We are ALL made to the image and likeness of God. No one is left out of that description. Therefore, God is working with everyone on this side of eternity to get them to respond via grace. Everybody benefits from grace except those who refuse grace. There are going to be consequences to that, and they will see their errors at the end of their life. See the quote at the end of my last post. And THOSE are ones who even call Him Lord…
Now I know where you’re coming from. You’re looking at this whole subject through Calvinist lenses.
Actually, no, the terms were taught to me by a Catholic theologian. However, I had no idea how the terms were so much a part of Calvinist discussion, and that there were specific Calvinistic theologies attached. What I was taught about the terms is more of their literal meaning, “supralapsarian” meaning “above dependence on the fall” vs “infralapsarian” meaning “dependence on the fall”.
All I can figure is that the terms were borrowed from Calvinism because they are also literally accurate in describing the two Catholic approaches. All the concepts having to do with predestination are contrary to Catholic theology.
All valid points, but you did not answer my question, nor does any of the above negate the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.
OTOH, part of what you said actually supports my point, “they will see their errors at the end of their life” which means they do not see their error now. As long as “seeing” is “knowing” and “knowing” is all-inclusive, then this agrees with my observation.
Then HE was seeing things through Calvinist lenses.
It took a lot of posts between you and I, to finally see where your influence was coming from. I had a few guesses. They as it turns out, were wrong guesses. But just being transparent, I wouldn’t knowingly follow, nor be influenced by, any part of Calvinism no matter who was promoting it. But that’s me.
By One who sees their error, it depends on when they see it after they are dead or before they are dead. They can’t escape judgement if it is mortal sin, and they die in that sin.
Re: the issues we’ve been talking about (this side of eternity)
"once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).
Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:
“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom 2:14-16)
Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.
There are differences:
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments…"
A further point to my previous post and Calvinist influence anywhere in the thinking. In previous posts you have shown resistance to fear of any kind, thinking this is one’s own damage they do to themselves.
Would you really jump so quickly to that accusation? He is a very well-known and popular Catholic theologian: https://danhoran.com/
If you think the influence is Calvin, you are incorrect. Here is a sample of what has influenced my Christology:
Also, you could read up on the Christology of Jon duns Scotus.
Well, I was taught by the Catholics that fear is the opposite of faith. Look, you can try to paint me as a Calvinist all you want, but that would only be a straw man. Jesus calls not to be afraid, and you are saying that we need to fear a wrathful god. Read the article referring to Pope Benedict’s book.
This passage has to be very carefully explained, as there are some problems.
39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
So if the Pharisees are the ones who previously “saw”, then they have become blind (by resentment). So they are “claiming” to see, but in actuality they are blind. On the other hand, Jesus said that if they were blind, they would not be guilty of sin, so they are not guilty of sin even though He says “your guilt remains”.
The literal passage, then, makes no sense. We have to look at the overall point, which is that the Pharisees are indeed blind or ignorant even though they say they are not, and their rejection is to their disadvantage.
Paul is generally understanding, though, that people sin in ignorance. He knew that his own persecution of Christians was in ignorance. Paul probably did not play out all the scenarios in terms of the Pharisees.
Are you going to respond to my post 119? It is much closer to the topic. Is there a reason why you are avoiding speculation about what could have been going on in the mind of the person you described?
Bolds mine. The translation I read says “unintentionally”. Here, they describe that a bull is to be sacrificed to “attone”, to appease God who they believed held something against them for their sin.
The passage does show that a sin done in ignorance is still a sin, and that we are to be held responsible for all sin regardless our state of awareness.
.“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him”! Who is THAT speaking, and who are we then to fear?
Re: post #119, I’ll get to it later.
I looked it up.
I did answer you Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin?
And all I’m doing is giving information properly referenced. What anyone does with it is their business. As I showed you, those are Calvinist beliefs NOT Catholic.
Re: Dan Horan, your reference. I looked him up. I have to say, I don’t respect his position here, and this might be only the tip of the iceberg with him http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/24/brother-dan-doesnt-like-the-march-for-life/
as an aside
the national catholic reporter is a left wing Catholic Publisher. I’m not a fan of them either.
Yes, you showed that the words do have an association with Calvinism. However, a person can use a term based on its latin roots, and it doesn’t have to have the same attached theology. For example, while “arianism” is definitely associated with Arian, the word “lapsarian” does not have to be associated with a particular ideology, it simply means “having to do with the fall”. The prefixes “supra” and “infra” add additional meaning. Calvinism as a theology does not have a copyright on Latin or Greek.
All of the predestination stuff is Calvinist, and those aspects had nothing to do with the ways the words were explained to me in context.
Well the way it was presented by that blogger, I wasn’t so happy about his position either. There is probably more to know. We are called to give people the benefit of the doubt, not calling something “the tip of an iceberg”, right?
Actually, though, you did not answer the question about what is going on in the mind of the person, which would go a lot further toward making your point than a generalized statement.
For example, If I make the general statement, “all rabbits are diurnal”, then all I have done is stated a conclusion. If I cannot provide examples to support the conclusion, describe how some phenomenon can actually occur, then the conclusion has no merit, right?
I have difficulty seeing where this is coming from. The people killing Jesus didn’t realize He was the Son of God. They thought they were crucifying a blasphemer, doing something for God.
Contrast that to someone stealing when they know stealing is wrong and sinful, they just don’t compare.
For starters, you have used insight to see some of what was going on in the minds of the crowd, which is exactly the process aimed for here, it is a journey of discovery. Yes, they thought he was a blasphemer, and that violation of personal conscience triggered other emotions and blindness. There were also many levels of ignorance.
I agree that the comparison is difficult, but it is possible. I start with the question, what is the reasoning in the mind of the thief? If he actually knows what he is doing is wrong, what is going on in his mind?
Would you be willing to take a shot at one of those questions?
Thanks for your response.
Well it depends really. He might be greedy and want money. Or he might think he needs to because of his family. If this is actually the case, this might not actually be stealing due to the ultimate destination of goods. If someone knows something is wrong but does it anyway it is different from not knowing it is wrong and doing it (or rather thinking it is right and doing it like the Jews).
The purpose here is to pass on good solid information to counter all the nonsense out there,
I merely showed you who those terms were associated with. They also have predestination written into them.
I have often wondered whether or not I know what I am doing when I sin. What it must look like to God, Jesus, and heaven above. I don’t think that we fully comprehend the magnitude of our wrongs.