 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:18 pm |
|
Hello Again,
The question I have posed in my title may sound a bit strange but let me explain. As many here know, I was once in a cult. The leader in that cult said some very strange and erroneous things. He believed and taught that Jesus could have turned back from His calling. He actually believed that Christ could have backslidden and thus not suffer on the cross for the sins of the whole world. He stressed works quite a bit and taught this way to bolster his view. He would refer to the struggle in the garden of Gethsemene and say that it was at this point that Christ was being tempted to turn away from the cross more than any other time in His life on earth. He would then teach that just as Christ had to persevere until the end in order that we be saved, so we also must follow in His example and persevere until the end in order to be saved.
As I have said before, I have never believed in the doctrine of Eternal Security. However, I have always had a very hard time believing that Christ could have fallen away. After all, was He not predestined to be the Son of God? Beginning from Genesis on, there are prophesies and foreshadowings of His suffering. How then, could Jesus once He was here on earth, turn away from His calling? Wouldn't this have been denying scripture and thus result in no salvation for any human being?
I was always troubled by this teaching, and yet, I never knew how to give an answer for it.
As always, I appreciate all of your input.
Love in Christ,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 10:46 pm |
|
Darlene, this question was among several that I was reading about just yesterday. The answer is No, Jesus could not refuse. His human will is free, but it is so much in union with the will of the Father (recall that in Christ there is only one Person, who is the divine Son) that it will not refuse. This is expressed in the gospel in words such as “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” (John 7:16–17).
And yes, we Catholics believe in a predestination to glory for those who are being saved. This is not a matter of “necessity” — as if one could not fall away — but the contingency is on our side, not God’s. It is all the more true of the Christ, who as you say was predestined to be the savior of mankind.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 02:19 am |
|
Still is it possible that the human part of Jesus was experiencing some amount of difficulty in going through with it. I mean, He was praying and sweating blood. Perhaps it was not possible He could have fallen away, but on some level He must have been experiencing some fears/anxieties and hoping for another way out is possible. I think this was part of what He had to suffer being human was dealing with our weakness and overcoming it. Yet if there were no difficulty at all then what would be the challenge?
Of course I am far from understanding this. But is it safe to say then that the Incarnation was not a risk since God knew the outcome from all eternity? Also what of the temptation in the desert? Was it really tempting if their was no possibility that He could have failed?
I would like to think that He could have failed or at least was prone to the desire to fail, but being perfectly united to God would never be able to step out of that union with the Father, and redeeming us and our ability to choose for love in the face of temptation.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 09:48 am |
|
Brian, what you say indicates that you have grasped this mystery very well. Even though as earthly terms these things are a contradiction, spiritually they are harmonious. You can see from this and from the history of the early Church that the hypostatic union is one of the central mysteries of our faith.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 06:00 pm |
|
David,
Is the hypostatic union referring specifically to the fact that God the Father and God the Son could not be separated while Jesus was here on earth? Can you explain it to me a little more in detail? Thanks.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 10:52 pm |
|
Darlene, the Greek word hypóstasis means “substance” or “subsistence (essence, person).” In the ancient Church, the word was used in reference to the Persons of the blessed Trinity. The phrase hypostatic union refers specifically to the fact that one person of the Trinity — God the Son — has through the incarnation taken on a human nature, so that he is a personal union of both divine and human natures. In other words, the single person Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was both God and man.
The early councils defined the exact manner in which this union of two natures in one Person is to be understood. A typical example of this language, taken from the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and cited in Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger 111a), follows:
For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity.… For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh. Thus [the holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Mother of God.
You can read more about the hypostatic union and its meaning and implications in the Catechism, beginning at §464.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 11:16 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
