Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.

[kosta50]

Well, since you view them both as divinely inspired of God, then both must be infallible, yet the church fathers disagreed and contradicted each other plenty in their writings

I have been following your arguments MLG, if I can call them that. They are straw men. The Apostolic and Church Fathers are not considered inspired; only the Apostles. But the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the Church as a whole (consensus patrum) did not accept everything the fathers wrote. That which the Church agreed upon as a whole is considered inspired and those are the decisions reached through payer in Ecumenical Councils.

The authors of the KJV mentioned in their original edition that they were not inspired in compiling this version of the Bible (based on many erroneous sources and froth with errors of which the very authors admit a couple of hundred). Yet most English-speaking Protestants use it as "inspired" word of God.

[xzins]

Quite large.

I expect that Jesus is a pretty effective presenter....and without even one PowerPoint Slide or laser pointer. :>)

[Forest Keeper]

Our theology and understanding of +Paul, the NT and the OT is, however, based on the Gospels. The Protestants base their theology mostly on +Paul.

We Reformers don't base our theology mostly on Paul, we base it on the totality of scripture. Paul just happened to write a lot of it. :) The problem I see with your theology is that when there appears to be a conflict, the favored verse (Gospels) is declared correct [in the way it is interpreted], and the disfavored verse (Paul, or almost anything in the OT) is declared wrong. OTOH, the Spirit shows us a way that both verses are completely true. We don't have favored and disfavored verses in terms of truth. While Gospel verses may be more important to our salvation, they are no more true than the statistics in Numbers.

Did not the Protestants introduce a different (Hebrew) OT from the one the Apostles and the Church chose (Septuagint)?

To my knowledge, the Protestants didn't "introduce" anything. Apparently, the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. The question is over which version, that we have, is more reliable. Obviously, the original was in Hebrew. It's a fair debate. But you can't tell me that the Apostles "CHOSE" the Septuagint in terms of throwing the Masoretic text aside in its favor. That would make no sense. At that time, presumably there were still reasonable copies of the Hebrew text around. Why would the Apostles toss the originals in favor of a Greek translation as a matter of authority? They wouldn't.

Did not the Protestants introduce private interpretation of the Scriptures?

No, of course not. Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today. Think of it, do Reformers or the Orthodox have more settled and agreed upon scriptural principles that "all" agree upon? I would say the Reformers do.

And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it. Many of your most beloved Fathers were cast aside on issues on which they were accused of private interpretation.

[Forest Keeper]

What makes you think Elijah was prostrating himself before god or praying? It looks like he was just plain tuckered out from the tremendous contest with the prophets of Baal. His praying was done before Mt. Carmel since God told him of the rain and he told Ahab it was going to rain. He was there just to see the hand of God perform what was promised. He was “sitting” on the promises of God.

Well, perhaps I should have used the KJV:

1 Kings 18:42 : So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel; and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees, ... KJV

Is this what one does when one is simply tired? I can see an argument here for prostration and I can see one for prayer (or both), but not for relaxation or relief from fatigue. :) Plus, when is the prayer of a righteous man ever "done"?

[Forest Keeper]

Also, when Moses and Elijah appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration, were they not alive in God or where those simply manifestations that Jesus called forth? It’s clear they were alive.

THAT is very interesting because I recently had a conversation with Kosta and Kolo about this, but in the context of where the OT righteous went immediately after they died. My contention was that they went straight to Heaven, and offered the evidence of the Transfiguration. IOW, I agree with you that they WERE real and alive. In order to support the Orthodox position that no one went to Heaven before the crucifixion (anyone correct me if I'm wrong), I remember the response being that Moses and Elijah possibly were indeed manifestations, and not real or alive. So, my question is: does Catholicism support that the OT righteous went directly to Heaven upon death, and that Jesus' sacrifice retroactively applied to them at the time of their deaths?

[Forest Keeper]

I’m not sure how I’d square Dr. Schuller’s Sunday morning performances with some of the folks here, so I’m guessing that there is Reformed and there is Reformed!!!

Well, from what I've heard, there would be no squaring it with me! :) So you're right. I've never heard him preach, but I have seen a couple of critiques of his theology and I don't recognize it. Maybe they were unfair, I don't know. But, I don't know a lot of people on my side who stick up for him.

[Forest Keeper]

I didn't mean to suggest that [Elijah] wasn't praying [on Mt. Carmel]. Prayer and adoration go hand-in-hand.

OK, good. I always thought we were splitting hairs on "what prayer is". :) Would you then agree that if a Christian bows his head and closes his eyes and begins with something like "Dear Heavenly Father" and ends with something like "In Jesus' name I pray, amen", that all the stuff in the middle can normally be composed of any mix of adoration, confession, AND supplication? If you say "yes", then I think this issue is solved. :)

The Jews sing and this is where that comes from, and your verse reminds us of that. It's the pastors parading back and forth, acting out, gesturing, boasting, etc., that draws attention to them (vanity). Our Lord did none of that.

Yes, I agree, and I stand against them also. Certain televangelistic money machines have given what I believe in a bad name and I very much regret it. However, remember that Jesus Himself approved, at least implicitly, of the fact that there are different preaching styles:

Matt 11:18-19 : 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

John the Baptist and Jesus clearly had two different preaching styles, yet both were correct for their intended purposes. So, I don't think that a fire and brimstone sermon can be said to be bad by itself (and I know you didn't say that), since that is how John preached. I'm just saying there is more than one good way to preach.

Did Christ joke when He preached?

A good and very tough question. I think He did, but it is hard to prove. God invented humor and knew that it was an effective means of communicating a message. It still works today. So, I can't think of why He wouldn't have also used it. Now, the humor of their time may well have been very different from what we think is funny today. However, I can imagine this line being delivered in a humorous way, in order to make a point:

Luke 6:41-42 : 41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I mean, this COULD have been said with a laugh, yes? :) I really think so. Just imagine the possibility. It certainly would not have diminished the point. And, since Jesus was fully human, He could not have been a humorless being.

FK: "Your services SHOULD be focused on God and God only."

I can tell you have never attended one.

While you are right about that, let me say that I wasn't criticizing you, I was fully agreeing with you in support by echoing your own words back. :)

[HarleyD]

God knows our needs and desires. Yet prayer is what He wants of us because it is a synergistic relationship that He wants from us.

I hate to butt in but it is not because God wants or need a synergistic relationship. He is self-sufficient. It is because His glory cannot be contained in heaven that it flows into our lives.

God knows our needs and desires but He is far more interested in carrying out what is best for us. Little kids have needs and desires but we certainly wouldn't think of giving in to those desires.

Phil 4:19 : And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.-Tell that to the starving and persecuted Christians in Darfur.

Please remember that the person who wrote this also wrote the following:
1Cr 4:10 We [are] fools for Christ's sake, but ye [are] wise in Christ; we [are] weak, but ye [are] strong; ye [are] honourable, but we [are] despised.
1Cr 4:11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
1Cr 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
1Cr 4:13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, [and are] the offscouring of all things unto this day.

[MarkBsnr]

:::Origen says nothing of the kind, not even close. Origne says that the angels and the “saints at rest” pray along with us, being the saints on earth.:::

Uh huh.

“Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:

“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One,” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One.”

So Raphael catches prayers directly to God in some sort of heavenly bucket and then presents them to God? I thought that Jesus was the only intermediary in Reformed doctrine. This gets better and better.

[MarkBsnr]

No Calvinist has ever replied directly to that question, so it comes as no surprise that you have not either.

Let me ask it again.

The good St. F. is either of the elect or not. If he is not of the elect, what good would it do for him to repent of any evil? Why should he?

Try to answer the question, if you would.

[MarkBsnr]

:::”Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”:::

Do you not understand your own religion? Reformed faith comes from the Holy Spirit invading one’s soul without that person having any say in the matter. Reformed elect are elected regardless of any action or inaction of any person or thing in our universe.

Just another disagreement that Calvin had with Scripture, obviously.

[MarkBsnr]

That is one of the problems with dealing with even labelled Protestants. Since each one self-determines his own theology, it is difficult to carry on a conversation about theology, since the labels differ, meanings differ, and definitions differ.

I am not saying that your definitions differ over time; you appear to me to be quite constant. I am saying that it is difficult coming from a mindset of constant definitions - A means A - to debate with a mixture of people with a mixture of definitions. And many of them have relative definitions which do fluctuate according to time, the weather, or simply their theological whim.

To the heresies?

[MarkBsnr]

There is hope, I’ll grant you that. The movements of some of the mainstream Protestant denominations are evidence that it is happening to a certain extent.

[MarkBsnr]

We agree with many of its points and disagree with those points which do not agree with the Church.

The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.

In this theory, God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.

He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.

So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.

Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God’s goodness took over his thinking.

Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly, the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of Romans 9:13,”I have loved Jacob and hated Esau” meant that God really hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau’s life wanted to damn him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only of predestination to full membership in the Church. By allegory—without any support in the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter’s table meant the whole human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata , three times. For example, in his Responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Gallorum 3: “. . . for this reason they were not predestined because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result of voluntary transgression . . . For they were not deserted by God so that they deserted God; but they deserted and were deserted. . . .”

There is the complete analysis of this paper at http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

In summary, St. Augustine got a lot of things right, but he got some things wrong.

There are three logical steps in God’s decisions:

(1) He wills all men to be saved. Augustine did deny this, but Scripture teaches it, so we must and do hold it. Further since to will salvation is to will good to another, and since love consists in willing good to another for the other’s sake, therefore to deny this first step wold be to deny God’s love. Which would be blasphemy. This will on God’s part is extremely strong, measured by how far He went to make our eternal happiness possible: the terrible death of His Son, and His binding Himself in the covenant by the infinite price of redemption to offer forgiveness and grace infinitely, that is, without limit, except that limit set by man’s rejection of it.

(2) He looks—not ahead, for there is no time with Him—to see who resists His grace both gravely and persistently, so persistently that he throws away the only thing that could save him. Then sadly God decrees to let him go, negative reprobation. This is the unanimous view of all Eastern Fathers, and Westerners except St. Augustine.

(3) All who were not discarded in step two are positively predestined. But not because of merits. This is St. Augustine’s large contribution. Merits have not yet been considered at all. Rather, God predestines them to heaven because that is what He wanted to do in step 1, and thy are not blocking it.

[MarkBsnr]

:::And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it. Many of your most beloved Fathers were cast aside on issues on which they were accused of private interpretation.:::

Exactly. Cast aside. End of the line.

Today, we have churches that follow Calvin and Luther and Knox and Schuller and Haggard and Roberts and...

[blue-duncan]

"Is this what one does when one is simply tired?"

Tired or praying?

[MarkBsnr]

The Catholic sources that I’ve read indicate that Moses and Elijah were alive. Possibly they were manifestations, but my sources lean towards alive.

I’m not sure about the OT righteous. Perhaps some more learned Catholic might be able to step in here.

[Forest Keeper]

He replied,” That is a question many men ask. The answer is in your heart and is different for everyone. I would love to chat with you some more, Señor, but now, I have to finish your lawn.”

Amen! LOL! Thanks, BD.

[Kolokotronis]

“Tired or praying?”

Often the former, sadly too seldom the latter!

[HarleyD]

Protestants, for the most part, give all sorts of different definitions on theology. It baffles me at times when I hear Protestants arguing the sides of Catholics. They have simply lost their roots. If they were to go back and read the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession of 1644 there would be less confusion. Many Protestants simply don't agree anymore with these confessions-at least not in the area of election.

There is evidence that this confusion is symptomatic of the synergistic view of theology (e.g. God want man to co-operate, come to Him in faith, etc.). Any time synergism has been introduced, people deviate from the word of God to varying degrees, abandoning the word of God for feelings and experiences. Protestants introduced synergism 150 years after Calvin and, while there were various disagreements, it was nothing like to confusion of today-even within the same denomination.

Please don't take what I'm going to say that I'm a bitter and disappointed man, but as an objective analyst looking at history. (I've been label a pessimistic Calvinist.) To me Christianity has become nothing more than a socialized gospel. For non-believers God loves everyone, begging them to come to Him. For Christians He wants to rain His blessings upon us. We have totally lost the granduer of a God who calls, elects, protects and guide His people through His divine Holy Spirit. I think we are making a big mistake but I can only conclude this is happening according to God's will for some divine purpose.

You will find most Reformers, apart from the minor theological disagreements, do tend to be very consistent on most things clearly outline in the confessions. If we are inconsistent it is 1) we forgot what the confession tells us, or 2) the confession is silent and we are deviating. That is not necessarily a bad thing as long as we know we are in unclear waters.

Prior to becoming a Calvinist I did not studied the confessions which I believe would have given me a tainted, one-sided view. Instead I went back to the original church fathers and traced the history of church development. I haven’t read all the fathers but I’ve read enough. The Confessions only summarized the true monergistic Christian faith of the early fathers.

I believe the reason the Orthodox tend to be so solid in their beliefs is because they hold a strong synergistic view. The reason Reformers are consistent is because we hold a strong monergistic view. I happen to think that the Orthodox with their minimization of the inspired scripture is the wrong view. Everyone else, including Catholics, are all over the page because they hold to synergistism but cling to parts of monergistism to varying degrees. That is where confusion of definitions come into being.