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

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.

[wmfights]

I believe he calls ALL of us but we can refuse that call.

I always enjoy your posts. We are going to disagree on this point. I believe IF GOD calls you that call is irresistible.

John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."

[kosta50]

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Note that "heaven" is singular here. In chapter two it has become plural - heaven

Tha't in Ch 2, verse 1, but in verse 4 and therefater it is back to heaven at least in the Septuagint. The KJV seems to have 'heavens" there, but the Hebrew word shamayim for the heaven(s) seems to be a plural in all cases. In ewither case, both Greek and hebrew words mean "sky."

Satan rebelled in that first age and God destroyed it (the age, not the earth). This 2nd age is a spiritual war in which we decide who we follow

Where does it say so in the Bible???

[kosta50]

The only translation which makes it singular in Gen 1 and plural in Gen 2 is the KJV

Actually, the Septuagint also uses the singular, then plural, then singular again.

But you are right that it is thesame word in Hebrew in all instances.

[kosta50]

Oh Contraire. Why don't we ask the Hebrew Scholars: “And the earth was (not became) waste and void

The Septuagint also says "was." It's a simply qal, such as "sat, ate, wrote, etc.

[Forest Keeper]

[Kosta to Marlowe:] You raise a good question, but my only objection to this is that predestination doesn't answer these questions either. It avoids them.

Predestination was never designed to answer the good questions YOU asked about why God would give us a world full of sin, as He did. It simply served His purpose "somehow". Predestination just tells us THAT God did something, not WHY He did it.

In fact, predestination makes salvation an illusion as well. Before they were even guilty, they were destined for "salvation?" Salvation from what? You are pardoned before you have committed a crime?

Of course. :) This is well documented:

MINORITY REPORT - PRE CRIME UNIT

What is the point of speaking of sin if all we do is what we have been pre-programmed to do?

But if we never experience the difference, what is the point of questioning it? How do we escape that God knows everything we are ever going to do, good and bad? Here, it doesn't matter at all whether God causes it or we cause it, all that matters is whether we are aware of the difference, and we never will be in terms of experience. You and I have different views of how this works, but the reality is that when each of us does a good thing, we experience it exactly the same way. Therefore, there is always a point to doing the deeds, and saying the prayers, etc. This was God's design.

In addition to that, we have God's commands, which do not need to justify themselves. They are reason enough alone.

It's like a movie. The end will not change regardless what you are doing in the theater or even if you are watching the movie.

Only God knows it's a movie. For us, we are acting in an improvisational play.

That makes our existence and what we do completely meaningless. If nothing we do can change then why are we doing it? Predestination is like lobotomizing everything we do, think and believe.

Change is a big part of all of our lives. We just don't know the BOUNDARIES of change that God will allow or cause. Given our limited understanding, and the reality that we do experience, consider what it was like for Jesus, who DID know all the answers to everything while He walked the earth. He would have been the KING of all "lobotomy cases" under what I think you are trying to say. Yet, He went through it. I don't think He's asking too much of us to do the same, given that we have no knowledge and everything is new to us.

[Forest Keeper]

Free Will vs Predestination ...... Baptist -”Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners.It is consistent with the free agency of man ...” SBC

Oh no you (about.com) don't! :) I can't let this go because I am a Southern Baptist. This IS a quote from Article V of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM), which is a very important document for us. (It would be along the lines of a current confession.) Anyway, this by itself does not give an accurate view of the Southern Baptist view of predestination vs. free will. Consider that the VERY next paragraph is as follows:

"All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

So much for Southern Baptists being in lockstep with the free agency of men in all cases. :) The truth is that members in good standing can be either synergists or monergists. That might not be my favorite result, but it's just a fact. In fact, when I read through the whole BFM from a monergist POV, I can easily tell that it was specifically worded to include both camps. So, while the SBC is not "Reformed" in the strict sense in terms of numbers (10% of SBC pastors identify themselves as Reformed), it does welcome Reformed members and accommodates our theology.

[sauropod]

review

[kosta50]

Predestination was never designed to answer the good questions YOU asked about why God would give us a world full of sin, as He did

But that's just it, FK, He didn't. We did. In fact the OT tells us that He grieved over it (cf Gen 6:5-6).

God did not betray us. We betrayed Him and continue to do so. He gives in abundance and we use it to do evil—in abundance.

To say that He predestined us to evil, and with a purpose, is the ultimate betrayal of His love, imo.

How do we escape that God knows everything we are ever going to do, good and bad?

We don't escape it, but we deny it, by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine. People hide from God, FK. They try to shut Him out, to separate from Him, to forget Him (except when they curse Him), so that they may be "free" to do whatever they want to do.

But His knowing what we do and are about to do, and think, is not the same as twisting your arm to do it. He has included our decisions into His plan. We decide by His permission. And that applies for the good and for the evil.

It is not a question of why does God give such a permission knowing how much we will abuse it, but whether the decisions we make are ours or His. Clearly, they are ours, because we will be judged according to them.

If everything we do is according to His will, then why are we being judged?

[Forest Keeper]

(Hey WM! Good to see you again.)

---------------

I KNOW that, FK. But I believe He draws ALL mankind to salvation, not just a chosen few. People turn Him down but at least they’re given a chance.

OK, let's try it this way. What are the preconceptions that all of us bring to the table on this issue? What do we take for granted before we even think about this? Do we assume that God's love follows a sense of fairness or human decency that makes sense to us? (WM's point) Or, do we say that God's love is simply what it is as described in the Bible, whether we understand it or not, or whether we think it is fair or not? Or, something else?

If our starting point is the first, then the nature of God's love MUST be encapsulated within human perception. God must be fair and impartial to all His created humans, and must not prefer any one over any other. That would only be fair by our standards, which we are thinking that God follows. I'm sure you see the problem with this. :)

Giving everyone a fair chance is certainly an American ideal, and a good one, however, I do not believe it is a Biblical ideal in terms of God determining His elect. The evidence of scripture, both OT and NT, is simply against it. Our Constitution stands for giving everyone an equal chance because WE ARE all equal before God. However, WE of course are not equal TO God so that rule does not apply to Him vis-a-vis us. :) He is the potter and so He has no duty to be "fair" with us in human terms. His ways are so much higher we cannot even comprehend. And from my look at scripture, in this case that means His ways are VERY different from what we think of as fair.

Consider many of the OT stories you know, where God commanded the army to go and wipe out such and such a tribe or village, or city. Think of the children and teenagers who had barely reached the age of reason, who lived in those towns and were slaughtered. Was that fair? Were they given a chance? While we may not be able to explain it, all we can do is acknowledge that by definition it WAS fair, by God's standards.

[AndyTheBear]

Which matters more in the Kingdom of God:

1) That a man belong to a great and well respected institution founded by an apostle two thousand years ago.

2) That a man has the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

My understanding is that God is no respecter of persons.

I suspect there are unsaved people in every denomination, as well as spirit filled servants of Christ in each one.

Is any of this against orthodox doctrine?

[Forest Keeper]

Kosta: "FK is well versed in Catholic/Orthodox theology. He was coached by another Freeper (Kolokotronis) who is currently on vacation. FK knows about dying unto onself, and especially about theosis/salvation, trust me. He just doesn't believe it."

LOL! I have also been very well coached by another good Freeper, who shall remain ...... Kosta50. :) I am extremely grateful for what I have been taught and the time spent by very kind people to teach it to me. Now, as for my not believing it, I figure that knowledge always must precede faith, so I'm just pacing myself. I'm a late bloomer. :) But no matter what God holds for my future in faith, I know right now that I'm a better Christian for having learned about the Apostolic faith.

[Ping-Pong]

There is no reason to have literal clothing in the heaven as we shall "be like the angles."

You could be right but when there is reference to angels (messengers) coming to earth it has never been mentioned that they are naked. The angel at the tomb of Christ, the angels that "ate" with Abraham, etc. Were they naked? I don't know........we shall see.

[Ping-Pong]

Sorry, in my religion, the only one who is glorified is God.

Romans 8:30 (speaking of the elect) Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified them He also glorified.

"The elect stood against him then and that is why they are The Elect. They earned it.".......I have no clue where this is coming from. It's not Christian.

It's from the Bible - of course it's Christian.

Our Bible begins with "In the beginning...." there is no "prior age" in Christianity.

It didn't say when that beginning was...just in the beginning when He created the heaven and the earth. What we must ask is how much time went by before the "first day" of this age.

"He doesn't "make" anyone evil. They choose that themselves"......LOL! We choose but He is in "control?"

He controls His elect. Those of free will must choose who they follow. Jesus knocks on the door but they must open it and invite Him in.

13.Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.......This world has to end before we go there...

This earth age will end, not the earth.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for your reply, hopefully it wasn't a waste of time for you.

Not for you my friend. :)

Well, He's fooled you about your choices before. :)

I don't look at it that way because to be fooled is to have information withheld that one needs. If I am the butt of a joke, then someone has withheld information in order to make me look foolish. When I came to Christ I had all the information I needed, i.e. the Gospel. I was clearly not foolish when I accepted Him, regardless of what I knew of the mechanics of how it happened.

In fact, I was not misled, or lied to, or anything like that. In my human condition, I had (was given) absolutely EVERYTHING I needed to make the Godly decision. That I now have an intellectually different understanding of how it all went down does not in the least make me feel "cheated". Rather, it makes me MORE grateful, because now I understand that God would never have let me blow it. :)

[FK quoting Paul:] I know that nothing good lives in me...

Except Christ, right?

Sure, Paul even made the exception himself:

2 Cor 5:21 : God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---------------

Or can we choose? I think you would say, only the elect can or will make this choice, that in practice our will is inapplicable, a non-starter (I would say "an illusion").

I would say that no one who has not accepted Christ can do anything that is "good" in God's eyes. So, yes, only the elect who have already received Christ can make choices to do good. (Some of the elect have not yet received Christ.)

However, I wouldn't say that our will is inapplicable. For example, God calls on all of us to serve Him. Many times in different ways. If the makeup of my will is that I have a fear of (or strong dislike for) public speaking, then He may spare leading me to pursue preaching in front of audiences. Of course, He may NOT and make me do it anyway, but I've found that it is usually less dramatic. :) Whatever, God finds the right fit for service using the gifts He has given. I figure the will must be in there somewhere. :).

You would cry "Foul! All is up to God!"

No flag on this one. :) While all IS up to God, His children experience (HAVE) freedom to do good in His eyes. I would consider repenting and confessing and praying and such to all be good. Of course, OTOH, I see all good works as being God working through us, so as always, it depends on the POV. (Kosta always loves it when I bring up POV. :)

But back to the question of whether you would still love God if you were not rewarded for it with Heaven: I think ya dodged it. ;)

Nah, I'll try to answer anything, even if it's "I don't know". :) I'll try again. First, the question presupposes that it is even possible to love God, if Heaven did not await. I submit that is Biblically impossible. God made the promises that He made.

Therefore, I have to suppose a God that does not exist (since the only God I know is the one in the Bible) whom I would love, but without any possibility of my going to Heaven to be with Him. Now, here I have to take two tracks because I am not sure of your timing. If you are asking if I would still love God after finding out at Judgment that I was actually reprobate, then I can report that I would be stunned and speechless. :) But, by definition it would mean that I never loved Him in the first place, so the answer would be "no".

However, if you mean would I love Him even if I knew in advance during life that not Heaven, but rather hell awaited me, then by definition the God that I loved would be some other God, not the Christian one that I know. In that case I have no idea what I would think. :) I don't mean to dodge the question, but I don't know how to speculate on whether I would love a god I do not know. :) If it makes any difference, of course PART of the love we have for our God is the promise of salvation and eternal life with Him. Part of it is related to what He does for us every day. And part of it is altruistic, Godly love for Him that He has given us to return.

The last possibility I can think of is whether I would still love our God if I didn't have the assurance that I claim I have about Heaven. That, I think I can answer "yes", since you all seem to be doing it. :) To me, having assurance is a nice source of confidence, but it is nothing to rest my laurels on. God has a specific plan for me, and it doesn't involve laying around and doing nothing. :) God has changed my heart and put a new Spirit in me so that I want to obey Him in whatever He leads me toward. That's in theory of course, most of the time it works out fine, and sometimes I rebel, even now.

[Ping-Pong]

It appears that there will be two classes of priests serving during the Millennium......but both classes will be Levitical. I believe the second group will be very small. [Ezekiel 48:11]

Thank you Diego. It does appear to be a very small group. Could the number be 232? (1Kings 14-15).

[Ping-Pong]

I would be interested. I'm not sure where you are deducing the information from that fills in these blanks.

Fair enough. I'll fill them in as well as I can. When this began it was in answer to questions about predestination. As God is not a respector of persons we have to ask ourselves why are some considered His chosen? Why are some His elect while others aren't? Does He love some of His childen more than others because of who they are, what they look like, how much money they have? No - it is because of what they have done and that has to be before this age, before we were born into our flesh bodies. We know from scripture that he foreknew us (before we were born into this age) and that is the time we stood with Him or with Satan. That is when we earned being His elect (if we did).

In Gen.1 we see that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning but when was that beginning? We don't know how much time went by before the "first day" He tells us about in the second half of verse 2. We know from scripture that He created it to be inhabited (Is.45:18) so the question is, when did it become "without form and void" and why?

From a study by E.W. Bullinger: "The disruption of the world is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensation of the ages. In Gen.1:1 we have the founding of the world (Heb.1:10 themelios), but in Gen. 1:2 we have it's overthrow.
"Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Gen.1:2 that the earth became tohu and bohu (ie.Waste and desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep, before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Pet.3:7)

Science tells us that the record of earth shows it is ancient. It is a proven fact. Does that mean the Bible lies? No, it means there was a time, in which the dinosaurs were on earth, before our present age. This second age began when "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. For a time, in that first age, Satan was loved by God and called the king of Tyrus:

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty,
13.Thou has been in Eden the garden of God. every precious stone was thy covering....
17....I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Satan was here, on earth, in the Garden of Eden (before Adam and Eve) and God loved him, thought him beautiful and wise....but, he rebelled.

"This obviously predates Adam and would be the time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Sounds to me like Satan (Lucifer) may have been a previous resident of the garden. And I'm sure this also predates his revolt against God - Isaiah 14:12 - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (Diego1618)

There were "nations" in that age. Scripture also tells us about cities during that time:

Jeremiah 4:22: For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23.I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. ( deeper study may show that the "light" they were without was Christ while the "darkness that was upon the face of the deep" was Satan)

It became without form and void.

24.I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25.I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled (This is NOT a result of Noah's flood as here there is "no man and no birds")

I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. (There were cities, as well as nations, in that first age. Why was God so angry?)

He was angry because the one He so loved, the one so "perfect in beauty" and wise rebelled:

Ezekiel 28:1The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
2."Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, 'I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God.

The result of that rebellion, when many (1/3) of God's children followed him) was the overthrow. God shook the earth and flooded it. He ended that first age. It was so violent that the plates, which had been one land mass, split, forming our continents. This is why we can find skeletons of African camels, rhino's etc., in Nebraska.

This "overthrow" is the "foundation" spoken of by Christ:

Matthew 13:35 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the Foundation of the world."

Foundation - #2602, Katabole, from #2598 kataballo - a deposition, founding, conception, conceive, foundation, to throw down, cast down, descend, fall. It comes from #2596 kata, which list many applications but frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

On foundation: E.W. Bullinger: A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Cori.4:9 and Rev.12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow. Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption, or ruin"

So....there was an overthrow of earth caused by the fall of Satan. One of the clues to that would be found in Gen.1:28, when God told them to "replenish", not "plenish" the earth.

Peter also refers to the first age:

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water
6.Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished:
7.But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungoldly men.

This was the first age as our world did not perish in Noah's flood nor did his flood destroy the heaven age of our time.

Another interesting piece of information about that time is:

"This is not scripture, but the "Book of Jasher" is quoted twice in the Old Testament, Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Some credence, therefore....should probably be given to this:"......"Jasher, speaking of the creation (Jasher was the son of Caleb...a contemporary of Moses), says in 1:4-5, "And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided Between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was formed a second time." ***(Diego1618)

I'll close this with 11 Corinthians 12:2:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven

If there is a third heaven, which comes after this present one, then we have to be the second. If we are the second, then it would follow that there had to be a first.

.....Ping

[kosta50]

Do we assume that God's love follows a sense of fairness or human decency that makes sense to us? (WM's point) Or, do we say that God's love is simply what it is as described in the Bible, whether we understand it or not, or whether we think it is fair or not? Or, something else?

God's love is fully revealed by Jesus Christ in His living word found in Gospels. As Christians we must interpret the rest of the Scripture throught the Gospels, always mindful that the rest is a gradual revelation leading to Christ.

[P-Marlowe]

No - it is because of what they have done and that has to be before this age, before we were born into our flesh bodies.

That is Mormonism.

We know from scripture that he foreknew us (before we were born into this age) and that is the time we stood with Him or with Satan.

That's Mormonism

That is when we earned being His elect (if we did).

That's Mormonism

I think I found the website where you got all this unique teaching. The opening paragraph on their site is telling:

Welcome; established in 1998, we are a non-denominational Christian Bible study group, not affiliated with any other ministries.  We are not LDS (Mormon), we are Bible-based Christians; the word "Watchmen" in our title comes from (Ezk 33:2-6).

[kosta50]

Which matters more in the Kingdom of God:

 

1) That a man belong to a great and well respected institution founded by an apostle two thousand years ago.

 

If you are referring to His Church, then we are speaking of belonging to the Body of Christ and I would say that it does matter very much. The Church was founded by Christ, not "an apostle." The rest of Christian assemblies were founded by various men at various times.

 

2) That a man has the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

 

What matters is that men—when they die—have become Christ-like as much as they honestly could, and that they honestly tried, even if they honestly failed.

 

My understanding is that God is no respecter of persons.

 

The term "no respecter" means "impartial," namely that God is impartial (which is why He is a perfect Judge). It doesn't mean that He doesn't respect men.

 

I suspect there are unsaved people in every denomination, as well as spirit filled servants of Christ in each one

 

No doubt. The intent of all of us is what matters. Our faith is shown through the fruits it produces. The question is really how Christ-like are we in our daily living? Do we look at others and love them as we love ourselves?

 

Is any of this against orthodox doctrine?

The orthodox doctrine says that without the Church people tend to stray more than within it. That is our nature.

Which matters more in the Kingdom of God:

1) That a man belong to a great and well respected institution founded by an apostle two thousand years ago.

If you are referring to His Church, then we are speaking of belonging to the Body of Christ and I would say that it does matter very much. The Church was founded by Christ, not "an apostle." The rest of Christian assemblies were founded by various men at various times.

2) That a man has the Spirit of God dwelling in him.

What matters is that men—when they die—have become Christ-like as much as they honestly could, and that they honestly tried, even if they honestly failed.

My understanding is that God is no respecter of persons.

The term "no respecter" means "impartial," namely that God is impartial (which is why He is a perfect Judge). It doesn't mean that He doesn't respect men.

I suspect there are unsaved people in every denomination, as well as spirit filled servants of Christ in each one

No doubt. The intent of all of us is what matters. Our faith is shown through the fruits it produces. The question is really how Christ-like are we in our daily living? Do we look at others and love them as we love ourselves?

Is any of this against orthodox doctrine?

The orthodox doctrine says that without the Church people tend to stray more than within it. That is our nature.

[kosta50]

May God bless you FK. You are truly searching. One thing the Apostolic faith teaches us is never to be content that we know all there is to know. Never to be content that we are as good ass it gets. We can always be better. All of us. You seem to be following those footsteps all on your own.

I figure that knowledge always must precede faith, so I'm just pacing myself

The intent is what matters. Our motvies must be pure, and God reveals what we can bear when we are ready.

But no matter what God holds for my future in faith, I know right now that I'm a better Christian for having learned about the Apostolic faith

We are all better for having learned about each other. God brings us closer in mysterious ways.