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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blue-duncan: ...understand the time/space problem, but then why the resurrected bodies? Jesus’ could be seen, touched and fed....

hosepipe: ...Jesus body could go thru walls..flesh cannot do that..

Our concept of what is "physically" possible is limited by our vision and reasoning - namely, four geometric dimensions (three of space and one of time.)

Mathematically speaking (geometric physics) - in multi-spatial dimensions a "thing" can be both separated and non-separated from another "thing" depending on the observer. For instance, one body - a hand here, a leg there, an elbow over there.

If we can understand this through math, what wonders must await us in heaven when we'll be able to see more and more clearly!

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. - I Cor 13:12

The Final Cause of "all that there is" is the new heaven and new earth described ever-so-briefly in the last few chapters of Revelation. And we know from Scripture that the spiritual body is not the same as the physical body:

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

If we avoid applying mortal logic (Law of Identity, Law of the Excluded Middle) - we can surmise that our spiritual bodies will quite likely be capable of physical manifestation (in whatever dimensions) as well:

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. – Hebrews 13:2

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. - John 20:26-28

In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. - John 14:2

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Cor 2:9

To God be the glory!

Now if saving grace pushes all the special buttons on the individual, then what is the temporal result?

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but I will answer that it means that the elect will accept Christ at the exact time that God has already ordained.

Are the elected somehow identifiable because of their commission and omissions on earth?

Deeds are evidence of a true faith, but I cannot say with "Divine certainty" that anyone else is of the elect except for me. All Reformers believe this. (About them, not me :) But many Christians, even of different Christian faiths, have showed me "enough" for me to feel extremely comfortable in making the assumption. So, the best "identifiable" ever gets is a very solid guess. :) I tend to give the professing believer the benefit of the doubt, until I have evidence to the contrary. Of course, what I think on the matter is irrelevant.

Our concept of what is "physically" possible is limited by our vision and reasoning - namely, four geometric dimensions (three of space and one of time.) Mathematically speaking (geometric physics) - in multi-spatial dimensions a "thing" can be both separated and non-separated from another "thing" depending on the observer. For instance, one body - a hand here, a leg there, an elbow over there. ..]

Quite true.. What do "we" know of dimensions?..... "nothing".. We surmise there be a thing like dimensions, they seem to add up to human mathematics.. But human mathematics could be so flawed its like cave art to photography..

Its possible being a "the spirit" don't even NEED shape to function well.. Maybe shape itself is redundant or limiting, and linear like thinking.. Humans are so addicted to flesh mentally.. it can be an obsession.. Idolatry seems to be primitive spirituality.. needing an "object" to hold or "observe" as a teddy bear.. to a waif..

[.. Our concept of what is "physically" possible is limited by our vision and reasoning ..]

I agree... unless we expand our thoughts to things on this earth that do not need shape.. like air or water.. Air appears to be one thing when it is many things(gases) and particles floating in it.. Water can be solid, liquid or gaseous.. itself composed of two gases available in AIR..

The bible uses both to model spirit as metaphors.. Merely metaphors but not the real thing.. Air and water could be primitive examples of what spirit is, or may be like, also.. I posit the human body itself could be merely a metaphor of what the spirit might be in some aspects.. Eyes, Ears, the NOSE, Taste, the skin(feeling), shapely identity, and more could all be pointers or object lessons toward the real thing spiritually..

What IF HELL is being limited to a "human like" body for eternity?.. BUT missing the REAL THING.. Being limited to the "picture" of the real thing BUT denied the thing itself.. Whatever THAT IS... And human life is like winning or possessing a lottery ticket to untold wealth but throwing it in the trash..

What a beautiful essay-post, dear brother in Christ!

So very true!

Indeed. I suspect there are some who find it easier to believe in someone who believes in God - than to believe in God, directly.

A very engaging speculation, dear hosepipe.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:7-8

Praise God!!!

I’d say that you’re ducking the question!!!

OH, BAAAAH!!! :) How so?

A robot slave doesn’t realize that he is a robot slave simply because he’s programmed not to.

Not true in Christianity. While the lost do not understand their plight, the saved are told plainly in scripture that we were bought at a price and are now slaves to righteousness. To the extent humans can comprehend, I think I have a fairly solid understanding of where I stand with God in the grand order of things. I am His slave and very grateful for it. :)

I still don’t get what God gets out of it either - if his goal is to create us the greatest of His creations and to have us willingly worship Him, then this predestination control would seem to preclude any willing worship.

Well, I would put this in the same category as wondering why God bothers to get out of bed in the morning because He already knows every detail of every occurrence for that day. The answer is that we just can't understand it. What could be interesting about the existence of an omniscient being? I don't know! :) He tells us that He wants us to worship Him, even though He knows already how much He'll ever get. Nevertheless, regardless of the cause, I am motivated to worship Him and believe He approves when I do. It's real for me. What else can I do? The only difference I can see is who gets the glory for my worship: God, or my free will.

I know that this is a scab that I really shouldn’t pick. ...... Please fill me in on this. How is the Heavenly reward less?

No problem. While I do have "some" scabs, as probably do we all, this isn't one for me. :)

The answer is that I have no idea EXACTLY what form Heavenly rewards will take, separate from salvation of course, but scripture gives us some clues that there will be differences:

Matt 5:11-12 : 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. ...... ["in Heaven" can be taken either way, but it seems to me to match much better with when we are told that martyrs have a special place (reward) in Heaven. (Revelation 6:9-11)]

Matt 10:42 : And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." ...... [Either I'm right or Catholicism collapses! :)]

Matt 16:27 : For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. ...... [Same thing, if "reward" means salvation, then you must believe in a completely works-based salvation model.]

Again, I have no idea how this will actually work, especially since I can't imagine wanting for anything in Heaven. Perhaps there will be different responsibilities there, or different opportunities, I don't know. However, there is enough weight in scripture to say that deeds count for "something". I just don't think they count for salvation.

“Its possible being a “the spirit” don’t even NEED shape to function well.. Maybe shape itself is redundant or limiting, and linear like thinking.. Humans are so addicted to flesh mentally.. it can be an obsession.. Idolatry seems to be primitive spirituality.. needing an “object” to hold or “observe” as a teddy bear.. to a waif..”

The scriptures seem to say there is shape and substance to things above and immortal body must have shape and substance to be recognized and “clothed” not only with righteousness, but with garments.

Exodus 25: 8-19, “And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.”

Heb. 8:1-5, “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”

Heb. 9:11, “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;”

Indeed. But here’s the tricky part. What we consider to be substance, i.e. matter, is not yet “proven” in our four dimensional reality much less when considering extra dimensions, whether temporal or spatial.

The critical density of the known universe consists of 5% ordinary matter, 20% dark matter and a whopping 75% dark energy.

Dark matter is high positive gravity areas such as the center of galaxies around which all the solar systems rotate. Positive gravity can be seen as indentations in the space/time continuum.

Dark energy is like negative gravity and occurs in the areas between galaxies. It has the characteristics of a space/time “outdent” accelerating the expansion of the universe.

Ordinary matter – which the Standard Model says should be the Higgs field/boson – has not been made or observed in laboratory conditions at Fermilab or CERN - despite several attempts. CERN is getting better equipment, though, and will try again.

But even if they detect the Higgs, the mysteries would not be solved. Whereas it would mean the Standard Model is consistent, it would also mean the Higgs mass is very large – but the indirect evidence suggests that it is not large. Moreover the Standard Model addresses only ordinary matter, which leaves dark matter and dark energy “out there” to be explained.

The answer may lie in the supersymmetry theory of which the Standard Model would be a part. In this model, each particle has a corresponding superparticle with greater mass – the superparticles remaining after the big bang - forming the remaining critical density.

Then again, the answer might lie in expanded dimensions, particularly time-like dimensions. PS Wesson proposes that all of the matter in this universe could be multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth, time-like, dimension.

Others propose that the particles we detect are actually massless, their apparent masses corresponding to extra-dimensional momentum components we can’t yet detect.

The point of all of this is simply that we do not know what substance “is” relative to our perceptible four dimensions (three of space, one of time) – so when we project our (possibly false) perception of substance onto the new heaven and new earth, we are piling unknown upon unknown.

As for me, I receive that a thing is true because God says it. He said "let there be light" and it was. He says we will be clothed, we will be. He says the temple will look thus and so, it will. And so on.

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

Praise God!!!

Kosta: My point was that until His sacrifice on the cross, no one was saved. But He made it possible for the whole world to be saved, past, present and future

FK: Your first sentence is within time, but your second is not. If, to borrow a phrase :), "all time for God is NOW", which I have never disputed, then Jesus on the cross "happened" across all time

FK, God's salvation comes under the Divine Economy, which is in real time and real space. You are mixing up theology and divine economy, or maybe the Protestant world knows nothing about the latter. To them it may all as well be magic.

Christ was not a holographic projection, an illusion of man, and His death was not a magic trick. Until His death, in real time and in real place, on the Cross, no one could be free from death, neither those who died prior to this moment, nor those who were going to die.

Kosta: My only problem is with the appearance of Moses at Mt. Tabor

FK: There it is. You raise an excellent point. If the sacrifice applied to Moses when he lived, then he would have been eligible to make that appearance

But the Church teaches that after His death on the Cross Christ descended into Hell and freed the OT righteous. The Apostolic Creed, as well as the 3rd century Syrian Creed, says that "He descended into hell." (or to the dead).

There are many biblical references to this indirectly. The best known ones are 1 Pet 4:6 "the gospel was preached also to those who are dead," 1 Pet 3:19 "he went and preached to the spirits in prison," Eph 4:8-10 ""When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men."(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)"

None of this explains how could Moses appear on Mount Tabor, unless he was not among those captives. His appearance contradicts the notion that none was free from the chains of death brought on to mankind through Adam's sin until Christ offered His body as ransom for our freedom.

Isn’t the only self identified slave St. Paul? I think that he was only trying to make a point that he put himself on the level of the slave; he humbled himself in his own imitation of Christ.

A slave does not have free will; only a servant does. Do the rest of the Apostles identify themselves as slaves? No; as servants - servants with a free will who can leave the employ of their Master at will.

The only difference is that with our Master, we can not only reject Him, He is waiting there with his saving graces extended. The example of the prodigal son has no meaning under Reformed theology except as a mechanical exercise - rather like praying, either for the son who wandered or for the joy that the father felt upon his return. Life and death and eternal destinations are merely static, preordained, and inevitable.

If man is made in God’s image, then why would he throw the bulk of humanity away? I understand about the clay, but men are not pots, they are the pinnacle of His creation.

Well, here’s Origen’s comment, from Book XII, Chapter 37 on The Gospel of Matthew:

“But when the Son of God in His transfiguration is so understood and beheld, that His face is a sun, and His garments white as the light, straightway there will appear to him who beholds Jesus in such form Moses,—the law—and Elijah,—in the way of synecdoche, not one prophet only, but all the prophets—holding converse with Jesus; for such is the force of the words “talking with Him; ” but, according to Luke, “Moses and Elijah appeared in glory,” down to the words, “in Jerusalem.” But if any one sees the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as a discourse in harmony with Jesus, and the wisdom in the prophets which is hidden in a mystery, he sees Moses and Elijah in glory when he sees them with Jesus.”

And later on:

“But since we have not yet spent our energy in interpreting the things in the place figuratively, but have said these things by way of searching into the mere letter, let us in conformity with these things, consider whether the aforesaid Peter and the sons of thunder who were taken up into the mountain of the dogmas of the truth, and who saw the transfiguration of Jesus and of Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory with Him. might wish to make tabernacles in themselves for the Word of God who was going to dwell in them, and for His law which had been beholden in glory, and for the prophecy which spake of the decease of Jesus, which He was about to accomplish; and Peter, as one loving the contemplative life, and having preferred that which was delightsome in it to the life among the crowd with its turmoil, said, with the design of benefiting those who desired it, “It is good for us to be here.””

Or, from +Leo the Great, this from Sermon LI. A Homily Delivered on the Saturday Before the Second Sunday in Lent—On the Transfiguration, S. Matt. XVII. 1–13:

“
The Significance of the Appearance of Moses and Elias.

For Moses and Elias, that is the Law and the Prophets, appeared talking with the Lord; that in the presence of those five men might most truly be fulfilled what was said: “In two or three witnesses stands every word .” What more stable, what more steadfast than this word, in the proclamation of which the trumpet of the Old and of the New Testament joins, and the documentary evidence of the ancient witnesses combine with the teaching of the Gospel?For the pages of both covenants corroborate each other, and He Whom under the veil of mysteries the types that went before had promised, is displayed clearly and conspicously by the splendour of the present glory. Because, as says the blessed John, “the law was given through Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ ,” in Whom is fulfilled both the promise of prophetic figures and the purpose of the legal ordinances: for He both teaches the truth of prophecy by His presence, and renders the commands possible through grace.”

It would seem that their appearance was seen as allegorical by at least those fathers who sought to delve into the question. By the way, the others really didn’t that I can see, except perhaps for Tertullian and he seems to be leaning towards a allegorical presence.

God bless you sir.

You have said that your thoughts of varying amounts of salvation are your opinion. I will double the amounts of Guinness offered.

Great is your reward in Heaven? So is everyone else’s. Heaven itself is greater than anything that we can possibly imagine.

Jesus was concerned about the little children. We’d like as many of them as possible to go to Heaven, as well as the greatest of the justified elect.

We don’t believe in a completely works based salvation - never said it, never claimed it, never will. But we believe that there are a number of conditions to be met, not just heartburn. :)

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.