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.
When we have our resurrected bodies, will we need clothes? And what does the Church and the Bible teach about heaven?
Wings and halos. Robes and harps. Sitting on clouds. Being greeted by St. Peter at the pearly gates: These are the images of heaven we get from movies, TV, and newspaper cartoons. Silly as they are, the ideas behind these images can seep into our consciousness and affect the way we think of heaven.
For example, it’s commonly believed that we will have no bodies in heaven. That’s only partly true. People in heaven do not have bodies (with rare exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), but that’s a temporary state of affairs. At the end of time, we will be raised from the dead and reunited with our bodies (cf. 1 Cor. 15:16–18).
The idea that we will spend eternity as disembodied ghosts is one of the most widespread myths about the afterlife. God created men to be embodied spirits, and while death may temporarily interrupt that, death is not the final word. Our ultimate destiny is to be the embodied spirits that God always intended us to be.
Of course, ordinary bodies are not able to survive for all eternity. Paul explains that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor. 15:50).
Our bodies will be modified somehow when we are reunited with them after the resurrection. What these modifications will be even Paul did not claim to understand, though he compared the difference between our bodies now and our bodies then to the difference between a seed and the plant that is grown from the seed (1 Cor. 15:35–44).
Elsewhere he states that Jesus “will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21), raising the possibility that in our resurrected bodies we will be able to do many of the things that Christ was able to do in his resurrected form, such as appear or disappear from places at will, without locked doors or other barriers obstructing us.
The other images our culture gives us of heaven are also problematic. The idea that we will have wings has absolutely no basis in Scripture or Tradition.
Neither does the idea that we will become angels. Angels are created beings that are pure spirit and have no bodies (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 328–330). They are a different order of being than we are, and humans and angels don’t turn into each other.
Halos are simply an artistic way of representing holiness, and while we will be holy in heaven, we have no reason to think that this will manifest itself in halos as we see in illustrations.
Robes are something people wore in biblical days, so it is common to picture people in heaven wearing robes, but we have no idea what clothes (if any) we may wear.
The image of harps in heaven is drawn from Scripture (Rev. 5:8), though not everyone in heaven is depicted as playing a harp.
Scripture does not picture those in heaven sitting around on clouds, but it does picture heaven as being “up” from an earth-bound perspective, so clouds are a natural image for artists to supply.
The image of St. Peter in charge of “the pearly gates” is not taken directly from Scripture but is based on two things that Scripture does say. The first is that Peter was given the “keys of the kingdom” and the power to “bind” and “loose” by Christ (Matt. 16:18–19). Indeed, one cannot knowingly and deliberately cut off communion with Peter and his successors without committing schism and denying oneself heaven, so Peter has been portrayed as admitting or barring people from heaven. In reality, Peter does not (so far as we know) personally approve each person’s admission to heaven.
The image of the pearly gates is taken from Scripture as well. We typically see this pictured as a set of golden gates framed by two large white (pearly?) structures, but the image in Scripture is somewhat different. There, the heavenly city is described as having twelve gates, “and the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl” (Rev. 21:21).
Scripture employs far more images of heaven in addition to the handful our culture has latched onto. One of the most common New Testament depictions of heaven is a feast (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29; 14:15–24), in particular a wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14; 25:1–13; Rev. 19:7–9) understood as a first-century Jewish wedding feast, not a modern wedding reception.
Another notable image is heaven as a temple. Heaven was understood as the dwelling place of God. Earthly temples were in some sense modeled on heaven. Much of the book of Revelation takes place in heaven, so it’s not surprising that it describes God’s temple in heaven (Rev. 11:19) and heavenly worshipers with censers (8:3), incense (8:4), trumpets (8:7), bowls (16:2), harps (5:8), and other trappings of the kind of worship given to God in the Jerusalem temple.
Heaven also is depicted as a city of the righteous named New Jerusalem. It is mentioned in various New Testament passages (e.g., Gal. 4:25–26; Heb. 11:22), but it receives its fullest description in Revelation 21, where the image of the streets being paved with gold comes from (21:21), though what the text says is that “the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.”
These images are meant to convey a sense of wonder at what God has in store, but we must be careful of how literally we take them. Paul warns us that “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9; cf. CCC 1027). In a weekly catechesis, Pope John Paul II wrote:
In the context of Revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness” in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father that takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit. It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always unsatisfactory (July 21, 1999).
The images Scripture gives us of heaven point to the realities that God has in store for his people. When we experience the realities that these symbols point to, we will find them more amazing, not less, than what human language could express.
The fundamental essence of heaven is union with God. The Catechism explains that “perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity . . . is called ‘heaven.’ Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness” (CCC 1024). It also states that “heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ” (CCC 1026).
Traditionally theology has explained the chief blessing or “beatitude” of heaven as “the beatific vision”—an insight into the wonder of God’s inner, invisible essence. “Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory ‘the beatific vision’” (CCC 1028).
Because humans are made for having a conscious relationship with God, the beatific vision corresponds to the greatest human happiness possible.
Many people wonder how our relationships with others will work in heaven. Some have even wondered whether we will retain our own identities. The answer is that we will. The Christian faith assures us that those in heaven “retain, or rather find, their true identity” (CCC 1025). We do not become anonymous, interchangeable entities in heaven. Rather, we each receive our own reward (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11–15).
This does not mean that there will be no changes in our relationships. Jesus was clear in teaching that we will not be married in the next life (Matt. 22:30). But because we retain our identities, we will continue to know and love those we were close to in earthly life. Indeed, in heaven our love for them and our spiritual intimacy with them will be truer, purer, and stronger than it was in this life.
A special problem that has been raised by some is the question of pain in heaven. Some have wondered how it would be possible for individuals to enjoy the beatitude of heaven if they knew that some people—perhaps some they were close to in earthly life—are in hell. Others have wondered about apparitions of Mary and other saints in which they are crying over what is happening or may happen on earth. These problems have made people question whether there is pain in heaven.
The answer is that there is not. Scripture assures us that for those in heaven God in the end “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:4).
How we will be able to know of the existence of the damned without being pained by it is a mystery, but we can only conclude that the glorified human mind will be configured in such a way that it is able—without pain—to recognize both God’s justice and the free choices of men that led to damnation. God’s own beatitude is not damaged by the existence of hell, and he will not allow our ultimate beatitude to be damaged, either.
As far as weeping apparitions, the tears in these cases perhaps are best understood as an expression of the gravity of man’s sins and of what one in a non-glorified state would be justified in feeling rather than what literally is being felt in heaven.
Disembodied spirits are not extended in space. They don’t have shape or take up space. As a result, some have wondered whether heaven is a “place.” This is a difficult question. Heaven is not a location in the physical universe. One could never travel far enough in any direction in space to arrive in heaven.
But it does seem that heaven has something corresponding to space. It may not be anything remotely like space as we experience it, but heaven does seem to have the ability to receive bodies into it. Christ took his body with him to heaven when he ascended. Mary took her body when she was assumed. A few others—such as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps Moses—also seem to have their bodies with them in heaven.
We cannot say what the present state of these bodies is. They may not be extended in space at the moment—or they may. We don’t know.
Related to the problem of space in heaven is the problem of time. We often hear of heaven being described as “eternal” or “timeless.” God himself, in his divine essence, is completely outside of time. For him, all of history exists in an “eternal now” without past or future. But it is not clear that created beings in union with God are completely drawn outside of time.
Medieval thinkers proposed that departed souls, such as those being purified in purgatory, exist in a state that shares some properties in common with time and some with eternity. They called this state “aeviternity.” Whether this speculation is correct, or what properties such a middle state might have, are open to question. We ultimately don’t know how time—or whatever might replace time—works in the afterlife.
It does seem, though, that just as heaven can receive bodies into it, it also has some kind of sequentiality. Thus there can be a point before a soul is in heaven, a point during which it is disembodied in heaven, a point after this when it is reunited with its body at the resurrection, and a point at which it exists in the eternal order in body and soul.
A question many have is: “Won’t we get bored in heaven?” Some descriptions make it sound as if heaven will be like being in church all the time, and we get bored in church down here. While worship is central to heaven, the worship that takes place there is far deeper and richer than anything we experience on earth, for there we have the beatific vision that corresponds to the greatest human happiness. The fact that time may not work the same way there may also play a role in us not getting bored. We can be certain, though, that we will not be bored, for boredom is a form of suffering, and we have seen already that heaven excludes suffering.
It is also not clear that we will do nothing besides exclusively praising God every moment. Scripture and the Catechism both speak of us “reigning” with Christ (Rev. 22:5; CCC 1029). This suggests that we will have authority over and responsibility for things.
Where we may undertake those tasks may come as a surprise for some. Many have the idea that after the resurrection we will return to a celestial realm, leaving the physical world deserted.
But Scripture speaks of a new heaven and a new earth and seems to locate the dwelling place of man on the new earth. In Revelation, John sees “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (21:2, emphasis added) and then hears: “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them” (21:3).
This suggests that heaven and earth may not be separated in the way they presently are. The Catechism thus states that “the visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just” (CCC 1047).
Appreciate your post on Arnold Murray, and do agree with you on your evaluation of his beliefs.
I wouldn’t put any more credence in him than in Madelyn Murray O’Hair.
FK: Oh, He does more than that. He gives us the clothes too, and the will to ask Him to put them on us
Then the parable of the wedding doesn't apply.
God wanted Pharaoh to endure all the plagues, so He hardened his heart so that it would be so
Then God is the cause of evil. Earlier you said that God just let Pharaoh be (knowing that he would not change his mind), but now you are saying that Pharaoh couldn't change his mind because God didn't want him to change his mind. Is God controlling your mind too?
God wanted the crucifixion to take place since it was necessary for His plan. So, He withdrew protection from Judas to guarantee his actions
Then God desires perdition as well as salvation. That's not what the NT says. If God wanted Crucifixion then He wanted the Flood. It seems to me that your God delights in wanting blood and killing. That maybe someone else's God, but not the God we came to know and love through Christ.
In each case, both made separate decisions. God's decision first led to the later decisions by the people
That's not what you are saying above. You are contradicting yourself. Either God or Pharaoh/Judas made the decision.
The idea that God wanted Pharaoh to be hard-hearted does not imply at all that He took any "delight" in it. In the same way God takes no "delight" in reprobating
And I thought the Reformed view is that God does everything to His good pleasure. Are you now saying that God is "forced" to reprobate and harden some people's hearts? Just what is the nature of this mysterious force compelling God to be subject to such necessity?
What you are saying is that sometimes God just "hates" His job, having to do things He doesn't delight in doing. Get some coffee, FK.
I don't see why. God abides man's decisions inside or outside of time, right?
Wrong.
Nope, God "first" caused it by letting the serpent into the garden, and Adam "last" caused it by taking the bite.
Really? And what if Adam refused to take the fruit? Not a chance, right? So, whose decision was it? Blaming Adam for something he was compelled to do [according to the reformed view]?
If you retain the ABILITY to jump the train at will, then you retain control. Our side says there is no ability to jump the train
Then your side says you can't sin and you can't turn against God. God promises He won't turn against you. But the NT doesn't say we can't or won't turn against Him. It is in our fallen nature that we do. Although you are reborn, you retain the concupiscence of Adam's fall. But by denying your own free will, you assure yourself that you cannot fall away...which is a self-deception, because we are not still subject to sin.
The Protestants make the same mistake of logic that the Jews make when they insist that man cannot become a God. They got it backwards. It was God who became man! So, their erroneous question naturally leads them to an erroneous answer. The real question is: can God become man? And the answer to that is: yes, with God everything is possible. But the Jews don't see it.
In fact, just on Sunday, I was pleased to shamelessly, and unabashedly totally USE my only beloved son as my instrument to satisfy my innermost desire at the time, that of having a cut lawn
Hardly a good example FK. God didn't just use some individuals to do good, but to harden their hearts and to kill countless number of people, according to your "instrument theory." Anthropomorphizing God really does not lead us to the spiritual knowledge God revealed in the New Testament.
What are you talking about? What good came out of being kicked out of the Garden? They lived in Paradise! Hellow? It 'just doesn't get much better than that! How can the consequence of the fall be good when the consequence meant permanent banishment from the ideal?
And just who are "all humans believers" in the Garden? I thought there were just two. You make it sound like there was a human 'community' of sorts.
For believers being cursed is only a temporary state
And all the suffering and death that came along...just temporary, thousands of years. Try telling this to those who don't have food to eat. It's only temporary...and then only if you believe.
Perhaps because he had no knowledge whatsoever of why he needed God. How can one love God if he doesn't understand his own need for Him?
So, do you let your kids go hungry and be cold just so they appreciate how good they have it? or do you banish them from the house for one "little thing" as you call it, along with all their generations.
We (and all believers since Adam) are better off now because we DO recognize our need for Him. That's one possibility anyway. :)
Next time you see a homeless man, why don't you tell him "Man, you have no idea how good it is that you know why you need God!"
OK, I can't come all the way there, but I like this a lot better than "cooperate"
Why not? Can you help an unwilling client? Would you say that your unwilling client is "not cooperating" or would you say "technically, he is not being synergistic? Same thing, FK. If we need help and want help, we better be willing to work with the expert who can help us. Because he won't compel us without our willingness to cooperate. If we refuse to be helped He won't force Himself on us.
We work with God's will, in obedience because of our will to do so. We decide at one point in our lives that God's will is more important than ours. We die unto the world and unto ourselves and give our lives to God as much as possible and turn into a monk or Mother Theresa. That is surrender willingly: you sell everything and you follow Christ.
But if you look at an ordinary person who continues earthly life, and is attached to earthly things, he continues in his fallen sickness and is in need of constant spiritual healing. The Church provides that through the Eucharist, confession and repentance. But in order for God to help us, we must cooperate with the Physician. We must come to Him. We must ask Him to heal us. We must obey His commandments. We must cooperate or be willing to be helped.
But when we speak of our relationship with God, then we speak of our servitude. We approach God as His servants. It is implicit that being His willing servants we are also willingly obeying Him as he heals us. At no time does he force His will against ours.
Paul would agree
Yes he would, but we are not enslaved by God. We can't serve two masters. So we must choose whom we shall serve.
But that's what Christ was trying to tell us: doing things in the name of God and not in the name of one's hobbies or personal pleasure is not the same. Yet, the Bible is very clear that sabbath is a day of complete rest, even for the live stock.
Shovelling the walk up to church can be done on a Saturday. Again, such planning is in devotion to God, so as not to have to do it on a Sunday. Soup kitchen stuff can be cooked the night before too.
I have put forth the arguments which undermine your position. Your position is neither explicitly stated in Scripture nor is it necessarily implicit.
I don't believe my position is at all undermined. The facts, as have been stated, are in His Word, they are there for some to understand but it is not for all:
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8.(According as it is written, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear";)unto this day.
The general term gnosticism refers to exactly what you presented: the need to get at a deeper meaning that isn't clear or obvious to the normal person.
Why is that a problem, why is that wrong. Isn't that what a student of His word should do - understand the depth?
Not only do I disagree, but I am presenting clear evidence against it.
Where? What evidence? How have you shown anything I have stated to be "insufficient and erroneous"?
Didn't take long for you to start looking for a way out.
I'm not looking for a way out. I love to talk about this, even if some don't believe what I am stating. God opens eyes and ears to His Word and perhaps someone will hear something that will awaken the need for more of that Word in them.
What the tone of my post should indicate is that I will not simply take you at your word, nor will I let your arguments go unchallenged.
I do expect my arguments to be challenged but it should be with scripture. I do not expect you to accept my word, which is why all I have stated is taken from His Word.
You, if you are interested, can go back and check the scriptures that have been given on this thread that support the three ages of earth and support the fact of Cain not being a son of Adam. Allow me to take a little different road here and explain it in another way.
This is the chapter in which Christ is telling about the end of days and the events leading to it. Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. Summer being nigh means it is time for the harvest. Christ didn't say perhaps you should learn it but LEARN IT. It must be important and must pertain to the end of days, the harvest.
I'm sure you know what the parable is but for those those that may not it can be found in Jeremiah 24:
1.The Lord shewed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs were set before the temple of the Lord, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, with the carpenters and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon.
2.One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe: and the other basket had very naughty figs, which could not be eaten, they were so bad.
3.Then said the Lord unto me, "What seest thou, Jeremiah?" And I said, "Figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil."
We know that the basket of "very good figs" was set out in 1948 when Israel became a nation. At the same time, those evil figs are also there. These two baskets have to do with end times in Jerusalem.
Why is it that "figs" are used? The theme of figs and fig trees runs through the Bible and it has it's beginning in the very beginning:
After partaking of the "fruit" what did Adam and Eve do? Gen.3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and the sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
That was the beginning of the fig and it goes to the end of days. Nothing in God's Word is accidentally used. You know that there was no "apple" that they took a bite of. The fig is mentioned after sinning (with Satan) as it is again mentioned in the parable of the fig tree when He tells us that there are good and evil figs in Jerusalem. What was the genesis of those good and evil figs? What happened at the beginning? Who came about because of that sin? Who started the line of good figs and who started the line of the very evil figs?
....Ping
GOD is actually winning. Don’t you think HE wants the Muslims to come to know Him? And they ARE believe it or not. This is NOT unrealistic. You don’t give God enough credit. Please take Him out of that box in which you have Him so neatly packaged.
AMEN, FK.
There is a lot to be said for wanting to pursue the deepest meanings in Scripture. I think the vast majority of us here enjoy these threads for that reason. However, we can get so caught up in finding the deepest meanings we can get lost. The TRUTH is not that hard to find.
2Cor. 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
No, it isn't hard to find but it appears to be difficult for some to see.
2Cor. 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
There is simplicity in the story that I am telling you. To me, it is more difficult to believe Eve ate an apple and God threw them out of the Garden. It is more difficult to believe this earth is 6,000 years old, and that Cain married a sister and then "builded a city" (a city???). If it was just he and a wife and perhaps by that time children, who was the city for? Where did the races come from in the beginning? Where did the races come from after Noah's flood? Were they the only ones on the ark? Why did Paul say he was taken to the 3rd. age if there has only been one age? Why do Peter and Paul tell us of an age before this one if it isn't true, etc., etc., etc.???
There are many questions and there are answers taught in the "simplicity that is in Christ". Some chose to understand the simplicity and others do not.
So..."as the serpent deceived Eve through his craftiness", we have to ask ourselves if he has been deceiving us too. Is there more to the story than we have been taught. Are there answers to the questions?
I believe there are Wmfights. He gives us those answers.
.........Ping
They based their faith on whatever God's revelation to them was at the time. There was a general faith among the people from as early as the end of Gen. 4.
Second, you are saying that your faith is based on the scriptures, when it is really based on your interpretation of the scriptures.
My faith is based on God's revelation to me. Part of that is the scriptures and part is His inner workings of me. I couldn't just read a Bible and have instant faith. God had to do more by revealing the truth to me (including interpretation), as He did with all other believers.
Based on this, your faith is not based on the same foundation as that of Noah, Abraham and Isaac because theirs was not based on scriptures (didn't exist yet).
God's changing of the heart is the same.
Everybody "loves" God when things are going good. The motive behind this "love" matters. Just because I think I am good or love God doesn't mean I am good or love God, or that because (I think) I love God (for whatever reasons) I "deserve" to go to heaven.
That's right, love for God can be genuine or false. Honest self-examination can be useful in this area.
You said Ghandi is in hell because he rejected Christ. Did he? Or did he reject Christianity (of which there are many, as you know, every one of them claiming to be the "true" version).
I don't know for sure where Ghandi is, I just made a guess based on the Wiki bio. As I remember, that said that many Christian friends had presented the Gospel to him and he rejected it every time. In addition, he claimed to be a Christian AND a Jew AND a Hindu, etc. I don't see how one can reject the Gospels, claim a one-world religion philosophy, and yet be good with Christ. It was God's decision, so he is wherever he is supposed to be. I wouldn't guess that I'd want to trade places with him though. :)
Who is faced with a greater dilemma? The ones who know or the ones who can only hope? Those who come to God without guarantees of course. Enduring in hope is harder than enduring with certainty.
I don't see why it should even be a dilemma. There's no need for it if we do not earn our salvation. But I understand what you're saying. I would rather have assurance than not, so in that sense perhaps it is "harder" for those who do not have assurance.
Sure.
You don’t give God enough credit. Please take Him out of that box in which you have Him so neatly packaged
"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are FEW who find it." [Mat 7:14]
I believe my opinion is based on scripture. What is yours based on? Fancy?
Perhaps you need to step ut of your own little box?
You guys are talking about MYTHOLOGY as if it were a "fact!" None of the books of the Torah have any basis in fact. It's mythology. The biggest mistake everyone makes is to assume that it all happened just the way it says it did. You will get just as far discussing how many angels can fit on the heat of a pin.
The myth is there for a reason. It is supposed to treach us morality through a narrative. It's not a historical encyclopedia, an eyewitness news account. It's allegorical mythology.
And how do you know it's God?
God's changing of the heart is the same
Then you don't need scriptures. There goes the whole sola scriptura supsersition.
Besides, your Reformed theology tells you that if God wants you to believe you shall believe and if not, no amount of scirptures and good works and what not will help. It will happen one way or another.
Trouble is, Reformed theology discards the biblical verse that says that satan can appear as the Angle of Light. He is craftier than we are, remember...?
You have no guarantees, FK, other than your own ability to convince yourself that you do, and what guarantee is that? The voices you may hear could be God's, satan's or just hallucinations.
Honest self-examination can be useful in this area.
Everyone things his thinking is honest. Arians and Gnostics truly believe(d) what they preach(ed). So do the LDS and other cults and denomiantions. That's why Christ establish His Church: to prevent self-deception.
In addition, he [Ghandi] claimed to be a Christian AND a Jew AND a Hindu, etc
Because we are all created in God's image, or do you think that some humanity is not really "human?" do you think the reporbate are not "human?"
Do me a favor and read Leo Tolstoy's The Coffe House of Surat. It addresses this issue. Ghandi may have been familiar with it. Worth reading.
I would rather have assurance than not, so in that sense perhaps it is "harder" for those who do not have assurance
You have assurance that you will perservere? From what I know about you, you don't strike me as a violent man. But I am sure you could be driven to violence. Perhaps you are confusing God's perserverance with ours? I have no doubt God can perservere; but can we? I think history and daily news are full of examples that prove many can't.
Hmm. What about if it snows Saturday night?
Does the act of serving food to others break any laws of complete rest?
Excellent point - the origin of the voices is key.
Where the one is gathered with his Bible, his recliner, his pipe, slippers and brandy, what voices does he hear? And what gives that individual complete authority to interpret? Why does that individual wish so hard to interpret?
I think that it is appeal to ego, to ease, and to an overcompensated inferiority complex. There are quite a few example posts that lend support to this.
Yes, for water baptism that is what Baptists believe. However, most Reformers do not follow this and practice infant baptism. In any event, no Reformer believes that water baptism is salvational in and of itself.
We believe that one must be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit.
Yes, we just see it as two separate events.
We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles “sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost ; for he was not yet come upon any of them ...
Yes, for some reason Acts appears to treat the coming of the Spirit a little differently than the rest of the Bible. Normally, (for us) the Spirit coming is treated as an inference to belief (Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:13). But in Acts, the coming of the Spirit is treated as something tangibly experiential. Something always "happens", such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, praising God, having boldness in witness, etc. So, I am unsure if this is supposed to happen for all Christians, or if this was unique to the time of Acts.
Again ( 19:1-6 ): St. Paul “came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples ; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
This is a very strange question for him to ask, since he himself taught that the Spirit comes with belief. In any event, the point Luke appears to be making is that the coming of the Spirit involves experience, whether that happens in two or more stages or not.
It is clear that reference is made here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the Holy Ghost was conferred, just as in Acts 2:38 .
Peter says "Repent and be baptized ...", indicating a believer's baptism. But I don't see anything here about the laying on of hands. Nor do I see it in verse 41 ("those who accepted his message were baptized" - again a believer's baptism), when 3,000 were added to their number.
More evidence that baptism by water can be (but doesn’t have to be) separate from the baptism by the Holy Spirit.
I just posted a long article from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3247 which did a pretty good job of explaining the laying on of hands by a bishop to transfer the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps that individual doesn't wish to interpret at all but to share an understanding with others. That understanding should always, of course, be from the Word of God only. That should help to eliminate some other "voices". Those other voices could come from the person themself or from a church but if tested against His Word there is a good chance that any false teachings would be rendered ineffective.
Some people understand some scripture and others other scripture according to where they are in their walk. It seems a good and Christian thing to discuss what certain scriptures say to each of us.
Hebrews 5:13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
John 21:15......He saith unto him, "Feed My lambs."
16.......He saith unto him, "Feed My sheep."
17.......He Jesus saith unto him, "Feed My sheep.
There are different appetites and different levels of understanding, depending upon where one is in their walk. Are they a lamb or a sheep? Does their age in His Word require milk or meat? I believe God decides what each of us consumes. He knows what we should be fed and when so all we can do, as His children that love Him, is to share what we know with others. He brings those He wishes to the table to share in that food.
It would be sad, indeed selfish and not Christian, for one to keep an understanding to themself if they thought it could benefit others.
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.