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.
“[Sticheron of the Third Hour, Christmas Eve:] “Before Thy birth, O Lord, the angelic hosts looked with trembling on this mystery and were struck with wonder: for Thou who hast adorned the vault of heaven with stars hast been well pleased to be born as a babe; and Thou who holdest all the ends of the earth in the hollow of Thy hand art laid in a manger of dumb beasts. For by such a dispensation has Thy compassion been made known, O Christ, and Thy great mercy: glory to Thee.”
Case in point, this is truly beautiful. :)”
As Kosta and I have remarked over the past few years, the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi describes Orthodoxy to a T. All of our beliefs are contained in what we pray during the liturgical year. On the eve of the Feast of the Nativity, we chanted the 9 Hours at church just before the Vesperal Liturgy. Because of the make up of the congregation, most of it was done in English with what amounted to a fine “High Church” English translation. It was wonderful.
One could just as easily make a false case of Apostolic Christians practicing "cannibalism" instituted by Jesus when He said, "Eat, this is my Body... Drink, this is my Blood..."
Divinity is essence of God, and no human can ever be consubstantial with God. We can only be united to God by grace. Monkeys may resemble humans in some respects but they are not humans, and can never become humans.
We can dress them up and teach them human behavior, but that does not make them human. Even the most advanced among them are eons away from humanity. And, if by some miracle they evolved into humans, they would cease being monkeys.
We resemble God, but no human can ever be anything but an imitator of God, a bad one at best. The moment a human became "divine" is when he or she ceased being human and formed the "Holy Quaternity." Except that such a thing is impossible (but don't tell our LDS friends), because that would require the fourth "Person" of this unholy alliance to have existed for all eternity!
I was implying that I think it is inappropriate to elevate Mary, or any other human, to the level of "super-human" or "extra-human"
If you are referring to the Immaculate Conception, I would agree. But you also must understand that, from the +Augustinian point of view, the IC is a necessary construct because of +Augustine's concept of the original sin—which the Orthodox East did not know of until the 14th century, and then resolutely rejected it as unorthodox.
I can understand, and even on some level accept, that Mary's Divinity is universally denied by the Apostolic Church
Absolutely denied.
Nevertheless, in my opinion the level to which she HAS been elevated I think serves as a distraction to the relationship we are to have with Christ
I can assure you that the Theotokos never serves as a distraction, but rather brings us closer to God, and I am speaking of the liturgical worship. What people do privately is a different story but it is not what the Church teaches or practices. I have related in the past the case of a few parishioners in my church who show more respect for her than for God by performing metania at the mention of her name. Some people make up their own golden calves, FK, just as some make a golden calf out of the Bible, and call it the "Word" of God.
I see them as competing
Again, this is your impression, but I think you would be hard pressed to show any proof of that liturgically or doctrinally. Impressions can be deceiving. Think of the "cannibalism" mentioned above.
We all know how our God is a jealous God
That's a Hebrew take on God. Christ taught us otherwise.
I can't think of any other examples where He would so willingly share the center of attention as it is claimed that He does with Mary
Again, I invite you to read the text of the Divine Liturgy and show me where does BEV May "share" the center of attention with God.
That avoids addressing the issue, FK.
No one could get away with implying that she was not a teenager at the time of Christ's birth
She was bethroted. In Israel that was as good as being married. Even if she did have relations with +Joseph before marriage that would not be considered "promiscuous." The only requirement was that a woman be a virgin before entering into a formal relationship with a man (bethrotal/marriage).
This is from Matthew Henry on 16:5: "(1.) That they were careless of the means of comfort, and did not stir up themselves to seek it: None of you asks me, Whither goest thou? Peter had started this question (John 13:36), and Thomas had seconded it (John 14:5), but they did not pursue it, they did not take the answer...
That sounds more like a rationalization than a clear-cut answer to me, FK.
If Paul didn't know, then Jesus didn't teach him
Presumption, FK, pure presumption.
That would mean that Jesus didn't think it worth mentioning
More presumptions, FK. Especially in view of the fact that He thought it worth mentioning in Matthew, even though that is really questionable. I hope you read Isa 7 and realize that it had nothing to do with Christ. I also invite you to read Isa 8. You will find another example of women conceiving for a man as a sign of prophesy. This time it's a prophetess becoming pregnant:
[Isa 8:3-4] Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."
Obviously, this was the "standard" a popular myth in Hebrew lands at that time. The prophesy in Isa 7:14 is one too, except for the Ahaz. Compare 7:14 to 8:3-4 and you will see great similarity.
A similar theme is played out when Nathan tells David about God making David's offspring God's anointed and adopted son, the messiah, whose throne will be eternal.
and if THAT was true, then I think that would mess up a lot of assumptions on the Apostolic side
Yes, I can see that. But it's a BIG if. :)
“...I decided my way was the highway. :)”
Smart move, OR!
We do elevate Mary above any other human being because she is the “Type” of the Church that Christ united Himself with at Calvary.
Christ is ALWAYS the head of the Church.
Dear Kosta and Kolo,
I think it’s easy to understand the Immaculate Conception when you believe that mary is the Church.
Here is a very good explanation from Blessed Pope Paul 11
From(I think it’s useful to post it in full)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm58.htm
MARY IS OUTSTANDING FIGURE OF CHURCH
Pope John Paul II
The perfection God conferred upon Mary acquires its most authentic meaning if it is interpreted as the prelude to divine life in the Church
“The plan of salvation which orders the prefigurations of the Old Testament to fulfilment in the New Covenant likewise determines that Mary would live in a perfect way what was later to be fulfilled in the Church”, the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 6 August, as he reflected on Mary as “the Church’s type and outstanding model in faith and charity”. Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 58th in the series on the Blessed Mother and was given in Italian.
1. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, after presenting Mary as “pre-eminent and as a wholly unique member of the Church”, declares her to be the Church’s “type and outstanding model in faith and charity” (Lumen gentium, n. 53).
The Council Fathers attribute to Mary the function of “type”, that is, figure, “of the Church”, borrowing the term from St Ambrose who expresses himself thus in his commentary on the Annunciation: “Yes, she [Mary] is betrothed, but she is a virgin because she is a type of the Church which is immaculate but a bride: a virgin, she conceived us by the Spirit; a virgin, she gave birth to us without pain” (In Ev. sec. Luc., II, 7, CCL, 14, 33, 102-106). Thus Mary is a type of the Church because of her immaculate holiness, her virginity, her betrothal and her motherhood.
St Paul uses the word “type”, to give tangible form to a spiritual reality. In fact, he sees in the crossing of the Red Sea by the People of Israel a “type” or image of Christian Baptism, and in the manna and in the water which gushed from the rock, a “type” or image of the Eucharistic food and drink (cf. 1 Cor 10:1-11).
By defining Mary as a type of the Church, the Council invites us to see in her the visible figure of the Church’s spiritual reality, and in her spotless motherhood, the announcement of the Church’s virginal motherhood.
In Mary, the spiritual reality proclaimed is completely fulfilled
2. It is necessary to explain that, unlike the Old Testament images or types, which are only prefigurations of future realities, in Mary the spiritual reality signified is already eminently present. The Red Sea crossing described in the Book of Exodus is a saving event of liberation, but it was certainly not a baptism capable of remitting sins and giving new life. Likewise, the manna, a precious gift from Yahweh to his people wandering in the desert, contained nothing of the future reality of the Eucharist, the Body of the Lord, nor did the water which gushed from the rock already contain Christ’s Blood, shed for the multitude.
The Exodus is the great work accomplished by Yahweh for his people, but it does not constitute the definitive spiritual redemption which Christ would achieve in the paschal mystery.
Moreover, referring to Jewish practices, Paul recalls: “These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:17). This is echoed in the Letter to the Hebrews which, systematically developing this interpretation, presents the worship of the Old Covenant as “a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8:5).
3. However, in affirming that Mary is a type of the Church, the Council does not intend to equate her with the figures or types of the Old Testament, but instead to affirm that in her the spiritual reality proclaimed and represented is completely fulfilled.
In fact, the Blessed Virgin is a type of the Church, not as an imperfect prefiguration, but as the spiritual fullness which will be found in various ways in the Church’s life. The particular relationship that exists here between the image and the reality represented is based on the divine plan, which establishes a close bond between Mary and the Church. The plan of salvation which orders the prefigurations of the Old Testament to fulfilment in the New Covenant likewise determines that Mary would live in a perfect way what was later to be fulfilled in the Church.
The perfection God conferred upon Mary, therefore, acquires its most authentic meaning if it is interpreted as a prelude to divine life in the Church.
Mary’s perfection surpasses that of all other Church members
4. After saying that Mary is a “type of the Church”, the Council adds that she is her “outstanding model”, an example of perfection to be followed and imitated. Indeed, Mary is an “outstanding model” because her perfection surpasses that of all the other members of the Church.
Significantly, the Council adds that she carries out this role “in faith and in charity”. Without forgetting that Christ is the first model, the Council suggests in this way that there are interior dispositions proper to the model realized in Mary, which help the Christian to establish an authentic relationship with Christ. In fact, by looking at Mary, the believer learns to live in deeper communion with Christ, to adhere to him with a living faith and to place his trust and his hope in him, loving him with his whole being.
The functions of “type and model of the Church” refer in particular to Mary’s virginal motherhood and shed light on her particular place in the work of salvation. This basic structure of Mary’s being is reflected in the motherhood and virginity of the Church.
This all makes perfect sense to me.
I wish you a Blessed day
"Does the Mother of God, Virgin Mary, participate in the "ancestral sin?" The question does not make much sense for the Orthodox, for it is obvious that Mary, being part of the common human race issued of the first man (Adam), automatically participates in the fallen status and in the "spiritual death" introduced by the sin of the first man.
The Fathers of the Church speculate on Luke 1:35, concluding that Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit the day of Annunciation, in order for her to become the "worthy Mother of God." However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious ("venial") sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee.
Mary was also saved by her Son, for God is her Savior (Luke 1: 47) as well. It is unfortunate that the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the doctrine of the so-called "Immaculate Conception" in 1854, which contradicts the traditional doctrine of the Church concerning Mary.
The Fathers of the Church did not teach Immaculate Conception, and neither did the undivided Church of the first millennium. As far as I know even St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe it, and the Catholic Church left it unsettled until 1854, when the Pope, in absence of any obvious Marian heresy, or pressing presence of any other urgent matter to that effect, bypassing the synod of cardinals, unilaterally and of his own accord proclaimed Immaculate conception as dogma of the (Western) Catholic Church.
What he (Kosta) said!
“A few years ago a RC poster insisted the original New Testament was written in Latin. (He found it very difficult giving the Greeks credit.) :)”
Very few Western Christians know much of anything about Orthodoxy. There are, for example, Roman Catholics who think that it was the 4 ancient Patriarchates plus Moscow which broke from Rome instead of the other way around in the 11th century. If you ever want to get under the skin of a Latin, tell him that you guys learned about rebellion and theological innovation from them! :)
what is SFA?
Oh, I'd say the Bible is pretty clear on what the Law is and what the wages of sin are. God disciplines those He loves the same way we do our own children.
We have a choice: continue down the road and never get to where we wanted to go or admit the error, turn around and take the right exit.
If God does not punish sin or discipline His children, then it sounds like He couldn't care less which road we choose.
FK, most of the people who consider themselves "improved" or "successful" base that on material and rather ungodly things.
Well sure, but the Christian knows he is improved when he is sanctified and has grown in the Lord.
Oh, I feel so bad for you, FK, for thinking your loving God is punishing you for the misery you brought on yourself with your wrong choices, ...
No, no, no. :). I don't blow it 24/7, just sometimes. Otherwise I would think myself sinless, and I know that's wrong. When I do love God the right way, then all is good.
FK: "From that we learn and then grow closer to God."
Identification with the "aggressor" psychology?
Aggressor? Of course it is all out of love. Don't tell me that when you brought your children home from the hospital there was a copy of Dr. Spock on the coffee table. :)
Being of the Catholic denomination does not give you a lock box on God.
Oh, I'd say the Bible is pretty clear on what the Law is and what the wages of sin are. God disciplines those He loves the same way we do our own children.
No, FK, there is no "law" in loving God and your neighbor as yourself; either you do, or you don't, and the consequences thereof.
If God does not punish sin or discipline His children, then it sounds like He couldn't care less which road we choose.
God doesn't need to punish His children. The consequence of our sin is the punishment, and we bring it on ourselves. God only bestows blessings that we either use for good in His name, or abuse for sinful purposes.
the Christian knows he is improved when he is sanctified and has grown in the Lord.
You don't detect arrogance in that statement? When you say "improved," are you then more "deserving" or are you still unworthy?
PS I stopped posting to others since they are not participating. They are welcome to join, however, anytime.
FK, the point was regarding God "punishing" you for your sinful (wrong) choices. The consequence of a wrong choice is the punishment. And you made that choice, not God.
Aggressor? Of course it is all out of love. Don't tell me that when you brought your children home from the hospital there was a copy of Dr. Spock on the coffee table.
Yes, identification with the punisher. Well established psychological phenomenon summarized in the old adage "if you can't beat'em, join'em."
I don't believe in book burning, but burning Spock's books, and obliterating any memory of him, would be an immense pleasure to me. He is the founder of instant gratification "right" and the "me-myself-and-I" dysfunctional and malignant American narcissim.
He repented of his errors before he died at 95, and only God knows if there is enough grace to pardon such an irresponsible idiot.
That is obvious from the Bible, isn't it?
Not to me it's not. :) Why would God create someone if He had no use for him?
Planning is something we do because we are ignorant of the future.
Planning is what we do when we want the future to go a certain way.
God knows what choices we will make and how and when and where we will end. He knows our choices and therefore our destiny.
That makes God a simple reactor to history, and therefore very weak. This has God being a mere observer.
Then we must presume that those who preach wrong are actually made to preach wrong by the same God? Those who fail, do so because God wants them to fail.
Starting with the premise that God does not cause sin, it is possible, but technical. The one truth can be multi-faceted. For example, if I told you that Jesus is God, would you say that is right because it's true, or would you say that it is wrong because I didn't also say that the Father and Spirit are also God?
Hitler was simply a "victim" of God's will. Judas was simply an obedient God's "victim" who was "sacrificed" for the greater good.
They were no victims, they got exactly what they deserved, the same as all the lost do. Because God created them put no duty on God to either save them or even offer them salvation. No duty at all. So, God left them alone.
FK: "That would of course mean that God actually HAS NO PLAN."
That's right. Omniscient and transcendental God does not need to plan for the future. :)
Well, He would want one if He cared about the outcome. Blessed are we, though, since He tells us that He does indeed have plans for us:
Isa 48:3 : 3 I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.
Jer 29:11 : 11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
There are others, and we see God directing His plan all over the place in scripture. Scripture does not unfold based on random chance, but rather under God's direction and plan.
Why should you trust any man? Are we all not sinners?
Well, there are different levels of trust. I wouldn't put my trust for my salvation into a man who was a sinner, but I might trust him as a teacher, pastor, etc.
That's an excellent point, Diego. Where were all those children?
[John 2:12] After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. John would not have separated the two words.....if there had not been two entities.
Another excellent point. John wouldn't have separated the terms if they were the same thing.
I agree.
Do we have children in order to have some "use" of them? Having "use" implies a need. God doesn't need us, or anything for that matter.
Planning is what we do when we want the future to go a certain way
We can either be prepared or unprepared to various degrees for the future, which we do not control or know. We need to plan because we can only anticipate the future, or second-guess it.
Since God is transcendental and omniscient, He knows everything, independent of time, and has no need to "wing it" as the time evolves. God has no reason to plan anything. Everything He created has already happened as far as He is concerned, before the world even existed.
Kosta: God knows what choices we will make and how and when and where we will end. He knows our choices and therefore our destiny.
FK: That makes God a simple reactor to history, and therefore very weak. This has God being a mere observer
What we do affects us, not God. God showers us with blessings which we toss away daily out of ingratitude. The Jewish-Protestant idea of a "macho" God went out the window with Christ who is everything Jewish-Protestant deity is not.
Christian God's strength is not measured in human "macho" terms, nor is He subject to human standards of strength. God is not a mere observer either. He keeps throwing opportunities at people, returning love for our sinful ways; He gives in abundance and we give Him crumbs in return, if that much.
What He does to us is an act of pure and unconditional mercy and love, not of "need" or "use." God will exist forever with or without us. His desire is to save us, not force us to love Him.
Kosta: Then we must presume that those who preach wrong are actually made to preach wrong by the same God? Those who fail, do so because God wants them to fail.
FK: Starting with the premise that God does not cause sin, it is possible, but technical.
If God wants man to sin and man has no choice (cannot resist God's will), then man does not sin on his own, but is forced to sin.
They were no victims, they got exactly what they deserved, the same as all the lost do.
They were "victims" if they were forced to sin because it was God's will that they sin.
Blessed are we, though, since He tells us that He does indeed have plans for us: Isa 48:3 : 3 I foretold the former things long ago...
Foretelling is foreknowledge, not a plan. Knowing our choices He knows our destinies.
Jer 29:11 : 11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
The Hebrew Tanakh (as well as the Greek Septuagint) says "thoughts," not plans. This is no different than God's daily blessings He bestows on us. It's not God's "Plan." Jeremiah is not even speaking of any eternal salvation, just of a cozy, comfy life on earth.
And, in the proven tradition of the OT authors, the prophet does not fail to throw in that God also threatens those who do disobey Him. So much for loving your enemies... LOL! In the true fashion of the OT...about as far removed from the God we see in Christ as it gets.
Scripture does not unfold based on random chance, but rather under God's direction and plan.
Random chance would only be applicable if God didn't know the outcome of everyone's thoughts, FK, and then hat to "wait" for it to happen.
I wouldn't put my trust for my salvation into a man who was a sinner, but I might trust him as a teacher, pastor, etc.
But, for your salvation, you will trust the sinners who wrote the Bible? Geez!
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.