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.
I am allowed to have dissenting opinions but in the end I always defer to the Church, as to the RCCs and the EOs.
Then why do you disagree with your church and other EOs so much?
I do not. I have dissenting opinions (our of ignorance, pride, whatever), but I always defer to the Church's collective wisdom and knowledge, that no individual can posses, as the correct teaching.
I simply recognize that my opinions are not always in line with the Church teaching. I do not claim monopoly on truth.
One could just as well just cut through the chase and say that Satan, in the Calvinistic universe, is evil because God made him evil. It is God who somehoe cause the rapist to rape. And if a child is born of that rape God "made" him too—because He wanted to...
correction: somehoe=somehow. Sorry
Blessed evening to you too dear brother.
That's his own tradition which he sees as proper and fit and I have no problem with it. In fact, most of us Orthodox always stand in church throughout the 2-hour Divine Litugy "in honor of God." It is only in America that some Orthodox churches have pews.
But the tradition of standing for what is believed to be the word of God (i.e. the Torah) in Judaism was carried to standing when the Gospels are read, because they represent the direct witnessed and living words of God, not revelations made in somone's dreams or in a trans.
If Paul really didn't understand the personhood of Holy Spirit, then your real criticism is of Christ Himself for faulty teaching. Paul says himself that everything he teaches is not from man but from Christ directly/I>
Christ made a big deal of baptizing (Great Commission) yet +Paul thought nothing much of it (he admnits to baptizing only a handful of people and thinks his preaching was much mroe important). I doubt that Christ would have told him something different than what's in the Gospels.
But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).
Anyone can fairly deduce the Trinity from the scriptures
If that were the case than it would not have taken the Church three hundred years to establish a dogma because so many who read the scriptures did not deduce what is so obvious. Retrovision is always 20/20, but Holy Trinity does not stand out in any of the scriptures and in those places where it is fraud is evident (i.e. Comma Johanneum in 1 John).
Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.
The Bible also tells us in no uncertain terms that God became Man to save the world and that His grace is given to all.
OK, then if we take the Church's interpretation then God failed in His mission BECAUSE some are His children and some are not. There's no other way around it.
The trouble is that there are passages that seem to contradict that, and therein lies the issue, just as some Arians and Gnostics and non-trinitarian Christians find that Christ says that "the Father is greater than I" and conclude that there is no Holy Trinity.
Sure, there are passages. But the greatest weight of the totality of scripture seems to be clear in teaching the Trinity. That is my interpretation of how the Spirit has led me.
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him
Well, it doesn't say "those who were forced to receive Him..." If I hand out gifts, only those who wish to receive them will receive them, unless I force them to receive them—in which case they didn't "receive" them, did they?
Yes, only those who want to receive Him will receive Him. No argument there. The point of the quote was to note that not all have the right to be children of God.
Mankind forgot God when Adam willfully sinned and fell from grace.
Yes, and so none are children of God until they receive Him.
1 John 3:10 : This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Anyone who does not do what is "right?" And who is to say what is "right?" Everyone thinks he or she is right and has a "good" reason for doing and believing what he or she believes or does.
God is the only one to say what is right. And He does all through the scriptures, both in command and in example.
It is a "failure" only if you define it that way. He saves those who come to Him, who return His love. He offers His blessings to everyone, to the righteous and the unrighteous. Is he wasting His time? Why do the unrighteous get His blessings?
Sure, there are passages. But the greatest weight of the totality of scripture seems to be clear in teaching the Trinity. That is my interpretation of how the Spirit has led me.
The Church teaches that the Son and the Spirit are homoousious (of one essence) with the Father. Do you believe that? Where in the Bible does it say, or even suggest that clearly? jesus says that "the Father is greater than I." Arians and unitarians understand this to be "evidence" of a lesser God, or not even a God. The Church understand that Christ was speakinhg in His human nature. It's not that obvious, FK.
Is the father the eternal source of the Son and the Spirit? Where does it say that?
Etc.
Yes, only those who want to receive Him will receive Him. No argument there
So, now you acknowledge free will?
Yes, and so none are children of God until they receive Him
By our fallen nature and not because God created us that way.
God is the only one to say what is right. And He does all through the scriptures, both in command and in example
We believe that if we do as Christ teaches us in the Gospels we will not stray into too much wrong. Mercy, forgivenss, loving your enemies, etc.
Not really, FK. We only know that God's love does not force itself, but offers to all.
Then how do you explain how God failed in His mission to save all? I could think of no other logical explanation than that it was more important to God to preserve man's free will than to save him.
FK: "God would rather see His own beloved child go to hell for eternity than intrude on his free will."
No true, FK. ...... The Bible is clear that God takes "no pleasure" in suffering. If we go to hell it's because we condemn ourselves by sinning and refusing to repent. We condemn ourselves by refusing God.
Yes we condemn ourselves, and I didn't say anything about God's pleasure in this, I just postulated His priorities based on Apostolic thought. IF God is powerful enough to save anyone He wants, and IF God wants all to be saved, and IF not all are saved, then there must be a reason. I have given the only logical reason I have heard so far. If there is another I will certainly listen. :)
Our view is that God has everything, and lacks nothing.
Well, God certainly lacks all being saved, which is what you say He wanted.
Well, how is this different from everyone making up his own rules and morality based on the "indwelling spirit" (which could just as well be a demon or even a mental illness)?
The difference is simply in whether it is true or not. The Holy Spirit either leads or He does not. I do not fear that I am being led by a demon just as you do not fear that the men whose faith you are putting your trust in were led by demons.
Maybe because the Bible tells us to "choose life?" (Deut 30:19, 2 Kin 18:32). God is telling us that we do have a say in our destiny. He offers us salvation. Ours is to accept it and give ourselves to Him.
As MLG said, all who CAN choose life, will. Your quote is one of many outward callings. They are not inward callings indicating predestination or ordination.
FK: "Yes, God will not interfere. It is man's sovereign decision."
Baloney, FK. Isa 38:5 says otherwise. He hears our prayers and responds to those that are pure in intent.
You are making my case. Man, in his sovereignty, chooses to pray for salvation. He uses his inner goodness to produce a pure heart, along with grace God gives to everyone, and God never says "no". Therefore, man determines his own fate under the Apostolic belief.
Very unfortunate, but very true. Thanks much for the book recommendation. :)
Kosta, this is just below you. :) In order to prevent you from posting exactly what you did, I was very careful in how I worded my post. I very carefully distinguished between "praying with" and praying side by side. I realize you're not an evangelist, but I gave you credit for knowing that those of us who are frequently pray FOR the lost in their presence, i.e. we pray "with them".
Praying side by side, which is obviously what MLG was talking about, is different. In the normal sense (not like the visitation example I gave you) that would mean being of a like faith. MLG and I agree that there are many Protestant faiths that are not like faiths to our own. She and I have no disagreement on this.
Well, certainly a small part of the scriptures consists of dreams and visions, but I can't believe you are saying that everything outside of the Gospels fits into that category. It's not even close. The vast majority of non-Gospel scripture is written in the same matter-of-fact style. For example, Paul's epistles were just as much of an eye witness account as to what he had seen as the Gospels are. IOW, Paul also directly related God's words based on his personal eye witness. (It actually goes further than that, but that is a separate issue.)
Christ made a big deal of baptizing (Great Commission) yet +Paul thought nothing much of it (he admits to baptizing only a handful of people and thinks his preaching was much more important). I doubt that Christ would have told him something different than what's in the Gospels.
I agree, Paul was taught by Christ exactly in accordance with the Gospels. Christ never said that water baptism was salvific and Paul agreed. You cite the evidence. Faith, the goal of preaching, IS much more important than baptism. This is not to diminish baptism at all, after all I am a Baptist, the point is only that they are on different levels of importance. There are plenty of people who have had true faith but were never water-baptized, who are now in Heaven. Now, we must remember that Paul was indeed only talking about water baptism in your reference. Paul and Christ were in full agreement that baptism of the Spirit is absolutely vital to salvation.
But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).
What does "on occasion" mean, once? :) Here is what Paul said:
Gal 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Now, based on this if what Paul preached was not exactly in line with what Christ told him, then we know that Paul is a complete liar and we should believe none of what he says. I am more than comfortable that Paul was exactly in line with Christ, but I know many people are not so sure. Paul goes all or nothing in this passage, so we have to choose what to believe.
Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.
Since you lean against it, I don't know what you would accept as obvious. But here is a neat (and easy to use) webpage that gives multiple examples of scripture showing the Trinity, and in different contexts, which makes a better argument. Trinity In The Scripture.
Then how do you explain how God failed in His mission to save all? I could think of no other logical explanation than that it was more important to God to preserve man's free will than to save him
True love has to be given and returned freely, FK. Once you deny that, the whole thing becomes "illogical."
Well, God certainly lacks all being saved, which is what you say He wanted
God doesn't lack His desire to have all men saved. If God makes us "love" Him, then it's not our love that brings us to Him. God foreknew from all eternity that not all men will come to Him when called. He permits free will just as he permits evil that comes from it. But without free will there can be no love. Forced "love" is no love.
The Holy Spirit either leads or He does not. I do not fear that I am being led by a demon just as you do not fear that the men whose faith you are putting your trust in were led by demons
Once you deny free will, which God gave you, then you take any responsibility away from your actions. The HS always leads but we don't always folllow Him (to our condemnation). I am very much aware that men in the Church can be deceived by demons; the Church is made up of sinners. It is your side that claims otherwise.
As MLG said, all who CAN choose life, will. Your quote is one of many outward callings. They are not inward callings indicating predestination or ordination
Nonsense FK. If we can but don't then it's our will, not God's. If it's God's will then we can't even if we (somehow) wanted to! . (You don't breathe because you want to ; you can hold your breath alright, but you can do that only until the body overrides your will).
In fact, it would be an oxymoron to say that we "can" do anything if everything is preordained, even if it is known to God (but, remember, He does not exist in time). He knows what our choices will be but He doesn't make them. He knows the outcome of our choices and He knew them before we even existed I would imgaine, but He doesn't make those choices for us.
You are making my case. Man, in his sovereignty, chooses to pray for salvation
The will to live is innate. Man can pray but man is not sovereign to cause himself to be saved. That salvation can come only from God.
He uses his inner goodness to produce a pure heart
That would make Him a partial God and a partial Judge. And the Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that God is impartial. He offers His blessings to all, the righteous and the unrighteous. In your paradigm, He changes some hearts and leaves others to perish. That's not the God Christ revealed.
God never says "no". Therefore, man determines his own fate under the Apostolic belief
God gives us until the last breath repent and come to Him. We determine our own fate by clinging to sin.
Praying with someone is no different to me then praying "side by side" with those who are not in the Church.
Praying for all mankind is not praying "with" maknind.
Praying side by side, which is obviously what MLG was talking about, is different. In the normal sense (not like the visitation example I gave you) that would mean being of a like faith
Huh, and pray tell how like" or "unlike" must such a faith be for you to pray together? And who determines the limits of such "likeness" or "unlikeness?" You? Your pastor? Your church? Fox News? If Protestant denominations are not "essentially" different enough not to pray together, then why have them? Why do they exist? Does it matter wat people believe and preach?
Apparently, you must dismiss some theological differences as irrelevant, because Protestants hop from one assembly to another as if they were social clubs or political parties. One day you are this; another you are that. Then there is a mix, a little Baptist and a little Calvinist...or the cath-all phrase "as long as they call on Christ as their Savior..." oh boy!
You can dismiss the issue of free will with non-Calvinist majority in SB assemblies as insignificant. You can even dismiss your deep disagreements wiht Apostolics' theology even Mariology, the "idolatry" (imagine praying with "idolaters!"), and so on until you have narrowed down our "likeness" to two things: Holy Trinity and Two Natures of Christ. As long as a "church" recognizes these two elements, we ca pray together, right? The rest of our beliefs are irrelevant, right?
Would you pray with the Jews who deny, even curse Christ (after Jamnia)? Or Hindus? Or Muslims? Or Buddhists? How about other "Christian" cults like LDS and JW who call on Chirst as their Savior? How about "Jews for Christ?" Is this not all your own arbitrary decision? Does that not make your faith and everything else your own arbitrary product? To me it seems that way. Made to your satisfaction, to your liking, just the way you understand it, how you like it, see it or prefer it? It seems Protestantism is all about me, myself and I, imo, FK.
:::Given their view that all people are God’s children, my experience with the Apostolic beliefs is that they would say that while God is powerful enough to save anyone, He refuses to do so because paying homage to man’s free will is far more important to God than saving His own children. God would rather see His own beloved child go to hell for eternity than intrude on his free will decision, EVEN INCLUDING that the child did not have the full information to make such a monumental decision. Too bad for the damned, but at least they can rest in hell knowing that God respected their independence and freedom of choice. :):::
Not homage. Not a matter of indentured slavery. God reaches out with His Grace to all. If love is forced or coerced, it is not love. Freely given worship of Him versus the little windup monkey clapping cymbols together. And we, because God has not given us to know, do not know the final fate of any person. We do not presume. Neither Peter nor Paul knew their final destination; they only had the hope that Jesus gave to them.
:::Rather, He hopes and wishes that independent man will choose Him, and He is deeply disappointed when man thwarts His will that all be saved.:::
Are you not aware of the passages in the OT and NT where God does indicate despair that the people will not turn to Him?
:::When are you going to provide dogmatic teaching from the early church fathers on the dogmas of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Misconception, Roman papal primacy and Roman papal infallibility from the first 4 centuries of the church?
Oh, but you can’t, because it is not there, those are dogmas that Rome imposed that never existed.:::
When was the Bible amassed? When did the Holy Day get specified as Sunday rather than Saturday? When did the doctrine of the Trinity get established?
What makes the first four centuries special as opposed to anything that happened thereafter? You cannot pick and choose. Either you accept the Church’s positions on everything or you accept none of them. You are following some traditions of men and you are rejecting others; yet all of them were established entirely on exactly the same authority - that of the Church.
It’s gotta be heady, being your own pope.
:::Christ did not declare Peter infallible - a man declared himself infallible. The claims by the Catholic church of being the only true Christian church organization are not supported by history or the Bible.:::
Question the 1st: which man has declared himself infallible? And what do you mean by infallible?
Point the 2nd: The history of the Catholic Church are open and plain for all those with eyes that see. If you give me your denomination, I can give you the history and the man or men that founded it. I will give the name of the individual who founded the Catholic Church - Jesus Christ. Given Scripture and given history, can you refute that?
:::Lucifer, being subject to the Sovereignty of God cannot do anything which God does not allow. :::
This is our point. The Reformed God is the source of evil in the world.
Revelation is one of them...and so are most if not all of the prophesies.
The vast majority of non-Gospel scripture is written in the same matter-of-fact style. For example, Paul's epistles were just as much of an eye witness account as to what he had seen as the Gospels are
Oh boy...
I agree, Paul was taught by Christ exactly in accordance with the Gospels
Sure, that's why he dismissed baptism as having much importance compared to his preaching his own gospel (as he called it himself).
Christ never said that water baptism was salvific and Paul agreed
So, ignoring the Great Commission (a commandment)is okay? Or is it that St. Paul wasn't aware of it? Or is it that it was not in the originals and was added by a scribe in later copies like the Comma Johanneum?
You cite the evidence. Faith, the goal of preaching, IS much more important than baptism. This is not to diminish baptism at all, after all I am a Baptist, the point is only that they are on different levels of importance
But when the Church treats some scriptures with "different level of importance" you take the opposite view!
There are plenty of people who have had true faith but were never water-baptized, who are now in Heaven
They are in heaven because of Christ's sacrifice. Their faith did not save them before that.
Now, we must remember that Paul was indeed only talking about water baptism in your reference
He baptized a few adults. Surely it could not have been just water baptism. Some faith had to be there.
What does "on occasion" mean, once?
All those references where St. Paul says "this is not a commandment from the Lord but my own..." or words to that effect.
Now, based on this if what Paul preached was not exactly in line with what Christ told him, then we know that Paul is a complete liar and we should believe none of what he says
A liar must distort the truth intentionally (i.e. consciously) in order to be a liar. I never suggested St. Paul did any of that! God forbid!
Paul goes all or nothing in this passage, so we have to choose what to believe
Therein is the error, FK. Choosing what to believe makes our faith a man-made faith.
Since you lean against it, I don't know what you would accept as obvious. But here is a neat (and easy to use) webpage that gives multiple examples of scripture showing the Trinity, and in different contexts, which makes a better argument
I took a quick look at it and will return to that page to read it thoroughly. Thanks for the link.
We are forbidden to privately interpret the Bible. The Bible itself says so.
It says that the Church is the pillar of Truth, not Scripture.
Yes, He is wasting His time if He gives saving grace to all, knowing that only a few will accept. That would be a failure if His true wish was for all to be saved. Now, I note that you mix in the word "blessing" here, and it is important to note. Some people see blessing and grace as being the same thing, and some see them as being different things. Outside of salvation, I would agree that blessings are wasted by people. However, they are not wasted by God giving them. The person can still learn from the experience of wasting the gift and grow closer to God. With salvation, it is an either/or situation, so it is different. There can be no benefit to the one who throws away saving grace (if such a thing were possible).
Why do the unrighteous get His blessings?
God uses the unrighteous to the benefit of the righteous. Therefore, they have to be "strung along" to get into the positions where God intends to use them. We are told that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven. Well, they didn't get to be rich by accident. God wanted to use them, as rich people, to further His plan.
The Church teaches that the Son and the Spirit are homoousious (of one essence) with the Father. Do you believe that?
Absolutely.
Where in the Bible does it say, or even suggest that clearly?
Well, as that website I just posted points out (under "The Trinity is God"), the Bible is clear that all three are clearly identified as God in scripture. Elsewhere, the Bible is clear that there is only one true God, therefore all must be of the same essence, i.e. "I and the Father are one", etc.
FK: "Yes, only those who want to receive Him will receive Him. No argument there."
So, now you acknowledge free will?
I went into "Patristic mode" again, so "yes", but probably not in the way that you mean it. :) I meant that first, God changes the heart of an elect, and THEN he wants to come to Him. Every time. No one is dragged kicking and screaming into accepting Christ. It's the first step where we might not see eye to eye. :)
FK: "Yes, and so none are children of God until they receive Him."
By our fallen nature and not because God created us that way.
That depends on who the creator is of men after Adam and Eve. I "think" I remember reading recently that you said that man is the creator of further men. If true, I disagree with this. I consider my children to be miracles directly from God. I could not say that if I thought that my wife and I created them.
We believe that if we do as Christ teaches us in the Gospels we will not stray into too much wrong. Mercy, forgiveness, loving your enemies, etc.
That is a good and sound Biblical teaching.
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.