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.
First of all, I didn't think you believed in a 7-day creation.
Secondly do you think God was surprised when Adam sinned?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't believe in Adam.
Now, if we are going to pretend that a verse is really a true verse (and there is a certain probability attached to that pretense) then we can speak of it as if it were true (and there is a certain probability that it is).
When we do, we see that the verses in question express a universal, but not particular truth, sufficiently general to allow all sorts of interpretations as to what is good or evil. In other words it can mean anything your heart desires.
So, while it expresses the universal truth, in general rather than particular, it by no means assures us that what we know or what we define as "good" is really good. The verse is true provided what we consider good is truly good.
1) On what basis do you decide what is "truly good?"
2) Are you actually saying the Bible only speaks in generalities and not specifics? You don't think the 10 Commandments are specific? You don't think "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9) is specific?
Maybe that's why the EO as you present it seems so inarticulate. Nothing is firm or real or definite or determined; everything's a generality, in flux, uncertain and ill-defined.
I don't. We exist, so we were created, but I doubt it took the equivalent of 7 earthly days.
Secondly do you think God was surprised when Adam sinned? Assuming that that's the way it happened, no. But fore-knowing is not he same as pre-ordaining. The latter is conditional; the former is not.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't believe in Adam
Of course I believe in Adam. Humans had to start sometime. It's just that real Adam may not have acted or looked like the Biblical Adam.
But truth is that we still blame God or the devil for our mistakes. Now, that part of Genesis I do believe wholeheartedly!
On what basis do you believe that?
Since you reject most of the scripture, how do you know we didn't just evolve from primordial slime?
If agrees with the Gospels.
2) Are you actually saying the Bible only speaks in generalities and not specifics?
Yes. God's truth is expressed as a general principle, rather black-and-white. Thus whe He says "Blessed are the merciful..." one cane lawyer his way arounf the "real' meaning of "merciful."
You don't think the 10 Commandments are specific?
No they are not. Again, plenty of room is left to wiggle. Chirst's own two commandments are even more nebulous because "love" is soemthing we all claim to know, yet what people consider "love" is as different as snowflakes.
You don't think "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9) is specific?
No, because it includes LDS and Jehowah's Witnesses,to name just two, in that formula. Also the part "he was raised ... " is a trinitarian issue because Christ, who is God, raised Himself. The Creed has ic correctly, but Paul claimed otherwise (cf Gal 1:1).
Maybe that's why the EO as you present it seems so inarticulate. Nothing is firm or real or definite or determined; everything's a generality, in flux, uncertain and ill-defined
Those are my failings, not the entire EO community's. I find most EO sources to be very articulate, determined and concrete, certain of their uncertainty, and well defined.
How is that different from premordial clay? At some point, by all accounts, man appeared on earth and left his artifacts and bones. It makes no difference if we were shaped by evolutionary processes or if we were UPS delivered on the 7th day lock, stock and barrel. At one point we did not exist and then at another we did.
Read your Bible, Mark. It tells us God already knows our prayers before we ask anything of Him.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." -- Matthew 6:7-8"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
We pray because we are commanded to pray to Him in worship, repentance, guidance, gratitude and so that we may be brought closer to Him. Prayer is for our benefit; not for God's. He is complete.
Here's an excellent understanding of prayer by A.W. Pink from his book...
"...But to affirm that God will not and cannot bring to pass His eternal purpose unless we pray is utterly erroneous, for the same God who has decreed the end has also decreed that His end shall be reached through His appointed means, and One of these is prayer. The God who has determined to grant a blessing also gives a spirit of supplication which first seeks the blessing..."
KOSTA: If agrees with the Gospels.
You don't see any inherent contradiction in denying the inerrancy of the Gospels, yet using them as "proof" of "what is truly good?"
God's truth is expressed as a general principle, rather black-and-white. Thus whe He says "Blessed are the merciful..." one cane lawyer his way arounf the "real' meaning of "merciful."
Wow. Amazing. It's usually the atheists or at least the humanists who say God's word is vague. I find a whole lot of "black and white" specifics in Scripture. Even the word in your example, "merciful," is not so general as to be indefinable. It means simply "to give pardon where none is merited."
All of which returns to the question -- how do you define a thing (such as goodness) by something that is general and non-specific?
You wouldn't sell many dictionaries using that method.
Yep. Because left to my own devices, I would be just like Saul, a very sad creature.
Thank God, His will prevails. (And I bet Paul would agree with me.)
What does the verse before that one say???
"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." -- 1 Corinthians 10:12
Great verse. Anyone who presumes they stand by their own will is headed for a fall. When we stand by the will and strength of God, we have His promise we will not fall.
But there are even more interesting passages that follow those...
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." -- 1 Corinthians 10:14-21 "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
We partake in the "communion" of His sacrifice, and are careful not to make an idol out of our own vain imaginings. We are to "flee" from that error.
Now I know why I like that movie so much. :) I've never thought about it in those terms before, but you're absolutely right:
I also love the Matrix trilogy. They certainly deal with the "what is real" question we've been talking about.
It appears you do remember. :>)
Your last paragraph asks interesting questions. I maintain that the answers are found in scripture. Sometimes scripture leads to places that aren't particularly comfortable to me.
We are the sheep. He is the shepherd.
Do shepherds shear sheep? Eat some of them? Dispose of others?
Kosta and I bat that one back and forth a bit as you'll see - I predict sometime Wednesday.. :)
Good guess on the timing. :) I saw that you at least have sympathy for the Eastern position. I suppose the key is to decide why a dead child goes to Heaven, if he does. Is it because he has committed no physical sin? If so, then the "wounded" nature is not eternally fatal. Or, is it because God has the sovereign right to save anyone He wants to? (my contention)
Sure they are. For us, both have a sovereign God being an actor, not a mere reactor, as you must believe. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you said at one time that it was our sin that caused our physical death. If so, then why do some of the worst sinners live to ripe old ages, and some who have never sinned, in addition to some of the greatest warriors for Christ die young? For you, it has to be a matter of chance. If God is not in control then who or what is?
In fact, if I had become earthly separated from one of my children, I would be most tempted to feel bitterness against God if He WASN'T in control in calling my child home. I would be tempted to be angry at His WEAKNESS.
The Christ known to the Church is the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount. Not the angry God of the OT or God who creates mankind destined for eternal suffering.
Astounding admission, but very consistent. :) Your Church does not know the God portrayed in the OT, and believe He is a different God from the one portrayed in the NT. You don't trust God's full revelation of Himself in scripture, but only accept the parts that you like. Of course this leads to a very incomplete understanding of God.
You responded: Yep. Because left to my own devices, I would be just like Saul, a very sad creature.
We aren't left to our own devices! You have not considered that love is freely given and freely returned. Why is it so difficult for the Reformer to understand that God and men work together? It is not an "either/or".
Thank God, His will prevails. (And I bet Paul would agree with me.)
"For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 tim 2:3-4
So are ALL men saved, then? Isn't it God's will? But yet, our faith teaches us that all men will not be saved...
I propose this solution, upheld by the Scriptures.
God desires all men to be saved. Just like God desires His commandments to be obeyed. However, He has given man a great gift: Free will. Thus, though God wills men to be saved, He allows men to condemn themselves if they desire. I do not agree with the idea that man is a pile of manure. I believe that God MAKES men righteous through His graces, but does so with a willing recipient.
Regards
I thank you for the link. It is most instructive.
The interesting thing is that the conclusion of Chapter 9 (GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER) is actually completely at odds with most of the arguments laid forth in the chapter. I really like the way it sets up the strawman as to what somebody else says that prayer is for, and then attempts, only marginally successfully, to knock that strawman down.
“And this leads us to offer a few remarks concerning the design of prayer. Why has God appointed that we should pray? The vast majority of people would reply, In order that we may obtain from God the things which we need. While this is one of the purposes of prayer it is by no means the chief one.”
This is one of the purposes of prayer. Yes. So how does the Reformed theology handle this?
“Prayer is not appointed for the furnishing of God with the knowledge of what we need, but is designed as a confession to Him of our sense of need. In this, as in everything, God’s thoughts are not as ours. God requires that His gifts should be sought for. He designs to be honored by our asking, just as He is to be thanked by us after He has bestowed His blessing.
However, the question still returns on us, If God be the Predestinator of everything that comes to pass, and the Regulator of all events, then is not prayer a profitless exercise? A sufficient answer to these questions is that God bids us to pray, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). And again, “men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1). And further: Scripture declares that “the prayer of faith shall save the sick,” and “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:15, 16); while the Lord Jesus Christ, our perfect Example in all things, was preeminently a Man of Prayer. Thus, it is evident, that prayer is neither meaningless nor valueless. But still this does not remove the difficulty nor answer the question with which we started out. What then is the relationship between God’s Sovereignty and Christian prayer?
First of all, we would say with emphasis, that prayer is not intended to change God’s purpose, nor is it to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these shall be saved through the preaching the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are included in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers being in vain they are among the means through which God exercises His decrees. “If indeed all things happen by a blind chance, or a fatal necessity prayers in that case could be of no moral efficacy, and of no use; but since they are regulated by the direction of Divine wisdom, prayers have a place in the order of events” (Haldane).
....
Here then is the design of prayer: not that God’s will may be altered, but that it may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God’s purpose that His will shall be brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the ‘means’ and ‘terms’ of entreaty and supplication.”
Now the tap dancing starts in earnest:
“But did not the Lord Jesus tell His disciples, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you” (John 16:23)? He did; but this promise does not give praying souls carte blanche. These words of our Lord are in perfect accord with those of the Apostle John: “If ye ask anything according to His will He heareth us.” What is it to ask “in the name of Christ”? Surely it is very much more than a prayer formula, the mere concluding of our supplications with the words “in the name of Christ.” To apply to God for anything in the name of Christ, it must needs be in keeping with what Christ is! To ask God in the name of Christ is as though Christ Himself were the suppliant. We can only ask God for what Christ would ask. To ask in the name of Christ is therefore to set aside our own wills, accepting God’s!”
What in the world? The author is tying himself into knots.
“Prayer is both an attitude and an act, an human act, and yet there is the Divine element in it too, and it is this which makes an exhaustive analysis impossible as well as impious to attempt. But admitting this, we do insist again that prayer is fundamentally an attitude of dependency upon God. Therefore, prayer is the very opposite of dictating to God. Because prayer is an attitude of dependency, the one who really prays is submissive, submissive to the Divine will; and submission to the Divine will means that we are content for the Lord to supply our need according to the dictates of His own Sovereign pleasure. And hence it is that we say every prayer that is offered to God in this spirit is sure of meeting with an answer or response from Him.”
This is logical nonsense. He, very clumsily, attempts to reverse cause and effect here.
“Our main purpose in this chapter has been to emphasize the need for submitting, in prayer, our wills to God’s. But it must also be added that prayer is much more than a pious exercise, and far otherwise than a mechanical performance. Prayer is, indeed, a Divinely appointed means whereby we may obtain from God the things we ask, providing we ask for those things which are in accord with His will. “
But he only casually, and to little effect, mentions the fundamental WHY of praying, except to say that the Scriptures tell us to. And he never really addresses what would happen if one of the elect didn’t pray.
An unfortunate, but accurate summary of the comments on this thread. What would someone be seeking to belong to EO? Intellectual stimulation? I find no comfort and no source for comfort if there is no truth and no trustworthy source for truth.
The inerrency is the universal truth it proclaims: God is good; God is eternal; God is merciful and just...etc. This is not literal inerrency. We can't proclaim literal inerrency in something that has been re-written and is known to contain additions and deletions of unknown origins.
Even the word in your example, "merciful," is not so general as to be indefinable. It means simply "to give pardon where none is merited."
Obviously that's not true. In every pardon there is something that merits it in the eyes of the one who is doing the pardoning. Otherwise, a pardon is for no reason whatsoever; something like the Reformed double-predestination.
I can see how an erroneous definition (and understanding) can lead, or mislead if you will, into a whole different (and misleading) theology.
All of which returns to the question -- how do you define a thing (such as goodness) by something that is general and non-specific?
We can define them only in broad, general terms found in the Gospels. Otherwise, we default to our particular concepts of what is good (to or for me) and what is true (to or for me) or what is merciful (in my book). We can avoid that by not defining them but instead imitating Christ.
This is why we have so many different denominations. It's vague! This is why we have these discussions. If a definition of what is "merciful" were a simple black-and-white concept, we wouldn't be having this exchange.
You wouldn't sell many dictionaries using that method
That's your opinion, which is based on your own definition that mercy is something not merited. Which dictionary says it's not merited? I looked at half a dozen of them (including Dictionary. com unabridged, American heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's, etc.) and did not find any reference to "unmerited." Mercy is merited in the eys of the judge. Unmerited mercy is an oxymoron, unless it is entirely random.
What do you know about the EO? My guess is: very little or nothing. So much for intllelectual stimulation.
No, Paul was consistent. Yours is a forced interpretation of Gal. 5:4 in which the text follows from the conclusion. All of Paul's writings on the subject point to a sure salvation.
I guess that's the part of the Bible the Protestants have rejected, even through it clearly says Christ came to save the world, sinners (all of us, because all are sinners, even the "saved").
You say this, but you do not address the issue. If the Father's will was that all be saved, then you must believe that Christ failed to do the Father's will. Does Christ at least get an 'A' for effort? :) You have said before that for humans, we might be OK if we honestly try, but honestly fail. Is it the same with Christ?
There are many on your side of the divide who claim they very much know who is elect. Dr. E. knows her children are because "God gave them to" her. In other words, God doesn't give reprobate children to elect parents! You are the only one so far who claims not to know who is elect and who is not. I guess that's because you are a newbie Calvinist.
:) I have never heard Dr. E. say she knows who, by name, is of the elect. I've never heard any other Calvinist say it either (other than him/herself). I did see her speak earlier of Covenant baptism, but this does not determine who is of the elect. She knows that some who have this baptism as an infant will not ultimately be saved, and thus of the elect. In her 5304, Dr. E. cites the Westminster Confession. In that it says (emphasis added):
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
God's counsel determines everything. This does NOT say that every "splashee" is saved. :) As for Dr. E. knowing about her own children, she is a mother, and well, mothers just know things. I mean, you're a man who's been around the block. Don't go there. :)
FK: "... therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made."
Your history is flawed, dear FK. The west justified slavery precisely through the Bible.
I obviously meant LEGITIMATELY Biblically made. I was talking truth, not history. I have no doubt that some used the Bible to justify all sorts of abominable acts throughout history. It didn't make them right. I showed that the Bible does not match their interpretations, and that no one can legitimately use the Bible to justify the type of slavery we are talking about.
The whole concept of predestined "elect" and predestined refuse is contrary to the idea of all humans deserving the same dignity, but rather divides people into the select and the rejected, even saying of the reject that God is not their Father (He is not, but by their decision, not His, and yes, when it comes to evil, man thwarts God's will, FK!).
Predestination does not divide anyone unless someone can name the elect. We Calvinists cannot, and no one can. Any of us will tell you that the elect are among all races, and any other demographic subdivision you can come up with. No one can point to any physical characteristic and claim "he is excluded" by legitimately reading the Bible. I'm sure there were false teachers on this on all sides way back when, but today nobody who is Christian teaches this. There is no discrimination since the Bible commands us to take the Gospel to ALL NATIONS.
[Re: John 1:10-12] FK verse 10 says the world did not recognize Him. Who were those who later recognized Him?
His children, the elect.
Verse 11 says those who were His own did not receive Him? Who then received Him? All the people of the world are referred to as "His own." But we are not His simply because He created us. We can only be His if we come to Him after he calls us, and if we stay with Him. It is not that God is not the Father of the world, but that the world doesn't in its entirety recognize Him as their Father, rejects Him.
"His own" can either refer to God's possessions or God's children, or both. If children, then they must have been purchased (1 Cor. 6:19). But if not children, then God still created them and God retains full ownership rights to do with them whatever He pleases. So, in verse 11, "His own" could mean all people (in which case the elect simply did not recognize Him YET), or those people who were not His children.
Verse 12 separates out His children one way or the other. No one accepts Christ until He calls him, as you said, and 12-13 are the key verses to prove that some people are God's children and some are not.
No, after seeing John Kerry receive communion and not getting sick and dying, I figured the rule was suspended. Merciful God will give each one of us until our last breath to get it right. The idea of people dying on the spot is an OT myth intended to scare people. But, then, the idea of what God was like was still young; more like a sketch then a full picture. :)
Do shepherds shear sheep? Eat some of them? Dispose of others?
These are anthropomorphisms. Does God shear men? Does He eat some of them? Dispose some of them? God provided plants for everyone to eat. It's after the fall that killing and meat-eating started. It wasn't part of the original creation. Death and destruction did not come from God. They exist as a consequence of our separation from Him.
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.