Posted on 07/16/2014 4:18:13 AM PDT by NYer
I begin with a piece, spotted by Fr Tim Finigan and reported in his indispensable blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity, which had been published in Sandro Magister’s blog—not his English one, Chiesa, but his Italian language blog for L’Espresso, Settimo Cielo.
A few days ago, Magister told the story of a parish priest in the Italian diocese of Novara, Fr Tarcisio Vicario, who recently discussed the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is how he explained the Church’s teaching on the matter: “For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”
Pretty unexceptionable, one would have thought.
His bishop, the Bishop of Novara, however, slapped down Fr Tarcisio’s “unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”
Fr Tim comments that “Fr Vicario did not ‘equate’ irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different—one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.”
It was bad enough that Fr Tarcisio should be publicly attacked by his own bishop simply for propagating the teachings of the Church. Much more seriously, Fr Tarcisio was then slapped down from Rome itself, by no less a person than the curial Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who said that the words of Fr Tarcisio were “crazy [‘una pazzia’], a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” Cardinal Baldisseri, it may be remembered, is the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, and therefore of the forthcoming global extravaganza on the family. This does not exactly calm one’s fears about the forthcoming Synod: for, of course, it is absurd and theologically illiterate to say that Fr Tarcisio’s words were “a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself” (whatever that means): for, on the contrary, they quite simply accurately represent the teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sandro Magister tellingly at this point quotes the words of Thomas, Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, who was appointed in January this year as one of the five members of the Commission of Cardinals Overseeing the Institute for the Works of Religion, and who at about the same time as Fr Tarcisio was being slapped down from the beating heart of curial Rome, was saying almost exactly the same thing as he had:
Many people who are divorced, and who are not free to marry, do enter into a second marriage. … The point is not that they have committed a sin; the mercy of God is abundantly granted to all sinners. Murder, adultery, and any other sins, no matter how serious, are forgiven by Jesus, especially through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the forgiven sinner receives communion. The issue in the matter of divorce and remarriage is one’s conscious decision (for whatever reason) to persist in a continuing situation of disconnection from the command of Jesus … it would not be right for them to receive the sacraments….
What exactly is going on, when Bishops and parish priests can so radically differ about the most elementary issues of faith and morals—about teachings which are quite clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—and when simultaneously one Cardinal describes such teachings as “crazy” and another simply expounds them as the immemorial teachings of the Church? Does nobody know what the Church believes any more?
The question brought me back powerfully, once more, to one of the most haunting blogs I have read for some time, one to which I have been returning repeatedly since I read it last Friday. It is very short, so here it is in full; I am tempted to call it Fr Blake’s last post (one can almost hear his bugle sounding over sad shires):
It is four months since Protect the Pope went into “a period of prayer and reflection” at the direction of Bishop Campbell, someone recently asked me why I tend not to post so often as I did, and I must say I have been asking the same question about other bloggers.The reign of Benedict produced a real flourish of ‘citizen journalists’, the net was alive with discussion on what the Pope was saying or doing and how it affected the life of our own local Church. Looking at some of my old posts they invariably began with quote or picture followed by a comment, Benedict stimulated thought, reflection and dialogue, an open and free intellectual environment. There was a solidity and certainty in Benedict’s teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood. Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.
Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church, today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.
I look at my own blogging, and see that I perfectly exemplify this. More and more, my heart just isn’t in it; and I blog less than I did. Now, increasingly, I feel that silence is all. Under Benedict, there was vigorously under way a glorious battle, an ongoing struggle, focused on and motivated by the pope himself, to get back to the Church the Council intended, a battle for the hermeneutic of continuity. It was a battle we felt we were winning. Then came the thunderbolt of Benedict’s resignation.
After an agonizing interregnum, a new pope was elected, a good and holy man with a pastoral heart. All seemed to be well, though he was not dogmatically inclined as Benedict had been: all that was left to the CDF. I found myself explaining that Francis was hermeneutically absolutely Benedictine, entirely orthodox, everything a pope should be, just with a different way of operating. I still believe all that. But here is increasingly a sense of uncertainty in the air, which cannot be ignored. “One knew where the Church and the Pope stood” says Fr Blake. Now, we have a Pope who can be adored by such enemies of the Catholic Church as the arch abortion supporter Jane Fonda, who tweeted last year “Gotta love new Pope. He cares about poor, hates dogma.”
In other words, for Fonda and her like, the Church is no longer a dogmatic entity, no longer a threat. That’s what the world now supposes: everything is in a state of flux. The remarried will soon, they think, be told they can receive Holy Communion as unthinkingly as everyone else: that’s what Cardinal Kasper implied at the consistory in February. Did the pope agree with him? There appears to be some uncertainty, despite the fact that the Holy Father had already backed Cardinal Mueller’s insistence that nothing has changed.
We shall see what we shall see at the Synod, which I increasingly dread. Once that is out of the way, we will be able to assess where we all stand. But whatever happens now, it seems, the glad confident morning of Benedict’s pontificate has gone, never again to return; and I (and it seems many others) have less we feel we can say.
A seal or guarantee certainly argues against the OSAS argument that believers who fall away were never really saved at all. Are you claiming God cannot cut off branches that bear no fruit, though they were sealed and guaranteed as genuine at one time ? He does not save us against our will. We must obey him. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
How?
If they weren't believers in the first place, they were never sealed with the Holy Spirit?
Just because some people go through the motions, doesn't mean they were saved. Even the demons believe and tremble. They certainly aren't saved.
Simply believing that God exists and wanting to go to heaven, and even working to go to heaven, saying all the right words, going to church, giving, doing, doing, doing, isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
It needs a born from above, born again, change of heart and life.
And when it happens, you know it. EVERYTHING about you changes. Anyone who hasn't had a point where they can look and see a point where they have had a God encounter that resulted in an inward change in thought, attitude, desire, etc, needs to consider whether they are really saved.
You cannot have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in your life and not know it.
He does not seal us against our will. When we repent and turn to Him and trust in Him, He does seal us as we will. HE is faithful even if we are faithless.
If it were up to us to keep our salvation, I doubt many would make it. And He knows that. That's why I'm grateful that HE seals us and protects that which I have entrusted to Him.
No, he is more like a neo-sedevacantist, as a perusal of apologist/researcher James Swans's http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Robert%20Sungenis will show, with some history.
I certainly disagree and oppose many things of Catholic tradition as not being of Scripture, but do see why there is the SSPX and sedevacantist movement in the light of the contrasts btwn what obedience to the pope used to mean vs. V2.
Consistent with this, Sungenis has no problem with reinstituting stoning for formal heretics, while contending for geocentrism.
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Not two gospels. One gospel with different dispensation just as Paul taught.
Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
God through the prophet Daniel allotted 490 years to Israel as a chosen nation. There are still 7 years of that time left having been interrupted by Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah at which time God opened the plan of salvation to the Gentiles. When that time comes to an end as Paul says God will resume His dealing with Israel for that last seven years which will be the tribulation period.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
>>If so, did you receive this teaching from a particular denomination/sect or come up with it independently ?<<
It comes directly from scripture. Adhering to any “denomination” teachings in whole is a very dangerous thing. Every one of them as far as I have been able to ascertain have strayed from scripture in one area or another.
>>How much of the book of Revelation, I wonder, are you saying does not apply ?<<
The entire book of Revelation applies.
Catholics and others who adhere to the belief that the “church” has superseded the nation of Israel in God’s plan will never be able to understand much of scripture and surely not much at all of prophecy.
BTW Adding those passages may have made you feel good but don’t do anything to either support your position or add to the understanding of the subject you asked about.
How would you know ? Can you read the seal ? Can you prevent God from breaking the seal to cut off the disobedient who turn from the faith ? Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
He is talking about those who aren't saved. They dabbled in it, may have had an experience of God healing them or something for example, but they did not repent and confess.
I have met people who laughed at Christianity, saying that they had tried that born again thing and it didn't work. Those are the kinds of people he is referring to.
If the other interpretation is correct, then people get ONE chance at salvation and if they blow it, they're done for good.
No backsliding allowed. Too bad for you.
Did it ever occur to Catholics that God WANTS to save people and not condemn them? That He's looking for reasons to save them instead of reasons to damn them?
Cause for all the bondage that Catholics live under that you have to be without sin when you die or you're not going to make it, and you'd better hope you can get to confession before you die so you can make it, and you'd better do, do, do and hope you die between confession on Saturday and communion on Sunday or you're toast, literally.
If your interpretation is correct, then the likes of Ted Kennedy can't make it because being raised Catholic and living a live of immorality and murder and sin, he can't be brought to a place of repentance again or he'd be crucifying Christ afresh.
It allows for no human failings.
Pinging some other former Catholics who might want to chime in on some of this as I fully expect mockery and ridicule from some in the FRoman Catholic segment about some of my comments, which I know I am not alone in knowing about.
Show me some Scripture where it tells us that God will break the seal if we sin.
That sounds alot like different gospels, one for the "church age" and one for "the tribulation." Do you consider the first the "Once Saved Always Saved" version and the second the "You Can Lose Your Salvation" or "Works" version ?
Turning from *the faith* isn't going to make a bit of difference. *The faith* doesn't save. Jesus does. Faith must be put in Jesus. Having faith in your faith doesn't do anything for you because it's being put in the wrong object.
Turning from Christ may be a different matter, but then again, look at Jesus response to Peter and Thomas, one who DENIED Him and one who doubted Him.
And why would you expect God to deal with the rest of us any differently? He is no respecter of persons.
If Jesus could and did restore Peter after his denial, why do you think He'd do any differently for the rest of us?
>>” They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.”<<
>> Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief,<<
Those that “fall away” “have not known my ways”, and had “an evil heart of unbelief” to begin with. Also ” because of unbelief they were broken off”.
Paul said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Scripture clearly teaches that those you would say “lost their salvation” never had it to begin with because they had ”an evil heart of unbelief”, they ”have not known my ways”, and ”because of unbelief they were broken off”. So your contention that they lost their salvation is in error.
It can be looking forward faith in the Messiah who was to come, or looking backward faith at the Messiah who came.
Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
It’s not even our faith that we rely on, it’s Christ’s faith within us.
Look at the text below. Notice that it’s not “our” faith but Christ’s faith in us that we live.
Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith OF the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20 AV)
It is Jesus’ faith working in us who believe. So, we see that our righteousness is not IN Christ, but OF Him. And if so, we become part with Him, and He IN us.
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:30-31 AV)
“Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” (Philippians 1:11 AV)
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Philippians 3:9 AV)
Why do Catholics fight the idea of the security of the believer so hard?
Why don’t they seem to want to believe that God will keep secure those who trust in Him?
Why do they feel the need to contribute to their salvation so much?
I don’t get the mindset of a person who wants to believe so hard that he could lose his salvation.
2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
>>And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.<<
Hymenaeus and Philetus didn’t believe what was being taught by the apostles. The apostles didn’t teach “that the resurrection is past already” (they were talking about the resurrection of the dead in Christ). I have seen people in these threads claim that the resurrection of the dead in Christ has already come. They are referred to as Preterists. Hymenaeus and Philetus didn’t understand even what the apostles were teaching.
If we fall away, not if we sin, and I already have shown you Scripture, at length.
He is talking about those who aren't saved. They dabbled in it, may have had an experience of God healing them or something for example, but they did not repent and confess. I have met people who laughed at Christianity, saying that they had tried that born again thing and it didn't work. Those are the kinds of people he is referring to.
This is the book of Hebrews written to the Jews in the First Century so your aforementioned experiences are not a good measure with which to understand it. I realize this scripture is unpleasant and uncomfortable for the OSAS teaching.
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If you want a modern example, perhaps it would be someone like Frank Schaeffer. I would not say it is too late for him to repent though, as that would be presumptious. God knows how he could possibly be restored from whence he has fallen, and I hope he comes to repentance again.
I have only presented the Protestant KJV to you; there is no call to attack Catholics. Yes, God wants to save people, which it why he tells us over and over and over again in the Old and New Testament books to obey him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
>> For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Those people were aware of all that was involved in believing but didn’t themselves inwardly accept that belief. Thus having been fully made aware of what was available they rejected it and turned their backs on it.
I find it more likely that they understood but developed a different interpretation in some areas which seemed better to them; call them the first protestants if you will; we don't know exactly why but we know For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Those people were aware of all that was involved in believing but didn’t themselves inwardly accept that belief. Thus having been fully made aware of what was available they rejected it and turned their backs on it.
It seems to go way beyond the word "believers" and there is nothing simple about it. They have five attributes and then "fall away (παραπίπτω)." It is so serious "it is impossible" "to renew them again unto repentance." Now go look up Strong's "μέτοχος" for "partaker" and mediate on it, if you will.
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.