[jo kus]

So your inference "While the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all men, it is, to borrow a word, only efficacious to the elect" is your own construct.

Sorry, kosta, I am using the word "efficacious" because we Catholics use it to define the difference between grace that is effective or responded to (efficacious), and one that is sufficient to accomplish the task that God wills, but the person DOES NOT respond to. It is a theological construct based on the De Fide belief that grace is not irresistible. (for example, 2 Cor 6:1)

It seems by the rest of your post that you and I (Catholics and Orthodox) agree on this. Sorry for the use of a non-Biblical word!

Brother in Christ

[kosta50]

Jo I was not responding to you. I do understand how the Latins use the word "efficacious" and in your theology that is allowed and perfectly okay. I was referring to FK's use of that term assuming that he, as a Protestant, should not use non-biblical terminology. After all, their favorite "argument" is "it's not in the Bible."

You can bet that we are on the same wavelength all along here and that our differences are very few but very deep also. However, the Apostolic Church is of one mind: that God is love, that God gave man reason and freedom of will; that man's will is corrupt because of his fallen nature; that we are born with the consequence of Adam's sin, with a propensity to sin and with a mortal nature; that God would have all men saved but only those who respond to His blessings and come to Him and cooperate with Him can be saved; that works of faith are expresisons of true faith; that Baptism is not a salvation but entry into the Church; that the central point of the Church is the Eucharist; that saints are venerated; that the Holy Trinity is worshiped and adored; that icons and statues of saints are not idolatry, etc.

The Orthodox are the least of your worries, trust me. :-)