(SPLIT) Universalism discussion

[Tom_Baum]

What a shame that so many, that believe in God, seem to have such a disgusting view of God.

Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” which translates as PAID IN FULL, maybe it is time for us to think about whether or not to believe what Jesus said about His Work on the cross.

As far as getting to Dad, I would say that ALL, believer and non-believer alike, will go thru Jesus, just as Jesus, God-Incarnate, said.

“No one comes to the Father except thru Me”.

Seems to be only one way to Dad, but who knows how many ways there are to Jesus.

“My Ways are not your ways, My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

God’s Plan, which God has had since before creation, will come to Fruition, God’s Plan is catholic concerning creation.

It’s a shame that so many don’t believe that God’s Plan is catholic and it is a much greater shame that so many do NOT want God’s Plan to be catholic.

 

[Gorgias]

What a shame that so many, that believe in God, seem to have such a disgusting view of God.

Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” which translates as PAID IN FULL, maybe it is time for us to think about whether or not to believe what Jesus said about His Work on the cross.

Actually, no, tetelestai can possibly take on the meaning ‘paid’, but it doesn’t necessarily do so. In Matthew 7:28, does it mean that “Jesus had paid these words in full”? In Matthew 10:23, when Jesus is sending the apostles to the cities of Israel, does he mean, “you will not have paid these cities of Israel in full until the Son of Man comes”? In writing to Timothy (2 Tim 4), does Paul mean “I have paid the course in full”? Of course not! Yet, it can – in certain circumstances – mean ‘paid’: in Matthew 17:24, the collectors of the temple tax asked Peter whether Jesus pays (telei) the temple tax. So… therefore, we need to ask the question of whether this instance of ‘tetelestai’ means “paid in full” or “completed”.

First, we need to look in context: In John 19:28, we read, “[a]fter this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’” Does this mean ‘paid in full’? It sure doesn’t seem so – after all, Jesus is still fulfilling prophecies! Yet, when in John 19:30, we see the reference back to the initial use of tetelestai, we presume that it means “paid in full”? That doesn’t make sense.

In any case, the “paid in full” meme is one that is advocated in Protestant theology, not in Catholic theology…!

 

[Tom_Baum]

Actually, no, tetelestai can possibly take on the meaning ‘paid’, but it doesn’t necessarily do so. In Matthew 7:28, does it mean that “Jesus had paid these words in full”? In Matthew 10:23, when Jesus is sending the apostles to the cities of Israel, does he mean, “you will not have paid these cities of Israel in full until the Son of Man comes”? In writing to Timothy (2 Tim 4), does Paul mean “I have paid the course in full”? Of course not! Yet, it can – in certain circumstances – mean ‘paid’: in Matthew 17:24, the collectors of the temple tax asked Peter whether Jesus pays (telei) the temple tax. So… therefore, we need to ask the question of whether this instance of ‘tetelestai’ means “paid in full” or “completed”.

First, we need to look in context: In John 19:28, we read, “[a]fter this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’” Does this mean ‘paid in full’? It sure doesn’t seem so – after all, Jesus is still fulfilling prophecies! Yet, when in John 19:30, we see the reference back to the initial use of tetelestai, we presume that it means “paid in full”? That doesn’t make sense.

In any case, the “paid in full” meme is one that is advocated in Protestant theology, not in Catholic theology…!

I am not a theologian, just a messenger.

What do you think the “theology” of “When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself”?

I, personally, do not look at any of the theological aspects of this statement at all, only that it is a very simple, direct statement that is all encompassing but lacking in details.

Some seem to be more interested in the “details” than in the inclusiveness of what God did for humanity.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not a theologian, just a messenger.

Perhaps; yet, even a messenger is responsible for accurately relaying the message he’s been given.

You wrote, “Seems to be only one way to Dad, but who knows how many ways there are to Jesus”; this seems to espouse syncretism, as if each “way to Jesus” is equally efficacious. It isn’t – the Church teaches that, although some who choose other paths may attain to salvation (purely through the mercy of God), these other paths aren’t in and of themselves able to lead people to Christ.

What do you think the “theology” of “When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself”?

It means that, through the crucifixion (i.e., ‘lifting up’) and death of Jesus, all have the opportunity to attain to salvation. It speaks of Jesus’ action, not of our actions. It doesn’t say that all of our actions will lead us to Jesus, does it?

I, personally, do not look at any of the theological aspects of this statement at all, only that it is a very simple, direct statement that is all encompassing but lacking in details.

The details may not be found in this particular statement, but are certainly found elsewhere, including in the teaching of the Church. Just because you don’t find that teaching in the passage you cite doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t valid…

 

[Tom_Baum]

Perhaps; yet, even a messenger is responsible for accurately relaying the message he’s been given.

The message that I was given was that only I could say it, I’m just trying to do what God asked me to do and I have to leave it up to God that I somehow do it

You wrote, “Seems to be only one way to Dad, but who knows how many ways there are to Jesus”; this seems to espouse syncretism, as if each “way to Jesus” is equally efficacious. It isn’t – the Church teaches that, although some who choose other paths may attain to salvation (purely through the mercy of God), these other paths aren’t in and of themselves able to lead people to Christ.

Who’s talking about other paths, I basically said that there is no such thing written that says that there is only one way to Jesus, just that the only way to the Father is thru Jesus, by the way, have you ever met Dad?

Jesus’s Church has a mission and Jesus spelled out this mission when He said, “The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.

By the way, isn’t everyone’s Salvation “purely through the mercy of God”?

It means that, through the crucifixion (i.e., ‘lifting up’) and death of Jesus, all have the opportunity to attain to salvation. It speaks of Jesus’ action, not of our actions. It doesn’t say that all of our actions will lead us to Jesus, does it?

What it simply says is that “I will draw everyone to Myself”, it doesn’t say how He will do this but it does say Who will do the drawing, it doesn’t say anything about giving everyone an “opportunity to attain to salvation”, seems to me that you are either adding or subtracting rather than looking at the simple statement that is given.

The details may not be found in this particular statement, but are certainly found elsewhere, including in the teaching of the Church. Just because you don’t find that teaching in the passage you cite doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t valid…

Actually, only God knows all of the details.

I don’t know how to split up your response like some do, so I just underlined mine.

 

[Gorgias]

The message that I was given was that only I could say it, I’m just trying to do what God asked me to do and I have to leave it up to God that I somehow do it

Just to make sure I understand what you’re saying: are you claiming that you’ve received a personal revelation from God to proclaim the Gospel? And that your take on it, as you’ve outlined here, is the content of the revelation you received?

Who’s talking about other paths, I basically said that there is no such thing written that says that there is only one way to Jesus

Actually, the Church teaches that it is the means by which we come to the fullness of the truth. The validity of this teaching comes from the fact that only the apostles were given the proxy and authority of Jesus to teach in His name. So, although God may reach out to us and provide His mercy, the only way that we can be assured that we can reach out to Jesus is through His Church.

just that the only way to the Father is thru Jesus, by the way, have you ever met Dad?

Yes: “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Moreover, I’d like to ask you in the same words that Jesus asked Philip: “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

By the way, isn’t everyone’s Salvation “purely through the mercy of God”?

All salvation is based on God’s mercy, yes. Yet, the means by which individuals are saved can vary: for some, it is in their belief in the Catholic Church; for others, their reliance purely on the mercy of God.

What it simply says is that “I will draw everyone to Myself”, it doesn’t say how He will do this but it does say Who will do the drawing

In this particular citation, yes that’s what’s said. Yet, are you claiming that this citation alone is the only way to understand salvation? That’s just silly…

seems to me that you are either adding or subtracting rather than looking at the simple statement that is given.

No, I’m making use of other resources, in Scripture and in Apostolic Teaching. That’s not “adding or subtracting”, but rather, is having eyes to see and ears to hear…

Actually, only God knows all of the details.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have additional details than the citation you provided…

 

[Tom_Baum]

Just to make sure I understand what you’re saying: are you claiming that you’ve received a personal revelation from God to proclaim the Gospel? And that your take on it, as you’ve outlined here, is the content of the revelation you received?

I was simply told that only I could say it, sometimes, maybe mostly, maybe even all of the time for all that I know but God is not, at least in my case, like some big dictation machine in the sky, I was simply told in a dream that I know was from God that only I could say it.

Actually, the Church teaches that it is the means by which we come to the fullness of the truth. The validity of this teaching comes from the fact that only the apostles were given the proxy and authority of Jesus to teach in His name. So, although God may reach out to us and provide His mercy, the only way that we can be assured that we can reach out to Jesus is through His Church.

Are you saying that this is the only way that God is allowed to “work”? Are you trying to tell me that we are telling God just what and how God can do things?

Yes: “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Moreover, I’d like to ask you in the same words that Jesus asked Philip: “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

Actually, that was Jesus, quite simply, telling Philip that Jesus was/is God but God does happen to be a Trinity and even tho I can not “explain” the Trinity and no one else can either, there are Three Persons in the Trinity and I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit and it was the Holy Spirit Who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus but nevertheless Dad is not Jesus and Jesus is not Dad.

All salvation is based on God’s mercy, yes. Yet, the means by which individuals are saved can vary: for some, it is in their belief in the Catholic Church; for others, their reliance purely on the mercy of God.

Jesus’s Church does have a mission which is that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It” but as far as " the means by which individuals are saved" varies not at all, it is from what God has done for humanity.

The Plan which God has had since before creation is unfolding before our very eyes and God’s Plan is not a losing plan, in other words, a tie is absolutely and utterly unacceptable, God’s Victory is Total and all encompassing and satan’s defeat is total and complete.

In this particular citation, yes that’s what’s said. Yet, are you claiming that this citation alone is the only way to understand salvation? That’s just silly…

I am saying that we should not underestimate God and God’s Plan.

No, I’m making use of other resources, in Scripture and in Apostolic Teaching. That’s not “adding or subtracting”, but rather, is having eyes to see and ears to hear…

Have you ever noticed that the Catholic Church has never said that anyone is definitively in hell forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever…?

While at the same time, saying that there are some in heaven, ever notice this?

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have additional details than the citation you provided…

As I said, only God knows all of the “details”, I happen to believe that God is Omniscient among God’s other Omni’s and I also believe that God-Incarnate, Jesus, gave up His Omni’s when He became One of us.

 

[Gorgias]

I was simply told that only I could say it, sometimes, maybe mostly, maybe even all of the time for all that I know but God is not, at least in my case, like some big dictation machine in the sky, I was simply told in a dream that I know was from God that only I could say it.

Tom,

OK – so, in a dream, you were told that God “is not a dictation machine.” That’s exactly what the Church teaches.

You also assert that “only [you] could say” that this is the case? Hmm… I appreciate that you feel inspired to assert this fact about God, and inspired to evangelize about this, but… “only [you] can say” this? Hmm. That’s… odd.

Are you saying that this is the only way that God is allowed to “work”? Are you trying to tell me that we are telling God just what and how God can do things?

No – we know that God isn’t constrained by His sacraments and His doctrines; we know that God works by His own devices. However, that doesn’t mean that “we are telling God … how God can do things” – it means that we are affirming the ways that God has told us about how He does things! And, we know this through the teaching of the Apostles!

Yes: “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Moreover, I’d like to ask you in the same words that Jesus asked Philip: “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

Actually, that was Jesus, quite simply, telling Philip that Jesus was/is God but God does happen to be a Trinity

Yes, Jesus is God. Yes, God is a Trinity. But, you cannot assert special revelation about the nature of God, since we know God through His public revelation.

I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit and it was the Holy Spirit Who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus but nevertheless Dad is not Jesus and Jesus is not Dad.

I’d like to offer you the opportunity to reflect on these statements: yes, Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) and the Father (the first person of the Trinity) are distinct; but, it’s not a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit to you – God revealed this to us all through Public Revelation and the Apostolic Teaching that is the Deposit of the Faith.

Jesus’s Church does have a mission which is that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It” but as far as " the means by which individuals are saved" varies not at all, it is from what God has done for humanity.

Yes, salvation is from God. The means of salvation, however, are not static: the means vary, and the Church has taught us what these various means are. Are you asserting that the Church has not taught us this? Or that the Church is unable to teach us this? Or that your private revelation trumps what the Church has taught us?
Tom Baum:

Gorgias:

No, I’m making use of other resources, in Scripture and in Apostolic Teaching. That’s not “adding or subtracting”, but rather, is having eyes to see and ears to hear…

Have you ever noticed that the Catholic Church has never said that anyone is definitively in hell forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever…?

While at the same time, saying that there are some in heaven, ever notice this?

Yes. However, this doesn’t address our current debate, which is the means by which salvation is attained! The fact that the Church is able to definitively declare some in heaven, and the fact that the Church never declares that certain individuals are in hell, isn’t relevant to this discussion!

I also believe that God-Incarnate, Jesus, gave up His Omni’s when He became One of us.

Ouch…! No, Jesus didn’t give up his divine attributes! Rather, he set them aside, in order to fully embrace his human nature! In heaven, Jesus now has ‘regained all His Omni’s’!!!

 

[Tom_Baum]

Gorgias

You wrote, “Tom, OK – so, in a dream, you were told that God “is not a dictation machine.” That’s exactly what the Church teaches. You also assert that “only [you] could say” that this is the case? Hmm… I appreciate that you feel inspired to assert this fact about God, and inspired to evangelize about this, but… “only [you] can say” this?Hmm. That’s… odd.”

That is not even close to what I wrote, what I wrote was that I was told that “only I could say it”, I wasn’t told what the “it” was. The comment that I made about God NOT being like a big dictation machine in the sky was to point out that what I was to say wasn’t even told to me but that what I would say could only be said by me, God knows why and I have to trust God to see me thru.

You then wrote, “No – we know that God isn’t constrained by His sacraments and His doctrines; we know that God works by His own devices. However, that doesn’t mean that “we are telling God … how God can do things” – it means that we are affirming the ways that God has told us about how He does things! And, we know this through the teaching of the Apostles!”

What your answer affirms is that you are saying that God can only work the way or ways that you or whoever has figured out God has told you that God works, what if God wishes to do something that isn’t confined to what you or whoever has figured out?

You then wrote, “Yes, Jesus is God. Yes, God is a Trinity. But, you cannot assert special revelation about the nature of God, since we know God through His public revelation.”

I can and will assert what I feel led by God to assert, there were plenty in Jesus’s Day that didn’t care for what He asserted and they, pretty much, told Him to cease and desist, did He? By the way, what did I assert about the “nature of God” that you disagree with? Not only is it God’s Plan but ALL of creation is God’s.

You also wrote, “I’d like to offer you the opportunity to reflect on these statements: yes, Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, Jesus (the second person of the Trinity) and the Father (the first person of the Trinity) are distinct; but, it’s not a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit to you – God revealed this to us all through Public Revelation and the Apostolic Teaching that is the Deposit of the Faith.”

You are wrong, it was a “personal revelation from the Holy Spirit to” me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, I was taught about the Eucharist and I believed it but I did not “know” until the Holy Spirit revealed this to me, the words (know and believe) do NOT mean the same thing, even one who fervently believes does not “know”.

You wrote, “Yes, salvation is from God. The means of salvation, however, are not static: the means vary, and the Church has taught us what these various means are. Are you asserting that the Church has not taught us this? Or that the Church is unable to teach us this? Or that your private revelation trumps what the Church has taught us?”

I am saying that Salvation is a “gift from God” and that no one can earn it.

You wrote, “Yes. However, this doesn’t address our current debate, which is the means by which salvation is attained! The fact that the Church is able to definitively declare some in heaven, and the fact that the Church never declares that certain individuals are in hell, isn’t relevant to this discussion!”

Definitely something to “ponder”.

You wrote, "Ouch…! No, Jesus didn’t give up his divine attributes! Rather, he set them aside, in order to fully embrace his human nature! In heaven, Jesus now has ‘regained all His Omni’s’!!! "

Set them aside, gave them up voluntarily when He became One of us, merely semantics, what I was simply trying to point out is that Jesus was not Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient when Incarnated and apparently even after the Resurrection, He still wan’t Omniscient since when He was asked when He was coming back, He replied, “I don’t know, the Angels in heaven don’t know, only the Father knows”; concerning the present, I don’t know one way or the other if He knows when He’ll be back.