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.
Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
From this you get God creates dead people without free will?
I agree with you that the Bible, and Paul, speak of salvation in three tenses. However, that is fully consistent with Reformed theology. All three tenses are really wrapped into one singular concept. None of the three can happen for the elect without the other two. It just isn't a fair reading of Paul to say he went to his death not knowing where he was going. Again, not choosing to accept God's promises of assurance is not fatal in a salvational sense. It just means you spend a lot of time worrying about that when you don't need to. :)
Paul was writing at the end of his [life?] in hope and belief, but not certitude.
Then his writings as a whole betray his inner thoughts. Paul always wrote with confidence and surety about what he believed in. He KNEW in whom he believed. To picture him without certitude on this is not to acknowledge his actual words.
As Jeremiah expressed it, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).
So we should disregard Paul's expressions from the heart based on this? Should we also throw out almost everything the other Apostles wrote too?
There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13).
Sure, a lost person can hear the word and "believe", but that doesn't make him saved. Such a person never received saving grace which is required first for a person to truly believe. It is God who prepares the soil for the elect.
I still find it non-coincidental that the uninspired men who invented ping-pong salvation are the exact same ones who anointed themselves as the only ones to re-save the laity once they blew it. Call me a cynic. :)
Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
Well this is another matter ENTIRELY! I have been very clear in the last month or so that we do not claim Divine certitude. We claim the certitude that a human may have, which is less. Human assurance is the same as human certitude. Divine certitude is something else. If you will agree to assurance as a possibility, then I can ask no more. :)
It makes perfect sense to me. With man having free will.
Maybe we have different ideas of what “free” means here.
Interpreting a different species of human being makes not sense to me from this or other readings.
And without man’s capacity to choose, all of Jesus ministry is nonsensical.
It is a problem or credibility, which is not established by anything credible. Why don't you tell me what makes one credible and the other one not? Just because?
Perfect people don't sin and the Apostles ALL surely sinned. Paul claims to be the chief among them, and he probably has a decent case
So they are not perfect but their work is perfect? Are you saying they are just pens in God's hands and none of what they wrote was theirs St. Paul claims a lot of things to be his and not commandments of the Lord)? How do we know that what is written as their own commandment is without fault? It's all "just because," other proof notwithstanding.
No, the full truth isn't relative.
Good. The Apostolics (Catholics and Orthodox) believe that the fullness of God's revealed truth, contained in the orthodox faith, is preserved in the catholic Church established by Christ. That's why they say that salvation is not assured outside the Church.
However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways.
That's relativism and that is not scriptural. Christ did not establish many "churches" or "denominations," all containing intsy-bintsy morsels of truth. The Church was established precisely because different people seek God in different ways and different rates and some may never get to know Him. The Church protects such (most of us) from wondering off.
That's why none of us is in the same place in our respective walks (stages of sanctification). So, while everyone is wrong about some things, some are more wrong than others
That is Protestants' excuse of relativistic ecumenism, which recognizes no absolute truth but only seeds (Greek "sporoi") of truth in different denominations—one step short of universalism. God did not want us wondering and being scattered but being gathered into one Church, precisely because all of us are at a different level of sanctification. It is okay to be relatively wrong within the Church, but not when the differences actually become rival "churches" or denominations.
That's wonderful, HD, but not really "Pauline." The verse is future tense (will die). I (and all Orthodox and Catholics) certainly believe that! If we don't repent and come to God we "will surely die" in sin. That is night and day from the Reformed construct of being born "dead in sin." How can one die (in the future tense) if one are already dead?
And once you are brought to life, are you not secure from dying (again) since Christ paid for your sins? So, no matter how much you sin, according to the Reformed theology, you cannot die in sin! That's why Luther said pecca fortiter (basically: sin all you want, boldly), your debt is covered. LOL!
Who exactly was Christ addressing in John 8:24 according to the Reformed theology? The saved or the reprobate? In either case, it doesn't apply to the "saved" because they cannot die in sin again, and certainly not to the reprobate because ther are already dead and cannot die in the future.
It is a problem of credibility, which is not established by anything credible. Why don't you tell me what makes one credible and the other one not? Just because?
It is partially a matter of faith, but it is not blind faith. The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world. Christianity is the only faith where the main figure actually claims to BE God. In addition, the Bible passes all standard tests of textual criticism with flying colors. NT books were being circulated among those who were alive during Jesus' time and who would know if they were true or not. If they were fiction, then they would have been debunked and forgotten. Yet, that didn't happen. Finally, it seems that 99.9% of your faith is centered in the Church alone, and that same Church vouches for the authenticity of Paul's writings.
So [Biblical authors] are not perfect but their work is perfect?
In the drafting of scripture, God's work through them was perfect, yes. That's what inspired means.
Are you saying they are just pens in God's hands and none of what they wrote was theirs?
No, their personalities and writing styles clearly were allowed to come through, but the message was 100% pre-approved by God. IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures. Just as God managed that, He also managed to make sure that the copies we have today are substantially identical to the originals, at least as to the revelation that God wanted us to have.
St. Paul claims a lot of things to be his and not commandments of the Lord
One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things".
However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways.
That's relativism and that is not scriptural. Christ did not establish many "churches" or "denominations," all containing intsy-bintsy morsels of truth.
Of course it's scriptural. The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.
At least for now.
Any Christian body that has "Tradition" and "Church Authority/Magesterium" as coequals to Scripture can claim the authority to add or delete at anytime. The formalized inclusion of the Apocrypha wasn't done until Trent. Transubstantiation was not formalized as a dogma until the 1200's.
They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then.
We will probably have to keep teaching this until the day we are taken home. Myths die hard and a great deal of what has come later is based on the mythology of the mono-bishophoric system having some special status and as a result the ability to do whatever it wants.
Thanks for the ping. I'm still really caught up in that eschatology thread. ;-)
I beg to disagree. It is always blind, because it is taken on someone's word. Such as +Paul's claim that God revealed His Son "in [sic] him," [rather than to him!] we have no way of knowing if that is true or not unless we are willing to take his word on blind faith. IOW, he claims that [the knoweldge of] Christ was in him all along (sounds very Gnostic to me). We have no way of authenticating that.
The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world
I take it, on blind faith no less, that you speak authoritatively, having studies exhaustively all other "holy books."
Christianity is the only faith where the main figure actually claims to BE God
That is a unique feature of Christian faith, indeed, because God is otherwise ineffable and distant, which is the case in all religions, including Judaism. In the OT, God is even quoted as saying that He is unlike anything we are, that His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways. In the NT, +Paul tells us the opposite: Christians "have a mind of Christ." And we are called to imitate (obvously in His human nature).
So, His humanity is an essential element of Christian faith that makes our relationship with God understandable and human level (because we can only relate to God personally through His human nature). How can one feel "close" to an ineffable God? How can one feel close and personal with the Sun (shinto), or with an inconceivable entity?
In addition, the Bible passes all standard tests of textual criticism with flying colors
Textual criticism is a method of establishing which version of the many copies of biblical material is most likely authentic. It does not establish absolute Biblical veracity over other "holy books." Textual criticism does not establish which books are inspired and which profane. That was a decision made by fallible human beings in the Church hierarchy, or so I am reminded by the Protestant side.
NT books were being circulated among those who were alive during Jesus' time and who would know if they were true or not
Among those books were many books that were later rejected, and many of those who followed Christ (such as Ebionites) did not agree with Pauline approach to Christianity. Like I said, the Epistle of Barnabas were read as scripture for almost 3 centuries (the oldest copy of a complete Christian Bible, Codex Sinaiticus, written circa mid 4th century still has this Epistle as part of the biblical canon), only to be dropped without any explanation shortly thereafter.
If they were fiction, then they would have been debunked and forgotten
That's not what the historical development of the Christian canon indicates. For the longest time, different churches read publicly books that were later rejected. On the other hand, many churches rejected those writings that were later incorporated into the canon (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, etc.).
Most importantly, the formation of the Christian canon in the 4th century by the Church Fathers presupposes by necessity that the Church as a whole is inspired, for only an inspired body can recognize and infallibly establish what is inspired. Otherwise, it is a guess, a hit and miss.
If we dismiss the latter and accept the Christian canon as true and credible, because it was an infallible decision, then we must presume the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and its Orthodox Faith, as an inspired Body of Christ.
Yet, that didn't happen
We know that what we consider the orthodox Christian teaching won over other sects and cults. Why this was the outcome is only a guess. We really don't know with any certainty why. But we believe it is because the Catholic Church, and its Orthodox Faith represent the true Church of Christ and as such it will never be brought down.
Finally, it seems that 99.9% of your faith is centered in the Church alone, and that same Church vouches for the authenticity of Paul's writings
A 100%! Just the way you place 100% of your faith in the Holy Scripture. If the Holy Scripture is truly holy, than the Church is holy for recognizing what was holy and what belonged to the canon.
In the drafting of scripture, God's work through them was perfect, yes. That's what inspired means
Then the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church is truly Orthodox, even if its individual members are not. :)
No, their personalities and writing styles clearly were allowed to come through, but the message was 100% pre-approved by God
The Jews, who gave us the OT, would disagree and call us That is what we believe but cannot claim as fact.IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures
Purely speculative, and true only to the extent that one is willing to believe it. But the Church did not posses the originals either because all extant copies of the Bible (save for a few shreds of older parts of biblical manuscripts) date to the 4th century.
That means the Church was making a decision what is infallibly accepted as the NT by all Christians, including the Reformed, on imperfect copies and not on the 100% God-approved originals. Such a decision could have been pure on either speculation or pure inspiration!
Just as God managed that, He also managed to make sure that the copies we have today are substantially identical to the originals, at least as to the revelation that God wanted us to have
He wanted us to have the Church that will safe keep the original meaning and intent of the teaching regardless of what corruption various copying and fraud created in the subsequent copies of His word. If the Church was holy enough to infallibly recognize inspired text for the NT, then it is holy enough to be the depository of the fullness of God's revelation as well, individual sinners in it notwithstanding.
One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things"
Yes, but what guarantee do we have that even one single example of a personal opinion is not fallible? We don't. It's a presumption. The infallibility of the scripture is based on being able to resolve all apparent "contradictions" of the scripture through scripture. That does not prove anything other than an incredible ability of our minds to rationalize even seemingly contradictory statements. Isn't it why we have lawyers for? :)
Of course it's scriptural. The first churches we are told about were all different and suffered from different spiritual problems. They were under no central human leadership. Paul's epistles prove all of this. In no way did the monolith you have now exist back then
They were under the central human leadership of the Apostles, and then under those appointed by the Apostles, the bishops, and later even by those who were appointed bishops by existing bishops.
Unfortunately, many of the churches were still pagan in their mind sets, or drifted towards pagan ways, as the Jews did through much of the OT period, and as +Luke reminds us in Acts that we can fall away.
Orthodox Churches are all different too, and not under one central authority, except Christ, but they all share the same theology and Divine Liturgy. In that sense, the Orthodox Churches are very much like the most ancient ones, and least changed.
The monolith is a Latin creation and, in time, with God's help the Latin Church will return to its ancient ecclasiastical roots and still preserve its rich liturgical and spiritual tradition because I firmly believe that is where the Catholic heart is leading the Church. The Church hierarchy is established in the NT, because some were appointed to be apostles, some teachers, etc.
LOL, no thanks. See my 11,170.
HA! Then explain this simple verse:
And without man’s capacity to choose, all of Jesus ministry is nonsensical.
Not if our Lord's mission was to come to seek and save that what He lost, the elect chosen of God. God chose the sons of Abramham, not the other way around.
And who brings you to repentance?
And once you are brought to life, are you not secure from dying (again) since Christ paid for your sins?
And where does it say that after you have been born again that you can die? Can the angels die?
Who exactly was Christ addressing in John 8:24 according to the Reformed theology? The saved or the reprobate?
Well who do YOU think its address in John 8? It's certainly not the saved.
Yes, that has certainly been demonstrated to be "convenient" for them many times. :)
I'm still really caught up in that eschatology thread. ;-)
I am too, thanks to pings from you and Dr. E. I'm still too chicken to post substantively, though. I'm still trying to figure out the sides! LOL!
Obviously it means there are a lot of humans who are the spawn of Satan.
Or perhaps not.
I beg to disagree. It is always blind, because it is taken on someone's word. Such as +Paul's claim that God revealed His Son "in [sic] him," [rather than to him!] we have no way of knowing if that is true or not unless we are willing to take his word on blind faith. IOW, he claims that [the knowledge of] Christ was in him all along (sounds very Gnostic to me). We have no way of authenticating that.
Then by your standards of historiography, there practically IS NO ANCIENT HISTORY ...... of ANYTHING ...... outside of blind faith. :) No scholar I can think of uses this standard.
I think you're putting too much into "in" as opposed to "to". Paul says:
Gal 1:15-16 : 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, ...
And he also says:
Gal 2:20 : I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
1 Tim 1:16-17 : 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me , the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
Paul's claim is only that Christ is working through him, and that he had been especially chosen to carry Christ's message. Any Apostle could have said the same thing.
FK: "The Bible is unlike any other "Holy Book" in the world."
I take it, on blind faith no less, that you speak authoritatively, having studies exhaustively all other "holy books."
Then name one that you think stands up to the Bible in terms of external historical accuracy, bibliography, claims made, internal consistency, and timelessness.
Textual criticism does not establish which books are inspired and which profane. That was a decision made by fallible human beings in the Church hierarchy, or so I am reminded by the Protestant side.
Actually, we don't say that at all. Instead, we say that the whole of God's Church authenticated them, not any hierarchy.
That's not what the historical development of the Christian canon indicates. For the longest time, different churches read publicly books that were later rejected. On the other hand, many churches rejected those writings that were later incorporated into the canon (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, etc.).
If you're right, this further proves there was no centralized authority at the beginning.
If the Holy Scripture is truly holy, than the Church is holy for recognizing what was holy and what belonged to the canon.
Yeah, the whole Church, not some hierarchy.
FK: "IOW, no human mistakes or errors made their way into the original scriptures."
Purely speculative, and true only to the extent that one is willing to believe it.
If one believes that Christianity is a revealed faith then one MUST believe it. If it is a hidden faith, then anything goes.
He wanted us to have the Church that will safe keep the original meaning and intent of the teaching regardless of what corruption various copying and fraud created in the subsequent copies of His word.
Then you freely admit that the Church is higher than God's word itself.
FK: "One was cited earlier. There might be one more, but I know there is no pattern of any kind. There are not "a lot of things".
Yes, but what guarantee do we have that even one single example of a personal opinion is not fallible? We don't. It's a presumption.
We have 2 Tim. 3:16-17 along with other self-authenticating scriptures. However, if one's premise is that the scriptures are NOT authoritative, then that is that.
The infallibility of the scripture is based on being able to resolve all apparent "contradictions" of the scripture through scripture. That does not prove anything other than an incredible ability of our minds to rationalize even seemingly contradictory statements. Isn't it why we have lawyers for? :)
Like Calvin? :) A document may be internally consistent, but that doesn't make it true. There's more to it than that. An infallible document must also pass the truth test.
They were under the central human leadership of the Apostles, and then under those appointed by the Apostles, the bishops, and later even by those who were appointed bishops by existing bishops.
Then those lone wolf Bishops were apparently all over the map as to what scripture even was according to your earlier statement.
Orthodox Churches are all different too, and not under one central authority, except Christ, but they all share the same theology and Divine Liturgy. In that sense, the Orthodox Churches are very much like the most ancient ones, and least changed.
Ah, then perhaps I was projecting onto you from a conversation I was having with Alex. My apologies. :)
There was a time in my life when scripture sounded like the drone of preacher’s meaningless platitudes.
Then, there came a time when Jesus’s words took on a meaning I understood.
I did not change my species from nonhuman with no free will to human with free will.
“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
Makes perfect sense to me. No Tulip interpreter required.
Omniscient God lost 'em?
The Lord desires that we come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9), but we must come on our own free will (Isa 30:15-16). He offers, we accept or reject; we come to Him or we flee form Him.
God desire that all men be saved, but some do not accept His offer. Repentance leads to salvation and repentance must be free to be true and it must be shown by deeds (sure sounds like works based) according to Acts 26:20, Luk 3:8, Mat 3:8.
In Acts 11:18, God has granted a chance to repent even to the Gentiles (i.e. to all humans), not just the Jews.
And where does it say that after you have been born again that you can die
You can fall away. Every time you sin and do not repent you fall away, even if you don't think you do. In sin you separate yourself from God and form Life.
Well who do YOU think its address in John 8? It's certainly not the saved
To the Pharisees, of course, but assuming you mean the "reprobate" I say baloney: in the deformed theology of the Reformation, the reprobate are already dead! So the words "you will die" in John do not apply to the reprobate because they are already dead! He is speaking of those who are actually alive (because only those who are alive can die!)—the believers who continue to sin but fail to repent and show repentance through works (probably most of the "Paulines" who believe they are safe no matter what).
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.