For Goodness Sake

[Quietfire]

think about this. Once we die, we are judged and all that, (we all know how it works right?) we receive those gifts back from God and are now able to see him face to face (Beatific Vision)

Can you now understand why we will be higher than the angels. They can never experience what we go through here in this life, so we will be so much for the better in reaching heaven. This is what Jesus talked about. We are all destined for so much more, and you start to see how we rate some things in this life as important and such. To achieve that though (the Beatific Vision) literally makes everything here pale in comparison, dare I say...not existant in importance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:56 PM']Apotheoun,

I think its that kind of thinking that makes secular people think that "good" people go to heaven...

"I believe in God, and I'm a good person...why wouldn't I go to heaven?"[/quote]
The fact that a man may misunderstand the nature of the truth is regrettable, but I will not succumb to error in order to try and correct his misconceptions; instead, I will continue to explain the truth, and try in various ways to convey the full nature of that truth to him.

Any man who thinks that he can by his own natural capacities, no matter how good those capacities are in themselves, achieve eternal salvation is deluding himself. It is by grace alone, which elevates human nature to a state of existence that exceeds its natural capacities, that man receives the unmerited gift of eternal life. This truth does not require that I tell a person that his nature is inherently evil or that his nature, i.e., his created existence, is somehow wholly corrupted; because once again, if I say that, I fall into two errors, the errors I mention previously but which you chose to ignore. But here are those two points yet again:

[quote][It is wrong to say that man is not inherently good in his created existence or being;] (1) because God is the Creator of man's being, not simply in a general sense, but in the case of each and every single existing human being, and so to say that man is naturally or inherently evil, is to make God the Creator of evil, and this is false; and (2) if man is inherently evil, if he is evil by his very nature and existence, then it follows that he would not be responsible for his sins, because God as his Creator made him inherently evil, and so God would be responsible for each and every sin committed by a man, and this is false.[/quote]

Being naturally good will not bring a man to salvation, but one cannot say that man is inherently evil or that his created nature, created directly by God, is lacking in goodness in any ontological sense. Clearly, the fall of Adam has wounded man's nature, but this is because the preternatural gift of [i]integrity[/i] given to Adam was removed after the fall, and man as a consequence became subject to concupiscence, i.e., to the disordered inclinations of his passions. These disordered inclinations of the will are why man tends to sin, but these disordered inclinations are not, properly speaking, existing things in man, but are a relative absence of the good in his will due to the loss of gift of [i]integrity[/i], which, as I indicated before, had been superadded to his nature at the time of Adam's creation. The Church holds as a matter of faith, that man can perform naturally good actions without grace, but that these actions, which are good in their object, cannot bring him to salvation, precisely because they are performed without grace. But the naturally good actions in question, things like, helping someone in distress, etc., are not in their object evil, they are truly good, but they will not lead to salvation because they are not done with the aid of God's grace. Thus, they cannot elevate man beyond his nature because they are purely natural acts, good in themselves, but not meritorious. Pope Clement XI condemned the Jansenist errors on the necessity of grace for morally good acts in the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Unigenitus[/u] issued on September 8, 1713, and later reconfirmed that same teaching in a papal bull entitled [u]Pastoralis Officii[/u] dated August 28, 1718. The Jansenists, like some of the Reformers, held that everything that fallen man did was by definition evil, but Church declared against this because she has always held that although man's nature is wounded by sin, because of the loss of the preternatural gifts which were meant to perfect it, it is not depraved or inherently evil, because man's nature is created directly by God, and so if it were inherently evil, it follows that God as its Creator would be inherently evil, and this is a totally repugnant idea. I hope that this helps to clarify matters for you.

God bless,
Todd

Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 16 2004, 05:23 PM']

I just wanted to say hi to Mary Poppins.


LOL! [/quote]
:rotfl:

[theculturewarrior]

LJ...

Do you think Gandhi was evil? He lived a chaste life, decried violence, showed compassion to people of different cultures. He freed his nation from (Christian) tyranny, without starting a bloody revolution.

All these things strike me as good. And yet, he is human. He was stained with Original Sin. He never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not asking whether you think he is in heaven or not. I'm asking whether you think he was incapable of good. ?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Gandhi is a good example. Also, look at Abraham. He was considered Righteous in the eyes of the Lord, but he also did not know Christ. To be good is just to will that which the Lord wills. Jesus is the one who wins for us the Eternal Good, that is, communion with Him in Heaven, life in the New Jerusalem, glorified bodies, pure wills. These things cannot be obtained simply by "being good"

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 02:56 PM'] Jesus is the one who wins for us the Eternal Good, that is, communion with Him in Heaven, life in the New Jerusalem, glorified bodies, pure wills. These things cannot be obtained simply by "being good" [/quote]
This is why you need faith along with works to get grace

Matthew, 7, 15 --> 24

Edited June 17, 2004 by RandomProddy

[Guest JeffCR07]

bingo, I would go so far as to say that this whole discussion of faith and works is based off of a fundamental error: that they are two seperate things. They are not. The Church has always taught that the two go hand-in-hand. I would go further (I hope im not making a heretical statement here) that they come hand in hand because they are two aspects that define one devotion to Christ as God. Faith without works is dead, just as a man cut in half is dead. Works cannot bring eternal life without faith because, again it is a man cut in half. Works and Faith are one Love, to try to seperate the two is like trying to seperate Christ's prayers in Garden from his Death on the Cross. His will, his Faith, was submitted to God perfectly in the Garden, and was manifested in deed when he died for us. Together, the two form one act of Love.

It just makes sense...

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 03:25 PM'] It just makes sense...

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Yep, ain't it great?

If anyone has a hard time picturing it, consider this scene.

God says you need to build a house to get into heaven. You need a good set of foundations (faith) and the house itself. Building the house and it's foundations is your doing (a work). If it's a good house you get in. You can't do it all by yourself so he gives you an architect (catholic/orthodox/anglican church) and a foreman (Jesus).

Remember Peter being referred to as "the Rock?". Ever wonder what that referred to, cos it wasn't just him...

Matthew 7, 24 --> 29

[color=blue](KJV)
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house
upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the
fall of it.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the
people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the
scribes.[/color]

[color=red](DRV)24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,
25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,
27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.
28 And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine.
29 For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.[/color]

Oh, and just for the marian among you, Mary is giving everyone constant cups of tea to keep you going

Edited June 17, 2004 by RandomProddy

[cmotherofpirl]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Just to add onto the house analogy: Imagine now that one of the inherent attributed of the foundation is that it actually causes the house to be built. That is how it is with faith and works. Faith is only Faith if it causes works to be done, and, in the same way, works are only Works if they are done out of Faith - a house cannot exist without a foundation, and a foundation accomplishes nothing without a house.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Livin_the_MASS]

When the rich man came up to Jesus and said good master what must I do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said why do you call me good, who is good but God alone

So Lumberjack I would say any good that we do is God working in us, His grace, His credit, His glory.

St. Paul said it is no longer I that live but Christ who lives within me.

Pax
Jason

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:56 AM'] Gandhi is a good example. Also, look at Abraham. He was considered Righteous in the eyes of the Lord, but he also did not know Christ. To be good is just to will that which the Lord wills. Jesus is the one who wins for us the Eternal Good, that is, communion with Him in Heaven, life in the New Jerusalem, glorified bodies, pure wills. These things cannot be obtained simply by "being good" [/quote]
Ghandi...hmm...

well, Christ said he who is not for me is against me...so, in CHRIST'S words, yeah, Ghandi was evil.

no matter the good he did, Ghandi was not for God...therefore, he was God's enemy.

do you convict me now of some wrong I do?

or for stating Christ's truth?

and as for Abraham, how can you compare and Old Testament saint with a NT saint? BC...hello... -_-

God bless.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]well, Christ said he who is not for me is against me...so, in CHRIST'S words, yeah, Ghandi was evil.
[/quote]

Christ also said not to judge. How do you know that Gandhi wasn't for Jesus? Does the Bible say you have to be an evangelical protestant to be "for Jesus?" Now, don't lecture me about relativism or indifferentism, because I know that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. But, to use protestant terms, did Jesus say you have to be "saved" to be "for Him?"

I think not.

I think one could make the case the Gandhi cast out demons in his name...out of Christians!

[the lumberjack]

hmmm...if you wish to insist that a very actively practicing Hindu was for Christ, thats your prerogative...

and no one will lecture you on anything...and this isn't about relativism or any other "protestant" assertions that you wish to make.

but Christ said it, and Ghandi WASN'T living it...

God bless.

Christ first.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

We are inherently good by virtue of the fact that God created us and continues to create us and drive us toward goodness.

We are inclined to sin, but that does not mean we are inherently neutral or inherently evil. We are inherently good because God cannot create evil and we are always inherently what we were when created (Satan is still an angel, I was taught in seminary that even the devils are inherently good, because all creation is inherently good, even though fallen).

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jun 17 2004, 12:01 PM'] (Satan is still an angel, I was taught in seminary that even the devils are inherently good, because all creation is inherently good, even though fallen). [/quote]
WHAT?! you're taught even the [b]devils[/b] are inherently good???

whoa...thats a bit too much...maybe at one point they were good, but they chose to be evil, just like Adam CHOSE to go against God's commandment.

[theculturewarrior]

I'm not sure I understand where Ralph is coming from, but I think you two are talking about two different things.

LJ: I personally aspire to be as good a Christian as Gandhi was Hindu. Do you mean to tell me that you are a better person than Gandhi? Or even a better Christian? I don't see how you could justify such an assertion without believing that works are unimportant. Sure, Gandhi thought one religion was as good as another...but he put his faith to practice!

[Quietfire]

This is what Raphael was talking about.

[quote]So it was with the angels. God created them with their natural life, pure spirits knowing and loving, and with supernatural life. And some of them chose self, self against God. We know that one was their leader; him we call the devil, the rest demons; he is the named one- Lucifer(although he is never called so in Scripture), Satan which means Enemy, Apollyon which means Exterminator, Beelzebub which means the Lord of the Flies, or Beelzebul, Lord of Filth. The rest are an evil, anonymous multitude.[/quote]

Yes, even the same angels who chose pride (self) were created by God and therefore inherently good. They were pure spirits, knowing and loving...as in...good. But, they chose self and separated themselves from God.

[quote]in·her·ent  adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic;intrinsic. –[/quote]


Peace.

Edited June 17, 2004 by Quietfire

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Jun 17 2004, 01:26 PM'] I'm not sure I understand where Ralph is coming from, but I think you two are talking about two different things.

LJ: I personally aspire to be as good a Christian as Gandhi was Hindu. Do you mean to tell me that you are a better person than Gandhi? Or even a better Christian? I don't see how you could justify such an assertion without believing that works are unimportant. Sure, Gandhi thought one religion was as good as another...but he put his faith to practice! [/quote]
and Ghengis Khan was a great killer of masses...

so do I want to be as great a Christian as he was a killer...sure!

but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna say, I'm as good a christian as Ghengis Khan was a killer...

Ghandi put his faith to practice...so?

without God, what do you really have your faith in?

nothing.


God bless.

[Apotheoun]

To assert that anything created by God is inherently evil is to make God the cause, i.e., the Creator, of evil, and this is clearly false. Human beings, angels, everything created by God is by its very essence good, in that it has existence from Him. But because of the fall, because of the loss of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts superadded and contingently given to Adam, the human will has become disordered in its inclinations, and often chooses that which is evil, rather than choosing the good. But this does not mean that human nature is by definition evil, because again, to assert that makes God the creator of evil, and it also makes God responsible for sin, and both of these ideas are clearly false.