Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

And this is why it becomes more clear each day that the RCC truly and actively denies the work of the Holy Spirit and hands over that responsibility to its magisterium.

My dear sister, we believe that the Holy Spirit is behind the Magesterium when it makes it decisions and determinations. We believe that Christ has continued to fulfill His promise that He would be present to the Church for all time. Do you honestly think that the Church is infallible based on its own fallible men?

The fact that some men may misinterpret the word of God does not negate the fact that individuals are called to read and study the Bible, knowing they will be led by the Holy Spirit in all truth and light if it is the will of God to so lead them.

Too many people make this claim for themselves, when it is God who grants the gift of interpretation. Remember, it is God who grants His various gifts for each person. Not everyone has been granted the same gifts. God has given us teachers and pastors and evangelists, not giving everyone this ministry.

I don't see any postscript saying only the priestcraft can search and thus interpret Scripture

Now Miss, do you really believe that I think only the priests can read and interpret Scriptures? While it is true that we read the Scriptures with the mind of the Church, it doesn't follow that only priests can interpret correctly Scriptures. What is important to consider is that God does not lie. He doesn't tell one individual "X", and another individual "not X". That is the state of Protestantism.

Regards

Yes, the elect were chosen from before time. And throughout, Paul tells us that the elect are those who first come to Christ, who have received forgiveness, who are part of the community, etc.. Nothing about eternal glory.

OK. It really surprises me that it has taken so long for me to pick up on this as your view, but hey, on many things I am slow. :) I really had no idea you saw the elect in this way. Is there any difference between one who is elect and one who is validly baptized in the Apostolic faith?

As to the "book of life", it appears that names can be blotted out. That is what Scriptures say.

If you are referring to Ps. 69:28, then all the commentaries I checked said the same thing. This is a reference to a human made book of the living, not the Divine Book that lists the names of those going to Heaven. For example:

Psalms 69:28 : Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. ---- Let them be blotted out of the book of the living. All the Israelites who came up out of Egypt were put down in a muster-roll of the living, called "the writing of the house of Israel" (Ezek 13:9) and "the book of life." Those who had died were excluded when the names were written out afresh each year. They were thereby consigned to oblivion (Prov 10:7). Hence, the book of life was used as an image for God's book of predestination to eternal life (Ps 139:16; Ex 32:32; Ps 87:6; Dan 12:1; Phil 4:3; Rev 17:8; 13:8; 21:27; Luke 10:20). The book of life, in the human point of view, has names written in it who have a name to live, but are dead, being in it only by external call, or in their own estimation, and in that of others. But in the divine point of view it contains only those who are elected finally to life. The former may be blotted out, as was Judas (Rev 3:5; Matt 13:12; 25:29; 7:23; Ex 32:33; but the latter never (Rev 20:12,15; John 10:28-29; Acts 13:48) ---- from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005.

-----------------------------

FK: "I see that as working backwards to repair an untenable position. If God predestines the elect, whether He looks at their merits or not, then that simply leaves the other group left."

God works the other way around "first". God desires all men to be saved. Thus, He "starts" with saving every man without viewing merit.

If every man is born needing salvation, and not every man is baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, then how does every man "start" with being saved? I'm not sure if you are saying that all men are saved for a time, but then most blow it. That is sort of my understanding of Orthodoxy. We of course hold the opposite view, that all men are damned first, and then God saves some.

[continuing:] However, after viewing WHO will reject and refuse His graces (viewing the demerits), God reprobates those people, leaving the predestined to be saved and fulfill God's desire. He does this WITHOUT forcing the individual to accept Him. That would be WORSE than hell.

This appears to support my above proposition. ...... As to whether it would be worse than hell to have God be in full control of my destiny, all I can tell you is that so far it really hasn't been that bad. :) With God in full control, I really think my life has been much better. I really wouldn't even WANT to be in charge of running my own life. I don't have the experience. :)

It is your opinion that God is a failure because He allows men to choose to be evil. That is your paradigm that cannot understand that God would condescend to mankind, although Jesus Christ did nothing BUT condescend...

We disagree on what "condescend" means. I think for your side it means that God bows down to man out of respect for man's greatness (even though the greatness came from God). I see it completely differently. I would say God never bows down to anyone for any reason. The creation can never be worthy of respect in its own right by the Creator. That would make God another pot instead of the Potter.

FK: "This must mean that God desires all the reprobate to not be saved. We know THAT because God always had within His full power the ability to save them. Yet He chose not to."

That means nothing of the sort. It means that God is just and if man desires it enough, He will give them what they desire. This is what God's wrath is - to leave man in their perverted desires, if that is what they want despite revelation.

So now your side allows God to be just? I thought God was only "love". So again with my human comparison, you as a parent would be showing your two-year-old child "justice" if she insisted on playing in traffic. You might scold her at the top of your lungs, but if her perverted desires led her to running into the street, the Godly thing for you to do would be to let her do it. It continues to astound me that your side calls this "God's love".

FK: "Joe, didn't we just get done talking about this on this thread? Remember when I said I was sure about my salvation, but I did NOT claim "Divine knowledge"? I didn't say objective or subjective, but from reading this conversation, Fru and I are talking about the identical thing."

Considering my responses to you, how could you think that I thought you were "subjectively certain" about your salvation? Time and time again, I reminded you about people who fell away, showed you verses that see the Christian lose his inheritance, tell you that you do not know WHO God has elected for heaven, told you that there are no individual "elect to eternal glory" verses, told you that we don't know if we will persevere, discussed how WE can fall away since we don't know our own future, etc.....

As I admitted, I never used the terms subjective or objective, but I did plainly say that I did not claim Divine knowledge. I thought when you said no Calvinist had ever said to you what Fru was saying that you should have recognized this as the same thing (especially since it was so recently). ...... When you speak of people who have fallen away, remember that I have never denied, and in fact have SAID that there is a real "Lord, Lord" crowd running around out there. There always has been. I have also never denied that it includes some Calvinists.

We continue to disagree about whether a Christian can lose his inheritance. I say he cannot, but I'm not sure this is directly related to a person's KNOWLEDGE of his assurance, as opposed to whether assurance is even possible. ...... I have always said that I have no earthly idea of the names who God has elected to Heaven, except me. ...... I am still adjusting to your brand new position that most of the NT is meaningless to the individual. :) When you lump everything into "it's only to the nameless, faceless community", then it has no value to any one person. When the text says, "so that YOU will be saved", YOU take that away from the reader and tell him that it means nothing FOR him because it's only for the collective. So when a newcomer comes to you and asks what this means:

Rom 10:9 : That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

... you must turn him away, telling him that this doesn't apply to him in his search for God. No, this only applies to the community and no one can know about his individual heart. Therefore, you tell the dejected newcomer, no one who confesses Jesus' name and truly believes in his heart can have any idea if he will end up in Heaven. How sad a witness is this???

Why on earth would I bring up all of this if I thought you were ONLY "subjectively certain"? CATHOLICS are subjectively certain! But we don't consider ourselves the "elect to eternal glory" at this point with such certainty as you, because it IS subjective!

My subjectivity is based on my recognition that the Holy Spirit has given me a new heart, and that He has led me to understand that the Bible is true. Your subjectivity is infinitely more complicated. You have to also believe in all the salvational aspects of your Church and whether you are living up to them on a daily basis. I truly do not blame you for having no assurance in your salvation. If I was a Roman Catholic, I could have none either. Satisfying all the middlemen of the Church would be way more than I could ever be sure of. No one could reasonably have any confidence in a model defined by salvation through fallible men.

The Eastern Orthodox Bible must be very short, considering it dismisses much of the OT and now all of Paul

They dismiss neither the OT nor St. Paul. They dismiss Judaic and Protestant interpretations of them.

Christianity-lite

Coming from a Protestant...that's amazing.

I offered you Scripture. But I can understand your getting the two confused since every word of the WCF is founded on God's word

You offer me cherry-picked verses from the scriptures, with Protestant interpretation attached. The LDS quote quote scriptures too.

At the moment of creation, did God foreknow all that was to be...

I would say He foreknew BEFORE the moment of creation. He knew from all eternity. But foreknowledge is not the same as predestination; certainly not the same as double-predestionation of the Reformed.

...even the course corrections of men and their outcomes? Or is He just making it up as He goes along?

God can handle an infinite number of possibilities. It is just as likely that His plan has an infinite number of solutions—all leading to the same end. Just because we can't conceive of it doesn't mean He is boxed in with one and only plan.

Why would God take His gift back? Didn't God know this man wouldn't use it in the first place? What you are essentially saying is that God gives grace and then He takes it away if you don't do what He says. Does that sound very loving?

Infusion and imputed righteousness is an interesting topic. The reason traditional Protestants never believed in infused righteousness is because the term "infused" is never used in scripture. Instead scripture uses the term imputed righteousness.

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And again...

Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

The difference we can see from Paul and James is that once this righteousness was imputed to Abraham, Abraham was called a Friend of God. It's a one time act and a gift. Applying that to your example, this man who had grace imputed to him would have been called a Friend of God. Do you believe God would take His Friendship away? What's more, does God offer this friendship to everyone?

What makes this discussion interesting is that I believe there might be some truth in what you're saying as applied to Protestants today. Many Protestants may actually believe in infusion verse imputation but not in the exact same way Catholics understand it. They believe that God has given them a spark of goodness through the Holy Spirit to go forward and do good things. This is the reason God loves them. Furthermore, once this spark is given to them they can't lose it which is NOT what Catholics believe.

Although this sound VERY typical of most Protestants theology today it was not the Reformer's teaching. While I have not read or digest Calvin's entire understanding on this issue, I doubt very strongly if Calvin believe in infused grace. I can understand someone making a case that God infuses us with His righteousness and that is what He looks at which is what I believe you are saying Calvin might have believed.

Hmmmm...this is extremely interesting. I'm rambling now so I'll summarize my thoughts if for no other reason than to bore everyone.

Infused Grace With Christ - God infuses (imputes) man with Christ's goodness and that is what He sees. Any good works that man does based upon man's choices is because of Christ working. This, I believe, is what you feel Calvin believed. I'm not quite sure I would jump on this bandwagon since infusion is not used in scripture and Calvin was a stickler for detail. However this view is exceeding close to Imputed Grace and I would have to think about this a bit.

Infused Grace With Goodness - God infuses man with Christ's grace and goodness. Man goes off and do good things. This is very similar to the Catholic view except that that man can't lose his salvation. I believe most Protestants today truly fall into this category.

Infused Grace - God infuses man with grace. Man must act upon that grace or be lost. This is the true Catholic view.

I never knew you

I take this as a case of self-deception.

I take Jesus at His word. If He ever knew you, ... He would not say ... I never knew you.

It is not addressed to non-believers, because they would not call on Jesus in the first place.

Most certainly they would ... once it became unavoidably clear to them that Jesus was the difference between Life and Death.
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;

11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Nor would they be concerned with doing the will of the Father, nor even HEARING the Word. It is those who are self-righteous, those who hear the Word but do not do the Will of the Father, who will be in trouble.

Of course course these won't really be interested in doing the will of the Father, ... but rather, only that which will get them out of their unsaved fate.

These are true hypocrites (i.e. unbelievers).

Hearing the Gospel is not enough, but DOING the Will of the Father is MORE important. We know Christ by doing the Will of the Father.

You're correct here ... Hearing the gospel is not enough.

And what is the will of the Father. Here, Jesus makes a definitive statement ...
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Can't be more definitive than that.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Believest thou this ?

Let’s do a more intricate comparison of Calvinism and Gnosticism. Further, let’s pretend that the silence on all the other heresies listed means that you simply hadn’t gotten that far yet and will return to comment on them after we discuss Gnosticism.

Irenaeus wrote a book titled, “Against Heresies” in which he called attention to this particular fact. In this work (Book I Chapter 6) he said the following regarding Gnostic teaching:

“But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith states regarding the perseverance of the saints:

I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach. There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.

If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature. While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same. Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature. Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.

One is saved on account of one’s election to be saved. The Gnostics said that they were of the “elect seed.” Calvinists say that they are elected by God. Both agree that being elected precludes their actions from affecting that election in a negative way.

While one may willfully sin in the flesh, that does not affect the relationship that one has to God and salvation. The third part of the Westminster Confession of Faith (as quoted above) makes it plain that Christians may even live in sinfulness, yet not affect their salvation. The Gnostics just went one step further and stated that it was their desire and practice to do so.

Grace overcomes all sins regardless of the individual’s attitude toward sin. Calvinists state that grace is irresistible and the Christian cannot help but fall under it. Gnostics say that regardless how much sin they willingly commit, grace flows upon them freely for every sin they commit.

Both agree that there is nothing that can cause the one who is saved to lose their salvation.

The parallels are striking. How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace? How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality? How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation? The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.

It was indeed the teaching and practice of the apostles to reject the doctrines of Gnosticism, including this doctrine. John’s account of the gospel of Christ and his epistle of 1 John were also written as a response to the doctrines of Gnosticism, and particularly, 1 John was written to refute the idea of once saved, always saved. One cannot honestly read through this book and ignore that conclusion. In addition, the following passages in the New Testament clearly indicate that Christians may sin so as to fall from grace: Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 2:20-22.

A little bowl of YOPIOS in the mornings does wonders, doesn’t it, my friend? The Church has interpreted the Bible, as is its authority and responsibility for 1700 years, as the Bible itself states. You appear to have erred in the same way so many of your brethren err inasmuch as you claim that it is me interpreting Scripture. It isn’t.

Scripture itself tells us that private interpretation is wrong. Groups as well as individuals.

As I said previously, all I can do is listen to your confession and compare it to the Church Fathers’ writings. I don’t get to define heresies.

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.