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.
This heaven and earth will be consumed by His fire. That which remains – His family and whatever was not consumed will appear in the new heaven and earth wherein He is all the Light we will ever need. (emphasis mine)
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. – 2 Peter 3:5-7
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - Hebrews 1:3
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this [word], Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God [is] a consuming fire. – Hebrews 12:25-29
But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. – Isaiah 64:6
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: - Romans 3:10
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. – I Cor 3:15
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: - Phl 3:7-9
And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. – Revelation 4:5
And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. – Revelation 15:8
His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. – Revelation 22:5
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. – John 3:19
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. – John 8:12
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Th 5:5
Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. – 1 John 2:8-10
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 5:14-16
Yes, and under Apostolic theology God creates the same person already knowing full well that he will never come to Christ. I really don't see a difference since from God's POV the end result is the same, YET He created anyway. Unless God's foreknowledge can be changed somehow, the same person never really had a chance under either scenario.
He just leaves them alone from conception and they eventually end up in Hell through no fault of God ?
No, I don't think it works like that. There is such a thing sometimes called "common grace". It includes all the things that God gives to all humans. If God gave no grace at all to someone, I suppose he would wind up being a zombie murderer or something. :) But seriously, saving grace is something that He gives only to His elect. For those not of the elect, they are left to the natures they were born with and are reprobate. We thank God that He decided to save any of us at all.
No matter how you dice this up, God would still be the one who created this person and still responsible for creating a person with NO chance of Salvation.
Yes, you're right. And this is exactly the same as in Apostolic theology. If God foreknows that the person will not choose Christ, then he effectively has no chance. Yet, God creates him anyway.
This would be God giving human sacrifice to the devil in my mind.
Well I hope not, for both our sakes. :)
NOBODY wants Him, FK. According to the Reformed.
Your view, intended to be both accurate and humorous is this:
Jesus: "I have some bad news and some good news.
"Bad news is you're all going to Hell, the law wouldn't save you no matter what. All that: "do this, don't do that; God will love you/hate you, bless you, curse you.." Fuggediboutit. Because you sin, and you sin because Adam sinned; Hell's what you get.
"Good news is - The Father is sacrificing me to pay for your sin. It's His justice; don't ask. But your sins are paid for - now, past, future, whatever.
"Bad news is - it's only paid for some of you. The rest, sorry, still Hell.
"Good news is - some of you, lucky number time: Heaven it is.
"Bad news is - as far as you know, who gets which Heaven/Hell? You don't know. It's His justice you know - don't ask. You all deserve Hell anyway, all of you scum, but some get get a pass. It's not like I'm gonna sacrifice myself for all you miscreants"
The Good News - Reformed Version
No they don't. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to crush man so as to glorify God. If the WCF recognized what Augustine taught, they would accept that God is sovereign AND man has free will.
I quoted the whole chapter in the WCF. It speaks for itself. I don't know anything about "crushing man". But if it means bringing man down from some artificially high precipice to his rightful place in the order of God's universe, then maybe some of that is needed. ...... It would seem to me that both of our sides claim some of Augustine's teachings towards our respective theologies, but not all of his teachings. :)
They would understand that God is entirely responsible for man's salvation, and man is responsible to respond to God by obedience and faith.
Do you see the blatant internal contradiction within this single sentence?
These concepts are beyond the Reformer. They understand God and man as a team of mules pulling a load. If one contributes to the pulling, the other contributes less by a proportionate amount.
No, my understanding is that God pulls the whole load. He neither requires nor desires my help. I would be in no position to help pull the load anyway. It's too big for me, that's why I need Him to do it for me.
They cannot understand that God gives man graces SO THAT man can be lifted up and BECOME righteous. Divinization is totally foreign to the Reformed mindset.
God gives men graces so that they REALIZE that they cannot pull the load. Then they can let go and let God do it for them. Then they can appreciate and give glory to God for what He has done.
FK: "Therefore, when God ordains sins it does not mean He is the cause of them. The actor is the secondary cause and is consequently responsible, since he chose to sin. God just didn't prevent it, although He could have."
Again, that is not the definition you gave me earlier. You told me that "God ordains is that which God sets into God's plan", #8936. Thus, since God actively is setting or ordaining man's sin, and everything that I do is because of God's plan, then it follows that according to you, God actively plans that man actually sin.
I don't understand the problem. I said that God ordains that which is part of His plan. I said that part of that plan does include sin by humans. Then I said that when sin is part of the plan, that God leaves the person alone to his own nature, knowing that the required sin will happen. (This is textbook for the entire Passion, and everything that led up to it.)
I never said that everything that I do is because of God's plan. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't absolutely sure of that, using the example that I don't know if putting my left shoe on first this morning was part of God's plan. I don't know. So we can clear that one right off the table.
And finally, it is certainly true that I believe that "God actively plans that man actually sin". The first example of that was in the Garden of Eden. He set the conditions, knowing the result. What other conclusion is there? I think you're still hung up on God's plan versus causation. Part of God's plan was for Judas to betray Jesus. Another part was for that to happen at a very specific time. That was the plan. God accomplished this plan by leaving Judas alone and/or withdrawing grace from him, thus guaranteeing the desired result. This does not make God responsible for the result since He has no duty to provide Judas with any grace at all.
If you can show me a contradiction, I would be more than happy to respond to it.
How is it that God ordains everything, but doesn't ordain sin, WHEN, according to reformed theology, that is ALL MEN CAN DO!!!
God absolutely ordains sin, He just isn't responsible for it because the human is the final (secondary) cause. God ordained the crucifixion, and there was certainly sin involved with that. :)
Men must NOT be able to do ANYTHING of value, even when lifted up by God, since it would "lower God".
No, ALL men do things of value to God, or else He wouldn't have bothered to create them. The elect do things that are PLEASING to God, in service to Him without lowering His sovereignty in the slightest. The issues are independence from God, who is in charge, and who makes the final decision. I believe the Apostolic view is to have man be independent from God ultimately, for man to be in charge of his own destiny, and for man to make the most crucial decision of his life without God being in control.
Thus, the reformer is stuck between a dilemma that he continuously denies: Either man is responsible for sin, or God is responsible for sin.
No dilemma and no denial, man is responsible for his own sin, period. That's what the Bible says.
What sort of will does man possess if he can ONLY be evil?
The lost person's will is indeed very limited. :)
Even good deeds are credited entirely to God because man must be annihilated to maintain God's sovereignty. Yet, the WCF 'understands secondary and primary causes'????
I know you have brought up before the concept of secondary causes, but I can't honestly remember the context. Perhaps it is being used in a different way in the WCF.
In their correct view of maintaining God's sovereignty, they destroy man as God's greatest creation, setting man against God in such a way that even with the quickening of the Spirit, as discussed in Romans 8, man STILL is worthless, a dung-heap covered in Christ's righteousness. As such, the positive theology of reform is destroyed by the overemphasis on an article of the faith, a faith that absolutely RELIES on the fact that "theology" is the study of God, a transcendent Being.
I think you are over reaching. All this "destruction of man" language only shows that you do not yet have a basic grasp of Reformed theology. Man is not worthless, he is incapable of saving himself using his innate goodness, that is supposed by your Church, combined with a modicum of God's grace. Instead, God's grace is very powerful and is all that is needed to effect salvation.
I think all this "destruction of man" talk just means that our starting points for man's place in the universe are very different. Apostolics see man as being relatively powerful in his own right, separate from God. Man is independently important and worthy of respect. God recognizes the importance of what He has created and grants this respect. We, OTOH, see man as being totally dependent upon God for everything. We do not think God owes us "respect" or anything else for that matter. God is the boss and we follow Him. It is a very different theological view.
What is sad is that there are people who still cannot fathom that God desires all men to be saved. That all men are not saved is avoiding the question. WHY they are not all saved is the correct approach and might give some reformers a new look at their faulty theology...
It's strong God vs. weak God. If God truly wants all men to be saved, then He is a failure. I don't follow such a God. We know why all men are not saved, it is because God has decided to only give saving grace to some, but not all people. It's not a tough question. :)
Who can call themselves Christian and consider that God creates men to be damned - while simultaneously desiring all men to be saved??? This is the logical double-speak of reformed theology.
You keep saying that the Reformed agree that God desires that all men be saved. That is in your head. We never say that. :) Instead, we say that if that was true, then all men would be saved. You must have seen us say this a hundred times. :) Therefore, there is no double speak. There is only your speak. Our position is consistent.
Actually I would. There are many Good Samaritan laws in this country. They simply reflect the exhortation of Our Lord to take responsibility for others beyond your immediate comfort zone. There are sins of commission and of omission. Remember the Beatitudes. You are commanded to help others. I understand that some here think that the Sermon on the Mount (or the Plain) are suggestions or ‘ideas’ but I would differ with them.
AHA!! A carefully laid trap which you dutifully walked into. :) I'm mostly kidding but what you are saying here is that the Godly thing to do would have been for me to impose my will over and above the free will of the child in order to save him from himself. Yet, your side expressly prohibits God from doing that for us. So, I would assume that you would blame God for every time one of His children decides to stroll off a cliff right in front of Him. :)
God ordained all. God created all. God made all. Therefore if there is no ability for man to do otherwise, then God is responsible.
That doesn't follow. You could make an argument that God is responsible to the extent that He created that which would later sin. That's fine with me, but when we usually talk about responsibility we are talking about who is going to be on the hook come judgment time. That is always going to be the individual person, not God. The WCF, which you clearly appear to be reasonably familiar with, nicely explains this in the context of primary and secondary causes.
The toy may have the ability to look left and right or flash lights, but if that windup toy has to go forward off the edge, then I am responsible for that toy going off the edge. Not the toy.
That's true, and as I said, the toy has no WILL at all. People are different. The sinful nature will freely choose to walk off the edge. That is not God's fault. God had no duty to provide options. He is the Potter.
If I leave a 3 year old with matches alone in a room, then I am responsible for the resulting fire, not the 3 year old.
Yes, if it was your legal or moral duty to care for THAT child. Now, if you GAVE the matches to the child, then you would be on the hook regardless (like God injecting evil into people to get them to sin). However, if you just observed it and had no legal or moral obligation, then you are not responsible.
If God is the author of those who can commit only sin, then He is responsible for the sins. No matter how much squirming we do.
No squirming is necessary, and this simply isn't so. As I say all the time, somehow, your side has placed an obligatory duty on God just for the fact of creation itself. To you, if God creates a man, then God OWES him "a chance". If God doesn't give him the chance, then anything the man does is on God. I have no idea where you guys get this, but it's not from the Bible. Just because He created you, what does God owe you, and why do you think He owes it to you?
Oh, your comment is "If God desired to save all mankind, then why doesn't He?" merely IGNORES the question. Rather than rationalizing, we should look to the Scriptures and note that God is beyond such rationalizations. All you do is avoid the question by asking another question. And then all of those many Scripture quotes about Jesus dying for the SIN OF THE WORLD - totally brushed aside...
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. Not one drop of Christ's blood was shed in vain. All of Christ's sheep will be brought safely home.
Again, you avoid the question by asking another question that is not related. Rather than ask that question, you should ask "WHY does God allow some men NOT to be saved."
Consider Romans 5
And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. Romans 5:16-18
Now, reformers are quick to point out the first part of this formula - man is corrupt as a result of the sin of one man. EVERY man. The whole world. We have all inherited the condemnation because of ONE MAN. However, as is typical, the reformers only read part of Scriptures and ignore what they don't like. The SECOND part tells us that the SECOND ADAM'S redemption is that much GREATER. YOUR idea has Christ's atonement LIMITED. NOT EVERYONE is offered salvation. YOU have Christ's work lesser than Adam's sin. That is CLEARLY not what Paul says, my friend.
Read the underlined part above. You are incredibly mistaken. Christ's salvation is available for ALL men. Clearly, it is the reformers who are mistaken, limiting Christ's work to a chosen few, no doubt, the SELF-SELECTED.
Regards
"Catholic" NEVER meant "Rome alone". You are confused by the Anglican attempt to form some "branch" theory so they could make themselves an apostolic Church along with the East and Western Catholic Churches...
Regards
That's beyond the point. God doesn't create people TO eternally torture them. God does not take pleasure in killing or in death. That is what the "reformers" claim. God PURPOSELY creates vessels to condemn them and men could do nothing about it. Sorry, that is called "fate", a pagan concept, not Christian.
Jesus showed respect and reverence for the OT, so I'm not sure the result would be what you expect. Plus, I doubt you can show me where the Bible says to read the OT through the lens of the current Apostolic Church. That would leave the OT in ruins, at least according to some posters here. Rather than discard one in favor of the other, our approach is to reconcile them so that both can be true.
Of course we are to reconcile the two - with Christ as the unifying factor. As to "reading the OT through the lens of the current Apostolic Church", clearly, you are not familiar with Paul's useage of the OT. Nor are you familiar with the Gospel's many verses that claim to point to the Messiah in the OT, esp. in Matthew.
What difference does that make? Kosta has maintained that Jesus NEVER directed His ministry to the Gentiles. The Great Commission clearly belies that.
I cannot claim to know what Kosta meant by "never" and whether he was refering to His earthly life or the entire Mission of the Messiah. However, when I brought it up, he agreed readily, so I am thinking that he meant BEFORE the crucifixion.
Regards
God's motives are ENTIRELY different under each scenario. Christ makes that perfectly clear that it is the inner disposition that matters, not the external work done. Didn't you know that? God creates EVERY person with the potential to recognize Him and love Him with the gifts He gives each man. And while everyone may not accept God's advances, He still uses even THESE to advance His Will. EVERY rational being that God creates has the POTENTIAL to go to heaven. The "reformers" claim something different. It is VAST difference on our views of who God is.
But seriously, saving grace is something that He gives only to His elect.
Do you have some Scripture for that? Where does God say that He denies graces without giving man a chance to accept them?
Yes, you're right. And this is exactly the same as in Apostolic theology. If God foreknows that the person will not choose Christ, then he effectively has no chance. Yet, God creates him anyway
The "Apostolic theology" is biblical because it doesn't deny that Christ died for the WORLD. Despite the overwhelming evidence already shown, the "reformers" deny this biblical notion. That is because they cannot accept primary and secondary causes. They cannot understand that God and men work on different planes. They cannot understand that God DESIRES to lift up men and take on HIS divine nature WHILE man responds to this grace. They cannot understand that man's cooperation takes NOTHING from God's sovereignty because it is ENTIRELY based on God's graces first given. Man CAN DO NOTHING TO MERIT GRACE!
But all of this falls on empty ears because the "reformers" cannot admit that their theology is built upon sand and biblical misunderstandings never heard of before.
Regards
Why thank you my friend. I return the compliment. I am very glad that we get along well and have very interesting conversations.
One of the objections against Catholicism that I often hear is the accusation that the clergy are responsible for the beliefs and not the laity. Is that the condition that you would apply to your acceptance of the NIV? How would you convince me that your pastor is Biblically sound?
I would say it's a combination. I am impressed with the credentials of the compilers, and I am also aware that it is a very popular version of scripture. I won't even say that I know it is "the best". I simply say that I like it, and I am reasonably confident that I'm getting a reasonable representation of whatever the true scripture is. Since the translation is idea for idea, I think that "all the meat is in there". :) If a specific word was of import, then I would consult the KJV, and possibly other sources.
I read your posts, think about your reasoning, hear the straightforwardness in your presentations, and understand the genuineness of your argument. What a great Catholic you’d make, once we sheared the Calvinistic wool from your eyes.
Well, thank you again. I'm not sure that my name is going to pop up any time soon on one of the recent "conversion" threads that are going around now, but I have postulated that within the circle of Christianity, God has purposely placed all His elect in the faith He wants us to have for the present time. I started off as an Arminian, and am now a Calvinist. I don't think my years as an Arminian were "wasted" at all. That's simply where God wanted me to be for that time. For all I know I may change again, (even though I really doubt it now). :) Anyway, the basic idea is that even though we disagree on so much, it is still God's will that we are of our respective faiths. And further, that this is not a bad thing but a good thing. The most important thing is to love God and just always be mindful of whether one is living within the circle.
Well stated ,I 100% Agree!
We all have the law of love written in our hearts.(1 John) Thus, even a person who has never heard of Christ can even be saved by loving unconditionally.
God would not be a loving God if He created some people without the written law of love in their hearts
The way to meet Christ is through love of others and especially love for even our enemies,love for the poor etc... It is acts of Love that prefers the good of others to the good of oneself that gives everyone one potential for Heaven
One does not need the Bible to do this....and every person God created has the ability to love this way.
I wish you both a Blessed day!
Calvinism goes beyond that positive principle of the Reformation. Not only is man a pile of dung, he is absolutely nothing EVEN WHEN the Spirit Himself comes to abide in the new creation. EVEN THEN, man has absolutely no value. Man only has an extrinsic justification, a legal definition that has absolutely no internal meaning. Man is not transformed, God just changes the meaning of evil to good while man REMAINS evil!!! That is crushing man if I ever heard it.
I wrote: They would understand that God is entirely responsible for man's salvation, and man is responsible to respond to God by obedience and faith.
And you responded: Do you see the blatant internal contradiction within this single sentence?
THAT, my friend, is EXACTLY the problem! Your view of philosophy sees God and man on an equal plane acting on the same level. Thus, you see God and man pulling the same cart with the same tools! If man pulls 1% of the cart, you claim it takes away from God's Sovereignty. You cannot comprehend that God and man work on different levels. God is transcendant, beyond our level. Thus, we can attribute to God the primary cause of our salvation. ONE HUNDRED percent on that level, God grants graces and without those graces, man can do nothing good. Meanwhile, at the same time and on a different level, man is RESPONSIBLE to ACT upon the graces he has been given. He MUST ABSOLUTELY obey God - He has been given the ability. Within him is an innnate desire for meaning and happiness found ONLY within God. Thus, man is the secondary cause of salvation on a different plane. It is the free will choices that man makes that determine whether he will be united with God.
Your theology depends on what is called "Nominalism". William of Ockham was a favorite of Martin Luther, and much of his ideas stem from this "nominalism". Without going into philosophical details, it prevents you from seeing how God and man can be responsible on different levels of existence - God's sovereignty is maintained 100% while man's free will is not infringed upon. By dragging God into the empirical world, by ignoring universals, by rationalizing and simplifying the utterly transcendant, by forcing an "either/or" choice in the typical paradoxical points of Christian theology, by ignoring great swathes of Scripture, you must choose one extreme OR the other...Either God is Sovereign, OR man contributes and thus, God is no longer sovereign. Scriptures CLEARLY indicate BOTH occur - but you won't have it because your philosophy does not allow it. This a priori philosophy prevents you from seeing the seemingly paradoxical proposition that Christianity had held for 1500 years.
Rather than rationalizing and pretending that only one happens to maintain your philosophy, you must go outside the box and accept the TOTALITY of Scriptures. God desires all men to be saved - AND God judges men based on their deeds. These BOTH must be maintained. To deny one is to deny that God is beyond our rational minds and placing God within a box of our making.
Regards
Read the underlined part above. You are incredibly mistaken. Christ's salvation is available for ALL men.
I'm happy to read the underlined part, and as an added bonus for context and clarity, let's throw in verse #19 which you chose to omit...
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:17-19"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Here we have Paul saying three things...
1) Salvation is by the "receipt" of God's grace. It is not by the acceptance of God's grace, since God's saving grace is only given to those who were named among His family by God's good pleasure alone and not through any of their own good works. As Paul later tells us...
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
2) Christ has appeared to all men as the only way to heaven, and no man is without excuse. His truth is so obvious and His divinity is so evident, all men are called to believe. "The free gift came upon all men" and some comprehended the gift and some did not.
"Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:5"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." -- John 1:5
Now we know that not every man is a "child of the light" or else every man would believe and be saved. A man must be born again if he is to be known as among God's family, and that rebirth is an act of God, not man. As Jesus said, with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
3) And finally we have the verse you left off, the verse that clarifies Paul's point which is that God's grace is transformative, particular and completely effective for all whom receive it.
"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Not all; many.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Clearly, it is the reformers who are mistaken, limiting Christ's work to a chosen few, no doubt, the SELF-SELECTED.
God selects. God limits. God ordains. God justifies. God illuminates. God sanctifies. God gives all good gifts. God made us to differ.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." -- John 5:5-6 "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Do you actually believe the "love of God is shed abroad" in ALL men's hearts "by the Holy Ghost which is given unto" ALL men?
How ineffectual is this Holy Ghost? How weak is this love?
Read the text. Christ died for the ungodly; not for those who first had the good sense and sufficient piety to believe in Him. Belief in Christ is a result of our election by God; not a requirement for it. (Read again Romans 9:11.) God elects. Christ redeems. The Holy Spirit sanctifies. "Salvation is of the Lord."
Salvation is by God's unmerited, free grace through faith. You know what Paul says about boasting that it was your idea...
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
LOL! All of our beliefs are implicitly or explicitly found in Scriptures, whether you agree with the interpretations or not. And I am always delighted to help "reformers" come to the correct understanding of Scriptures as interpreted by the Church of Christ.
I'm happy to read the underlined part, and as an added bonus for context and clarity, let's throw in verse #19 which you chose to omit...
All you are doing is changing the subject. I have no problems with verse 19. I didn't "choose" to omit it, I did not include it because it does not add to my point, one which YOU overlook. Shall I get upset because you did not include verse 20? Can we stick to the subject - universal salvation OFFERED to ALL men?
My point, which includes verse 18, says that Christ's salvific gift is EVEN GREATER than Adam's sin. Now, again for you, if Adam's sin condemns ALL men, doesn't it follow that if Christ's redemption is GREATER, then why do YOU LESSEN it by saying it is limited in the scope of its offering???
Adam's action effected ALL men.
You say "Jesus action is NOT offered to ALL men". The Bible says that "Jesus gift is GREATER than Adam".
You say it is not. How sad. You contradict the Scriptures.
Note, again, verse 18 says "UPON ALL MEN". Not "SOME" men, or "ONLY THE JUSTIFIED". Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for ALL men.
Your entire post is either purposely ignoring my point or you are not getting what I am saying. I hope the preceding is simple enough for you to follow.
The rest, I didn't bother, since you don't bother to address my point. All of your post is one big fat red herring.
Regards
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
AGAIN, IF the sin of one man effects MANY (which WE interpret to mean ALL!), then in the same sentence, the word "MANY" AGAIN means ALL.
YOU would have the "many" in the above sentence mean TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! Grammatically, that is incredibly unlikely.
God offers righteousness to ALL men. If the "many" means "all" in a general sense in the first part of the verse, it means the same in the second part of the sentence. The Greek in both cases is "polus", which means "great multitude, much, many". Your interpretation of the verse is not consistent, even grammatically.
Regards
“”God offers righteousness to ALL men.””
Saint Francis De Sales expresses this wonderfully,he says that....
“God first of all willed with a true will even after the sin of Adam, that all men be saved... that is to say, He willed the salvation of all those who wished to contribute their consent to the graces and favors He was to prepare, offer, and distribute to them with this intent. Now among these favors, He wished vocation to have the first place... And to those whom He foresaw would answer the call, He wished to supply the sacred movements of penance; and to those who would correspond, He planned to give holy charity; and to those who possessed charity He intended to give help needed to persevere; and to those who were to make good use of these gifts, He resolved to give them the gift of final perseverance and the glorious happiness of His eternal love.”” (”Treatise,” book 3 chapter 5)
Calvin should have listened....
We agree. Christ's sacrifice was "sufficient" for all the world, and "efficient" for only the elect, since all men are not forgiven all their sins and thus some men are left in their condemnation.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
Where does Scripture say all men have the love of God written in their hearts?
You offered John 1. John 1 tells us Christ's light was so bright that all men are without excuse. And John further tells us that the ONLY ONES who do believe and are saved are those who have been born again by God...
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:12-13"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Not all those who "accepted." All those who "received; were given; chosen to receive," according to the will of God, and not according to the will of men.
One does not need the Bible to do this...and every person God created has the ability to love this way.
LOL. If you think that's true, it may be because you presume you don't need the Bible.
Unlimited atonement denies the specific, predestining love of God for His family. It denies God the final choice in naming who will be included in His family.
It is base humanism.
And some churches perpetuate the lie in order to keep control of men and their lives.
Discard the chains, jo kus. Christ has freed you.
Oh, I think Calvin heard him. And by the grace of God, Calvin stood firmly against the lies.
"Witness as to the effectiveness of the influences which emanated from Geneva is found in one of the letters of the Roman Catholic Francis de Sales to the duke of Savoy, urging the suppression of Geneva as the capital of what the Romish Church calls heresy. "All the heretics," said he, "respect Geneva as the asylum of their religion.... There is not a city in Europe which offers more facilities for the encouragement of heresy, for it is the gate of France, of Italy, and of Germany, so that one finds there people of all nations — Italians, French, Germans, Poles, Spaniards, English, and of countries still more remote. Besides, every one knows the great number of ministers bred there. Last year it furnished twenty to France. Even England obtains ministers from Geneva. What shall I say of its magnificent printing establishments, by means of which the city floods the world with its wicked books, and even goes the length of distributing them at the public expense? ....All the enterprises undertaken against the Holy See and the Catholic princes have their beginnings at Geneva. No city in Europe receives more apostates of all grades, secular and regular. From thence I conclude that Geneva being destroyed would naturally lead to the dissipation of heresy."
Sore loser, that de Sales.
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.