Catholic Soteriology

[Elluminati]

OK,

I was extremely frustrated on the "why Jesus baptism" thread because the topic got into many more topics than originally intended.

It came up that Grace was confused by how exactly the Catholic Church veiws salvation and the role of Christ.

I will now start by stating the basics and we can go from there.

[Acumen]

Good, I'll sharpen my knives.   

[Acumen]

El,

Now, God has either always been a Father or He is a pseudo-father, meaning that God could not have became a Father at some point in time, so He is not really a father just one in "title", which sounds ridiculous in the light of Christian theology (why would he want us to call Him father if he really wasn't a father by His very nature; it would be a contradiction). 

Okay, here I have a problem.  First, why does being a father by nature entail eternal fathership?  In human terms, my father wasn't always a father, however he had the nature of a father by his DNA.  So we see that my father wasn't always a father in actuality, but he was still a father by nature.  Second, why the false dichotomy?  Why are there only two options -- either an eternal Father, or a pseudo-Father?  Why can't He be a real Father via creation?

If God is indeed a true Father then that would mean that, by His very nature, he had to have always been a Father...... to someone, that someone is the Son, eternally begotten.

Well, I agree that God the Father was always a father by nature, but I don't see why that makes Him an eternal Father in actuality.

I start with this point of Catholic theology because it is central to the Catholic reason why we were created, and that is to have a filial (relation of a child to a parent) relationship with God so that we may share in His Divine nature.

Okay, and why is the concept of an eternal father and son essential for our creation?

Ok this may be a lot to swallow so let's begin there and see if we can move on to the next step.

I don't think we will be moving on to the next step anytime soon.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Acumen:  Okay, here I have a problem.  First, why does being a father by nature entail eternal fathership?  In human terms, my father wasn't always a father, however he had the nature of a father by his DNA.

El:  First of all, we are not talking in human terms so it is ridiculous to compare our nature to His.

Okaaay-Dokeeey, and how exactly can we do that when everything we know and can articulate is grounded in our human experience?  We can only fathom eternity because we know what the human experience of time is like.  We can only fathom omnipotence because we experience limitations in our human power.  If I can't use human concepts to understand the divine, then how can we have this conversation?

(sigh)  Am I really that bad at articulating or did you just ignore most of my post?

Another false dichotomy.  Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

Because "creation" did not always exist, but God's nature did and His Divine nature cannot be added to, it would be a contradiction to His omnipotence.

I think you need to work on the articulation because I can't possibly be that dumb.  Is there something that is supposed to link the "His Divine nature cannot be added to" to the "it would be a contradiction to his omnipotence"?  It's too late for me to make attempts to piece your argument together.  Remember, it may make perfect sense in your head, but our minds have funny ways of piecing concepts together in leaps, and not in an unbroken chain of steps.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Fine.

[gracebyfaith]

El,
I don't assume God must have had an eternal son to be called a Father.  Jesus was
slain before the foundation of the world.  That doesn't mean in our "reality" He was
slain.  Just like He knew Isaac would be born years before conceived, or the prophet
Jeremiah, etc...  God is not limited to our time (beginning at Creation).  He knows and
calls things that aren't as though they already exist.  That is nothing to stumble on.

Rom 4:17

17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
KJV

That doesn't mean there wasn't a beginning to the created Son, just possibly done before
creation/time in the infinite plan of God.  In fact, there are many prophecies concerning
Jesus referring to His physical birth, that had not taken place.  Just because it hadn't come
to pass, doesn't mean in God's plan it didn't already exist.

I also can't agree that by "our" efforts of sanctification with the help of the Holy spirit
that we become a sons/daughters of God.  I believe there is NOTHING we can do to be
adopted into His family BUT to be born of water and spirit.  Yes, I am referring to baptism.
We again are baptized into JESUS, and without applying His blood to our lives - we're lost.

[Acumen]

El,

The point remains that God expresses all of who he is, His nature, at all times other wise it would be contradictory to His omnipotent nature.  He is incapable of concealing His very nature of Father in a latent state just because He had not created something yet.

Why?  Why does omnipotence entail the continual use of the sum total of one's abilities?  How is an omnipotent God "incapable" of concealing His nature?  If this is the foundation point of Catholic theology, then you must explain and justify this fundamental presupposition.

And who He is, is the Father from all eternity not just as it relates to His creation.  He would not want us to call Him Father if He wasn't a Father from all eternity, for the simple fact that an omnipotent God "IS WHO HE IS" eternally.

Why can God not have the nature of a Father without expressing for an eternity?  Can't I be a bike rider without endlessly riding my bike?  Can't I have a nature of being a father, and wait a few years to produce progeny?

I cannot express this point enough, God being a Father in His nature had to have expressed that nature from all eternity otherwise He would of been subject to something else giving Him the ability to express His nature of Father (i.e. creation) and that is a contradiction to His omnipotence.   God does not need anything but Himself to express who he is and that is an eternal Father.

Explain the underlined portion for us.

-Acumen

[Thorolf]

El,

I think the crux of what is being challenged here is that your view of God as "Father" is terribly simplistic and has all sorts of theological issues.

Out of curiosity, how do you justify your view with the fact that God was known as "the Father" by the Jews for a few thousand years before anyone knew the name of Jesus? Did they just intrinsically KNOW that God was the eternal Father of the eternally begotten Son, even though they had no knowledge of Jesus?

Everyone seems to be focusing on that point because it's just really weak. God is the Father of us all, and the title of Father is not necessarily related in any way, shape, or form to his eternal Fatherhood of Jesus.

[gracebyfaith]

'The point remains that God expresses all of who he is, His nature, at all times other wise it would be contradictory to His omnipotent nature.  He is incapable of concealing His very nature of Father in a latent state just because He had not created something yet." 

First, just why is He incapable of anything?  God reveals His plan when and how
He sees fit, He DID conceal the Son until the appointed time?  Does this make
Him less perfect?

"God being a Father in His nature had to have expressed that nature from all eternity otherwise He would of been subject to something else giving Him the ability to express His nature of Father (i.e. creation) and that is a contradiction to His omnipotence."

What He was subject to was HIS own plan and will.  Why would that contradict
His omnipotence?  You make statements which include "had to" like it's a fact.
Maybe according to some peoples' theology, but not all.  This also doesn't prove
that the son was eternal.  Why do we not have Scriptures like "The everlasting Son?"
I believe because he wasn't eternal, He definitely was at the beginning, but I
don't see from eternity in the Scriptures.

As far as efforts achieving sanctification and sonship, my point is there is nothing you
can do "outside" of taking on the name of Jesus in baptism that would make you a
son/daughter of God.  You don't earn this status by your efforts to become righteous
or sanctified - There is none righteous.  We Christians are born into this Kingdom,
and the ONLY way in is through Jesus Christ and His blood.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

We need to be born again!

[Acumen]

El,

Acumen:  Why?  Why does omnipotence entail the continual use of the sum total of one's abilities?

El:  Why wouldn't it?

You've made conclusions on this thread based upon presumptive steps, but you want me to demonstrate how you are wrong when you won't give specifics on how you are right?  That's like the evolutionist asking me to prove his theory wrong when he won't fully explain what it is I'm supposed to be proving wrong.  Debate doesn't work that way; those who make the claims have the burden of supporting them.

Acumen:  How is an omnipotent God "incapable" of concealing His nature?

El:  Why would He?

Well for starters, He's omnipotent.  Limited humans are incapable of things, but the words "incapable" and "omnipotent God" usually don't go together very well.  But that's just me.

Acumen:  If this is the foundation point of Catholic theology, then you must explain and justify this fundamental presupposition.

El:  I already have.

Where?  You've made a few conclusions based upon some premises, but you haven't illustrated how the premises actually lead to the conclusions you're making. 

Acumen:  Why can God not have the nature of a Father without expressing for an eternity?

El:  Why would He do that?

According to you, he wouldn't because it's a contradiction.  I'm asking why it's a contradiction.  I don't have to explain why God would do anything.

Acumen:  Can't I have a nature of being a father, and wait a few years to produce progeny?

El:  You have human limitations to time and circumstance, God does not.

Oh, that explains everything, sorry.

If God is omnipotent and He is a Father by His very nature, BUT ONLY AS IT RELATES TO HIS CREATION (as you suggest), then His omnipotence and nature is compromised and dependent upon something outside of Himself in order to be Himself.

But that's the rub, El.  I'm not saying that God is a Father by nature only as it relates to His creation.  God's nature is not an action verb, it's a characteristic.  Within God, He has the innate characteristic of Fatherhood, but He does not need to father someone for all eternity in order to validate His innate characteristic.  This is our impasse.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

El,

Acumen:  But that's the rub, El.  I'm not saying that God is a Father by nature only as it relates to His creation.

El:  Then why would God have a nature or "characteristic" that wasn't already complete within Himself....it's a contradiction to an omnipotent God.

But I believe the characteristic of His fatherhood is complete before creation.  And therefore, God retains His perfection.

Acumen: God's nature is not an action verb, it's a characteristic.  Within God, He has the innate characteristic of Fatherhood, but He does not need to father someone for all eternity in order to validate His innate characteristic.  This is our impasse.

El:  Your assertion is simply irrational....at the least illogical.  Unless of course you do not believe that God is self sufficient and complete within Himself.  If He is complete within Himself without the need of anything outside of Himself, then what you are proposing is that God could of had a "characteristic" that never was actualized....

That is the nature of a characteristic, El.   Sometimes it is actualized and sometimes it isn't.  There is nothing irrational about it, unless of course you want it to be irrational because Catholic theology hinges on it.

-Acumen

[BuffyVmprSlyr]

Hey guys,

OK, I am reading all of this back and forth over this word and that phrase and I am really having trouble following it.  I almost feel like I need El to get where he's going first so I can see the big picture.

<<First, just why is He incapable of anything?

Because He is, He is not capable of being illogical, which is what He would be if He was not an Eternal Father without the need for something outside of Himself to realize His fatherhood.>>

Incidentally, I don't believe, by definition, that an omnipotent, sovereign God is ever incapable of anything... because any limits He sets are limits HE sets.  I think Hobbes said best when he wrote, "The Sovereign, merely by existing, is always precisely what it should be..."  (Of course, some argue Hobbes was an atheist, but let's not go there for the time being.)

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one supposes that God cannot sin. It's a non-sequitor. The laws of the universe are HIS laws.  The authority speaks all boundaries, all limits, all rules and laws into existence -- there is nothing outside of him, nothing exists without his conception of it.

The "logic" you speak of is only logic to us because of the parameters HE has set for us -- not because He is bound by those parameters.

By making that statement, El, you elevate us to deity by suggesting that God is somehow bound to our ideas of logic, instead of the other way 'round, so to speak.

-Buffy

[Acumen]

El,

Exactly how was He "fathering" before there was something to "father?"

I never said he was fathering without something to father.

Acumen:  That is the nature of a characteristic, El.   Sometimes it is actualized and sometimes it isn't.  There is nothing irrational about it, unless of course you want it to be irrational because Catholic theology hinges on it.

El:  An absolutely irrational statement.  You continue to ignore the philosophical fact that I present.

To be fair, it may be a fact, but we (including you) won't know it to be a fact until it is demonstrated premise by premise.   Simply saying that a true father has to be eternal or else there is a contradiction to omnipotence doesn't show us it's a fact.  It could be, but we won't know.

I will continue on, since we have exhausted these first points.

Feel free.

[Acumen]

Hello?

[Thorolf]

El,

You're still locked in on the faulty concept that the term "Father" as it relates to God is inexorably tied to the mortal concept of a man with a son. I think that definition is improperly limiting and ignores the fact that the term "Father" relates to much, MUCH more  than simply one with a begotten son.

By the way, what do you call a priest when you address him?

Is HE your biological parent?

[Acumen]

El,

But what I hear Thor, Buffy, and Acuman saying is that in order to understand the Fatherhood of God we must look outside of our human logic and reason to grasp the Oneness view of how God is a Father.

Nice try, but that's not my view.  Buffy is entitled to her own views, but as ex-philosophy student, I'm pretty fixed on the laws of logic and the soundness of reason.  Yes, there are mysteries in the bible that our faculties of reason just cannot give us sufficient answers.  The scriptures paint this picture about the incarnation, but not about the Godhead.  How the limitless God infused Himself with a limited human creature is baffling, but the nature of God need not be baffling.  He is without flaw and lacks nothing good.  These concepts, I believe, can be understood with the human mind.

Now this is not the Oneness board so I don't want to get side tracked, but it is actually you all that have gotten yourselves tied up to a "mortal concept of a man with a son" not I.  Since when is it a "mortal concept" to say that a man is a Father within Himself without progeny?

Didn't say that.  I said that a man can have the nature of a father without fathering progeny.  For without the nature of a father, how can one become a father?

-Acumen

[gracebyfaith]

El,
I can't seem to get you to look into the Scriptures to base your
theology on a Biblical foundation.  I'm really not interested in your
logic.  Your only argument is that if the Father is eternal, then the
son must also be eternal, and I think that is illogical. 

God is not limited to our time, nor your understanding.  He sees the
beginning and the end in one scope.  Knowing the plan from eternity,
He IS the everlasting Father, and the Great I AM.  The logos is no less
real when made flesh at Bethlehem and seen by us then when in the
mind/plan of God from eternity.  Because again, God calls things that
aren't as though they were. 

I don't conclude that God being a Father means a Son always
existed.  In fact, I believe logic would tell me that a "SON" has
a beginning - he was born with an origin and is the seed/product
of His Father.  Scriptures tell me He was the first born of every
"Creature" some Apostolics have difficulty with the word "creature." 
To me, it just reveals He wasn't eternal - He was "created."

I don't think moving on will get us anywhere, because you will base
your following "points" on the presumption that He (the Son) is eternal -
which you haven't proven is Biblical.  It may sound good to you.  It
may be found in an encyclopedia or Catholic Soteriology, but is it
found in the Word of God?  I don't see you using ANY Scripture. 

Personally, it's my conviction to build my faith on the Word of God.

So unless you can show me Scripture that even implies He was
eternal, I don't think your points carry any weight, and I cannot agree
with you.

I might not be online for the rest of the day, and maybe not during
the holidays.  So I'm limited as to how much I can respond. 

In HIM,
Grace

[Acumen]

Grace,

I don't conclude that God being a Father means a Son always
existed.  In fact, I believe logic would tell me that a "SON" has
a beginning

That is a very good point.  For the life of me, I cannot figure out why it must be logical for true fathership to be eternal when such a concept requires an eternal son, which of course is a contradiction in terms.  If there is anything that logic can teach us, it's that logic proves that an eternal fathering is logically impossible.

-Acumen

[gracebyfaith]

El,
I still don't see that meaning eternal Son.  I believe the World was created
by and through Jesus.  Before the foundation of the world, or before the
world was created, doesn't mean Jesus ALWAYS existed (is eternal).  It simply
means He was BEFORE the world or before God created the world.  How does
this say "eternal" Son?  The Gospel of John says

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
KJV

I believe He was with God, because He was given preeminence over everything,
even of Creation.  There are many people who say Word/logos was a thought, plan,
etc...  I don't believe it matters whether it was thought or physical.  Because again,
what makes it less real?  When God creates something whether a plan or physical
being - reality is that it exists and/or will come to pass.  I believe the Word was
before the beginning of time or the creation of the world. 

Also, consider the Scripture says the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the
world - this was the intent and again PLAN.  No less real when it come to almighty
God.  We know the act of being sacrificed didn't occur for a few thousand years,
yet it was definite. 

Rev 13:8

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
KJV

Please remember what I said in the last post - the sound bite.  God calls things
that aren't as though they already exist.  Try to consider my words, before judging
them worthless.

Here's more proof and right up your alley.

GOD CHANGED ABRAM'S NAME TO ABRAHAM BEFORE HE WAS A "FATHER"

'Abraham

OT:85 'Abraham (ab-raw-hawm'); contracted from OT:1 and an unused root (probably meaning to be populous); father of a multitude; Abraham, the later name of Abram:



God didn't just promise Abram he would be a father, He called him a father of a
multitude again years before Abraham had his first child.

Gen 17:1-7
17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
KJV


I would like for you to give the many Scriptures you referred to that will show Jesus
was an ETERNAL Son.


Respectfully,
Grace 

[gracebyfaith]

Hi Darn Xian,
Welcome, I haven't seen any posts from you before.  Is there something to
Darn Xian?

Your comments regarding Thomas Aquinas were confirmation, thanks.  

I'm convinced of the sufficiency of Scripture.  Philosophy can be good if people
don't use it as an excuse for haughtiness, or for having unwarranted attitude of
superiority, arrogance and pride - which will only lead them away from God.

I still find it almost impossible for me to take anyone's theology seriously when
there's little Scriptural foundation, no matter what their status.

I thought this Scripture was appropriate, some may disagree.

1 Cor 1:19-29
19 For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing. [Isa 29:14.]  
20 Where is the wise man (the philosopher)? Where is the scribe (the scholar)? Where is the investigator (the logician, the debater) of this present time and age? Has not God shown up the nonsense and the folly of this world's wisdom?
21 For when the world with all its earthly wisdom failed to perceive and recognize and know God by means of its own philosophy, God in His wisdom was pleased through the foolishness of preaching [salvation, procured by Christ and to be had through Him], to save those who believed (who clung to and trusted in and relied on Him).
22 For while Jews [demandingly] ask for signs and miracles and Greeks pursue philosophy and wisdom,
23 We preach Christ (the Messiah) crucified, [preaching which] to the Jews is a scandal and an offensive stumbling block [that springs a snare or trap], and to the Gentiles it is absurd and utterly unphilosophical nonsense.
24 But to those who are called, whether Jew or Greek (Gentile), Christ [is] the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.
25[This is] because the foolish thing [that has its source in] God is wiser than men, and the weak thing [that springs] from God is stronger than men.
26 For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth.
27[No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame.
28 And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are,
29 So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.
AMP