Freedom of Conscience

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

Noah was a Gentile.Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you …
Gen. 9:8-9

Noah was not part of the Abrahamic Covenant. His was a different covenant. Leviticus was not written, yet.

God made a marriage covenant with Adam and Eve,
A Family Covenant with Noah and his household,
A tribal Covenant with Abraham,
A national Covenant with Moses and the 12 tribes,
A Kingdom Covenant with David and Israel,
And a New Covenant with all Baptized in the Holy Trinity.

Do you see where God builds His Plans gradually throughout the Old Testament and fully reveals it in the New Testament?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

Do you see where God builds His Plans gradually throughout the Old Testament and fully reveals it in the New Testament?

Uh…no…

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Noah was not part of the Abrahamic Covenant. His was a different covenant.

Obviously. But since Abraham was a descendent of Noah, the covenant that God made with Noah and his descendents included both the progeny of Abraham and the Gentiles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

Obviously. But since Abraham was a descendent of Noah, the covenant that God made with Noah and his descendents included both the progeny of Abraham and the Gentiles.

Okay… but what was that covenant He made with Noah? Wasn’t it just a renewal of the Creation Covenant He made with Adam and Eve, except this time, He made it with a household.

Notworthy

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

… what was that covenant He made with Noah? Wasn’t it just a renewal of the Creation Covenant He made with Adam and Eve, except this time, He made it with a household.

The covenant that God made with Adam and Eve wasn’t just a personal covenant for Adam and Eve alone – God’s intention was to make a covenant with Adam and Eve * and their progeny* – i.e. a covenant with the whole human race. God renews that covenant that with Noah and his descendants. Since the descendents of Noah were the only ones to survive the Flood, the covenant with Noah is also a covenant with the whole human race.

Do you see where God builds His Plans gradually throughout the Old Testament and fully reveals it in the New Testament?

What exactly do you mean that God “builds His Plans gradually”? Would you say that you are supralapsarian in your theology?

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt16_18:

The covenant that God made with Adam and Eve wasn’t just a personal covenant for Adam and Eve alone – God’s intention was to make a covenant with Adam and Eve * and their progeny* – i.e. a covenant with the whole human race. God renews that covenant that with Noah and his descendants. Since the descendents of Noah were the only ones to survive the Flood, the covenant with Noah is also a covenant with the whole human race.

Yes, but that Covenant with Adam and Eve was a Marriage Covenant. My wife and I are under the same Covenant (ok, roughly the same, you know we’ve probably tinkered with that over the last few millenium, eh?). The Covenant with Noah and his family is as a household. But, yes, it is basically the same Covenant.

Matt16_18:

What exactly do you mean that God “builds His Plans gradually”? Would you say that you are supralapsarian in your theology?

Uhhhhhh, I’m going to have to get back with you on that after I figure out what Supralapsarian means. Can you help a brother in need?

NotWorthy:

God made a marriage covenant with Adam and Eve,
A Family Covenant with Noah and his household,
A tribal Covenant with Abraham,
A national Covenant with Moses and the 12 tribes,
A Kingdom Covenant with David and Israel,
And a New Covenant with all Baptized in the Holy Trinity.

What I meant with building his Plan, He encompasses more people in HIs Covenent as He initiates each progressive one. Yes, I’m under the Adamic Covenant, but my Covenant with God is only between Him, my wife and I. You don’t share in my Adamic Covenant and I don’t share in yours.
But again, Moses’ Covenant with God included all twelve tribes of Israel as a nation. God was in covenant with the nation of Israel under one Covenant, not a bunch of little ones, as the Adamic Covenant.
The Davidic Covenant included the kingdom of Israel which encompassed some other countries that Israel had conquered (I think).
The New Covenant encompasses all of God’s Children in One Body, all under one Covenant.

Look at it one more way. When I was baptized, I became a part of One Covenant, the same Covenant as all Christians for the last 2000 (or so) years. But when I married Cheryl, I started a new Covenant only between God, Cheryl and myself.

Do you see where God builds His Plans gradually through His Covenants throughout the Old Testament and fully reveals it in the New Testament?

Notworthy

P.S. If *supralapsarian means God changes, no I don’t hold to that.
*

 

[Breton]

reen12,

Hope you don’t mind but I need to side-step NotWorthy and Matt 16_18; they’re getting way over my head.

I was wondering if you could provide more of your thoughts on this “conscience” that is being formed/freed?

I’ve most often heard conscience described as a guide; if one is faced with a fork in the road, your conscience helps one choose which path to travel. But what is it that conscience is guiding us toward? I believe it is guiding us toward the objective truth of God; our Creator and the source of our joy.

It’s been put forward that God created ALL humankind to seek out joy – namely Him – but because of the sin of Adam and Eve, our vision (guide, conscience) has been distorted as such that we seek joy in all the wrong places. I don’t care for the characterization that we are “totally depraved”; surely we can become that if we silence our conscience and allow ourselves to be totally consumed by any perceived joy short of God. I prefer to think of humankind as merely blinded to the joy imprinted on the hearts of all humanity and which we all instinctively seek.

I would say that in order to be guided to God, we must allow our conscience to be formed by Him as well. In order to reach any destination, I would rather my guide be “formed” rather than “freed”. To be formed, eventually, one must be humbled to that which forms. And for me, in the end, this is the most difficult task, to put on humility; to allow my conscience to be formed rather than freed. Considering that the first and greatest sin was/is pride, I imagine that submitting to an authority while maintaining our own idea of “freedom” is most difficult for most folks.

I don’t know that my ruminations have contributed anything worthwhile here but I would like to hear more from you regarding the formation or freedom of conscience.

Thank you.

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Uhhhhhh, I’m going to have to get back with you on that after I figure out what Supralapsarian means. Can you help a brother in need?

Supralapsa´rian (Eccl. Hist.) One of that class of Calvinists who believed that God’s decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race, the decree of salvation being conceived of as formed before or beyond, and not after or following, the lapse, or fall.

Would you translate the Exultet (“O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem”) this way: “Oh happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

 

[reen12]

Hi, Breton,

If it’s OK with you, I’ll reply to your post in two
separate posts, so it doesn’t get complicated.
quote: Breton

I was wondering if you could provide more of your thoughts on this “conscience” that is being formed/freed?

I’ve most often heard conscience described as a guide; if one is faced with a fork in the road, your conscience helps one choose which path to travel. But what is it that conscience is guiding us toward? I believe it is guiding us toward the objective truth of God; our Creator and the source of our joy.

It’s been put forward that God created ALL humankind to seek out joy – namely Him – but because of the sin of Adam and Eve, our vision (guide, conscience) has been distorted as such that we seek joy in all the wrong places. I don’t care for the characterization that we are “totally depraved”; surely we can become that if we silence our conscience and allow ourselves to be totally consumed by any perceived joy short of God. I prefer to think of humankind as merely blinded to the joy imprinted on the hearts of all humanity and which we all instinctively seek.

OK, here goes:

-my understanding is, that, for a Catholic, a well-formed

conscience = knowing and understanding what the

Church teaches, in terms of the moral principles that

should guide our lives. This would cover issues like

abortion, cloning, end of life concerns, the laws pertaining

to the marriage contract etc.

The Church holds that she teaches infallibly - on matters of faith

and morals -under certain conditions.

quote: Breton

I don’t care for the characterization that we are “totally depraved”;

The CC does not teach that men and women are

“totally depraved,” O.K.? That concept comes from some

other Christian sources, but is not held by the Church.

The Church teaches that men and women are “wounded”

in their natures - in short, that they are more *inclined *to

choose evil - than was the case, before the fall of Adam and Eve.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

This, of course, is what is referred to as Original Sin,

and the effects of same.

[You might be aware, that the word “conscience”

comes from the Latin *con scio =‘with knowledge’]

So, the question becomes: Where do we obtain the

knowledge - by which - we can know, that what we

choose is either good, or evil?

Are you following this, or is it too much information at once?

reen12

 

[Breton]

So, the question becomes: Where do we obtain the

knowledge - by which - we can know, that what we

choose is either good, or evil?

Are you following this, or is it too much information at once?

reen12

No, no, I’m following. Please continue.

 

[reen12]

[contd.]

I’ll keep this short:

[There are many sources, in the world, that will convey

what is “right” “OK” “wrong”…movies, books, this

group, or that group.]

What the Church says, basically, is:

Holy Mother Church will convey to you, with the

guidance of the Holy Spirit, what is truely right,

and what is sinful - she will teach you the moral

laws that should govern your life.

---

Along with Judaism, I hold that there is no

original sin, and I do not accept the teachings of the

Church. I look to Judaism for guidance.

jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq123.html

---

That, BTW, is what I mean by “freedom of conscience.”

My conscience - formed by reading, prayer and a

knowledge of what the Church teaches - still guides me

to accept the Judaic view of God.

Yet, I do have great respect, for what the Church teaches,

in terms of moral behavior, but I do not accept that she teaches

infallibly.

Hope the thoughts, in both posts, are clear, Breton.

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

I just noted the following:
quote: Breton

I prefer to think of humankind as merely blinded to the joy imprinted on the hearts of all humanity and which we all instinctively seek.

I think St. Thomas Aquinas addresess this very thing.
Humans seek the “good.” But, if the “good” is
mis-identified, mis-perceived, a human may end up in sin.
*

Maybe one of the posters who is quite familiar with Aquinas,
would be willing to address this point.

reen

Note: in terms of the link I provided, in the post above, the
Catholic Church does not teach that “all” who do not accept
Christ are condemned to hell.*

 

[NotWorthy]

Supralapsa´rian (Eccl. Hist.)

Now you’ve done it. I can’t get Mary Poppins out of my head!

Matt16_18:

Would you translate the Exultet (“O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem”) this way: “Oh happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

I guess I would. I sing it at the Easter Vigil every year. I’m not sure if it’s got anything to do with Supra…, even after reading the definition. In our CCD class, we find that a comforting saying, “O necessary sin of Adam…”. Am I in err? And what does all this have to do with our Off-Topic discussion of OT Covenants?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

Hi, NotWorthy,

I think it’s O felix culpa ! “Oh, happy fault…”
that brought Christ into the world.

I consider a discussion of same an “emanation”
from the thread topic…not “off-topic”!

reen12

 

[NotWorthy]

reen12:

Hi, NotWorthy,

I think it’s O felix culpa ! “Oh, happy fault…”
that brought Christ into the world.

I consider a discussion of same an “emanation”
from the thread topic…not “off-topic”!

reen12

In the exultate it is, “Oh, happy fault. Oh, necessary sin of Adam, who gained for us, so great a redeemer”.

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote:NotWorthy

…who gained for us, so great a redeemer".

A much lovelier phrasing, than my own poor effort!

Thanks, NotWorthy,

reen12

PS: “O necessary sin of Adam…”
I wonder how the word “necessary” is
explained, theologically. Because, if I were
a reallllly smart, 12 year old kid, I’d be “all over”
that word! …in terms of needing an explanation.

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

“O necessary sin of Adam…”

I wonder how the word “necessary” is explained, theologically. Because, if I were a reallllly smart, 12 year old kid, I’d be “all over” that word! …in terms of needing an explanation.

Yep!

 

[Matt16_18]

**Exsultet **

**O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! **

O truly necessary sin of Adam, which the death of Christ has blotted out!

**O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem! **

O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

I’m not sure if it’s got anything to do with Supra…, even after reading the definition. In our CCD class, we find that a comforting saying, “O necessary sin of Adam…”. Am I in err? And what does all this have to do with our Off-Topic discussion of OT Covenants?

I am trying to figure out what you mean when you say that God “builds His Plans gradually” through the covenants he makes with man.

Do you agree with the Supralapsarians that “God’s decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race”? i.e. “O necessary sin of Adam …”

 

[Matt16_18]

Reen12:

There are many sources, in the world, that will convey what is “right” “OK” “wrong”…movies, books, this group, or that group. … My conscience - formed by reading, prayer and a knowledge of what the Church teaches - still guides me to accept the Judaic view of God.

IOW, the ultimate temporal authority that you will accept in matters of interpretation of scriptures is ….youself. What you have done is make yourself the pope of your own personal little religion.

Jeremiah, a Jew and a Prophet of God, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt”. (Jeremiah 17:9).

What basis do you have for claiming that Judaism teaches that you should be your own ultimate temporal authority in matters of morality?