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.
Of course it does, but you continue to believe the Bible was written to a church and not to men and women of God's family.
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9
Does God appoint no man to wrath? Are all men appointed to obtain salvation?
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" -- 1 Peter 2:8-9"And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Amen, FK. Satan is a created being.
No, it means the money was wasted.
Is the blood of Christ wasted?
Please read the following link. Here are just a few lines...
The man who sees nothing particular in the design of the Atonement can't see or preach Sovereign Election very clearly or strongly. How can he teach that God has 'chosen a people' unto Himself in special electing love and at the same time deny that He appointed Christ to act as the substitute for that specific and particular people? Will a man who rejects the belief that Christ, on the cross, acted as the Great Shepherd in a particular way for His own sheep be able to declare with clarity that there even is a specific and particular flock chosen by the Father and given to the Son? I have yet to meet the preacher who could successfully perform the mental gymnastics and verbal double talk necessary to believe and preach such opposite doctrines. In preaching, they start and finish with Universal Atonement as the foundation and are forced to build a superstructure without ever mentioning electing love. The Doctrine of Election is acknowledged to be in the Bible and, therefore, true, but since it is completely unrelated to the death of Christ on the cross (which was for all men), it is at best not very important and at worst a possible cause of great controversy. We are therefore admonished to 'simply preach Christ' and forget about sovereign election. However, let a man see that election by the Father is just as essential to salvation as atonement by the Son, and it becomes impossible to preach one without the other. If I am accused of preaching Limited Atonement only by first reading it into texts because of logical necessity, what shall be said of those who refuse to declare the truth of sovereign election and effectual calling because they think these doctrines logically conflict with universal atonement? And worse, they do this even while admitting that election and effectual calling are Bible truths... I think the words of Peter apply here, "We cannot refrain from telling what we have seen and heard." A man cannot really believe that salvation is of the Lord and also preach that salvation is entirely up to free will. He cannot have seen and felt that electing love by the Father and quickening in regeneration by the Holy Spirit was just as essential to his salvation and conversion as was the atoning death of Christ, without extolling and magnifying that work by the Father and the Holy Spirit. I personally have yet to meet the man, in either the pew or the pulpit, who gladly owned and testified that his personal salvation was the result of a special love by the Father and the irresistible power of the Holy Ghost who did not very shortly thereafter also see, believe, and preach that it was also a result of the particular purchase by the Blessed Redeemer." "About fifteen years ago God started to teach me the Doctrines of Grace. A lawyer friend was learning them at the same time. We would sometimes stay up all night discussing texts of Scripture, books, and the arguments people were giving us against our 'new' doctrine. I distinctly remember how both of us balked at the doctrine of Limited Atonement. One of our favorite expressions was, "Limited Atonement is not at all necessary to Calvinistic theology." We were convinced it was only a 'logical necessity' to the system and not a doctrine that could be established exegetically. Of course, neither one of us had really studied the doctrine very carefully, we 'just knew' it was nothing but logical deduction. Since that time both of us have not only become convinced it is a biblical doctrine, we now agree with Dr. J. I. Packer when he calls Limited Atonement the "central affirmation of the gospel..."
If there were no other text in the sacred word except this one, I think we should all be bound to receive and acknowledge the truthfulness of the great and glorious doctrine of God's ancient choice of His family. But there seems to be an ongoing prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine, and although most other doctrines will be received by professing Christians, some with caution, others with pleasure, yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and discarded. In many of our pulpits, it would be considered a great sin and treason to preach a sermon on "election," because they could not make "practical" application of the discussion. I believe that they have clearly misjudged the truth of this subject. Whatever God has revealed, He has revealed for a purpose...""But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).
Well, to use a poker term, we don't split the pot. Man gets all the blame for sin, and God gets all the credit for salvation. We can't take any credit for coming to Christ because we don't use the stock heart to do that. We use the new and improved heart which we had nothing to do with creating or receiving.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by attributing "anything" of value to man. I acknowledge that we will be judged on our works (post salvation) for reward in Heaven. These works are still God working through us, but perhaps the secondary cause idea could come into play here.
IF you understand "primary" and "secondary" causes, then why is God alone glorified when it is God Himself who raises up man and saves Him? Why do you continue to not accept that secondary causes ARE real, and not abstract? Will man be saved if He refuses? Secondary causes are not fictional.
Because there isn't any real contribution from man. When I come to the crossroads of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, it's all of God and not of man. I "could" say that man must freely choose to be saved. That is a true statement, however, given what I think it means, I'm not sure whether it would be "honest" to call it a secondary cause. ---- Man will not be saved if he refuses, but we say that is impossible under the conditions we are talking about.
I think you need to consider that the roots of the Reformation PRECEDE the Reformation... Nominalism, that corrupted result of Scholasticism, an empiricism that wounded the mystery of the faith, was the philosophy that Luther and Calvin operated under. Ockham, for example, was Luther's hero.
I could only find those accusations on Catholic websites. From everything I read on nominalism, Luther and Calvin would have had nothing to do with it. I did find something on Ockham, though, from what appears to be a neutral website. Nominalism -- Advanced Information:
"In the fourteenth century William of Ockham devised a nominalistic system of theology based on his belief that universals were only a convenience of the human mind. According to this view, the fact of a resemblance between two individuals does not necessitate a common attribute; the universals one forms in his mind more likely reflect one's own purposes rather than the character of reality. This led William to question scholastic arguments built upon such abstractions. As he argues in his Centilogium, systematization of theology must be rejected, for theology can ultimately be based only on faith and not on fact. Therefore, through grace and not knowledge, he accepted the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, bowed to the authority of the pope, and declared the authority of Scripture. His follower, Gabriel Biel, would carry his thought to its logical conclusion and declare that reason could neither demonstrate that God was the First Cause of the universe nor make a distinction between the attributes of God, including God's intellect and will. The reality of the Trinity, as well as any theological dogma, can be found only in the realm of faith, not in the realm of reason. This was diametrically opposed to the natural theology of medieval scholasticism. Nominalism continued to have an effect on theology. Its influence can be discerned in the writings of David Hume and John Stuart Mill. ---- D A Rausch (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)" (emphasis added)
I mean, are you kidding me? You think Luther would go for this? No way, he stood for the opposite. This is the EXACT type of philosophy I talked about in my original post. With the Roman Catholic Church's blessing, faith was DIVORCED from reason. That killed any chance of finding a universal to reconcile man and God. This is what the original Reformers fought AGAINST!! Notice that Ockham accepted the Latin Church solely on faith, without any reason. We Reformers say that is preposterous, there is no such thing as blind faith. Therefore, I reject any suggestion that Luther or Calvin were part of the movement that they worked so hard to defeat! :)
Whether the Fall was incomplete or not does not take away the necessity of grace entirely dependent upon from God.
That's irrelevant. :) The point is that the Roman Catholic Church supported the humanism of man's autonomous intellect THROUGH the incomplete Fall. The Renaissance philosophers thought they were on solid ground with this to back them up. IN FACT, what they proceeded to do was to kill off grace ENTIRELY and replace it with the "leap of faith" (the non-rational). Reason was eliminated from God's place in the model (as illustrated in the above quote by someone I've never heard of). With reason gone, there was nothing left to explain God or His relationship to man. So, they filled in with blind leaps of faith or the "final Experience" (non-rational) of Karl Jaspers, all the way up until the drug-taking (to get the real meaning of life) of many of the modern philosophers. This has obviously led to a disaster as far as our society's current epistemology is concerned. I don't blame the Latin Church for everything, but they clearly contributed to the problem. It has definitely always been the Reformers who have been the ones to stand in the breach on this.
FK: "A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this."
If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Protestantism is BUILT upon the individualism of relativism. The current Pope has strongly written against relativism. Meanwhile, more and more relativists form more independent communities based upon their OWN opinions. Apparently, Christianity is no longer a revealed religion, in their eyes, but one of relativism.
Ridiculous. :) This would only be right if you lumped us in with every other non-Apostolic faith that is running around out there. I hope you would agree that isn't fair. You CAN'T look me in the eye and say that all of the Reformers you know on these boards are any less on message than you and your Latin brethren. You just can't.
If the Pope has written against relativism then I applaud him, however, even recent news stories appear to say that it isn't taking effect. Just last week there was the story of the Bishop in San Francisco. He had two OPEN BLASPHEMERS appear right in front of his face, and yet he still stood in Christ's place and performed the sacrament for them. Considering that you have a monolithic and well organized faith, I would call that pure relativism. Now, is this Bishop going to get into any trouble for what he did? Of course not. That is MORE relativism. There are of course other examples which have been mentioned several times across these boards. One would think the bar should be higher for you because you are a monolithic faith, but it doesn't appear to turn out that way in actual practice.
Please show me how you come up with your reasonings. Is it philosophical or metaphysical? Or is it scripturally based? I imagine it is the former, since Scripture clearly shows that Christ's atonement was not limited. I have posted a number of such verses. ...... Show me why you believe Christ's atonement was NEVER INTENDED for anyone but the "elect".
It is scripturally based. But first, in my mind there are three choices: (1) Christ was sent to redeem everyone, and all would be saved. That is universalism, and obviously unscriptural. (2) Christ was sent to redeem all those who would have faith, and perform required works. This is potential atonement, not actual atonement. (3) Christ was sent to redeem only the elect. This is actual atonement. Now to some verses:
Matt 1:21 : She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." [Not all people, only "His people".]
Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. [Note that "those" obviously does not refer to all.]
John 10:27-30 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one." [Note that "they" and "them" do not refer to all.]
John 17:9-12 : 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. [Again, obviously atonement is not intended for all, but for only those the Father has given Him.]
Eph 5:25-28 : 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. [Jesus did not give Himself up for all, just His Church.]
John 3:16 : 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [The word "that" connects the giving of the Son to the intended beneficiaries (those who believe).]
I know you have quoted several verses along the lines of "Jesus died to save the whole world". But if these are taken literally, then either God is a complete failure, or there is no actual atonement at all. Rather than have God being a failure or not atoning for us, a better view is to see these verses more as the Jews saw them at the time. To them, only Jews could go to Heaven. These verses opened up "the world" to include Gentiles. But I do not "declare" that this is the only way to see it. There just has to be something better than "God is a colossal failure or He did not atone for us". I've said this many times, but never have gotten a comment from an Apostolic, so I can only assume that your side is comfortable with these possibilities.
That sounds funny, FK, coming from the Reformed side which reads the bible literally, almost like a fairytale, when it suits its agenda.
a better view is to see these verses more as the Jews saw them at the time. To them, only Jews could go to Heaven. These verses opened up "the world" to include Gentiles
Really? That's why God created a New Covenant. Jews were the "elect," the chosen to bring the knowledge of God to the whole world (salvation is from the Jews) and not to take it as a privilegde of being the only ones going to heaven. That is precisely where their error was, and where the Reformed error is.
But I do not "declare" that this is the only way to see it. There just has to be something better than "God is a colossal failure or He did not atone for us". I've said this many times, but never have gotten a comment from an Apostolic, so I can only assume that your side is comfortable with these possibilities
God's offer is one of love for mankind, not love for some and hate for others as men would have it. Why is His offer of salvation for all of humanity a "collossal failure?" You disallow God the freedom to allow free choice.
Dr. E: No, it means the money was wasted
God gives in abundance. We waste His blessings daily. We show ingratitude to Him daily. And He only gives us more. Thank God, He is not like us!
Is the blood of Christ wasted?
His blood saves or condmens. Those who accept His sacrifice live; those who reject it die. His blood is not wasted.
He creates everything but He is not the author of it. Brilliant example of Reformed theology.
No, you made the point of distinction of not seeing Him "face to face" as the OT says. I was saying "seeing God" period. If the OT verses are to be taken literally as you guys do, then seeing an apparition of God would apply. Jesus for one would have killed an awful lot of people who saw Him!
What is the FACE of God FK? What does that verse mean? Can we see God and not die? Or does it have to be God "as He is" in which case Jesus was not God as He is!
Can we see God and live? Yes or no? Does God have a face? Yes or no? If we can see God and not die then the Bible is incomplete when it says we can't. If God has no face and the bible speaks of God's face then the Bible is not fully revealing God.
The faces and eyes and hands of God are symbolic representations of invisible and ineffable God. These words cannot be taken, like most of the Bible, literally or read like a fairy tale (Reformed approach). We can take literally the Gospels because God walked on earth with His disciples, as opposed to appearing to them in their dreams and visions and what not. It was witnessed for three years.
The fact remains, DrE, that the sacrifice of the incarnate, 2d Person of the Trinity was so precious, so valuable that none can argue that it would not have covered all sin for all time by virtue of having not been precious or valuable enough.
If God is all in all, then any sacrifice by God is already an ultimate price that cannot be surpassed by anything.
It is not possible for Christ’s blood to be wasted. It is sufficient for ALL, YET it applies only to the elect, those who come to Him.
Those who argue against this cannot argue: “Well, Christ’s blood simply isn’t that valuable. It’s valued on the market at only 5 decazillion, and it would need to be 6 decazillion to cover everything.”
They can only argue what it was INTENDED to cover; never its actual value. It is the one thing in all creation that truly was priceless.
Did you watch the film?
How can you possibly conclude that? Because God's selection process is not obvious to you, YOU feel you have the right to declare it arbitrary? What could you possibly know about how that is decided? That's gotta be a few demerits on Roman Catholicism for assault on God's sovereignty. :)
[continuing:] Do you claim that God does this against His will?
No, God's reprobating is fully in accordance with His will.
It is God's nature to work good - and He does this because it is His will. Thus, if God actively does something, He actively enjoys it. Are you following my logic?
Perhaps not. :) It is usually someone on the Apostolic side who screams "Anthropomorphism"! when anyone says that God "enjoys" anything, so I'm not sure why you are phrasing it that way. I just don't think it is fair for anyone to characterize the Reformed belief as one having a God who takes human-like glee in the suffering of others. It is a part of God's plan, but there is no rubbing of hands together with an evil laugh. That's the picture I see Apostolics trying to portray, and I find it ridiculous.
It is not God's will that man disobey Him. God ALLOWS it, but this "allowance" is God's will, not the action that man takes that is evil.
The scriptures appear to disagree:
Ex 14:4 : And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord." So the Israelites did this. [Apparently, God's will that Pharaoh disobey Him brought Him glory.]
Isa 63:17 : Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance.
Rom 9:18 : Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
It seems that in these, God is pretty active and not merely sitting back.
This is a revolting picture for those who believe God IS love. Love gives of itself to the other. Love does not randomly select beings to create and then torture, just to "please" oneself.
I'm sure it is a revolting picture to those who believe that God is love and NOTHING else. Such people believe that if God is love then He cannot also be justice, or wrath, or sovereign. This is a very limited God and one not described in the Bible.
Here you are describing purely human love. Sometimes I get this and sometimes I get that God is transcendent and so I shouldn't describe Him in ways JUST LIKE you are now. :)
[On Luke 13:34:] Can't you hear the Words of God? IF ONLY YOU WOULD TURN TO ME - BUT YOU WOULD NOT!!!
Sure, and when God asked Adam where he was in the Garden, it was because God had no idea. :) Same thing.
Note, the Scriptures say that men refuse, that some men will not come to the light, even when it is shown to them. It says that a person is condemned BECAUSE they WILL NOT believe. This is not the idea of reprobating BEFORE demerits!
Yes, many men refuse to come into the light because they are unable to do so because they have not been graced. God reveals Himself to all men in some sense so that no man has an excuse, but not all men can recognize that revelation. ...... A person is condemned within time because he does not believe, just as a person is saved within time because he DOES believe. The issue of predestination is unaffected on either side because of this.
God finds NO PLEASURE in the death of ANYONE.
In the actual sense the word is used in Ezekiel 18:30-32, I totally agree with you. This is not something where "jollies" are involved, but nevertheless, God has ordained what God has ordained.
Can't you hear God's voice, almost a frustration that His people would not come to Him? Sounds a lot like the voice of Christ in Luke's quote above, doesn't it? And THIS is the same God who you think creates people to eternally destroy, for His good "pleasure", WITHOUT SEEING THEIR DEMERITS?
Do you think that when God "sounds" frustrated in scripture that He actually IS frustrated? I really don't. Rather, I think He is conveying a message with such language. One meant to teach all of us.
You keep raising the issue of "WITHOUT SEEING THEIR DEMERITS". Would it be true that if God cannot reprobate without seeing one's demerits, then He cannot also predestine without seeing one's merits? Yet again, you tell us that you do not have a works-based salvation model. :)
Your god is not the Christian god, I'm sorry to say. Your god is one who randomly creates beings to send to hell without seeing whether this being deserves such eternal torture. The two ideas are totally incompatible. You can't have it both ways. Either God is arbitrary or God is just. Either God is sadistic or God is love. Either God seeks men to save or God willingly and for his own pleasure, creates beings to torture in eternity.
But you're not questioning my Christianity of course. :) (Intentional small "g" is noted.) I again marvel at your ability to know that God would choose randomly under our view. Perhaps you are a descendant of the Apostles with supernatural powers and didn't know it.
You focus here quite a bit on the idea of "deserve", yet elsewhere you tell me that God does "everything" for salvation. If God REALLY does everything for salvation, then as William Munny said: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it".
You say that God is either just or arbitrary. Fine. He is just and not arbitrary, your supernatural Divine mindreading skills notwithstanding. You then say that God is either sadistic or He is love. Fine again. God is love, among other things. Finally, you say that God either seeks men to save or He "willingly and for his own pleasure, creates beings to torture in eternity". This one makes no sense, since both options are false. God does not seek men to save, He chooses men to save.
And once again I must disagree with your supernatural Divine mindreading skills that presume the purpose for which God creates the lost. If you had scripture to back you up, that would be one thing, but I know that you do not. Instead, several scriptures have been posted to you showing that God creates the reprobate for the reason of serving His purposes while they are on earth. For example, we just saw in Ex. 14:4 that God would be glorified by hardening Pharaoh's heart. Therefore, you may want to get out of the business of reading God's mind to know His motives, especially when you have nothing to back you up.
You are correct x. To suggest that if the blood of Christ were shed for all mankind that it would be "wasted" on those who reject that sacrifice is not a biblical argument. It is an emotional argument. The Bible is quite clear about the target of the atonement:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 KJV)
The truth also remains that God is above all creation and that there is none other beside Him.
For Him to sacrifice Himself, would automatically make that sacrifice of surpassing value that nothing else could match.
It automatically would be valuable enough to pay for anything in creation.
In short, God is worth infinitely more than all of creation combined over all time.
What we have is the ultimate sacrifice. We don’t have an exchange house God, sitting with his accountant’s hat counting out some exact amount of money.
What we do have is God giving all.
No, of course not. I am only trying to combat the mischaracterization by Apostolics of the Reformed belief.
If so, then how do you explain why God reprobates men to hell before their demerits are evident - AND SIMULTANEOUSLY say that God desires all men to be saved?
God desiring all men to be saved is an outward call, not a decree. In literal terms, and in conformity with God's plan, God does NOT want all men to be saved. That much is plain from casual observation, or God is a titanic failure.
FK: "The WCF correctly recognizes that it was God's providence to choose the destinies of those He created."
Huh? And that makes God the author is sin. More double-talk. In one place, God is not the author of sin. Now, the WCF says God makes men whose destinies HE creates - to sin. Thus, God becomes the perfect creator of a being who can do nothing BUT sin...
Have you been reading any of this discussion? We just got through talking about primary and secondary causes in the WCF, and how they explain that since man is the secondary cause of sin, that MEANS that God is not the author of sin. In a recent post you appeared to at least recognize the claim, but here it seems that we have taken a couple of steps back. I'm not sure how to proceed.
Church = men and women of God's family...It is you who denies the visibile aspect of this Church. There CANNOT be an invisible only Church. Without a visible Church, there cannot be an invisible Church.
Does God appoint no man to wrath? Are all men appointed to obtain salvation?
Yes, God appoints wrath to men AFTER God views their demerits. Consider reading Romans 1. Note, how God LEAVES MEN TO HIS WRATH AFTER THEY TURN FROM HIM...
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:20-28
God didn't make people that way. They brought it upon themselves and God appointed them to wrath because of their demerits. God's wrath is to leave men in their free will choice to select evil.
As to the second quote from Peter, I have already explained Romans 9-11 is about nations and God's predestination of particular nations - the Jews first, and then the Gentiles - based on His will BEFORE their merits. God chooses the order of selection of whom His people will consist of. Thus, the Jews cannot brag, since they did nothing to earn their place in salvation history. Paul reminds them over and over in Romans that they did quite enough to earn DESELECTION...
The reformed theology is not biblical. They take pieces of Scriptures and ignore the rest to form what I say is a disgusting theology - that God is the creator of sin and He has the "good pleasure" to send men to infinite torture, while "lying" to us and telling us that God desires all men to be saved...
Wow. If you can live with that contradiction, good for you. However, you have yet to show your case from Scriptures.
Regards
So much for the walls that Christ came to tear down. Calvin would have them re-built...
What an incredibly ignorant and inaccurate statement! I know of no Calvinists who claim that God only cares about Calvinists. The question is not and has never been about the scope of the Gospel call. The question has always been who will respond how, and why.
I know of no Calvinists who believes the Gospel should be withheld from ANY person, regardless of ethnicity, color, economic status or any other criteria. That is a spurious claim.
All men will freely "select evil" unless God intervenes in their lives and drags them to Him, according to His plan for creation from before the foundation of the world.
Your POV is like the child who thinks he's riding his two-wheeled bicycle for the first time all by himself, when his father is really holding onto the back of it, guiding its every move. "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
All men are fallen and none seeks God unless and until God gives them a new heart. Under your works-based plan of salvation, you have men earning their new hearts, and earning their new eyes and ears, and that is not Scriptural. In fact, that is expressly denied in Scripture...
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
Of course there is a visible as well as an invisible church. It's just not centered in Rome; it's in every nation on earth and not one member of it will be lost.
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
"As many as the Lord shall call."
Just reasonable, just reasonable. My littlest one just turned 2 and she is the one of the 7 greatest blessings that God has bestowed on me in my lifetime.
The trouble is that there are some differences about Bibles, some major, some minor. If there is no completely objective source (stone tablets from God, say), then who is to say that THIS particular version in THIS particular verse says EXACTLY this and means EXACTLY this?
We believe that that authority is the Catholic Church, left to us by Jesus. You either have that or you have anybody coming up with anything with equal amount of authority.
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.