P
PRmerger
Guest
Francis, what’s an Episcopal Council?
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. :yup:
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
if you read my statements I don’t say with any degree of certitude whether or not there may be something out there we don’t know about. What that thing might be, whether or not it exists, is not something atheists spend much time speculating. We simply say there’s more than adequate circumstantial evidence to debunk theism as it exists today.
That’s true, but we don’t know whether or not we were created out of nothing. The singularity that was the precursor of the big bang was something (in fact it was so dense that physicists can’t even come up with a mathematical formula to describe its density).
We have no idea where that singularity came from, how long it existed, whether it was always there or created by something else, etc. We don’t even have a clue whether or not other universes exist or whether or not our universe is the product of imploded matter from a previous universe.
you put your hope in stories told by ancient men & a depiction of events that has never been replicated.
that’s a logically fallacious statement. You base this alleged evidence on stories told by ancient men. Then you premise your world view on those stories. Paul said (I think in Romans 2) that evidence of the existence of god is evident in his creation. Well … why? You probably aren’t even willing to ask why or look at these ancient writings critically, while I have.
To the ancient mind, sure, the vastness of the universe, the wonder of our own biology. etc. might invoke the idea that there must be a god. But to modern man this isn’t a necessary conclusion. When ancient man witnessed a solar eclipse they attributed it to a manifestation of divine power. When a volcano erupted or there was an earthquake they thought god or a panoply of gods was punishing them.
There are still things we can’t explain. I’ve heard of people who were suffering from an injury or illness who healed markedly better than other similarly situated patients merely because they had a good psychological disposition. We don’t understand the relationship between psychological and physical health, beyond understanding there is one. However, religious organizations tend to exploit these facts & convince people it’s really god or some sort of spiritual power behind these healings. How is this any different than saying the gods were angry at the people of Pompeii so they caused the eruption of Vesuvius? Logically speaking it isn’t.
What is evil? Behind almost every bad or abnormal person you’ll find a dysfunctional set of environmental circumstances. Michael Jackson was a strange guy by most accounts, and we know his father used to burn him with cigarettes when he was a child. We know Hitler was the victim of child abuse at the hands of his father. So there’s usually a chain of causation behind evil. Sure, you could point out that most abused children do not grow up to become abusive or criminals … and that’s true. However, most abusers and criminals were abused as children.
What you attribute to an invisible devil I attribute to poor circumstances. At least I can envision a way to mitigate these evils … you can’t.
From my perspective the institutionalization of religious ritual as a means toward salvation is merely the product of a self-interested organization (who created this regime to maintain control over people).
and I’ll stick to common sense
even the term Hades is from Greek mythology
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Example, the Council of Nicaea was an episcopal council (when all the Catholic bishops meet to promulgate doctrine or deal with heresies). These councils have always been viewed as infallible (and both the Eastern and Roman Catholic churches agree).
S
SHW
Guest
This is how I understand it:
1 Peter 1-10
Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
We are to live Christ-like lives in imitation of Him if we indeed believe His Word.
4 Coming to Him as to** a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious**, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”
Christ, the living Rock/Stone/foundation of the house of God was rejected by most of the Jews (the original “chosen” builders of the house of God), so He has instead become the Chief Cornerstone/foundation of the new house of God to all those who believe in/on Him and obey Him.
** 8** and
“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
Verse 8:
Peter is quoting the prophecy of Isaiah 8:14:
He will be as a sanctuary,
But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Since these Jews did not accept Christ as their Messiah (in God’s foreknowledge) even though they were appointed first to be saved as God’s chosen people, God then appointed (chose) the Gentiles (in His foreknowledge) to receive redemption in their stead. (cf. 1 Peter 1:1-2) The elect are known to God due to His foreknowledge about them from before the foundation of the world because God is omniscient (all-knowing). He knows all things.
However, God’s Plan in His foreknowledge, always included the Gentiles because He “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth and Jesus died as a ransom for all” and God is “longsuffering toward us, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (cf. 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 2 Peter 3:9) Both Jew and Gentile were chosen by God before the foundation of the world!
Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
Jew and Gentile alike are chosen if they fear Him (worship Him) and work righteousness (obey His commandments and do good works).
There is no way that God arbitrarily “predestined” some persons to be damned against their own free wills. He shows no partiality. He judges all persons according to their works.
1 Peter 1:17
And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; (cf. John 5:28-29)
Hebrews 5:9
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Obedience to God’s commandments and fulfilling His will, which He has appointed to each of us, determines whether we inherit eternal life or not. (cf. Matthew 7:20-27)
S
SHW
Guest
Truth (God) existed first, as shown by the conversation in the Garden of Eden between God and the first man and first woman. Mythology did not exist first. Mythology is a result of the rejection of Truth.even the term Hades is from Greek mythology
First, there was only Good. God is Good. There was no evil. Evil is “free will” rejection of Good.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
You acknowledge that god always planned to send Christ right? Take the Jonah story. Jonah is instructed by god to go and preach to the gentile city of Nineveh. Yet Jonah initially refuses, but god arranges it so Jonah is swallowed up by a fish and taken to Nineveh anyway (where he sees the light and agrees to do god’s bidding).
Do you see the parallel. Three days in the belly of a fish, or in an abyss, to emerge and preach salvation to the gentiles? Obviously these sort of Old Testament stories were designed to prefigure Christ (indeed Peter and Paul would commonly point to these parallels to make their case that Jesus was the Christ, or the messiah). This idea goes right back to god’s initial promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As you cite below yes according to the bible god did always plan to expand salvation to include a group taken from all peoples; however, when I read 1 Peter 2 or Romans 9 it’s clear to me that predestination is not something determined by the foreseen merit of individual men. BTW both Augustine and Aquinas agree with me (so I’m on a pretty solid theological footing).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Thank you!
I admit I was expecting an explanation from you followed by a “what? don’t you know that” type of comment. So thank you for your patient explanation, my dear brother in Christ!
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Even if you want to say god is a prescient deity (and can see the future). He then must have known, before creating Adam and Eve, that they would disobey him right? Why then did he create them anyway?
Moreover, at what point is god’s will really involved with anything under your paradigm? God does things merely because he knew he was going to do them. He’s a prisoner of his own foreknowledge (so you have the tail wagging the dog; and that’s just not how the bible presents god). This is the logical problem Augustine ran into … and although he initially took something akin to your view, he wound up rejecting it because of its logical absurdity (and of course the mountain of scripture that clearly abrogates the idea of election based on foreseen faith).
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you’re saying that these 2 sentences mean the same thing:
Francis took the car to spite his ex-wife.
and
Francis took the car in spite of his ex-wife.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
yes in that context they have different meanings … but in the context I provided earlier they don’t (or don’t have to). What’s the matter … is this the only potential error you’ve found in anything I’ve said, so you’re latching onto it like a pit bullSo you’re saying that these 2 sentences mean the same thing:
Francis took the car to spite his ex-wife.
and
Francis took the car in spite of his ex-wife.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why?
Because “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” Rom 5:20
From St. Thomas Aquinas: “O happy fault…which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”
From St. Leo the Great: “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.”
More from Aquinas: “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin…”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I could point out lots of your grammatical errors and spelling errors, but I’m too Christian to do that.yes in that context they have different meanings … but in the context I provided earlier they don’t (or don’t have to). What’s the matter … is this the only potential error you’ve found in anything I’ve said, so you’re latching onto it like a pit bull
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m not perfect … but I am infallible (remember infallibility doesn’t mean impeccability)Well, I could point out lots of your grammatical errors and spelling errors, but I’m too Christian to do that.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Great … you’re appealing to Aquinas (by all accounts the greatest or second greatest theologian in Roman Catholicism right). Well let’s take an intellectually honest look at Aquinas’ views:
The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory” and (2 Timothy 2:20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.” Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): “Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.” Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matthew 20:14-15).
newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm
I encourage you and everyone to follow this link (newadvent.org is a pretty credible Catholic source) and learn what Aquinas really thought regarding predestination. Also, study Augustine’s views on this issue (Aquinas cites Augustine throughout his own Summa Theologica). Happy reading my friend!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hey, we even use the term in our creed, so now it’s our term!even the term Hades is from Greek mythology
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, Francis without the grace of God we cannot live up to the righteousness expected of us as Christians. However, I find it hard to believe that people without this grace can’t do any good (as we are all created in God’s image). I think the key words here are “divine commandments” and in order to fully follow out these commands we absolutely need God’s grace. Are these Calvin’s words?
J
josie_L
Guest
Francis, what is the point of all this, we are told we can accept whether it be thomism, molinism and arminianism as our position on election? All three fulfil the five requirements that are held by the Church to be true.
- Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
- Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
- Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
- Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
- God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Here’s my response to that comment.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m not sure Calvin (or Augustine) would say non-believers are incapable of being good in an objective sense (since obviously we know from common experience they are). They would say without faith no one is good in the eyes of god (and obviously to a theologian good is described from god’s standpoint, not our own).
That’s why faith demarcates the people of god according to scripture, not merely good behavior. Good behavior is witness to a sincere faith, but it must be accompanied by a profession of faith. The end result of Calvinist and Catholic theology is the same. Faith and good behavior/good works are the seal of a Christian. They simply approach it differently (although if Catholics were intellectually honest & this issue wasn’t tainted by the bad blood generated by the reformation, they would see how similar Calvin, Augustine, and Aquinas really were on the topic of predestination and grace).
The fact is the modern church has taken the side of John Wesley, Jacob Arminius, and reaching back further in history arguably also Justin Martyr and Boethius (although I’ve read reformed theologians who believe Justin Martyr held a view more akin to Calvin, but I read Martyr’s works & I think that assertion is frankly absurd).
- Status