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.

The terms in mathematics – and therefore, science - have very precise meanings, your objections notwithstanding.

They certainly do. That is why your sources are questionable to me, even if they come from "the Math whiz" himself. Two parallel lines are no longer "parallel lines" if they intersect. By definition, they are NOT parallel. To BE a parallel line, it must NOT intersect. If it intersects, it is no longer a parallel set of lines. My objections remain.

Once again, time is geometric. There was a beginning of real space and real time.

I never said time was NOT geometric. And since I told you about infinite regression, I certainly ALSO believe time has a beginning. My point is that God is not subject to time. Thus, the idea that "eternity is time without end" is an incorrect definition.

Before time existed, God IS. That is part of revelation. Thus, applying time to God is incorrect. God existed "before" there was time. Infinity has no beginning or end. Time does - otherwise, we would have infinite regression and would never arrive at today.

As to points on a line and infinity, please explain to me how two points on an infinite line are distinct from each other. How is one closer to another point when there is no minimum or maximum? No beginning or end? How is ANYTHING measured in such a circumstance? Where minimum and maximum are equal and indistinct, there is unity. There is no "number". There is no "greater" or "lesser". There is no distinction. In infinity, God, there is no distinction - with the exception of origin. The uncaused cause was not generated, and the generated did not proceed. Thus, we have unity in infinity.

If you believe there is distinction in infinity, then perhaps you believe that there is more than a unity in the Godhead - a polytheistic proposition.

Regards

Cheer up, jo kus! You are not just another number to God. You are among a very specific group of sinners for whom Christ died. He has paid for your sins, every one of them. Rejoice.

Normally, I start at the beginning of another's post, but in this case, I'll begin at the end. While I appreciate your words and the call to rejoice, I am not aware of any place in the Scriptures that says that Christ died ONLY for a very specific group of sinners. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures clearly tell us that Jesus died for the sin of the world. For ALL men. Everyone. No exceptions. God loves all and wants them to be saved. Thus, the act of salvation is made AVAILABLE to ALL men. Everyone. Without exception.

This is where your theology falters (on this subject). You make an artificial wall when Jesus came to tear it down. Paul says that there is NO distinction between Jew or Gentile - and Christ came to destroy the wall raised by the Law and those Judaizers who kept Gentiles out. You intend on rebuilding that wall by restricting God's catholic and universal salvation plan to only a select few. Your theology is a return to Judaizers.

You note Romans 5:17-18. I agree that Christ's atoning work was perfect, complete and irreversible. Unfortunately, your idea of justification is incorrect. You think that once justified, the individual cannot lose this justification. To accomplish this, you place the ENTIRE issue on God ALONE. This does not solve the problem, however - HOW IS JUSTIFICATION APPLIED TO THE INDIVDIUAL?

How can you make God TOTALLY responsible for justification, if it can ONLY be applied when the individual has met the conditions of making faith an instrument worthy of receiving divine justification?

In other places, the Reformed mind will claim that a person who sins without repentance, falls from faith, or does not provide saving works, was "never justified to begin with". Ironically, all this does is preserve the idea of "irreversible justification" but not the individual's salvation.

Thus, the whole concept collapses. An individual's salvation is NOT secured irreversibly. Salvation is dependent upon man's response to and by God's graces. Jesus CONSISTENTLY makes our salvation contingent upon our obedience to God. He makes end-time judgment that determines one's eternal destiny - which forces the Protestant concept of "one-time justification" in the past an acute contradiction to the words of Jesus Himself.

For example: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Mat 12:37

Paul says the same thing...

For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Rom 2:13

Clearly, Scriptures have a different idea of final justification then the "reformers" have. As such, I will rejoice, but I will not presume to know the mind of God and His future judgment of me.

Regards

God loves all and wants them to be saved.

Then the god you speak of is duplicitous because he does not give all men the same amount of grace to believe, and he is weak because he does not get what he wants -- the salvation of all men which we know does not occur.

If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.

You intend on rebuilding that wall by restricting God's catholic and universal salvation plan to only a select few. Your theology is a return to Judaizers.

Salvation plan? Here's where we differ. You believe "God's plan" is merely a suggestion; a nudge in the right direction. Not even a blue-print but merely a how-to list of suggestions.

The Reformed know that "God's plan" was established from before the foundation of the world and every jot and tittle of it will be accomplished as He has ordained.

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:10

the act of salvation is made AVAILABLE to ALL men. Everyone. Without exception.

Sufficent for all the world; efficient for only the elect.

THE 'WORLD' OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN
'ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION'
by Rev. David J. Engelsma

"The one who thus appeals to John 3:16 intends to assert that God loves all men without exception and that God desires to save all men without exception. The basic assumption underlying this appeal to John 3:16, as an argument against election, is that the word, world, in John 3:16 means 'all men without exception.
We do here announce, declare, and proclaim that this assumption is false. It is unbiblical. It commits one to a teaching that deviates from the gospel, fundamentally. The word, world, in John 3:16 does not mean 'all men without exception.' "

Unfortunately, your idea of justification is incorrect. You think that once justified, the individual cannot lose this justification.

How does a man become "unacquitted?" It is impossible to condemn a man once he has been pardoned of the sin.

To accomplish this, you place the ENTIRE issue on God ALONE.

Yes! Praise God. All of it! It is God alone who justifies the sinner.

"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."-- Romans 8:33

How can you make God TOTALLY responsible for justification, if it can ONLY be applied when the individual has met the conditions of making faith an instrument worthy of receiving divine justification?

An excellent question. And the answer is because it is God who gives faith. Faith is the instrument God uses with which to channel His grace to His children. "Saved by grace through faith."

"Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?" -- Job 38:36

As the link above continues...

"This was the explanation given by Frances Turretin, Reformed theologian in Geneva (1623-1687):
"The love treated of in John 3:16. .. cannot be universal towards all and every one, but special towards a few... because the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom He pursues with such love.. . If therefore God sent Christ for that end, that through Him the world might be saved, He must either have failed of His end, or the world must necessarily be saved in fact. But it is certain that not the whole world, but only those chosen out of the world are saved; therefore, to them properly has this love reference... Why then should not the world here be taken not universally for individuals, but indefinitely for anyone, Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition. that He may be said to have loved the human race, inasmuch as He was unwilling to destroy it entirely but decreed to save some certain persons Out of it, not only from one people as before, but from all indiscriminately, although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones, viz, those chosen out of the world? (Theological Institutes)

And this from Arthur Pink...

"Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. "God so loved the world." Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But "the entire human race" includes all mankind from Adam till the close of earth's history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here "having no hope and without God in the world," and therefore passed out into eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares "Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future . . . But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, "World means world. "True, but we have shown that "the world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that "the world" is used in a general way.. . Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus, a man who believed that God's mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God's love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to "regions beyond." In other words, this was Christ's announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved the world," then, signifies, God's love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen the term "world" is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. . . the "world" in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God's people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God's love is mentioned limits it to His own people — search and see! The objects of God's love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ's love in John 13:1: "Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them." (The Sovereignty of God)

In other places, the Reformed mind will claim that a person who sins without repentance, falls from faith, or does not provide saving works, was "never justified to begin with".

No, that is a consistent statement by all Reformers. No one can "unjustify" what Christ has justified. If Christ died on the cross to pay for a man's sins, his debt to God has been paid in full for all eternity. Hebrews 10.

Salvation is dependent upon man's response to and by God's graces.

If that were true, the rest of Scripture would be a lie. Salvation is by grace alone and not through men's efforts in the slightest.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:5-7

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Mat 12:37

And what "words" are those?

The words of salvation are "By His stripes we have been healed."

And the words of the foolish are "I did it myself."

Why do protestants repeatedly spout off about things they don’t know and then invent things which don’t exist? No one says that a priest makes a sacrifice to Christ. Now granted the use of the word purportedly is important when discussing religion, for instance protestants purportedly care about scripture yet it is empiracly verifiable they have simply distorted it, but that’s quite different from when protestants make up things (like priests offering sacrifices) by projecting their invnted verbology onto the actual...

Eucharist as a sacrifice

The Orthodox Church believes the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. As is heard in the Liturgy, “Thine of Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all.”
At the Eucharist, the sacrifice offered is Christ himself, and it is Christ himself who in the Church performs the act of offering: He is both priest and victim.
We offer to Thee. The Eucharist is offered to God the Trinity — not just to the Father but also to the Holy Spirit and to Christ Himself. So, what is the sacrifice of the Eucharist? By whom is it offered? and to whom is it offered? In each case the answer is Christ.
We offer for all: according to Orthodox theology, the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, offered on behalf of both the living and the dead.
The Church teaches that the sacrifice is not a mere figure or symbol but a true sacrifice. It is not the bread that is sacrificed, but the very Body of Christ. And, the Lamb of God was sacrificed only once, for all time. The sacrifice at the Eucharist consists, not in the real and bloody immolation of the Lamb, but in the transformation of the bread into the sacrificed Lamb.
All the events of Christ’s sacrifice, the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Ascension are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.
[edit]Real, symbolic, or mystical

The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.
The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The Eucharist, because it belongs to God’s Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.
From John of Damascus: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”.

OrthodoxWiki.org

Why is God duplicitous because He does not give all men equal grace to believe? God gives ALL men SUFFICIENT grace to choose Him. If He chooses to grace others more, are you envious? What about:

Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good? Mat 20:15

And how EXACTLY do you KNOW how much grace God gives to ANYONE, including yourself? Is God's grace measureable?

The problem you seem to have is that what God wills MUST happen. You cannot accept any other possibility, even if GOD HIMSELF says it! Rather than God being sovereign and humbly lowering Himself for our sake (surely, you've read Phillipians 2?), you demand that God act a certain way according to YOUR idea. If God's Will is "ALWAYS" followed, then what about how God wills that men obey the commandments? Even when man is given a commandment that YOU believe HE CANNOT FOLLOW! What sort of "god" do you believe, Dr. E? It sounds like a sadistic god who commands what man cannot do... This is your idea of a loving God? Commanding what one CANNOT do and sending people to hell because of that?

If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.

God wills that man has free will. God desires BOTH concepts to co-exist, since God made man in HIS image, which includes free will. God desires man to be saved AND to have freely chosen to be saved by God.

The Reformed know that "God's plan" was established from before the foundation of the world and every jot and tittle of it will be accomplished as He has ordained.

Which means that God gives man free will! This was ordained from the beginning of time. God knows our reactions to His graces. God's plan includes free will.

Sufficent for all the world; efficient for only the elect.

That is true, I will agree with that. So if you understand that, why not the rest? God gives sufficient grace to all men, and to some, the grace is efficient because man's response is awakened in individuals to answer the call through God's graces.

How does a man become "unacquitted?" It is impossible to condemn a man once he has been pardoned of the sin.

LOL! It is impossible to be forgiven of a sin you haven't committed yet. Didn't they make a Tom Cruise movie about that? A person's past sins are forgiven once they beg the Lord for forgiveness. God holds forgiveness in abeyance until we ASK for His mercy. We don't ask for forgiveness of future sins because we haven't done them yet. Thus, future, unrepented sins can condemn despite your past forgiveness of sins...

But if the righteous should leave his righteousness and commit iniquity, [and] do according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] does, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned; by his rebellion in which he has trespassed and by his sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. Ez 18:24

I have posted this before, but have NEVER gotten a "reformed" view on this scripture. It just doesn't exist in their happy go-lucky world...

Praise God. All of it! It is God alone who justifies the sinner.

Of course, I didn't deny that. However, man is involved in the process, as Scriptures point out over and over (including my last post that tells us that final justification is based on the deeds that we did during our lives.) Man is not a "dead subject". GOD IS NOT A LIAR. When God declares someone just, HE IS JUST!

God who gives faith. Faith is the instrument God uses with which to channel His grace to His children.

Again, faith is an initiative by God AND a RESPONSE by man. Earlier, you said God gives man sufficient grace to ALL men. This implies that somewhere along the line, MAN CAN REFUSE this sufficient grace.

No one can "unjustify" what Christ has justified.

The Bible disagrees with that. For example:

"For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" Heb 10:26-27.

OR, the verse from Ezekiel above. The bible tells us that being justified, being declared a "born again Christian" or declared righteous is not necessarily an eternal title. Depending on man's response, he can toss aside his inheritance and return to the vomit of his former life.

"Certainly, if having separated themselves from the contaminations of the world, by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they again entangle themselves therein and are overcome, their latter end is made worse for them than the beginnings. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog returns unto his own vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" 2 Peter 2:20-22

Read it carefully. A person with knowledge of Christ is better off had they not known about Christ if they turn their back on the commandment delivered to them. How can a Reformer say with a straight face that the Bible does not speak about people losing justification?

If that were true, the rest of Scripture would be a lie. Salvation is by grace alone and not through men's efforts in the slightest.

As usual, you create a false dichotomy to give a half truth. With you, it is either GOD or MAN. The two CANNOT come together, despite the fact that our Savior did not lay down His divinity to become man! The Scriptures tell us that WE TOO are to ABIDE in Him. By abiding in Him, Dr. E, it is not I (ALONE) who lives, but Christ in me (also). Thus, there is another principle working within me AS HE ABIDES IN ME. Thus, I can not take credit for my deeds of love. They are not mine alone. They belong to the composite me. Christ and I. And when I am judged at the end, Christ will not be judged. My deeds IN CHRIST or WITHOUT Christ will be weighed. My deeds of love, performed in Christ, will bring me a reward, since it is US, Jesus and I, who are doing it. When I unite to Christ, the Father rewards this composite. As a result of Baptism, I have died in Christ and have risen again. Why else do you think Paul says that in Romans 6? We are no longer alone!

All this talk about being alone or by myself is the typical misunderstanding of Scriptures, a misunderstanding that pits God against man. Don't you realize that it is God trying to save man???

Regards

God gives ALL men SUFFICIENT grace to choose Him.

lol. Apparently not enough or all men would be saved.

The problem you seem to have is that what God wills MUST happen.

Huh? Do you really mean to ask that question? Do you possibly imagine that "what God wills" does not or will not happen?

What kind of weakling is this god?

God wills that man has free will. God desires BOTH concepts to co-exist, since God made man in HIS image, which includes free will.

Where does Scripture say that God has free will? Can God lie? No, because it is against His holy nature. Can man obey God on his own? No, it is against his fallen nature.

God desires man to be saved AND to have freely chosen to be saved by God.

You're arguing both sides here, jo kus. But it has to be one or the other -- men are either "freely chosen" or they are "chosen on merit." Scripture says its by the former.

God's plan includes free will.

Then it's a pretty tenuous plan. God's plan includes everything God has decreed from before the foundation of the world. Men choose according to their heart's desire -- good or bad, depending on whether or not God has given them a new heart or left them in their corruption.

It is impossible to be forgiven of a sin you haven't committed yet.

If you believe this, you have not read Hebrews 10.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:13-14

Or try Colossians...

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" -- Colossians 2:13-15

Just what has been nailed to the cross of Christ? Only the sins some priest presumptuously intones are forgiven, or "all the tresspasses" of His flock?

All the encouragement and if/then verses in Scripture are God's instruction to us on how to live and worship Him. And none of them negate the preeminent fact that God alone gives us the ability to live according to His laws and to worship Him in truth and love.

The RCC, like so many modern churches, teaches the strength of our own abilities, when it is Christ's strength and ability that Scripture proclaims. Everything the children of God have now and will ever be is due to Christ alone, including the will and desire to follow Him.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." -- John 10:27

The sheep follow because Christ knows them, not because they know Christ.

faith is an initiative by God

Just an initiative? The definition of initiative is a task that has begun but remains incomplete and the outcome undecided. That's not what saving faith in Jesus Christ is. Far, far from it.

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" -- Philippians 1:6

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.