Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 10,441-10,46010,461-10,48010,481-10,500 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: stfassisi
God commanded the Israelites when entering Canaan after the Exodus to kill everyone in the land, including babies.

Were those babies "innocent"?

10,461 posted on 11/05/2007 4:05:05 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10374 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Kolokotronis; kosta50
... FK's statistics bear that out; more people believe in a God of love than hell. You hear this in many of the "God is love" crowd; "God wouldn't punish those who never heard of Him." Hell is done away with. We don't like to talk about it or think about it because it doesn't fit with the "God of Love" synergistic view.

Yes, exactly. Before FR, I had no idea there was anything wrong with Protestant leaders like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, et al. I saw Osteen a couple of weeks ago on Larry King Alive and just shook my head through the whole thing. Hell is erased. It is too uncomfortable to talk about and doesn't cater to the needs of the congregation. Good grief, what a mistake! Just as you said, Harley, it's no accident that Jesus Himself talked about hell and sin so much. What those in the laity NEED are the facts, not some feel good self esteem message.

Watering down the reality of hell is a disservice to all Christians. I think it lowers the sacrifice Christ made for us because it deemphasizes what He was saving us FROM.

10,462 posted on 11/05/2007 4:16:12 PM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10452 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey; kosta50; jo kus
What makes you think man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?

Man can Choose God or NOT to Choose God by free will.

Did man freely crucify Christ? Of course man freely crucified Christ! Christ did not crucify Himself. Thus, man can "choose" or not "choose" God freely

God gave man power only "once" to do anything to Him,and man chose to use their free will to crucify Him.

Man has a free will! Don't you see the error you're making?

Its been a long day for me, so I'm checking out

I wish you peace.

10,463 posted on 11/05/2007 4:17:36 PM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10453 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; irishtenor; Religion Moderator
To set the facts straight.

Just like I am a heretic to you, as you so many times have called me and my beliefs

I never called you a heretic. Show me when and where I called you personally a heretic.

I do believe that you implied that I am a heretic when you misread what I said about the iconoclastic council:

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey

MLG: I suppose you do not include the council of Constantinople, AD 754 in that "inspired" category?

kosta50:St. John od Damascus sucessfully proved that incons were not idolatry. The "council" you are referring to is iconoclastic and it is no wonder that heretics of all shades would consider it an "ecumenical" council.

10,402 posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:47 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)

kosta50 assumed that I was calling that council an "ecumencial council", which I did not, and thusly implied very heavily, directed at ME personally, that I was a heretic.

10,464 posted on 11/05/2007 4:18:14 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10427 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Watering down the reality of hell is a disservice to all Christians. I think it lowers the sacrifice Christ made for us because it deemphasizes what He was saving us FROM.

It also removes the Justice from a Just God, and relegates the likes of Adolf Hitler to a peaceful eternal death after passing in the arms of Eva Braun.

10,465 posted on 11/05/2007 4:22:26 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10462 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
What makes you think man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?

Man can Choose God or NOT to Choose God by free will.

That does not answer the question. All you did was make a dogmatic philosphical assertion.

Once again, what makes you THINK or BELIEVE that man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?

10,466 posted on 11/05/2007 4:24:20 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10463 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey; Religion Moderator

I received a message from the RM that it is ok to call a belief heretical, and you can call a church father a heretic, but we cannot call each other names. So, kosta50 is able to call the council of Constantinople or any other council for that matter heretic if it does not conform to his beliefs. You are perfectly capable and within your rights to call his beliefs heretical, but do not call him a heretic. At least this is what I understand from the RM.


10,467 posted on 11/05/2007 4:28:19 PM PST by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10464 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
“”Once again, what makes you THINK or BELIEVE that man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?””

Perhaps you should read Sirach 15:14-20 from Douay Rheims....

"14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his OWN counsel. 15 He added his commandments and precepts.
16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall CHOOSE shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

This tells us that Salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God’s sovereignty includes our free will. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined

Good night!
I wish you a Blessed evening

10,468 posted on 11/05/2007 4:45:45 PM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10466 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; Religion Moderator; kosta50
I received a message from the RM that it is ok to call a belief heretical, and you can call a church father a heretic, but we cannot call each other names. So, kosta50 is able to call the council of Constantinople or any other council for that matter heretic if it does not conform to his beliefs. You are perfectly capable and within your rights to call his beliefs heretical, but do not call him a heretic. At least this is what I understand from the RM.

Yes, I saw that. The point I was making that the implication of "kosta50's" post to me, when he misread what I actually said, when he assumed that I called the iconoclastic council an "ecumenical council", when in fact I did not, was that I was a heretic, as all heretics call the iconoclastic council an ecumenical council. While "kosta50" did not directly call me a heretic, it was a backdoor accusation by implication.

The point is, I find "kosta50's" being offended a shade on the hypocritical side after heavily implying I was a heretic.

10,469 posted on 11/05/2007 4:58:36 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10467 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; kosta50
Watering down the reality of hell is a disservice to all Christians. I think it lowers the sacrifice Christ made for us because it deemphasizes what He was saving us FROM.

Amen, FK. To understand God's true love for us one has to understand what precisely we are saved from and why. But it's not only that. To ignore hell is to deny fundamental principles set forth by the fathers and spoken of directly by our Lord Jesus. It is difficult to repent when you don't understand why you should repent.

10,470 posted on 11/05/2007 4:58:36 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10462 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
“”Once again, what makes you THINK or BELIEVE that man born of Adam has a free will to choose God?””

Perhaps you should read Sirach 15:14-20 from Douay Rheims....

"14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his OWN counsel. 15 He added his commandments and precepts. 16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall CHOOSE shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

That does not say that man born of Adam has a free will that he can exercise in seeking after God or with which to choose to believe the Gospel at all.

Try reading the Bible:

John 3:

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Romans 3

5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?

7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

10 As it is written:

“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 8

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Those who have not been "born again", or literally, "regenerated from above" are at enmity with God, do not seek God, nor have the capacity to believe God.

Ephesians 2

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

By nature, those born of Adam are born children of wrath, dead in sin, rejecting God at every point.

It takes God, in His mercy to make one "born again" so that man believes. This tells us that Salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God’s sovereignty includes our free will. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined

10,471 posted on 11/05/2007 5:23:44 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10468 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
This tells us that Salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God’s sovereignty includes our free will. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined.

Ah, the residue of Aristotelian philosophy which infected Rome through John Cassian.

"Predestined" means, "pre-ordained", by God.

10,472 posted on 11/05/2007 5:26:50 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10468 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; kosta50
I'm reading tonight the eastern church fathers, in particular St. Basil as he was referred to in this article. I cannot believe even the early eastern church fathers were so misguided on the doctrine of hell. While I'm only about 1/2 way through Basil, here is an interesting quote:

Sounds to me like St. Basil believed in hell.
10,473 posted on 11/05/2007 5:37:40 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10470 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

***Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined***

From the Oxford American dictionary:
Predetermine - to decide in advance, to predestine.
Predestine - to destine beforehand, to appoint as if by fate.

Both are the same thing. To predestine is to determine our destiny beforehand. Which is what God does. Our fate is determined (predestined) before the creation of the universe. We cannot change our destiny, our future, otherwise God would not have been able to predestine us.


10,474 posted on 11/05/2007 5:55:52 PM PST by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10468 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; kosta50; Kolokotronis
“Oxford American dictionary:?”

Is that the one Saint Jerome used -;)

Predestination means only that God knows what we will do, not that we are ‘obliged’ to do it.salvation depends simultaneously to God and to man, absolutely to God, without whose Spirit there is no grace and illumination, and also absolutely to man, without whose free will God can do nothing to save him..

Remember ,God is outside of time and not bound by it

Perhaps Dear Kosta or Kolo can help with the original Greek?

10,475 posted on 11/05/2007 6:11:00 PM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10474 | View Replies]

To: Missey_Lucy_Goosey
“”That does not say that man born of Adam has a free will that he can exercise in seeking after God or with which to choose to believe the Gospel at all.””

Good grief,MLS,What do you think the Scriptures are referring to in Sirach 15: 14-20 ? They are speaking about mankind.

Here it is again...
“14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his OWN counsel. 15 He added his commandments and precepts. 16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall CHOOSE shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

MLS, are you one of those people who think that Eve had sex with satan and bore Cain? You Know, The arnold murray Shepherd Chapel followers.

Is so. that would explain your thinking

Good Night! Really, this time for sure.

10,476 posted on 11/05/2007 6:14:10 PM PST by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10471 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

***Predestination means only that God knows what we will do, not that we are ‘obliged’ to do it.***

No, predestine means we are destined to do it. Period. It is predetermined what will come about. Not what might come about.

If something is predestined by God, it will be done. History was written before God said “Let there be light.”


10,477 posted on 11/05/2007 6:19:40 PM PST by irishtenor (History was written before God said "Let there be light.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10475 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

***Is that the one Saint Jerome used -;)***

I don’t know about St. Jerome, but St. Irishtenor uses it :>)


10,478 posted on 11/05/2007 6:20:47 PM PST by irishtenor (History was written before God said "Let there be light.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10475 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

***Good grief,MLS,What do you think the Scriptures are referring to in Sirach 15: 14-20 ? ***

My Bible doesn’t have Sirach 15. Is that OT or NT?


10,479 posted on 11/05/2007 6:23:21 PM PST by irishtenor (History was written before God said "Let there be light.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10476 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Predestination means only that God knows what we will do...

Wrong, it means to "pre-ordain" by Divine appintment.

Acts 13:48

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

10,480 posted on 11/05/2007 6:32:37 PM PST by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10475 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 10,441-10,46010,461-10,48010,481-10,500 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson