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

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.

"But I checked and you guys fully recognize him as a Saint. "

That just means he was holy, not infallible. Don't go getting all Latin on me FK!

"BTW, among Latins and Orthodox, are there any Saints that one side recognizes that the other doesn't?"

Likely hundreds.

"In truth, I wasn't aware that there was a disagreement between the Latins and Protestants on filioque (but I am no expert on the subject). What is it?"

Long story short, the Latins now accept that the eternal origin of the HS is exclusively the Father. The original raison d'etre for the filioque was to avoid Arian claims that Christ was "less" than the Father and so it was argued that the HS "proceeded from" or had His origin in BOTH the Father and the Son. This seems to still be the theology of most Protestants to the extent its even thought about at all. Its heresy. My suspicion is that if it were thought about, those Protestants would come around, though.

"As proof, I was thinking of Christ teaching in the Synagogue when He was 12. I figure that must have been in Hebrew."

Highly unlikely. People didn't speak Hebrew then. More likely it was Aramaic or Greek.

Responding to my comment that God chose Geek for the NT, you responded:

"And my response is "why is that"?"

I told you, Greeks are bad people and God wanted them to have every advantage!

"...is there something inherently superior to the Greek language itself?"

You ask a Greek a question like that? Ελλα, βραι παιδακι μου!

"So, that led me to think that there really was no "magic" to the Greek, and that God would transmit His word through all languages, both then current and yet to be invented."

But the fact is that the translations we have are all over the lot and those heterodox translations lead to very very different theologies.

"In Calvin's theology, the elect absolutely need access to God's word, be it in oral or written form. Otherwise, we would have to claim an irrational faith, and we do not."

Why would you have to claim an irrational faith if your access to "God's word" (I assume you don't mean Ο Λογος) is not limited to oral and written transmission? Scripture isn't magic, FK. It tells us how to live so we can fulfill our created process. Orthodox believe that is that we all attain theosis; you folks believe that it is eternal salvation for the elect, eternal damnation for the rest, but in either event, the Bible tells us how to conduct ourselves. If Orthodoxy also teaches that through iconography, liturgical life, etc., does that make Orthodoxy "irrational"?

FK: "Any message that can be transmitted orally can also be written down."

But not all knowledge can be transmitted orally. And even not technically true. A Bach fugue can be written down but not transmitted solely by reading.

Now this I can agree with. And, I was not arguing against it. I would agree that some faith experiences are real and non-verbal (don't correspond to language). However, (and I know you weren't arguing this) I do not think that these can be a basis for faith in the normal case.

Words are abstractions of things themselves, an effective means of communication, but not as effective as personal communication and instruction.

I'm smiling because we Reformers are slammed all the time because we claim that the Holy Spirit personally communicates with us and instructs us on interpretation. It is never as in a secret message that comes across in written form. It is a non-verbal leading TOWARD something in written form. So, in this light I would say you are right on the money. :)

Reformers absolutely DO have a very coherent theology, and we have never claimed to speak for all Protestants

Based on what? Individual interpretations and opinion of what's in the Bible? That makes them a religious party, not a church, akin to Pharisees or Sadducees.

How do you defend this association you have with the Mormons?

We have no religious association with Mormons, FK. You are building a srawman.

Everything. The more mystery there is in a faith, the more room there is to supplant the text with explanations that do not require support or evidence

We don't delve into explaining or defining mysteries. That is why Latin transubstantiation is not part of our teaching. We both believe the same thing: the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, but how it happens is something the Orthodox will not try to define in academic terms any more than trying to "explain" the mystery of Incarnation. Ours is not to solve the mystery of God. In fact the very word "sacrament" is a poor translation of the Greek word mysterion (secret).

I can describe God accurately through scripture as He intends to be known. In no way MUST I use allegorical language to do this

That presupposes an accurate understanding and comprehension of the Bible. Wow, FK, pride does sneak in when you least expect it, doesn't it? Not even the Apostles claimed what you said, although our dear +Paul did say that "we have the mind of Christ." which the Protestants interpret in their own way.

While they may not have had the understanding of Christ that is available to us, they were still fully able to relate to God because God revealed Himself to them

That means Christ's revelation is not the pinnacle of God's revelation to mankind. He was "eclipsed" by other's who didn't need Him to know God and make Him a liar for we can get tot he Father onyl through Him! Wow, this explains a lot about the Protestant world and its privately concocted version of Christianity. Christ is not the apex of God's revelation! Unbelievable!

I understand, but sin is misery. It is greater punishment ‘fulfilled’ than not. Sin separates us from God, which is the greatest existential suffering we can imagine, which is what the definition of hell is.

Yes, but the thought (plan) of committing any sin is a sin in and of itself. Temptation isn't sin, but evil desire is. I think what MLG was postulating was that evil desire in a reprobate is a given. Consequently, what makes hell "hellish" is that none of those desires will be satisfied. This is as contrasted with on earth, wherein many times the sin is satisfied.

In Dante’s Hell, each sinner received what sin he wished, for eternity.

If they were damned anyway, why would this be worse? :)

“”The “Demon Seed” thing did take up quite some discussion in the forum””

Posters Ping-Ping and Diego seem to hold this view as well.

Saint Irenaeus In Book 1 Chapter 30 writes about heretics with similar beliefs from the Doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians that arose out of the Valentinus school.

Here is an excerpt of what Irenaues writes about their beliefs...
from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103130.htm

“”But their mother (Sophia) cunningly devised a scheme to seduce Eve and Adam, by means of the serpent, to transgress the command of Ialdabaoth. Eve listened to this as if it had proceeded from a son of God, and yielded an easy belief. She also persuaded Adam to eat of the tree regarding which God had said that they should not eat of it. They then declare that, on their thus eating, they attained to the knowledge of that power which is above all, and departed from those who had created them. When Prunicus perceived that the powers were thus baffled by their own creature, she greatly rejoiced, and again cried out, that since the father was incorruptible, he (Ialdabaoth) who formerly called himself the father was a liar; and that, while Anthropos and the first woman (the Spirit) existed previously, this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery.””

I had a discussion with some of these Arnold Murray followers on a different discussion board,and I hit them hard with the writings of the Church Fathers, their only comeback was that the Church Fathers did not have modern “tools of knowledge”. By this they mean the Church fathers did not have Strongs Hebrew Concordance books. These people rely heavily on Strongs to try and support their beliefs.

I wish you a Blessed day!

But that the Reprobate will not be saved is true from their birth.

BTW-It is interesting that synergists will say God wrote people's names in the book of Life at the beginning of the universe, and then turn right around and say you can fall from grace.

Nothing can change their Reprobate status - born and forever Reprobate.

Further there is no difference in the guilt or innocence between them or the Elect.

You simply think it's unfair or unjust of God to be able to choose those who go with Him. Well, He's been doing this for a very long time.

HD-“What the Orthodox reject is Christ paying the penalty for our sins which is the essences of the atonement.”

Kolo-Not at all, HD. That is precisely what Christ did.

with His blood

You’d win that bet assuming you found someone uneducated enough to take it. HD, Kosta’s post laid out clearly what Orthodoxy believes about atonement and certainly +John Chrysostomos’ Paschal Sermon states our belief in a most eloquent form.

This is a rather silly argument in my mind. Both the Orthodox and Catholic say they are inerrant in their doctrine based upon the fathers; yet they have two different and distinct doctrines. I would wager to say that if the Holy Spirit job is to guide people to all truth, then the Orthodox/Catholic position should be virtually the same given they are the "true" church. Given the fact that they are different should be an indication that they are not divinely inspired.

Tell me, do you believe in the Pope's infallibility? That is one of the Holy Spirit guiding "to all truth" for the Catholics. So who's right?

Oh, I don’t know. There’s a plethora of scholarly Jewish work which holds that Moses was an Monotheist Egyptian prince on the outs with the official pantheistic cult.

Exd 2:1-2 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took [to wife] a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son [Moses]: and when she saw him that he [was a] goodly [child], she hid him three months.

How?

You think that’s disingenuous? HD, its my job to slam their Western, un-Orthodox innovative views.

It doesn;t mean I won’t tell you where I think you’re wrong as you do with me. The Latins aren’t exactly shy, retiring theological wallflowers either, HD!

So I've noticed. :O)

Prior to resurrection, the spirits are not located in spacial dimensions as we know them, so we speak of heaven in terms being in relationship with the Lord. After the resurrection, when our spirits are reunited with real, literal, material bodies prepared for eternity, immortal and in union with God and the saints, then heaven will be not only be relationship but also "place", as the Scriptures say; ...

I really don't have a firm understanding of these issues, so let me ask you why Heaven only becomes a place after we receive our glorified bodies? Even if a disembodied spirit is, shall we say, "massless", why would that preclude a Heaven that is a place? For example, what happened to the bodies of Enoch, Elijah, Moses(?), and resurrected Jesus?

Long post....

“You accused M-L-G of holding heretical doctrine about Cain and here you are doing the very same thing with Moses. What’s the difference?”

HD, I did not. I have no idea what that person believes vis a vis Cain. In any event, I know how to say heretic and heresy and have on multiple occasions here. Being called a heretic doesn’t bother me in the least. It shouldn’t bother any of us who are convinced of the “orthodoxy” of our beliefs. As I said before, all of this has to be taken whence it comes.

“Quite frankly, Kolo, I’m not at all impress with the way the fathers are used here. I find things in them that are contrary to what is the doctrine of both the Orthodox and Catholic Church and the response I get is, “Well, that’s not what the Church teaches.”

But in a nutshell that’s an appropriate response because what The Church teaches is, among other things, doctrines which arise from and are consistent with the consensus patrum. It means nothing that you can find quotes from the Fathers which are contradictory to what The Church teaches. Those contradictory comments are outside the consensus patrum. Some of the comments are, or border on heresy. The Fathers were not infallible and Orthodoxy has never taught that they were...that’s something we’ve left to the Latins and even they seem to apply that infallibility only to Popes, though I’d argue they’ve raised Blessed Augustine to that level too.

“I would wager to say that if the Holy Spirit job is to guide people to all truth, then the Orthodox/Catholic position should be virtually the same given they are the “true” church.”

As institutions with a major “human” component, I’d say that our positions are remarkably the same in virtually all areas. Many of the differences are in “traditions” (small t) and praxis; they are apparent but not fundamental. On the other hand, there are differences which are profound, most (but not all) of them running back to +Augustine’s writings and the interpretation and importance the Church of Rome gives to them.

“Tell me, do you believe in the Pope’s infallibility?”

As defined by Vatican I? No; it is a 19th century Roman innovation and an unfortunate and pernicious one at that.

That being said you have not explain how your view of Moses not being an Israelite, is not heretical considering the inspired scriptures (as agreed to by the Church's consensus patrum) states otherwise. I don't see any difference in what M-L-G is accused of and what you are stating.

Our basis is the scriptures. If anyone wanted to find out where Cain came from they should have referred to Gen 4:1:

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I know you and F-K have been discussing this and I haven't follow the conversation. But it's hard to say the Orthodox favor the consensus patrum when, in fact, history shows the Orthodox rebelled against the official teachings of the Church such as Leo III the Isaurian forbidding icons and the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. The Great Schism shows that the Orthodox do NOT follow the consensus patrum unless it suits them.

“Your faith is placed upon an institution that has, in the past, showed itself to be wrong.”

I am not at all sure that the Latins have placed their Faith in an “institution”. I know the Orthodox haven’t. You know, HD, the Orthodox view of what is and where one finds the fullness of The Church is substantially different from that held by the Roman Church. I often think Protestant’s view of what we call The Church is very Roman, very “institutional”, to no great surprise frankly.

“But it’s hard to say the Orthodox favor the consensus patrum when, in fact, history shows the Orthodox rebelled against the official teachings of the Church such as Leo III the Isaurian forbidding icons....”

But most of the hierarchy in the East were Iconoclast heretics, like Leo, HD. It was Rome which held the true Faith, along with the laity, and restored it to the Eastern hierarchy. To point out that Eastern bishops fell into heresy and that The Church was pulled back from those heresies by the Bishop of Rome and the laos tou Theou, the people of God, is not exactly news, HD. Until the Great Schism, most heresy arose in the East and among Eastern hierarchs. Its one of the reasons we say that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

“...and the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed.”

In my opinion that was heresy in the West and thoroughly outside the consensus patrum as originally explained by the West, as it still is today by the Protestants and in its original purpose (to combat Arianism). The East has remained faithful to Nicea on this one, HD.

“The Great Schism shows that the Orthodox do NOT follow the consensus patrum unless it suits them.”

How so? The Great Schism was about a number of theological points. Which Western theological point involved in the Schism do you think was within the consensus patrum and thus demonstrates Orthodoxy’s failure to adhere to the consensus.

You know, HD, because of the East’s understanding of where and what is the fullness of The Church, problems tend to be “self-correcting”, which is to say that, for example, the people have a final say on every theological point, accepting or rejecting beliefs by living out those beliefs or refusing to and rejecting them. But at the same time, the hierarchy and the lower clergy and monastics have similar, though by no means the same, roles. The Western Roman system isn’t at all the same and leads to different ecclesiology and even theology to a greater or lesser extent (maybe not so much now as in the time of the Great Schism or the Reformation or for that matter even in the 19th century.)

In reality, the EOs and RCs don't "agree" on everything either, they have factions, fractures, disagreements, sects, etc as well. They may agree on dogmatic doctrines, even though that isn't really true either, but Protestants also agree on "essential doctrines", which we also consider to be dogmatic doctrines which cannot be denied and be legitimately Christian.

Yes, I fully agree. If they are not in communion, then whatever they disagree on can't be likened to eating crackers in bed. :) And of course you are right that there are certain core beliefs among Protestants that link us together if only to define what Christianity is. Unfortunately, many claim to be Protestant Christians when their beliefs do not meet even the most basic Biblical standards.

Thanks for your reply:

Yes, but the thought (plan) of committing any sin is a sin in and of itself.

True. But on examination there's more to it that has severe cause and effect consequences.

The thoughts themselves are at first beyond our control, but less so with proper praxis. The thoughts can be immediately rejected or they can be entertained and played with. This can lead to placing ourselves in a time and place of opportunity. Then comes the act of sin itself. And further, the continuation of this process leading to an addictive state making it harder and harder to avoid.

Each of the stages brings more suffering, not less.

The Church has practical methods to help. Chief among them is examination of conscience and the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Most important is awareness and remembrance: remembrance of God's love and remembrance of the pain of sin that can get forgotten in its glamour.

This is as contrasted with on earth, wherein many times the sin is satisfied.

Unless we confuse pleasure with happiness, sin is never satisfied, it results in a never-ending addictive desire for more, and greater and greater unhappiness.

Hence my theory is that leaving a sinner with only the thought of sin is a lesser suffering.

I am not at all sure that the Latins have placed their Faith in an “institution”....I often think Protestant’s view of what we call The Church is very Roman, very “institutional”, to no great surprise frankly.

Institution-dictionary definition #8

To point out that Eastern bishops fell into heresy and that The Church was pulled back from those heresies by the Bishop of Rome and the laos tou Theou, the people of God, is not exactly news, HD. Until the Great Schism, most heresy arose in the East and among Eastern hierarchs. Its one of the reasons we say that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops....How so? The Great Schism was about a number of theological points. Which Western theological point involved in the Schism do you think was within the consensus patrum and thus demonstrates Orthodoxy’s failure to adhere to the consensus.

I would never say that the schism represented a failure of the east. I happen to agree on the eastern interpretation of the filique. Instead my point is the schism illustrates how consensus are not reached-not who was right or wrong.

There's still a difference between foreknowledge and predestination that gets often lost in Calvinism.

Oh, I think Calvinists understand the difference. Augustine certainly understood it. It's not that difficult. All you have to do is keep in mind that God is in control. It's that simple.

The Calvinist solution is that there are no innocent children.

All have sinned and fall short. Those aren't my words. But we are saved by faith through Jesus Christ our Lord. Who God grants this faith to is impossible to tell. We can only look to ourselves to see if we're in "this faith". Those aren't my words either.

Of that He wishes to control. Omnipotent includes God granting man free will....This is the aspect that Calvinists often conflate and confuse.

There are only two types of wills; God's will and man's will. God's will=good. Man's will=bad. I don't see what is confusing about that. In fact, I find Calvinist rather simple to understand. Man has the same nature, man makes same bad choices, God saves men in the same way, etc.

What I find confusing is people saying:

Now that's confusing. No wonder people embrace Open Theism.

IOW: We're saved unknown and for unknowable reasons.

Not quite. We do know we are called according to His purpose to bear fruit to bring glory to God. Every Christian does this in some form or fashion. How we bear fruit is not always known.

“God’s will=good. Man’s will=bad”

God made man in His image and “likeness” . That likeness is to “will” to love. What you just wrote makes God a lier.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church..
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PF.HTM

THE REVELATION OF GOD

I. God Reveals His “Plan of Loving Goodness”

51 “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”2

52 God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son.3 By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

53 The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously “by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other”4 and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father’s pleasure.5

This shold make perfect sense to anyone.

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.