Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
On three different occasions, Abraham was declared righteous. While there is a first time declaration, God declared Abraham righteous again and again as Abraham continued to show his faith in the Lord - and each time, he was credited with righteousness. No, righteousness is not a one-time acquisition. We continually gain righteousness by our God-driven acts of love and faith.
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." Mat 6:1
Exactly, none of it is our work. It is all Christ's work through us.
No, you are forgetting the Bible speaks of synergy with God. No matter how you slice it, God and men work together.
God works all things for OUR good. All He wants is us to believe in Him. It's that simple and that complex.
Faith is not merely an intellectual assent of the mind. It is a conversion of the will to do His will. It involves a change in our life, not an abstract intellectual exercise that means nothing in our lives. Thus, when people have faith, they MUST have works to go along with that. Believing involves action, a response to God on our part.
Regards
Prostration is a sign of adoration, worship, respect. WE do that without asking for anything from God. As we walk into an Orthodox church, we bow as we enter His house and make a sign of the cross (a way of saying praised be the Lord!). Most Orthodox Christians will bend their knees and touch the ground (metania). During liturgical worship, such as consecration, the Orthodox will sometimes fall to the ground like Elijah did, or take a deep bow.
None of these signs of respect and adoration of God are actually prayers. Prayers are supplications sung by the priest and the laity, asking God for mercy, forgiveness, etc., in other words, supplications, pleedings, mixed with visible acts of adoration. Read the text of the 1,600-year-old Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysotsom and then tell me if you don't see the difference (or if you see that it's not scriptural).
Calvinist services involve singing and a preacher of some kind walking on stage drawing unnecessary attention to himself or herself (like in the case of Pastor Scott's beautiful pastor-wife, with her long, flowing hair) all of which distracts from God and is pure vanity.
Our services are focused on God and God only. It's not a performance. It's not high tech. It's not a "pep" talk like some mega "church" pastors and their "feel good" preaching. Most of the time our priest's back is turned towards the people and all we do is pray and worship, focusing on God with nothing to distract us from it (in many Orthodox churches the women and men are separated exactly for the that reason—because the mind and the eyes tend to wonder).
But I can see why you would not know the difference.
God has revealed to us his plan of salvation. The rest is Mystery.
LOL!
I don't think anyone's ever said that to me before....not even my own parishoners.
Any way I can get you here to say that from my pulpit?!! :>)
(maybe there's an Eastern MethoDox church in the making!....although MethoDox sounds like a really high-powered, illegal street drug. :>)
“God carried through with the plan because the Creation declares the Glory of God. In particular, it declares the glory of His grace in Jesus Christ, the central event of all that there is.”
Indeed, Padre. You know, there were Fathers who opined that the Incarnation would have taken place even without the Fall for virtually the exact reason you set forth.
Worthy is the Lamb to receive GLORY....
Bait much?
The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach. There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.
Wow. Where do I begin? This is such an egregious example of a logical fallacy I could hardly believe it when I read it.
The fallacy (that of the undistributed middle) is easily demonstrated:
All A are B
All C are B
Therefore, all A are C.
Or, to apply it to your argument:
All Calvinists believe in perseverance
All Gnostics believe in perseverance
Therefore, all Calvinists are Gnostics
Then you have the audacity to claim you are showing similarity in the essence of the teachings between the two when you COMPLETELY FAIL to acknowledge the clear essential differences in the underlying details of both. Friend, this charge of Gnosticism on the part of the Reformed is nothing short of spurious and illegitimate.
If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature.
Horsecrap! While we would readily affirm it is not by means of our own conduct, it is because we rely wholly upon the person and work of Jesus to provide the rightousness we cannot provide for ourselves. The redemption and sanctification of our nature is the result of our salvation, not the cause of it.
While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same. Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature. Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.
That's just an outright LIE! It is the ROMAN CATHOLICS who believe in the infusion of Christ's righteousness to MAKE them actually righteous, whereas the Reformed believe in the impartation of His righteousness that they may be regarded as righteous. COME ON...just how far are you going to go in blatantly misrepresenting the Reformed doctrines in order to support this ridiculous claim of yours?
The parallels are striking. How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace? How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality? How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation? The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.
Whatever. You can heap all the logical fallacies on us you want and it won't make them any more true. I typically don't go down the path of pointing out the obvious parallels I often see between Roman Catholic/Orthodox practice and naked idolatry because I'd rather to stick to the fundamental doctrines and the crucial differences that separate us rather than go for the low-hanging fruit, but with these assinine arguments you're making it sure makes it hard not to.
As I said previously, all I can do is listen to your confession and compare it to the Church Fathers’ writings. I don’t get to define heresies.
Well, you certainly are feeling free to (re)define Reformed doctrine and (re)define basic rules of logic. You seem utterly unconcerned with the details beyond whatever you can manipulate to justify your absurd claims.
Nice poster. Sola Scriptura ended? Why not? It is an Edsel that lasted far beyond its model year.
Likewise, I must agree with Frumanch that Calvinists do NOT believe they are "infused" with Christ's nature. As a a Protestant Christian I believe that we have an imputed righteousness, and never an infused righteousness. While various protestants disagree on many things, most do NOT disagree on that.
You continue to equate "once saved always saved" with "the perseverence of the saints." You are simply incorrect in thinking they are identical.
OSAS is a teaching that says you can do anything. POTS is a doctrine that says you will NOT do just about anything. It would be hard for 2 doctrines to be more different.
I have touched on a number of heresies that are clearly defined by the Church in the first millennium. Many of these are at least partly inherent in the Reformation; many are included in current Protestant theologies having been developed and refined further.
Have you nothing more to say on that subject than to criticize Irenaeus’ “works-based” thoughts and not even refer to his treatise on heresies?
Is the Reformation platform so weak that any comparison with 1st millennium heresies would bring it down? If not, then why else are posts on heresies avoided by the otherwise outspoken Protestant apologists?
“Worthy is the Lamb to receive GLORY....”
Pure Methodoxy!
The Westminster Larger Confession admits that prayer is a petition, yet sets up a system whereby petitions cannot possibly work. More schizophrenia.
Q. 178. What is prayer?
A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit; with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.
Q. 180. What is it to pray in the name of Christ?
A. To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation.
Q. 188. Of how many parts doth the Lord’s prayer consist?
A. The Lord’s prayer consists of three parts; a preface, petitions, and a conclusion.
Q. 193. What do we pray for in the fourth petition?
A. In the fourth petition (which is, Give us this day our daily bread), acknowledging that in Adam, and by our own sin, we have forfeited our right to all the outward blessings of this life, and deserve to be wholly deprived of them by God, and to have them cursed to us in the use of them; and that neither they of themselves are able to sustain us, nor we to merit, or by our own industry to procure them; but prone to desire, get, and use them unlawfully: we pray for ourselves and others, that both they and we, waiting upon the providence of God from day to day in the use of lawful means, may, of his free gift, and as to his fatherly wisdom shall seem best, enjoy a competent portion of them; and have the same continued and blessed unto us in our holy and comfortable use of them, and contentment in them; and be kept from all things that are contrary to our temporal support and comfort.
Q. 194. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. In the fifth petition (which is, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors), acknowledging that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt: we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin, accept us in his Beloved; continue his favor and grace to us, pardon our daily failings, and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness; which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.
Q. 195. What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
A. In the sixth petition (which is, And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil), acknowledging that the most wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends, may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations; that Satan, the world, and the flesh, are ready powerfully to draw us aside, and ensnare us; and that we, even after the pardon of our sins, by reason of our corruption, weakness, and want of watchfulness, are not only subject to be tempted, and forward to expose ourselves unto temptations, but also of ourselves unable and unwilling to resist them, to recover out of them, and to improve them; and worthy to be left under the power of them; we pray, that God would so overrule the world and all in it, subdue the flesh, and restrain Satan, order all things, bestow and bless all means of grace, and quicken us to watchfulness in the use of them, that we and all his people may by his providence be kept from being tempted to sin; or, if tempted, that by his Spirit we may be powerfully supported and enabled to stand in the hour of temptation; or when fallen, raised again and recovered out of it, and have a sanctified use and improvement thereof: that our sanctification and salvation may be perfected, Satan trodden under our feet, and we fully freed from sin, temptation, and all evil, forever.
Therefore: Prayer is a petition; an asking of God for something that He would not otherwise do.
Q. 12. What are the decrees of God?
A. God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.
Q. 14. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.
Therefore: Prayer cannot be a petition, since God never changes His mind and has foreordained everything and is the puppet master of all Creation.
It’s quite a system that they’ve set up there.
Q. 20. What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
A. The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
Q. 21. Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first created him?
A. Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell from the estate of innocency wherein they were created.
God ensured that Adam would eat of the fruit, since He foreordained all; He put the tree of knowledge and satan into the garden and made sure that Adam would fall, taking all mankind with him towards satan’s pit; and then:
Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.
He brings some people out and for His pleasure sends the rest of them to hellfire forever.
The Reformed god is responsible for sending people to hell. The Larger Confession confirms it.
Even before Abraham knew God, God knew him and spoke directly to him-not his father or his brothers but to him. Abraham believed God and left his father. Then he believed God would raise up a nation through a son. Then Abraham was willing to sacrifice that son knowing that God would raise that son up from the dead. All these events Abraham showed himself to be righteous, but it was because God continuously revealed Himself to Abraham. Abraham grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what He had promised. It is this promise that made Abraham righteous. Abraham's works was a manifestation of the sanctifying process.
The basis of our pardon, and God's promise to us, is the work of Christ. When God reveals Himself to us, we pass from death to life. What you are saying is that the basis of our pardon is upon our works. Abraham was made righteous because God simply declared it so and He justified it based upon His sacrifice-not because Abraham was willing to sacrifice Issac.
As I posted somewhere here today, the Larger Confession makes it abundantly clear that the Lord’s Prayer is petition - that is, asking for things.
You do not ask for things if you know that they are going to come about for sure. You only ask for things if you know that they are not going to come about. Therefore, the theology of a Creation set in stone is completely incompatible with petition.
Catholics honour Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Mary is important because she points to Jesus and is the way God chose to come to us in Jesus. Indeed God made her ready to be Mother of his Son by making her uniquely free from the stain of Original Sin (the immaculate conception). Jesus is fully God and fully divine. This wonderful mystery comes about because God is the father of Jesus and Mary is his mother. Because Mary is his mother, Jesus is fully one of us, he is fully human. He takes to himself, through Mary, the fullness of our humanity so that all that is human may be redeemed. In Mary we see God loving us by choosing to come to us through a simple, young, poor woman.
Mary is also a model for how Christians act. She says “yes” to God and because of this, God does wonderful things through her. Mary doesn’t appear very much in the New Testament, but every time she does appear it is at a vital moment. She is there accepting the frightening message of the angel. (Lk 1: 26-38) She is there proclaiming God’s power in turning upside down the order of the world “putting down the mighty and raising up the humble”. (Lk 1:46-55) She is there at the wedding feast of Cana and right at the start of the ministry of Jesus she tells the servants at the wedding, and us, “do whatever he (Jesus) tells you. (Jn 2:1-12)She is there during the ministry of Jesus, and there we hear Jesus refusing to say “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that suckled you” but saying “Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it” (Lk 11:27) or “My mother and brothers they are those who hear the word of God and act upon it” (Lk 8:21) – and that surely describes Mary. She is there at the cross, suffering with her Son (Jn 19:25-27). She is there after the resurrection, praying with the apostles (Acts 1:14)
There is danger of making Mary into a model of a submissive woman. In fact she is a strong woman: a woman who can face pain and suffering, a woman who can face social disgrace, a woman who can be a refugee. We see a woman who has the courage to hear the word of God and act upon it. A woman with the wisdom to say to the angel “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be to me according to what you say” (Lk 2:38) The strength to accept God’s will is strength indeed. Mary is not just a theological principle, Not just a model of how we should behave, she is a person we relate to. We come to her as a mother who loves us. At the foot of the Cross there is a wonderful moment when Jesus says to his disciple John “Behold your Mother” and to Mary “Behold your Son”. (Jn 19:27) Catholics have always found ourselves in this exchange. We, the followers of Jesus, have Mary as our mother, and Mary has us as her children. And it is in this personal relationship that we ask Mary, our Mother to help us. We’re not making her equal to God, but we’re asking her to pray for us, just as we might ask any trusted friend to help us.
http://www.life4seekers.co.uk/FAQ-RoleofMary.htm
Jesus has the power to save unilaterally; we do not claim otherwise.
The instructions that He has left for us include the understanding that He, with His outstretched hand of saving grace, wants us to grasp Him. He will do the heavy lifting; we just have to go the distance.
In this way, we have the ability to freely and wholly worship Him for His glorification. Else, we have a selection of windup monkey toys banging their cymbals together in a meaningless effort. Worship must come from free will; else it is meaningless and mechanical.
See...It's already caught on.
You know, Kolo, I can't remember anything I've ever run across about John Wesley's views on Eastern Orthodoxy. I know he was no friend of Rome....he was a child of the reformation....but I simply don't recall any comment on his part about Orthodoxy.
He was a reader of the church fathers, that's clear, but I can't recall reading any commentary by Wesley on them or on Eastern Orthodoxy.
As it should, since Paul's Letter to the Romans discusses it in chapter 9, verses 14 through 24....
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
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.