Holy Spirit

[edwinG]

patricius:

This is a really interesting angle on the question-- if I understand aright, then God’s substitution of a ram would really be part of His teaching on the sanctity of human life and the sinfulness of murder.

But… He had already just expected Cain to know that murder was wrong, without being told… if there’s something in the human heart that finds murder repulsive (especially that of a younger family member), then how could God command Abraham to do it? What can you say to that?

Hi patricius,
Re bold type.
Easy, This was a test for Abraham. There never was any doubt that Isaac would not be sacrificed. Can you see just how much Faith, Abraham had, a gift from God. Can’t you see how much Abraham would have loved Isaac. And Abraham’s faith still trusted God. That is almight faith.
Here is a query for you to help me.
Cain was in God’s presence when he killed. Genesis 4:16
Genesis 5:24 Enoch walked with God and was taken.
Genesis 3:22 " man has become like us to know good and evil"
Is there a similarity here. Was Abraham also in God’s presence, as written in scripture.
Note also that God did not convict Cain, but the ground did. Genesis 4:11 " you are cursed from the earth."
Christ be with you
Walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

mlchance:

The more important question is this: What kind of man would agree to sacrifice his son without even so much as an argument?

– Mark L. Chance.

Hi michance,
Too easy, a man who knew God , who understood how loving God is - and to this man God gave sufficient faith.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[edwinG]

amarischuk:

The simple answer is that the Bible isn’t God’s revelation in the way you think it is.

.

Always the argument on this seems to boil down to “Once a mind is closed it can not learn.” read: I am close minded and obviously not a good Catholic. Well, I prefer consistency to blind obedience and the God I worship is a God of order and reason, not the anthropomorphic tyrant of the OT.

Any serious study of the Bible inevitably leads to a much more moderate position; unless one is mentally unbalanced like the cases of so many fundamentalists and rad-Traditionalists who have an obsession with Marian apparitions, eschatology and the Anti-Christ.

Adam

Hi Adam,
I can bet you dollars to doughnuts that you have a lot higher IQ than I do. That is irrevelant. The important question is if you have the Holy Spirit helping you.
When you say God is a God of order and reason, are you really saying this in your perception. Is it that you can not see, order and reason in Holy Scripture?
. Could order and reason exist that you, in your wisdom, could not see? Does your wisdom set the standard? This is not meant as criticism but as a point of reference.
Any serious study of the bible : It is impossible to study the bible seriously without the aid of the Holy Spirit. You end up with man’s wisdom. The bible is a book for you and the Holy Spirit is your personal guide.
Christ be with you
walk in lovehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
edwinG

 

[amarischuk]

Edwin, are you a protestant? I have heard this before:

All the book knowledge about God doesn’t bring nor keep a person close to God. Whatever you think you know about God will miss the mark unless you have taken the time to establish a personal relationship with Christ.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23152&page=2

What if I told you that not long ago I was a conservative Catholic, confessing every week, going to mass daily, praying the rosary daily, volunteering at a Catholic soup kitchen weekly, taking Opus Dei led retreats monthly etc?

Should not the Holy Spirit have guided my study of the Bible? Or after that, when I was in the seminary, should not the Holy Spirit guided my study of the Bible then?

Did I not have the faith that the protestants (and the Catholics now) make requirement for interpreting the Bible?

The fact is that I cannot turn off my intellect like so many fundamentalist Catholics insist on doing (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=24741)

When the Bible says that Pi= 3, or that two and seven animals went on Noah’s arc, or that there were 1,2 men, 1,2 angels? at the tomb on Easter, or God commanded the Israelites to kill women and children, or commanded Abraham to kill Isaac and was impressed by his willingness to do it…I cannot say: The Bible is right! Because the Bible is in contradiction with itself (logic), or math, or science or history, or Catholic ethical philosophy.

When everything points to the Bible being wrong, it is our duty to recognize it as such. Do you honestly think that the God who created you is pleased that you, just like so many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Protestants etc. just blindly accept some random, irrational authority?

Why not become a Muslim? or a tree stump worshipper? I mean, if you just need to have faith; science and logic be damned? Why not?

Why is it that the more conservative the Church gets, the more it looks like its enemy the protestant churches?

Adam

 

[patricius]

Hi patricius,
Re bold type.
Easy, This was a test for Abraham. There never was any doubt that Isaac would not be sacrificed

There certainly was doubt on Abraham’s part, or else it wouldn’t have been much of a test!

       Quote:
                                             Originally Posted by **mlchance**
              *The more important question is this: What kind of man would agree to sacrifice his son without even so much as an argument?

– Mark L. Chance.*

Hi michance,
Too easy, a man who knew God , who understood how loving God is - and to this man God gave sufficient faith.

Okay, if you really “know” God, then you know He doesn’t want you to murder innocent people! And if you really love God, then you also love your neighbor as yourself. I would hope this implies not slaughtering your son-- especially if you know God well enough to understand that He would never want something like that! If Abraham really knew God, and thought he heard a voice telling him to slaughter his son, he should have cloncluded that he was hallucinating.

Was Abraham “in God’s presence”? Well, you must agree that God is omnipresent, so I’m not sure what that question means. And why should Abraham be excluded from the group “man,” which is supposed to know good and evil?

I think this story just works so much better if we don’t try to force an overly historical reading onto it.

 

[patricius]

The ultimate question here is one that was originally posed by Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro: namely, does God’s preference (or command) for something make it good, or does He command it because it was already and independently good?

Obviously this is a complicated question. Maybe I’ll start a thread on it… Here, suffice it to say that the prohibition of murder-- especially one’s close relatives-- is, to me at least, a law that is “written on our hearts,” commanded by God not on a whim but because it reflects an essential truth about human nature, that of our basic dignity. Any god who would command an abrogation of that dignity would not be worthy of our obedience. Therefore, I conclude that this account is not (entirely) historical, in the strict sense of the word.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The problem arises when humanity thinks it has perfect knowledge of good and evil, substituting it for the direct revelation of God. It’s the sin of Adam all over again.

No human has a right to live apart from the grace of God. The very first breath you take is a gift from God. Same with the second, third, and every breath after that. If God decides, at any point, to cease giving that gift, has there been an objective injustice? No. Because not one of us has merited life for ourselves condignly. If God, the giver of life, decides in accord with his own plan to stop giving the gift of life to anyone, or to every man, woman, and child, to include infants, excepting Noah and his family, then it is not objectively unjust. Furthermore, if God should decide to use his creation in such away to carry out his will, such as the utter destruction of the Amalekites, infants included, then it is not objectively unjust. So too with the order to Abraham to end Isaac’s life. Life is a gift, not a matter of condign merit apart from the goodwill of the gift-giver.

It is similar to accusing a loved one of objective evil simply because they stopped giving you Christmas presents. They’ve done it every year? It is therefore is an objective evil to stop giving, right? Yet, there’s no strict injustice when a gift-giver stops giving a gift. That’s what it means to be gratuitous. Life is not owed to us by the Giver of life.

To trust your own fallible view of objective good contrary to the direct revelation of God, then conclude that the historicity of portions of the inerrant written Word of God, as interpreted and affirmed by the Holy Catholic Church must be a fanciful non-hisoric account based upon your fallible view of good and evil, is a tragic error, and contrary to Catholic hermeneutics.

 

[space_ghost]

much more basic to me i guess…

There was no questioning Abe’s faith…

but, faith without works is and was dead…

God wanted (in my estremely uneducated view) to establish from a very early time that it takes more than just someone saying God I believe… you got to walk the walk

maybe i’m missing the boat here… what do you think?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think it’s a different message …

Don’t obey simply because you are convinced by a persuasive argument that makes sense to you, but obey simply because of the source of authority. This is the obedience of faith. Many things God commanded of Abraham would have made little to no sense to him, but he obeyed nontheless, simply because it came from the Word of God.

 

[Strider]

There’s a whole lot of deep thinking going on here, which is good. I’ve never seen this passage in some of these ways before, especially the “First Things,” piece.
I’ve always looked at this passage as not only about the obedience of Abraham, but as an absolute and beautiful prefigurement of the Passion.
First we have a father who loves his son more than anything.
Abraham + Isaac
God the Father + God the Son

The father MUST sacrifice the son. This does not make him happy, but he knows there is no other way.

Gen 22:6 Then Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son.

Here we have the heartbroken father laying the wood on his son. Can you not see Isaac carrying the wood up the mountain in his shoulder? Can you not see Jesus carrying the wood up the mountain to his death?

When the angel stays Abraham’s hand, the relief is palpable. Jesus gets no such reprieve.

So I see this not only as another test of Abraham’s faith but a way for God to show us how much he suffered as his sun was tortured and killed.
The parallel is almost perfect and has always seemed especially poignant to me, in that God uses this episoide to reveal a little of himself to us.

amarischuk
Please, believe that I mean absolutely no offense by this, but when I read your post, the words non serviam came to my mind, along with the reply, Who is greater than God?.
Maybe we sometimes outsmart ourselves by analyzing things into meaninglessness.
The Bible is not a science book or even a history book. I’m sure you know that much better than I, but, properly interpreted, there are no contradictions. Heck, maybe there were five angels.
P1 = 3?

 

[Strider]

Relating to the above post, how could I forget one of my favorite quotes from the story?

Gen 22:7,8
“Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, ** “God will provide himself the lamb** for a burnt offering, my son.”

"Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

 

[patricius]

Hi Dave,

You say:

“Furthermore, if God should decide to use his creation in such away to carry out his will, such as the utter destruction of the Amalekites, infants included, then it is not objectively unjust. So too with the order to Abraham to end Isaac’s life. Life is a gift, not a matter of condign merit apart from the goodwill of the gift-giver.”

I agree. But it seems to me that a God who was only just would never be able to interact meaningfully with His creation. If God’s justice were not tempered by His love and mercy, Abraham would never have existed because Adam and Eve would have been killed immediately on their sinning. The whole beautiful discussion that’s taken place since my last post illustrates how the moving beauty of God’s love for us is entirely
un just-- He was pierced for our transgressions; by His stripes we are healed! God’s justice is transcended and transformed by His love.

Of course it’s not objectively unjust for God to take life. But a God who was only just would not be a God who we could love-- we’re neither worthy nor capable of it.

Moreover, where does your argument stop? Suppose you were in Heaven, and God gave you the means to send one of your fellow saints to Hell. If He commanded you to do so, would you do it? After all, it would be “just.” But how could anyone be happy then? Why should anyone serve such a god, however just he might be?

Finally, I’d ask you to consider carefully what you call “fanciful.” If I’m in contradiction of our Church’s infallible teaching, show me and the question will be closed. Otherwise, let’s please use words that have intellectual rather than emotional content.

 

[patricius]

Just wanted y’all to know I posted that last one. It didn’t register on the Apologetics Forum page.

 

[patricius]

I’ve thought about what I said two posts ago, and I’ve realized that I made a serious error. Of course God has promised Heaven will be eternal. There’s no way that kicking someone out could possibly be just. What I should have said is “what if God gave you the power here on earth to kill someone and send him or her to hell?” That would be just, as far as I can see, since none of us can possibly merit salvation on our own. But I still wouldn’t want to serve a god who told me to do something like that.

I’m sorry for anyone who may have been scandalized by my post above. Mea culpa.

patricius

ps Dave, I hope you didn’t think I was claiming that Abraham was hallucinating. I believe that the whole story is a holy myth, and that in a historical sense Abe never heard any command to kill his son.

 

[amarischuk]

Patricius wrote:

The ultimate question here is one that was originally posed by Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro: namely, does God’s preference (or command) for something make it good, or does He command it because it was already and independently good?

Patricius, the problem you are illuminating is the distinction between natural law and divine command theories of ethics. Hopefully most people here know that the Church’s official position is the Thomistic position of natural law.

We as Catholics do not have the luxury of the irrationalism of the Lutherans or Soren Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension of the ethical. This leaves us with a problem of interpretation of the passage, a problem even Aquinas stumbles all over.

Objection 1. It would seem that in some cases it is lawful to kill the innocent. The fear of God is never manifested by sin, since on the contrary “the fear of the Lord driveth out sin” (Sirach 1:27). Now Abraham was commended in that he feared the Lord, since he was willing to slay his innocent son. Therefore one may, without sin, kill an innocent person.

…

Reply to Objection 1. God is Lord of death and life, for by His decree both the sinful and the righteous die. Hence he who at God’s command kills an innocent man does not sin, as neither does God Whose behest he executes: indeed his obedience to God’s commands is a proof that he fears Him.

Patricius:

Any god who would command an abrogation of that dignity would not be worthy of our obedience.

I could not agree more.

Patricius, I recognize your name from somewhere… I believe you would be interested in the chapter on the Symbolist mentality in MD Chenu’s “La Theologie aux douzieme Siecle” republished as “Nature, Man and Society in the Twelth Century” by the University of Toronto and the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. It gives a good alternative to the fundamentalist doctrine of historical infallibilty of the Bible.

And Strider, no offense taken. But you are right, the God who would command that, as Patricius said, is not worthy of my service and I will not serve that tyrant. But I’ll take Patricius a step further and say that not only is the story not historical, but the morality portrayed in the story is not worthy of emmulation. It is a story of blind obedience, a primitive Jewish myth and nothing more.

No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for another. The new covenant of love is not based on that primitive obedience. I cannot think of a single more beautiful message than if Abraham would have said no. If Abraham would have laid down his life instead of his sons (remembering that at that time there was no concept of a resurrection or eternal life).

And Strider, you alluded to what was commonly called a typological reading of scripture (common in the Middle Ages but nearly dead now). Unfortunately the typological reading led to the abuse of allogorization (over allogorization), which caused Hugh of St. Victor’s complaints and a return to a more fundamentalist/literal historical reading of Scripture.

Adam

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Patricius,

in a historical sense Abe never heard any command to kill his son.

I understand, but I still assert this thesis of yours is contrary to Catholic teaching, which was my point.

Being Catholic is much more than giving your assent of faith to only the infallible dogmas. You also owe religious submission of intellect and will to any Catholic doctrine, whether infallibly defined or not, which is proposed by the authentic magisterium. To do otherwise is to disobey the leaders placed in the care of your souls.

Heb 13:17 comes to mind … “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

If you are Catholic, you owe religious assent to all that the Roman Pontiff and his authentic magisterium teaches, not merely those things pertaining to the infallible dogmas.

For example, Pius IX affirms that you cannot “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession” withhold assent and obedience to judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, even if the object of his teaching does not pertain to infallible dogmas of faith or morals.

Pope Pius IX:

we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how** opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.**

(Pius IX, Encyclical *Quanta Cura *(1864), Denzinger 1698)

From Pius XII, even those things taught by the ordinary magisterium demands the consent of Catholics.

Pope Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, … **these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” **(Humani Generis, 20)

CONTINUED …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CONTINUED …

And from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium :

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (LG, 25)

And from the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

And from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

---

Catholic hermeneutics demand that one interpret Scripture in accord with Catholic teaching. You seem to suggest something altogether contrary to that teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

Question: Whether we may admit as a principle of sound exegesis the opinion that those books of Sacred Scripture regarded as historical, either wholly or in part, sometimes narrate what is not history properly so-called and objectively true, but only have the appearance of history and convey a meaning different from the strictly literal and historical sense of the words.

*Answer: ***Negative, **except in the case–which never may be admitted too easily or rashly, and then ONLY if it is not opposed to the mind and decision of the Church–when it can be proved with solid arguments that the sacred writer intended not to give a true and strict history but to set forth, under the guise and form of history, a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words.

{PBC, Responsum de narrationibus specietenus tantum historicis in Sacrae Scripturae libris qui pro historicis habenture, June 23, 1905: A S S 38 (1905/06) 124-25; DS 3373; EB 161, as cited by Dean P. Bechard, Ed., *The Scripture Documents – An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings, *The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, 2002, pg. 188)

This was your assertion …

this account is not (entirely) historical, in the strict sense of the word.

I believe you have asserted what the Pontifical Bible Commission says that Catholics may not assert.

According to Pope Pius X:

… We do now declare and expressly order, that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those which have thus far been published and those which will hereafter be proclaimed, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the Pontiff

(From Motu proprio of Pope Pius X, *Praestantis Scripturae, *Nov 18, 1907, Denzinger 2113)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

a God who was only just would not be a God who we could love

God is perfectly just, and is never unjust.

According to Webster…

Main Entry: un·just m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: "&n-'j&st
Function: adjective
1 : characterized by injustice : UNFAIR
2 archaic : DISHONEST, FAITHLESS

That God gives gifts gratuitously does not make him unjust, unfair, dishonest or faithless. Your understanding that God is at times unjust is terribly flawed, and contradictory to the dogmas of Catholicism.

It is perfectly true that we are justified by Christ’s condign merit alone. However, that doesn’t mean that mankind cannot merit
congruously. See here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Merit

That God rewards gratuitously does not make Him unjust.

 

[edwinG]

amarischuk:

Oops I ran off at the mouth and had to cut some words. Please forgive me for hacking your post. I have had to hack mine as well.

Adam

Hi Adam,
Thank you for a wonderful truthful post.
Your first paragraph is a witness to your efforts. These efforts are worthy, and I noticed in my life, which was a life enjoyed in the flesh, but still a life of some substance, that at that stage I had not been called.I was not aware I had not been called. You will know beyond doubt if you have been called. It wont be a maybe. Possibly this is your case as well. If so, enjoy your life in the flesh , revel in the pursuit of your intellect, but in the back of your mind know this, that one day, you will be called and through His grace and love, you will find your self giving up those attributes which are not a part of His will in your life. I am a personality of addictions, and I had many, none good, and to my knowledge they have all been subdued by the Holy Spirit except one ( overeating ) which lingers. I also know, that these addictions are still with me , because the Holy Spirit lifted His protection and for three days I was back at the mercy of one of my prior addictions. Then He came to my rescue and I am now fully aware of how much I need His protection.
Where you say the bible is in contradiction etc and 1 and 1 in the bible make 5 or similar.
Truly this is a lack of understanding and I only have a tiny amount.
Take the examples of Jesus healing, of the fig tree dying, of His feeding thousands from a smidgin, of His calming the seas, of His stepping into the boat and it being where they were going, the parting of the red sea, the walls of Jericho, the killing of maybe 400men by one man in battle. These things are easily explained.
Basically there are earth and heaven. On earth we have such rules as gravity and math and time and if you stay up late you will be tired etc, etc etc. Now there is also another place, heaven, and after we believe in Christ, and we need to wait here for the Holy Spirit to take us first, we can not go on our own, ( He chooses us, we dont choose Him and in His time) we enter the kingdom of God ( here on earth) and simultaneously enter the kingdom of heaven) in heaven. Now in this kingdom, the rules are not gravity, or math or whatever. They are faith and this is not enough because faith without following the will of God is possible but counted as lawlessness. I am saying you can not apply earths rules to heavens rules. herein lies the root of your disbelief. Note Jesus never did what He wanted but only what He saw the Father do and in the same way. Saw and in the same way. Our eyes can not see the kingdom of heaven until they are opened. This, should be easy to believe, that our eyes can only see, our sense only sense in certain parameters.
Adam, there is no blind acceptance. When the Holy Spirit moves in you He is real and physical. As you grow in learning how to follow Him and your path opens up and you can see His hand in so many aspects of your life, you know - beyond doubt. Prayers are answered, and thoughts come to fruition, because you would not be game to ask for " that" and it happens. He loves and He makes you aware of this because of Christ. It passes from belief in Him to knowledge of Him. Our belief then rests on will He do that for me? and this is just a stage of growth and one in which we pass through until we just do His work. ( I am not there yet)
God loves muslims and all people. If you want to know more on this we should leave it to another post.
Enjoy your life Adam, as it is today and continue to enjoy it and just wait on Him. Then when you are called, you may have to give up many of the things you have become attached to, but His strength will make it possible. I am sure you life will be blessed Adam.
Christ be with you http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
walk in love
edwinG