P
- Status
J
javelin
Guest
Maureen,
I think I am understanding your position. Let me paraphrase and tell me if it is close to your reasoning:
God cannot be called both Just and Merciful if it is possible that He may send an infant to hell, for the condemnation of an innocent life incapable of committing sin is neither just, nor merciful. Doctrine that creates this potential scenario (Original Sin, in your opinion) also creates a self-contradicting definition of God (since God cannot be Just and unjust; Merciful and unmerciful), and so must be in error.
God, in His omniscience (all-knowing), sees into each one’s soul and knows when one of any age has passed from innocence to guilt; from righteousness to sinfulness. God’s omnipotence gives Him the ability to declare souls, in truth, either justified with Him, or unjustified, based on His perfect knowledge of each individual.
Am I close?
I still think the crux of the problem is not age (whether one is an infant or not), but innocence. The concept of a God whom has the potential to condemn the innocent is a “caricature” of the image of our true God, who is both Just and Merciful. Obviously, infants are the epitome of innocence (in our eyes). Holding the innocent as guilty is the very opposite of true Justice.
What do you think?
Peace,
javelin
P.S. If the OP believes this has strayed too far from the original discussion topic, please correct us and we can move this to another discussion. I do think that original sin factors strongly into any discussion of salvation outside of Christianity, though…
I think I am understanding your position. Let me paraphrase and tell me if it is close to your reasoning:
God cannot be called both Just and Merciful if it is possible that He may send an infant to hell, for the condemnation of an innocent life incapable of committing sin is neither just, nor merciful. Doctrine that creates this potential scenario (Original Sin, in your opinion) also creates a self-contradicting definition of God (since God cannot be Just and unjust; Merciful and unmerciful), and so must be in error.
God, in His omniscience (all-knowing), sees into each one’s soul and knows when one of any age has passed from innocence to guilt; from righteousness to sinfulness. God’s omnipotence gives Him the ability to declare souls, in truth, either justified with Him, or unjustified, based on His perfect knowledge of each individual.
Am I close?
I still think the crux of the problem is not age (whether one is an infant or not), but innocence. The concept of a God whom has the potential to condemn the innocent is a “caricature” of the image of our true God, who is both Just and Merciful. Obviously, infants are the epitome of innocence (in our eyes). Holding the innocent as guilty is the very opposite of true Justice.
What do you think?
Peace,
javelin
P.S. If the OP believes this has strayed too far from the original discussion topic, please correct us and we can move this to another discussion. I do think that original sin factors strongly into any discussion of salvation outside of Christianity, though…
J
javelin
Guest
Pace,
I love Scripture, but can you let us all know why you chose these verses to post in this discussion? Thanks!
Peace,
javelin
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, javelin,
You’ve understood my position, precisely.
I fully agree with you, on:
a grown person, who does not know God cannot be
saved, because the person has an opportunity in
h/her life to act righteously. That’s why I challenge
the RCC solely on it’s positon with regard to “unbaptized
babies.” [Futher up the thread, I was questioning what
happens to a poor little person, who lives a good life,
by the lights they have, but is not saved etc.]
But then I found that the CCC does address that objection in
#1260, as referrenced above.
That a given Christian denomination might hold that
any person regardless of age] who does not accept
Christ, is on the royal road to hell, is even worse, in
my view.
Is that a clear response?
*
Thanks for your reply, javelin,
reen*
You’ve understood my position, precisely.
I fully agree with you, on:
but I believe the RCC does not hold with the idea that
a grown person, who does not know God cannot be
saved, because the person has an opportunity in
h/her life to act righteously. That’s why I challenge
the RCC solely on it’s positon with regard to “unbaptized
babies.” [Futher up the thread, I was questioning what
happens to a poor little person, who lives a good life,
by the lights they have, but is not saved etc.]
But then I found that the CCC does address that objection in
#1260, as referrenced above.
That a given Christian denomination might hold that
any person regardless of age] who does not accept
Christ, is on the royal road to hell, is even worse, in
my view.
Is that a clear response?
*
Thanks for your reply, javelin,
reen*
P
Pace
Guest
You don’t recognize yourself in the verses, javelin? Aren’t you and others asking me to tell you “plainly” if Mulholland Drive is “the Christ”?
And if I were to say (as I often have) that, yes, MD is the Christ and that it does the “works of God”, would not some then say of me (after having sought out what they believe to be more trustworthy sources), “He is obviously possessed, why listen to him?”
R
reen12
Guest
[contd]
On Orthodoxy’s view of Original Sin, see:
reen12
On Orthodoxy’s view of Original Sin, see:
- The Nature of Man
reen12
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, javelin,
I was just thinking:
-If it is a fact that Jesus is Messiah and rose from the dead
-If it is a fact that Saul of Tarsus had an encounter with Christ
-If it is understood correctly that the Holy Spirit will protect
the Church from error
-Then, maybe Original Sin is a reality, and God leaves us
without the certain knowledge of the salvation of infants…
or, alternately, He can’t* believe* we’re even discussing
the possibility of infant damnation, as a result of Paul’s
letters.
Maybe God says: Yes, I gave you revelation, but I also
gave you reason and common sense.
Just a thought,
reen
I was just thinking:
-If it is a fact that Jesus is Messiah and rose from the dead
-If it is a fact that Saul of Tarsus had an encounter with Christ
-If it is understood correctly that the Holy Spirit will protect
the Church from error
-Then, maybe Original Sin is a reality, and God leaves us
without the certain knowledge of the salvation of infants…
or, alternately, He can’t* believe* we’re even discussing
the possibility of infant damnation, as a result of Paul’s
letters.
Maybe God says: Yes, I gave you revelation, but I also
gave you reason and common sense.
Just a thought,
reen
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Saul was a student of Rabbi Gameliel and he met Rabbi Jesus on the road to Damascus. Saul later received the the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because of that life changing encounter with his Lord, Jesus. It is because Paul received the infused gifts of the Holy Spirit of knowledge and wisdom that Paul was able to see beyond the limited understanding of Rabbi Gameliel and grasp the deeper meanings of the Jewish Scriptures that had been revealed by Rabbi Jesus.
Have mercy on me, God, in your goodness; in your abundant compassion blot out my offense.
Wash away all my guilt; from my sin cleanse me.
For I know my offense; my sin is always before me.
Against you alone have I sinned; I have done such evil in your sight.
That you are just in your sentence, blameless when you condemn.
True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:3-7
Therefore, just as through one person [Adam] sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all,
Romans 5:12
For if, by the transgression of one person [Adam], death came to reign through that one,
Romans 5:17
For just as through the disobedience of one person [Adam] the many were made sinners,
Romans 5:19
R
reen12
Guest
quote: Matt16_18
rabbi, who is also Messiah [Messiah =incompletely understood by
Israel, rather than “misunderstood”]…
quote: Matt16_18
I must admit that the advent of the Kingdom of God, described
in Judaic sources, seems improbable to me…unless
the Messiah is also God [the Son.]
Hmmmm, again.
Maybe it was the way in which Christ was depicted to
me as a youngster that was so off-putting.
Perhaps if He had been presented as a rabbi…
my sympathies would have been immediately engaged,
and I would have been far more open to listening.
Thanks, Matt16_18. You’re speaking in a way that
sure engages my attention.
Best,
reen
You know, Matt16_18, if I could see Jesus as a
rabbi, who is also Messiah [Messiah =incompletely understood by
Israel, rather than “misunderstood”]…
quote: Matt16_18
Hmmmm.
I must admit that the advent of the Kingdom of God, described
in Judaic sources, seems improbable to me…unless
the Messiah is also God [the Son.]
Hmmmm, again.
Maybe it was the way in which Christ was depicted to
me as a youngster that was so off-putting.
Perhaps if He had been presented as a rabbi…
my sympathies would have been immediately engaged,
and I would have been far more open to listening.
Thanks, Matt16_18. You’re speaking in a way that
sure engages my attention.
Best,
reen
J
javelin
Guest
I believe, truly, it is…
I believe, truly, that he did…
I believe that it does…
I smile at the image of God shaking His venerable head with a smirk on His face while He reads our musings posted in cyberspace…-Then, maybe Original Sin is a reality, and God leaves us
without the certain knowledge of the salvation of infants…
or, alternately, He can’t* believe* we’re even discussing
the possibility of infant damnation, as a result of Paul’s
letters.
I also laugh at the image of St. Paul pulling his spiritual hair out and crying “how can they possibly have taken my words to mean that?!?”
See, although I understand where you are at, I believe that Original Sin is a reality. Though I don’t understand completely how it is real, nor do I think I can grasp *all *of its implications, I believe that Paul was writing under the Spirit’s inspiration and that God meant for us to see in His writing the fundamental concept that all of humanity, though created “*good” *by God, has been tainted by sin and required Christ’s sacrifice to put us “right” with God once again. It is Christ who restored us to the goodness we possessed in the garden. It is only the Christ, both God and Man, who was capable of reconciling mankind to God. It was the moment of Christ’s death that mankind first had access to the Grace requried to overcome the chains that bound us all since Adam’s first transgression. Thus the glory of the cross was the singular act of our redemption.
Yet Christ wasn’t finished, for in three days He rose from the dead, then spent weeks with His disciples, eventually giving them the Holy Spirit by which the Church would be established.
You see, one of the reasons I believe in the inerrancy of the Church is the confusion that can come so easily (about things like Original Sin, for example
), even to very intelligent and rational people, from trying to understand ALL of God’s revelation from words on a page. I reasoned that God must have known this could occur, and so He must have given us a guide in our understanding. I believe that guide is the Holy Spirit acting through the Catholic Church. There have been no other proposed guides that stand the test of reason, IMHO.
He certianly did – for we must have some way to try to comprehend what that Revelation is telling us. And yet even the most daunting human mind is incapable of understanding all perfectly, and so we must rely on our compass, the Church. For what good Father would give us a destination and no map? A sea to sail with no stars or compass? A symbolic map with no legend? Not that we shouldn’t try to understand all that we can, but we must constantly keep Church doctrine in view, and be sure not to stray too far.
And so I feel I can only claim what the Church speaks on infants, and that is we simply entrust them to God’s Mercy. Since there is no Mercy more Perfect or Powerful, and none more Just than Him, I live with virtual certianty that those children are in very good Hands.
Peace,
javelin
M
Matt16_18
Guest
That is what Rosalind Moss thought too.
Rosalind Moss is a staff apologist with Catholic Answers, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the Catholic faith through all forms of media. She was born and raised in a Jewish home, and in her adult years embraced Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish people. …From Judaism to the Fullness of Christ
Rosalind’s compelling and deeply inspiring journey from her Jewish heritage through 18 years of Evangelical Protestantism to the Catholic Church at Easter 1995.
She was 32 years of age before ever hearing that there were Jews who believed that Christ was the Jewish Messiah!
Hear the story of how 12 “Jews for Jesus” lead her through the Old Testament animal sacrifices to the Lamb of God.
Enter into the moment of “holy shock” when Rosalind was confronted with the possibility that the Catholic Church might be true.
Rejoice as she discovers, and at last enters, the “synagogue with Christ”.
Learn what Old Testament verses of Scripture first opened the heart of this Jewish convert to believe that Christ might be the Jewish Messiah.
From the very first promise of a Redeemer, you’ll be able to trace the Messianic line all the way from our first parents to the new Adam and Eve!
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Like Mary of Magdala, Nathanael, and Nicodemus?
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.” Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.” Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
John 1:47-49
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode’mus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him,** “Rabbi**, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”
John 3:1-2
But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been. And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni,” which means Teacher.
John 20:11-16
W
WBB
Guest
reen12 said:
reen,
Much of what that treatise described as what the Catholic Church teaches was completely foreign to me (i.e. it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches
)Many blessings!
Brian
R
RC_Traditional
Guest
Hi, Nan
Its better to listen what the popes who have defended the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation” and not listen to those who are "just runnin’ around blabbin’ on about their own opinions:
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)
“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Hmmm…
Sure doesn’t sound like the modernist Popes after Vatican II.
RC
Its better to listen what the popes who have defended the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation” and not listen to those who are "just runnin’ around blabbin’ on about their own opinions:
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)
“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Hmmm…
Sure doesn’t sound like the modernist Popes after Vatican II.
RC
J
javelin
Guest
RC Traditional:
Remember, too, that Vatican II clearly defined the RCC’s position on this topic in less rigid terms than these quotes would suggest. So, is the council incorrect, or were the individual Popes incorrect, or all they all correct and we don’t yet understand the true meaning?
Peace,
javelin
Interesting. But if the Pope has the authority to bind and loose, could it be that recent Popes are just choosing more loosing than their predecessors?Sure doesn’t sound like the modernist Popes after Vatican II.
Remember, too, that Vatican II clearly defined the RCC’s position on this topic in less rigid terms than these quotes would suggest. So, is the council incorrect, or were the individual Popes incorrect, or all they all correct and we don’t yet understand the true meaning?
Peace,
javelin
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Perhaps I’m wrong, as I am not Catholic, but wouldn’t the term “schismatics” refer also to those who do not accept the post-Vatican II popes?
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, javelin,
quote: javelin
others. Thank you.
I just realized something, reading the above.
Words mean something…A means A - not
like-A, or somewhat similiar to B - but A.
A philosopher employs words, as a surgeon employs
surgical tools…with great respect and precision.
How does this pertain to the quote above?
quote:javelin
Worded this way [which is how it *is worded, in Catholicism]
“Grace” appears as some kind of *commodity *to be dispensed.
Compare that wording with:
I cling to Christ, knowing that I am devoid of any
righteousness that would stand before the Father…*
that His righteousness is my righteousness.
Or, how singularly different from:
"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me"
cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/m/amazgrac.htm
Does this view make sense to you? It sings, for me.
Best,
reen
quote: javelin
How one does advance in understanding, by listening to
others. Thank you.
I just realized something, reading the above.
Words mean something…A means A - not
like-A, or somewhat similiar to B - but A.
A philosopher employs words, as a surgeon employs
surgical tools…with great respect and precision.
How does this pertain to the quote above?
quote:javelin
It’s the wording, not the reality, that has caused me to protest.
Worded this way [which is how it *is worded, in Catholicism]
“Grace” appears as some kind of *commodity *to be dispensed.
Compare that wording with:
I cling to Christ, knowing that I am devoid of any
righteousness that would stand before the Father…*
that His righteousness is my righteousness.
Or, how singularly different from:
"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me"
cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/m/amazgrac.htm
Does this view make sense to you? It sings, for me.
Best,
reen
- I am indebted to a poster on another website for this
phrasing
J
javelin
Guest
worded, in Catholicism]
“Grace” appears as some kind of *commodity *to be dispensed.
Compare that wording with:
I cling to Christ, knowing that I am devoid of any
righteousness that would stand before the Father…*
that His righteousness is my righteousness.
Or, how singularly different from:
“Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me”
cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/m/amazgrac.htm
Does this view make sense to you? It sings, for me.
Best,
reen
- I am indebted to a poster on another website for this
phrasing
I’m not exactly sure I follow you. I cannot disagree with your statement:
Mere shades of meaning can turn an entire phrase – that is to be sure. I cannot say, though, that my command of the language is anything comparable to a surgeon’s command of his/her tools.
So, to clarify for my sake:
Is this wording “…access to the Grace required to overcome…” objectionable to you because of implied meaning? What implication is objectionable?
How are those objections alleviated by the wording of the other two quotes, including from “Amazing Grace”?
In other words, what is the song you hear?
In light of your previous concern over the painting of mankind as inherently base and wretched (in Original Sin), I would be slightly surprised if you felt the last two quotes were closer to the Truth we all seek.
Peace,
javelin
R
reen12
Guest
quote: Matt16_18
over and spend some time on the Jews for Jesus website.
And, yes, the image of Nicodemus had sprung to mind,
as well as the revered member of the Sanhedrin, urging
that Jesus be left alone, by the authorities, for if what He
was preaching was from God, it would flourish, if not…
“Florish” just doesn’t do Christianity justice…over a
billion members, at this moment in time, alone.
I’ll look for the material on Rosalind Moss.
Many thanks,
Maureen
I’ve always preferred the translation:Like Mary of Magdala, Nathanael, and Nicodemus?
…Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.” Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?”
It’s funny, Matt, I was thinking, last night: I ought to go
over and spend some time on the Jews for Jesus website.
And, yes, the image of Nicodemus had sprung to mind,
as well as the revered member of the Sanhedrin, urging
that Jesus be left alone, by the authorities, for if what He
was preaching was from God, it would flourish, if not…
“Florish” just doesn’t do Christianity justice…over a
billion members, at this moment in time, alone.
I’ll look for the material on Rosalind Moss.
Many thanks,
Maureen
R
reen12
Guest
Hi, WBB,
quote: WBB
Were you clear on what Orthodoxy, itself, holds
on Original Sin, despite having to wade thru the author’s
“presentation” of “Catholic thought”?
Do you see any genuine contrast [or conflict] with RCC
doctrine, with respect to OS? * I.e.* , emphasis or outright
error?
Best to you, WBB,
reen
quote: WBB
I don’t endorse 'em, WBB , I just link to 'em.Much of what that treatise described as what the Catholic Church teaches was completely foreign to me (i.e. it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches
Were you clear on what Orthodoxy, itself, holds
on Original Sin, despite having to wade thru the author’s
“presentation” of “Catholic thought”?
Do you see any genuine contrast [or conflict] with RCC
doctrine, with respect to OS? * I.e.* , emphasis or outright
error?
Best to you, WBB,
reen
- Status