The end of religious liberty

On July 7, 2004 CWNews.com/LifeSiteNews.com reported on the remarks of Vatican Cardinal Paul Poupard that "Europe is not safe from religious persecution" and that "modern-day attacks on believers may take more subtle forms." Poupard, who is president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, lamented that: "Christians are mocked for their faith; many young couples are ostracized socially if they want a lot of children; those who oppose same-sex 'marriage' are considered intolerant." The forms of persecution, "hidden or overt, will bear their fruits," he added.

According to CWNews, "The French prelate explained that an aggressive secularizing trend in Europe would eventually lead to more direct attacks on religion." The refusal to make even a reference to Christianity in the new European Union’s constitution is an effort "to eradicate the evidence of Christian faith."

But how can this be? Is not the modern notion of "religious liberty," championed by the Second Vatican Council, a sure guarantee that the Catholic Church will flourish in a climate of freedom and "respect for diversity"?

Well, no it isn’t. In fact, the surest way to destroy the true religion, and truth itself, is to place truth and error on equal footing before the law, making the State powerless to defend the truth and turning the State into an instrument for the promotion of evil.

Here, yet again, we see the consequences of abandoning the wise counsel of the pre-conciliar popes, based on revelation itself, concerning the proper constitution of society and the right understanding of human liberty.

As Pope Leo warned in his encylical Libertas, on human liberty: "If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail."

And, as Pope Gregory XVI observed concerning so-called "free speech" in his enyclical Mirari vos: "Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."

In short, to allow error free reign in society is to insure that truth will be suppressed, sooner or later. And where religion in particular is concerned, "freedom of religion" for false religions means that, sooner or later, the true religion will be suppressed. As Pope Leo warned in Immortale Dei, his encyclical on the Christian constitution of States: "To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name."

This is why modern Europe is atheistic and reviles its own Christian past. Those in the Vatican apparatus who have promoted the lie of "religious liberty" in the name of Vatican II should recognize, before it is too late, that in all their prattling on about "religious liberty" they are actually delivering the one true Church into bondage — a bondage that is far more oppressive than overt persecution, since it actually enlists Churchmen themselves in the Church’s enslavement to the modern State.

...Poupard, who is president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, lamented that: "Christians are mocked for their faith; many young couples are ostracized socially if they want a lot of children; those who oppose same-sex 'marriage' are considered intolerant." The forms of persecution, "hidden or overt, will bear their fruits," he added.

This is not unique to Europe; sounds like my workplace...

...The refusal to make even a reference to Christianity in the new European Union’s constitution is an effort "to eradicate the evidence of Christian faith."

Francis Schaefer has done a wonderful job of tracing the progress of ideas from philosophy, to art, and finally to the political and social arena. He has chronicled the European conversion to postmodern secular humanism, abandoning their Christian heritage. He notes that trends in Europe tend to predate similar trends in the US by 20 to 50 years. We certainly see similar moves afoot here. The whole revisionist secular humanists here mis-characterize the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution, which the Framers intended to preclude a national church (both Virginia and Massachusetts had state churches), and instead substitute the Jeffersonian phrase from a private letter advocating a "wall of separation between church and state".; The secular humanists go on to attempt to purge all aspects of Christianity from our public lives.

First, I suggest you look at the Holy Spirit's use of the term 'kosmos', translated 'world' in all of John's writings. Deriving a universal atonement from John 3:16 is eisegesis - reading in what is not in the text. The text literally says: "that all the one believing shall inherit eternal life", in other words that there is no such thing as a "believing one" who will not inherit eternal life. Calvinsists heartily affirm this! The pericope including John 3:16 does not identify the nature of those who believe, but rather that all who believe will be saved.

John 6:35-47 tells us much more. Here we learn that "all drawn by the Father" come to Christ and He "raises them up on the last day." This tells us more about the nature of those who believe.

Rev 5:9-10 completes the picture:

"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

This passage is clearly describing atonement for believers.

You misunderstand the label 'Calvinism.' In reality it represents the truth of the Scriptures expounded by the apostles and rediscovered by Augustine amd Calvin after many had abandoned it for the philosophy of men.

Calvinism teaches that not all people are the "elect", and that only the "elect" will be saved. This sounds good, until you see it contradicts other Scriptures. So, we develop a theology to encompass all the passages, rather than ignore some that differ with our view, or rather than misinterpret it to fit our view.

The elect will be saved, but not because they were chosen and others were not. The elect are those who believe that Jesus' death was for them. We KNOW that because Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, not just some: "He is the expiation not for our sins only, but also the sins of the entire world"(1 Jn.2:2), the same "all" of Paul in 1 Tim.2:4.

You said John 3:16 "literally says: 'that all the one believing shall not be destroyed but shall have eternal life". Actually, the literal text says, “God so loved the world, that He gave His Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.” WHOEVER.

Two of the points where Calvinism is wrong:
1) God didn’t just love the elect. He didn’t just love those who would DO something,"believe and I will then save you", because salvation is by grace alone on account of Christ. He loved the WORLD. He is not willing that ANY perish, but that ALL come to know Him. He saved us, rendered atonement on our behalf, but we must believe.
He died for all sins. All debt was paid in full. The Father was reconciled. We have forgiveness. Not some of us. ALL of us. Every person in the kosmos. But some will not believe.

2) Election is misdefined. You said “John 3:16 does not identify the nature of those who believe, but rather that all who believe will be saved.” No, it does identify that their nature is in the category of all, not some. All.

When a person believes that sufficient death of the sinless Son of God was FOR ME, he is called one of the elect. He is a believer. I think you can see that, because if we take your same quote, and apply it on "what does'elect' mean?", your quote reads:
"‘Elect’ in scripture is not the nature of some and not others, but rather, all who believe are elect."

See? Christianity is not for some, but forgiveness offered to everyone. To the entire world. When you believe, you are called the elect, believers, children of God, forgiven, redeemed, etc.

Election is not God picking some and not others. He picked ALL, and died for the sins of the "entire world."

This makes Christianity different than all other religions in the world. We offer a relationship with God to everyone, not just some. God's love is offered without that person doing anything of merit. We offer salvation and eternal life NOT because THEY have done anything, but because JESUS did everything. Forgiveness is not because "Well, I'm one of the elect", but because sinless Christ paid the just requirement as our Substitute.

This fits the actual texts of the Bible. We don't have to read something invented 1500 years later back into it. Calvin wasn't wrong on everything, was right on alot. But like we see on Travesty Broadcasting Network, when someone's wrong in one area, it really can affect their teaching badly. We need to be open to give up false teaching when it doesn't jive with the inerrant, inspired Word of God (2 Tim.3:16).
Blessings!

You do realize that the Gospel of John was originally written in Greek. The part of John 3:16 to which you refer is part of what is called a 'hina' clause. The text (transliterated into Engish characters that phonetically match the Greek) literally states 'hina pas pisteuon eis auton me apoleitai ekso zoen aionion' which is literally rendered into English as 'that all the one trusting into him not might be destroyed but have life eternal.' The English term 'whosoever' has nuances that are not contained in the original. Again, I reiterate, that the point of the passage is that all who believe are saved. This passage does not address the identity of those believers, but simply states that all are saved. We heartily agree with that.

You have also ignored the breath of the term 'kosmos' (world) in John's gospel. The term can legitimately mean all the nations.

To maintain your view of univesal atonement you must also handle John 6:35-47, letting the text say what it says... I challenge you to do so.

Blessings to you as well.

You wrongly imply that someone cannot understand the Gospel unless being fluent in ancient Greek. But your own Greek makes the case for me, if you will be consistent.

"The passage...simply states we are all saved." Yes it does. Jesus death was for the entire world. But that is not what Calvinism teaches: His death is not for the non-elect, the non-chosen by God. That is not Christianity. The "elect" are the believers in Christ. Christ died for all the world. As YOU say, "that ALL the one trusting into him not might be destroyed but have life eternal."

All the world's sin IS paid by Christ. Only believers are "elect." But unbelievers are not 'non' elect, but are unbelievers.

You avoided my second point, that 1 Jn. 2.2 says His death "is NOT for our sins only, but for the sins of the entire world." You must not take from Scripture passages that don't fit.

re; Jn.:6 Yes, no one can come to God unless He draws them. He paid for the sins of the entire world. All. He who believes, has eternal life, and is called in other passages 'elect', 'children of God' etc. NOwhere is there a passage which says the converse (as Calvinism does), that he who does not believe is noN-elect.

Jesus will 'lose nothing of what the Father has given Him.' He died for the sins of all people, but all do not believe. God cannot 'give' to Jesus someone who refuses to accept His death for them. It's not a possibility. It's a categorical mistake. There is not a special chosen group which God 'gives', AND others which God does not give. You will not find ANY NON-chosen group in the category of "all the world".

The problem's pretty simple, for anyone still reading. Does God offer forgiveness to all, or only to some? Christianity teaches that God loves all people, actually chooses to give His only Son to die in our place. He rose from the dead. God accepts Jesus as our Substitute. He "draws" us to Him, and says "He who comes to Me, I will not cast away." YOU are chosen by God for His love and forgiveness! If you will not believe, you will not be called one of the 'believers, the elect.' But Calvinism is wrong here, saying God chooses some and not others.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.