 |
To the ability to bear children in their womb. Women are equipped by God to bear and nurse children. Because of this, they seem to have a far greater capacity to love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Because of this ability to love, women (in general) seem to, in my opinion, have a different way of thinking to resolve problems. I believe their methodology is superior to men's for the most part.
Sincerely,
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Hi De Maria,
I could 'dust off the books' in my library if you like but I don't think there is much disagreement that St. Thomas favoured virtue ethics.
As you are no doubt doubt aware St. Thomas isolated four cardinal virtues>prudence, justice and fortitude. He also isolated three theological virtues> faith, hope and charity. The dichotomy of virtues has different ends as their object. Theological virtues has God as their object. Cardinal virtues has as their end an act. Again, I don't think this is in dispute, but I will have to wait and see.
Now, virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the person performing certain acts and NOT the consequences of the act. Rather than say( as I did) ' St Thomas reasoned that God would have not given us commands through scripture and the church only to see them contradicted by subjective experience.' I should have said something along the lines of, " It stands to reason that God would not give us commands... '
I hope this clears up that issue.
Regards
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Just to expand on some earlier points.
On face value what you have said above appears to be true. Yet there is a problem when we come to think about this in terms of ethics.
Objective truth is something which seems desirable and God's commands working through the Holy Spirit seems to provide a suitable explanation of objectivity. If there is subjective disagreement between a Protestant and a Catholic who which to claim they are inspired by the Holy Spirit... then... ( I think this is what You are saying) we need to consult the church for the "objective" account in order to settle the matter.
All of this seems to add up to a claim there is an objective account of morality based on certain features about the nature of God and how he works. This also seems to add up to a claim that it is of no consequence how you or I feel about morality. God's commands provide an objective account of morality and that's the end of the story.
Unfortunately it is not that easy when it comes to ethics. Objectivity in ethics is not the same as say, objectivity in science.
Issac Newton provided us with certain scientific facts about the nature of velocity. There is of course no "Church of Issac Newton" Nonetheless, I am quite happy to accept the proof of mathematics as providing an objective account of velocity. Alternatively, I could set up my own experiment to determine the truth or falsity of Newton's theory.
If I don't get around to doing the experiment then I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I'll just accept that in fact it is an objective account of nature.
'Thou shall not steal' is also an objective account but it is more difficult to accept this than to accept a objective scientific account. Why? Because people have lost sleep in the past agonizing over whether to steal or not to steal. This is because there is a certain type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about morality not found in a objective scientific account but found in an objective moral account.
Whether we like it or not it seems as though at least in some ways we contribute to being 'Pillars of Truth'
Regards
Tut
Hi TutQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
No, it doesn't Tut. You also said:Quote:
I hope this clears up that issue.
What does that mean that actions have a "'to do' or 'not to do' about them."??Quote:
St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.
I don't think so. You'll have to provide the proof.Quote:
I could 'dust off the books' in my library if you like but I don't think there is much disagreement that St. Thomas favoured virtue ethics.
And temperance.Quote:
As you are no doubt doubt aware St. Thomas isolated four cardinal virtues>prudence, justice and fortitude.
They all have God as their object. Or at least, salvation which ultimately leads to union with God.Quote:
He also isolated three theological virtues> faith, hope and charity. The dichotomy of virtues has different ends as their object. Theological virtues has God as their object. Cardinal virtues has as their end an act.
That is why virtue ethics is not a Catholic doctrine. And why St. Thomas would not have favored such a doctrine. The outcome of the act is definitely important in Catholic and I believe in Christian doctrine of most denominations.Quote:
Again, I don't think this is in dispute, but I will have to wait and see.
]Now, virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the person performing certain acts and NOT the consequences of the act.
Not quite as God did not give us any commands we could contradict for any reason subjective or objective.Quote:
Rather than say( as I did) ' St Thomas reasoned that God would have not given us commands through scripture and the church only to see them contradicted by subjective experience.' I should have said something along the lines of, " It stands to reason that God would not give us commands... '
I hope this clears up that issue.
Please start again.
Sincerely,Quote:
Regards
Tut
De Maria
Hi again De Maria,
I have an appoint shortly so I address the issues you raised tonight.
Just for the moment you might like to look at
Aquinas, Thomas[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
"The second part is on Ethics. Thomas argues for a variation of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics"
Regards
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Hello DeMaria,
If you are now of the opinion that virtue ethics is part of Catholic doctrine then I would be interested in your evaluation of the following...
I stumbled upon this article which I hope will put forward my argument in a 'nutshell'.
It is taken from "Roman Catholic Ethics: Three Approaches", by Brian Berry.
http//www.sch.edu/theolibrary/resources/ligouri_berry.htm
"A major representative of the "virtue ethics' approach in Roman Catholicism is James Keenan. Keenan argues that the focus of ethics should not be on acts (consequences) but on who we are, who we are to become, and how to get there. The specific tasks of virtue ethics are to help us understand ourselves as the people we are, to set goals for the type of people we ought to become and to suggest significant steps we should take to achieve these ends. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do. Like Revisionism, Keenan sees human relationships as the context with which the moral life is practiced and evaluated (consequences)."
(consequences) my assessment added.
It looks as though Keenan is pushing consequentialism out the front door at the beginning but letting it in the backdoor near the end.
It seems to me that it is difficult to escape the 'to do' or ' not to do' (consequences) when it comes to ethics.
Regards
Tut
This is an interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas. And I don't believe it is a Catholic interpretation. So, I'd like to see it from his own writings.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Or did you get your ideas about St. Thomas from a non Catholic source?
I don't think you understand what is "doctrine". Catholic doctrine is not theories. We don't live according to theories. We live according to absolute revealed truth of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Keenan sounds correct. But what you are giving as an example of Catholic doctrine is merely an example of someone's opinion of what Catholic doctrine might be.Quote:
I stumbled upon this article which I hope will put forward my argument in a 'nutshell'.
It is taken from "Roman Catholic Ethics: Three Approaches", by Brian Berry.
http//www.sch.edu/theolibrary/resources/ligouri_berry.htm
"A major representative of the "virtue ethics' approach in Roman Catholicism is James Keenan. Keenan argues that the focus of ethics should not be on acts (consequences) but on who we are, who we are to become, and how to get there. The specific tasks of virtue ethics are to help us understand ourselves as the people we are, to set goals for the type of people we ought to become and to suggest significant steps we should take to achieve these ends. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do. Like Revisionism, Keenan sees human relationships as the context with which the moral life is practiced and evaluated (consequences)."
The Catholic dynamic of virtue ethics is both/and. It takes into account both who we are and the consequences of our actions. The definition of virtue ethics which you propose, discarding consequences, does not represent Catholic teaching. Keenan does seem to explain Catholic teaching correctly. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do.
But this is only someone's interpretive summary of what he teaches. For all I know the actual statement might be totally different.
Agreed.Quote:
(consequences) my assessment added.
It looks as though Keenan is pushing consequentialism out the front door at the beginning but letting it in the backdoor near the end.
It seems to me that it is difficult to escape the 'to do' or ' not to do' (consequences) when it comes to ethics.
Are you ever going to tie the ends and bring this line of reasoning back to the subject matter?Quote:
Regards
Tut
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi De Maria,Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You above statement is correct. I don't understand what it is to be a Catholic because I am not a Catholic.
I know a reasonable amount about the theoretical basis of Buddhism, but this does not make me a Buddhist.
In light of this I don't think there is a need for me to 'drive home' a philosophical point.
This is because it will not make the world a better place. Nor will not make me a better person for it.
I am happy to withdraw from the discussion.
Regards
Tut
Ok Tut. Thanks for your courteous participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Sincerely,
De Maria
Juan, et al:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Of course you always make sense. Nevertheless, I don't think we see quite eye-to-eye.
And I DON'T YELL; I NEVER YELL; MUCH
Actually, we (all Christians) have a big problem if faith operates without hope or charity. Polytheist believed in their multiple Gods, they even ritualized their ceremonies – obviously to no avail. They too had 'faith' in things yet realized. 'Religion' was little more than following ecclesiastical tradition to 'please the gods'. This type of religion relied solely on faith (Cf. Rom 1:19-23). You might say 'faith alone' – sound familiar? The Pope reminds us that the old religion of the Jews referred to in Romans, chapter one, “did not go the way of the Logos [for those that don't know, Logos is the Word, and the Word is the immutable Truth] but lingered in myths already seen to be devoid of reality…The human mind rightly turns to the truth itself, not to what by means of devious interpretation can be shown to be reconcilable with truth, though no longer containing any truth itself”. (Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p 140-145).
In Christ's day some turned to a Neo-Platonism - whereby philosophy rationalized god(s) into a self-centered being whose creation has no relationship to himself – sitting among the clouds this type of god is aloof and too good for man's day to day trivial experiences. This is quite unlike our God, who suffered humanity and the cross.
Our Pope gives a very different view of the philosophy of God. That is Christians hold the truth that “pure thought that is Divine. Thus, we find, as Christ proclaimed in John 14:6 the Christian God is a personal God of Truth, an absolute." Truth regardless of the element in His Creation we might examine. As such God we find ”a boundless spirit who bears in himself the totality of Being reaches beyond the “greatest”, so that to him it is small, and he reaches into the smallest, because to him nothing is too small.” (Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p 146). This is unlike the aloof god, a personal God who want us to be His son, who seeks us out, who tests us for worthiness of son- ship, who strengthens and weakens according to His plan for our redemption. His plan contains not only the faithful, but all creation – we once argued this ad infinitum. Therefore we find that His Truth and His love are His thought. Consequently, as the Pope reminds us, “it becomes apparent that truth and love are originally identical; that where they are completely realized they are not tow parallel or even opposing realities but one, the one and only absolute. “ Confessing this, we must realize that all men are gifted with faith and should they choose it grows into the virtue of hope which in its turn produces a virtuous charity – the fruits Christ sought but didn't find in the Jew.
Therefore, I've come to conclude, that while we like to bisect our salvation into its component parts of His plan to reclaim his sons, faith, hope, and charity are really one – our adoption by God into a unity with Him. Each of the three inseparable parts acts within the other, a symbiotic bond for a life eternally in God's redemption.
Think about it, what good does our belief in God do us if we do not have hope and chairty? What good dose our hope do us without faith or charity? And finally, why even bother with charity without hope and faith. That's why James can say with confidence, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) Charity is the sole of faith, without, as a man is dead without a soul, so is faith dead without works. (Cf. James 2:26)
Does this make sense?
JoeT
Perfect sense. You're preaching to the choir.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
But although you said we should not break salvation down into its components, let me do just that.
Why? Because God wants us to understand. Scripture says, "always be prepared to give the reasons for your hope." And elsewhere, "blessed the man who can explain Me."
Therefore, I seek to understand the minutest detail of God's plan for our salvation.
You might wonder what good this particular train of thought will do? Well, I think I've discovered Luther's error. And I think this train of thought explains that error.
How? Man! You ask too many questions. Ok, you don't have to twist my arm.
Here's how. Luther says that we are saved by faith alone, right? And Scripture says that we are saved by what? Baptism.
1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
And I believe that Luther made the same mistake that many Catholics make today. Did I say CATHOLICS? Why yes, I did.
Many Catholics today claim that we are only justified in Baptism. Some others claim that we are only justified in the Sacraments.
But then they turn around and confuse the Sacraments with Justification by FAITH AND WORKS.
But that isn't so. Lets go over to Trent for a minute and follow along the description of Justification by the Church Fathers.
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
Now, that seems to say exactly what I just said was not true. That Baptism is the only form of Justification. Justification here called Translation.
However, we must continue:
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that God gives us grace to seek our justification. Now, although this predisposing grace is not named here, I believe it is "faith". Because Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
In other words, faith is that grace by which we are saved. And when we are given this grace of faith we begin to seek God:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
So going back to Trent, Trent says that we freely assent and cooperate with that grace. And assenting and cooperating are essentially works.
What would assenting and cooperating entail? For some, it might mean hitting the books, learning about the faith. For others it might mean joining some Christian endeavor, fighting abortion, passing out food in a soup kitchen. Bottom line is that this is a form of works inspired by faith.
For a person seeking entry into the Catholic Church, this also leads to RCIA.
But what happens when one is Baptized? Did I wash my soul clean? Did you? No. God did it. Free gift, no works.
This is where Luther got confused! He said, "Hey, all I have to do is be baptized and I'm saved! Free gift, no works.
But he misunderstood the Scripture. You must work in order to be baptized:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
And you must work after you are baptized:
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
When we are Baptized, we are recreated in Christ's image unto good works.
So that's why I believe that we must be able to explain that there are two kinds of justification taking place in the Catholic Sacramental system.
Justification by faith and works in order to begin our justification before God and in order to perfect our justification before God.
Justification apart from works in the Sacraments which are works of God and which also continue throughout our lives.
It is really very beautiful and typical of God to leave no strings untied.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Then I'm in the presence of a holy choir. I better get this right! But I fear I'm not going to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Ok, I'm game. But remember, those that wish to confuse the faithful, form their arguments to suit a subjective need. We are in a war, so to speak; a crusade defending Truth from the hands of those who work for themselves. They dissect scriptural meaning, taking this part and placing it over here, another part they place over there, and so on and so forth. But, when they reassemble the constituent parts, the slight of hand begins. Voilà! We have us a 3 legged horse, pointed south in a northbound race with the rider hollering giddy-up-go.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yah, like I had to twist real hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
“We are saved by hope” (Rom 8:24)Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Perseverance is enduring the “trial; and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” (Rom 5:4-5).
The line that I have continued is the foundation of our salvation and redemption is faith, a faith that can only be realized in hope, to aspire to hope, to 'work' in this faith is to claim His goal set out in love for His adopted sons – eternal life. But, we'll set this aside for a faithful door into hope, i.e. baptism.
In my work, there is sort of a running joke. When something goes wrong we say, “It's his fault” pointing off indiscriminately in several directions at once. At the same time, a chorus responds “it ain't my fault.” This not only points to the frailty of human endeavors, but it speaks to another human nature; exposing an innate desire for 'justification'. That is, relief from responsibility and liability, a covering of sins. Salvation offers up justification for our failures – it covers the liability – pays the debt; debt owed for transgressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
To work off the debt, so to speak, may mollify our Divine creditor for a short while, but at the end the debt is due in full. This is Luther's failure, a fault too understandable; even in Catholics. Luther however was pathological seeing that the debt owed was too large he obsesses in pride at being indentured. 'Once saved always saved” is the rationalist's way of declaring bankruptcy. “Once saved always saved” speaks to hope realized – by definition it can't exist because the thing we seek is realized. Luther became obsessed with his failings – a fault in its own rite – not recognizing God's charitable love in the sacraments that forgive all debt comforting the spirit in the richness of being debt free. An achievement few men achieve in their financial affairs; fewer still achieve it in their spiritual affairs. This is the freedom from the Law that Paul speaks to in his epistle to the Romans. Luther choose to bankrupt his faith to achieve freedom from his debts in lieu of persevering in his trials and persisting in hope.
So, in the end I failed you. I still see faith -> hope -> charity which increases first faith -> then increases hope -> producing a freeman's charity which in turn intensifies unity with God – whence we become adopted sons of God, an eternal circle of faith, hope and charity, salvation.
But, in all cases we see first and foremost either, predisposing grace ; an innate faith all creation is graced with or an unwarranted grace. We search and seek out God; failing this human nature substitutes a false god or worse still himself. So, when we get right down to the microbial level, the order of incremental elements of salvation is preceded first by God's love for his creation in the form of grace.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Did I mess things up?
JoeT
No. You're still right on the money! But I think I'm talking past you. I'm not denying salvation or justification by faith and works. It is just that one component of that process, the one known collectively as the Sacraments, is God's work. Not ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I ask you again, did you wash your soul in Baptism? Or did God?
Let me sort of run down what St. Paul said:
Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
DOERS of the Law are just before God. That means that people who do the works of the Law are just before God.
But wait, in another verse he says:
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
It isn't possible that St. Paul contradicted himself. So he must be talking about something else. Baptism.
Justification by faith and works is really just the acquisition of good habits and behaviors in accordance with God's will. We have to do this before and after Baptism.
But in Baptism, God cleanses us. We don't cleanse ourselves.
So, please answer the question I asked, "Did you wash your soul in Baptism, or did God wash it for you?"
Sincerely,
I understand now. The fault was my thick headedness.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Agreed; salvation is found in the Sacraments and those Sacraments are gifts from God to His Church. So, we can deduce that salvation comes from God’s graces through the Church. But, you do know this puts us in direct conflict with Protestants – they think salvation is wished for; like a child wishes for a new toy at Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yes, I agree whole heartedly. The matter is poured with human hand, as the Holy Spirit laves the soul. We know the necessity of Baptism, it’s ordered of us; “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). Furthermore it is a gift from God, given freely and unwarranted. “For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 22.4). And we know) There is a ‘fire’ that is in Baptism mentioned in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:25 relating to the New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “; indeed an unquenchable fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ’s baptism transcends the renewing baptism of the Jew from a mere renovation of the soul into a spirit burning with fire as an absent son burns with desire for his father; you might say, firing him up. Baptism is the first step of a rebirth of the spirit into adopted sons of God. “He leads us away from the old to the new polity [no doubt an ecclesiastical polity], both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in Matthew’s Gospel that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism to build a fire within us to become the adopted sons of God, to receive His personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas reminds us: “The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given baptism Christ gives us hope in the here and now for the salvation promised in the furture.
JoeT
We do?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
GREAT!Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Gifts which He only gives to those who justify themselves in faith and works. And that is how justification of faith and works is wrapped around the justification of the Sacraments, which is by God alone. But we must believe that He will keep His promises because we certainly can't do what He promised to do.Quote:
Agreed; salvation is found in the Sacraments and those Sacraments are gifts from God to His Church.
Exactly the mystery I'm trying to unlock. Why do they believe that God does not require works?Quote:
So, we can deduce that salvation comes from God’s graces through the Church. But, you do know this puts us in direct conflict with Protestants – they think salvation is wished for; like a child wishes for a new toy at Christmas.
In my opinion, they locked on to one verse of the Bible and forgot the others.
But, I think too many Catholics, and I was one of them, are in danger of committing the opposite mistake. Perhaps from overzealousness, we have locked on to the other verse by the other Apostle and tried to force that meaning on too many verses which are not talking about that at all.
Great stuff here. I need to keep this stuff from the Fathers' for further review. They speak right to the point.Quote:
Yes, I agree whole heartedly. The matter is poured with human hand, as the Holy Spirit laves the soul. We know the necessity of Baptism, it’s ordered of us; “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). Furthermore it is a gift from God, given freely and unwarranted. “For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 22.4). And we know) There is a ‘fire’ that is in Baptism mentioned in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:25 relating to the New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “; indeed an unquenchable fire.
Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ’s baptism transcends the renewing baptism of the Jew from a mere renovation of the soul into a spirit burning with fire as an absent son burns with desire for his father; you might say, firing him up. Baptism is the first step of a rebirth of the spirit into adopted sons of God. “He leads us away from the old to the new polity [no doubt an ecclesiastical polity], both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in Matthew’s Gospel that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism to build a fire within us to become the adopted sons of God, to receive His personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas reminds us: “The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given baptism Christ gives us hope in the here and now for the salvation promised in the furture.
JoeT
Thanks.
There are Protestants and there are Protestants. And then there's Wondergirl. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Did you ever answer my question? Do you believe we are justified by faith alone? And yet believe we are saved by faith and works?
You won't explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yes.Quote:
Do you believe we are justified by faith alone?
No.Quote:
And yet believe we are saved by faith and works?
I mean that its hard to pin down what Protestants believe. There are too many flavors. You, for instance, didn't you say that you didn't believe in faith alone? Or am I getting you mixed up with someone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ok, I guess I'm getting you mixed up. Who is it that said that after justification we must work in thanksgiving to God?Quote:
Yes.
No.
I didn't use the word "must." I said that, in thanks to God for His grace and mercy, we show our love to Him by doing good works.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Has anyone ever given you a gift -- a big one -- and it was totally free with no repayment expected?
Regarding some things, perhaps, but when it comes to salvation, I'm guessing we're pretty much in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Some believe Baptism is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Some don't.
Some believe in OSAS.
Some don't.
That's all I can think of right now, but there are several personal quirks to which Protestants give almost every doctrine.
"Personal quirks"?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
OK. Now lets see what Scripture says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Romans 2:6-9 (King James Version)
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Sounds to me that this verse says that God will give eternal life to those who continue patiently in well DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality.
Verse 8 has that word, "obey" again. This time it sounds as though those who don't obey are condemned. In verse 9, it sounds as though those who don't obey are the ones who do evil.
But to he that does good works, glory, honour and peace.
How do you interpret that section? Is eternal life equivalent to salvation?
Yes. But they were generally people who already loved me and whom I loved in return. They didn't go around giving big gifts to everybody for no reason.Quote:
Has anyone ever given you a gift -- a big one -- and it was totally free with no repayment expected?
That's what you claim that God does. That He gives everyone salvation for no reason.
Did you try to pay them back somehow? Did you feel any obligation toward them?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
He makes salvation available for everyone. Each/any of us can refuse.Quote:
That's what you claim that God does. That He gives everyone salvation for no reason.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
What's the difference between eternal life and salvation? And how do you interpret Romans 2:6-10?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Non sequitur. Our relationship was already set. They didn't give me gifts because I was a stranger to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The only ones who ever gave me gifts which I didn't need to pay back were relatives for whom I had done many chores. I was raised in the days that children were sent to the store on the corner to buy all kinds of stuff.
Yes.Quote:
Did you feel any obligation toward them?
No, He doesn't. Scripture says so:Quote:
He makes salvation available for everyone.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
By disobeying Him. He doesn't send us a questionnaire.Quote:
Each/any of us can refuse.
Did a non-relative ever give you a large gift?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I was there then too.Quote:
raised in the day when
Each/any of us can say, "No, thanks," and many do.Quote:
By disobeying Him. He doesn't send us a questionnaire.
I recently reviewed some of Hume's philosophy. He is acclaimed by some Protestants as a philosopher who proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part God and His supernatural creation is denied ; this autonomous intellectual demands the right to be free of moral and social order. Indeed, Protestantism is in conflict with the Church, and perhaps directly opposed to the Divine.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Furthermore, I've come to the opinion that Protestantism is symptomatic of the H1N1 virus of faith. This is a designer virus attacking right reasoning since it's introduction by an errant monk. (I've recently been convinced that he was pathologically mad – but that's for another thread). It's defined by Catholics of that day as liberalism; being somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism as Protestantism holds as a right emancipation from Divine Sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge any matter, whatsoever. Satisfaction demands that Divine will of God conform to that of man's. Protestantism views itself as the true authority that resides in the interior of the each individual with the power remake God's creation in the Protestant image.
What Liberalism holds for itself is best described by the definition adopted by Herm Gruber; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God in pursuit of an autonomous freedom; ultimately finding conflict with the Church. This is true whether the liberal is Catholic or Protestant. Once completely overtaken by the disease, no 'right' or no 'wrong' can be identified; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good. When applied to an exegesis of Scripture, without right reasoning in the Magisterium the Gospels become distorted, to the point of being unrecognizable by its holy author.
As an autonomous authority Protestantism requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God's will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual, as well as different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another."The regard for the Sacrament of Communion is another example of a proxy faith found Protestant Churches. Faith becomes a social construct based on whether it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, becoming weedy with the passing of time, until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be conclusions drawn from an autonomous intellect lacking guidance and authority. As such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth such as that only found in Catechism. Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”
Like the viruses found in nature, there is no real immunity short of the protection the Church offers. The body of beliefs merely become accustom to invading profanation with each variant of liberalism mutating from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic Church. The medication is found daily in Mass, in the meat and blood of the Real Presence.
JoeT
Not a good analogy Joe a hospice is where you take the dying. Are you suggesting catholics are waiting for death in the busom of the Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Hi Joe,
That is a 'big call' at the beginning. What does Hume have to do with being a Protestant? Hume was a important influence in the development of Agnosticism. Are you saying that Protestants are agnostic?
Are you blaming Hume everything liberal? The main body of you thesis is an oversimplification of the development of liberal thought.
There is also a strange call at the end as well. You say, 'Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the programme of rationalism;... '
Hume rejects ethical rationalism. In other words, he rejects the idea that we discover morality through a process of reasoning.
Regards
Tut
P.S. I think I get it. We have been though this before. If you substitute 'empirical methodology' for 'rationalism' then it would make sense.
It probably should read 'Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the programme of empirical methodology... '
Your definition of rationalism is one that doesn't acknowledge or take into account British Empiricism.
You might say that. ”Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ” (Rom 6:8)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I thought 'hospice' was a right fine choice of words.
JoeT
I agree. But I caution or at least I feel I should mention that Protestantism is made up of individuals. It is not a monolith. And by the grace of God there go I.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And so I focus on how to bring that grace to them. Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. Therefore I seek to convey to them and to all the truth taught by the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Then they can begin to receive that medication that WE ALL sorely need.
Not that I can recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'm not telling my age.Quote:
I was there then too.
But we didn't, did we?Quote:
Each/any of us can say, "No, thanks," and many do.
What would you do if a stranger sent you $500?
I've already guessed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Yes, I have, especially when I thought I was smarter than she. Bet you have to.Quote:
Would you say that to your mother?
People say no to God's gift of salvation (in addition to His other gifts) all the time.
Probably ask what its for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Shhh!Quote:
I've already guessed it.
Caught that one huh? I changed it because I was confused whether you were referring to the Gift of God or the gift a family member had given us.Quote:
Yes, I have, especially when I thought I was smarter than she. Bet you have to.
Yes. But we haven't. So, what would happen to those who say yes, but indeed do not show any gratitude:Quote:
People say no to God's gift of salvation (in addition to His other gifts) all the time.
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
It's a gift. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM. |