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.
Mark, I wish I knew enough about this to discuss it but I don't. I know nothing about churches, whether they are Protestant or Catholic. I do know that God's children are in all of them and He loves all of us.
I personally believe that when we stand in front of God there will not be a priest, father, preacher, pastor, reverend, etc. with us. We will stand alone and using the excuse of "but he taught me that" will not fly. I want to be part of the first resurrection and if I don't make it I will only have myself to blame.
....Ping
Seven, you know where I found it. "It is written". I didn't say in order to be saved or love God you must be able to read.
I did say that when disputes about ideas come about then His Word should be the final answer.
.......Ping
PS: I'm still researching your earlier post about first and second born - it will take awhile but I'm looking.
The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.
Solomon, one of David's sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.
When Mary heard she was he mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta.
Lot's wife was a pillar of salt during the day but a ball of fire during the night.
Sampson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the apostles.
The Epistles were the wives of the Apostles.
Christians have only one spouse. This is called monotony.
Jesus was born because Mary had an Immaculate Contraption.
I hope all of you enjoyed that as much as I did.....Ping
Read about the creation and the development of the Church through the Gospels, Acts, and then the Epistles.
I think that you are equating the Catholic Church with Joe’s Church that one might find on the corner or in the mall, right across the street from Tom’s Church, Dick’s Church and around the corner from Harry’s Church. That is a tremendous theological error. Christ created His Church. Luther, Henry (well, really James finished the job), Calvin, Zwingli et al created their own.
I agree absolutely that one stands before the Lamb in judgement on one’s own. But our Judgement is by His rules, not ours. If you are exposed to the Church of Christ and reject it, your punishment is severe (that darned ol’ free will again). If the Church is the entity that is the hands of God on Earth that the Bible says it is, then why would you not avail yourself of it. There are many sacraments that we are commanded to participate in such as the Eucharist. Do all Bible-only people do that? I’d say offhand that most of them don’t.
How are they going to be judged? They’re not going to be able to point to 1 and 2 Cor and say that God’s direction to us is only found in there and therefore You can’t judge me on anything else. They’re going to be judged by what we have done, measured on what God has left for us as metrics as to what we are supposed to do, and how we are supposed to do it.
My Colleen is like Lot’s wife - but only at night. :)
Show me where the Bible say that.
"Have you not read" - "It is written" - "I have foretold you all things"
All references to the Old Testament. Christ never commissioned the New Testament, nor did he say "let them read." He said "teach all nations..." And who's supposed to teach if not His catholic and apostolic Church? Slef-appointed preachers?
Now I REALLY like that one! :)
I wouldn't go as far as to say "much", but you're right that there are some disagreements. We just wanted to be sure that nobody thought we worshiped them. :)
[From the quote:] So what does the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scriptures mean? First it means that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by.
I don't believe any Protestant would say this is sufficient use and meaning of scripture. Philosophy and ethics are available elsewhere. This is not what makes it scripture. One must see scripture as having a deeper value and truth.
I inferred that the author meant "... clear enough for the simplest person to live a Holy and Christian life by". If that is right, then it might include what you are talking about.
FK: "... a growing number of the interpretations of scripture made by the Magisterium simply bore no resemblance to the actual texts."
Based first on your interpretation requiring sola scriptura - which came from scripture, right?
I was postulating on some of the reasons for the Reformation in the first place, but I do agree with them. Of course the term "Sola Scriptura" does not appear in scripture, but its principles are certainly there. For example, supporting evidence is found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Cor. 4:6, Luke 1:1-4, and Matt. 4:1-11.
Second, we look at some of your doctrine as bearing no resemblance to scripture also.
And I have had the good fortune of being reminded of that occasionally on this very forum. :)
It seems to me that this definition of Perspicuity of Scripture means the average reader can get the story and "words to live by" (but not a Sacramental life). Past that they require Protestant teachers. :)
I think the average reader would understand that he should be baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper. But you are right in that I don't think he would understand the Sacramental life as you do.
Which begs the next question: Which one? Based on what and whose criteria?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to.
If He said, "follow no man", He said so for a reason. If we are not to follow man then who should we follow?
"Have you not read" - "It is written" - "I have foretold you all things"......All references to the Old Testament.
Mark 13:23. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
That was in warning about the end of days, not the Old Testament. How are we to know what He foretold us of? We must read it as it is written! As far as the references to the Old Testament do you think we should throw them out?
......Ping
Bullseye !
The seeds of the enlightenment has certainly been on of the devil's greatest deception along with anything that divides Christianity
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
You are so full of it at times, Kosta. You amaze me.
No. But does it say you you shall break it to save someone's life?
There is the letter of the law, which is too simplistic in rare cases, and then there is the spirit of the law as it was intended. For example, I think we would agree that suicide is against the law and is a sin. However, Jesus tells us plainly that there is no greater gift than to die for a friend. Throwing myself on a grenade to save my buddies is suicide by the letter of the law, but it is obviously not sinful by what Jesus said. Same thing here.
One thing is clear, sabbath is to be the day of complete rest, no exceptions cited.
As BD is saying, what constitutes "rest"? And is the point of the law here really to rest, or is it to be sure to set aside time for the Lord? I think the latter.
Correction, FK: the Gospels are the words of God. Not inspired, actual living words of God, quoted not through a dream as one remembered, but spoken. You treat the experience of mortal conduits on the same plane as the actual words God spoke in Flesh.
Every word in the Bible is quoted through a human conduit. The only possible way it could matter if the conduit was relaying a dream or an eyewitness experience is if one thinks that the Bible contains error. I do not, therefore the genre of the source is irrelevant. It either IS God's word through men or it is something else. But if the Bible DOES contain human error, as you go on to say, then I can fully understand why you would focus on the Gospels. That would fit. I just don't understand why the Orthodox Church thinks that God would allow His own Holy word to be polluted like that.
If the Bible is without errors, then the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible?
That doesn't follow. The Bible is FROM God THEREFORE it has no errors. You say that Mary was without sin. Wouldn't that make her God under this view?
The OT speaks of killing children as an act commanded by God. Even God himself kills all the firstborn in Exodus. Is this the same God we know saying "Blessed are the merciful..."?
But it was never given as a RULE. It was only in specific circumstances that God commanded that. We today can take no entitlement from that absent another appearance from God commanding the same. Apparently, that hasn't happened in quite a while.
And as to mercy, and given our shared view on how children who die are treated by God, and given the greatest likelihood that all of those OT children would have grown up to oppose the one true God, then God DID actually show them mercy by killing them when He did (or ordered it). :) He saved them from their own virtually assured future.
FK: "The OT is clearly the primary source AGAINST abortion."
Really? Where does it say that?
There are plenty of examples. Here are some showing legal personhood in God's eyes, thus making it wrong to kill the unborn:
Job 31:15 : Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Ps 22:9-10 : 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Ps 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Isa 44:2 : This is what the Lord says — he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
Isa 46:3 : "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth.
Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Luke 1:41-42, 44 : 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! ...... 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
I think all of these go to show how God views an unborn baby. He or she exists as a person at conception, at which time all the OT rules against the murder of innocent life would apply.
But Bible research shows that early proposed canons (2nd and 3rd centuries) did not include or consider 2 Peter as inspired.
Thank you for the links and the chart. But as we know the Church DID ultimately decide that both were inspired. Since many still dispute the authorship of Hebrews, but apparently do not question its inspiration, I suppose I am a little confused about whether there is a difference between discussing authenticity and authorship.
It's amazing how randomness comes to all order when car keys hang in the balance. :)
He said "teach all nations and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Goly Ghost."
He left the Church to tell us about it. In fact, the Church did exactly that, for 30-60 years after Christ, without the New Testament, by word of mouth, and ever since then, and always in the true tradition of the Gospels.
If He said, "follow no man", He said so for a reason
That's right, because the Jews expected Messiah to be a mortal man.
He gave his apsotles the keys to bing whatsoever on earth and it shall be bound in heaven. They, in turn, gave that promise by virtue of their privilegde to bind whatsoever, to their successors and their successors to their succesors until this day.
We know where the authority of our bishops comes from. It's in the Bible. But where does the autority of self-styles Protestant pastors and individuals come from? I don't see it in the Bible.
Since there is no authority from Chirst given to them, all those who follow those without authority actually follow men, including themsleves.
The Apostolic Church follows Christ by following the Gospels.
I responded to your post with a verse and you with a qualifying judgment. You am amaze me too.
I completely agree and thank you for the kind words.
We listen to teachers to learn about His Word. Some are sent by God, some are not but all must stand the test of their teachings agreeing with His Word. If not, you are following a man and man's traditions.
Amen, absolutely true.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I think Mary's assumption was a more recent infallible papal declaration, but I do not know on what it is based. ...... I agree with you that we will all have bodies for eternity.
The idea that we will have wings has absolutely no basis in Scripture or Tradition.
But what about poor Clarence? :)
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.
Of this there can be no doubt.
Thanks for all the background on the imagery of Heaven. Some very good questions were raised, and I tended to agree with the answers.
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?
I don't think I shifted gears. God didn't want Pharaoh to change his mind, SO, within time He left him alone, knowing that he wouldn't change his mind. God didn't zap him, but God did want the result. ...... When God wants me to do a specific thing, He moves my heart and then I do the thing. I don't know if you want to call that mind control or not, but I'm grateful that He does it. :)
Then God desires perdition as well as salvation.
That is the logical extension of the Biblical concept of selective predestination, otherwise known as double predestination. He could have predestined all to Heaven but He did not.
If God wanted Crucifixion then He wanted the Flood. It seems to me that your God delights in wanting blood and killing.
God did want both of those things, but there is no implication of Him taking any "delight" in it. That is only used by those who want to portray our view as that of a blood-thirsty God. There is nothing from our side to support that. Both of these things were in concert with God's justice, which is actually real, and toward God's decree of saving His people.
You are contradicting yourself. Either God or Pharaoh/Judas made the decision.
Why is that a rule? God is the decider-in-chief, the first cause of everything. But men also make the decisions to carry out the sin and are accountable. By your rule it appears that God doesn't want or cause or care about ANYTHING because men make all the decisions and take all the blame and get all the credit.
FK: "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.
Now you're playing semantics. Good pleasure means according to His will.
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?
The only thing that "forces" God is His own nature, which includes His justice. It also includes His eternalness, i.e., God is "forced" to continue to exist. But I wouldn't choose to use the word "forced" in this way. God is simply perfectly consistent and true to Himself, not random. The bottom line is that God chose to save some, but not all. That means something has to be done with the rest, so they are reprobated. As God designed the model, those are the only two options.
What you are saying is that sometimes God just "hates" His job, having to do things He doesn't delight in doing.
No, all I said was that God doesn't "delight" in reprobating. That doesn't mean He hated it either. It just means it was necessary to be consistent with His nature, so He did it. Your use of "delight" is specifically chosen to create a mental image that I do not agree with. God's plan is a representation of what He wants, and so all things in His plan are according to His wishes. We are clearly told in Luke 15:3-7 that God delights when a soul is saved. However, there is no related scripture that says that God gets His jollies by reprobating someone. It is what it is.
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.
God constructed Adam such that without His protection, Adam would fall. That was God's decision to do it that way. Now, when the rubber met the road, Adam made the decision to sin. Both made decisions, and Adam is accountable for his. God is not accountable for His because who would He be accountable to? The only possibility would be to His own nature, and He did nothing to violate that here.
Then your side says you can't sin and you can't turn against God.
No, our side says that we can and do sin, unfortunately, and that we can turn against God, but just not PERMANENTLY*. God promises us that that won't happen. No one can snatch us from His hands, not even us (since we, as persons, would obviously be included with "no one").
* Or, just not past the point of losing our salvation. If it got bad enough, God could and would just take us home before it was too late. So technically, that would be "permanently" and so I wanted to clarify.
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."
Is your argument that God does not use people to accomplish His purposes, or do you just not like the word "instrument"? I mean, what's the alternative, does God "ask" people to help Him out when He's in a jam? :)
My idea of paradise (or the ideal) would be anywhere where my heart was totally devoted to God. I loved Him completely with all my heart, mind, and soul, and I knew that He loved me too. It doesn't sound to me like Eden was such a place. Perhaps Adam and Eve DID develop such a relationship with God after they were kicked out. If they did, then their expulsion was good for them.
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.
I thought we were talking about the expulsion from the garden, as above, (so by "garden" I meant "garden incident") and I answered that the expulsion was good because God intended us to live our lives in this world in this way, so it is good by definition. My above expands a little on that answer.
FK: "For believers being cursed is only a temporary state."
And all the suffering and death that came along...just temporary, thousands of years.
Yes, actually. When compared to eternity with God in Heaven, all human suffering is really quite trivial.
Try telling this to those who don't have food to eat. It's only temporary...and then only if you believe.
Well, for the lost, their curse is eternally permanent, so I wouldn't try to tell them, if I could somehow know they were reprobate. But a believer surely can know that if he is saved, that whatever suffering he is enduring now will be no more in Heaven, and forever. That knowledge is EXACTLY what helps me through MY suffering, as pale as it is compared to many.
So, do you let your kids go hungry and be cold just so they appreciate how good they have it?
No, but I have made sure that they are aware of how many millions of children their age actually live in this world. In addition, when I discipline they are trained to know that if I get any lip that I will double it or worse. That is partly intended to show them to be grateful that they are only losing some, not all. I am a huge believer in the correct perspective on approaching life.
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!"
Well, if the homeless man is a lost person, then you have to remember that God does not work for the good of him. He only works for the good of those who love Him. If the homeless man was a believer, and did not want to be homeless, then in this country anyway, I'm sure his church would have helped him out.
FK: "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.
I don't think I can come all the way there because I don't think we are really in the position of a client or a patient. They can refuse, they have "rights", although the doctor or lawyer can still help them without cooperation. For example, in some cases a criminal defense attorney can use legal maneuvering to keep his client out of jail JUST BECAUSE he is not cooperating. (Competency hearings and such.) And, a doctor can pressure family members to get the patient to see reason. So, I like lawyer/doctor better because at least they are in a greater position of power (the expert, as you say) in the outcome of the situation vs. two "equals" bargaining (or cooperating) at arms length. In the original paradigm, God sounded to me more like a salesman than an expert.
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.
This sounds like someone who was never healed in the first place. Or, it sounds like his doctor didn't do a very good job. (Calling John Edwards!) :) When God DOES do the job, He does it right.
Yes [Paul would agree that we are slaves to Him], but we are not enslaved by God. We can't serve two masters. So we must choose whom we shall serve.
Who is the other party you are referring to and how does this relate to our station before God? The slave metaphor doesn't match your view because you are always free to declare yourselves no longer slaves any time you wish. Then if you want to become slaves to God again, all you do is confess, maybe some penance, and God automatically welcomes you back again. It never worked like this. Whether it was for a set number of years, or permanently, once you were a slave you were a slave. You were not free to change the relationship at your own whim.
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.