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

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[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.

[D-fendr]

I'm quite out of my league discussing finer points of theology, and I'm working on this without extensive review of material. Which is intended as an excuse for retraction should I need it later..

I am not sure what that means. [objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance” ]

IIRC, it's along the lines of: where in the biological material process do we assign the creation non-material soul - in the sperm, DNA, sperm-egg union..?

I can see an objection to this approach already; my problem is I see objections to pretty much any reductionist approach, further I see all theology as eventually reductionism. :)

The "fallen part" of what? The soul? I didn't think souls came in parts.

I spoke unclearly. Not that it was the soul has parts, but that the causation of fallen nature was transmitted through the parent. Inherited in a sense.

In my experience this point is not often taught or certainly not emphasized. I think that if the West were to hew closer to the line of "ancestral sin" through this inheritance it would have positive ramifications in East-West discussion. It's not a variation in theology at this point, but in emphasis and nomenclature. So for me this is an easy change to make.

The disease view is also familiar in the West - not as familiar, IMHO, as it should be. Again, it's difficult for me to compare to the East where I've not been. I'm comparing it with EO writers. In any case, this is an area of common ground on Truth.

the concept of Immaculate Conception is meaningless to the Orthodox.

Yes. From what little I know, this is the greater theological obstacle. You bring it up because it follows naturally from our topic. I dunno, but maybe starting at the beginning and working toward this, perhaps the answer will occur - rather than jumping in at the apex.

it is just as likely that, from the strictly Augustinian frame of mind, the IC must perfect sense and even a necessity!

Yes again. A short relevant story: I came in through RCIA (Catholicism For Dummies) and the IC was something about which I pestered the priests who came to answer questions of our class. And yes, it is taught as a necessity, most convincingly so. Enough for my extremely questioning crusty old buzzard mind. Had I known of the Eastern view and questions, I could have pestered them a great deal more.

The reason I tell this is because in my experience, the EO know much more about the intricate details of our differences than we do theirs. I wish we were taught both, though I can see why it wasn't in RCIA. But I think it would be good, even imperative, that we learn equally about each other as a necessary step toward full reconciliation.

If we have sufficient fatih, I see no reason not to. It's not like we're gonna run off and become Protestant. ;)

[annalex]

The primary effect of grace is the ability to repent, and the Holy Spirit is the source of grace.

Whenever a sinner repented individually, prior to the Pentecost, it was an extraordinary operation of the Holy Spirit in him.

[Mad Dawg]

Since we are talking about the indwelling Holy Spirit, as opposed to His influence alone,

Oh shucks. Now I'm going to have to think about it all over again. I get the "image" of indwelling, but I'll have to think about what it means. If the spirit "moves in", presumably (whether it's by grace or not and whether it's permanent or not) would there be a kind of "welcome" or "hospitality" or somesuch. Gotta think about it. Is 'indwelling" a big, rich concept in Protestant theology?

Dang! Gotta go polish my shoes for church!

[DouglasKC]

"So I stand by my original statement. A mutation in an eye cell CANNOT be passed along to offspring. A gene in a reproductive cell determines eye color, but the original mutation did not and could not have occurred in the eye in response to any type of external or internal process."
Your question was misunderstood by others.

Apparently. Either that or some evolutionists don't really know how biology works. I made a clear statement backed with scientific documentation and I was told I was wrong. I'm hoping this was just knee-jerk reaction and doesn't demonstrate the depth of knowledge of those who support evolution.

You are correct that changes to somatic cells do not get passed on to offspring, generally.

Not generally. Never ever.

Sometimes changes in the developmental environment can affect changes to the offspring, but those are not passed on unless the germ cells are affected.

In other words, if in a heartbeat every cell in an eye can mutate and morph into an eye that is far superior to any other eye known (lets say it shoots a laser beam) and that eye can confer a huge survival advantage to its holder then it doesn't matter in the long run because it will never be passed on to it's offspring. But by freakish chance a parent might have

I don't quite understand what your last point is trying to say. Are you trying to say that evolutionary changes are claimed to be responses to external environmental changes? Could you please clarify your comments?

Evolutionary theory is based upon the fact that cell mutations in the sex cells are caused by either external (environmental) or internal factors.

[betty boop]

May I quote liberally from passages in your book

Most definitely, MHGinTN!

Thank you so much for reading it!

[Alamo-Girl]

If y'all don't mind, I'd like to add a few tidbits to this discussion of the spiritual status of newborns...

Condemned is our natural state of being – no creature has a "right" to be an eternal member of God’s family in the new heaven and earth – the Final Cause for this heaven and earth. Family membership is a gift of God.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. – John 3:18

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. - Romans 8:14-17

This heaven and earth and every thing and every one in it is destined to fire – for the non-physical spirit of a man who is not redeemed, that fire is called the second death.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. [literally muwth muwth or death death] – Genesis 2:17

Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. – Revelation 20:14

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. – Revelation 6:12-14

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

And this [word], Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God [is] a consuming fire. – Hebrews 12:25-29

Side note: a scientist who is Christian might see this as God suddenly increasing the density of the universe to be greater than the critical density, i.e. the Big Crunch.]

But when we receive Jesus Christ, He redeems us from that second death (Isaiah 53) – and we are reborn even while yet in the flesh - as members of the family to live with God forever more in the new heaven and earth.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:5-6

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death. - I John 3:14

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

Moreover, God is merciful and compassionate according to His own will. So persons – whether unborn children, the young, mentally or physically handicapped, or those who did not hear The Word of God, Jesus Christ, in this mortal life – are not without hope:

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. – Romans 9:15

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 18:10

Those who have no hope are those who heard The Word of God and rejected Him:

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. – John 12:47-48

We should also remember that we mortals are denizens of space/time. We each travel a personal worldline and we experience life like an actor in a movie, one frame at a time.

A being outside of space/time would see the entire movie of our lives – start to finish.

But more importantly, space and time are part of the Creation – not a property or limitation of the Creator. He would see “all that there is” all at once.

So, in other words, there is no injustice in His loving Jacob and hating Esau from their mother’s womb:

(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. – Romans 9:11-16

So again, concerning those who never – for whatever reason – heard the Word of God in this mortal life (e.g. the still born) - there is hope:

For there is no respect of persons with God.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. – Romans 2:11-16

Here is my favorite summation of what "all that there is" is all "about:"

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20

To God be the glory!

[hosepipe]

[.. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. – Romans 9:15 ..]

Exactly.. For all those that see themselves as more merciful than "GOD" LoL.. I say be careful.. AND to all those that "observe" the Bible and say they know God and his Plans I recommend caution..

WHAT IF HELL were to become not nearly the BAD place our imaginations imagined.. and HEAVEN NOT the good fleshly paradise some want and desire.. I propose caution.. Could be that HELL IS WHAT some thought HEAVEN was; and heaven is so much BETTER than that, there are no mere words to explain it.. No words to approach what the heavens is/are..

There could be degrees of HELL and degrees of HEAVEN.. It also be true that Heaven and Hell are biblical metaphors of something ELSE.... You know, as ALL metaphors are, words that speak of something ELSE.. What ELSE?.. Well its like a birthday present, we'll have to wait to find out..

Is GOD a good present giver, OR WHAT?.. Children of God can understand that, rational thinking adults may not..

Welcome to my sandbox..

[MHGinTN]

Selah

[betty boop]

And I am sorry to have to tell you, but accepting divine revelation as the highest form of knowledge is absolutely anti-science.

Oh, I left out DC's accusation that A-G and I also conduct seances. :^)

Lurkers, in the pic, that's A-G on the right, and me on the left. In between are our little buddies. As you can see, we are "younger than springtime," as ever.

RE the above italics: I am always so puzzled when people like you suggest that we who believe in the Logos must therefore, somehow, be "anti-science." Do you say that science is possible without reference to the laws of physics? Where do you think the laws "come from?" According to what criterion validated?

A materialist has no answer to such questions. A physicist friend has recently shared some thoughts with me on this issue:

[T]he ultimate objective of physics [is] to follow the evidence wherever it leads to comprehensively describe and explain the behavioral uniformities of physical objects.

What constrains this key objective is the now dominant method of physics, the so-called “bottom-up approach” that starts from the basic building blocks and from there tries to explain the observed behavior on the basis of physical laws. The point is: Do we really need to start from the bottom, if our aim is to understand physical behavior in the most effective way? It seems it is possible that a more effective method can be found — namely, one that starts from the observed behavior, and then tries to explain it on the basis of the laws of science. Immediately it is visible that such a method, if found, would be much more efficient.

The requirement to start from the “bottom” and proceed “upwards” arises from the claim that in reality only matter exists and matter is built up from ultimate building blocks. This view identifying the concept of “reality” with “matter” is known as materialism. Materialism is a theory of “reality.” Yet “reality” is simply not an object for science; for no finite observer has ever seen, nor can see, “reality” in its total temporal and spatial extension; that is, as a singular object to which scientific methods and tools can apply. Therefore, materialism is a metaphysical belief (Britannica Concise, 2007). We point out that the growth of science over the past century has culminated in a radically new situation, in which a problem that had seemed for a long time to be merely a metaphysical question has recently obtained scientific corroboration and solutions: That rather than matter, the fundamental entity is the field (Infeld, Einstein, 1938; Weinberg, 2001).

The fundamental working assumption of materialism seems also to be shared by many biologists; I'd bet that most people who hang out at DC are materialists -- that is to say, back-door philosophers. Indeed, it is a basic tenet of Darwin's evolution theory that the fundamental building block is matter, and that via random mutation and natural selection, biological life just naturally grows in complexity over the course of evolutionary time, in ways that look "purposeful," but really aren't at all (Darwinism utterly rejects teleological considerations).

Of course there's more than mutation and selection involved here, because this is supposedly a "lawful" process -- that is, the matter is subject to the operation of the physical laws (mechanics, chemistry in the classical or Newtonian context).

The funny thing is, you can't get a materialist to tell you were the physical laws come from. It should be obvious that they cannot arise in an evolutionary process; they are not produced by random mutation and natural selection. If they had been, we would not be able to call them "laws": Laws are universals; that is, they extend to all natural phenomena in all spaces and times throughout the entire extent of the universe.

The problem with the "bottom-up approach" of materialism is that it does not recognize the universal context of all of nature, including astrophysical nature. It has no "big picture." But science needed the astrophysical context in order to validate Newton's gravitational laws, and to measure the speed of light.

A-G and I have a universal context in which we think about science issues, and much else besides. Ultimately, our criterion is the Logos of God, "by Whom and for Whom were all things made." Logos = Truth. It is the only imaginable cause or source of universal laws.

A-G and I share a cosmology that evidently has been increasingly well-founded by modern physics: the big bang/inflationary universe model. It just so happens that this model actually accords with Genesis. There are many atheists who also credit this model. But you perceive us to be "religious," and therefore somehow our belief in the same cosmology that atheists ascribe to convicts us, but not them.

I just don't know how Darwinists "do" logic: Materialist doctrine is utterly self-contradictory and ultimately self-refuting. Plus Darwinism needs to update its physics -- we are moving beyond material particles, to fields these days (e.g., quantum theory). And to the extent that Darwin's theory pre-supposes "matter in its motions" (plus "pure chance," as Monod put it) as the sole basis of biology, it looks increasingly ridiculous, in light of the breakthroughs in modern physics.

FWIW, just my two cents....

Thanks for posting our "mug shots!"

[hosepipe]

[.. Gotta think about it. Is 'indwelling" a big, rich concept in Protestant theology? ..]

What IF humans were spirits all along in a body suit.. and what you see in a mirror was not YOU but the body suit.. And life on this planet was a matter of IDENTITY.. identifing with the flesh or identifing with "the Spirit"... AND thats(IMO) what Jesus was/IS trying to educate to a very "fleshly" people..

How else could every human that ever lived live for eternity.. unless we are merely spirits being "TESTED/GRADED".. for some future tasks.. (heaven and hell)... This flesh suit is a pretty good dequise I would say.. What a grooovey plan, if true..

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I inferred from Kosta earlier that the binding and loosening power was basically limitless, since no limits appear in those passages."

You inferred wrong. Christ promised that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Do you think that includes anything but that which is pure? (emphasis added)

Well, all I had to go on was the bolded part until your last post. So, that's what I based my inference on. :) How could I know what it includes, since I disagree with the premise in the first place?

All it means is that the priest must pray and ask the HS to forgive in earnest, knowing that he is a sinner, and not to judge others' sin as greater or lesser than his.

Why "must" it be the priest who asks for forgiveness? What would happen if the person just asked God for himself? For example:

1 John 1:9 : If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.Jer 15:19 (a) : Therefore this is what the Lord says: "If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve me; ...

I don't see any mention of priests in any of these types of verses.

[MHGinTN]

It takes a mean spirit to post such a beautiful picture of two little ladies and my bear, Jim E. Bear (on the right, BTW, known as Jimmy Bear by the hospital staff who sterilized him for my many surgeries so he could go with me to that 'ether torture'), along with a companion bear and use it to make a snide inference.

BTW, I've discussed this issue with atheists who claim the universe is going through phase shifts and the current 'laws' are but characteristices of this particular phase expression of spacetime and energy. Re: "The funny thing is, you can't get a materialist to tell you were the physical laws come from. It should be obvious that they cannot arise in an evolutionary process ..." There are science bound atheists who would answer you that what you call laws are merely the characteristics of the current phase; with the next shift these 'laws' may give way to differed 'laws' possible only because of the particular phase shift (and changes to the fields thereof).

[blue-duncan]

“If y’all don’t mind, I’d like to add a few tidbits to this discussion of the spiritual status of newborns...”

We usually think of the witness to God in terms of His “good” providence and rarely, if at all, in terms of the evidence of His continuing judgment on sin, operative on all creation, including man.

Rom 5:12-14, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law)Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”

Rom 8:19-22, “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain”

Act 14:17, “Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”

Act 17:26-27, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:”

[hosepipe]

[.. we are moving beyond material particles, to fields these days (e.g., quantum theory). ..]

Interesting meme in your post.. from particles to fields.. Sounds to me like from flesh to spirit.. For flesh is/are indeed particles and (maybe) spirit is a "field".. That interests me.. WHAT IS SPIRIT?.. What is it?.. it indeed COULD BE A FIELD..... Spirit being some kind of multi wavelengh plasma wave?.. You know, maybe.. Darn you ALWAYS do that with your posts.. I read them... and BACK over and trip over something..

[hosepipe]

[.. Lurkers, in the pic, that's A-G on the right, and me on the left. In between are our little buddies. As you can see, we are "younger than springtime," as ever. ..]

AW... bout the cutest thing I've seen lately..
If some father didn't a videotape (with sound) of that tea party.. he should be slapped on the back of his head.. A precious moment missed or recorded.. Course little girls have always manipulated me like play dough.. or finger paint.. Call it a weakness.. puppies and kittens too.. Funny thing... I'm not even embarassed by that...

Wonder if "GOD" can relate to those "feelings"?.. I'm sure he can..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What a beautiful and Scriptural understanding of God's will in His creation, A-G!

God tells us He determines the day we're born and the day we die...

"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." -- Psalm 139:16

Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass" -- Job 14:5

"...(He) hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" -- Acts 17:26

Therefore, we must conclude God gives us our children for as long as He determines we shall have them.

The glorious comfort for the believer is that our children are a part of His convenant, the seed to whom the promise was made.

"They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them." -- Isaiah 65:23

Like David, we know we will see them again...

"I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." -- 2 Samuel 12:23

The saddest, most unbearable pain in the world is losing a child. How do non-believers or those with no certain assurance cope? It must be dreadful.

What we know for certain is that God's election stands. I like what Warfied said concerning those who die in infancy...

"Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills...

And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation...

This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway."

As Warfield says, the salvation of even one infant proves the truth of God's perfect election, founded "not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Romans 9:16).

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We usually think of the witness to God in terms of His "good" providence and rarely, if at all, in terms of the evidence of His continuing judgment on sin, operative on all creation, including man.

Amen.

No infants at Sodom and Gomorrah was saved, and no children of the reprobate during the flood was ever saved. God's judgment is fearsome and perfect.

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it." -- Isaiah 13:9

[Dr. Eckleburg]

More’s the pity. 8~)

[D-fendr]

Well, as Calvin would say: Que será, será..

{^_^}

[betty boop]

BTW, I've discussed this issue with atheists who claim the universe is going through phase shifts and the current 'laws' are but characteristices of this particular phase expression of spacetime and energy.

I'm aware, MHGinTN; I'm aware. Of course you realize that there is no way such a claim can be scientifically falsified; therefore we are justified in recognizing the claim for what it is: a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.

Some people will do or say anything to justify their rejection of God. The "just-so stories" they produce are usually not only unscientific, but also irrational.

p.s.: It was a delight to have Jimmy Bear attend our magical tea party! He was, of course, just standing in for you, dear MHGinTN! We missed you!