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

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.

However, W(w)ho is it that prepares us for appropriate presentation?

God doesn't dress us.

Because predestination includes both acts of commission and omission

Pharaoh didn't have to endure the plagues. God knew he would. Pharaoh could have just let the Hebrews go. God knew he wouldn't.

Judas didn't have to betray Christ, but God knew Judas would. Just as God knew Peter would drop everything and follow Christ when Christ called him.

Who made the decision? God or Pharaoh? God or Judas? God or Peter?

I mean, when we invite Christ into our lives to be our Lord, aren't we really asking Him for His will to dominate in our lives?

Yes, and that decision is whose? We submit to Him. He doesn't force us to submit to Him; we do it on our free will.

So, then when we sin, it is obviously our own will that is allowed to dominate

Good, you are beginning to think like an Apostolic Christian. That's encouraging. :)

What if Pharaoh had used his free will and turned out to be a nicer guy, as far as slave owners go?

First, Pharaoh was using his free will! Second, if Pharaoh turned out to be a "nice guy" there would still have been Exodus (he would have just let the Hebrews go and would given them food and water for a long trip), but Charlton Heston could not be as dramatic about it (no Oscar for him, for sure).

But God knew that Pharaoh would be a stone, not because God wanted him to be a stone, as God does not delight in seeing anyone perish.

The same thing with Judas. He could have decided not to betray Christ, but God knew he would. Judas made that decision and God knew he would.

It is man leading God

Only if you look at God as subject to time.

Adam last caused them to be born into wickedness, not God

Is Adam leading God?

If a man believes that he controls his own destiny, then has such a man really surrendered his will to God? For example: Matt 16:24-26 : 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...Doesn't denying oneself include denying his own will? How can a man deny himself, yet retain control of his own destiny?

Dying unto oneself and giving your everything to God is your decision. In order for you to deny yourself it is imperative that you make the decision, and not that someone else made that decision for you.

But in the Apostolic view, even if a man jumps on the right train, he retains the control to jump right off it again

It is not our control, but susceptibility to sin is not lost. Concupiscence remains part of our nature and interferes with our will, leading us to stray, to betray God, to tempt Him. Knowing our nature, we never discount the possibility that we will jump train.

As long as Peter focused on Christ, he walked on water. The moment he focused on the storm, and forgot about Christ, he began to sink.

Perhaps "exist" is a tricky word here

Yeah, just like depends what "is" is? Funny, only lawyers seem to use that construct... :)

but everything that Jeremiah was to become was known and ordained from the beginning

Agree.

I've never heard that one before. :) If we don't have individual souls then what gets sent to Heaven or hell?

We do have individual souls. The life your parents give you is the same life God gave Adam. But is is your life and it is unique to you. What we all share is Adam's illness brought on by his disobedience.

The belief that we all share the same life given to Adam is known as traducianism typically taught in eastern Christianity.

Why does it not sound right that God uses us as His physical instruments to partially

Those you love you don't use as your instruments, FK.

"Gospel-only" is a distortion of what i said, FK. Gospel-first would be more like it. The rest of the Bible are visions and audible experiences of mortals receiving words from God. The Gospels are not dreams or trans-related visions...but real living word of God walking on earth. There is a qualitative difference.

Well, did God allow misinterpreted visions, etc. to get into His Holy Word or not? I think not. I take the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels as gospel, but remember that they were remembered from at least 30 years prior. Do you remember word for word conversations from 30 years ago? I don't remember them from yesterday! :) Therefore, I think there was plenty of help from God to get it exactly right. That's the inspired part. Likewise, the rest of scripture was also made exact and correct in the same way.

Again, the Jews did not receive full revelation until Christ appeared. The OT was a gradual revelation. It doesn't mean it wasn't true; it just wasn't full.

All of that is fine, so why then would you declare OT accounts as patently false on their faces because they appear to contradict the NT? How can you say that Joshua destroying everything in Jericho never happened by God's command, yet it was still "true"? The Jews wouldn't have had a chance to see it as you do now. That would make most of the OT a great tease to the Jews of the time. They didn't have the Gospel lens that you insist upon for truth or falsehood. Why would God SO mislead His chosen people?

The verse says "WORKS FOR THE GOOD OF those who love him". God was not working FOR the good of the serpent when He let him into the Garden

Precisely my point. What good came out of the garden for the serpent or the humans? So, it was not God's work.

even though it sounds counterintuitive, God was working for our good when He let the serpent in

Really? And just how did we benefit from going from being in Paradise to being cursed? Where is the "good" in it?

The operative and magic word used by many Apostolic around here is that we "COOPERATE" with God

Yes, that is a western construct and it is somewhat bogus, like the "fellowship." You and your lawyers are "fellows," partners so to say, not necessarily equal but partners nonetheless.

The Greek word would be synergism, more like the patient-doctor relationship or perhaps even client-lawyer relationship. The doctor/lawyer is in charge, but you can't help an unwilling patient/client.

Eastern Orthodoxy actually only refers to us (faithful) as slaves/servants of God. In Greek it is doulos and in Slavonic it is ryab/rab. In both cases, the word is obligate servant, bondsman, slave. The emphasis is on obligate and completely subordinate relationship to the master.

Thus, when receiving the Eucharist, a Deacon will call "Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love." Those receiving Holy Communion will approach the cup and the priest will say:

"The servant of God (Name) receives the Body and Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life."

The term (servant/slave) is also used during commemorative services (panikhidas/parastas). The priest reads:

O God of spirits, and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death by death, and overthrown the Devil, and hast bestowed life upon Thy world: do Thou Thyself, O Lord, grant rest to the soul(s) of Thy departed servant(s), (name-s of the deceased), in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow and sighing have fled away.
As the gracious God, Who lovest mankind, pardon every transgression which he (or she or they) has (or have) committed, whether by word, or deed, or thought. For Thou alone art without sin, and Thy righteousness is to all eternity, and Thy word is truth. For Thou art the Resurrection, and the Life, and the Repose of Thy departed servant(s) (name-s of the deceased).
O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe gory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine All-Holy, and Good and Life-Giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

So, it is clear that we Orthodox do not form "fellowships" with God, but try to be His humble servants, giving ourselves and all our life to Him.

As we sing "Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God."

There is no confusing who is the master and who is the servant. An Orthodox faithful may not be well versed in Bible reading but, simply by attending the Divine Litirgy they will not think for one moment that somehow we are doing God a "favor." We are His servants because we gave up our will to Him and we come to Church to worship Him as our Lord and God, not our "fellow."

Knowing ahead of time there is going to be random anarchy, and refusing to do anything about it because man must control his own destiny, is NOT being in control

What random anarchy? Man controls his own destiny by either dying unto himself and giving his whole life and will to Christ, or by refusing God and choosing perdition. No matter how you look at it, we exercise our will, and God exercises His foreknowledge.

Well, did God allow misinterpreted visions, etc. to get into His Holy Word or not?

Couple of things here: first the word of God (Bible) is not The Word of God (Logos), the Son of God, the pre-Incarnate eternal God and Savior of the world. Surely you don't believe the Bible is Jesus, the Incarnate Logos (even though it contains His words in the Old as well as the New Testaments) because that would be the ultimate in bibliolatry.

Second, God did not bring any distortions; the people who wrote, copied and recopied did. Just the fact that our Bibles contain commas is a corruption because, depending on where commas are located, verses can take on different meanings.

This is even more pronounced in the Old Testament with the rabbinical addition of vowels (last time I checked the good rabbis were not inspired). The Old Testament had neither punctuation marks, nor vowels. To illustrate, a "word" shp can be shape, ship, or shop. In Hebrew the verity is even greater.

We can be certain that the rabbis, in good faith I must add, wanted to make sure that no words in the Tanakh could be "misconstrued" as foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. So, I would say that while God did not, of course, put any corruption into his revealed truth, we did.

I take the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels as gospel, but remember that they were remembered from at least 30 years prior. Do you remember word for word conversations from 30 years ago?

I anticipated this question, and my answer is yes—if I repeated them every day, and I have no doubt that the Apostles repeated them every day. Remember, they preached the Gospels all along.

That's the inspired part

No that's what the Latins say: repetitio est mater studiorum (repetition is the mother of learning—and, we could say, of remembering!)

All of that is fine, so why then would you declare OT accounts as patently false on their faces because they appear to contradict the NT?

I don't think I am reaching you, FK. I said the Gospels tell us that the Jewish interpretations of the OT were sometimes false. The reason for that is that they didn't have full revelation yet. It's easy for us to go back and interpret everything according to the Gospels and say "aha, this makes sense," or "of course, this is prefiguring Christ..." etc. Thanks to the Gospels we now speak of a Triune God and the Jews are still in the dark. If that is not an indication that they did not fully receive God's revealed truth, nothing is!

We could almost liken our reading of the OT with someone receiving cheat codes for a video game. The "cheat codes" are in the Gospels.

Why would God SO mislead His chosen people?

God didn't mislead anybody! How long did it take to get Ten Commandments? How long did it take to get the whole Old Testament? The revelation was gradual. The Jews were not always receptive; rather they were disobedient and often reverting back to worshiping idols. There are numerous reasons why it took so long. It was not God's doing. At some point you have to give man some credit and say God allowed it!

FK: "I believe that my surrender to Christ was genuine."

I have no doubts that it was/is. But we can't be our own judges. ...

That's right. (And I have no doubts about you. :) We cannot be our own FINAL judges because that job is already taken. (We should always be judging ourselves in our daily walk, as scripture says concerning the Lord's Supper.) All I can say is what I believe based on the scriptures and the promises therein.

Many people will say "I don't steal, I have compassion, I am a good person, I love God...I know when I die I will go to heaven." Sure sounds like "I earned it" if you know what I mean.

I do, and you're exactly right. Except for "I love God", if those are the reasons that they give for being entitled to Heaven, then they are toast. As you said, many people are going to be like this, and if I am one of them, then it is all my fault. My assurance means that I know that is not possible, to the extent a human can "know" anything. This "knowledge" is not based on anything any other Christian cannot have. So, there is no magic about it. It's just based on scripture.

FK: "I think it is also admirable to love God with assurance."

But is it easier?

I don't know why it would be. We (Protestants/Baptists in the whole) have to fight against the temptation of resting on our laurels, which we MUST do. I admit that can be difficult, so it's a little different. The more mature person has greater activity with the Holy Spirit so this is less of a problem, but across the board I'm sure there are many who think everything is already locked in the bank. So, maybe it's true that our respective laities face different issues, and we all should just strive toward obeying the Lord because we genuinely love God and are commanded to.

FK: "Actually, SBC believes that Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation!"

FWIW, in the discussion about Angels procreating I happened to read this:

1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...

Yes, I should have been more specific to someone not familiar with the SBC. Thanks for clarifying the point. MarkBsnr, "Baptism" is salvational when speaking of the Holy Spirit. I was referring only to water baptism, which is a recognition of the salvational baptism of the Spirit. The quotes I gave you from the BFM all referred to water baptism, I believe. The Holy Spirit baptizes at the point of belief.

It's interesting, WM, the NIV translation of your verse is this:

1 Peter 3:21 : ... and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...

The saving baptism of the Spirit happens by (through) the resurrection of Christ.

I’m a little puzzled. Does this mean that baptism is nice but not necessary, and sins will be paid for not in the next world but only in this? Would that not mean that Paris Hilton is as pure as the driven snow?

For Southern Baptists, water baptism is very important as a public expression of obedience to God's word, but is not necessary for salvation. For us, salvation must have occurred already, before baptism. Water baptism recognizes and celebrates the already completed act of true salvation (faith). It is meant to be a first fruit of a truly changed heart.

As for sins, we believe they were all paid for (past, present, future) on the cross. That part (justification) is already done and over with.

As for Paris Hilton, if at some point in the past she truly repented of her sins and became a true believer, then she will be in Heaven some day. I cannot possibly know whether she is of the elect or not. All I can say is that in recent times, I have not seen much good fruit shaking from her tree. :)

FK: "But one cannot foreknow with Godly precision if one's devised plan includes random elements."

One can't, but God can, since Godly precision is by definition the caliber of God's foreknowledge.

Yes, but I was also responding to your "Even humans do this all the time" statement. Sure, God can peek into the future and know all of man's random acts, but this FORCES God to work around them to get what He wants. I.e., God has to WAIT until a figure like Mary comes along at the same time someone like Judas comes along, and a monumental host of other players comes along, and so on. It is incomprehensible to me that in order to preserve free will, that all of human history is reduced to mere coincidence, with God bobbing and weaving in along the sides. But that is what it sounds like. :)

FK: "That happens with humans all the time. I plan to go to a movie tonight. But, a few hours later, my wife doesn't feel well, so we postpone until later. I had a perfectly good devised plan that was altered by uncontrollable or random circumstances."

I don't see anything random here, just outside your control.

OK, who was in control then? If it's not random, then someone must be in control, right? Did God give my wife a mild illness right then? Did God cause me to not want to go to the movie anyway with my friend instead of my wife? Since my wife knew I really wanted to see the movie, did God prevent her from insisting that we go anyway, even though she didn't feel that well? I mean, how is this not random? What kind of control and by whom are you talking about?

FK: "If the millions of random free will acts of EACH of the billions of humans who have lived were a part of God's plan, then the whole thing is just a crapshoot."

False premise: Human free will choice is random.

OK, how is free will choice not random across the human spectrum? Many things might affect an individual's choice, such as God, satan, maturity, the temperature, and whether the Cardinals won last night, and on and on. If God would never be so bold as to intrude on our free will, then across the spectrum, the results will be random, and according to man's will, not God's.

False Premise 2: God has no effect on human life and human choices.

I didn't say that imo under your view that God has no effect, He does, but only in an advisory capacity. I don't "think" Apostolics give God the authority to MAKE decisions concerning them, because that would trample on free will. God might advise, or cajole, or nudge, etc., but He is not allowed to "DO". At least, that is my understanding.

Again, I'm arguing against your logic. Logically a plan can be made and executed and the results "foreknown" (predicted correctly) by humans without controlling each individual factor - and accounting for truly random events. Even humans do this all the time.

I don't think this is comparable since the random events are not side issues, the random events are central to the main plan, human history. Plus, you must be talking about a very general plan, such as "let's build any kind of a bridge". Well, that could be accomplished involving a million random variables, but I believe that God's plan is much more specific than that. Prophecy is very specific, for example, and the whole design that is expressed throughout the scriptures is so intricate, it is incomprehensible that God's plan was on a basic or general level, and it was just luck that all the pieces fit as well as they did.

Seven:....Adam's genealogy begins in 5:1:......This is really Christ's genealogy which begins with Adam. Cain has no part of it

Seven, the above was your answer as to why Cain was not mentioned in the genealogy of Adam.

Diego answered....(Genesis 5:32] And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth........If this is Our Saviour's genealogy then why does it bother to mention Ham and Japheth?

That is the point I was trying to make. There is a huge difference shown in those family lines. As I said before, Cain is conspicuously absent from any mention in Adam's genealogy and it isn't because Christ didn't come from him, anymore than it is that Christ didn't come from Ham and Japeth.

If your theory was true then why were the other sons of Noah, (Ham and Japeth), mentioned when other sons of Adam, (Cain), was not?

This is one of the facts that tells me Cain is not the son of Adam.

Yet we are to believe that Genesis left out "Cain, whose father was Satan" as too unimportant to mention during the child's conception and birth.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye sould be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is hapened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 16:25 Now to Him That is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting god, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Who crucified the Lord? Who are the princes of this world? Who rules this world?

Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said, "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils."

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

The devil rules the world (now) but he will be crushed. It appears there are mysteries that are from the beginning (the foundation of this age and from the Garden of Eden) but those mysteries are found in scripture and are "made manifest by the prophets". They are there. God tells us they are there.

Ephesians 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel.

We are supposed to know these mysteries that Paul taught. He taught about the three ages of earth and about the ancestry of Cain.

........Ping

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.