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.
We understand that there are those who are saved by other means than the methodology that we were instructed on.
We acknowledge them and rejoice that there are those who come to Christ by any means. It’s just that we were not instructed in those means; they are beyond us. They are the means of God beyond us. We simply follow what we are instructed to do.
Have you not said that God ordains EVERYTHING, to include reprobating people to hell? Now, I ask, when God reprobates a person to hell before seeing that man's demerits, what possesses your god to do this? Does God do this out of great love? I think you need to seriously re-assess WHY God reprobates undeserving people to eternal torture - what other reason than "he gets his jollies out of suffering people"? We admit God is free and does not do things against His will. So explain why God creates people to go specifically to hell without deserving it?
Your Scripture verses say nothing about purposely creating vessels to condemnation. EVERYTHING God creates is good. Since Christ died for ALL men - and this is beyond refute - it would be an outright lie to say God desires all men to be saved - and at the same time, say God creates men to be vessels of condemnation. That is flatly contradictory.
The "tired old accusation", while old, remains true. It remains tired because you still don't get it.
Your side takes the word "pleasure" from the KJV and twists it into "jollies". Your argument is with the scriptures, not us. God creates all people ultimately for His own glory. He uses the saved and the lost alike toward this end.
Again, the Bible doesn't say what you try to twist it to say. The Bible doesn't say that God creates PURPOSELY to be evil. Our argument remains with the reformers who twist Sacred Scriptures and ignore the rest of it. God does not create men to BECOME lost. They become lost on their own accord. This is the universal teachings of Scriptures and Tradition. It is why we find the reformer's teachings on this repungant.
By much recent posting, the reconciliation consists of discarding the OT verse if it appears to conflict with the NT verse. So, I am told that God never killed anyone in the OT, that the story of Jonah is a myth, that the flood never happened as described in scripture, that the original Passover story never happened, and on and on. I don't see any reconciliation here. In fact I see something much different.
I have not chimed in on those conversations because I do not fully agree with the idea that the OT is to be discarded. We read the OT in light of the NT, not based on the incomplete idea of revelation given to the Jews during the time of the writing of respective books in the OT. Doctrine develops. That is clear in when looking at the NT and comparing it to the OT. If anyone believes that Christ came to fulfill the Law, then we are left with no other option than to attempt to reconcile the OT with what is in the NT. The NT is the guide for reading the OT - ONLY because we believe Christ fulfills the Law, the meaning of the OT.
Regarding some of your notations, is the existence of Jonah necessary to believe that Jesus was the Christ? IF it was a parable, does it change anything? As to God killing, we note that this is no different than observing astronomy. We note that the "sun rises" to our eyes, although we know this is not the case, the earth turns. In the same way, the Jews believed that God "killed" the Jewish enemies, because that was the perception on the ground - since Israel was God's people, they attributed their work to God's divine purpose and will. Jesus teaches something else. Even later OT writings teach something else.
Regards
But Calvin in the context of his sermon does not say comparatively. He says completely.
Man is completely worthless to the Reformed, unless and until the Holy Spirit hijacks his soul.
MB: Certainly God has ordained the deaths of many folks. Doubtless He continues. What does that have to do with their Afterlife?
FK: Ok good. I’m glad you recognize that, even to this extent. I don’t say this fact has any connection to their afterlife. I say God ordains the physical deaths of all people, saved and lost alike.
There are many who don’t recognize it. There is a consistent theme trying to infer that because God has ordained a person or a people to be physically killed, then that somehow reflects on their eternal reward or punishment.
It is so easy to see everything through the lens of 21st century thought. Remember who Jesus was speaking to. Illiterate (mostly) Jewish peasants.
The rabbis of the time used parables extensively. You didn’t seriously think that Jesus completely invented a new way of speaking to the people, did you?
A parable is a word-picture which uses an image or story to illustrate a truth or lesson. It creates a mini-drama in picture language that describes the reality being illustrated. It shows a likeness between the image of an illustration and the object being portrayed. It defines the unknown by using the known. It helps the listener to discover the deeper meaning and underlying truth of the reality being portrayed. It can be a figure of speech or comparison, such as “the kingdom of God ..is like a mustard seed ..or like yeast” (Luke 13:19, 21). More commonly it is a short story told to bring out a lesson or moral. Jesus used simple stories or images to convey important truths about God and his kingdom, and lessons pertaining to the way of life and happiness which God has for us. They commonly feature examples or illustrations from daily life in ancient Palestine, such as mustard seeds and fig trees, wineskins and oil lamps, money and treasure, stewards, workers, judges, and homemakers, wedding parties and children’s games. Jesus’ audience would be very familiar with these illustrations of everyday life. Today we have to do some “homework” to understand the social customs described.
Jesus’ parables have a double meaning. First, there is the literal meaning, apparent to anyone who has experience with the subject matter. But beyond the literal meaning lies a deeper meaning — a beneath-the-surface lesson about God’s truth and his kingdom. For example, the parable of the leaven (see Matthew 13:33) describes the simple transformation of dough into bread by the inclusion of the yeast. In like manner, we are transformed by God’s kingdom when we allow his word and Spirit to take root in our hearts. And in turn we are called to be leaven that transforms the society in which we live and work. Jerome, an early church father and biblical scholar remarked: “The marrow of a parable is different from the promise of its surface, and like as gold is sought for in the earth, the kernel in a nut and the hidden fruit in the prickly covering of chestnuts, so in parables we must search more deeply after the divine meaning.”
Jesus’ parables often involve an element of surprise or an unexpected twist. We are taken off guard by the progression of the story. The parable moves from the very familiar and understandable aspects of experience to a sudden turn of events or a remarkable comparison which challenges the hearer and invites further reflection. For example, why should a shepherd go through a lot of bother and even risk his life to find one lost sheep when ninety-nine are in his safe keeping? The shepherd’s concern for one lost sheep and his willingness to risk his own life for it tells us a lot about God’s concern for his children.
Jesus told his disciples that not everyone would understand his parables. To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear (Luke 8:10). Did Jesus mean to say that he was deliberately confusing his listeners? Very likely not. Jesus was speaking from experience. He was aware that some who heard his parables refused to understand them. It was not that they could not intellectually understand them, but rather, their hearts were closed to what Jesus was saying. They had already made up their minds to not believe. God can only reveal the secrets of his kingdom to the humble and trusting person who acknowledges the need for God and for his truth. The parables of Jesus will enlighten us if we approach them with an open mind and heart, ready to let them challenge us.
Do your homework, Dr. E. Jesus faced some hostility in the crowds; He had to illustrate His teachings in such a way that they would be remembered, savoured and slowly understood by the people. Ever been to a scientific lecture? Dry, dull, boring and eminently forgettable.
Compare that to a good presenter - Wayne Dyer, Tony Robbins and that sort (not that I agree with their points of view, but they both have a very good presentation style) who illustrate their points in colour, with stories and verbal illustrations in order that people will remember them better.
We are the same humans that existed 2000 years ago, except that now we have physical and electronic print. They didn’t. Those are the only allowances that we need to make. They weren’t any stupider or less intelligent than we are. They just didn’t have some of the tools that we do.
God gives man potential to all men to be saved. God DIED for EVERYONE. Is that clear? God creates Sam, granting him grace, sufficient to not choose evil. Sam chooses evil freely. God continues to love His creation, using Sam's evil to bring about a greater good elsewhere. God has given Sam free will to choose or reject evil. But it does not follow that God PURPOSELY created Sam to reject God. God certainly knew that Sam would become evil, and allowed it to bring about a greater good elsewhere. But GOD CREATING EVIL? That is an incredible leap of logic.
Again, we have to base our theology on what the Bible says. ALL of it. Clearly, it says that God desires all men to be saved. Yet, all men are not saved. It has been the universal teaching of Scripture AND Tradition that this means that it is MAN who chooses evil. This is called "grieving the Holy Spirit", something that even Christians can do.
Rom 9:14-18 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Several things about this passage. First, it speaks about nations: Israel and the Gentiles. Not about individuals. Thus, God grants mercy and predestines those nations whom He wills. But it says nothing about "sufficient grace". Paul is speaking about the "external order". An example of this is the Pharoah mentioned. "Being raised up", as Paul says regarding the Pharoah, is NOT about being created. Being raised up is being given an occupation, a place in salvation history, the external order. This doesn't say anything about individual salvation OR individual creation to reprobation.
Again, you cannot ignore part of Scriptures to form your theology. You would make "I desire all men to be saved" a farce by saying God willingly holds back grace or mercy TO THE INDIVIDUAL. We have been given Divine Revelation. We must work with what we are given, not toss aside things because they don't fit our paradigm. If God desires all men to be saved and God died for ALL men, (which means He has great love for men!), then how can you say God does not give sufficient grace to all men, or that God creates men who CANNOT be saved?
Those who are predestined get saving grace. Those who are not predestined do not.
Predestined for membership to the Church. Nowhere does Paul talk about individual predestination to glory in heaven. The Church teaches that even those with full membership are not necessarily destined for heaven. Thus, predestination has nothing to do with "saving grace" for glory in heaven. The Scriptures clearly state that people can enter heaven WITHOUT being "full members" of the Church (Romans 2)- AND the full members do not necessarily enter the Kingdom of heaven. (parable of the weeds and wheat)
Regards
“You’re confusing the reformed faith with the RCC again, Mark. “
I don’t think so. We follow the faith and the words of Jesus Christ, not the faith and the words of Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him).
“The Reformed faith says no man is “worthy” of salvation. It’s the RCC which says you’re good enough and smart enough and pious enough to warrant salvation by all your good works (forgetting that they’re all as ‘filthy rags.’)”
The Reformed is made up of the worthy and the unworthy (actually the ONLY Reformed that I have been able to find are those that are convinced that they are the elect and are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell). You believe that you are going to heaven. You know it and have the indwelling knowledge that you are. You, Dr. E., believe yourself justified, sanctified and saved. You are now worthy of heaven. True or false?
The Catholics believe that all men have the ability to get to heaven, but some will not. That is true.
“You’re the guys who say men aren’t really fallen; they’ve just been hindered somewhat in their goal of perfecting themselves through mystical incantations and magical elixirs and ceremonial rituals. “
Snicker. The Reformed say that the magical Holy Spirit drops out of the sky like a leopard out of the trees, kidnaps and changes the individual into a robot slave and that robot slave magically and mystically is able to express his newly acquired free will ONLY to do good for God.
We follow the Gospels and what we are commanded to do.
“All the rest of your snide remarks about Calvin is just more sour grapes.”
Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) was a nasty, evil, brutish man who ordered executions, banishments and ran Geneva with an iron fist.
Calvinists refused to recognize the subordination of church to state, or the right of any government—king, parliament, or civic magistracy—to lay down laws for religion. On the contrary, they insisted that true Christians, the elect or godly, should Christianize the state. They wished to remake society itself into the image of a religious community.
They see themselves as the elect chosen by God to rule over all others. Oddly the Calvinist style theological democracy is best illustrated today by the Islamic Republic of Iran, a police state.
God, being Almighty, knew and willed in advance all things that happened, including the way in which every life would turn out. He knew and willed, from all eternity, that some were saved and some were damned. Calvin, a severe critic of human nature, felt that those who had grace were relatively few. They were the “elect,” the “godly,” the little band chosen without merit of their own, from all eternity, for salvation.
A person could feel in his own mind that he was among the saved, God’s chosen few, if throughout all trials and temptations he persisted in a saintly life. Thus the idea of predestination, of God’s omnipotence, instead of turning to fatalism and resignation, became a challenge to unrelenting effort, a sense of burning conviction, a conviction of being on the side of that Almighty Power which must in the end be everlastingly triumphant. It was the most resolute spirits that were attracted to Calvinism. Calvinists, in all countries, were militant, uncompromising, perfectionist—or Puritan, as they were called first in England and later in America.
Calvinism was far from democratic in any modern sense, being rather of an almost aristocratic outlook, in that those who sensed themselves to be God’s chosen few felt free to dictate to the common run of mankind.
Naturally, the people of Geneva believed that they had thrown away one church only to see it replaced by an identical twin; in particular, they saw Calvin’s reforms as imposing a new form of papacy on the people, only with different names and different people. So the Genevans tossed him out. In early 1538, Calvin and the Protestant reformers were exiled from Geneva. Calvin, for his part, moved to Strasbourg where he began writing commentaries on the Bible and finished his massive account of Protestant doctrine, The Institutes of the Christian Church.
Calvin’s commentaries are almost endless, but within these commentaries he developed all the central principles of Calvinism in his strict readings of the Old and New Testaments. The purpose of commentaries in Western literary tradition was to explain both the literary technique and the difficult passages in literary and historical works. Calvin wrote commentaries to ostensibly explain scriptural writings, but in reality he, like theologians before him, used the commentaries to argue for his own theology as he believed was present in scriptural writings. They are less an explanation of the Bible than a piece by piece construction of his theological, social, and political philosophy. In 1540 a new crop of city officials in Geneva invited Calvin back to the city.
As soon as he arrived he set about revolutionizing Genevan society. His most important innovation was the incorporation of the church into city government; he immediately helped to restructure municipal government so that clergy would be involved in municipal decisions, particularly in disciplining the populace. He imposed a hierarchy on the Genevan church and began a series of statute reforms to impose a strict and uncompromising moral code on the city.
I can definitely see John Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) in a turban and robes on a camel.
“Where does Scripture talk about any man as a “servant of the servants” who impiously puts himself between God and men? Jesus Christ is the only mediator, Mark. The only one.”
John 13:
5
5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and dry them with the towel around his waist.
6
He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Master, are you going to wash my feet?”
7
Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not understand now, but you will understand later.”
8
Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with me.”
9
Simon Peter said to him, “Master, then not only my feet, but my hands and head as well.”
10
Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed 6 has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.”
11
For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, “Not all of you are clean.”
12
So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, “Do you realize what I have done for you?
13
You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am.
14
If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.
15
I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do.
These are the servants of God. They have been instructed. We are also instructed. Do you wash others’ feet, in a spiritual sense? How about a physical sense?
Calvin replaced the Catholic bishop of Geneva with himself, as the Reformed Pope. Calvin was no servant. He was the master of his domain. Calvin the sinner? Calvin had no need of sin except to promulgate his sophomoric and senseless elitist club. He was only one of many heretics to claim that the road to Heaven stopped at his front door. The Catholics have never said that; we only have the faith which Jesus gave us, not Marcion.
Let us see what the WCF says about the Reformed god:
CHAPTER 3
Of God’s Eternal Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
CHAPTER 5
Of Providence
1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
3. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
CHAPTER 6
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
CHAPTER 33
Of the Last Judgment
1. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
2. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
The Reformed god seems awfully pleased at the eternal torments and suffering of the people that he has created in order to go to hell.
We do not toss out OT verse; however we are mindful that Jesus came to fulfill the OT promises. Thus we must look through the lens of Jesus at the OT; the Jews looked at the OT through the lens of the OT. If they had got it all, would Jesus have had to be born, taught, been crucified and Resurrected?
Actually, the more I find out about the man, the lower my opinion of him. I utilize the terms nasty and brutish. He, in one lifetime, accomplished what it would normally take generations to build up to.
Calvin felt blasphemers of God were worse than murderers because a “murderer merely kills the body, while heresy accepted damns the soul to everlasting hell.” Calvin crushed anyone who attacked the fundamental assumptions of Christianity. Those who spoke out for freedom of worship were banished or beheaded.
Calvin believed God “has explicitly instructed us to kill heretics, to smite with the sword any city that abandons the worship of the true faith revealed by Him. Calvin quoted the ferocious decrees of Deut 13:5-15, 17;2-5; Exodus 22:20 and Lev. 24:16. God, he says, demands ‘extreme severity’ if we have Him in our ‘combat for His glory.’”
One book said, “Far more Christians were murdered by Christians during the Reformation than the believers sacrificed in three centuries of Roman persecution.” Calvin is one of the greatest failures in Christianity. He was cruel.
“Therefore when Calvin came to dictatorial power in Geneva, he saw to it that every man’s mortal acts were judged vigorously. The city’s 16,000 inhabitants were spied upon and punished for acts considered heretical or immoral by Calvin and the elders. During the years 1542-1546 the little town witnessed fifty-eight executions and seventy-six banishments. The theater was banned as immoral, bright colors in dress were forbidden, swearing and dancing were punished, and nobody was allowed to sit up in the inns after nine o’clock at night except spies. As Preserved Smith says, ‘Calvin also pronounced on the best sort of stoves and got servants for his friends. In fact, there was never such a busybody in a position of high authority before or since.’”
Calvin punished with ferocity those holding religious views other than his own. One man wrote “all rubbish” on one of Calvin’s tracts and was put on the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a whole month.
Certainly.
“The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that all should return to penance.”
2 Peter 3:9 Douay-Rheims
“For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for ALL, a testimony in due times”
1 Timothy 2:5 Douay-Rheims
Dear FK
God wills all to be saved, but our salvation depends on our willingness to repent and receive God’s grace.
The more I study typology of scripture....the more I find many loopholes for error in the KJV Bible and without a doubt in the NIV .
FK said.. referring to Rev 4:11
“”Your side takes the word “pleasure” from the KJV and twists it into “jollies”. Your argument is with the scriptures, not us. God creates all people ultimately for His own glory. He uses the saved and the lost alike toward this end.””
Here is the Douay-Rheims Rev 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things; and for thy will they were, and have been created.
I’m not sure that “pleasure” belongs in there
Perhaps Kosta50 can comment further, since he has commented on KJV translation errors in the past.
Time for Mass.
I wish everyone a Blessed day
According to some people this statement is tacitly saying that that said person is hellbound?!?!?
No matter what the method however, humans tend to hear what they want to hear. It's not surprising you hear that Jesus's teaching is only for you.
Different audiences, the apostles for example, may get different forms of teaching, but parables are quite communicative for the general audience. Parables communicate on several levels, every listener can get something from them, and more over time.
No, I don't think you need an Calvin Decoder Ring to get meaning from Jesus's parables:
Point was that Calvinist Good News doesn’t apply to some, to those, it was just bad news.
I’ve given you my version some time ago.
Jesus does not say parables "are quite communicative for the general audience."
On the contrary, He tells us he is speaking in parables for the express purpose that only those with ears to hear will understand them.
Maybe you didn't read the verses by Jesus that I posted. Maybe reading them will help clarify this for you.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
I read them. But not with Calvin’s decoder ring I guess.
:)
To put it another way: The Prodigal Son is not Jabberwocky.
That's your error, Mark. You equate the pope with God. You blasphemously state priests are "another Christ."
So who is the "servant of servants?" Jesus or your pope?
All your sloppy slurs against Calvin are meaningless. Calvin was just a man, not "another Christ." But his "Institutes of the Christian Relgion" and his Biblical Commentaries stand as witness to the fact every line he wrote, every thought he held, every word he spoke was Scripturally-based.
If only the RCC could follow his lead.
Calvinists refused to recognize the subordination of church to state, or the right of any government—king, parliament, or civic magistracy—to lay down laws for religion. On the contrary, they insisted that true Christians, the elect or godly, should Christianize the state. They wished to remake society itself into the image of a religious community.
You have your history confused. Calvin was the first to articulate a separation of church and state, but not so that the church was subordinate to the state, just separate. Unlike Rome, God forbid, where the church rules over the state. Calvin began with the presupposition that it is preferrable that the government should be run by God-fearing men. Do you disagree with that belief?
(The Reformed believe that) God, being Almighty, knew and willed in advance all things that happened, including the way in which every life would turn out.
Does God not know "in advance" all things that will happen? Is the will of God thwarted by men or happenstance or chance? Does anything happen in this life that God does not have ultimate control of?
Do you not realize how you are defining down God into a totem pole?
And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:18-20"They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
You believe that you are going to heaven. You know it and have the indwelling knowledge that you are. You, Dr. E., believe yourself justified, sanctified and saved. You are now worthy of heaven. True or false?
No one is "worthy of heaven" except Jesus Christ. And thankfully, through His obedience, His justification, His sacrifice, His atonement, His redemption, I am justified, am being sanctified and thus, I have been saved.
I believe the words of Jesus Christ.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
The main difference between us, Mark, is that I believe the Holy Spirit guides God's family unerringly, while every time you make reference to the Holy Spirit, it's in dismissive ridicule.
And lately I've come to wonder if this is what Jesus means by "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost."
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." -- Mark 3:28-29"Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Catholics recognize what you mean by this statement, but to the Protestant ear, it will sound like you are separating God's work and man's response - thus, God does not do all.
Protestants are under a philosophical error that makes it difficult to break free from and understand the paradox of "free will" and "grace". They consider that man and God work on the same plane - as if God and man are both tied to bridles and set to pull the same wagon. If man does ANY of this work, then God does less. Thus, in your statement above, to the Protestant, it will appear that you are again dividing the work.
For FK, I would like to say that in the formula above, it is correctly stated - BUT there is a caveat to add. God does EVERYTHING for man and salvation. But in another sense, man must respond to God's grace through faith working in love. These two things are not set against each other (like the above example pulling the wagon). They are on different metaphysical levels. It is understood that we TOTALLY rely on God's graces to do ANYTHING. Thus, for us, we totally depend on God, while, simultaneously and on a different level, are expected to utilize those graces (so as not to grieve the Spirit) to respond in love.
As St. Augustine said, we are only returning to God the gifts that He has given us. How can this be called "works salvation" when anything good we do is a result of God's will (as in Phil 2:12-13)? We cannot boast because we are ONLY able to do good while IN CHRIST. We are only secondary causes. God is the primary cause of our salvation. Because of His graces, we are enabled to react to Him.
Regards
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- Mark 4:10-12 "And when he (Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
So here we have Jesus telling us He speaks in parables so that those who have been given ears to hear will hear and understand, and those who "are without" will not understand and be saved.
See? Is that so difficult to understand? (And it's not even said in a parable.)
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.