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.

Hmm. What about if it snows Saturday night?

Mark, sin is not in the act but in the intent.

If you intentionally leave shoveling for Sunday, then the intent is to do work on a sabbath. If it snows the night before, the path must be opened so people can get to church; there was no intent to shovel on a sabbath.

If a man falls into a well on a sabbath trying to drink because he is thirsty and people pull him out and save his life, the intent was not to break the sabbath.

If I break a fast because I forgot it was Wednesday or Friday, my intent was not to break it. There is no condemnation.

Does the act of serving food to others break any laws of complete rest?

Hunger is one of our necessities of the flesh. Sunday is a day of Resurrection and joy. Should we suffer and struggle by fasting on Sunday? The only way food will get into our bodies is by reaching for it and eating it. But the food can be cooked the night before.

Again, our hunger does not reflect our intent but something that is part of our nature. Intentionally postponing to prepare the meal until Sunday involves a deliberate (intentional) work that could have been avoided.

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

I am not sure if anyone did verifiable studies of people's motivations when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Part of it is probably natural tendency to "interpret" what we see, hear or read.

In reality, it is not an interpretation per se, but rather an opinion. And opinion have their roots in personal experiences, culture, personal relationships, and life in general.

Personal interpretation is reducing the scriptures to an opinion, and that in itself degrades the Holy Script. It subjects that which is holy to our level and corrupts it with our prejudices, ignorance and ego.

Those who know me on this Forum also know that I always maintain that what I say about the scriptures is my opinion; likewise, I always defer the interpretation to the Church.

Orthodox Catechism is very explicit about this (emphases added)

"The way of negation [apophatic thinking] corresponds to the spiritual ascent into the Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is. It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’..."

"Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism."

Mark 16:16 says "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

Notice that he says it's not enough to just believe (i.e. puts to rest the Protestant sola fide).

In other words, you must believe and receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, implying that the Holy Spirit is sacramentally present at baptism. That this is what the Church taught from the earliest can also be found in the West and the East, where the seal (chrism) is applied immediately after water baptism. In the Orthodox Church, this is done even to infants (their godparents believe and accept the Holy Spirit for them).

But those who don't believe are also not baptized and therefore they are lost.

Thus, Mark seems to suggest that faith is a requirement, but is not salvational without Baptism!

This is a very strange question for him to ask, since he himself taught that the Spirit comes with belief

I am a glad that I am not the only one who finds some thing strange with Acts.

FK: "... 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 ..."

Ah. Time is hanging you up here. First, if God were in time, how long you think four thousand years would seem in comparison to eternity? But God's not in time (eternal also means infinite, unbounded, outside time). He's not "waiting" in time.

That depends on what God was willing to settle with in terms of His plan. If God wanted the crucifixion to take place to save His people, and if He wanted it to take place just so, then millions of conditions would have to be present for it to happen that way. Those specific conditions are not going to be perpetually present, hence my use of "waiting". I agree that God is outside of time, but His plan is "played out" inside of time. So, if He doesn't interfere, and if He requires certain conditions to get what He wants, then He has to "wait" or settle for less.

For example, you have probably seen the movie "The Sting". Do you remember when J.J. was past-posting and he had to wait until a winning horse came across the wire with the desired odds before they could move forward? That's how I see God's plan working under the Apostolic view. Of course all of God's foreknowledge is instantaneous, but nevertheless, God couldn't have initiated what He wanted at His convenience, He had to "wait" until the conditions randomly appeared within time.

There's no such thing as coincidence, especially to God.

I don't understand how that's possible if God refuses to interfere.

My point on humans earlier was purely a logical one. It's not necessary to control each individual object (or human) in order to execute a plan and have it outcome foreknown/predictable. We can account for "random" in our plan as well. We can't approach the level of God in this, but the logical point still holds.

Sure, but it won't be EXACTLY the outcome you originally wanted unless you control for random elements, or wait for conducive conditions. If God doesn't interfere, then He doesn't control for man's arbitrariness.

Humans do not, usually, make choices based on a coin flip - our usual notion of random. If I put ten teen age boys on one side of a room and ten girls on the other, their locations will change over time, but the resulting grouping will not be random.

That's true, but in the first group of 20, some number of boys and/or girls might be shy and not pair up. That number will be different in the second group of 20, and so on. That's what I mean by random. Now, what if God "needs" a particular pair to get together for His purposes? If God does not interfere, then He has to "wait" until a pair comes along that meets His specifications, AND freely decides to pair up.

I'm only saying that allowing humans to have free will choices, does not mean that there cannot possibly be a "God's plan."

In theory, I agree. It depends on the specificity of God's plan. It God's plan is relatively general, such that it can "absorb" the randomness of human free will, then it could incorporate free will, and God can still get what He wants, in a general sense. However, if God's plan is micro specific, as I suspect it is, then human free will would be a problem. I would base my suspicion on the omnipotence of God (if one could have everything EXACTLY as He wanted it, why wouldn't He do that), and the incredible perfection of how all the details of the Bible work together in complete unity. No loose ends. That shows me a meticulous plan.

Knowing what the result of allowing free will would be - foreknowing - God created man with free will.

And that leaves God a limited sphere within which to create His plan.

I think there is a key difference in the Apostolic and Protestant view of man's nature. I believe your view is that man is naturally sinful and evil or bad. We see this as "natural" only in our fallen state, but that our essential natural state is the state that saints attain.

Adam was created without a sinful nature, but with the potential to sin. Once he did, then the rest of us were born with a sinful nature. A nature that is totally depraved, and capable of no good in God's eyes. Then at some point God implanted a righteous new nature into the hearts of His elect. A remnant of the old nature remains, but our new hearts are naturally disposed to point towards God instead of satan. So, ........ however that fits in with what you said. :)

God's foreknowledge is not limited in any fashion by man's free will.

That's right. Foreknowledge is a display of what happened, and does not affect how it happened.

Thanks much for your replies also. I am enjoying our discussion.

I really enjoy woodworking. I get a lot of satisfaction making different articles of furniture. It brings pleasure and satisfaction and I am exhilarated in doing it and in fact refreshed. Now, the product is useful and saves me money as I don’t have to buy the furniture and people enjoy receiving it as gifts. I don’t consider it work but others do and make a living crafting the same furniture. If I practice my hobby on sabbath is it sin?

I would say that it would in no way be sin in God's eyes. The Pharisees were the ones who would call it sin, and Jesus corrected them. For you, woodworking is a self-expressive art form (I mean, right?). You do it because you love it and your mind is not fettered by routine earthly worries. It is doubtless that you also contemplate God many times while you work. It is part of your downtime. This cannot be sin. First, we have this:

Mark 2:27 : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

If the Sabbath was made for man, then whether something is work should be in the eye of the beholder. This is supported by verses like:

Col 2:16-17 : 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Rom 14:5-6 : 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Hmmmmmm. According to these, you should be able to do your woodworking whenever you please, with the Lord's compliments.

That understanding should always, of course, be from the Word of God only.......LOL! And just how does one do that?

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written. 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'"

We must try to understand that Word, taken as it is given, knowing that the following will happen:

Part of it is probably natural tendency to "interpret" what we see, hear or read.....In reality, it is not an interpretation per se, but rather an opinion. And opinion have their roots in personal experiences, culture, personal relationships, and life in general......Personal interpretation is reducing the scriptures to an opinion, and that in itself degrades the Holy Script. It subjects that which is holy to our level and corrupts it with our prejudices, ignorance and ego.

We are human, not robots. What good would it do to read, study and not try to understand? Kosta, if we followed what you are saying why would we ever pick the Bible up. It seems that we should only allow the church to recite scripture to us and only listen to their explanation of it in order to keep it pristine in understanding (their understanding).

We will bring our prejudices, life experiences, ego, etc. (how could we not?) to the table when we read but I don't believe that "degrades the Holy Spirit" at all. Rather, I would think that God would approve of His child reading His letter. It seems to me that all churches also bring their prejudices, beliefs and egos to their congregation and each one believes they are right, that they are the one true church.

So....In my opinion, we should read, study, listen to teachers, our church leaders and the opinions of others to gain the most knowledge possible. Remembering, that we will also be led in that understanding by the Holy Spirit. If He isn't the "voice" that is heard then God's Word will be able to dispel anything the false one says, no matter where that "false voice" and it's message comes from.

.......Ping

Which brings us back to the point that I, and a number of others, keep reiterating.

The Word of God, as kosta put it so succinctly, was largely misunderstood, at least at first, by the Apostles. What makes each individual Protestant more capable than those who were instructed personally by Christ? Or the institution that Jesus created to instruct, admonish and correct us.

The Bible certainly needs to be measured against itself. But it still needs to be put into context by an authority on it. The diversity of interpretation here lends even more credence to the Biblical establishment of that authority. It not only says it in the Bible, it also makes logical sense.

Christ’s instruction to Peter is to feed and tend Christ’s lambs (spiritually). Peter has the authority given to him by Jesus. That authority didn’t go away when Peter was crucified upside down. That doesn’t make any sense and is unBiblical, regardless of the hostility that so many Protestants have towards any sort of doctrinal authority.

That authority is the means that the heresies have been identified and turned aside. The rejection of that authority has led to the resurrection of all of the 1st millennium heresies which are variously put into practice - as most ably demonstrated right here on these boards.

Larry D. Pettegrew says "Scripture is clear, not mystical or hidden." +Paul didn't think so: "and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel"—Eph 6:19

Yeah, but Paul was one of the main guys who MADE the Gospels clear IN SCRIPTURE. :) His prayer was answered favorably. Pettegrew also said that the scriptures were clear, but not all of them were necessarily simple.

Larry D. Pettegrew says "One of the qualifications of a pastor, in fact, is that he be 'able to teach' the Scriptures (1 Tim 3:2)," [never mind the fact that Timothy does not advertise sola scriptura, so this quote is a non sequitur] and I ask Mr. Pettegrew who determines that? Other pastors? How is that different from clergy that all Protestants despise? So, now we need pastors in addition to sola scriptura?

Perspicuity and Sola Scriptura are related but different concepts. Perspicuity goes to God's desire for man to be able to understand His actual word, and Sola Scriptura goes to the authority of that word.

I'm afraid I don't understand your line of questions here. I think Pettegrew was trying to say that perspicuity does not exclude the goodness and necessity of teachers. From the part I quoted, I don't even see him getting into Sola Scriptura.

Perspicuity comes from Latin, meaning to 'see through,' in other words transparent. To say that the Bible is perspicuous is to say that what's in the Bible is transparent, in other words, lucid, easily understandable.

For basic Christian principles, this definition is fitting. To any child of the age of reason, the Gospel truths concerning salvation, that we are all sinners, that we need Jesus to forgive us, that Jesus loves us and died for our sins, that we need to repent of our sins, and that we want Jesus to be our Lord and Savior ARE understandable, i.e. perspicuous. To say that the whole Bible is perspicuous would mean through the Holy Spirit's leading. In many cases that leading would be through human teachers.

The term is misleading as great minds clashed over its "perspicuity" with each seeing something different, even opposite in it. Thus, the Jews read the same Tanakh as the Protestants, yet they read different things in it.

The term is not misleading if taken in the light that those who believe in it take it. Believers are led by the Holy Spirit and the "Lord, Lord" crowd are not. To the latter, the Bible is in no way perspicuous, rather, it is nonsense. It is only perspicuous to believers.

It's good to be able to teach, but why would one need to teach that which is obvious and clear as long as others can read?

Pettegrew acknowledged this point in the part I quoted you. On non-core issues, he distinguishes between clear and simple. Clear means it IS there, and simple is how easy it is to find.

No, a 5-year old does not know right from wrong and therefore cannot understand the basics of God and salvation.

I have seen a couple of 5-year-olds express what I thought to be a saving faith, but clearly not all can. The issue is not to decide the age of reason, but to decide if the basics of salvation are understandable as portrayed in the Bible to any such person who has in God's eyes reached that age. I would say "Yes", absolutely.

This cannot be sin. First, we have this: Mark 2:27..."The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath...

It never ceases to amaze me how—it appears—the Protestants/Baptists always read the "me-me-me" into the scriptures by taking verses out of context.

Yes, FK, the sabbath was made for man to rest. Sabbath was not given to man to play, booze up, pursue hobbies or chase women, but to devote entirely to God.

The OT is full of references to support this notion. Listing them all would take up considerable bandwidth, so I simply suggest to read all references regarding observance of the sabbath. You will not find one that says anything else but complete rest.

The instance with Mark 2:27 is, of course, one in the series of correct interpretations of the Law Christ gives to teach that it is is the intent that makes sin a sin, and not the act. And, conversely, that one should consider, not the letter, but the intent of the law in following it.

In St. Mark's account, the group involved was hungry and Jesus explains that a hungry man's actions are not condemned because their intent was to feed and not to break the law. God does not delight in the suffering of anyone.

The group was hungry and picking some heads of grain in the field. They weren't stealing or killing or committing any crime, so it wasn't "work" and it wasn't "fun."

Hunger, like breathing, is something we don't control;. Acts dommitted in order to breathe or eat/survive is a necessity imposed upon us and is not an ill intent.

Your example of Mark 2:27 as "justification" to engage in a hobby on a sabbath doesn't hold water, FK.

But, of course, we Christians are not observers of the Law, and it is debatable what the nature of Christian sabbath should be. It is, after all, the day of Resurrection and of joy. It is the most important day in the week. Sunday gives meaning to our faith. Sunday is the Lord's Day not "our" day.

[If the Sabbath was made for man, then whether something is work should be in the eye of the beholder] This is supported by verses like: Col 2:16-17 : 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Again, out-of-context quotes. St. Paul was talking about food laws to which the Jews were bound. He was simply saying that you will have to account to God for what you do and eat, and not to other people. He says what you eat should reflect your conviction of what is right towards God, and not your judgment of others. But that doesn't mean we will not be accountable for what we do or eat.

He's not giving us a blank check, saying "do whatever you wish," although—out of context—it could be misconstrued as such. We all know that rules don't make believers. Just because we "observe" the law doesn't mean we do it in our hearts. So, compliance is no indication of ours spiritual state, which we can know only as it pertains to us and not to others.

In other words, we don't know why some people don't observe sabbath or fast when everyone else seems to be. We must not pass judgment on those we see not observing, for there may be many reasons they are not observant.

This only relates to us judging others and not the principle of breaking the law because we don't know and must not judge other people's intent.

Kosta: Larry D. Pettegrew says "." +Paul didn't think so: "and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel"—Eph 6:19

FK: Yeah, but Paul was one of the main guys who MADE the Gospels clear IN SCRIPTURE. :) His prayer was answered favorably. Pettegrew also said that the scriptures were clear, but not all of them were necessarily simple.

FK, please leave lawyering behind when you write these things. It's good for your soul. :)

From Eph 6:19 it is clear that +Paul thinks the gospel in question was a mystery.

Perspicuity goes to God's desire for man to be able to understand His actual word, and Sola Scriptura goes to the authority of that word

Where does it say that?

perspicuity does not exclude the goodness and necessity of teachers

Then don't call it "perspicuity" because that which is clear is intelligible.

To any child of the age of reason

That is an oxymoron actually. If for one moment we believed that 7-year-olds are capable of knowing right from wrong we should issue them driving licenses and let them purchase beer.

Science tells us that even teens don't have fully developed frontal lobes and cannot think abstractly enough to comprehend danger. Yet, you will tell me that a 5-year-old can grasp the meaning of faith and salvation?

In many cases that leading would be through human teachers

Wrong. The leading is never through human authority but through the authority given in Christ's promise that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

What makes each individual Protestant more capable than those who were instructed personally by Christ? Or the institution that Jesus created to instruct, admonish and correct us.

I try not to discuss Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc. I don't know enough about any religious doctrine to comment. That is a battle for others.

As far as what people or churches teach:

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:
7.Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
8.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 ungodly men.

Peter was taught by Christ and he in turn has given us that lesson. Do churches teach it today or are they willingly ignorant of it? This was not the flood of Noah.

2 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 Paul was taken to the third heaven we must now be in the second age. It would follow that there was a first age. Do our churches teach this or are they willingly ignorant of it?

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father."
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Christ taught that. Are our chuches, or us, willingly ignorant of it?

Christ’s instruction to Peter is to feed and tend Christ’s lambs (spiritually).

And He did that, both the lambs and the sheep. He taught 2Peter 3:5-8 but does anyone else?

The rejection of that authority has led to the resurrection of all of the 1st millennium heresies which are variously put into practice - as most ably demonstrated right here on these boards

Different religions, doctrines, practices have been around forever and it continues today. They should be proven to be false by His Word. The problem arises when some use bits and pieces of scripture, taken out of context, to prove their point. That is what the debate is about. Can it or can it not be proven? That is why the debate rages over rapture or over the idea of us now being in the millennium, among other things. Can it be proven, or disproven, with His Word ???

.....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.