“And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Gen. 4:4b-5). Why does God accept the sacrifice of Abel while rejecting the sacrifice of Cain? Exegetes have come to wildly differing conclusions throughout the years. Martin Luther contended that it was simply a case of God preferring Abel to Cain: “Because God has regard for Abel, He has regard also for his offering; and because He has no regard for Cain, He has no regard for his offering either. The text gives clear support to this conclusion, and this cannot be denied by our opponents.” Calvin likewise viewed the text as showing that “God will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him.” Jordan Peterson views the text as more ambiguous:
Abel’s offerings please God, but Cain’s do not. Abel is rewarded, many times over, but Cain is not. It’s not precisely clear why (although the text strongly hints that Cain’s heart is just not in it). Maybe the quality of what Cain put forward was low. Maybe his spirit was begrudging. Or maybe God was vexed, for some secret reasons of His own. But the Biblical text isn’t actually all that ambiguous, and it’s not about God arbitrarily preferring Abel over Cain, either.
But the Biblical text isn’t actually all that ambiguous, and it’s not about God arbitrarily preferring Abel over Cain, either. Both Scripture and the early Christians were clear as to why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, and Cain’s was reject, and it’s a lesson for all of us. Read more about it over at Catholic Answers.
In the above quote, Luther wrote: “because He has no regard for Cain, He has no regard for his offering either.”
However, this saying must be understood by the interaction between God and Cain immediately before Able’s murder:
“And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. ” (Gen. 4:6)
Cleary God has “regard” for Cain in the above quote, contrary to Luthers’ opinion. In this exchange God exhibits great familial love for Cain, even as a loving Father should exhibit. It is even comparable to Jesus’ interaction and dialogue with Judas on the Mount of Olives, This is to say, the fraternal correction and counsel exhibited in Gen. 4:6 is clearly an an act of fraternal charity, and ‘regard’ on God’s part.
Moreover, if anything, this dialogue with Cain proves that God provides abundant ‘free will’ to mankind with which all people can make their own decisions in this life…for the better or for the worse. God clearly indicates, above, that…..for any soul…..: “If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and THOU SHALT HAVE DOMINION OVER IT. ”
How much more clear does the proof for mankind’s inherent ‘free will’ need to be??
It’s hard to understand how Luther could over look, ignore, or not understand this short passage?
Al,
You’re also onto something here about God’s regard for Cain. Clearly God does have regard for Cain. He reminds him that ‘doing well’ is a precondition for receiving. Clearly we need to meditate on these lines.
The Mass is a work of our hands – God’s very own life in sacrifice – so it is God’s work we offer as our work for our salvation.
No, The Mass is a holocaust. It is the bloodless sacramental re-presentation of the Salvific Offering of Jesus Christ in Calvary where He was both priest and victim.
In the Mass it is Jesus who is both priest and victim and it is His work, not our work.
What we offer at Mass _Pray bretheren , that my sacrifice and yours may be made acceptable…is, of course, crucial but Mass is not the work of human hands…
Well, our offering at Mass is our life- Our prayers, works, joys and sufferings – which become acceptable God because it i joined they are joined with the pluperfect sacrifice of Jesus
A theologian I am not, so my theological language may be often and usually imprecise. But a careful read of my words should convey that the Mass is “A work of our hands – …so it is God’s work we offer as our work.”
A priest (human person) conducts the Mass. God supplies its miracle.
I do not see you as my enemy, and I doubt that Irked sees you that way either. I see no need to pound people with righteousness. There is much to be said about teaching truth with charity. Christ came to man while we were still sinners.
Yes Margo, in giving Cain these instructions God provides essential and fundamental catechesis to all future generations of mankind, because we are instructed concerning the fundamental nature of mankind after the fall of Adam. And, to sum up this early history we find that God did not put Adam and Eve to physical death after the fall, although their bodies indeed were changed in many ways, i.e.. Eve’s difficulties in bearing children and Adams labor via the ‘sweat of his brow’. And God also actually greatly helped our first parents with proper clothing that they would need, as compared to their own meager ‘fig leaf’ clothing creations. So, God actually shows great care and love to Adam and Eve after ‘the fall’.
We also learn in Genesis about the various career choices of Cain and Able. Abel was one of the first to domesticate sheep, which indicates some of the various talents that he had, and particularly the fact that caring of animals requires love and attention that is a bit more sophisticated than the cultivation of grains and produce which was the profession of Cain. The idea to care for sheep might also relate to God providing ‘skins’ for our first fathers, and so Abel might have been paying close attention to his own history as was taught to him by his mother and father. It seems that as God provided the skins, the profession of doing the same would be in some way instituted by God, and not the wisdom of man. And we also have an example of Abel…the “first good shepherd”
Moreover, if we examine the history of this profession of herding animals we find that Adbels profession was historically in conflict with the profession of ‘cultivation of crops’ that Cain was devoted to. And such conflicts even extended through the history of Europe and even into America, via the conflict between herders /cowboys and those who cultivate wheat and other essential grains. So, this conflict is a potential reason, or catalyst, (besides the ‘sacrificial’ aspect) for the animosity between Cain and his brother Abel Also, the domestication of wild mountain sheep was apparently something altogether new for humanity at the time, and Cain might have been jealous of this innovation and novelty…. even as the various sons of the patriarch Jacob were jealous of the prophetic gifts of of their fellow sibling Joseph.
This is all just conjecture, though. The main message that I see, here, is that mankind is given freedom to do both good and evil in their lives on Earth, and there are consequences, both temporal and eternal for those decisions that they make. that is, they can choose a life of doing good, or a life of doing evil…ie..the reason for Jesus’ references to sheep and goats at the final judgement.
It is also significant that God appeals tenderly and reasonably to Cain, that he indeed HAS THE ABILITY (grace) to maintain dominion over his impulses to sin and evil, if he will do the ‘work’ of safe guarding his soul…that is by means of making sure by any means…prayer, mortification, practice of virtues…etc…such that, as God said…” the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. ” (Gen. 4:6)
And yes, Margo…these passages are rich grazing for all of Christ’s sheep. Grazing being very profitable meditation material.
Best to you always,
– Al
In the 2nd sentence above, I mean’t to convey that God did not allow Adam and Eve to ‘immediately’ die after their eating the forbidden fruit…as could easily have been the case if the fruit was mortally toxic. Rather, God in His kindness actually helped them adjust to their new condition and even gave an indication of hope to them that the ‘seed’ of Eve will ‘crush the head’ of the Serpent that fooled them.
Hi Joe,
A quick objection here:
1) I don’t think it’s fair to say of either Luther or Calvin that they held God’s acceptance of the sacrifice to be merely a matter of preference of Abel to Cain; rather, they say that God accepted Abel because Abel sincerely desired to please God, and Cain did not. This difference in sincere faith then manifested in different works, as one would expect. Thus Calvin, from your link: “It is not to be doubted, that Cain conducted himself as hypocrites are accustomed to do; namely, that he wished to appease God, as one discharging a debt, by external sacrifices, without the least intention of dedicating himself to God.” His bad fruit (ha!) necessarily stems from a bad heart.
2) I do not understand the appeal to Annanias and Saphira in the full piece. You say:
“The issue isn’t that they offer God nothing but that they offer him less than everything. For their deception, and for their holding back from God, they’re struck dead ”
But in the text, Peter says,
“Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.””
Peter’s pretty clear that the land was theirs, and the money was theirs, and they had the right to do with it as they wanted; the lie is the focus here.
Irked,
1) I think both Luther and Calvin would disagree with you, but I hope that you’re right. Calvin in particular seems pretty clear that God’s preference for one person and not another isn’t rooted in any quality (including faithfulness or sincerity) in that person. I think (if I’m reading him/them correctly) that they would point to Abel’s desire to please God as a fruit of his being favored by God, rather than a cause. But I’m neither a Lutheran nor a Calvinist, so I’m very open to (and even hopeful of) being corrected on this point.
2) The whole point is, you didn’t have to give God anything, but you’re going to give Him less than what He asks for (everything) and then lie about it? Compare it with Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26-33,
“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
“For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’
“Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace. So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”
Like Ananis and Sapphira, the king doesn’t have to go out to war, and the man doesn’t have to build a tower. But if you’re going to embark on something like that, there’s no point in giving less than your all, since that’s what God demands. We should seriously take to heart the fact that Cain gave more to God than many modern Christians do, and God rejected it.
I.X.,
Joe
Hi Joe,
1) I definitely agree with Calvin (and Paul) that God mercies whom he will mercy, and he hardens whom he will harden, and that his decision to pour grace on a person is not occasioned by any virtue on the part of the person. So it was with Isaac, and with Pharaoh, and with Abel; so it is with us all.
But God having given this gift of faith to Abel, Abel’s life of faith is then pleasing to God, and his works – the necessary consequence of that faith – are likewise pleasing.
My point, I suppose, is that in the matter of sacrifice, Luther and Calvin are not saying that God just decides he’s going to be pleased with Abel and displeased with Cain; God is displeased with Cain because the man continues to act in accord with the natural sinful desires of his heart, instead of rejecting sin (as God had warned him to do), and he is pleased with Abel because (having been gifted with supernatural faith, Abel lives righteously in consequence of that faith.
Or, hm, maybe this is the right way of putting it: I think part of Calvin’s point in this passage is that, even if Cain had shrewdly offered the best of his fields, his offering still wouldn’t have pleased God, because the gift would still have come from a man motivated by selfishness and pride, and not a sincere desire to offer worship in faith.
2) The whole point is, you didn’t have to give God anything, but you’re going to give Him less than what He asks for (everything) and then lie about it?
I understand that’s the argument, but I don’t think the text actually makes that case; Peter seems to explicitly say that the problem is not that they kept some of the money, but that they promised to donate it to God and lied: “And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
That seems to be John Chrysostom’s reading: “We neither obliged you to sell, the Apostle says, nor to give your money when you had sold; of your own free choice you did it; why have you then stolen from the sacred treasury?… But wherefore, upon what purpose have you done this? Did you wish to keep it? You ought to have kept it all along, and never to have professed to give it. The sacrilege, beloved, is a grievous one. For another, it may be, coveted what was not his own: but it was at your discretion to keep what was your own. Why then did you first make it sacred, and then take it?… If those for lying suffered such things, what shall not the perjured suffer?”
There’s no question that all we have is Christ’s – physically, mentally, spiritually, whatever. I don’t think it follows that we’re morally obliged to literally donate everything we own to the church, unless Christ asks that of us – and indeed, this passage seems to indicate that this was (1) done only at intervals, as people saw needs to be filled, and (2) viewed by Peter as their choice. What in the passage calls for the other view?
At the risk of appearing uncharitable towards Protestants, I’ve always understood this text as being essential to understanding the importance of the Eucharist. Every Sunday, the apostolic churches partake in the same Eucharist that Christ established – that very Eucharist being His own Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. How can God accept any sacrifice that is less? What is Sunday service worth without the Eucharist? It’s not something I slang around, but it’s the first thing I’ll point any Catholic to if he thinks it’s acceptable to attend a Protestant sunday service for any reason without first observing the Sunday Mass obligation (aside from missing Sunday Mass being a mortal sin, ofc).
Moses – I think you’re onto something.
Abel offered the Lord a bloody sacrifice. Cain offered a work of his hands. Without a blood sacrifice, sin is not forgiven. Cain, the firstborn, didn’t offer God his best. Cain should have given God his best, and he ought to have learned from Abel how to do that. Instead, Cain resented God’s demonstration of love and acceptance of the ‘works’ of his brother, and this angered him to commit the far greater sin of murder. Even when God asks Cain why he killed, Cain doesn’t express remorse or ask forgiveness; he offers sass.
Being omniscient, God foresaw Cain’s failure to sacrifice something beautiful, beloved, and meaningfully precious. God of course accepted as pleasing and acceptable Abel’s ultimate bloody sacrifice (his lamb and his life).
Christians can learn from this Bible story the nature of sacrifice most pleasing to the Lord: Our lives. Firstborn, best, bloody. God gives us His firstborn, His life, and His bloody sacrifice. Justice requires that we give him our best sacrifice – What is that? His very own Son, given to the Father at every opportunity – lest we forget.
Hi Irked, you said:
“I definitely agree with Calvin (and Paul) that God mercies whom he will mercy, and he hardens whom he will harden, and that his decision to pour grace on a person is not occasioned by any virtue on the part of the person. So it was with Isaac, and with Pharaoh, and with Abel; so it is with us all.”
If this statement were true, then the following scripture from Gen. 4:6 would need to read something like this:
“And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? Oh yes, you are angry because I didn’t provide you with the means and grace NOT to be angry.”
“If thou do well, shalt thou not receive?”
” ….No, indeed you will not, because really this is a trick question….and you will REALLY never be able TO DO WELL….because I decided from the beginning to never give you the same grace and ability TO DO WELL in my sight., and therefore…really…you will NEVER receive.”
“but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. ” ….
“And you will notice again that this also is a trick question, because, actually I intentionally created you so that you will NEVER please me, and so, in reality the ‘lust thereof’ shall always be over thee, and never under thee. Kinda funny huh? And, of course, this means as a consequence….that in all reality you will NEVER have the ability to have dominion over it. But don’t complain, because in my almighty power I have the ability to trick or con you in anyway I want to…even when I tell you things in scripture. So, someday people will read a scripture named Gen 4:6, and they too will be tricked into thinking that…If they do well, they will receive. But if ill, sin forthwith will be present at their door… and the lust thereof shall be under them, and they shalt have dominion over it.”
“…So don’t worry, Cain, you’re not the only soul to be tricked by this misleading saying of mine, but many others also will be when they read Genesis 4:6 in the future…many, many millions of people. Because, what they don’t know is that this Bible saying REALLY only applies to some people, and the other don’t need to worry…. because they will never, ever, ever have dominion over lust and sin…not even if they try with all their heart and soul and even with continual begging for my help.” However, when they read this Gen 4:6 verse, they might at least have some false hope!” 🙂
Al,
I believe Cain sinned because he was (as are we all, by nature) an evil person – and evil men delight in doing evil. I don’t think the fact that Can chose of his own evil will to do evil obliged God to make him into a man who would desire other things, nor do I think it’s unjust of God to warn an evil man against the bent of his own evil heart.
Do you disagree?
My primary point here was not to argue that Calvin is correct, but only that his view is somewhat more nuanced than the original presentation seemed (to me) to suggest: God does not approve Cain’s sacrifice, because God does not approve Cain, because Cain is evil. But since you say:
“I definitely agree with Calvin (and Paul) that God mercies whom he will mercy, and he hardens whom he will harden, and that his decision to pour grace on a person is not occasioned by any virtue on the part of the person. So it was with Isaac, and with Pharaoh, and with Abel; so it is with us all.”
If this statement were true, then the following scripture from Gen. 4:6 would need to read something like this:
… I mean, that sounds a lot like you’re saying my statement is false, and that God does not mercy whom he will mercy, and harden whom he will harden. Are you?
Hi Irked,
To your first question about Cain, I disagree that he was totally evil…because otherwise God, in Gen. 6:4, would not have tried to counsel him and entice him towards resisting evil with these words: “the lust thereof shall be under thee, and THOU SHALT HAVE DOMINION OVER IT. ” Cain had free will like any one of us and that free will is open to be influenced by others. In this case God is trying to strengthen Cains will so that he doesn’t commit the sin of murder against Abel. But, even after the murder God doesn’t strike Cain down, but actually tries to protect him from future retribution from other people, and so puts the ‘mark’ on his for head. So, this also is an act of kindness …similar to what God did with Adam and Eve in making them ‘skins’ for their clothing. He was helping them to live in their new circumstances. Punishment, also, can be seen as an act of kindness, because it presumes that repentance and reform is possible. Only God knows the final state of Cain, as He is the judge of all. But, these stories definitely demonstrate the patience and kindness of God…which is a primary lesson that all should pay attention to.
One problem with interpreting scripture regarding subjects such as God ‘causing’ evil, such as “hardening Pharaohs heart”, etc…is that this biblical language ithat scholars term to be an ‘Anthropomorphism’. This needs to be considered carefully to interpret scripture properly. :
Anthropomorphism:
Assignment of human attributes to nonhuman things. Biblical anthropomorphisms are used primarily in reference to God, who is neither visible ( John 1:18 ) nor human ( Num 23:19 ; 1 Sam 15:29 ). They are also used to assign human characteristics to angels ( Gen 16:7 ; 18:1-19:1 ), Satan ( 1 Chron 21:1 ; Luke 13:16 ), and demons ( Luke 8:32 ). Evil is also personified, depicted as slaying ( Psalm 34:21 ) and pursuing ( Pr 13:21 ). Infrequently, human qualities are attributed to animals ( Nu 22:28-30 ) or vegetation ( Jud 9:7-15 ).
The use of human terminology to talk about God is necessary when we, in our limitations, wish to express truths about the Deity who by his very nature cannot be described or known. From biblical times to the present, people have felt compelled to explain what God is like, and no expressions other than human terms are able to convey any semblance of meaning to the indescribable. Thus, in Genesis alone God creates ( 1:1 ), moves ( 1:2 ), speaks ( 1:3 ), sees ( 1:4 ), divides ( 1:4 ), places ( 1:17 ), blesses ( 1:22 ), plants ( 2:8 ), walks ( 3:8 ), shuts ( 7:16 ), smells ( 8:21 ), descends ( 11:5 ), scatters ( 11:8 ), hears ( 21:17 ), tests ( 22:1 ), and judges ( 30:6 ).
Perhaps the most profound anthropomorphism is the depiction of God establishing a covenant, for the making of covenants is a very human activity. God enters into an agreement (covenant) with Israel at Sinai ( Exod 19:5-6 ), an outgrowth of an earlier covenant he had made with Abraham ( Gen 17:1-18 ). Later, this agreement is transformed into a new covenant through Jesus Christ ( Matt 26:26-29 ). Theologically, the legal compact initiated by God becomes the instrument through which he established an intimate and person al relationship with the people, both collectively and individually. Without anthropomorphic expressions, this theological reality would remain virtually inexplicable.
Anthropomorphisms also attribute human form and shape to God. God redeems Israel from Egyptian bondage with an outstretched arm ( Exod 6:6 ). Moses and his companions see God, and they eat and drink with him ( Exod 24:10-11 ). Other texts refer to the back, face, mouth, lips, ears, eyes, hand, and finger of God. The expression, “the Lord’s anger burned” ( Exod 4:14) is interesting. A literal translation of the Hebrew is “the nose of the Lord burned.”
Indirect anthropomorphic expressions also appear, such as the sword and arrows of the Lord and the throne and footstool of God.
Reference:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/anthropomorphism.html
Hi Al,
To your first question about Cain, I disagree that he was totally evil
I didn’t say he was; even “total depravity” doesn’t mean “as evil as possible.” As I said, my point is that Cain did evil things because he wanted to, and I don’t believe God is obliged to change men who desire to do evil things into men who don’t.
Again, do you disagree with either part of that?
It doesn’t look like you’ve either proposed a positive meaning for “harden,” or answered my second question: Does God mercy whom he will and harden whom he will, irrespective of the subject’s virtues, or not?
Hi Irked,
Yes, Cain had free will and God allowed him to express it. Moreover the whole story must be understood in a anthromorphistic context. But God did not ’cause’ Cain to be evil, the evil was caused by Cains’ refusal to accept God’s counsel when He said: “the lust thereof shall be under thee, and THOU SHALT HAVE DOMINION OVER IT. ”
Clearly this indicates Cain’s complete freedom of will…but like Judas in the Gospels…he chose in his freedom to ignore the loving teachings of God and to commit grave sin against God and man. So this story is a proof of man’s free will… as God Himself is shown to appeal to the holy use of that free will provided to mankind, wherein Cain indeed had dominion over his lust (…as God said in the quote) that was ‘knocking at his door’…if he freely chose to take that optional route.
So, as a proof of man’s inherent free will, this is a great example from the very beginnings of humanity.
Regarding God ‘hardening’ someones heart? …this also needs to be examined in an anthromorphistic way. To be too literal with this expression …”hardened”, etc.. neglects to account for all of the other instances of similar expressions regarding ‘hardening of hearts’ in the Old Testament. Below, is just a sample of such scriptures that must be analyzed in context of the ‘Pharaoh’s Heart Quotes’ from Exodus 4,7, 9, etc…:
……………………………..
Exodus 8:15 “But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, . . . (cf. 8:19)
Exodus 8:32 “But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.
Exodus 9:34 “But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. (cf. 9:7, 35)
Deuteronomy 15:7 “you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother,
1 Samuel 6:6 “Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? . . .
2 Chronicles 36:13 “He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnez’zar, who had made him swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel.
Job 9:4 “who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?
Psalm 95:8 “Harden not your hearts, as at Mer’ibah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
Proverbs 28:14 “. . . he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity.
Hebrews 3:8 “do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,
Hebrews 3:15 ” while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
Hebrews 4:7 “again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
…………………………..
Hi Al,
But God did not ’cause’ Cain to be evil, the evil was caused by Cains’ refusal to accept God’s counsel
No one’s said He did. Cain did what he did because he was a natural, unregenerate man who loved his sin, as do we all by nature; there was no need to force him to do evil.
But the point, again, is that there’s no hypocrisy in God calling a wicked man to be righteous, whether or not the man’s heart is open to that. It sounds like you agree, which basically resolves your original objection, I think?
THOU SHALT HAVE DOMINION OVER IT. ”
Virtually ever translation other than the KJV, Protestant or Catholic, renders this more as, “Sin desires to master you, but you must master it.” And indeed, God calls all men to master their sin. They don’t, which returns us to the original point: God can fairly call evil men to do good, even though they won’t.
Regarding God ‘hardening’ someones heart? …this also needs to be examined in an anthromorphistic way.
Cool. Do you have an answer to my question?
Hi Irked,
“No one’s said He did. Cain did what he did because he was a natural, unregenerate man who loved his sin, as do we all by nature; there was no need to force him to do evil.”
It seems that you are lumping all of mankind into the category of people like Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pharaoh of Egypt and all the other evil doers of the Bible. But even Jesus does not do this. Rather, there is a clear distinction from the beginning of Genesis to the last words of Revelations that there have always been both goats and sheep in the Lord’s creation. This is proven by Jesus referring to the brother of Cain as “just”:
You serpents, generation of vipers, HOW WILL YOU FLEE FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HELL? [34] Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: [35] That upon you may come all the JUST BLOOD that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel THE JUST, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” Matt.22:33
So, Jesus Himself confirms and makes a distinction that there were BOTH the just and the wicked in this world from the beginning… the same just ones who did not let sin have ‘dominion’ over them. That is, these were termed by Jesus as “prophets, wise men and scribes”. But you seem to contradict this teaching…insinuating that since the fall of Adam and Eve, there never were just or holy people, even to this present day; but rather the world was filled with ONLY “serpents” and a “generation of vipers”….and who have NO ABILITY to “flee from the judgment of hell”… or no ability to resist sin when it comes ‘knocking at the door’. However, both the Gen. 6:4 scripture and this saying from Jesus contradicts your theory. More proof that indeed there were many just and holy people living on earth even from the the earliest of times:
“Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.”
[Genesis 18:25]
“Let my soul die the death of the just, and my last end be like to them.”
[Numbers 23:10]
“And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.”
[Josue (Joshua) 10:13]
Al,
It seems that you are lumping all of mankind into the category of people like Cain, Judas Iscariot, Pharaoh of Egypt and all the other evil doers of the Bible.
By nature? Yes, absolutely: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” By nature, Abel is as wretched as Cain.
And yet, as you say, there’s no question that Scripture divides people into two categories. The question is whether the division is some inherent virtue in the people, or something God does differently with regard to them. And Scripture – Paul, to be sure, but also Christ – are unambiguous that it’s the latter.
Which we can debate, but as you’ve yet to answer my questions, I’d really prefer to see you address them before we move on. Here they are again:
1) Can God fairly command a wicked man to repent, even if the wicked man will never, ever submit to that command?
2) What is your positive understanding of the use of the phrase “God hardens” in, say, Romans 9?
3) Do you agree that, as I originally said (and you appeared to deny), God has mercy on whom he will, and hardens whom he will, without dependency on the virtue of the people involved?
Irked,
I will let Al answer your questions (he’ll do a much better job than me, for sure), but I have a couple of comments, if you don’t mind.
“And Scripture – Paul, to be sure, but also Christ – are unambiguous that it’s the latter” = Aside from “but also Christ” (which is funny – shouldn’t it be the opposite?), Scriptures are anything but unambiguous on this regard. We agree that it’s not possible for anyone, by their own intrinsic virtue, to be saved. Now, do you agree that God wants everyone (no one excluded) to be saved? If the answer is yes, then everybody is provided with the same chance of redemption, even the ones God hardens (in the sense that He makes them obstinate to His gift).
“1) Can God fairly command a wicked man to repent, even if the wicked man will never, ever submit to that command?” = First, what do you mean by “fairly”? Second, God can and does command everyone to repent, but He also accepts our free will to accept or reject the command (Galatians 5:13), so it is ultimately the wicked man’s decision to accept God’s call to repent or not. If you mean that God can make impossible for the wicked man (or the holy man, for what it matters) to repent, yes, God is omnipotent, but to ask a counter question, then, why would God command someone He has already made un-repentable, to repent?
2) The writer to the Romans has a specific theme and audience in mind, i.e. the sense of entitlement of the Jews against the Gentiles. I read Romans 9:18 with the background of Matthew 21:31. Furthermore, you seem to assume that “harden” automatically means “condemn”.
“3) Do you agree that, as I originally said (and you appeared to deny), God has mercy on whom he will, and hardens whom he will, without dependency on the virtue of the people involved?” = it depends on what you mean by “…without dependency on the virtue of the people involved”, specifically if the involvement of the people is prior to God’s calling or after. Please clarify.
Hi LLC,
You are the capable apologist, not me. I’m just an enthusiast for anything relating to Jesus. I don’t like when people ignore His teachings or twist them to convey ideas out of context to what Jesus was clearly trying to teach us.
Keep up the good work. I always like reading your comments.
Hi LLC,
Aside from “but also Christ” (which is funny – shouldn’t it be the opposite?),
I’m not sure that it should; Paul spoke by God as much as the Son Himself did, though God communicates differently through them. If nothing else, we have more words of Paul than of Christ; is it surprising a doctrine should appear more clearly in his writings?
Scriptures are anything but unambiguous on this regard. We agree that it’s not possible for anyone, by their own intrinsic virtue, to be saved. Now, do you agree that God wants everyone (no one excluded) to be saved?
That’s a good question; I think it’s plausible that 1 Timothy 2:4 is read in the sense of “God desires all kinds of men,” but I’m open to the possibility that “all men” is to be read literally. Any reading that asserts that God desires all men to be saved, however, faces the problem that all men are not saved; if we assert that God desires a thing that does not happen, we have to allow that God desires some higher end more, and so accomplishes the higher end rather than the lower. That’s consistent with both Calvinism and alternatives, although we might disagree as to what the higher objective is (i.e., I’d say it’s God’s self-glorification; someone else might say it’s to preserve free will).
Some folks feel that it’s inconsistent with the simplicity of God for Him to have multiple desires in this way – in which case, I think we’re logically forced to the “all kinds of men” reading. I’m uncertain on this myself.
Regardless, I don’t believe that God displays salvific grace to all men in the same way or to the same degree; that seems unsustainable on a very basic level. There’s clearly some sense in which he salvifically favors some over others apart from their actions.
First, what do you mean by “fairly”?
That is, is it unjust or hypocritical of him to give an order that the person, by the nature of their desires, will never carry out? Al seemed to imply it was.
Second, God can and does command everyone to repent, but He also accepts our free will to accept or reject the command (Galatians 5:13)
Galatians 5 means something very specific by freedom – the thing that’s the subject of the whole book: freedom from the yoke of the law. I don’t understand your relation of this phrase to “free will,” particularly when this verse is spoken of the church specifically. When Paul speaks of the unregenerate man, does he say that man is free?
If you mean that God can make impossible for the wicked man (or the holy man, for what it matters) to repent
Nope, not what I mean. There’s no need for him to do so; by nature, there is no one who seeks God.
2) The writer to the Romans has a specific theme and audience in mind, i.e. the sense of entitlement of the Jews against the Gentiles. I read Romans 9:18 with the background of Matthew 21:31. Furthermore, you seem to assume that “harden” automatically means “condemn”.
Sure, that’s the heart of Paul’s argument in chapters 1-3, for instance: The Gentiles are utterly wicked, but you Jews are, as well, and indeed no one is righteous under the law. Thus chapter 4: we are all alike saved by grace through faith, apart from works. Romans 9 then explains where that grace came from, and why God’s decision not to bestow it on all Jews is consistent with his character and promises.
I haven’t actually asserted a particular meaning for harden as of yet, though I’d probably use something like “make further resistant to even a partial understanding of the truth, even in service of one’s own selfish interest” – that seems to fit with Pharaoh. Hardening is unnecessary for condemnation; men loved darkness instead of the light, and will not come into the light of their own will.
I haven’t seen an alternative definition for “harden” provided as of yet, just the argument that my reading of it is wrong. If you’d like to walk through Romans 9, though, I’m happy to do that with you!
it depends on what you mean by “…without dependency on the virtue of the people involved”, specifically if the involvement of the people is prior to God’s calling or after. Please clarify.
Sure. What if I said that it was a decision made not on the basis of works – on anything a person had done, good or bad – or on any degree of human desire or effort, but purely according to an ineffable purpose of God to establish His own glory in whatever way He saw fit?
Irked,
To start, sorry for the lengthy response.
“is it surprising a doctrine should appear more clearly in his writings?” = I am not so sure about it, since most divisions between Catholics and Protestants derive from different interpretations of Paul’s writings. Quantity doesn’t necessarily mean quality (hence my preamble… sorry again). But let’s continue.
“faces the problem that all men are not saved” = not really a problem; it’s a consequence of another postulate of the Christian faith, i.e. free will.
“we have to allow that God desires some higher end more, and so accomplishes the higher end rather than the lower” = see above. If I assume that the same chance is given to everyone, the end result is a direct consequence of the individual response. You put the burden of “not all men are saved” on God alone.
“I don’t believe that God displays salvific grace to all men in the same way or to the same degree; that seems unsustainable on a very basic level” = to me, it’s the opposite. “that seems unsustainable on a very basic level” negates God’s omnipotence, for one. It is much more logical that every individual receives the same grace; the end result is directly proportionate to our response. I must say, however, that I agree that some people are especially favored by God for specific purposes (they are the exceptions, not the rule); read on.
“There’s clearly some sense in which he salvifically favors some over others apart from their actions” = while I agree with the former (at least initially, and depending on the whole meaning of salvifically), I disagree with the latter, especially on the temporal factor. For example, I agree that Mary received from conception a higher level of grace than me, but for such grace to remain in her and fructify to its full potential, Mary’s “fiat” was necessary. I often wonder if there have been other Marys before her, who did not answer “fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum”.
“That is, is it unjust or hypocritical of him to give an order that the person, by the nature of their desires, will never carry out?” = Then, are you asking hypothetically? It seems to me that this is a question of God’s omniscience, which is not the topic of this blog.
“Al seemed to imply it was” = I do not pretend to speak for Al. From my humble point of view, human judgement of God’s actions is puerile.
“Nope, not what I mean. There’s no need for him to do so; by nature, there is no one who seeks God” = sorry, to me this is a non-sequitur. You seem to be talking about man before receiving the chance to accept God; I refer to man after receiving that chance (hence the wicked man – holy man distinction). Before it, we agree that no one seeks God.
“Romans 9 then explains where that grace came from, and why God’s decision not to bestow it on all Jews is consistent with his character and promises” = care to explain?
“though I’d probably use something like “make further resistant to even a partial understanding of the truth, even in service of one’s own selfish interest” = agree on the former, don’t understand the latter
“Hardening is unnecessary for condemnation; men loved darkness instead of the light, and will not come into the light of their own will” = not really what I meant. I was asking if “hardening” and “condemnation” were synonyms, for you, not a cause-consequence. It doesn’t seem that way, so we agree, at least partially.
“purely according to an ineffable purpose of God to establish His own glory in whatever way He saw fit?” = doesn’t really clarify it for me. Do you mean that God’s ways are not our ways, and His purposes are not ours? God is omnipotent, so He can clearly do as He wishes.
To be as clear as I can, God gives everybody the same chance to repent, and the freedom to act on it or not. He knows the end result, but He doesn’t cause it. Does He make it easier for someone (Mary) and more difficult for someone else (Job, the rich young man of Matthew 10:21) to obey His command? Yup. Does He condemn anyone a priori? Nope. It is my place to judge God? Nope.
You can have the last words. Already too many have been spent on this topic. Have a blessed day!
Hi LLC,
not really a problem; it’s a consequence of another postulate of the Christian faith, i.e. free will.
Cool. So why is there free will? Why do humans have it?
I can’t see a non-Calvinist answer that doesn’t boil down to, “Because God desired them to have it, and he chose that desire over his desire for all men to be saved.”
to me, it’s the opposite. “that seems unsustainable on a very basic level” negates God’s omnipotence, for one.
I don’t say God couldn’t give all men the same chance; I just say he didn’t. Are you arguing he did: that a person born in a loving Christian family today, who hears the gospel from birth, has the exact same access to saving grace as…
… well, say, as the king of Assyria: the man whom God called “the rod of my anger,” the chosen tool of his judgment against Israel, and whom He then swore to punish for what he had done to Israel?
Can anyone say these two have had salvific grace extended to them to exactly the same degree?
“That is, is it unjust or hypocritical of him to give an order that the person, by the nature of their desires, will never carry out?” = Then, are you asking hypothetically? It seems to me that this is a question of God’s omniscience, which is not the topic of this blog.
It’s neither hypothetical, nor rhetorical, nor a question of omniscience. It’s a question of the justice of God: Can God justly command a person to follow His moral law in ways to which that person will never accede?
It’s just a question that, for whatever reason, no one has been willing to answer.
I do not pretend to speak for Al. From my humble point of view, human judgement of God’s actions is puerile.
Great! Then we agree that we have no standing to say that there is, in principle, anything unjust in God choosing to show mercy to some people, and to harden others, quite apart from anything they actually do?
sorry, to me this is a non-sequitur. You seem to be talking about man before receiving the chance to accept God; I refer to man after receiving that chance (hence the wicked man – holy man distinction). Before it, we agree that no one seeks God.
I am not, no. Men given the chance to obey God do not; men love darkness instead of the light. Paul outright says that his condemnation in Romans 3 is applied to those who have the law.
care to explain?
Sure. It has always been the pattern of God to choose men for purposes of his own, independent of virtue or vice in those people. He chose Isaac over Ishmael; he chose Jacob over Esau long before either could make a moral contribution; he chose Israel over Pharaoh. This choice “depends not on human desire or effort”; it depends only on God’s decision. Today, he continues to choose who he will, and those he chooses to make clean are the true Israel. It’s that same Romans 8 progression: those he calls, he justifies and, ultimately, glorifies.
Does He condemn anyone a priori? Nope.
And yet the Scriptures says all are condemned a priori: he who does not believe stands condemned already; we were all, by nature, children of wrath.
Irked,
Since you have some interesting thoughts, I feel compelled to follow up:
“Because God desired them to have it, and he chose that desire over his desire for all men to be saved.” = and what seems to be the problem? I am guessing you have kids, correct? Do you wish for them to succeed? And yet, are you allowing them to fail? Is one desire really over the other?
“that a person born in a loving Christian family today, who hears the gospel from birth, has the exact same access to saving grace as… = interesting. I thought that grace was independent from work. Furthermore, please see John 5:24.
“well, say, as the king of Assyria” = yes; or Hitler, for what it matters. Regardless, as I also said, God chooses specific individuals for specific purposes.
“Can anyone say these two have had salvific grace extended to them to exactly the same degree?” = just did, I think. Did Judas have salvific grace extended to him exactly as Paul?
“Can God justly command a person to follow His moral law in ways to which that person will never accede?” = again, you are mixing different concepts here. God is omniscient and omnipotent, and yet He allows men to fail, if so they elect.
“It’s just a question that, for whatever reason, no one has been willing to answer.” = actually, it’s your question that does not make sense.
“Men given the chance to obey God do not” = correct; it is their choice, not God’s preordaining.
“It has always been the pattern of God to choose men for purposes of his own, independent of virtue or vice in those people” = agree, but replace men with “some individuals”. They are the exceptions, the examples, the main characters, individuals specifically chosen by God for a specific purpose. God chose Israel to be His people, did He not? And yet, every nation on Earth has the same chance of redemption. This is the idea of the book of Romans.
“those he calls, he justifies and, ultimately, glorifies” = assuming that the same ones keep their side of the bargain, so-to-speak.
“And yet the Scriptures says all are condemned a priori: he who does not believe stands condemned already; we were all, by nature, children of wrath” = Correct; “does not believe”, being the operative word. Again, men’s response to God’s calling is key.
Hi LLC,
and what seems to be the problem? I am guessing you have kids, correct? Do you wish for them to succeed? And yet, are you allowing them to fail? Is one desire really over the other?
Hm, okay, I’m not communicating the thrust of the argument. Let me try again.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that God does desire all men to be saved. It remains true that not all are saved – because men have free will, you said.
Okay. So I ask: why, from your perspective, do men have free will? Any answer I’ve ever heard boils down to “Because God wanted them to, and he wanted that more than he wanted them all to be saved.” It sounds like, from your remark, you agree.
Which is fine! That’s a consistent position. But if you hold that, you have to allow that God can want something more than he wants all men to be saved. Right?
So, consistent with that, I think God tells us he desires his own glorification more than he desires all men to be saved; this is appropriate, because God’s glorification is more important than our salvation. Thus God creates some men with no intention of rescuing them from their rightful damnation, because in so doing he displays his power and glorifies himself (as per Romans 9:22) – and this is consistent with his also desiring all men to be saved.
That’s what I was originally trying to say, that I guess didn’t click. Better?
interesting. I thought that grace was independent from work.
Who said anything about work? I’m asking whether saving grace is offered to someone who hears and sees the gospel practiced, to the same degree it is to someone who has never heard of it.
It sounds like your answer is yes. On what grounds?
“well, say, as the king of Assyria” = yes; or Hitler, for what it matters. Regardless, as I also said, God chooses specific individuals for specific purposes.
Okay, so let’s extend that. I think God chooses everyone for a specific purpose: as either a noble vessel, to whom he will show undeserved grace, or as a vessel of wrath, to whom he will not. If you grant God can righteously do this for a few people, what’s the contradiction?
just did, I think. Did Judas have salvific grace extended to him exactly as Paul?
No. If he had, he would have been saved; Romans 8 is clear on this point.
again, you are mixing different concepts here. God is omniscient and omnipotent, and yet He allows men to fail, if so they elect.
That’s great, but it’s not what I asked. I don’t think there’s any point in continuing without an answer.
Irked,
“That’s great, but it’s not what I asked” = actually, since you keep rewording your question to escape the objections (or to get the answer you like), it has become kind of difficult to understand what are you now asking. Just because you don’t like an answer, it doesn’t mean that you were not answered. Furthermore, it’s not like you always provide answers either.
“I don’t think there’s any point in continuing without an answer” = That’s fine with me. We are going around the same concepts anyways.
LLC,
actually, since you keep rewording your question to escape the objections (or to get the answer you like), it has become kind of difficult to understand what are you now asking.
Dude. I reworded the question because you asked me to clarify what I meant by “fairly.” Criticizing me for doing what you asked is not arguing in good faith.
Here are the drastic rewordings:
“Can God fairly command a wicked man to repent, even if the wicked man will never, ever submit to that command?”
“Can God justly command a person to follow His moral law in ways to which that person will never accede?”
Do those have drastically different answers?
Just because you don’t like an answer, it doesn’t mean that you were not answered.
Quite right. Whether I liked the answer “God allows men to fail” is irrelevant; what’s relevant is that it’s not an answer to either of these questions.
Irked,
Dude. I answered your question before (“yes, God is omnipotent”) and after you clarified “fairly” (“From my humble point of view, human judgement of God’s actions is puerile” and “God is omnipotent, so He can clearly do as He wishes”). It just seems to me that you are looking for a different answer, which you won’t get (at least from me).
If anything, your question is very elusive, despite your “drastic” rewording. Let’s see if this is what you are asking:
1) “Can God” = do you mean God has the power, or the right? Big difference. Regardless, already answered both points.
2) “Fairly” = already answered.
3) “Command a wicked man” = You seem to assume that such man has already been given the chance to repent (i.e., not a natural man). Correct? I think we both agree that before God’s salvific grace, men cannot seek Him by their own will, so “natural man” would be a better definition for that stage. “wicked” assumes that the same man could be “holy”, which is only possible after God’s given chance and the man’s correspondent answer.
4) “even if the wicked man will never, ever submit to that command” = are you saying that God already knows (God is outside of time, as John as already mentioned below, so terms like “before”, “now” and “after” do not apply to Him; they are merely a discussion aid for us mortals) that the wicked man will not repent (by his own decision)? In this case, as already said, this is a different topic, specifically God’s omniscience. If you mean that God is the reason for the wicked not to repent, because God is actively impeding him to repent, then we go back to point 1.
As you can see, your question (except, maybe, for still some unclarity on point 3) has already been answered.
LLC,
Dude.
Duuuuuude.
If anything, your question is very elusive, despite your “drastic” rewording.
“Drastic” was sarcasm, ayup.
and after you clarified “fairly” (“From my humble point of view, human judgement of God’s actions is puerile” and “God is omnipotent, so He can clearly do as He wishes”).
Okay. So, yes, then: it is just and right for God command a man to do something the man will never, ever do.
That’s what I was looking for – and I agree!
You seem to assume that such man has already been given the chance to repent (i.e., not a natural man). Correct?
I have never heard anyone define “natural man” as “a man not given the chance to repent”; I’ve only ever heard it as “a man who has not repented.” Indeed, the former seems incompatible with Paul’s usage of the term in 1 Corinthians 2: the natural man thinks the things of God are foolish, which implies at least familiarity with them. (Surely the alternative he presents – the spiritual person who is judged by no one, and has the mind of Christ – is not merely one who has been given this opportunity?)
I guess I don’t really understand the question. If God is commanding the man to repent, then that’s at least one chance to repent right there, so “natural man” terminology aside… yes?
I think we both agree that before God’s salvific grace, men cannot seek Him by their own will
Okay. That right there is the thing I’ve been trying to ask about: Can God righteously command a man to repent, without extending grace to enable him to do so?
I am hearing you say yes. If that’s your intent, we’re good – thanks! If I have missed a question, please fire away.
agree, but replace men with “some individuals”. They are the exceptions, the examples, the main characters, individuals specifically chosen by God for a specific purpose. God chose Israel to be His people, did He not?
I am confused by the argument that “men” is inappropriate here, where “some individuals” – describing entire nations! – is. Isn’t the argument of Romans that Christians are the true Israel? Are any of us not in this group of exceptions?
Irked,
Slow down, dude. Despite your crying foul (“I don’t think there’s any point in continuing without an answer”), I have shown to have provided multiple times consistent answers. I have also vivisected your question to provide the clearest answer possible, and your comeback is to re-present, almost verbatim, the same question and proclaim, “That’s what I was looking for – and I agree!”? Please explain to what I am actually agreeing, especially the second part: “…to do something the man will never, ever do”. This is where you do not clarify if the subject is God’s omnipotence or His omniscience.
“I have never heard anyone define “natural man” as “a man not given the chance to repent” = ok. So, this is the concept, plain and simple, as I can explain it: Men do not seek God, unless God calls them to Him. We good until this point? This is what I mean as “natural man”. If it doesn’t match Paul’s description, fine, scratch it. I was not using the term “natural man” with Paul’s connotation. After God’s call men to repent, men have to act (accept the call or refuse it). God’s call includes the power to accept His call, but not the compulsion (man’s free will is still the deciding factor).
“I am hearing you say yes. If that’s your intent, we’re good – thanks! If I have missed a question, please fire away” = no, actually we are not. But I’ll wait for the answer to the first point.
“Are any of us not in this group of exceptions?” = since you cut out the last part of my point, which is the important part, I do not think we are communicating here.
LLC,
This is where you do not clarify if the subject is God’s omnipotence or His omniscience.
Neither. The question is what is entailed by his justice, as I said when you asked before. God’s being outside time is irrelevant for the moment; let us suppose the man’s nature is such that he will never, under any conceivable circumstances, repent. Likewise, God is taking no action to prevent the man from repenting; doing so is unnecessary. I am not asking either whether God is theoretically capable of a thing, nor whether God knows a thing; I am asking whether it is morally just, in principle, for him to do a thing.
Your answer, as I understand it, is that we have no right or standing to critique the justice of God: that he may justly do as he wishes with us. I basically agree.
ok. So, this is the concept, plain and simple, as I can explain it: Men do not seek God, unless God calls them to Him. We good until this point? This is what I mean as “natural man”. If it doesn’t match Paul’s description, fine, scratch it. I was not using the term “natural man” with Paul’s connotation.
That does clarify, yeah. “Natural man” is a fairly common term in at least Protestant theology, drawing from Paul, and it sounds like it’s not the term you’re intending here. Perhaps the “uncalled man?”
After God’s call men to repent, men have to act (accept the call or refuse it). God’s call includes the power to accept His call, but not the compulsion (man’s free will is still the deciding factor).
Okay, interesting. How do you unify this with, for instance, the statement in Romans 8 that those God calls, he also justifies and glorifies – or is that a different sense of the word “calls”?
“Are any of us not in this group of exceptions?” = since you cut out the last part of my point, which is the important part, I do not think we are communicating here.
Okay, then let’s try again. You said:
agree, but replace men with “some individuals”. They are the exceptions, the examples, the main characters, individuals specifically chosen by God for a specific purpose. God chose Israel to be His people, did He not? And yet, every nation on Earth has the same chance of redemption. This is the idea of the book of Romans.
I do not agree that the lesson of Romans is that every nation has the same chance of redemption; rather, the lesson of Romans is that every single person who has ever been saved has been so through the specific choice of God. That choice is now made without regard for national boundaries, but that seems rather a different claim.
On what do we ground the claim that those chosen by God specifically are the exception?
Irked,
“The question is what is entailed by his justice” = your question still doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible to ignore God’s omniscience and omnipotence. You say: “let us suppose the man’s nature is such that he will never, under any conceivable circumstances, repent”. Therefore, God knows it, and yet He allows for it (man’s disobedience) to occur. Similarly, “Likewise, God is taking no action to prevent the man from repenting; doing so is unnecessary” = implies that God knows that such man will not repent (hence the superfluous “doing so is unnecessary”); back to square one.
“Your answer, as I understand it, is that we have no right or standing to critique the justice of God: that he may justly do as he wishes with us” = if one considers God’s omnipotence, my answer is hypothetical in nature: God is omnipotent; He can do as He wishes. I think you are implying that anything that comes from God must be just because it comes from God. I do not agree with it, nor do Scriptures. Everything that come from God is just because God is just, not because He is God. In other words, it’s not in God’s nature to do anything unjust (bar the hypothetical “God is omnipotent, so anything is possible to Him”).
“How do you unify this with, for instance, the statement in Romans 8 that those God calls, he also justifies and glorifies – or is that a different sense of the word “calls”?” = what exactly is your point here?
“rather, the lesson of Romans is that every single person who has ever been saved has been so through the specific choice of God” = I disagree, and so do Scriptures. God extends the gift of salvation to every single person, and every single Nation.
“On what do we ground the claim that those chosen by God specifically are the exception?” = I don’t.
Hi LLC,
your question still doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible to ignore God’s omniscience and omnipotence. You say: “let us suppose the man’s nature is such that he will never, under any conceivable circumstances, repent”. Therefore, God knows it, and yet He allows for it (man’s disobedience) to occur.
I guess I’m not getting your puzzlement, either. I’m not ignoring God’s omni attributes; I’m just not trying to ask a question about them. I’m asking, “Would it be right for him to do this?” The question works just fine given that God is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, but neither is strictly necessary for the question.
if one considers God’s omnipotence, my answer is hypothetical in nature: God is omnipotent; He can do as He wishes.
That’s a question of capability rather than morality, though, right? We can hypothesize an omnipotent being who still did evil; such a being could do as he wished, but his actions might still be unjust.
I’m specifically asking a moral question.
I think you are implying that anything that comes from God must be just because it comes from God.
I am not, no. I am asking you whether you think God could justly take a particular specific course of action – whether, if you like, such an action would be consistent with his nature.
what exactly is your point here?
It’s not a point, just an attempt to understand your position. You said that those God calls can reject his call. Romans 8 says that all who are called are justified and glorified. What happens, in your understanding, to a person who rejects the call and yet is justified and glorified – or are you using “call” in a different sense than Romans 8?
“On what do we ground the claim that those chosen by God specifically are the exception?” = I don’t.
Well, now I’m stumped. You had said: “‘It has always been the pattern of God to choose men for purposes of his own, independent of virtue or vice in those people’ = agree, but replace men with ‘some individuals.’ They are the exceptions, the examples, the main characters, individuals specifically chosen by God for a specific purpose. ”
I was trying to ask how you were grounding this claim – which I understand to be the claim that only some individuals, and not all Christians, are chosen in this way. How am I misunderstanding you?
Irked,
it seems that we are not communicating. Time to call it the day.
Until next time, have a blessed day.
It seems to me that God doesn’t have to do anything for the heart to harden other than let sin take its natural course. Haven’t we all experienced the progressive blindness that darkens our conscience and the allure of immediate pleasures and passions of sin that are harmful and addictive? It’s by God’s light and grace that we are called back, can see what’s happening and turn it around. Unfortunately many resist any amount of light and grace thrown at them and instead just keep dig themselves in deeper. When I read that God has hardened someone’s heart, I take it that He has foreseen the finally impenitence in the negative responses to the help He offers and at some point cuts it off so they get the slavery they insist on. God’s mercy in this case is to prevent them from crawling into an even deeper pit.
Hi John,
So this would be my question: Paul says in Romans 9 that the decision to show mercy or to harden is “not by works, but by him who calls,” that it “does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” Paul even goes a step further: he says that God raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of hardening and destroying him.
You say that God’s hardening is a response to negative responses. Following that, then, it sounds like you’re saying there are categories of people who do not stubbornly resist in this way, and whom God will not harden. How does that not make his choice a matter of human desire or effort?
Irked,
Everything comes down to God’s Mercy, which is also His Love and His Justice. It’s God who plants our desires and God who enables our works and the freedom of our wills. It’s us who disorders them, and hardening is a disorder of the will.
With regard to Pharaoh, my translation of Rm 9:16-17 reads, “So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.'” I don’t read this as implying that God denies Pharaoh all grace and mercy. Would God deny Pharaoh grace and mercy just so He can demonstrate His power, or does God demonstrate his power because what’s offered is rejected? Even after all the demonstration of power by which Pharaoh relents long enough to let the Israelites go, he ultimately decides the chase them into the sea to his own destruction. I can’t help but think that Heaven would have rejoiced if Pharaoh had chosen otherwise.
Anybody who makes it to heaven at some point stops resisting and starts cooperating. To even get us to that point is God’s initiative. God won’t complete a transplant of a stony heart with a natural one if we chose to keep pulling out the stitches. It’s truly a mystery why some chose damnation over salvation, but apparently the damned find some perverse satisfaction in their choice. The justice of Hell is more merciful than forcing them into Heaven. I’ve always considered free will as God’s cutting edge technology, and I would seriously question its reality if there weren’t examples of the damned. “Mercy” that destroys the freedom of our wills is no mercy at all.
Hi John,
Would God deny Pharaoh grace and mercy just so He can demonstrate His power
I mean, he literally says that this is what he’s doing, right? “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you.” So… yeah, he would.
Even after all the demonstration of power by which Pharaoh relents long enough to let the Israelites go, he ultimately decides the chase them into the sea to his own destruction. I can’t help but think that Heaven would have rejoiced if Pharaoh had chosen otherwise.
You’re absolutely right – Pharaoh does chase after them. So let’s look at that: why does the Scripture say he does such a foolish thing?
“The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites.”
That’s a causal statement, right? God hardens Pharaoh. Why does God harden Pharaoh? So that he’ll pursue and be destroyed. How do we read that except to say that Pharaoh’s destruction is heaven’s purpose?
Is that unjust?
Irked,
It seems to me that God’s demonstration of power is His Mercy and grace in action. It’s like knocking Paul of his horse and striking him blind, only multiple times and even more demonstrative. It got Paul’s attention and he took it to heart. Pharaoh temporarily got it at the cost of his son, but then let lost it to his anger and pride that rekindled his obstinance.
I suppose you could attribute the whole notion of “hardening” to God in the sense that God created the human heart and free will, and enables all the choices presented upon which free will operates. The choice of alienation from God (hell) is a near zero choice, but better than non-existence. What God doesn’t do is make the actual choices, which is the supreme mystery of the operation of free will. Hardening is nothing more than the self imposed blindness and damage resulting from bad choices. We have no capability to restore damage on our own. If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, all He had to do was stop trying to soften it, because Pharaoh wasn’t having any of it. Pharaoh preferred his hard heart and further attempts on God’s part would have just accelerated its hardening. Justice and Mercy are one thing in God. Just as death is justice, it is also mercy…the ultimate end stop to the sin and its effects in this life.
Hi John,
Here’s my concern, I suppose: Paul and Moses present God as taking an active role in these proceedings. Moses writes that God did something to Pharaoh, and that he did this thing for a specific purpose: so that Pharaoh would follow after the Israelites and be destroyed.
That’s not the only place we see this. Look at Exodus 11:9: “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you – so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” God gives us the explanation of why Pharaoh won’t listen: because God plans to glorify himself through the plagues.
Or flip all the way back to Exodus 4:21: “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.” Again, there’s a purpose there: before Pharaoh has done anything at all, God has decided to act towards him to stop him from letting the people go.
My concern is that you seem to be presenting this as sort of an unfortunate outcome: as God saying, at last, “This isn’t what I wanted, but I’ll let you have it.” But God himself seems to feel no need to speak in this way; he isn’t shy in saying, “Pharaoh is going to be destroyed, because I will act in him to make him be destroyed, because I want to show my power in this way.”
What is it that compels us to read what’s written as an active purpose, and interpret it as a passive result? Why don’t we read active phrases as active?
Irked,
I understand your concern over causality, active or passive, especially when we are inclined to see it in a temporal sense. God’s will and action really transcends that, and can be both at the same time; which is related to mysterious workings of human free will and created existence. If God is all good, it would be contradictory for him to promote choices that are less good, but He will permit them for the sake of other greater goods, e.g. confirm the reality of free will. Since God has control over the bigger picture, it’s actually unnecessary for him to do so…His ability to always turn lemons into lemonade.
John,
If God is all good, it would be contradictory for him to promote choices that are less good
Would it? That seems to be the key question. Can God purpose for men to do evil? It certainly sounds in Exodus as though he does.
What about in Genesis? In chapter 45, Joseph says:
“I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
“So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.”
Joseph specifically says that it’s God who has sent him to Egypt – that God purposed for Joseph to go to Egypt in order to do good. Or again, in Genesis 50: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”
That’s two parallel statements about one evil act: the selling of Joseph into slavery.
1) Joseph’s brothers intended that he be sold into slavery, to harm him.
2) God intended that he be sold into slavery, to save life.
Joseph doesn’t merely say God used his slavery; Joseph says God intended it – that, in a real sense, God is the one who sent him. What’s our grounds for saying he cannot purpose evil actions to accomplish his good purposes?
Wasn’t the crucifixion of Christ evil? Didn’t God purpose that before creation itself?
What would we need to see in Scripture to show that God does purpose evil actions?
Irked,
In the case of Joseph, because God knew his brothers would sell him into slavery and already knew how that would be used to serve His purpose doesn’t imply that God intended his brothers to commit the evil. Joseph’s response is essentially acknowledging that all things work for good for those who trust in God. In fact, Joseph says that it was his brothers who intended him harm, and does not accuse God. Job is really a great study in this.
With regard to Jesus’s crucifixion, this was certainly not malice intended by God against His own Son. It was malice intended by those who hated Him, that was foreseen from all eternity and used by God to instead show the depth of His own Love and Mercy and become the source of salvation for all willing to accept it.
My read of your question comes down to challenging one of the key principles of ethics, that we ought never employ evil means to achieve good ends. Employing or cooperating in evil even as a means makes us evil regardless of what good might fall out it. The reason this applies absolutely to us is because it’s also true for God. In application, we have to be careful in understanding what is evil, e.g. pain is not in itself evil, correction is not in itself evil etc. It would most certainly have been unjust for God to directly inflict punishment to His own Son, the ultimate innocent even if this was intended to achieve a great result. However, to use that injustice inflicted by others to achieve a great result is just brilliant.
Hi John,
My read of your question comes down to challenging one of the key principles of ethics, that we ought never employ evil means to achieve good ends.
I think my challenge would be, “On what grounds do we say God may not decree or purpose evil in order to accomplish his good purpose?” Does Scripture declare this? Because these passages certainly seem to declare that he does. Joseph doesn’t merely say that God used his slavery; Joseph says that God intended it.
Certainly the Father does not have malice against the Son, but when you say that God foresaw the crucifixion, you seem to undersell what Scripture itself says: that the Father sent the Son for the purpose of his being murdered. Doesn’t Jesus himself say so? “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.” He’s sent primarily to be murdered!
Or consider Peter, in Acts: “This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” Again, the Father knew the Son would be handed over, yes – but the Father also planned for the Son to be handed over and killed.
Isaiah perhaps is even clearer. Chapter 7 speaks of the Lord calling up the nation of Assyria – for using him as a hired hand, or as a tool in the hand of the Lord, to judge Israel. Chapter 10 calls Assyria “the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath” – clearly God is employing the Assyrian to his purpose!
And yet just as clearly, that purpose will include murder, destruction, and countless moral evils committed by the Assyrians – and indeed, the passage closes with the Lord vowing to punish these same men.
You reference Job – and indeed, Job does not curse God and die. But Job also recognizes that what’s happened to him is purposed by God: “The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.” I agree, it’s a great study in this principle – and one at which, at the end, the Lord makes no self-justification: “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?” Who are you, Job, to say I don’t have the right to do these things?
I feel rather as though I was simply throwing verses at you, and I apologize for that. But this is what’s puzzling me: I understand that you don’t believe God can intend these evil things. Scripture seems pretty emphatic that he does. What is it that leads you to conclude that this is impermissible for him? If God says, “I raised you up to show my power by destroying you,” what in Scripture forces us to read that nonliterally?
Irked,
There’s a big difference between decreeing evil and repurposing evil for good, the distinction in this case being whether God is the direct cause of the evil. In every case God permits the evil that someone else causes. If God forced/decreed someone to commit the evil, then it’s not their evil, it’s His. The Christian should know and trust that everything God permits in their life is ultimately to their benefit. That’s the irony of evil. The devil and those who follow him promote evil out of shear malice for God and His creation, yet God always repurposes it to good. It must torment those souls terribly to bang their heads against the wall like that.
What others intend as evil and malice, God always turns to challenges and opportunity for our benefit. We don’t have to see it or take it, which often just puts us in a worse position.
Irked,
I appreciate that you’re throwing scripture quotes at this, but the problem is understanding what you read. If you’re coming to the conclusion that God does evil, then that should be big warning sign as the entire history of Christian teaching should tell you otherwise. The problem of evil is subtle and can be easily misunderstood.
Hi John,
If you’re coming to the conclusion that God does evil
Not at all. My point, rather, is that if we have the moral intuition, “For God to decree evil actions is itself evil,” and the Scripture says, “God decrees evil actions,” then maybe it’s our intuition that’s wrong. I’m attempting to show that Scripture repeatedly does the latter; I don’t understand on what you base the former.
Irked,
It’s not moral intuition that says decreeing evil actions is evil, it’s by definition/appropriation. Decreeing something implies direct intent that evil/harm be done (a failure of charity), not just accepted as a unfortunate side effect (principle of double effect). Even when double effect applies, there has to be proportionality between the intended good and the unintended harm, or the disregard for harmful effects outweighing the intended good would itself by uncharitable/evil, e.g nuking a city to get to get a couple terrorists.
Again I don’t see this as a failure of Scripture, but how Scripture is read and understood, which should be with the mind of the Church.
Hi John,
I understand the position, but it seems to be supported by pure assertion. What’s it grounded on? Whence comes the claim that it would be a failure of charity for God to purpose his creations however he pleases?
Irked,
What is charity but willing the good of someone? If God were to will evil instead of good, that would be uncharitable by definition. That’s distinct from the question of God’s sovereignty, that is doing as He pleases. The question is whether God’s pleasure is always doing good and never evil. I would see that the Scriptures and Christian tradition both support that God has no admixture of evil.
Hi John,
I would see that the Scriptures and Christian tradition both support that God has no admixture of evil.
That’s certainly not in question; the only question is whether purposing that men will do evil is, itself, evil.
It seems like your claim would declare that God is morally obliged to be maximally charitable at all times – that is, that he must at all times will the greatest possible good for all individuals. In particular, it seems like this would require that God display charity instead of any of his other virtues: he may never, for instance, display his justice by punishing evildoers, or his righteousness by raining fire on them, or his holiness by separating them from himself, unless these things are also optimally charitable. Perhaps most centrally, they do not permit God to show the virtue of his own self-glorification in this way.
Is that accurate, or may God choose, in some particular instance, to display some other virtue in lieu of charity?
And yet Scripture is replete with examples of God doing precisely that. Indeed, we ourselves are told to purpose evil in this way: 1 Corinthians 5:5 instructs us to hand a disobedient brother over to the devil, for the purpose of having evil done to him. We do so in the service of an ultimate good – but then, I believe the same is true of God purposing evil.
Given how emphatically Scripture seems to speak against the position you’re presenting, and the sheer number of passages which must be read against their natural senses, is there anything in Scripture that actually supports this claim?
Irked,
Fraternal correction is not willing evil, just as performing surgery to remove a cancer is not evil. It may be painful, but that’s an unfortunate side effect. When St. Paul says to “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord”, it’s clear that he’s not being uncharitable/evil by acting out of malice, but permitting Satan to act out of his malice with the hope that it will result in a change of heart. Once again re-purposing evil to good.
John,
Yes, and again, when God wills that some evil person should do an evil thing to us, it is likewise for an ultimate good: either for our sanctification or for his own glory, the highest possible moral good. It’s still the case in both examples – the plan of God, or of a church – that someone righteously intend that evil be done to a person.
I am still curious as to whether there is biblical rationale for rejecting the straightforward reading of these many passages.
There’s a huge difference between willing that someone do evil and knowing that someone will do evil. What makes an act evil is malice in its intent. Regardless of the intended outcome, to will that someone else do evil as a means or a primary end is to will it yourself, making you just as evil. If you think malice is at the heart of God, there’s not much more I can say.
Hi John,
There’s a huge difference between willing that someone do evil and knowing that someone will do evil.
True, these are different things.
What makes an act evil is malice in its intent. Regardless of the intended outcome, to will that someone else do evil as a means or a primary end is to will it yourself, making you just as evil.
You assert this; what is it grounded upon?
Again, it’s Paul’s desire – Paul’s plan, Paul’s intent, Paul’s will – that Satan do evil to the man put outside the church. That is the very purpose for which the man is put out. We agree that this is not inherently malicious or evil on Paul’s part – and yet that seems a flat denial of your thesis here.
You say that malice is what makes an action evil. Say I buy that; what happens if God intends for evil to occur, but without malice? By your own standard, doesn’t that intent lack the necessary factor to be evil?
If you think malice is at the heart of God, there’s not much more I can say.
I’d really appreciate it if you stopped ending these exchanges with variations on, “If you think God is evil…” Clearly I don’t; I simply disagree with you as to whether the behavior in question is inherently evil. I think I’ve provided evidence that Scripture says it isn’t; have you any evidence that it is?
Hi Irked,
Regarding your questions, I think we have different understandings of the terms you use, such as the words ‘wicked’, ‘repent’,’never, ever’, ‘submit’, hardens…etc… You probably have a different understanding of these words than I do.
However, I’ll try to answer your 3 questions with my understanding of the words, and in context with what both the OT and the teachings of Jesus shed light on.
1. Your first question seems to ask: Can God command Satan to repent? I say this because even Judas was given a chance to repent when Jesus asked Him “Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?” [Luke 22:48]
And if Jesus left open the possibility even with Judas, it seems possible for all men to have a similar ability to repent. So when you say…”never, ever”…it’s too hypothetical for me. Only Satan and the demons have made their ultimate decisions…forever. Until a man dies, he has the ability to repent and turn to God, even as the good thief on the cross did.
2. The ways of God are mysterious, and St. Paul’s teachings often mysterious and difficult to understand also, such as when Peter says of Paul’s writings: “Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
How God operates, and tolerates sinners, I don’t know. But it is certain that God does not do evil as He is all good, and ” God is Love”. You say “By nature, Abel is as wretched as Cain.”…but Jesus calls Abel “just”. So, clearly there is a difference between the two. Moreover, Jesus also teaches that there are grades of grace and glory when He says:
“He therefore that shall BREAK one of these least commandments, and shall so TEACH men, shall be called the LEAST in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall DO and TEACH, he shall be called GREAT in the kingdom of heaven. ”
So, according to Christ, even on Earth, men can merit glory in ‘eternity’ by how they ‘keep’ and ‘teach’ the Commandments of God in this life. So, people here on Earth might not be as degenerate as you think. As Jesus teaches in this quote above, ALL have the ability to both Keep the Commandments and Teach the Commandments. This out of the mouth of the Jesus Christ, Himself.
3. Jesus, in the quote above says that people have the ability to either keep, or break the commandments, and teach others to do the same. Therefore this quote is an eternal precept of Jesus Who is “The Word of God”…and “the Teacher”. If Jesus says that it is possible for ANYONE to “Do and Teach”….and thereby merit to be “called GREAT in the Kingdom of Heaven”…then ANYONE has the ability to please God by following what Jesus says above. Moreover, when God commands that we love Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength it is reasonable to understand that everyone has the capability to fulfill this commandment, less we confuse God with Satan (…who is the ‘Father of Lies’).
Al,
Okay. It looks like you’ve reworded my question 1 to some other question; you do not address the fundamental question of whether it is fair or just for God to act in the way I describe. As that seemed to be your original objection to my post – that it would be unfair for God to call Cain to repent, when Cain as a natural man will never do so – I don’t think that addresses my concern.
You do not seem to have answered my questions 2 and 3 at all, except to assert that Paul is hard to understand sometimes. He is! I don’t think that’s ground for ignoring Romans, and if we can’t talk about what Romans actually does say, I don’t see how the conversation is to continue. Perhaps we should call it there?
Hi Irked,
I never understood your original question to begin with, or what you are asserting. You SEEM to imply that Cain was evil from the beginning and never had a chance to act in a virtuous way. I think that’s what you are saying? Why do’t you just say it??…say boldly “God caused Cain to kill Abel”. He created Cain evil because He wanted Cain to be Evil.”
Is this what you are claiming? You use terms that are not clear and expect people to follow where you are going with it. If you think God created Cain evil from his creating…just say so.
I say, in a similarly simple way, that God gave Cain free will to choose to dominate his lust and sinful inclinations or to give in to it. This is what Genesis 4:6 says very clearly. God encourages Cain to resist the evil that is present at his door. And since Cain DECIDED not to listen to God…by utilizing his freedom of will…He committed murder. It’s Caiins fault NOT God’s fault as you imply.
Moreover, seem to ignore this quote that I provided to you about 15 times! And then you ask me to study Pharaoh and St. Paul in the last comment you made? Why don’t you address the essential FREE WILL that was detailed and inherent in the Genesis 4:6 quote, where Cain is encouraged to resist and have dominion over evil? Rather, you chose to switch the conversation to how God forced Pharaoh to be evil.
My argument from the beginning was that this text of Gen. 4:6 was ancient proof that God encourages all men (via the example of Cain) to resist evil lest it enslaves us, that is, to resist evil lusts so as to have ‘dominion over them’. But you seem to insinuate that having dominion over evil lusts is not in our power….which is contrary to the teaching found in Genesis.
Again, I was arguing from the story of Cain and Abel, and you led the argument into Pharaoh and his hardened heart. So, it is you who have steered this thread AWAY from Cain and towards hardness of heart and how God causes people to commit sin.Yet, I reject this theory. Man chooses of his own will to reject God…even as Satan and the demons did the same before us. God did not make satan evil, he made him good, and the same with mankind. But, both angels AND mankind have the ability to reject God… who is LOVE. And some, of their own free will…DO reject Him. Yet God did not create them evil…so as to force them to reject him…as you continue to imply. If He did, he would not have encouraged Cain to resist evil, but cheered him on to do what he created him to do…murder his brother. this argument is ludicrous, and makes the Good God to be akin to a demon!
Al,
I never understood your original question to begin with, or what you are asserting. You SEEM to imply that Cain was evil from the beginning and never had a chance to act in a virtuous way.
No, not at all. Cain had lots of chances to act virtuously. He never took them, because he didn’t want to take them, because human beings by nature do not want to please God – as Paul states plainly in Romans 3. God doesn’t cause him to do this; God doesn’t need to.
But God certainly does purpose it, as He purposes all things.
He created Cain evil because He wanted Cain to be Evil
Cain is evil because Cain, like all Adam’s race, is tainted by the sin of his father. Again, that’s not something God has to do to him; it’s his nature as a fallen man.
God encourages Cain to resist the evil that is present at his door.
Yes, he does. So my question again, which you’ve still not addressed: can God justly warn Cain to do a thing that Cain, in his wicked desires, will never choose to do?
Why don’t you address the essential FREE WILL that was detailed and inherent in the Genesis 4:6 quote, where Cain is encouraged to resist and have dominion over evil?
See, that’s the assumption you’re making, Al. That’s the problem that I’ve been trying to ask you to confront: you assert that, if God warns Cain, Cain must be capable of willing to do good.
And it doesn’t follow. If Cain is – if we all are, by nature – such evil men that we will never desire to do good, such that even our righteousness is a filthy rag and a stench before God, that’s not a mark against God. It’s no hypocrisy of God to tell him not to do these evil things; it’s just a sign of how wretched the man is that not even that will turn him.
Can God justly order you to do something beyond what your heart will permit, or not?
Again, I was arguing from the story of Cain and Abel, and you led the argument into Pharaoh and his hardened heart.
I mean, I wasn’t arguing at you at all, Al. I posted to Joe with a paraphrase of Romans, which you seemed to deny: “If this statement were true…”
I’m still trying to figure out which part of the statement you think is false.
Yet God did not create them evil…so as to force them to reject him…as you continue to imply. If He did, he would not have encouraged Cain to resist evil, but cheered him on to do what he created him to do…murder his brother. this argument is ludicrous, and makes the Good God to be akin to a demon!
Sure. You’ll say to me: Then why does God still blame Cain, for how can Cain reject His will? But who is Cain – who are you? – to talk back to God? Can the thing that’s been made say to the God who made it, “Why did you make me like this?”
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with Cain for a long time, while leaving him in his wicked heart – warning him, showing patience to him in his wickedness, even though Cain was doomed to destruction? What if God did this so that we might know the riches of his glory, and the kindness he’s shown to us?
Is that unthinkable?
Hi Craig,
In summing all of your statements up, I can see that you consider not only the people of the Old Testament to be ‘totally depraved’, but also those of the New Testament (less Jesus) and people of his Church to this present day.
To respond to this obvious opinion of yours, I can only say that Jesus taught differently. Someone who is totally depraved cannot be ‘perfect’ or ‘clean’, and Jesus tells His followers to be ‘perfect’.
“Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”
[Matthew 5:48]
And regarding the term “clean” this is also a far cry from total depravity, but Jesus also termed His disciples ‘clean’…except one, Judas the traitor. He said:
1. “Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.”
[John 13:10]
2. “Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you.” [John 15:3]
3. “For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.” [John 13:11]
If these apostles were clean, except Judas, who are the Calvinists to say they were depraved? I prefer Jesus’ judgement over John Calvin’s or Martin Luthers’.
Again, spiritual ‘depravity’ is greatly at odds with the concept of spiritual perfection, but Christ and the apostles taught that spiritual perfection was achievable in this world:
1. “Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt BE PERFECT, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.” [Matthew 19:21]
2. “The disciple is not above his master: but every one shall be PERFECT, if he be as his master.” [Luke 6:40]
3. “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” [Matthew 5:48]
4. “Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things PERFECT.” [Eph. 6:13]
5. “For the rest, brethren, rejoice, BE PERFECT, take exhortation, be of one mind, have peace; and the God of peace and of love shall be with you.” [2 Corinthians 13:11]
6. “That the man of God may be PERFECT, furnished to every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:17]
7. “And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be PERFECT and entire, failing in nothing.” [James 1:4]
8. “I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made PERFECT in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.” [John 17:23]
9. “Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?” [Galatians 3:3]
10. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” [1 Corinthians 1:10]
11. “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, this also God will reveal to you.” [Philippians 3:15]
**********************************
Don’t you see the contradiction between your ‘total depravity’ doctrine and the doctrine taught, above, by Christ and his apostles??
………………………………………….
Hi Al,
(Can’t take credit for being Craig!)
No, on the contrary, I think the two doctrines fit perfectly. Look at Romans 3: the condemnation is universal. There is no one righteous, no one who seeks God.
But.
But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made known: a righteousness given – not paid, as a wage, to just men, but given to those who do not work – to men justified freely.
The disciples are clean, yes, but they are clean because they have been washed. Isn’t that what Christ himself says, in the passage you reference in John 13? “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
The only righteous man is the man to whom unearned righteousness is credited: as it was to Abraham, to Abel, and to all the rest.
“Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Takes us back to my original question, doesn’t it? Are humans by nature capable of carrying out a command to be perfect? Are you able, apart from the divine work of the Spirit, to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength?
Or is God setting a law no man satisfies, that you might become conscious of your sin?
Hi Irked,
There is no comparison between St. Paul and Jesus. One is God, the other a mere ‘saint’. And so, when Jesus teaches He is always to be preferred to any other teacher, as ‘we are all brothers’, and also…’We were baptized into Christ’…not , St. Paul…or any other apostle or saint. This is to say, the words of Jesus regarding the commandments are to be given the greatest attention, and He talks about them clearly and abundantly in His gospel:
“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. ] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
[Matthew 5:19]
Jesus is very clear here, the commandments are to be both ‘kept’ and ‘taught’. If it was not possible to keep them, Jesus obviously would not say what He did, above, and He even mandated all to ‘teach them to others’…wherein a person would be rewarded in Heaven for both ‘keeping’ and ‘teaching’.
I really don’t know how both Luther and Calvin could have not read or understood this small teaching of Jesus? Or how they could twist it to mean…”It is impossible to keep the commandments”. This is basically insulting Jesus for teaching what He did, above…as if He mean’t something differently than…’keep’ and ‘teach’.
Rather, a Christian should always listen carefully to Jesus, and then try to understand how they are to be kept. Jesus is not unreasonable. He knows that we are sinners and are weak, and this is why He gave His disciples the ability to forgive sins. Moreover, we need to understand as best as possible what Jesus means by ‘keeping the commandments’. And He sums it up in many parts of the Gospel by stories and sayings, for instance:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” [Matthew 22:37]
Again, are we to ignore this teaching of Christ? Or prefer Calvin’s, or Luthers’ teaching OVER it?
Here’s another teaching on the subject:
“And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life? But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou? He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said to him: Thou hast answered right: THIS DO, and thou shalt live.”
[Luke 10:27]
So, again….why the need to question Jesus’ clear teaching here. Are we to contradict Him and say…that…”No, this is impossible”…”what you really mean, Jesus, is that you are saying here that the Commandments are impossible to keep!”?
And we even have another story :
” a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, LOVED HIM, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God!” [Mark 10:17]
Notice how Jesus ‘loved’ the man after hearing that he kept the commandments ‘from his youth’. Jesus did object and say:
“You could never keep these from your youth! Impossible! Liar! ”
Rather, the Gospel tenderly relates that Jesus wanted even closer friendship with the man, with these powerful words:
“Jesus looking on him, loved him”.
So, who are we to believe…regarding the commandments of God…Jesus or St. Paul? Or…Jesus or Calvin? Or, Jesus or Luther?
The correct answer is Jesus in all cases. And, we need to interpret St. Paul…IN THE LIGHT OF JESUS’ TEACHINGS….and not vice versa.
Best to you.
Al,
The black words in your Bible are still spoken by God. We don’t prioritize them; we dare not.
I do not see any point in continuing this conversation until you’re willing to answer one of the questions I ask. Do you believe, apart from the work of the Spirit, you are capable of doing the things in any of the passages you just quoted?
Dear AWIMS. Every once in a while ABS visits this blog and is amased to see you still responding to Irked even though the new testament teaches you to mark him as a heretic and avoid him.
At what point will you start to believe the New Testament and follow it?
“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with Cain for a long time, while leaving him in his wicked heart – warning him, showing patience to him in his wickedness, even though Cain was doomed to destruction? What if God did this so that we might know the riches of his glory, and the kindness he’s shown to us?
Is that unthinkable?” = It should be unthinkable because it reeks of selfishness and wickedness and contradicts in multitudes of ways the teachings found in the gospel taught by Christ. In fact, Jesus teaches almost the exact opposite in his numerous parables, sayings and living examples. For instance, Jesus says: “From the depths of the heart doth the mouth speak”. The Calvinist says that ‘the depths of man’s heart is totally corrupt’, totally depraved’. So, if that were true, nothing good would come from the ‘depths of a man’s heart’ ..all would be evil, because depravity produces only depravity. Furthermore, Jesus contradicts the idea by teaching:
“By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”
So, it is seen here that Jesus teaches that NOT ALL souls/trees are depraved, but only SOME souls, and even says “A good tree CANNOT bring forth evil fruit”! And this can translate to “A good soul cannot be spiritually depraved”. What a difference is this teaching than that of ‘total depravation’!
Again, Jesus tells us:
“You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
Does this sound like “total depravity” to anyone?
Or, again, Jesus says : “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.”
Does this sound like ‘total depravity’ in the hearts of ALL men, all souls? No. Jesus is actually warning against it, and teaching all of His followers to maintain the ‘saltiness’ in the interior realms of their souls…which equates to ANYTHING but filth and total depravity. Rather, this teaching relates to: keeping the soul clean, maintaining the sanctifying grace and holiness in one’s soul; keeping the virtues and true love for God and neighbor in one’s soul, and keeping the truth in one’s soul. If anything, the Calvinist ideology teaches that there is ONLY ‘unflavored salt’ in a man’s soul, and so it is ALL filthiness and worthless! How different is this than the teaching of Jesus Christ, in this saying!
It appears to me, that after the Calvinists contradict so many sayings, examples and teachings of Christ in His gospel teachings and parables, that they appear to be only about 1/2 Christian?…as they seem to throw away, ignore or contradict about 1/2 of everything Jesus said, or showed us by example, in the Gospel He taught. Some day I would like to count up all of these contradictions…such as, Jesus calling the Apostles ‘clean’ at ‘the washing of the feet’, the analogy of the weeds and the wheat, the analogy of new wine NOT being put into old skins, and His important teaching:
” The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU.”
How, in any way, do all these quotes of Christ ‘square’ with the Calvinist doctrine of the ‘Total Depravity” of man’s soul?
Explanation, anyone??
Al,
It should be unthinkable because it reeks of selfishness and wickedness and contradicts in multitudes of ways the teachings found in the gospel taught by Christ.
This unthinkable, selfish, wicked thing that contradicts the gospel… is basically the text of Romans 9:19-22, just with “Cain” swapped in for “us.” It is Paul’s own explanation of how God acts towards men.
I’m not sure what else there is to say, here. As I said to you, I believe in good trees. Abel was a good tree; he was clean. But he was clean because he had been washed – because it was the purpose of God to renew him. The difference between Cain and Abel is the grace of God: we were all dead in our sins and trespasses, in which we once walked, when we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Hi Irked,
Like I said in my quote before this current comment:
“we need to interpret St. Paul…IN THE LIGHT OF JESUS’ TEACHINGS….and not vice versa.”
St. Paul is not the Messiah, and he is not God. His letters are to be understood in the context of Jesus’ clear teachings…and especially regarding ‘keeping the commandments’ as I stated in the recent post to you, above…a few lines back at 12:29PM.
Best to you always.
Al,
Brother, you have twice in this thread said that claims lifted directly from Romans 9 – sometimes word-for-word – are false. If that’s what it looks like to interpret Paul in the light of Christ, then it is deeply in error.
All the words in the Bible – black and red – are the words of God. We do not have “tiers” of inspiration.
Hi Irked, the words of St. Paul are not false, the understanding of them, though, can be false. And this is why it is essential to understand them in context of the holy gospel of Christ and what Jesus Christ taught. Clearly, regarding the keeping of The Commandments, Jesus has left VERY CLEAR teachings, with some of these provided in my comment. Regarding St. Paul. it is necessary to understand the context of what he is saying and who he is saying it to and for what reason. Many times in scripture, extreme statements are made for specific groups or rhetorical effect and a particular end in mind. This all needs to be taken into account. But to claim total depravity of the human soul and ignore Jesus when he teaches us: “Be Holy”, “you are clean”, “your sin is forgiven”, ‘you are a light on a hill’, ‘be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”, and “the Kingdom of God is within you” ( ..and think of it…does the Kingdom of God exist in a depraved and gravely sinful stat of soul state of soul?) is to deny the Gospel of Christ.
Moreover, a VERY important teaching of Our Lord regarding the state of soul and the effects of sin on it, is this:
“Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” [John 8:34]
Do Calvinists believe that a person can be free from grave and deadly sin…whereby a person is no longer a ‘servant of sin’? Or, do they deny the Lord Jesus Christ’s ability to do this, and make a man ‘clean’?
This is why I said that I think Calvinists are only 50% Christian. When thy start accepting these, and other, teachings coming directly from the mouth and heart of Jesus Christ(..ie…’from the depths of the heart doth the mouth speak’) like the words above… they might become 75%…or more, Christian… depending on how well they pay attention to what Jesus Christ actually teaches. But as of now they seem like 1/2 Christians, and maybe comparable to the Mormons or Jehovah’s witnesses?
How can they explain away the words of Christ, above, about no longer being a ‘servant of sin’ and also uphold ‘total depravity’?….And then again when Jesus talks abundantly in the Gospel on the necessity of ‘keeping and teaching the commandments’ …but wherein the Calvinist teach that this is either impossible,futile or unnecessary?
All of this disregard and neglect of the holy words and teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ seems very anti-Christian to me.
And He Himself said: “If any man keep my word, he shall not see death forever.”
Best to you.
Al,
Hi Irked, the words of St. Paul are not false, the understanding of them, though, can be false.
True. The invitation to discuss our understanding of those passages – to, for instance, answer any of the questions regarding their meaning that I’ve asked you – certainly stands.
But until then, I don’t see how we’re going to get anywhere. I present arguments literally directly lifted from Romans; you call them evil. I ask basic questions about your understanding of these doctrines; you don’t answer them. I explain how we understand “You are clean,” and the basic division we make between the regenerate and unregenerate… and man, you just keep on quoting the same passages as if I hadn’t said anything.
Please deal with something I’ve actually said!
Do Calvinists believe that a person can be free from grave and deadly sin…whereby a person is no longer a ‘servant of sin’?
Yes! We do! We just don’t think that’s true of lost people.
Hi Irked, you said:
“The invitation to discuss our understanding of those passages – to, for instance, answer any of the questions regarding their meaning that I’ve asked you – certainly stands.”
Irked, I don’t mind digging into St. Paul, but…. as you know I like to get to the REAL meaning in scripture….and I foresee that with these quotes it will take a lot (!) of time to explain in a proper way.
I see scriptural anomalies in a way like a dentist might see a missing tooth in a persons mouth…say a molar. A dentist knows that there are suppose to be 32 teeth in this persons mouth but the scrupulous patient thinks that all of these other teeth…31 of them, should be removed to match the gap that he thinks is normal. So the patient demands the 31 odd teeth be removed to make his mouth perfect.
The same thing happens with scripture. We have many, many teachings, and particularly from the mouth of God Himself via Jesus Christ. And, some teachings actually seem to contradict other teachings.
Irked, It seems that you are sort of like the man who would like the other teeth removed if you see that the space on the mouth doesn’t match the rest of the mouth. You would rather ignore all of the other teachings that I provided over the recent days ( i.e… ‘ other teeth’) which came directly from the mouth of God, Jesus Christ, and focus only on the part of the mouth that appears to be an anomaly. So, to the hypothetical dentist you seem to say “it is not right to have all those other abnormalities, i.e.. 31 teeth in the mouth…rather the entire mouth is suppose to match perfectly with this space here. And when the dentist says, “you are wrong…look at the function of these 31 teeth, your space/gap that you love is only a quarter of a square inch, and all these teeth that you want to get rid of are 32 times it’s size, and have multitudes of essential functions. You are only missing one little, itsy bitsy molar tooth…you must not be so obsessed with it. You must look at, and appreciate all the rest of these awesome teeth that you have. You should appreciate them.
So, this is the way I think you view the Letter to the Romans. You seem to put it above all other scriptures in the entire Bible and it seems that you would prefer if St. Paulwere the real messiah. But, on the contrary, I accept ALL of the scriptures, BUT… I do have a bias towards the Holy Gospels …and for very good reason: Jesus said in the Gospel:
” If any man keep MY word He shall not see death forever.”
And an even more compelling reason is found in this beautiful quote from Our Lord Jesus Christ:
“If anyone love me
He will keep my word
And my Father will love him
And we will come to him
And will make our abode with him.
He that liveth me not
Keepeth not my words.
And the word which you have heard
Is not mine
But the Father’s who sent me.”
However, because these words were not written by St. Paul, I’m not so sure that you appreciate them. These are words spoken by Jesus, and therefore are words, according to the saying above, directly ‘of the Father who sent Him’. And, Jesus also said….” If you have seen Me you have seen the Father”.
So, in the context of our present discussion, which is a criticism of St. Paul’s teachings in the Letter to the Romans, I must look at ‘the other teeth in the mouth’ to show how your understanding/conclusions of St. Paul are not matching the words of Christ regarding the nature of God the Father. And, I actually think that if examined in depth, we will find that the ‘missing tooth’ …St. Paul’s discription of God’s nature… actually does match…but not in the way that you think. I have faith in this, because I know both the heart of St. Paul and the Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In this, I also know the Heart of Our Father Who Art In Heaven”..which is Who Jesus Christ came to reveal to the world.
In short, I think would be quite easy to prove the nature of God the Father using the words of Jesus Christ to do so. There are abundant parables, examples and explicit words of Jesus Christ that can accomplish this purpose…becasue THIS IS THE GOSTPEL. And, of course, this is the way that Jesus Himself intended to teach the world WHO God the Father is, and what He is like…through everything He Himself said and taught while He lived here on Earth. So, this is the short way to understand the nature of God the Father.
The long way to discover the nature of God the Father, is to examine the ‘missing tooth’, so-to-say and to prove that it is an anomaly, or difficult to understand, and to explain exactly why it is missing. That is…why is this passage of St. Paul apparently at odds with the words of Jesus Christ, even though they might be more akin, and compatible, to various words and actions found in the Old Testament?
So, to examine all of this would take a long time. If done on this current thread I foresee about another 50 to 100 hours of discussions to get it right. That is….maybe not 43 comments as there are present…but maybe ….200-300 possibly others.
If we tried to understand the nature of God the Father using the words and actions of Jesus alone…I think there might be less than 50 or so, comments between us…long though those might be.
So, you see, I am not afraid of this argument at all….but I am concerned about the time it might take to get St. Pauls quotes examined properly and in full context. And this is the very reason I provided so many quotes from Jesus over the last few days…because THIS is the quickest way to the truth. The long way to understand the nature of God is through only one part of one book of scripture…ie’ St. Paul’s selected chapters from the Book of Romans. And, again, the reason why the words of Christ are easier to accomplish our objective of understanding the nature of God the Father….is because this is the very tway that God the Father utilized to teach the World His true nature….Which was through His Son; that is, everything His Son did, and said, while He lived amongst us.
So, this is my primary way or method for acquiring a knowledge of the Truth regarding the nature of God…directly through the mouth and loving actions of Jesus Christ. And Jesus meant it to be this way, as He said;
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” [Mark 13:31]
So, if you are patient and want to continue this thread to about 300 more comments to get it right….we can examine St. Paul and the Letter to the Romans more deeply, to find out why it SEEMS to contradict the teachings of Jesus regarding the nature of God the Father. But we know Jesus is correct in all things, so, the anomaly must rather be with the way that St. Paul expresses certain difficult points in his theology. And St. Peter in his letter talking about St. Paul mentioned this…that St. Paul, sometimes, can be confusing in the way he discusses theology.
Anyway, if you want to continue to delve into St. Paul…we can. But I know it will take a great deal of time to get right. And again…all of this can be made easy..if we only use Jesus Himself to reveal to us the nature of God His Father. This is because Jesus is THE eternal Teacher and Master …as is only common sense to a true Christian and lover of Christ.
Best to you always,
– Al
Al,
Brother, if your reading of Scripture makes any part of it anomalous – if it says “Jesus is correct, so Paul must be…”
(Must be what? What property do the writings of Paul have, that is set against Jesus being correct? “Jesus is correct, whereas Paul is…?”)
… then your reading is in error.
You’ve raised the subject of Christ’s words. I have answered you on this point. Yes, Christ commands all men to live righteously: to be perfect, just as he is perfect. Yes, the law says we must love the Lord with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. These are true, and I affirm them.
But no natural human being does that. There is no one who does right, no one who seeks God. As Paul says in Romans 3, the point of the commands of the law is to make us aware of our failure: the law only condemns. It would be interesting to know here whether you agree that the command to be righteous is justly given to those who will, by nature, never follow it – but I’ve asked you that many times, and you haven’t answered.
Yes, Jesus identifies two kinds of men: the just and the unjust. Yes, he says of his disciples that they are clean. These are true, and I affirm them.
But Jesus also says these men are clean because they have been washed: because, as Romans 4 says, the righteousness of God is imputed to them, as a gift given to those not working for it. No natural human being, says Romans 3, is just in himself. It would be interesting to know whether you think God’s bestows mercy in response to a human’s own virtue – but I’ve asked you that several times, and you haven’t answered.
I’ve discussed the verses you raise. They unify perfectly with what Paul says; there is no anomaly. It was Christ, not Paul, who said that men could not come to him because the Father had not enabled them to come. It was John, not Paul, who said that men could not believe in Christ because God had blinded their eyes. It was Moses, not Paul, who said that Pharaoh was destroyed because God raised him up in order to destroy him. It was Isaiah, not Paul, who said that it was the purpose of God to raise up an evil man, to punish Israel by his evil actions – and then to destroy that evil man for the very actions God purposed for him to take.
There are no gaps: he mercies whom he will, and he hardens whom he will.
Anyway, if you want to continue to delve into St. Paul…we can.
Great. Do it. I have answered you; will you answer me?
Hi Irked, there is so much in this post of yours to discuss that it alone would take hours of writing to go through properly.
But, I will address some of them. First off, I consider the four Gospels to have more value than other parts of sacred scripture. And, of course, Catholics don’t hold to ‘sola scriptura’ … so, right there we probably have a huge difference between us in valuing the various parts of scripture. For instance, the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John are obviously much more spiritually valuable for a Christian than the words of Holofernes in the Book of Judith. And the same is with other personages, stories and parts of the Bible. They all differ in the spiritual profitability provided to the reader; some are greater and more valuable, others not so much, but still part of sacred scripture and therefore have some spiritual value. So…Yes, there is a qualitative difference between the Gospels in the New Testament and the Letters of St. Paul, just as there is a big qualitative difference between the Letters of St. Paul and dialog and teachings found in the Book of Judith.
Regarding the commands of Jesus, you say: “Yes, the law says we must love the Lord with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. These are true, and I affirm them. But no natural human being does that. There is no one who does right, no one who seeks God.”
And, here is where your reading and understanding of both the law and the words of Jesus are in error. You are an extremist and you therefore come to a conclusion that ‘the commandments’ were merely a sort of trick and in reality nobody in the world could possibly keep them; and so, they are only mean’t for the causing of people to ‘go to Hell’. That is…God commands things nobody can fulfill. This apparently is your theory… BUT IT’S WRONG.
If you only wanted to learn from the explicit words of our Lord Jesus Christ, you would not be so extreme in your scriptural understanding and exegesis. Because, Jesus clearly sheds light on the subject of the commandments when …instead of holding your view of a ‘monolithic law incapable of being kept’…He indicates that ALL MEN BREAK THE LAW, but some in minor ways and some in greater ways, and there are corresponding way of either praising or punishing those who keep the various gradations of law keeping that are possible. That’s to say, some people will be “greater or lesser” in the kingdom of God in proportion to how well they kept the Law. Here…again…are Jesus exact words on the subject. And these should relieve you of the burden of your very false assumptions regarding the nature of the ‘Law of God’…or “The Ten Commandments”. Again, the 10 commandments have ‘gradations’ or ‘weight’ inherent in them, and Jesus mentions this in MANY places in His Gospel teachings…but usually in regards to the false exegesis and teachings of the Pharisees whom He was trying to correct. Jesus ‘details’ these the gradations when He says:
“He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:19]
Irked, here are only two short sentences…it’s not too hard to research and study. Do you notice that Jesus denotes that some commandments are lesser than others? Or are termed ‘least commandments’?? Do you realize that teaching others to break the least commandments have consequences, and that even a just man who gives bad example by breaking them will receive as punishment which Jesus terms as a ‘lesser’ place in eternity..or Heaven?? This is what Jesus the Redeemer says! It’s the explicit teaching of God from the mouth of the Messiah!
Moreover, these two sentences also teach ‘that he that shall do and teach…will be “called great” in the kingdom of Heaven’.
Now Irked, I have a question for you. If Jesus says these things, why do you teach differently? Is it because you take another scripture that contradicts Jesus, here, with this quote…and so prefer the teaching of some other scripture that you prefer (but which negates the Lord’s teaching above)….or a scripture that can insinuate that this this specific teaching of Jesus does not indeed happen…. and therefore people can forget about keeping or teaching the Law? ( all of which contradicts Jesus in the 2 sentence quote above.) This is what you seem to imply when you keep saying: “no natural human being does that. There is no one who does right, no one who seeks God”. The reason you say this is because you take an extreme…’all or nothing’ stance on the Commandments and Law. You even go further in your ‘extremist’ interpretation to wildly claim: “The law only condemns”.
Don’t you see that the gradations of weight or ‘gravity, inherent in the commandments, and which Jesus details… refutes your extreme interpretation. You are kind of like the antithesis of the Pharisees…they erroneously thought that the Law of God was ‘everything’. But you take the opposite extreme position…summarized as something like: ‘The Law is absolutely not possible to keep, thus it should substantially be ignored’.
But, Jesus rebuts both you and the Pharisees in His short teaching, above. So, I don’t need to add more. The Messiah… the Son of God… the One whom God said: “This is my beloved Son, listen to him.” ….taught the correct interpretation of the Law and the great importance that it should be carefully followed. That is, Jesus taught above that everyone should try to both KEEP and TEACH the Law of God (The Ten Commandments)…and thereby they will reap the reward that Jesus promises:
“he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:19]”
Now, Irked, do you believe what Jesus promises here…in words so explicit and beautiful? Or, will you continue to believe that : “the law only condemns”. (…which is completely ridiculous, by the way.)
My own opinion is that you really haven’t meditated well on the Law in the first place, to understand it’s GREAT BEAUTY and usefulness. Since you don’t understand the gradation of possible compliance of the law you just see it as LIFE or DEATH…and therefore ALL PEOPLE REAP ONLY DEATH from it. That is its essential purpose.
But you are very wrong. And Jesus proves it abundantly, and for your personal enlightenment of His holy will.
Best to you,
– Al
Al,
You are an extremist and you therefore come to a conclusion that ‘the commandments’ were merely a sort of trick and in reality nobody in the world could possibly keep them; and so, they are only mean’t for the causing of people to ‘go to Hell’. That is…God commands things nobody can fulfill. This apparently is your theory… BUT IT’S WRONG.
This is the exact, verbatim teaching of Paul. Why, he says, was the law given? “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” (Romans 5:20).
Who, he says, keeps the law? “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God… Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” (Romans 3: 10, 11, 20) And again: “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so,” (Romans 8:7), emphasis mine.
That’s three times I’ve offered you three different all-but-verbatim passages from Paul, and three times you’ve called them false. Not once have you offered an alternative interpretation of the passages. If there’s a difference between that and not believing Romans at all, I can’t see it.
Irked, here are only two short sentences…it’s not too hard to research and study… If Jesus says these things, why do you teach differently?
Al, you have not directly answered a single question I’ve asked you, after days of me asking. Answer mine, and I’ll answer yours.
Irked,
Romans 5:20 should be understood in the context of 5:13 “or up to the time of the Law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no Law.” Without the Law, there was no objective standard by which to evaluate/judge an action as a trespass. There was still the subjective law written on our hearts. It’s not that sinful acts increased because of the Law, rather that knowledge/culpability increased, which should drive people to moderate their behavior in a positive direction. Willful disregard of one’s sinful actions could no longer be dismissed/excused as ignorance. In that sense, trespass was bound to increase, while sinful acts and their harm decreased.
John,
It’s not that sinful acts increased because of the Law, rather that knowledge/culpability increased
I’m not sure what I’ve said that you’re arguing against here. I certainly agree that the function of the law is “that sin might become utterly sinful,” as Paul says elsewhere; the fact remains that, as I argued, the intended function of the law is to make men aware of what failures they are, and not to make them just before God through conformity to the law.
To make one aware of their failures without at the same time giving them the grace to overcome them makes no sense. Justice is doing the right thing enabled by grace. To be just is to act justly. Certainly this admits to degrees of perfection. Without God’s grace no progress can made, but heaven demands eventual complete success.
John,
To make one aware of their failures without at the same time giving them the grace to overcome them makes no sense.
Why? Romans 1 says that the natural man sees how evil he is; he knows that there is a God who demands better; and he suppresses that truth, pushing it down in his mind. That’s part of his condemnation, which in turn displays the justice and power of God in convicting him.
For other men, to whom God freely gives undeserved grace, this conviction becomes part of the means God uses to draw them to himself, for his own glorification. That’s, again, the lesson of Romans 7 and 8.
Again, I don’t see what you’re grounding this post on. Where do these assertions come from?
Irked,
The problem that Jesus had was that some of the Jews had lost the intent of the Law and instead turned into an accounting game. To play it as an accounting game was a sure way to lose. What Jesus did was put the Law in perspective, not disregarding it, and Paul was expounding on that.
John,
Sure. And the correct perspective, as described by Christ, is: “The law requires absolute perfection both internally and externally, at a level far surpassing that of the most law-obsessed people alive. It literally requires you to love God with every fiber of your being – and you’d do better to mutilate yourself than to suffer even a mental failure of obedience.”
Paul makes explicit what Christ pretty clearly implies: no one lives up to that. The natural human mind does not submit to God’s law, nor is it even able to do so.
This is were I think you misread Paul. Paul is correct that none can achieve this on our own. It’s God’s grace that makes what’s otherwise impossible possible. Certainly no one is going to enter heaven continuing to sin.
John,
It’s God’s grace that makes what’s otherwise impossible possible.
Yes, precisely.
Irked,
Rom 8:6-8 “The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Since we all have bodies, we should all be painfully aware that inordinate desires of our flesh that are contrary to God’s purpose to which we are subject since the sin of Adam. It’s only by God’s grace that we can master them. That’s usually a long ongoing battle that must be won. Those who chose to otherwise live in the flesh will inevitably succumb to the mastery of their inordinate desires.
Hi John,
Again, I’m not sure what I’ve said that you’re arguing against here. Paul is immediately clear in verse 9 that all the characteristics he’s described here are the natural state of man, from which only those who have the Spirit are free. That’s been my thesis the whole time: absent the direct supernatural intervention of God, no one obeys the law – indeed, no one can obey the law.
I don’t disagree that our ability to obey the law is a complete work of grace and I don’t think the Catholic Church would disagree. What I would argue is that continuing to live in the flesh is a rejection of that grace and a recipe for disaster. Those who truly live in the spirit find they can and must begin to master their sinful impulses. In doing so they find themselves fulfilling the demands of the Law, which are the demands of charity. They thus begin to live justly.
What is the “natural state of man”? If you mean the fallen state, I would say that God never completely abandoned man and that his grace has always operated allowing man to act justly to some degree short of perfection. Certainly the law provided guideposts and Jesus provided the fulfillment of grace needed to complete man’s regeneration and enter heaven.
John,
I don’t disagree that our ability to obey the law is a complete work of grace and I don’t think the Catholic Church would disagree. What I would argue is that continuing to live in the flesh is a rejection of that grace and a recipe for disaster.
Again, yes, precisely. We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
What is the “natural state of man”? If you mean the fallen state, I would say that God never completely abandoned man and that his grace has always operated allowing man to act justly to some degree short of perfection.
Sure, God’s grace is always operative in the world to restrain the worst impulses of man.That is, as per the verses I’ve already cited, insufficient for men to truly obey God’s commands; at best, our righteousness is a filthy, bloody rag.
You cited Romans 10; who is “the mind governed by the flesh,” who hates God, who does not submit to his law, and who cannot even do so?
Irked,
If his audience had completely died to sin, Paul would not need to be writing to them as they would be living lives of Christian perfection. In truth, we come to righteousness and perfection by degree. God is a most loving father and graces all good efforts done for His sake. I most certainly don’t think God views these as a “filthy, bloody rag”. Indeed, He packages the works for our performance that we might cooperate with His work. Like a father, he corrects and allows correction; but he never decrees/wills evil upon us. That includes the damned. As they say, Hell is locked from the inside and is an environment of the own design/choice.
Hi John,
If his audience had completely died to sin, Paul would not need to be writing to them as they would be living lives of Christian perfection. In truth, we come to righteousness and perfection by degree.
I am making no argument against the process of sanctification in those in whom the Spirit of God is active.
Like a father, he corrects and allows correction; but he never decrees/wills evil upon us. That includes the damned.
Again, on what biblical support is this assertion grounded?
“This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.”
John,
I’m afraid I don’t follow your argument here. Yes, that’s our model prayer; how does it address the question at hand?
Irked,
You asked on what basis God acts like a father. I think the Lord’s prayer does that, particularly where we look to Him to guard us from being led into evil, much less directly wiling evil upon us. I’d put that in the context of the parable of the prodigal son. The father allows his wayward son the freedom to lead of life of dissappation, knowing where that will leave him. He doesn’t will or promote his son’s downfall and doesn’t even rebuke him, only rejoices in his change of heart and return.
John,
You asked on what basis God acts like a father.
Sorry, let me clarify: I was asking on what basis you claim that God can never intend that men do evil, even to the damned.
I think the Lord’s prayer does that, particularly where we look to Him to guard us from being led into evil, much less directly wiling evil upon us.
The passage doesn’t say that, though, right? Instead, we get passages like Philippians 1:29, where God says through Paul that persecution is a gift He has given to us.
Why are we privileging our inferences over the explicit statements of at least three biblical authors?
I’d put that in the context of the parable of the prodigal son
Is it your contention that the parable of the prodigal son is intended by Christ to accurately describe our relationship with the Father in all its particulars? I note, for instance, that in this story no one has to die for the father to take the son back; should we infer from this that the crucifixion is unnecessary?
Presumably not. Why are we assuming your particular inference is intended, over and against explicit statements that contradict it?
Irked,
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by “evil”. Sure Paul says persecution is a gift, but that’s the lemonade made from someone else’s lemons, i.e. those who persecute out of malice.
Of course the parable of the prodigal son doesn’t completely detail our relationship with God as Father, but it is Jesus himself describing that relationship and that should preferentially color how we understand the rest.
Philippians 1:29 “For to you has been granted, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.” “Granted” is a permission that follows from 1:28, “not intimidated in any way by your opponents. This is proof to them of destruction, but of your salvation. And this is God’s doing.” Again the persecution isn’t God’s doing, but the purposes/outcome ultimately served are. Note that proof of destruction isn’t the same as willing their destruction. In fact, it could be understood as a warning of what they are willing upon themselves, a warning being a good thing.
Thanks for your excellent apologetics, John. May God bless you for your patience in answering so many of Irked’s points.
Best to you always…and to Br. Irked, also. I personally learn a lot from these discussions.
Doesn’ t this scripture have some significance in this argument? :
“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made FOR ALL MEN: [For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ” (Tim. 2:1)
John,
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by “evil”.
Sure. “Evil” is that which is contrary to the command and moral order of God.
Sure Paul says persecution is a gift, but that’s the lemonade made from someone else’s lemons, i.e. those who persecute out of malice.
What does this mean? Has God purposed that they be persecuted, or not?
Of course the parable of the prodigal son doesn’t completely detail our relationship with God as Father
Indeed, it’s much stronger than that. The parable not only fails to completely detail the nature of our relationship – there are details irrelevant to Christ’s primary point that we know are not how the relationship works. Right? That’s the nature of metaphors.
So my critique is that you’re reaching a conclusion from this parable based on an implication that Christ does not make, and setting it against the explicit statement of both Old and New Testaments – in just the same way someone might who would say, “Look, the father can take back the son, and no one has to die.” How do you justify that?
Philippians 1:29 “For to you has been granted, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.” “Granted” is a permission that follows from 1:28
“Granted” here translates a word that means “given freely” or “given as a show of favor,” not “permitted.” It’s the same word that’s used to describe God’s forgiveness or gifts of healing. Its objects in this particular sentence are belief and persecution.
From your perspective, is the belief and suffering of the Philippian Christians something God has generously given them, as a show of his favor, or something that’s happened apart from his intent?
Al,
You will find my discussion of 1 Timothy 2 with LLC, upthread.
My understanding of evil is along the lines of Aquinas, a privation of the good (http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/goodevil.html). If Pharoah’s heart is “hardened”, it’s because God allows him via the gift of free will to reject any softening grace making himself less good than he ought. For Job, it’s the devil that proposes and inflicts the trials upon him, while God allows this knowing that He will bring the outcome to Job’ benefit. For Christians being persecuted, the benefit isn’t in the persecution itself, that is again not willed of inflicted by God, but allowed in favor of the outcome that He brings forth for them. We all experience trials and suffering in the life. I don’t believe God wills this for it’s own sake, but allows it. Without them, we are inclined to sit on the fence, neither hot nor cold…to be spit out. If we encounter situations of suffering/evil that challenge us, we are quite adept at setting those up ourselves. When we make choices that are less good than they ought we do the evil and set up the means by which God can restore the deficit and bring about His desired outcome that is always greater than would have been otherwise.
John,
I get the sense we’re winding down here. Some closing thoughts, then:
If Pharoah’s heart is “hardened”, it’s because God allows him via the gift of free will to reject any softening grace making himself less good than he ought.
And yet, this is not how God speaks of it; God says that hardening is something He will do to Pharaoh, for a specific purpose: the purpose of destroying Pharaoh and showing His glory.
For Job, it’s the devil that proposes and inflicts the trials upon him, while God allows this knowing that He will bring the outcome to Job’ benefit.
And yet, this is not how Job speaks of it; Job says that it is ultimately the Lord who has given, and the Lord who has taken away – and God, when He replies, says only, “Who are you to judge me for this?”
For Christians being persecuted, the benefit isn’t in the persecution itself, that is again not willed of inflicted by God, but allowed in favor of the outcome that He brings forth for them.
And yet, this is not how Paul speaks of it; he says that tribulation is not merely allowed but given, as a favor.
I’ve quoted specific Scripture that says – not implies, not suggests, but states outright each of the claims I list above. And more beside: Joseph in Genesis. Paul in Romans. Peter in Acts. Isaiah in… well, Isaiah.
These passages are specific and unambiguous in their statement: “These evil things were God’s intention” – and yet in each case, you’ve declined to take them at what they actually say.
I don’t believe God wills this for it’s own sake, but allows it.
That’s the heart of it, isn’t it? As you’ve said, you read “God hardens” as “God allows Pharaoh to reject,” or “God intended this” as “God used this” – or, now, “God has given it to you” as “God has permitted you.” In each case, you’ve taken what God self-describes as something active and recast it as passivity – even in passages like Romans 9, whose entire thesis is the active role and decision of God.
So far as I’ve seen, you have not offered any Scripture explicitly precluding the plain meaning of these passages. It’s hard not to look at that and conclude that you read them otherwise because you must – because the plain reading is incompatible with various moral intuitions you hold without specific Scriptural support.
Yes, I’ll leave this as a significant difference in how we read and understand the scriptures. Needless to say, I think that a conclusion that God wills evil is incompatible with the nature of God and therefore an incorrect understanding.
Hi Irked,
You said that Paul taught: “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” (Romans 5:20).
But Jesus taught: ” if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” [Matthew 19:17]
And, The Lord even complains against the Pharisees for neglecting the COMMANDMENT OF GOD…here:
“in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For LEAVING THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die. But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee. And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.” ( Mark 7:8)
And here is another story, that summarizes the commandments for our better understanding and daily practice:
“…a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
(Does this in any way teach that the commandments were for the specific purpose that ‘trespass might increase’ as St. Paul said?….or might it be just a rhetorical expression of St. Paul that needs some common sense and wisdom to understand, all the while not neglecting the teachings of Paul’s Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?)
And, Jesus even complains against the Pharisees for neglecting the Commandment of God…here:
“in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die. But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee. And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.” [Mark 7:7]
And that the Apostles believed in keeping the commandments we have a witness from the Book of Revelation:
“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the COMMANDMENTS of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” [Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:17]
“Here is the patience of the saints, who keep THE COMMANDMENTS of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:12]
“For this is the charity of God, that we keep his COMMANDMENTS: and HIS COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT HEAVY.”
[1 John 5:3]
“In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS.”
[1 John 5:2]
*******************************
Irked, these excellent quotes are sufficient for rebutting the idea that the Commandments are worthless, as you would like to teach. And there are actually many more quotes like these.
I don’t need my own opinions on the matter. The teaching of Jesus, the Book of Revelation and the Writings of St. John are very sufficient proof.
I am merely a believer and lover of these excellent sources and teachers, one of which is the Lord Himself. Of course they are wholly trustworthy, and their sayings are easily understandable… as compared to some sayings of St. Paul who St. Peter says in 2Pet 3:16:
“Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother PAULl also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. SOME PARTS OF HIS LETTERS ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, which ignorant and unstable people DISTORT, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the ERROR OF THE LAWLESS and fall from your secure standing.… ( note the words “ERROR OF THE LAWLESS”….quite interesting, and pertinent… to say the least)
Hope these help you in your understanding.
– Al
Hi Al,
You said that Paul taught: “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” (Romans 5:20).
But Jesus taught: ” if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” [Matthew 19:17]
Yes. Notice those don’t contradict. The man who fully keeps the commandments – who obeys Christ’s command to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” – will live by them. Paul says the same thing in Romans 10:5.
Paul just also clarifies that no one can do this – if the command to be perfect was not clear enough – and that the law’s purpose is to make our failure clear to us. In despair, we depend on unmerited grace; through grace, God enables us to do what was impossible before: to obey him – and to do so freely, out of love, without fear of the law.
You still haven’t exegeted any passage I’ve brought up. Is there some meaning of the words, “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase,” that makes the sentence true? If so, what is it?
Hi Irked,
You said “Yes. Notice those don’t contradict.”
You are again taking an ‘extreme’ view point on Christ’s words, and say that “NO ONE CAN DO THIS.” You seem to be the one who is defining the gradations of morality that are possible for humankind, and defining it so strictly that under your interpretation, NO ONE CAN COMPLY WITH IT. This, though is quite ridiculous. And, Jesus probably foresaw such an excessive argument when He described the various modes of following the commandments in His Gospel teachings. You know that I alreadyI went through this before, but you seem to want to ignore it. So here is Jesus teaching on how people can indeed follow and teach the commandments to others:
Jesus said:
“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these LEAST commandments, and shall so TEACH men, shall be called the LEAST in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall DO and TEACH, he shall be called GREAT in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that UNLESS your justice abound MORE than that of the SCRIBES and PHARISEES, YOU SHALL NOT ENTER into the kingdom of heaven.”
Irked, notice well that you have 3 types of souls presented here, all of which represent a type of soul.
1. Are those who break the LEAST commandment. This might be something like coveting another man’s wife but only in a minor way…thus the term ‘least’…. or, maybe stealing a small item. And, if this person teaches another to do the same, it will be held against him in the final judgement and he will be considered the ‘least’ in the kingdom of Heaven. But , at least, he will make it to Heaven.
2. Are the strong souls who love God greatly and keep all of the commandments as Jesus said. And moreover, they also teach others to do the same, to the best of their ability. This person will be considered great in the Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus teaches here.
3. Lastly, in this gradation of virtuous souls you have Scribes and Pharisees. And Jesus uses these as an example of people who WILL NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Here we have a threshold of sorts that needs to be surpassed for entrance though the so-called ‘narrow gate’: Unless your justice abound MORE than that of the SCRIBES and PHARISEES, YOU SHALL NOT ENTER into the kingdom of heaven.”
*********************************************
So, you see how Jesus teaches against your opinion that is it basically impossible for anyone to ‘keep the commandments’. On the contrary, according to Jesus’ teaching, here, the ‘keeping of, and the teaching of the commandments to others’ will actually be determining factor of the status that a soul will attain in eternal life….be it least in the Kingdom of Heaven, great in the Kingdom of Heaven….or not in the Kingdom of Heaven at all.
Only if you deny this quote of Jesus can you say that the keeping of the Commandments are impossible for anyone to accomplish. It’s only impossible if you are the judge and make up the conditions for compliance. Fortunately, we have Jesus the ‘Lamb of God’ as the Judge and He forewarns us ahead of time with beautiful teachings, such as this above quote that I provided.
P.S. It’s probably good for a Christian to NOT have attributes similar to what we find with the Scribes and Pharisees at the time of Jesus. Much better to be…”meek and humble of heart” and try to Love God with all our hearts minds, souls, mind and strength…and then our neighbor as ourselves. Moreover, if we love Jesus… we will go a long way at obtaining our objective. Because He Himself taught:
” If anyone love me
He will keep my word
And my Father will love him
And we will come to him
And make our abode with him…”
Best to you.
Al,
You said, “if you want to continue to delve into St. Paul…we can.” Evidence suggests you are not, in fact, willing to answer any questions about what God intended to communicate when he inspired Romans.
Exegete Romans 3 to me. Or Romans 4. Or Romans 8. Or Romans 9. Take me through, verse-by-verse – as you know well I’ve done by your request in the past – and show me the argument that’s being made, and I’ll be happy to talk as much as you want about another passage.
You are again taking an ‘extreme’ view point on Christ’s words, and say that “NO ONE CAN DO THIS.”
Yup. That’s what God, through Paul, says: no human being in themselves can do this thing. If you disagree, show me what he’s saying instead.
Obviously there is a clear contradiction between Christ and Paul, as you keep on saying. And as Jesus is the ‘Word of God’, and i am a Christian baptized into Him, I love and believe Jesus when he speaks. This is how I have answered your question about Paul many times over again. Jesus is to be preferred to all other teachers and He explicitly says KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.
He says it in many ways. He is my witness in this debate. AS Jesus cannot be wrong, you MUST be misunderstanding St. Paul. That’s my other argument. There can be not real contradiction in this.
My assumption, is that St. Paul is trying to convince VERY HARDENED Pharisees in Rome that their obsession with following the LAW is wrong. He knows that they are terrified of leaving the only doctrine they have ever known and that they were probably as stubbier as he was when he persecuted the Christians. So, the mentality of the Jews needed extreme language to break them from the EXTREME position they were chained by.
You also have an EXTREME position, that the commandments are useless. So, you are similar to the Pharissees of old, and have a hardened heart against the teachings of Christ. That is, you don;t give due attention to what He indeed teaches so abundantly. Apparently Calvin’s teachings have done this to you…just like the ‘Pharisaical party’ teachings did it to them back then.
But Jesus gives the middle route to Heaven. He teaches “I have come not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them”. And again: “He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:19]
So, you see, you hold on to one or two phrases of St. Paul and keep them tight, so that you may feel comfortable in contradicting Jesus Christ. You don’t care to understand either Jesus or the Book of Revelation, or many other saints in the quotes provided to you. So, it is you that neglect the clear teaching of Christ and the majority of the apostles in this.
That’s my answer, and has been for about 3 days now. Jesus is the witness we must trust over all others, and He has spoken clearly.
Best to you.
The
Al,
Obviously there is a clear contradiction between Christ and Paul, as you keep on saying
No. That’s exactly the opposite of everything I’ve said. Here is what I said: “[The words of Christ] unify perfectly with what Paul says; there is no anomaly… All the words in the Bible – black and red – are the words of God. We do not have ‘tiers’ of inspiration.”
To say otherwise, as you just did, is to deny your own Catechism: “Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time…
“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
To assert that Paul obviously contradicts Christ, as you just said, is not heretical by my accounting. It’s heretical by yours.
A review of the apparent contradiction between the teachings of Paul and the Teachings of Jesus on the internet reveals a great deal on controversy, especially focusing on the Letter to the Romans. The background info. needed for properly understanding this Letter is significant, and there is still a lot of debate not only between Catholics and Protestants, but Protestants and there fellow Protestants. This is to say, the words of Paul must be understood in relation to the very particular crowd that he was addressing, and what he writes can be misunderstood very easily, for those not interested in studying the subject deeply.
I could easily copy and paste some conclusions from some excellent apologists on the subject, but I’m not going to bother you with it. But I will say that the teachings of Jesus are very clear, and there is no real controversy associated with them, at least I couldn’t find any. It is St. Paul that is debated and in what context and to what audience was he was writing concerning the commandments. With Jesus and His Gospel this is not the case. He answered questions very simply and succinctly from a variety of people who came to him. And you have many of the quotes that I provided, above. So, Jesus’ statements are not controversial, but St. Paul’s statements are.
Then if we include the statements of John the Apostle, St. James the Apostle, and also the words of the Book of Revelations, we again have very succinct statements that support the keeping of the commandments. And, Jesus even sums the commandments up by saying that… if we Love God and love neighbor ….this is the meaning of the ‘law and prophets’. So, Jesus indeed did alter the requirements that people would need to ‘keep the commandments’. In some ways it was easier, and in others, more difficult…ie..”If a man looks with lust on a women he commits adultery with her in his heart”. This is more severe than committing adultery as Moses taught.
Basically, it doesn’t make sense to me why anyone would prefer a very controversial scripture from St. Paul over the very easy to understand teachings of Jesus. Even the best apologists, protestant and Catholics can hardly understand the Book of Romans even after months or years of studying. And even the online debates are sophisticated and still a bit vague. I even discovered that Joe actually dealt with the subject back in 2012, which was quite interesting. So, this is what confounds me: Christians are called to be ‘disciples of Jesus’ and not disciples St. Paul, even as Paul taught. And so, if Paul is controversial to the point of and necessitating sophisticated study which even expert theologians struggle with…why should Paul’s statements be followed, or promoted, over the clear and concise statements of Jesus who is NOT controversial? And, Especially as ‘Jesus is Lord’….not St. Paul.
Best to you.
Al,
we again have very succinct statements that support the keeping of the commandments.
No one’s ever said we shouldn’t – only that the natural man cannot. It is remarkable to me that, after this many exchanges, you either don’t understand or choose not to fairly represent my position.
Christians are called to be ‘disciples of Jesus’ and not disciples St. Paul, even as Paul taught. And so, if Paul is controversial to the point of and necessitating sophisticated study which even expert theologians struggle with…why should Paul’s statements be followed, or promoted, over the clear and concise statements of Jesus who is NOT controversial?
Because to not follow Paul’s statements – to even present “Paul’s writings or Jesus’s writings” as if it were a choice – is declared a false doctrine by the very Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s also, interestingly, a contradiction of Peter’s own approach in that passage you like to quote – a passage in which Peter supports his doctrine by noting that it’s constantly taught in Paul’s letters.
Funny thing, that.
I think we’re likely done here. You previously said you were willing to talk about Paul with me; now it sounds like you’re not – and we can’t really have a Protestant/Catholic dialogue when the Catechism doesn’t recognize your position as Catholic.
Irked says, “…the natural man cannot [support the keeping of the commandments],” I say that the “supernatural” man can.
With the help of God’s grace given through the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, the natural man becomes supernatural and he may keep the commandments. He may be as Jesus said at Matthew 5:48.
Paul is an apostle. Jesus is God. Scripture tells us so.
Margo,
Irked says, “…the natural man cannot [support the keeping of the commandments],” I say that the “supernatural” man can.
Sure. Once God has made you alive and put your spirit in you, your capabilities change. I’ve done my best to be explicit about the subject of my argument; to tie things all the way back to the original post, Cain is a natural man.
D’oh, and obviously that should be “put his spirit in you,” not “put your spirit in you.”
Yes. God spoke directly to Cain. God’s words are ‘supernatural, and Cain heard them.
A natural man may choose to recognize a supernatural effect, or he may choose to ignore it. We may negate our Baptismal call to holiness. Obviously Cain ignored his call, choosing instead to listen to his ‘natural’ voice rather than to God.
God never spoke directly to Abel, so Abel too was a ‘natural’ man, yet giving his best to God, God naturally accepted Cain’s sacrifice.
Correction: God naturally accepted Abel’s sacrifice.
Hi Margo,
God spoke directly to Cain. God’s words are ‘supernatural, and Cain heard them. A natural man may choose to recognize a supernatural effect, or he may choose to ignore it.
Certainly God spoke to Cain – but then, Christ spoke to the crowd in John 6. That wasn’t sufficient; according to him, they still were unable to believe, because God hadn’t given belief to them. Paul says that men can’t do anything else absent a specific gift of grace – that they are hostile to God, that they do not obey him, that they cannot obey him. That certainly seems to describe Cain!
What is your last sentence based upon?
God spoke to the crowd in John and He spoke to Cain. Presumably Cain as well as all crowd members heard the words, just as we today read and ‘hear’ His words. The crowd, Cain, and we choose how, when, whether to act in response.
If we have no will to choose, we are left with a deterministic view, and that is not the Catholic view. God showed His love for us by his perfect sacrifice. He asks us to love Him in response, and this surely justly and logically and naturally entails some sacrifice. We show God that we love him by listening to his word and then acting as His words command, suggest, guide, and show.
Cain presumably heard but chose not to act in response. From a purely human, simply reasonable, perfectly natural perspective, God will accept the best which natural man gives. On the other hand, God’s perfect justice will not accept heinous sin when sin follows supernatural gifts which man chooses to ignore, disregard, and rationalize.
From a purely human perspective, God will act naturally (by necessity, in accordance with his nature), reasonably, logically, and simply to punish more severely those who disregard His supernatural assistance. This is based on Genesis 4:6-8. This is based on reason, logic, God’s word, God’s nature.
Hi Margo,
God spoke to the crowd in John and He spoke to Cain. Presumably Cain as well as all crowd members heard the words, just as we today read and ‘hear’ His words. The crowd, Cain, and we choose how, when, whether to act in response.
Indeed. And absent the direct work of God, they will always choose to reject belief. Again, this is what Christ himself says of the situation:
“‘Yet there are some of you who do not believe…’ He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.'”
I can only see one way to connect those two thoughts: they don’t believe, because belief hasn’t been enabled.
Lest there be any confusion he also states this in the positive in the same passage: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
There are only two categories in this passage:
1) Those whom the Father has not drawn/enabled, who do not believe because they cannot believe.
2) Those whom the Father has drawn/enabled, who will be raised up at the last day.
If we have no will to choose, we are left with a deterministic view, and that is not the Catholic view.
That’s not quite true; Molinism permits a high degree of determinism for at least those given persistence of faith, and that’s a proud tradition within Catholicism.
But regardless, if your view is correct, surely there must be some meaningful interpretation of the verses that appear to teach the contrary. That’s what I’ve been asking for from the beginning.
Your statement of my position is inaccurate. I repeat the interchange:
Margo: If we have no will to choose, we are left with a deterministic view, and that is not the Catholic view.
Irked: That’s not quite true; Molinism permits a high degree of determinism for at least those given persistence of faith, and that’s a proud tradition within Catholicism.
Note that I prefaced my statement with the conditional “IF”
Molinism, per Wikipedia does admit free will, which is exactly what my statement claimed.
Wikipedia: Molinism, named after 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a philosophical doctrine which attempts to reconcile the providence of God with human free will. William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are prominent contemporary advocates of Molinism. Other Molinists include Dave Armstrong, Alfred Freddoso, Thomas Flint, and Kenneth Keathley. Molinism holds that God does initiate salvation and in his providence foreknows what and when his creatures would choose, in their free choice, to accept or reject his salvation made available to them in Jesus Christ.
Your straw man is blowing dust in the wind.
Margo,
Rather than derail: it sounds like I misunderstood your sentence; I also conflated Molinism in my head with certain views on the gift of final perseverance. I apologize; I spoke poorly.
If you would like to subtract that sentence from my post, the remainder of it still applies.
Irked,
You say: “And absent the direct work of God, they will always choose to reject belief.”
Abel did NOT have the benefit of supernatural assistance, and yet as a purely natural being, he performed a sacrifice, firstborn, unblemished, the best, bloody (living – as a seed falls dead into the ground in order to bear new fruit, and as the natural man must die to be born again). How do you account for Abel, absent supernatural assistance, choosing the sacrifice most pleasing to God? We are given God speaking only to Cain.
How do you account for Abel, absent supernatural assistance, choosing the sacrifice most pleasing to God? We are given God speaking only to Cain.
I don’t agree with the premise of the question. We do not, in fact, know that Abel was not supernaturally aided by God; the Scripture doesn’t directly say.
If the arguments I’ve made elsewhere hold, we’re logically forced by Scripture to conclude that he was supernaturally gifted with faith. If they don’t – well, then that would need to be argued from the Scriptures, as well.
Margo,
Although I agree with your arguments in theory, one of the CC Dogmas about Free Will (as explained in http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/249-predestination-problems-and-solutions.html) is that “One must affirm that not only all men, but even Adam before the Fall required grace (and cooperation by his Free Will with it) to do good works and merit eternal life”. Now, I think we can safely say that the closer we get to Adam, the “less” Grace was necessary to cooperate with God’s call (not very well explained theologically, due to time constraint; I hope you understand what I mean). Nevertheless, God’s Grace was needed from the beginning, and Free Will was there with it.
LLC,
Is it me?, or is everyone a bit contentious these days?
I appreciate the Catholic correcting the Catholic about fine points of distinction that I fail to delineate. By NATURE, God made man and all that God made was good. God’s imprint and spirit was breathed into man at man’s creation, and so yes, there is and always has been and presumably will be grace available to us (unless He chooses to harden us).
The idea of NATURAL man was brought up (for excusing?) that Cain was a natural man. I asked how one explained Abel who was also a natural man and who yet had not the ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF God speaking to him directly; it is this God speaking directly to Cain that I termed “supernatural assistance”. This “supernatural assistance” of God speaking directly to Cain was not described as being given to Cain. And yet Cain was able to do good.
I was speaking to Irked in response to his claim of Cain being a NATURAL MAN. I countered by remarking that Abel was also a natural man, without benefit of God speaking directly to him yet was able to do good without that assistance of God speaking.
Hope this helps. No time to logically clean up my response, but I trust you can do that and please tell me so.
CORRECTION to reply to LLC,
Below, when I wrote: This “supernatural assistance” of God speaking directly to Cain was not described as being given to Cain. And yet Cain was able to do good.
should read: “…was not described as being given to Abel. And yet Abel was able to do good.”
Cane me. I’m able to take it. But I’m off this board to wipe my mind clean. Good day.
A final parting piece to LLC: The part about God hardening us? Tongue in cheek. Of course there is grace even then. Of course. Always available. Not always availed. Unless you may convince me otherwise!
I really enjoyed reading the back and forth between you two (Irked and awlms). It really got me thinking. If we had the gospels but not Paul’s letters I think Catholicism would still exist in its present form. I don’t think that would be the case with Calvinism. If you were to just look at the Bible Catholic theology Is more gospel driven whereas Calvinism is Paul driven. Jesus, for the most part, spoke plainly and when He couldn’t get through He used parables to make sure His very ordinary Apostles could understand. Paul does not. Misunderstanding Paul’s writings was an issue from the beginning. So much so Peter felt the need to write it down. Something to think about.
Also, It’s scary to think that if you just focus on Jesus words in total you don’t get anything close to the Calvinist view of salvation. The same cannot be said about Catholicism.
Hi CK,
Hard to believe, but I think about your ideas, above, almost continually. The Heart of Christianity is the great love found in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, and which same love is actually a detailed portrayal of the Eternal Father, who Jesus says: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” So, to know God it is essential to know Jesus Christ very well in everything He did and said, according to this saying: “This is eternal life: to know the one true God and He whom He sent, Jesus Christ.”
So, we see how essential it is for us to know the ‘sacred heart’ of Jesus, as it is revealed through His actions and words, as He revealed to us: “From the depths of the heart doth the mouth speak”. So, what I wonder is this: Why are the Protestants so fearful of the judgement of God when everything Jesus taught encouraged us to have the greatest confidence in God…’our Father’? It’s as if they think that they are a kinder or more merciful, or loving, judge than God…Which God is defined by Jesus as is all “GOOD”.
The words of Jesus teach this over and over again…yet Protestants are always worried about judgement and sin, as if God is not going to be fair with them. In my opinion this is very worldly thinking, and almost ‘demonic’, actually. The glory of the Gospel message is indeed this very thing…. that God loves us so much and desires us to be united to Him so closely that He will do almost anything to get us into the Kingdom of Heaven to be with Him for eternity. What else is the sacrifice of Christ about?
And, over and over Jesus teaches this, and says to ask His Father, and Our Father, for things…and especially to give is “The Good Spirit”; and that if we askHim for an egg, He will not give us a scorpion. So, we should trust Him FULLY and in everything! And, of course, we should never think thoughts like He is like a fraud, or trickster, or ‘out to get us’..These ideas are very antithetical to everything that Jesus touch us..and I tactually hink are akin to blasphemy.
So, indeed the news is great news!! God is GOOD!….And yet there is so much fear or dread of Him by some Protestants (not only irked)….even when it is taught that ‘Love casts out all fear’. So, I am really amazed at how little some Protestants talk about Jesus and the things that He taught and did while He lived…without referring to philosophy, sin, judgement, commandments, grace…etc… just the words and deeds of our Good Lord who loves us to death! So, it seems that many Protestants seem fixed on intellectual philosophy even to the neglect of the Person and love of Jesus amongst us. It’s like they are missing out on the greatest part of Christianity…true friendship with Jesus Christ, who said : Come and learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart”. And, “Unless you become like little children you shall not enter into the kingdom of God.” So, we should always be meek and humble of Heart, even as Jesus and so many saints were in their lives…and then to follow the gospel to the extent of our abilities in our lives.
Best to you always. And good to hear from you again. You’re a REAL apologist. Not like me …who am just a poor enthusiast and lover of everything relating to our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Church. ..and moreover…a sinner on top of that!
Just some of my thoughts.
– Al
Hey CK,
So here’s a question: Can you think of any harsher criticism I could level against Catholicism than to say, “You could add or subtract most of God’s instruction in the New Testament, and it wouldn’t really change Catholic doctrine at all?”
Imagine a Jew comes to us and says, “Your debate has really got me thinking. If we had the Old Testament but not the New, Judaism would still exist in its present form; not so Christianity. Our books are mostly driven by God speaking directly, written down by his prophets directly; most of yours are by this weirdo Paul.”
Is that in any way a defense of Judaism over Christianity, or is it the very problem?
Irked,
I did not communicate my point well. Let me try again. I look at the Gospels as the brass tacks of Christianity. Generally speaking, the rest of the New Testament espouses on and tries to clarify on the Gospels. It’s all the Word of God expressed through the author. In Jesus’ case it is God UNFILTERED. If God would of forced his way of communicating we’d probably see a busload of parables in Paul’s writings to clear things up.
Jesus is the Word and if we interpret something that goes against His clear teaching then the problem is with our interpretation. We need to read the New Testament through the Gospel lens, if the topic has been addressed there, and the Old Testament through the New Testament lens.
So to my point. If one looks at the brass tacks concerning salvation and it doesn’t resemble what Paul is saying then Paul is being misunderstood. Misunderstanding Paul apparently was an issue early on to the point Peter had to warns us about it.
Have a good one!
Hi CK,
If God would of forced his way of communicating we’d probably see a busload of parables in Paul’s writings to clear things up.
I’m not sure of that. In Matthew 13, the disciples ask why Christ speaks in parables, and he explains that it’s in order to conceal the truth from the people. In that regard, I think Paul’s plain logical arguments are a lot more straightforward.
But happily, there’s no choice here: we don’t have to pick one, or even to prioritize them. They expound the same message, as I’ve argued all along. The God who in Moses said he raised men up in order to destroy them, who in Isaiah said that he wielded evil nations as a club against Israel (and yet judged them for their wickedness in so doing), who in Paul says that he mercies as he pleases without regard for human desire and effort…
… is the God who, in the person of Christ, declared that men could not believe in him because the Father had not given belief to them.
The gospel is a unity.
They may expound the same message but the interpretation is the issue. Thus the thousands of denominations.
If Paul’s logical arguments are a lot more straight forward Peter would not have said otherwise.
CK,
They may expound the same message but the interpretation is the issue.
Right, absolutely. And that’s the thing I’ve been trying to get at: following Peter, it’s important to talk about what that interpretation is.
If Paul’s logical arguments are a lot more straight forward Peter would not have said otherwise.
Eh, we get into grammatical nitpicks about whether an argument can be both straightforward and hard to understand. What’s important, I think, is that Peter says that Paul’s writings are misused just like everything else in Scripture is misused – he doesn’t make a “clear Scriptures with only one interpretation” vs. “Paul” division.
Take care!
Follow-up:
The Peter thing keeps coming up. Can we look at it? Here’s 2 Peter 3:15-16:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
So what do we have here? Peter:
1) Asserts that the writings of Paul are Scripture, apparently coequal with the rest.
2) Appeals to Paul’s letters as a good way to understand God’s purposes salvation.
3) Warns against those who twist Paul’s writings.
I don’t see any way to apply Peter’s words here without concluding that Paul’s writings are relevant to our understanding of salvation, and that indeed we must strive to understand what they say. It’s certainly possible that any one of us misunderstands Paul – but that’s a subject for debate that looks at what those writings actually are, and not one that says, as Al does above, “Why should we promote these when we have Jesus?”
I never said Paul’s writing were not relevant or that his writings are not coequal. You go to Paul’s writing to understand the Gospels where as I use the Gospels to better understand Paul. Am I to understand that you don’t think the Gospels are relevant?
Peter says Paul’s writings are hard to understand. It’s one of the main reasons why we have so many denominations.
Al can speak for himself, but I am of the mind that if Jesus says if we love Him we will keep the commandments and it’s not burdensome then that’s what it is. No matter how difficult it seems. If I interpret Paul to be saying the opposite then I know my interpretation of Paul is wrong.
Jesus’ statement seems impossible to some so instead they look for relief elsewhere and find it in Paul’s writing and dismiss Jesus instead of noodling how we can love Him enough to the point where keeping the commandments is not burdensome. It’s possible! HE says so! Maybe His definition of keeping the commandments is different than yours. Maybe all sins are not mortal, etc…Think outside your Protestant box..
CK,
I never said Paul’s writing were not relevant or that his writings are not coequal.
Absolutely true. Al, however, did, and has quoted 2 Peter 3:15 in defense of that; I meant this more as a general discussion of the verse than a rebuttal of you specifically. Apologies!
You go to Paul’s writing to understand the Gospels where as I use the Gospels to better understand Paul.
This, though, is unfair. I have made no argument for a prioritization: we use all Scripture to understand all Scripture.
Al can speak for himself, but I am of the mind that if Jesus says if we love Him we will keep the commandments and it’s not burdensome then that’s what it is.
Sure, but the “if” there is pretty vital. I’ve been restricting my argument to a specific kind of human being: the kind that Christ says has not been given belief, or that Paul says has not been given faith – the human being in himself, absent a specific divine working. That man doesn’t keep the commandments, because he does not – because he cannot – love Christ. He’s still in slavery to his sin.
The man who loves Christ has been given a new heart by him – that’s why he loves. For that man, to obey the commandments is to do what his new heart desires, as a freewill offering rather than an obligation under pain of death – and for that man, yes, the burden is light indeed. (Outside the gospels, we see this echoed in, say, Galatians 5.)
Jesus’ statement seems impossible to some
To whom?
Maybe all sins are not mortal
It was James, not Paul, who said that anyone who breaks the law at any point is a lawbreaker, guilty of the whole thing.
My idea regarding scripture is that some is indeed more spiritually valuable than others. For instance, if a person was to be imprisoned on an island with not other person, and he was told he can choose any one book from the Bible, and that’s all….should he just close his eyes and open the Bible and choose that book?
He would be a fool. He might land on the Book of Ruth, or the second letter of John, or the Book of Malachi, or a mere letter of St. Paul. Not to say these are unprofitable. But, would it not be far better for spiritual profitability for him to choose the Gospel of John….or Luke?….or Matthew? etc…
“Maybe all sins are not mortal
It was James, not Paul, who said that anyone who breaks the law at any point is a lawbreaker, guilty of the whole thing.”
Jesus teaches that there are lesser and greater ‘commandments’
when He said:
“He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Matthew 5:19]
All we really need are ‘ears to hear’ when Jesus teaches, because this is actually very explicit. ‘Least’ commandments can be broken by a disciple in ‘venial’ ways…and Jesus teaches that that disciple will still enter Heaven…but there will be a qualitative difference regarding him wherein he will be considered ‘least the Kingdom of Heaven’.
Very easy. Very explicit. Very authoritative from Christ Himself. End of story.
Al,
Jesus teaches that there are lesser and greater ‘commandments’
Not in question. There are lesser and greater commands – but to break the least is to be damned. Your reading of Matthew 5 is in error and, to my knowledge, wholly unsupported among the fathers – certainly Augustine and Chrysostom both deny it.
Beyond that, I’m not going to engage you on new passages until you engage at least one of the difficult passages on the other side.
You don’t have anything to engage, as Jesus details that the one who ‘breaks the least commandment’, will ONLY be THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. So then, who does Jesus say will be ‘damned’ then?:
“… I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall NOT ENTER into the kingdom of heaven.” [Matt: 5:17]
To not have justice “greater” then the Pharisees will cause a person to ‘be damned’…NOT breaking the ‘least commandment’. However, maybe the Pharisees of old taught these things? They had extreme points of view regarding sin…so maybe Calvinists are a type of ‘neo-Pharisee’ in their theological bent? … Interesting question to look into. But, Jesus clearly teaches a gradation of consequences regarding sin. And, the Catholic Church rightly and faithfully termed these gradations to be…’venial’ and ‘mortal’ sins, because the Catholic Church listens well to Jesus Christ on such important points.
But in all things, you have ample free will, and so all I can do is present the teachings of the Lord to you, as He said them Himself, and maybe one day you will listen to Him carefully when He teaches on these important matters.
Long Live Our Lord and Teacher, Jesus Christ! And Long LiveHis Holy and love filled Gospel wherein we are taught His Holy Will!
Amen.
Some conclusions to “Why Did God Reject the Sacrifice of Cain?”
According to the teachings of Christ, it’s probably because, for whatever reason and by His own free will Cain broke the two most important and natural commandments for humankind: “Thou shalt love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.”
And similar to Cain, if any one of us break these two essential commandments, we too can expect to be punished by God, as these commandments are throughout Jesus’ gospel message, and in fact, they are a main theme throughout the Gospels. Moreover, Jesus refers these these two commandments as ‘His’ commandments, and so Jesus ratifies the efficacy of the commandments of Moses … by summing them up and making them easy for us to understand… by teaching:
“This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.” [John 15:12]
So, Jesus here explicitly calls this precept a ‘commandment’ which obviously associates it to the ‘commandments of Moses’. Moreover, He details this again in the Gospel with this response to a ‘doctor of the Law’ who confronted Him with a question…and a purpose to ‘tempt Him’ :
“Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” [Matthew 22:38]
To resolve Irked’s problem regarding St. Paul’s teaching, regarding: “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” (Romans 5:20)…we can see that this MUST be understood in a rhetorical and exaggerated way for a specific purpose of convincing His fellow Jews to trust in the commandments of Jesus, and to stop being hyper-scrupulous with creating and following unnecessary regulations that have nothing to do with HIS commandment …”Love of God and love of neighbor’.
In Paul’s quote above…’that trespass might increase” this cannot mean ‘trespass’ against Jesus’ commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you”… because it would read something like this: “The law was brought in so that Hate might increase”; and this is because ‘hate’ is known to be a ‘trespass’ against, or the antithesis, of love. So, Basically, Paul would have Jesus to promote hate, if you interpret his quote literally.
To understand why Paul could have spoken such, one would need to examining who exactly was Paul speaking to? What were the problems that he was addressing? Were they new Christians? Were they Jews? Were they confused about the nature of the Mosaic Law and also of Christ’s ‘new law’… of loving one another as Christ loved them?
In any case, the Law that Jesus promotes satisfies abundantly the Mosaic law…the one quoted above…and actually raises it up a notch with the the addition of the words: “…as I have loved you”; this addition has deep significance and, taken literally, are actually impossible to satisfy. So, it seems that Jesus was anticipating the argument that “no one can keep the law…not anybody” when He says that we must ‘Love as He did’….which because He is God, it is obviously impossible.
Here, then is an example of a pius exaggeration that Jesus has no problem using for catechetical purposes. And, the interpretation can only mean that we are to ….understand well the great Love that Jesus has for us, and then to try to the best of our abilities to imitate and practice that love as best we can to all others, even enemies that we might have”. That is, we can see what He did in the stories of the gospels and we can imitate those in our own lives, and thereby perpetuate that love of Christ through all future generations. And what does this look like in reality? It looks like …every one of Christ’s followers trying their best to be: ‘Good Samaritans’, ‘Good Shepherds’ to others, ‘Lovers of their enemies’, ‘Givers to the poor’, ‘Forgivers to those who trespass against them’, ‘Visitors of the sick and imprisoned’, ‘innocent and loving like children’, ‘meek and humble of heart to everybody’, ‘ patient carriers of the crosses that God provides them’.
And in all of this, there is even found here evidence against AGAINST the strange ideas of ‘sola fide’, because much of ‘loving others as I have loved you’ indeed involves work and sacrifice on the part of the follower of Christ. And, really, it involves ALOT of work and sacrifice; that is, it involves a lot of …”doing”….which in our world equates with ‘work’. So, how do we know that ‘works’ are required for those who want to attain Heaven? Because Jesus confirmed it in a very explicit and ‘non-controversial’ way when He taught:
“… And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.”
So, we see here that we have a refutation, provided by the mouth of Christ, of both the idea that “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase”, which actually would promote the vice of hatred and contradict Jesus’ story, above. And also, again the idea of ‘sola fide’ because the expression and living out of Jesus’ command to ‘Love one another as I have loved you”…actually has a physical aspect to it, and this involves quite a bit of actual work and sacrifice on the part of the ‘follower of Christ’. Moreover, we see that if Jesus can exaggerate, by telling us to do something impossible…”Love others as I have loved you”…then we are to understand that such exaggeration is an acceptable practice that can be used for catechetical and other teaching purposes. That is, we shouldn’t be overly literal in scriptural exegesis, where it is not called for, but should try to understand the teachings of Christ and the apostles in a spiritual (and often common sense) way, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
So, it appears that Cain did not dowell with obeying the two most important commandments that Jesus taught ‘summed up the law and the prophets’. But, no one will know for sure if he converted back to God and virtue …in the end…until ‘judgement day’. I would speculate that it was very possible, especially because of the great love that God showed to Him after his crime was committed. This type of love can at times lead to conversions, even as it did for Mary Magdelene and the ‘Good thief’ on the cross. But, it’s just a guess…as only God knows such things.
Ah, are we doing summary statements?
Cool, then.
Here’s my position: Scripture is unbroken. Christ and Paul together assert a singular doctrine: that men, absent a specific, salvific work of God, have no ability to choose obedience – and indeed it is the pleasure of God to not enable this in all cases. Christ gives short sermons on this thesis in John 4 and 6; the apostle John gives a side commentary to this effect in John 12; Matthew records some related remarks in chapter 13.
But Christ doesn’t often speak in long, ten-chapter arguments. For that purpose, God chose to speak through Paul – a speaking that, as your own catechism asserts, is of one voice and one message with the words of Christ, every bit as inspired as they are.
So what is that message?
Greetings, my fellow believers. God has revealed himself from heaven, but it is the nature of men to reject that knowledge – and in their natural rejection, God has given the Gentiles over to wickedness (ch. 1). And you Jews – you’re no better; you think hearing the law saves you, but it’s only obedience that counts (ch. 2). And no one obeys. No one is righteous under the law; no one seeks God. The only just men are those given righteousness (ch. 3). Indeed, it’s always been that way. David wasn’t righteous by his works; David was righteous because God didn’t count his sin to him. Abraham wasn’t righteous by his actions; Abraham was righteous because he had faith, and faith was counted as righteousness (ch. 4). That’s your situation: you weren’t righteous. You weren’t just. You were evil, condemned already, and Christ gave you his righteousness. The law was never going to bring you anything but death (ch. 5). But Christ brings you life, and now – now that he has changed you – you’re no longer a slave to sin the way you were, unable to do anything but sin. But now you’re free, and finally free to live in righteousness and obedience in a way you never were (ch. 6). In coming alive, you died to the law, and became free of it. All the law did was produce sin and death – not because it was evil, but because you were. Even now, that evil natural self is fighting with us – but thanks be to God, who makes us slave to obedience instead (ch. 7).
And then the glorious reveal: now there is no condemnation for us, whom God called. Am I a sinner? That’s on the cross. There was a time when you could not obey God, but now you have God’s own mind, and are an heir of God and brother of Christ. The evils we suffer now are nothing to what he would give us – indeed, for those God called, all things work for good, because God will inevitably glorify them.
Who would even accuse someone like that? God? God is the one who declares us just. Christ? Christ is our defense attorney. There is nothing left to charge us with (ch. 8).
And oh brothers, do not question the justice of God. God is not unfair; he hasn’t forgotten Israel. We are Israel, and it has always been the pleasure of God to call whomever he will to salvation, and to harden whom he will against salvation. Doesn’t he have the right? If he wants to leave one people blind – trying to earn salvation by their works – and bring in another who never even wanted it, isn’t that his prerogative (ch. 9)?
So, two questions:
1) Is this fair to the argument of the first part of Romans?
2) Does any part – any fragment – of that argument survive if Paul is being rhetorical about that whole, “No one obeys the law” thing?
***
I came into this thread arguing a simple point: the Reformers were being (somewhat) misrepresented. Al called my claim – a claim lifted almost verbatim from Romans – false. He proceeded to likewise call two other near-exact quotes of Romans false (and one of them evil); eventually, after agreeing to dig into Paul, he finally admitted that “Obviously there is a clear contradiction between Christ and Paul,” in direct contravention of your own Catechism. Since then, there’s been no presentation of the argument of Romans – just the assertion that Paul must not mean what he says over and over again for chapters, because…
… because what? Because Jesus tells us to obey? He does; in fact, he orders literally perfect obedience – mind and body, heart and soul. He condemns the greatest moralists of his day. He says that men will be thrown into hell for something as minor as saying, “You fool!” and judged as adulterers for a moment’s careless thought.
How much clearer can he be to say, “You can’t do this?”
But Paul, we’re told, is just being rhetorical. Christ is just giving “pius exaggeration.” We don’t need to actually believe them when they say things we’d prefer they not; let’s just assume they didn’t really mean it. No need to do exegesis of the difficult passages; no need to explain the arguments; no need even to unify them.
My Catholic brothers and sisters, your own Catechism declares you must accept “the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts.” It says the authors wrote “whatever [God] wanted written, and no more. It says that “the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
It does not say, “But sometimes Paul declared things that weren’t really true, just as kind of a rhetorical flourish.” You have a word for people who deny the accuracy of the Scriptures – and if saying that Paul clearly contradicts Christ, or that the things he’s saying aren’t actually true, isn’t a denial of the accuracy of the Scriptures then what is?
Your silence on this position as a fundamental denial of Catholicism is astounding to me.
“your own Catechism declares you must accept “the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts.”
Yes, and some of the parts can be more spiritually valuable than others… such as the explicit words of Jesus Christ when He teaches the Gospel message are more valuable than, for instance, the list of patriarchs found in the Book of Genesis. This is not to say that such a patriarchal list is not useful to prove certain aspects of the Life of Jesus, but the Gospel teachings are what Jesus came to spread throughout the entire world. Moreover, as said before, it is well known that some scripture is harder to understand and interpret than other scripture, as St. Peter says of St. Paul’s way of expressing Himself in 2Peter 3:16:
“…As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,…”
So, this is scripture also, and it is wise to take heed of this so as to not merit the second part of the statement of Peter, when he continues: “…they that are UNLEARNED and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.
Isn’t it amazing that Peter is talking about ‘believers’ when he teaches these things about Paul’s writing styles in “ALL HIS EPISTLES?” Peter is even much more concerned about potential misinterpretation than I am, as I really think a lot of what Paul writes is non-controversial. But Peter warns that IN ALL HIS EPISTLES …ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND.”
So, Peter here is my witness in this issue. And isn’t it strange that nowhere else in the sacred scriptures is such a warning given. Does this mean that Paul is deficient in any way? No, he is awesome and has a way of teaching the faith that is ‘one of a kind’ so to say. It is very unique and should be treasured. Yet, simply put, as St. Peter says….some of it can be ‘hard to understand’…due to his unique writing style.
So, where is the mystery? Where the heresy? I believe what St. Peter wrote. I also believe that to read St. Paul it is good to be ‘learned’ even as St. Peter said…lest some false conclusions are drawn which can lead to a believer being…’destroyed’. So, Peter is saying that some scripture can be dangerous. Or, is he not saying this?
Furthermore, with the Gospels of Jesus there is found nowhere in scripture a ‘notice of precaution’ or warning before reading them. At least none that I ever heard of. And, Jesus in His Gospel recommends the ‘keeping’ of HIS words and commandments over and over again; and furthermore He instructs His followers to teach these same words of His to the ends of the earth. Again, He is referring explicitly to THE GOSPEL, His own new Revelation and teachings….not to OTHER parts of the sacred scripture, such as the Torah, the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Book of Genesis, etc….
So, are the words of Jesus as found in the Gospels not to be of absolute and monumental importance?…even in comparison to all other scripture? Just read how Jesus and the disciples depicted this newly revealed body of ‘Christ’s teachings:
1. “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
[Mark 16:15]
2. “And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.”
[Mark 13:10]
3. “And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.” [Mark 1:15]
4. “And going out, they went about through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.”
[Luke 9:6]
5. “”And they indeed having testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many countries of the Samaritans.”
[Acts Of Apostles 8:25]
6. “And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” [Acts Of Apostles 15:7]
Now Irked, what I find troubling, is that you don’t SEEM to care (via your apologetic arguments) very much for the Gospel of Christ….at least, you almost never quote Jesus’ explicit teachings when you try to defend Calvinist doctrines. But, as we see above, the teaching and spreading the words of Jesus…ie..”THE GOSPEL” …is the primary message that Christians are to be teaching throughout the world. It is the PRIMARY focus of Christianity…such that: “…unto all nations THE GOSPEL must first be preached.”
But is there confusion about what the Gospel is? St. Mark opens his account with these words:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” [Mark 1:1]
This is all to say, that The Gospel of Jesus Christ should be the primary teachings expounded by all Christians. And this is what I personally focus on.
So, please don’t consider me a heretic and non-Catholic for having this focus…as I am actually practicing my Christianity in the manner that even the scriptures themselves advocate. To have the Gospel and words of Jesus as a primary focus of ones teachings is completely backed up by scriptures …such as I have provided above.
Really, for any normal Christian, this stuff is pretty much a ‘no brainer’, so-to-say.
Best to you always.
I think I’ve said what I have to say, Al. You’ve urged that some of the claims of Scripture be disregarded as exaggeration or flourish, which is to say, as fundamentally not actually true. “Some parts” seems to extend to basically the first nine chapters of Romans.
You can claim I won’t quote Christ – never mind the weeks I’ve spent arguing John 6 with you in the past, pleading in vain for you to offer some positive exegesis of Christ’s words – but for a Catholic, your position is heresy.
….please don’t tell the pope on me…thanks.
Thanks for the hilarity of irony.
L-ing OL and ROTFL-ing too. The bulldog and his fish was the only one who bested this.
Forgot ::::)))) 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂
A resource for those foolish enough to be tempted by the obviously devious polemics of irked
http://biblelight.net/keenan.htm
Eve’s first mistake was choosing to dialogue with the devious one and irked is one of the innumerable sons of the serpent whom, the New Testament teaches, is one we must mark as a heretic and avoid
Hello Doc,
You may be speaking wisely and well. On the other hand – We are here able to absorb lots of stuff strewn our way. When we aren’t, we walk away. I often do. God, in yesterday’s cyclical NO liturgical reading, spoke the Beatitudes. It’s worth a re-read. There is more to the Christian life than the here and now. He likes sacrifice. We ought to give it to Him.
Oh, man, an obviously devious polemical son of the serpent. That’s got to be the coolest way I’ve been called a heretic today.
When the devious heretic is the one willing to say, “Y’know, maybe God actually did mean all that stuff he said through Paul,” that’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
Both Luther. a wild boar, and Calvin were cataclysmically wrong in declaring there is no free will.
Calvin is especially evil in ascribing to God his evil error – that Did creates men who can not possibly be saved.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#pro
One has to remember that the insane evil protestant revolutionaries hated each other’s guts and accused one another of not even being Christian. The ONLY thing they were united about was their hatred for the Catholic Church, the one true Church Jesus established.
They hated each other, the bible, the mass, the pope, the sacraments. etc etc…
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/09/zwingli-bucer-oecolampadius-luther-lutherans-not-christians.html
Trent on Justification
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
Sadly, incredibly, even stupidly, many prots think that Jesus will actually be your attorney at your particular judgment, not your judge, and those same prots deny that, through your cooperation with the Sacraments, you can be justified and made a new man.
They think you are still a pile of dung covered in snow…even after the Sacraments have been faithfully received
Please learn and know your Catholic Faith and don’t endanger it be feeding the trolls who hate it, and you, and seek the destruction of both.
Catholics, know your Faith and do not jeopardise it.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/the-old-catholic-perspective-on-paul-a-new-book/
Dr Marshall’s book on The Catholic Priest, Saint Paul, is one study in his great trilogy, the others being
The Crucified Rabbi
The Eternal City
Catholics, know your Faith and pay no heed to one who comes to you with another Gospel. Mark him out as a heretic and shun him as the New Testament Teaches;
The Gospel teaches us that heretics are ignorant, obstinate, and proud and we must shun and ignore them
1 Tim 6:3-5
2 Tim 3:1-5
2 C 11:13-15
Rom 16:18
2 Tim 3:6
2 Pet 2:3
2 Pet 2:4, 9
Titus 3:10
Mat 7:15
Rom 16:17
2 John 10:11
Phil 3:2
1 Tim 1:18-20
2 Tim 2; 16-18
Acts 20: 29-31
2 Pet 2:1
Mat 42:4
2 John 1:7
The Catholic Church owns the Bible, Lock, Stock, and Barrel and it alone has the authority to teach what it means.
Catholics know your Faith and defend it:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/Lapide.htm
I wonder if anyone has considered the LXX on Gen. 4:6-7a “And the Lord God said to Cain, Why art thou become very sorrowful and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? …”
This states the offering was brought correctly. The dividing, according to Lev. 2:2, is that a handful was taken from it to be burned. The handful represents Christ, He being the one that is taken out from among the people of God (the total amount of the grain/flour). The firstfruits of Abel’s offering represents the same thing about Christ as the handful would have.
The Septuagint’s version indicates Cain knew better about how to present his offering and sinned, apparently due to his overall wicked nature.
Stan
“The Catholic Church owns the Bible, Lock, Stock, and Barrel and it alone has the authority to teach what it means.”
And your proofs are where?
Conversely, the proofs that you are wrong are all around you.
So the Coptic, Armenians and Syrian churches which predate yours, which had the Gospel before yours, they have no claim to it?
The Gospels “belong” to no earthly man or body of men, they belong to God who created them, and all who truly seek him.
May God grant you understanding, and a right and proper humility.
And by the way, God reminds us again in the matter of Cain and Abel, that rituals which are not sincere in the heart of the actor or officiant are worthless, in fact they are less than worthless, they are blasphemous.
So, you’re still teaching that sinful priests can mumble all the right incantations and the spiritual value is the same as those spoken by the righteous ones?
You’re such good sophists here, I’m sure I don’t need to point out the obvious.
Cain offered his works before God.
Note,our works have been rejected by God, genesis 3:17-19
God does not accept the works of man(Isaiah 64:5,job14:4,jer17:9,gen6:5,)
Why Did God Reject the Sacrifice of Cain?
Answer _:
(Leviticus 17:11) states
‘For the life of the flesh is
in the blood,for it is the
blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’
(Hebrews 9:22).states
‘Without the shedding of
blood there is no forgiveness”.
‘Sacrifice demonstrates
forgiveness & the removal of sin.lt was called sin offering.'(Leve.16 :29-22)