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.
Not comparable, not even close.
I think you're putting too much into "in" as opposed to "to"
Sometimes one word sets Gnostic "gospels" apart from the genuine ones. If you read Gnostic "gospels" without knowing they are Gnostic, you may have difficulty discerning them as Gnostic. Try reading some of them. They sure read "authentic."
Paul says: Gal 1:15-16 : 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace
That's wonderful, but it is his word and that's all. We have no way of authenticating it, not objectively for sure.
And he also says: Gal 2:20 : I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
Again, the same "truism." His word, take it or leave it on blind faith.
Paul's claim is only that Christ is working through him
Gnostic writers do the same. Mohammad claims that he was only doing God's will. It's a cliché phrase, like those intended to shut opponents like "God didn't give you eyes and ears to see and hear" the truth. Gnostics loved that (except they used "knowledge").
and that he had been especially chosen to carry Christ's message
Right...
Any Apostle could have said the same thing.
Indeed. Many a non-Apostle does too. Appealing to being "God's chosen" is an instant authority without having to show a diploma of authenticity.
Then name one that you think stands up to the Bible in terms of external historical accuracy, bibliography, claims made, internal consistency, and timelessness
I didn't make the claim; you did. I say that all "holy books" lack objective proof and must be accepted on blind faith. That is prima facie modus operandi of such books. You said that the Bible is unlike any other "holy book." I agree, but that doesn't objectively prove its veracity.
Actually, we don't say that at all. Instead, we say that the whole of God's Church authenticated them, not any hierarchy.
Well, when one lacks any apostolic succession and valid clergy, what else can they say? :) The historical fact is that it was precisely the Church hierarchy that approved and canonized the NT in a special Council in Carthage (end of 4th century). But we wouldn't want historical facts to get in the way of Reformed innovations...would we? :)
If you're right, this further proves there was no centralized authority at the beginning
It's historically verifiable. A little Google does wonders...
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
The "whole" Church could not read and write, FK. Very few people had the skills to do this...sola scriptura was no invented yet. Historically and factually: the Council of Carthage canonized the NT; the hierarchy of the whole Church, that is.
If one believes that Christianity is a revealed faith then one MUST believe it. If it is a hidden faith, then anything goes
But all authors, true and false, claim inspiration and revelation! If one believes A, and he beieves B=A "just because," then he must believe B just the same. The "leap" of faith is to believe A first. The rest follows "naturally." But, if A is an assumption and not a "fact," then B and all subsequent letters are assumptions of the assumption.
Then you freely admit that the Church is higher than God's word itself
We don't have the original and we can make no claims of infallibility based on copies of copies. If you accept the Christian canon (NT) then you accept that it was proclaimed, by inspiration, infallibly by fallible men in an infallible Church. Only an inspired body can recognize infallibly what is inspired.
At which point did the Church become "fallible," fallible individuals in it notwithstanding?
We have 2 Tim. 3:16-17 along with other self-authenticating scriptures
2 Timothy simply speaks of all scriptures (at that time that was only the uncanonzied OT), and since the OT canon was not finalized (yet), 2 Tim really does not provide us with any knowledge what constitutes scripture and how do we really "know" it is scripture. Don't forget that the Apostles quoted form the Septuagint in in over 90% of the cases and used "Apocrypha" as sources, and that at the time +Paul wrote Timothy (although this is disputed by many scholars), there was no New testament written yet and all the Gospels were being taught orally , but word of mouth.
However, if one's premise is that the scriptures are NOT authoritative, then that is that
A claim must be authenticated. Otherwise we have no way of knowing what is true and what is a lie. All scriptures lack any objective authentication. They are accepted on blind faith. We accept Incarnation because the Bible says so. We believe the Bible is true "just because." The Muslims believe the Koran is "true" also "just because," just as the Hindus believe panishiads are "true" (actually a lot closer to Christianity than Islam!) "just because."
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
And who has the qualifications and monopoly on "truth?" The reader? Is it objective or subjective truth? What constitutes a "proof" a passing score on the truth test— 50%, 75%, 100%???
Then those lone wolf Bishops were apparently all over the map as to what scripture even was according to your earlier statement
Telling isn't it?
Ah, then perhaps I was projecting onto you from a conversation I was having with Alex. My apologies
No problem. Hierarchy and central authority are not synonymous. You can have a decentralized ecclesial communities and more centralized ones. It's a matter of administration, not of structure.
I would suggest there are times when we wish to fit a round peg into a square hole. The question one has to answer is whether they are going to be true to what the text actually states.
“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.
Yes, I'm sure it does. Typical answer like the many countless commentaries I have looked at through the years; no real thought as to what the verse is actually stating. Usually I get the answer you have given.
Trouble is I looked in the wrong commentaries. The true answer is that one cannot hear the word of God unless it is granted to them by God. Peter is a great example.
Mar 4:12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
At the risk of sounding a tad arrogant, it amazes me that, after people are explained the right way to interpret the scripture, people will continuously try to find every excuse to not admit the fact that God is the source of our hearing, our repenting, our believing. Even when confronted with obvious scripture. My Bible School teacher is like this, wonderful Christian that he is, in that he simply glosses over these verses saying he doesn't understand them.
Fortunately, I believe that God is the source of knowledge as well.
All in the Plan.
No, God brings us to repentance and gives us our faith. You can't flee from God. He's everywhere.
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 in Romans 9 we find that a hardening of the heart has come upon the Jews until the Gentiles are brought in. God has granted the Gentile a chance to repent at the expense of the Jews.
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!
Our Lord is speaking about dying physically. All people have always died in their sins with the exception of Enoch and Elijah. You must be born again.
God is the source of everything, Harley.
“WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”
My goodness I’ve been there. Still go there at times. Tulip eyes are not required to understand scriptures.
Now what amazes me is some can overlay reality with a theology that contradicts their own direct personal experience.
God’s grace shines on all men. All men make choices. It’s a key part of what makes us human.
God did not create a clockwork human.
Each person can prove this for themself.
Ah... The Matrix.
;)
Do you have any interpretation to the scriptures besides, "Calvin is bad. Free will is good."?
Each person can prove this for themself.
That's what Pelagius thought as well.
The Church understanding has been from the beginning that God gives/grants everyone a chance (option) to repent.
Yes, God is everywhere and yet we can shut Him out. Is God indwelling in the reprobate as well? One can stick his head into the sand and pretend that the Sun doesn't shine. One can then live in his own darkness. That doesn't mean God isn't "out there."
Sin separates us from God (or are you going to tell the reformed would say that God is in sin as well?). Yet He is physically both inside and outside of His creation. But we would not say that God is in a rock, or in an ant, would we?
And in Romans 9 we find that a hardening of the heart has come upon the Jews until the Gentiles are brought in. God has granted the Gentile a chance to repent at the expense of the Jews
In Acts the writer states
Notice how the writer says "since you repudiate..." We are responsible ofr our actions, HD. That responsibility comes from our ability to make choices that are our own.
Our Lord is speaking about dying physically
Then He was speaking to the "saved" as well because everyone dies physically. Yet the context of that chapter tells us He was addressing the non-believers.
I wouldn't disagree. God gives everyone a chance. God is everywhere and He continuously calls and calls and call and call. The simple fact is that no one wants to take God up on the offer.
Notice how the writer says "since you repudiate..." We are responsible ofr our actions, HD.
I don't disagree with this either. We are responsible for our own actions. God calls and calls and calls. We continuously reject His message. The only reason some of us are saved is simply because He opens our eyes and hearts to the truth.
Free will is true. You're exercising in right now. Are you not aware of the scriptures of God's grace shining on all men?
[Each person can prove this for themself.] That's what Pelagius thought as well.
Palagius's error was not that God made man with free will. It is an error, however, to deny it. An error, again, that is capable of being disproven by each person at each moment of their conscious existence.
Including you. Right now.
Is the reprobate, as defined by Calvinism, incapable of love and incapable of compassion?
That is what we understand to be the 'free will," HD.
We continuously reject His message
We are on the same page so far!
That's real progress, given our historical disagreements :)
The only reason some of us are saved is simply because He opens our eyes and hearts to the truth
I was afraid you'd say that, but it gives me a specific academic point at which the Reformed theology begins the depart from our mindset.
It is difficult to for me to believe that God calls but doesn't open our eyes. The reprobate know what is good and what is evil, HD. They choose evil because it is closer to our nature. We turn down God, not the other way around. It is we who hate Him, not Him who hates us. After all, He took our natire and suffered and died so that mankind can choose between eternal life and eternal death.
As one of my dear priests once said: "God gives in abundance, and we only give Him crumbs off of our tables!"
Then for you the term "God's Holy word" is really a misnomer because the Bible is neither Holy (because it contains much human error) nor is it God's word (it's the unreliable word of the authors).
I didn't make the claim; you did. I say that all "holy books" lack objective proof and must be accepted on blind faith.
I suppose that your faith in the truth of the Fathers' writings is also blind?
The historical fact is that it was precisely the Church hierarchy that approved and canonized the NT in a special Council in Carthage (end of 4th century). But we wouldn't want historical facts to get in the way of Reformed innovations...would we? :)
So, the Bible is unreliable as historical fact, but the word of the Fathers IS absolutely historical fact? This again puts the hierarchy ahead of the Apostles since you only believe the hierarchy is reliable.
The "whole" Church could not read and write, FK. Very few people had the skills to do this...sola scriptura was no invented yet. Historically and factually: the Council of Carthage canonized the NT; the hierarchy of the whole Church, that is.
The people didn't need to know how to read or write to know whether or not the Gospels they heard were true. The Holy Spirit led them to the truth. The hierarchy did a fine thing by putting a rubber stamp on the earlier work of Holy Spirit, but it wasn't their original work.
If one believes A, and he believes B=A "just because," then he must believe B just the same. The "leap" of faith is to believe A first. The rest follows "naturally." But, if A is an assumption and not a "fact," then B and all subsequent letters are assumptions of the assumption.
So, the trick is to be able to reasonably accept "A" as a fact, and not an assumption. Then a total leap of faith is never necessary, and there CAN be real answers to all the big questions concerning man and God.
If you accept the Christian canon (NT) then you accept that it was proclaimed, by inspiration, infallibly by fallible men in an infallible Church. Only an inspired body can recognize infallibly what is inspired.
There is no basis for this claim. Why MUST the Holy Spirit ONLY lead a small body of men instead of leading His whole Church?
At which point did the Church become "fallible," fallible individuals in it notwithstanding?
The hierarchy of the Church has been fallible since the Apostles, since only the Apostles (and other Biblical authors) were inspired. Being fallible doesn't automatically mean being wrong about everything, though.
2 Timothy simply speaks of all scriptures (at that time that was only the uncanonzied OT), and since the OT canon was not finalized (yet), 2 Tim really does not provide us with any knowledge what constitutes scripture and how do we really "know" it is scripture.
I'm glad Jesus didn't have the extra-Biblical belief that something written had to be Canonized by uninspired men to be true and His real teaching. I guess since nothing was Canonized when Jesus spoke about scriptures, He was really talking about nothing?
We believe the Bible is true "just because." The Muslims believe the Koran is "true" also "just because," just as the Hindus believe panishiads are "true" (actually a lot closer to Christianity than Islam!) "just because."
Then why are you a Christian as opposed to one of those other faiths, or of any faith at all? Just because?
And who has the qualifications and monopoly on "truth?" The reader?
No, Holy Spirit does.
I simply stated that there is no way to objectively authenticate any of these truisms (and that applies to all so-called "holy books"). Ultimately, it comes to what we are personally willing to accept (subjectively) as "holy" and "true."
The Muslims will tell you that the Koran is both "holy" and "inerrant" because it is the word of "God." To them it is, because they are willing to accept it as such. It's personal preference of men; not absolute truth.
I suppose that your faith in the truth of the Fathers' writings is also blind?
I accept Incarnation, Resurrection, and Christianity on blind faith and believe that the Church contains the fullness of God's revelation compared to all other faiths, including the Reformed.
The alternative to blind faith is to follow the example of Pascal's wager that it is simply "safer" to believe than not to believe. What to believe, nevertheless, is still our choice in either case.
So, the Bible is unreliable as historical fact, but the word of the Fathers IS absolutely historical fact?
The Bible is not a historically reliable source. It's importance and authority concern the truth about God, not the world, and it is accepted on blind faith. . The Fathers commented on what we believe are the truths about God. Their value in the Church is in that regard, not history.
The people didn't need to know how to read or write to know whether or not the Gospels they heard were true
Really? They could tell a Gnostic "gospel" from a real one? They didn't have a problem with the Epistle of Barnabas for about three centuries. Then all of a sudden it was no longer inspired to their ears! LOL!
The Holy Spirit led them to the truth. The hierarchy did a fine thing by putting a rubber stamp on the earlier work of Holy Spirit, but it wasn't their original work
LOL! You are making me laugh FK. Do you realize you are making things up as you go along? If the Holy Spirit leads everyone than everyone with the "indwelling spirit" is "inspired." God did not appoint everyone who believes to interpret, or to be an apostle, or a teacher...
So, the trick is to be able to reasonably accept "A" as a fact, and not an assumption. Then a total leap of faith is never necessary, and there CAN be real answers to all the big questions concerning man and God
Absolutely. Once we agree that there are unicorns on Jupiter, we can talk about them as "real." It doesn't necessarily make them real in the strictest sense, so any subsequent "facts" stated about those unicorns are assumptions, just as the "fact" that there are unicorns on Jupiter is. The first assumption becomes the absolute "proof" of the "veracity" of our belief.
There is no basis for this claim. Why MUST the Holy Spirit ONLY lead a small body of men instead of leading His whole Church?
The Holy Spirit leads whomever He chooses, but we know that God appointed apostles and teachers and interpreters...because it's in the Bible. The hierarchy knows more about the faith than an average Joe/Jane. That was especially true in the 4th century AD.
The hierarchy of the Church has been fallible since the Apostles, since only the Apostles (and other Biblical authors) were inspired. Being fallible doesn't automatically mean being wrong about everything, though
And how do you know the Apostles were inspired? Is it not because they are the ones who wrote the New Testament? And who said the New Testament is true? Was it not the Church that canonized it as scripture? So, you accept, hands down, the Church hierarchical decision that the NT is scripture, yet you deny the Church the guidance of the HS?
I would say that anyone who is truly guided by the HS is inspired. Trouble is differentiating who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie, or just simply expressing some madness.
Retrovision is always 20/20, FK. Do you honestly believe that if some backwoods redneck started to preach and claim he is the Son of God tat people would believe him? In fact there is a whacko Protestant minister out there who compares himself with Christ...and some believe it.
I'm glad Jesus didn't have the extra-Biblical belief that something written had to be Canonized by uninspired men to be true and His real teaching. I guess since nothing was Canonized when Jesus spoke about scriptures, He was really talking about nothing?
The Gospels were not written down when Timothy was written, FK. Jewish canon existed but wasn't completed. All Jews agreed that Torah was Scripture. Knowing the history of the faith really heps put all this into a proper perspective, FK.
Then why are you a Christian as opposed to one of those other faiths, or of any faith at all? Just because?
Bottom line: yes. My preference, just as our faith is a personal preference of each and every one of us.
No, Holy Spirit does.
With all due respect, FK, I am bored with this cliché. Just because the HS does doesn't mean we do!
:::You are applying your own idea of who God’s children are to our God:::
Your God? Your own personal God? Do you keep him on the hall stand and rub his head for luck as you go by?
This is a huge difference between the Catholics and so many Protestants. We see ourselves as His creatures; His creations and therefore subservient to Him.
:::God does not adopt SOME of His children. That is YOUR belief. Instead, God adopts ALL of His children, as the Bible says.:::
This is correct. God adopts ALL of His children, as the Bible says. He does not discard them like unwanted kittens.
:::You say that God “owes” satan maintenance. It is only from THERE that you then accuse our God of being the author of evil.:::
I don’t believe that I said anything about maintenance. I believe that I said that since the Reformed God preordains everything then the Reformed God is responsible for everyone’s actions and therefore satan’s actions as well.
You cannot have it both ways. Either God is responsible for every action or He is not.
:::It just isn’t a fair reading of Paul to say he went to his death not knowing where he was going.:::
Not fair? I thought that Reformed theology was all about unfairness.
1 Cor 9:
24
Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win.
25
Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.
26
Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.
27
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.
Even as far back in his ministry as this, Paul indicates that he must work for his salvation, and it is possible for one to lose it. Paul did not KNOW. He hoped.
:::Sure, a lost person can hear the word and “believe”, but that doesn’t make him saved. :::
So Jesus lied when He said:
John 11:
25
Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,
26
and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Matt 10:
32
Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father.
33
But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
Matt 11:
28
“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
30
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”
Matt 16:
24
19 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, 20 take up his cross, and follow me.
25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 21
26
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
27
22 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
:::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:::
Okay. You’re a cynic. :)
I don’t know who you are referring to when you speak about uninspired men who can save the laity. It certainly isn’t the Church or its clergy.
:::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 certitude is not certitude, then what is it? Possible certitude? Half certitude? Fractional certitude?
The problem with ‘knowing’ with absolute certainty is that there is no objective and ascertainable evidence that that knowledge is correct.
:::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.:::
Paul, and the other apostles, served as bishops. We know that each of them had his own territory and was responsible for the churches within it. 12 Apostles plus Paul. Pretty centralized, I’d say.
Philippians 1: [1] Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philip'pi, with the bishops and deacons
Maybe not as centralized as you think.
The Church is centered around the bishop. Each local church contains the fullness of mysteries of the faith (sacraments) and is every which way sacramentally the Church. There is no higher spiritual authority than a bishop.
Administrativley, the organization of the Church could not remain on the early, primitive, levels. Ecclesial structure assinged bishops to oversee larger territories (archbishops), but they are still bishops in terms of dignity and rank, and equal to other bishops. No bishop can lord over other bishop(s), just as Apostles did not lord over one another. hey can, however, address other bishops pastorally, which is exactly what St. Paul does in his pastoral epistles, or what the Pope/Patriarchs do to the churches in communion with them.
The same is true of Patriarchs, whose dignity (honor) is simply historical and political (associated with imperial capitals, and historical churches—Older and Newer Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch...or of nations in newer times), but they are still "just" bishops.
The official title of the Pope of Rome was Episcopus Romanus (Bishop of Rome) until the end of the 4th century. As far as the ecclesial structure goes in the first millennium, he was first among others in honor and privilegde but not in jurisdiction and power who presides in charity and the elder brother.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is still ecclasially organized in the same way as the ancient Undivided Church of the first millennium. All decisions are decided by a Synod, and a Patriarach, who presides and covenes councils, casts his vote along with other bishops, but has no jurisdictional power over them. On ly the Church as a whole administatively decides on enforcement and rules by a vote in a Synod of bishops. The Church canons are the "constitution" that safeguards order and discipline within the ecclasial community.
:) great minds think alike! :)
I have been expressing that thought in a number of posts with FK preceding yours.
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.