Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments
(09-28-2011, 11:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(09-28-2011, 09:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Free will must--absolutely must--co-operate with God's grace by freely corresponding to goodness in order to enjoy the Beatific Vision. If you deny this, you undermine everything we know about God, His goodness, the whole purpose we are here in the first place, and Christianity itself.

This includes the angels.

God does not just make things appear and then force them to be in His presence. Such an act is not to create rational beings; it is to create robots.

Love is a choice. Creating beings that don't choose to love you but are forced to do so anyway can't really be said to love. Yet God is all love. So, in order to be united to God, who is perfect love, a rational being must first be able to choose to love by co-operating with the grace of God. One cannot be intimately united to God's perfect love if one doesn't have perfect love in the first place.

The Beatific Vision is perfect love. One can't enjoy it unless one has freely chosen to do so. It makes absolutely know sense to claim otherwise because perfect love involves having the capacity to freely choose to love. Even God Himself chooses to love mankind. 

The angels freely chose to love when they chose to serve man. Those who chose not to serve God were not forced to do so, and so they lost the opportunity to see God.

To claim that God just makes a tree and then forces it to love Him and then putting it in His presence undermines everything we know about love.

Love is not a feeling; it is a choice. 

This is all a non sequitur.

Please explain. I don't see how it doesn't follow from the discussion.

Quote:  But, be that as it may, if an unbaptized infant can't make a choice to love God, then neither can a baptized infant.  If a baby dies 5 minutes after he is baptized, he goes to heaven.  Why?  Has he made a choice to choose God?  No.  Does he have the capacity to freely choose and love God?   No, none at all.  And yet we would unanimously say the child went to heaven.  So perhaps what I should say is that scholasticism run-amock is what happens when someone gets so focused on the logic that they completely forget to consider common sense.

No, you are so quick to criticize scholasticism that you aren't interested in being objective. You have already made your decision, as your comment makes clear.

I have discussed these issues with you before, but you always return to argue from your conclusion: that scholasticism is the problem. You already answered your own question with an attack on scholasticism, which shows me you are not interested in a response.

If you are going to be objective and ask questions with a sincere desire to understand and not simply argue, then I will try to help. But since you seem insistent on making up your own mind regardless of what answers are provided, I don't have the free time to waste.

Please approach the manner in an honest, truth-seeking way if you are truly honest and truth-seeking.  

Messages In This Thread
Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - by Jesse - 09-24-2011, 02:57 PM
Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - by INPEFESS - 09-29-2011, 07:09 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)