christ’s death on the cross-- both preventive and redemptive (past, present, and future). I’ve been very clear about this too.
Titus 3:4-7:
And again…
Colossians 1:19-20:
The timeless nature of Christ’s sacrifice is probably no where more evident in the Scriptures than 1 Peter 3:18-20.
Indeed, Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit-- through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago (this is the time when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built).
In other words, it is from the singular event of the cross that Christ, as true God and true man, was able to extend his immortal spirit throughout all human history and bring about his grace-- both preventive and redemptive.
Now how does God prevent sin from happening in the life of those who do not believe in Jesus even though these people (according to your theology) have no access to the Holy Spirit?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Hmmm…so basically we Catholics are spreading a cancerous gospel in this particular regard. More to the point, your suggestion that we’ve ‘totally missed the mark’ also implies that our theology is totally built upon ‘sin’.
Sin equals missing the mark, does it not?
I guess I’m getting tired of your wretched, little snippets you insert in your posts apophasis. It’s very loaded with anti-Catholic innuendo.
You’ve been very vocal in your denunciation of Catholic teachings. You essentially said that our theology is void of the Holy Spirit and the mother of all cults. You also said that we would never understand Paul or God’s present program for the Church and future program for Israel, correct?
Remember this and this?
Take a good look at some of the claims you made against us.
You’ve made some tremendous accusations against Catholic theology and yet your own theology seems to be akin to a maggot infested corpse giving praise to the Lord of the Flies. In other words, your theology isn’t really amounting to anything except the attraction of more flies as it rots in the irredeemable grave. It’s not really amounting to much of anything of value theologically speaking and is spiritually twice dead-- causing much division in the body of Christ.
How does it feel when someone makes outstanding claims against your faith apophasis? Does it make you feel good? And if you’re not going to even listen to us, why should we even bother listening to you?
So much for reasonable and polite ecumenical dialogue.
- Status