B
Bengoshi
Guest
Yes, of course.
- Status
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Good!I think we are in agreeement on this point.
No. They matter. They determine our rewards in heaven.
Oh no, I’m sorry, it would be too long and laborious for me to do that. Let me just instead refer you to Sproul’s book, “Chosen By God” and Wayne Grudem’s explanation in his Systematic Theology book. I have a softcopy I can e-mail you if you would PM me you e-mail address.
No, God is sovereign. “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” (Proverbs 19:21)
B
Bengoshi
Guest
I mean it in such a way that there are people who claim to be Chriatians but have no genuine faith in Christ. Their lives don’t even show it.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Honestly, I am not yet quite clear on whether Christ did or did not descend into hell after His death. Grudem is isndeed of the position that He did not, but I’m not yet that convinced. So I have still yet to research on the subject.Sorry, Shaky. I thought I posted this earlier today when I posted my other response to you…
Yes! This is the teaching of the Church!
I introduce Wayne Grudem here for Bengoshi’s benefit.Grudem is a Reformed Baptist theologian. In explaining why Christ did not descend to hell, Grudem tells his readers that,
“The most satisfactory explanation of 1 Peter 3:19-20 seems rather to be one proposed (but not really defended) long ago by Augustine: The passage refers not to something Christ did between his death and resurrection but to what he did “in the spiritual realm of existence” (or “through the Spirit”) at the time of Noah. When Noah was building the ark, Christ “in spirit” was preaching through Noah to the hostile unbelievers around him” (Systematic Theology).
What he doesn’t tell us here is that Augustine also said of this passage, that it is “wont to perplex me most seriously,” and that he asked Bishop Evodius to “remove and terminate my perplexities on the subject” by offering his own interpretation. Augustine approached this text with profound diffidence, but before he offered his interpretation, he also had this to say: “It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, descended into hell”; and he went on to ask, “Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?” (Letter 164)
Doctor of the Church Cyril of Jerusalem gives the best presentation of this teaching:
“The one [Jonah] was cast into a whale’s belly: but the other [Jesus] of His own accord went down thither, where the invisible whale of death is. And He went down of His own accord, that death might cast up those whom he had devoured, according to that which is written, ‘I will ransom them from the power of the grave; and from the hand of death I will redeem them’ (Hosea 13:14)…
“…I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead; for I have many testimonies of this, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose—who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company (cf. Ephesians 4:8); for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him (cf. Matthew 27:52).
“Death was struck with dismay on beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of that place (cf. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). Why, O porters of Hades, were you scared at sight of Him? What was the unwonted fear that possessed you? Death fled, and his flight betrayed his cowardice. The holy prophets ran unto Him, and Moses the Lawgiver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; David also, and Samuel, and Esaias, and John the Baptist, who bore witness when he asked, ‘Art Thou He that should come, or look we for another?’ (Matthew 11:3) All the Just were ransomed, whom death had swallowed; for it behoved the King whom they had proclaimed, to become the redeemer of His noble heralds. Then each of the Just said, ‘O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting?’ (1 Corinthians 15:55) For the Conqueror has redeemed us.
“Of this our Saviour the Prophet Jonas formed the type, when he prayed out of the belly of the whale, and said, ‘I cried in my affliction,’ and so on; ‘out of the belly of hell’ (Jonah 2:2), and yet he was in the whale; but though in the whale, he says that he is in Hades; for he was a type of Christ, who was to descend into Hades” (Catechetical Lecture 14).
You can read about this truth of our faith in the Catechism here.
Christ is risen from the dead!
May the LORD be with you!
Pete
B
Bengoshi
Guest
This seems to be a very plausible explanation from www.GotQuestions.org:
Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?"
Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. This concept comes primarily from the Apostles’ Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the “place of the dead” or the “place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is “hades,” which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to hell because hell is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).
Sheol/hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), the abodes of the saved and the lost. The abode of the saved was called “paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom.” The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus ascended to heaven, He took the occupants of paradise (believers) with Him (Ephesians 4:8-10). The lost side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20.
Some of the confusion has arisen from such passages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption…Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation of this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”
Some have the viewpoint that Jesus went to “hell” or the suffering side of sheol/hades in order to further be punished for our sins. This idea is completely unbiblical. It was the death of Jesus on the cross and His suffering in our place that sufficiently provided for our redemption. It was His shed blood that effected our own cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7-9). As He hung there on the cross, He took the sin burden of the whole human race upon Himself. He became sin for us: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of sin helps us understand Christ’s struggle in the garden of Gethsemane with the cup of sin which would be poured out upon Him on the cross.
When Jesus cried upon the cross, “Oh, Father, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), it was then that He was separated from the Father because of the sin poured out upon Him. As He gave up His spirit, He said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to the paradise side of hades. Jesus did not go to hell. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension. Did Jesus go to hell? No. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes.
Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?"
Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. This concept comes primarily from the Apostles’ Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the “place of the dead” or the “place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is “hades,” which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to hell because hell is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).
Sheol/hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), the abodes of the saved and the lost. The abode of the saved was called “paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom.” The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus ascended to heaven, He took the occupants of paradise (believers) with Him (Ephesians 4:8-10). The lost side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20.
Some of the confusion has arisen from such passages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption…Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation of this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”
Some have the viewpoint that Jesus went to “hell” or the suffering side of sheol/hades in order to further be punished for our sins. This idea is completely unbiblical. It was the death of Jesus on the cross and His suffering in our place that sufficiently provided for our redemption. It was His shed blood that effected our own cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7-9). As He hung there on the cross, He took the sin burden of the whole human race upon Himself. He became sin for us: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of sin helps us understand Christ’s struggle in the garden of Gethsemane with the cup of sin which would be poured out upon Him on the cross.
When Jesus cried upon the cross, “Oh, Father, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), it was then that He was separated from the Father because of the sin poured out upon Him. As He gave up His spirit, He said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to the paradise side of hades. Jesus did not go to hell. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension. Did Jesus go to hell? No. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes.
P
paul_c
Guest
P
paul_c
Guest
This is a great defence for the Catholic Position, actually. God desires all men to be saved but punishes those that fail to do his will. This statement you have made is completely counter to Calvinistic predestination because
a) in Calvinistic predestination, God desires for some to not be saved
b) in Calvinistic predestination, personal actions do not matter in terms of salvation.
No one is debating any of this (except she never said taht God was love ONLY). In fact, you statement hat God is just is completely consistent with Catholic teaching. But is it consistent with Calvin’s teaching?
B
benedictus2
Guest
Interesting word choice there. God must punish sin. Not the sin-ner.
Nope. You seem to be selective about what pertains and does not pertain to salvation. The whole point of the Bible is about salvation, the Bible is about Christ and Christ is all about our salvation.
Grace is grace. The distinction made about grace being “common” is Calvinistic invention. This is a kind of loophole he needed to try to make sense of the other bits of predestination that does not make sense.
There is nothing “common” about grace
Anyway, I will grant you the distinction.
Since all grace comes from God, why go to all the lengths of giving them “common grace” when He was going to throw them shrieking into the furnace of eternal fire by withholding “saving grace”?
See here, every time you try to explain a poverty in the Calvinist understanding of salvation, what you end up doing is portray God as some sort of a Jekyll and Hyde.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Voila! Finally, an admission. Yes, yes, yes, God desires all men to be saved. If God desires ALL men to be saved, ERGO, He cannot have willed them into existence for the sole purpose of damning them which is exactly what Calvinistic predestination teaches. This is the point that Paul and I have been trying to get accross to you.
Voila again. They are “punished” if they fail to repent. But here is the thing, you said that God withdraws the grace so that they will NOT repent! Can you see the huge difference there? The punishment or threat of punishment is supposed to bring them to repentance. If that is the aim, then God wishes that all will be saved, ergo… God has not predestined anyone to hell.
And another thing. God does not punish us when we sin. The ills associated with sinning are built into the act. Think of it like this. Bang your head against the wall real hard and you will a mighty bump on head if not a cracked skull. Did God cause your skull to crack because you banged your head on the wall. No, these things are natural and supernatural consequences of sin.
Nope. Actually, Catholic theology takes all the attributes of God and comes up with the most scriptural and coherent and intelligent theology on salvation.
Calvinistic predestination only thinks of God as omnipotent and that is that. He does not think that God is just or that God is love. Even if he did think of God as just and love, his concept of these are so warped as to be almost non-existent.
As I have posted before, everything that you have written has shown that your god is anything but love and anything but just. Omnipotent yes, but a frigteningly evil god.
Yes and at what is His wrath directed? . Why is God angry? Isn’t it precisely because the people would not obey His Will? Why? What is wrong with not obeying His will? Because disobedience brings damnation! The consequence of disobedience (turning away from God) is damnationg (a turning towards the devil). Always, when you disobey God you obey the devil. That is why He is angry because He does not want anyone to turn away from Him and consequently to be damned.
Now why would a just God expect the people to obey His will if according to you, one can only obey Him if He gives that person the grace to obey? It is like this god is saying to the people I will get very angry and torture you forever and ever if you do not drive those cars. But you need petrol to drive those cars and I will not give petrol to some of you so that I can punish them for not driving those cars. Isn’t kind of thinking rather idiotic and heinous. And you think God is like that?
The wrath of God is closely related to His passionate love for us. The analogy I can think of right now is when a mother gets angry because the child has got himself into a mishap. She is angry because she loves the child so. She would not purposely do something that will land the child in a bad situation. But your view suggests that God will do exactly that.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Hi Pete, I will answer this little bit first as it is already late and get back to the rest of your post when I find the time. The answer to the first part of your post is a bit more involved. However, I have just made a few posts in this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466272&goto=newpost that I think is related. It all has to do with whether grace has ontological status in one’s soul.
Anyway, to your question “If Christ died for all, why does He not save all?” He is able."
The answer is free-will. It is by God’s will / choice to create us with free will.
Christ did die for all. But all this means is that by His life death and resurrection, sanctifiying grace is once more made available to us. But just because sanctifiying grace is made available it does not mean that we are already saved because our cooperation is required, precisely again because of free-will.
Think of this like God raining down grace from heaven. To be saved, one must get wet. However, some persist in remaining indoors rather than going out there and raising their face to the sky. Mind you it, is not beyond Him (and He has done so in many instances ) to actually cause a gale to blow away the roof to ensure that some get wet. But each and everyone of us has the free will to accept and cooperate with that grace, to go out there and frolick in the rain.
B
benedictus2
Guest
You don’t get it?
Remember you said before that you do think. The relationship is there. So there’s a challenge for you. And the time starts now.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I will reply to this bit first and just reply to the other sections of your post later. There are still I think 2 posts from you which I will have to reply to later as it is very late.
Total depravity is not only a poor choice of words it is a very poor belief and Calvin does teach total depravity. You have to understand the philosphy that shaped reformed thinking to understand why they believe this.
Anyway, in relation to justification and sanctification my reponse to JonNC on another thread I think answer this :
Code:
[forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466272&page=17](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466272&page=17)Hi Pete Holter, these are the posts I was referring to in the link I gave above.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Not a problem at all. I am used to people getting angry and me getting angry. It’s the nature of the forum. Tempers flare and that is all there is to it.
I am not easily offended except when people start portraying God to be an evil monster Then I see red.God is love. God is Love. God is Love.:heaven:
And yes, God is also :newidea: …Love.
And we were all created out of Love. Every single one of us. And don’t let anyone else tell you other wise.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Hi All,
Two videos which I think will help clarify everyone’s thoughts on the topic at hand
youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
Fr Barron comments on Protestantism and Authority
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE&feature=related
Two videos which I think will help clarify everyone’s thoughts on the topic at hand
Code:
Fr Barron comments on HellFr Barron comments on Protestantism and Authority
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE&feature=related
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Great! Once you are convinced that we are born again and justified in baptism, you’ll see that other doctrines of the Reformed soteriology (the one side to the perseverance of the saints, justification as a one-time event and by faith alone apart from baptism, etc.) will have to be given up too. I hope you’ll spend some time studying baptismal regeneration. Once you see it, it’s one of the clearest teachings of Scripture! The entire early Church believed in it. Check out this article on that website Murphs10 linked to earlier. Augustine complained of the Pelagians, saying:Well said!
This is what I was trying to say all along! Well, except maybe for the baptismal regeneration part, nevertheless, the Church of Christ believes in that as well and I may have no problem in agreeing that baptism is necessary, otherwise, we wouldn’t have done it in our congregation. Baptism for us is evidence of our true faith in Christ. But that’s not the issue on this thread, and I’m not totally against it anyway!
“The Pelagians, indeed, add to the clouds which envelop their lurking-places the unnecessary question concerning the origin of the soul, for the purpose of erecting a hiding-place by disturbing manifest things by the obscurity of other matters. For they say that we guard the continuous propagation of souls with the continuous propagation of sin. And where and when they have read this, either in the addresses or in the writings of those who maintain the catholic faith against this, I do not know; because, although I find something written by Catholics on the subject, yet the defense of the truth had not yet been undertaken against those men, neither was there any anxiety to answer them. But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. Wherefore, whoever builds up, either concerning the soul or any other obscure matter, any edifice whence he may destroy this, which is true, best founded, and best known, whether he is a son or an enemy of the Church, must either be corrected or avoided” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 26Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).
This makes sense because if the whole Church cannot arrive at a definitive certainty concerning the truth of any particular doctrine of Scripture, how can any of us have any hope of avoiding Paul’s charge being brought against us, of being “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7)?
In terms of your understanding of predestination, your position is in full accord with the presentation found in Ott that MarcoPolo linked to earlier. Let me know if I’m wrong. If I’m not, welcome to the Catholic faith!
“It is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in one common perdition through their common origin… [for] the whole human race was condemned in its rebellious head by a divine judgment so just, that if not a single member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have questioned the justice of God; and that it was right that those who are redeemed should be redeemed in such a way as to show, by the greater number who are unredeemed and left in their just condemnation, what the whole race deserved, and whither the deserved judgment of God would lead even the redeemed, did not His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouth might be stopped of those who wish to glory in their own merits, and that he that glories might glory in the Lord.
“These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure, because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good” (, Chs. 99 & 100The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love).
Your brother in the Lord,
Pete
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Anyway, to your question “If Christ died for all, why does He not save all?” He is able."
The answer is free-will. It is by God’s will / choice to create us with free will.
Augustinians do not agree to this. For us, free will is only the answer for why we deserve hell. But when we talk about salvation, we do not give this answer. We answer with the grace of God. And we ascribe salvation to a decision of the Lord that is beyond us to answer. In the final analysis, when wondering why one person is saved and another is not, we only say, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Romans 11:33). If you say that the will of man is the determining distinction between the saved and the lost, then you make salvation to depend on “man who wills” rather than on “God Who shows mercy,” and you have reason in yourself to boast over the non-elect.
“And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure; and in another place: So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, the preparation of the heart is from the Lord? Otherwise, if it is said, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it—then it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared. For the man’s righteousness of will precedes many of God’s gifts, but not all; and it must itself be included among those which it does not precede” (St. Augustine, (The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, Ch. 32).
We say, “It is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost” (The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, Ch. 99).
Maybe you can help Arminians come home, and I’ll help Calvinists come home.
With the love of Christ,
Pete
S
shaky
Guest
Hi Benigoshi
Having a mix-up in translation confuses thinks a bit.
{Hell should be translated Sheol/hades} {Which is in the Grave the pit}
What about the scripture that say about those that are sleepeth when they are Dead. Lazarus {John 11:11}+{mathew 27:52 9:24} {Luke 8:59}???
Also in Sheol/hades you say 2 places {paradise for the righteous} The other place i have found is {Gehenna,Tartarus, lower hell, shoel/hades}={2 peter 2:4-9 Jude 1:6} {Luke8:31}
I thought {Paradise} was in the {Third heaven}={Between the heaven and the Earth}!!!
{2 Cor 12:2-4} {Ezekiel 8:3}
You say Jesus took the burden for the whole Human race. What about all the ones in Tarturas lower hell I Know Angels are there. {But also the Ungodly humans that are there}
Did Jesus take the Burden for These??
D
dcastlen50
Guest
“Making Since Out of Suffering” by Kreeft, is another book addressing suffering and evil that I practically memorized. I look forward to getting Webb’s book.
Benedictus, you seem to be sharper than the average knife.
Do you have publications, or a web sight? Do you recommend any books, publication or any other forms of literature for our Faith?Sorry if I got off the thread topic
D
dcastlen50
Guest
Please!!! don’t use the “acorn” analogy! The word puts very negative thoughts in one’s mind; how about “seed” ? But not ACORN!
B
Bengoshi
Guest
I see a straw man here. There seems to be again a misunderstanding of Reformed/Calvinist theology. For the last time, Reformed theology does not teach that our actions are meaningless. They mean something and will be accounted for at Judgment Day.
The thing is, even though Benedictus does not say God is love only, she obviously just focuses on that and fail to consider the other attributes of God. Maybe there are indeed a lot more agreements between Catholic and Reformed theology that we are aware of. They are just said and understood in different ways, but the end product is nevertheless almost the same.
- Status