Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

Started by Miriam_M, October 29, 2018, 11:51:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 07:03:09 PM
Because God failed to decree that he be any better, and man cannot make himself better on his own.

God gave men and angels the freedom to choose evil and you call Him a tyrant. 

Satan and his angels were not fallen when they rebelled against God.  They chose to rebel of their own unfallen free will.  Similarly, Adam and Eve, although tempted, chose of their own unfallen free will to disobey God. Therefore, it seems to be the case that as soon as you give a rational creature free will, you run the risk that some of them, even a significant number of them, will choose to rebel and oppose you, irrevocably and finally.

Your argument seems to be that God should have made men and angels so good that they would never choose evil?  Is this even possible?  How far should God have gone in limiting free will, which is what you're suggesting?

You also suggest that if a man or angel was inclined to choose evil, God should pour so much grace into them that they change their minds and choose good instead? In other words, God should negate the effects of free will.

You're suggesting that God either limits or negates free will? Have you thought this through?
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

Irishcyclist

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them. 

Indeed.

The Church has always taught that every individual has been granted free will. Free will is a property of this existence.
Remove free will and every individual becomes subservient.

One other problem with suggesting that God break the will of repentant sinners is, of course, why not break the will too of unrepentant sinners also?

Quare's line of argument makes no sense.

awkwardcustomer

#347
Quote from: Irishcyclist on December 19, 2018, 07:35:46 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them. 

Indeed.

I've just spotted my mistake here.  I meant unrepentant sinners.

A typo .....

The quote referred to the angels who fell, Quare having suggested that God should have made sure they didn't fall.   The above should have read -

Quote
By breaking their [the angels] wills, just as you think God should break the will of unrepentant sinners in order to save them.

But the point remains.  In order to save those who willfully choose evil, God would have to break, or negate, their wills.  Maybe it's a challenging concept that some deliberately and freely choose evil, even without the stain of Original Sin.  The angels weren't fallen when they chose to rebel.  Adam and Eve weren't fallen when they chose to disobey God.

Can free will exist without the freedom to choose evil? 
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

mikemac

Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.

"cease offending God"

"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."

"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."

You actually believe that the devil would say these things?

You guys have lost your collective minds.  This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum.  Even more ridiculous than Impy.

Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.

If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.

From the Raccolta, prayer 84.

http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm

Quote84.  PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.

Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.

PRAYER FOR WEDNESDAY.

Mother of God, most holy Mary, how often by my sins have I merited hell! Long ago, perhaps, judgment would have gone forth against my first mortal sin, hadst not thou in thy tender pity delayed the justice of God, and afterwards attracted me by thy sweetness to have confidence in thy prayers. And O, how very often should I have fallen in the dangers which beset my steps, hadst not thou, loving Mother that thou art, preserved me by the graces thou by thy prayers didst obtain for me. But O, my Queen, what will thy pity and thy favours avail me, if after all I perish in the flames of hell? If there was once a time when I loved thee not, yet now, next to God, I love thee before all. Wherefore, henceforth and for ever, suffer me not to turn my back upon thee and upon my God, who through thee has granted me so many mercies. O Lady, most worthy of all love, let it not be that I thy child shall have to hate and to utter maledictions for ever in hell. Thou wilt surely never endure to see thy servant lost who loves thee. O Mary, say not that I ever can be lost! Yet I shall assuredly be lost if I abandon thee. But who could ever have the heart to leave thee? Who can ever forget thy love? No; it is impossible for that man to perish who faithfully recommends himself to thee, and has recourse to thee. Only leave me not, my Mother, in my own hands, or I am lost! Let me but cling to thee! Save me, my Hope! save me from hell; or rather, save me from sin, which alone can condemn me to hell.

Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

Michael Wilson

I was thinking that God could have confirmed the Angels in Grace before they fell, the same for Adam and Eve and their descendants; as he did so for the Blessed Virgin Mary.  So God must will our salvation but not absolutely, only conditionally. The condition being our submission to his holy will.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Irishcyclist

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 19, 2018, 07:59:37 AM
Quote from: Irishcyclist on December 19, 2018, 07:35:46 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them. 

Indeed.

I've just spotted my mistake here.  I meant unrepentant sinners.

A typo .....

The quote referred to the angels who fell, Quare having suggested that God should have made sure they didn't fall.   The above should have read -

Quote
By breaking their [the angels] wills, just as you think God should break the will of unrepentant sinners in order to save them.

But the point remains.  In order to save those who willfully choose evil, God would have to break, or negate, their wills.  Maybe it's a challenging concept that some deliberately and freely choose evil, even without the stain of Original Sin.  The angels weren't fallen when they chose to rebel.  Adam and Eve weren't fallen when they chose to disobey God.

Can free will exist without the freedom to choose evil?

Thanks for the clarification.

Animals don't have free will.
An animal cannot discern right and wrong. An animal's behaviour is conformed to it's instinct and feeling only. An animal behaves in the way it behaves. It is therefore blameless essentially for it's behaviour.

To remove free will from human beings would make us animals therefore. The removal of free will would also contravene the teaching that we are created in the image and likeness of God.


Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of [un]repentant sinners in order to save them. 

...

As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?

Again, your very use of words here shows that you are obviously quite unfamiliar with this debate, and it's just a little more complicated than you seem to think.

It's not a question of "breaking" wills.  It's a question of God infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow him - which, in the case of sinners, means Him infallibly causing their voluntary repentance. 

Can God do this, yes or no?  Again, if you answer "no", time to turn in your traditionalist card.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: John Lamb on December 19, 2018, 03:36:45 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 18, 2018, 04:49:21 PMHe calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.

You're making a deficient cause out to be an efficient cause.

Yeah, I've heard that BS argument a thousand times from Augustinian Predestinationists (APs).  You're having God make man defective and then saying the "cause" of man's defect is man himself.  Pure sophistry.

The question isn't one of causation (as APs always dishonestly attempt to argue), but of necessary and sufficient conditions and ontological primacy, which they always evade like poison, because they know it destroys the entire argument.

QuoteThe cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack or repentance is not that God merely fails to decree otherwise; the cause of it is to be found in man himself.

And what exactly is it in man that is the cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance?  Whatever your answer, what is the cause of that?  Eventually you are forced to simply say that man is defective qua man or qua creature, which no one disagrees with, but does not in itself entail wickedness or lack of repentance and hence cannot be said to be a "cause".

What is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is ontologically antecedent to it.

I have yet to see any AP honestly deal with this, because they can't.  They have to retreat into "mystery".

QuoteImagine if a group of citizens demanded the right to secede from the State, demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?

To make your analogy work, you have to assume the exact opposite of AP; namely, that God's withdrawal is ontologically subsequent to the wickedness of the citizens, where with AP such withdrawal is ontologically prior to such wickedness and logically entails it.

QuoteYou really need to reconsider the nature of sin.

So do you.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 19, 2018, 05:19:28 AM
1.  Therefore, it seems to be the case that as soon as you give a rational creature free will, you run the risk that some of them, even a significant number of them, will choose to rebel and oppose you, irrevocably and finally.

2.  Your argument seems to be that God should have made men and angels so good that they would never choose evil?  Is this even possible?  How far should God have gone in limiting free will, which is what you're suggesting?

3.  You also suggest that if a man or angel was inclined to choose evil, God should pour so much grace into them that they change their minds and choose good instead? In other words, God should negate the effects of free will.

4.  You're suggesting that God either limits or negates free will? Have you thought this through?

I've thought it through and done the necessary philosophical homework.  You haven't.  These are, frankly, elementary school-level objections.  1. is open theism, 2. is a modal fallacy, 3. is a denial of theology of grace, and conversion and 4. is simply the age-old debate about compatibilist vs. libertarian free will.

1.  How does an omnipotent and omniscient God "run risks"? Sure, there is a "theology of risk" available - if you are an open theist.  In classical theism, however, God's knowledge is not contingent on our actions.

2.  This is a modal fallacy; we are referring to a world in which men and angels actually do not choose evil; not a world in which they could not possibly choose evil.  A world where no creature with free will actually chooses evil is a logically possible world and does not "limit free will". 

3.  describes exactly what happens when a sinner is converted; grace bringing about their voluntary and free change of minds and free choice of good from a former condition of choosing evil, which nobody thinks is a "negation" of free will.  Unless you by "inclined" to choose evil you mean they haven't chosen it yet, in which case there are no "effects" of free will to negate.

4.  According to classical theology and philosophy, God can and does directly will and cause each and every good choice made by rational creatures (compatibilism) while nevertheless maintaining these choices are still made freely.  If this is a "negation" or "limit" of free will, welcome to libertarianism.  It is, however, not traditional.


John Lamb

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 12:15:18 PMWhat is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is ontologically antecedent to it.

I have yet to see any AP honestly deal with this, because they can't.  They have to retreat into "mystery".

What is relevant is that (under AP) God's failure to decree otherwise is a necessary and sufficient condition for man's death, wickedness, or lack of repentance and is ontologically antecedent to it.

Necessary but not sufficient. In addition to God's permissive will to allow the sinner to demerit, the sinner himself must have the will to commit sin, and it's this sinful will which is the effective cause of man's damnation. Of course God's will is ontologically antecedent, seeing as God is universal first cause and ontologically antecedent to everything.


Quote
QuoteImagine if a group of citizens demanded the right to secede from the State, demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?

To make your analogy work, you have to assume the exact opposite of AP; namely, that God's withdrawal is ontologically subsequent to the wickedness of the citizens, where with AP such withdrawal is ontologically prior to such wickedness and logically entails it.

In the order of execution God reprobates the sinner after he has sinned, so the analogy stands.
Only in the order of intention does God first decree that the sinner shall be permitted to sin and thus be damned in order to manifest His justice (negative reprobation). This act belongs uniquely to God as existing from all eternity and being first cause of everything.

If the sun illuminates one side of the earth and leaves the other side dark, it's not the sun which is causing the latter side to be dark but the intrinsic darkness of the earth itself. So if God gives efficacious grace to save one part of mankind but not to save the other side of mankind, it's not God that is the cause of the latter's darkness but the intrinsic darkness of sinful mankind. The difference is that the earth puts up no resistance to the light of the sun, but the reason that the evil part of mankind is not illumined by God's grace is not that God fails to offer sufficient grace, but that they resist: "And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil."
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on December 18, 2018, 06:09:54 PM
By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of [un]repentant sinners in order to save them. 

...

As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?

Again, your very use of words here shows that you are obviously quite unfamiliar with this debate, and it's just a little more complicated than you seem to think.

I was paraphrasing Gandalf.

Quote
It's not a question of "breaking" wills.  It's a question of God infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow him - which, in the case of sinners, means Him infallibly causing their voluntary repentance.

What does "infallibly causing" mean?  Is this an example of the kind of language I'm not qualified to understand.  Surely you mean force or somehow negate the freedom of the individual to exercise his free will.  Just what do you mean?  How can a rational creature be made to want to do something.  God does not 'infallibly cause rational creatures to voluntarily follow him' because rational creatures cannot be infallibly caused, or forced, to do anything voluntarily while still remaining rational.

Quote
Can God do this, yes or no?  Again, if you answer "no", time to turn in your traditionalist card.

Gandalf says no and, again, here's why. 

Quote

Gandalf laughed grimly.  'You see?  Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it.  And I could not "make you" - except by force, which would break your mind....'

Gandalf cannot make Frodo want to let go of the ring or damage it, except by 'breaking his mind'. Frodo could be made to give up the ring by force, as Gollum eventually does, but Frodo cannot be made to want to give it up. 

You really need to explain what you mean by God "infallibly causing rational creatures to voluntarily follow Him".

I'm sure Gandalf would be interested.

 
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on December 19, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
A world where no creature with free will actually chooses evil is a logically possible world and does not "limit free will". 

How would such a world work and what would its inhabitants be like?

Would no creature with free will actually choose to eat too much cake?



And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.

John Lamb

Quote from: Tao Teh Ching, Chapter XXVTHERE was Something undefined and yet complete in itself,
Born before Heaven-and-Earth.

Silent and boundless,
Standing alone without change,
Yet pervading all without fail,
It may be regarded as the Mother of the world.
I do not know its name;
I style it "The Way";
And, in the absence of a better word, call it "The Great."

To be great is to go on,
To go on is to be far,
To be far is to return.

Hence, "The Way is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
King is great."
Thus, the king is one of the great four in the Universe.

Man follows the ways of the Earth.
The Earth follows the ways of Heaven,
Heaven follows the ways of The Way,
The Way follows its own ways.










https://archive.org/stream/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/Predestination%20-%20Garrigou-Lagrange%2C%20Reginald%2C%20O.P_#page/n189/mode/1up
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

mikemac

Quote from: mikemac on November 29, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.

"cease offending God"

"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."

"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."

You actually believe that the devil would say these things?

You guys have lost your collective minds.  This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum.  Even more ridiculous than Impy.

Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.

If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.

From the Raccolta, prayer 84.

http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm

Quote84.  PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.

Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.

PRAYER FOR THURSDAY.

Queen of Heaven, who sittest enthroned above all the choirs of the angels nighest to God, from this vale of miseries I, a poor sinner, salute thee, praying thee in thy love to turn upon me those gracious eyes of thine. See, Mary, the dangers among which I dwell, and shall ever have to dwell whilst I live upon this earth. I may yet lose my soul, Paradise, and God. In thee, Lady, is my hope. I love thee; and I sigh after the time when I shall see thee and praise thee in Paradise. O Mary, when will that blessed day come that I shall see myself safe at thy feet? When shall I kiss that hand, which has dispensed to me so many graces? Alas, it is too true, O my Mother, that I have ever been very ungrateful during my whole life; but if I go to Heaven, then I will love thee there every moment of a whole eternity, and make thee reparation in some sort for my ingratitude by ever blessing and praising thee. Thanks be to God, for that He hath vouchsafed me this hope through the Precious Blood of Jesus, and through thy powerful intercession. This has been the hope of all thy true lovers; and no one of them has been defrauded of his hope. No: neither shall I be deceived of mine. O Mary, pray to thine own Son Jesus, as I also will pray to Him, by the merits of His Passion, to strengthen and increase this my hope.

Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is "despair, overcome."
Source

John Lamb

Quote from: Garrigou-LagrangeIn fact, the will lacks efficacious grace because it resists sufficient grace; but if its resists sufficient grace, this is not because it lacks efficacious grace; its own deficiency suffices as a cause of such resistance. Cf. Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 3 ad 2: "The first cause of this deficiency of grace is on our part, but the first cause of the conferring of grace is on the part of God, according to the words: 'Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me."' There would indeed be a vicious circle in Thomism if of the two following propositions the second were true: Man is deprived of efficacious grace because he resists sufficient grace, and man resists sufficient grace because he lacks efficacious grace. Of course, the second statement is false; if it were true, man would sin from the insufficiency of divine help, sin would then be inevitable and would therefore no longer be sin. In truth, man does not sin on account of insufficient help or of any divine neglect, but because of his own deficiency.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace7.htm
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul