Augustinism and Pelagianism

[Amandil]

So do mine.

Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching. I agree with Amandil, though, such forgiveness is to be accepted; it is not coerced. To me, however, if salvation is dependent on such acceptance, then acceptance is coerced. God as I know Him offers, and offers freely, without condition. If that is different for you, I am not here to contest your relationship. I respect your relationship with Our Father.

To me, it is only ignorance and blindness that lead to lack of acceptance on the part of the human, as we have been through this before. Still looking for that counterexample…

Choosing to do the good in accordance with God’s will is never coercion, its the definition of freedom.

The only true freedom which exists is to do God’s will in all things. Its the reason why Paul wrote those who commit sin make themselves slaves to sin.

The irony of the whole issue of choice is that by choosing we ultimately make ourselves slaves to something.

If we choose God over evil and falsehoods, we necessarily make ourselves slaves to God. But God and His goodness assures us that this “slavery” is true freedom. Because in becoming slaves to God we become children, and in becoming children we become who we were truly created to be, our true selves. Our true individual identities, our true humanity, can only be found in God, wherein lies our true freedom.

Conversely, when we choose sin we make ourselves slaves to sin. This is the abuse of freedom because sin is not what we were made for. In sin we can never be God’s children, but rather we choose to be gods in ourselves, or rather we choose to be our own gods. This choice is diametrically opposed to our natures, we were never made to be gods, nor were we made to be without God. So in this we utterly lose our true identities, and also our freedom, because we can never see nor know our true selves, nor can we be known by God because we are not ourselves, but the sin with which we enslaved ourselves to.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[simpleas]

We do because He permits it. If He “loved us infinitely” before we were prepared by grace to receive it would, again, be comparable to spiritual rape. It would completely and utterly override our wills and violate our freedom to choose Him. Therefore our love for Him would not be “free” but coerced.

This effect of God limiting Himself presupposes God’s power and therefore is not an argument against it. Only because God is all-loving & all-powerful can He limit it so as to mot offend our free-will.

Because they’ve lost any sense of the Church and the Covenant. They think that God is utterly subjective(in them) as some sort of “conciousness” instead of the real God of the Universe, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There’s no discernment between what’s true or false.

It’s bordering on self-worship.

So what does is mean by we are the temple of the holy spirit? Have we not got God inside of us by way of he created us in his imagine. We come from the earth which God created, so we are all united as creation.
Can I only know God by obeying the church, this can’t be the personal relationship God wants with us if it means I go against my conscience…

 

[Amandil]

So what does is mean by we are the temple of the holy spirit?

By virtue of our baptism we are in Christ. He is the new Temple, He has the Holy Spirit, the Church is “one flesh” as the bride is with the Groom.

We have the Holy Spirit provided that we remain in Christ and His Church.

Have we not got God inside of us by way of he created us in his imagine.

You’re conflating two different forms of grace. We lost true likeness to God in Original Sin. We regain that likeness through the Covenant in Christ.

We come from the earth which God created, so we are all united as creation.
Can I only know God by obeying the church,

Frankly, yes. The Church is our mother. Would you trust a stranger to tell you about your Father? Or would you rather trust your mother and your other siblings?

…this can’t be the personal relationship God wants with us if it means I go against my conscience…

Your conscience must be properly formed in order to be trustworthy. A conscience which claims superiority over the Church cannot be a well-formed conscience, because the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth. "

 

[simpleas]

I think the problem is the substitution of words or terms that distort the actual meanings. For example. “So the soul and body are separate to begin with, until conception happens and then God immediately gives the body a soul.” is not exactly what CCC, 364-366 is teaching. Regarding Adam and body. What happens is that by propagation, there is the transmission of a human nature …( CCC, 404-405) The way that this transmission, including the contracted state of Original Sin, happens is a mystery which does not mean that it is not real.

Perhaps you should start with CCC, 355, word by word. Think about what those words mean. But be very careful of paraphrasing them. If you do substitute other words, be sure that they really mean the same thing.

I will be traveling so I am not sure when I will return to actually writing on the computer. I will be able to check PM’s quickly but that is about it.

*366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 *

This is why I see the body and soul as separate, we are reproduced as beings by our parents, God gives the soul also at the time of conception. The soul could not be already affected by Adam’s sin. If when God gives the body a soul it then becomes affected by the O.S can’t be right…to my understanding anyway. I’ll try reading again what you suggest, but I think I’ll soon give up trying to understand God, I mean we never can really understand all this can we? (maybe its just me!)

 

[OneSheep]

Hello again, Amandil.

Unlike Simpleas, who is so obviously sweet and gentle in tone, my tone can come across as ambiguous at best, even though I deliver with love. So, if I triggered any hurt or offense in any way, I apologize. No harm was intended, nor called for.

My quote:

“So, to you, what the Church teaches falls into a specific set of verbage that is lined out in the CCC and is interpreted in exactly the way that you have been taught that they are interpreted.”

Given that you know absolutely zero about me, such statements as these are predictable, as well as ridiculous and prejudicial. Way to display your “tolerance”.

I hear and understand your possible annoyance at my statement. I should have started out with “Like me, to you what the Church teaches…”.

I must admit that I “know the truth when I find it”, as Pope Francis says, and I find it in forgiving others unconditionally, which is my calling. And in doing so, I have found my Abba who does the same. I had no intention of ruling out the possibility/probability that your own idea of truth has diverged from the intepretations that you had been presented in your own catechesis. I apologize, and I hope that I have addressed the aspects of that statement which you have found ridiculous and prejudicial.

“Divine revelation” was given through the Church, through the New Covenant.

This is a rather absurd statement and obvious proof of your subjectivism(accusing their opponents of absolutism is always the tact of subjectivists.

Yes, and such revelation continues to unfold as our Church journeys through time, and on our individual journeys also. We see God differently as we grow from child, to adolescent, and to adult, and beyond. Do we not?

It sounds like when I make statements such as I did in the above paragraph, you are thinking that what I am saying sounds like “subjectivism”, and that sounds like a negative to you. I am into realism, actually. What a person hears about any teaching is subject to the person’s experiences and vocabulary. As a priest once told me, if a person is told to “turn to Jesus”, but all that person has heard about Jesus leads him to think that Jesus is a judgmental, heartless individual, that person would be better off rejecting Jesus. Is this your catechesis too?

You cannot “know” what God is or “who” God is without the Church which proclaims Him.

So, are you eliminating the possibility that a Jew or Muslim or Hindu would know anything about God? Is there a “God within” that reveals Himself to all, albeit that perhaps other views may be more clouded?

I teach the truth as Christ did. And as Paul and the Apostles did. Because the truth doesn’t belong to me. It is not “my” truth, it is Christ’s truth.

Christ didn’t water down the truth, as you are most certainly doing, in order to make His truth more agreeable.

These are the statements you made after I quoted The Holy Father. The Holy Father delivers with humility, so I don’t know what inspired your judgment here.

Again, this is absurd. You don’t “make sense” of the truth. You conform your mind to it.

My brother (or sister?), I see that I again may have triggered annoyance. You want me, perhaps, to believe exactly the way you do, and it is unsettling to hear a different view. You are requesting my conformity to your specific teachings, I think.

You certainly are not saying that we are to believe something that does not make sense, right? Is there anything about our faith that does not make sense to you, but you believe anyway? Are you saying that we are to “park our mind at the door?”. That is very un-philosophy-like.

I never said “God only loves those who ‘invite’ it.”

I said that God’s love is limited by our response to His love.

You still have not answered the parenting question, which would be useful in clarification. If you are a parent, do you love your child whether or not they are repentant? If you are married, do you love your spouse whether or not he or she is repentant?

Salvation is absolutely conditional(i.e. depends utterly on our free-will decision to accept the Redemption).

It depends on what you specifically mean by “salvation”, whether that definition is broad or narrow. A priest once told me that “eternal life” to Jesus meant something that begins here and now. A person who rejects the redemption is not as likely to experience an eternal life on Earth, however, not by imposition but by natural consequence. If death is the end, then anxiety is prevalent. I am sure, though, that you include much more in this. Perhaps it is best for another thread.

You’re actually saying that God loves us at the same time that He is indifferent towards our sinfulness. This is simply impossible. It’s not true love, its blind love.

Actually, I did not say that God is indifferent towards our sinfulness. He sees the consequence of our sin and the pain it causes, and call us to repentance and love. God as I know Him in my prayer life does not experience wrath or resentment toward anyone. This does not mean “indifference”.

My quote:

“It depends on how we see God.”

Your response:

Precisely. I see God as taught by the Church, therefore I see God truthfully.

Are you saying that I do not see God truthfully, and you do? Or, are you open to the possiblity that the God is much greater than either of us can see, and that perhaps we both of us are seeing different aspects of the same God?

That, perhaps, there is plenty of room in our great Church for both of our views?

 

[simpleas]

By virtue of our baptism we are in Christ. He is the new Temple, He has the Holy Spirit, the Church is “one flesh” as the bride is with the Groom.

We have the Holy Spirit provided that we remain in Christ and His Church.

You’re conflating two different forms of grace. We lost true likeness to God in Original Sin. We regain that likeness through the Covenant in Christ.

Frankly, yes. The Church is our mother. Would you trust a stranger to tell you about your Father? Or would you rather trust your mother and your other siblings?

Your conscience must be properly formed in order to be trustworthy. A conscience which claims superiority over the Church cannot be a well-formed conscience, because the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth. "

Thanks for your opinion. I will admit I haven’t always been clear on grace and a few other things which the church teaches.
But I believe we have God within us, and like you said, if we remain in christ. I worship Christ not myself, and I have trusted the church, but I like some others don’t agree with ALL they have taught.
But I suppose thats between me and God.

Our conscience can also be conditioned I think, so that we follow what we are told as children, but can become difficult as adults, when you feel you can lead a good life without being told its right or wrong for you.

 

[grannymh]

So do mine.

Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching.

Regarding this statement from post 60 : Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching.

Would you be so kind to post the exact Scripture verse that refers to an unrepentant crowd.
Is that in the Gospel of Matthew?
In the Gospel of Mark?
In the Gospel of John?

I am looking at Luke 23: 34. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” I do not see the words “unrepentant crowd” there.

When we shift to real Catholic teachings regarding the Catholic Sacrament of Confession/ Reconciliation, we do find in Luke 23; 34
a reference to one of the requisites for committing Mortal Sin.

My guess is that someone will ask – So what was Jesus forgiving?
Luke 23: 33. mentions the “criminals” to the right and to the left of Jesus. Could the criminals be the crowd that is being claimed? As to what Jesus was forgiving, I do not see a specific. Luke 23: 39-41 refers to crimes leading to a crucifixion.

Still looking for that counterexample…

May I respectfully point out that a counterexample is not needed until the personal interpretation of Luke 23: 34, including words which do not appear, is properly substantiated.

 

[grannymh]

*366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 *

This is why I see the body and soul as separate, we are reproduced as beings by our parents, God gives the soul also at the time of conception. The soul could not be already affected by Adam’s sin. If when God gives the body a soul it then becomes affected by the O.S can’t be right…to my understanding anyway. I’ll try reading again what you suggest, but I think I’ll soon give up trying to understand God, I mean we never can really understand all this can we? (maybe its just me!)

Body and soul are the human nature of the person. While our soul and body is unique to each of us, our human nature is the same as Adam’s. For example, the nature of a dog is transmitted to its puppies which are unique puppies but yet have the same dog nature as their parents.

From CCC, 404 --“Still, the transmission of Original Sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.”

Divine Revelation has revealed the meaning of Original Sin in Romans, 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; Genesis chapters two and three; and in other places. Because of the promised Holy Spirit, we know that the doctrines properly defined are truth.

We will never understand God completely here on earth because we are limited creatures. Our understanding increases when we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven. Personally, I cannot imagine what the Beatific Vision will be like. I am sure it will be better than having all the ice cream I can eat. I remember, as a very young child, trying to figure out heaven and deciding that the feelings in heaven would be like those I have when I lick my favorite ice cream cone.

 

[fhansen]

A few thoughts:

When Augustine says that Adam was not given the grace to never will to do evil/sin, he means that Adam’s will was left uninterfered with, uninfluenced; God commanded Adam what to do but left Adam to his own devices as to whether or not he would act accordingly.

Aquinas agrees with Anselm that original justice is “rectitude of the will”. And this means that original sin has to do with a will which is not in right order. A properly order will is one that is subjugated to God, but, again, God won’t force this to happen; He won’t force our wills to align with His.

The will, it seems, is central in all this, and this appears to imply that, in a sort of direct relationship. the more we willfully subjugate ourselves to God, the greater is our justice: the more our justice is consequentially restored IOW. Another way to put this, I believe, would be to say that that more we freely love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength the greater is our justice. But the will only orients itself towards that which it authentically values and desires, towards what it perceives as the greatest good, and so it must come to see and believe in God in a way Adam apparently did not at the time.

Aquinas also taught that man’s loss of self-mastery after the fall was a direct consequence of his losing original justice since the will was already compromised by the fact that it refused to subjugate itself to God. So once the will refused to remain in the just and ordered state, order broke down from the top down, so to speak; control was lost over lesser things as well, including our appetites, etc.

 

[Amandil]

Hello again, Amandil.

I hear and understand your possible annoyance at my statement. I should have started out with “Like me, to you what the Church teaches…”.

I must admit that I “know the truth when I find it”, as Pope Francis says, and I find it in forgiving others unconditionally, which is my calling. And in doing so, I have found my Abba who does the same. I had no intention of ruling out the possibility/probability that your own idea of truth has diverged from the intepretations that you had been presented in your own catechesis. I apologize, and I hope that I have addressed the aspects of that statement which you have found ridiculous and prejudicial.

I seem to have falsely attributed some malice in your statement where none was intended.

I apologize for my overzealous reaction.

I am a convert, and a convert from atheism. I did not come to the Church by means of having the teachings of the Church dictated or interpreted to me. I came to the Church because I realized an identity and/or correspondence between the Church and reality.

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”-St. Augustine.

If the Church is not true, then nothing is true, and I’m wasting my time with something that is not true.

So I tend to have an overzealous reaction when it seems that someone is diminishing the Church without reason(its something I’m working on).

Yes, and such revelation continues to unfold as our Church journeys through time, and on our individual journeys also. We see God differently as we grow from child, to adolescent, and to adult, and beyond. Do we not?

I really don’t think so. The Church is certain that public revelation is complete. Our expressions of what has been revealed may find different avenues of expression that shed light on things previously obscure.

I’m of the mind that “there is nothing new under the sun.” More often than not what may seem novel and fresh and interesting are simply rehashes of old ideas that were already rejected (as Pelagianism).

I’ve studied Pelagianism and the Catholic Church’s response to it. If even one aspect of Pelagianism perverts the Gospel, it must be rejected in its entirety; I would rather stick to the fullness of truth.

It sounds like when I make statements such as I did in the above paragraph, you are thinking that what I am saying sounds like “subjectivism”, and that sounds like a negative to you. I am into realism, actually. What a person hears about any teaching is subject to the person’s experiences and vocabulary.

I don’t know what you think “realism” is, but if you are referring to philosophical realism, that is definitely not what realism is.

If you’re saying that religious truth, or truth in general, is based upon your “experiences”, or that religious truth is in you, then you are an adherent of subjectivism.

Its not a surprise, its a very popular modern philosophy. It is also a very bad philosophy(in fact I believe that its source is rather demonic instead of divine)

Its the subtlety of the philosophy and how it results in people rejecting objective reality, much less the objective content of Christianity, for whatever it is that they want to believe(its the lie of the serpent to Eve all over again), which is what makes it so diabolical.

As a priest once told me, if a person is told to “turn to Jesus”, but all that person has heard about Jesus leads him to think that Jesus is a judgmental, heartless individual, that person would be better off rejecting Jesus. Is this your catechesis too?

That makes no sense. I’m not saying that bad Christians don’t represent an obstacle, but any sensible person ought to be able to conclude that the behavior of bad Christians cannot, nor does not, say anything regarding the truth of Jesus and the Church. It’s only proof is that people are sinners, which we already know is we’re honest with ourselves.

So, are you eliminating the possibility that a Jew or Muslim or Hindu would know anything about God? Is there a “God within” that reveals Himself to all, albeit that perhaps other views may be more clouded?

Since Judaism is naturally the precursor to Christianity I fail to see the problem here.

As far as a Muslim or Hindu is concerned, if they “know” anything it is through the natural law. The religions themselves necessarily lack the truth because they lack the fullness of truth which is contained in the Church. Thus they are necessarily false.

These are the statements you made after I quoted The Holy Father. The Holy Father delivers with humility, so I don’t know what inspired your judgment here.

Humility is defined as “living in accord with the truth.” It is not thinking lowly of yourself(which is a common misconception). What inspired my judgment was the truth.

cont’d…

 

[Amandil]

My brother (or sister?), I see that I again may have triggered annoyance. You want me, perhaps, to believe exactly the way you do, and it is unsettling to hear a different view. You are requesting my conformity to your specific teachings, I think.

I request nothing. I expect that if someone is going to call themselves Catholic Christians that they would faithfully adhere to what the Church teaches according to the vows they made at their baptism/confirmation and the Creed they profess at every Mass.

You certainly are not saying that we are to believe something that does not make sense, right?

Yes. Christ asks no less.

Is there anything about our faith that does not make sense to you, but you believe anyway?

The Resurrection.

Are you saying that we are to “park our mind at the door?”. That is very un-philosophy-like.

“I believe that I may better understand, the better I understand, the more I believe.”-St. Augustine

If God is God, and by definition cannot lie, what does it say about a person to demand “proof” from God before they will assent in order to understand?

You still have not answered the parenting question, which would be useful in clarification. If you are a parent, do you love your child whether or not they are repentant?

Yes, I am a parent. And yes am always open to forgive my daughters when they disobey me. But unless they ask for it, unless they repent, there really is no restoration of the relationship which they broke by their disobedience. There is still some “interaction”, I still provide them with food for the table, shelter, etc. But the brokenness caused by their disobedience remains. And it cannot be fully restored until they repent of it. Even for all this, this is not even mortal but just venial sin, but it still needs to be dealt with in order for the relationship to be fully restored.

Mortal sin is not merely “disobedience”, it’s emancipation from God. It would be as if my daughter sued me for emancipation and said to my face, “you’re dead to me!”(as the son told the father in the story of the Prodigal Son).

That’s what mortal sin is. I would still love my daughter regardless, but to her I’m “dead”, so for someone in mortal sin there is “no one” to forgive them. There is no “other” to love them, they are a “god” unto themselves .

So again, the failure is not on God’s part, but upon man’s free will.

Actually, I did not say that God is indifferent towards our sinfulness. He sees the consequence of our sin and the pain it causes, and call us to repentance and love. God as I know Him in my prayer life does not experience wrath or resentment toward anyone. This does not mean “indifference”.

But He is in fact “wrathful” towards sin. And if someone refuses to separate themselves from sin via accepting God’s mercy and forgiveness, then they receive the same “wrath” as they sin they cling to does.

Are you saying that I do not see God truthfully, and you do? Or, are you open to the possiblity that the God is much greater than either of us can see, and that perhaps we both of us are seeing different aspects of the same God?

I’m saying that God does not identify with falsehoods, because that would make God a liar. And in order to identify with God we must identify with Him in every respect, this includes rejecting things which are necessarily false.

That, perhaps, there is plenty of room in our great Church for both of our views?

That’s called syncretism. That’s what the gnostics tried to do. Which was also rounded rejected as heresy.

Have you ever heard of the adage, “you are what you eat”? That is a philosophical as well as an theological adage. It means that if you consume philosophical and/or theological junk you eventually become it. If you already have the fullness of the truth, why bother going somewhere else which will just leave you nauseated?

 

[grannymh]

I request nothing. I expect that if someone is going to call themselves Catholic Christians that they would faithfully adhere to what the Church teaches according to the vows they made at their baptism/confirmation and the Creed they profess at every Mass.

snip

Yes, I am a parent. And yes am always open to forgive my daughters when they disobey me. But unless they ask for it, unless they repent, there really is no restoration of the relationship which they broke by their disobedience. There is still some “interaction”, I still provide them with food for the table, shelter, etc. But the brokenness caused by their disobedience remains. And it cannot be fully restored until they repent of it. Even for all this, this is not even mortal but just venial sin, but it still needs to be dealt with in order for the relationship to be fully restored.

Mortal sin is not merely “disobedience”, it’s emancipation from God. It would be as if my daughter sued me for emancipation and said to my face, “you’re dead to me!”(as the son told the father in the story of the Prodigal Son).

That’s what mortal sin is. I would still love my daughter regardless, but to her I’m “dead”, so for someone in mortal sin there is “no one” to forgive them. There is no “other” to love them, they are a “god” unto themselves .

So again, the failure is not on God’s part, but upon man’s free will.

Amandil.

Your two posts 70 & 71 are excellent because of the information in them. I read them without reading OneSheep and thus, uninterrupted, found important information which serious Catholics should either learn or re-lean.

Interestingly, the above description – I put it in bold – of the state of mortal sin makes total sense according to the Catholic Church. “Emancipation” as interpreted by the sinner is the operative word. The words "“you’re dead to me!” said to God in some fashion are so true when one freely chooses the state of mortal sin. Thank you.

It appears to me that the below misunderstanding of Scripture is the foundation or source for a number of false ideas about exchanging the state of mortal sin for the state of Sanctifying Grace.
From post 60.
“Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching.”

Post 67 has a brief reply.

 

[OneSheep]

Regarding this statement from post 60 : Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching.

Would you be so kind to post the exact Scripture verse that refers to an unrepentant crowd.
Is that in the Gospel of Matthew?
In the Gospel of Mark?
In the Gospel of John?

I am looking at Luke 23: 34. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” I do not see the words “unrepentant crowd” there.

When we shift to real Catholic teachings regarding the Catholic Sacrament of Confession/ Reconciliation, we do find in Luke 23; 34
a reference to one of the requisites for committing Mortal Sin.

My guess is that someone will ask – So what was Jesus forgiving?
Luke 23: 33. mentions the “criminals” to the right and to the left of Jesus. Could the criminals be the crowd that is being claimed? As to what Jesus was forgiving, I do not see a specific. Luke 23: 39-41 refers to crimes leading to a crucifixion.

My Bible makes reference to Acts 7:60

Acts 7:59-60

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (my Bible says he died)

And the same language is used here:

Mark 11:25 CEB
Common English Bible
And whenever you stand up to pray, if you have something against anyone, forgive so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your wrongdoings."

So, if Jesus forgave the unrepentant, it follows from the same spirit of the teaching of loving our enemies, etc, and His actions were followed by St. Stephen. Do you resist the possibility that Jesus forgives the unrepentant, and calls us to do the same? Does it seem “wrong” in some way? That is common, and natural. I think it is part of the natural conscience. To me, it takes Will to go against the natural conscience; it is much more difficult to forgive the unrepentant.

May I respectfully point out that a counterexample is not needed until the personal interpretation of Luke 23: 34, including words which do not appear, is properly substantiated.

Oh, the “counterexample” I was referring to was concerning my statement that all people who lack acceptance of the resurrection do so out of blindness and/or ignorance.

 

[grannymh]

My Bible makes reference to Acts 7:60

Acts 7:59-60

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (my Bible says he died)

This says nothing about the statement in post 60 to which I replied in post 67. That statement is
“Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to
Church teaching.”

And the same language is used here:

Mark 11:25 CEB
Common English Bible
And whenever you stand up to pray, if you have something against anyone, forgive so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your wrongdoings."

This says nothing about the statement in post 60 to which I replied in post 67. That statement is
“Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to
Church teaching.”

So, if Jesus forgave the unrepentant,

Would you be so kind to post the exact Scripture verse that refers to Jesus hanging bloody on His cross forgiving an unrepentant crowd? Since you brought it up.

I am looking at Luke 23: 34. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” I do not see the words “unrepentant crowd” there.

it follows from the same spirit of the teaching of loving our enemies, etc, and His actions were followed by St. Stephen.

Of course, there is a teaching about loving our enemies. But it is not in Luke 23:34.
“Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” which does not contain the words “unrepentant crowd.”

Do you resist the possibility that Jesus forgives the unrepentant, and calls us to do the same?

So far, there is no evidence that Jesus forgave the unrepentant crowd while hanging bleeding on His cross. I can only speak for myself but I am not divine and therefore I cannot remove other people’s State of Mortal Sin the same as Jesus can.

Oh, the “counterexample” I was referring to was concerning my statement that all people who lack acceptance of the resurrection do so out of blindness and/or ignorance.

I don’t have a counter example. Now that that is taken care of…Apparently, Jesus did not forgive an unrepentant crowd…which means the Catholic Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is needed for the removal of the State of Mortal Sin and the return to the State of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[simpleas]

A few thoughts:

When Augustine says that Adam was not given the grace to never will to do evil/sin, he means that Adam’s will was left uninterfered with, uninfluenced; God commanded Adam what to do but left Adam to his own devices as to whether or not he would act accordingly.

Aquinas agrees with Anselm that original justice is “rectitude of the will”. And this means that original sin has to do with a will which is not in right order. A properly order will is one that is subjugated to God, but, again, God won’t force this to happen; He won’t force our wills to align with His.

The will, it seems, is central in all this, and this appears to imply that, in a sort of direct relationship. the more we willfully subjugate ourselves to God, the greater is our justice: the more our justice is consequentially restored IOW. Another way to put this, I believe, would be to say that that more we freely love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength the greater is our justice. But the will only orients itself towards that which it authentically values and desires, towards what it perceives as the greatest good, and so it must come to see and believe in God in a way Adam apparently did not at the time.

Aquinas also taught that man’s loss of self-mastery after the fall was a direct consequence of his losing original justice since the will was already compromised by the fact that it refused to subjugate itself to God. So once the will refused to remain in the just and ordered state, order broke down from the top down, so to speak; control was lost over lesser things as well, including our appetites, etc.

Thanks for your thoughts

I don’t know if you have looked at the book I linked on post 2, but I’m looking at pages 144 and 145.
I think that its been said before that sexual appetites was not the cause of the fall, but just disobedience of a command God had given to Adam and Eve. St Augustine from what I read explains that after the fall, man’s soul could no longer control the flesh. That the flesh became disobedient to the soul.
If the soul controls the body, how could the body disobey the soul? The soul would have to be the effected part, which then loses control of the body.
So I wonder then when Adam committed a personal sin against his own soul on disobeying Gods command, that it then can be passed on to a new soul that is created at the moment of conception.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for your thoughts

I don’t know if you have looked at the book I linked on post 2, but I’m looking at pages 144 and 145.
I think that its been said before that sexual appetites was not the cause of the fall, but just disobedience of a command God had given to Adam and Eve. St Augustine from what I read explains that after the fall, man’s soul could no longer control the flesh. That the flesh became disobedient to the soul.
If the soul controls the body, how could the body disobey the soul? The soul would have to be the effected part, which then loses control of the body.
So I wonder then when Adam committed a personal sin against his own soul on disobeying Gods command, that it then can be passed on to a new soul that is created at the moment of conception.

Aquinas taught that the problem was in a human nature that was thereafter deprived of original justice. By disobeying and breaking communion with God, disobedience/disorder began to reign everywhere. Disobedience of God led to disobedience within man. And we’re all as one man in Adam.

 

[simpleas]

Amandil.

Your two posts 70 & 71 are excellent because of the information in them. I read them without reading OneSheep and thus, uninterrupted, found important information which serious Catholics should either learn or re-lean.

Interestingly, the above description – I put it in bold – of the state of mortal sin makes total sense according to the Catholic Church. “Emancipation” as interpreted by the sinner is the operative word. The words "“you’re dead to me!” said to God in some fashion are so true when one freely chooses the state of mortal sin. Thank you.
It appears to me that the below misunderstanding of Scripture is the foundation or source for a number of false ideas about exchanging the state of mortal sin for the state of Sanctifying Grace.
From post 60.
“Jesus forgave an unrepentant crowd, Granny. That is not contrary to Church teaching.”

Post 67 has a brief reply.

Just wanted to ask how someone freely chooses to be in a state of mortal sin? Depending on what mortal sin could be used as an example, I don’t think many people decide to be in the state of mortal sin, by that I mean, we don’t think “Today I shall say to God…you are dead to me and I shall do whatever I want, because I prefer myself over you God”
To me, Mortal sin would be committed when the person refuses God completely, and wishes to do their own will over Gods in every way possible.

 

[simpleas]

Aquinas taught that the problem was in a human nature that was thereafter deprived of original justice. By disobeying and breaking communion with God, disobedience/disorder began to reign everywhere. Disobedience of God led to disobedience within man. And we’re all as one man in Adam.

Thanks.
Yes we are told we are all in Adam, but we don’t possess Adam’s soul. If God knows us before we are formed in the womb, then our soul may have preexisted, so its unique to each of us.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.
Yes we are told we are all in Adam, but we don’t possess Adam’s soul. If God knows us before we are formed in the womb, then our soul may have preexisted, so its unique to each of us.

Apparently not unique enough. Maybe just as we have many similarities, shared characteristics, not to mention that we’re all blood relatives, we also can share in the deprived state that Adam initiated by his act. I don’t know, but I do know that we’re not anywhere close to knowing or “seeing” God in this life, from birth, as we will be in the next-and even as Adam presumably was in Eden. That speaks to me of an original justice lost regardless of how that came to pass.

 

[simpleas]

Apparently not unique enough. Maybe just as we have many similarities, shared characteristics, not to mention that we’re all blood relatives, we also can share in the deprived state that Adam initiated by his act. I don’t know, but I do know that we’re not anywhere close to knowing or “seeing” God in this life, from birth, as we will be in the next-and even as Adam presumably was in Eden. That speaks to me of an original justice lost regardless of how that came to pass.

Yeah but to say God gives us a soul that isn’t first off good to each individual kinda makes it seem that God isn’t all Holy and good imo. God wouldn’t start us off in a state of sin by someone else’s nature. Why must we believe that our soul is wounded from the instant God creates it.
I think we can know God in this life, by the way we treat one another.