Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
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.
Good point. I never thought of that.
In fact, I don't recall any angel ever asking permission. They simply stated what was going to happen. The angel to Mary never said, "Is this alright with you?" He merely stated what was going to happen to her. She didn't give any permission but simply acknowledge what the angel said.
It's born in sin, remains sin, and it will never be just.
The western notion of a "just war" is in complete contradistinction from the early Church teaching.
“Nothing just in war” did not answer the question about Winston Churchill. That required a yes or no response
Of course it did. If war is not just (in God's eyes), then any part of the war is also unjust, including Churchill's decision. Do you think that notifying the cities as intended targets would have been "unjust?"
Vengeance is not ours. Returning evil with evil is evil.
There can be truth in any story, factual or symbolic. The moral of the story does not have be a "documentary." It can be fiction that applies to real life. Besides, I never said the Bible is all mythology.
Plant food is reasonable and possible. There is no reason to suspect it would be mythology. A man living for 3 days in a belly of a fish, exposed to crushing motions of smooth stomach muscles, powerful stomach acid, and totally deprived of oxygen (fish don't swallow air as we do) is a fairy tale. The story of Jonah carries a message, however, and that message is not unreal or impossible.
The only thing that is fixed (ordianed) is that all men shall die once (cf. Heb 9:27), whether righteous or not.
The moment of our death is not necessarily fixed: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life." (Isa 8:5):
Just as St. John of Damascus says: not everything God (fore)knows has been (pre)determined by God.
That makes God loving and hating at the same time. This is incompatible with the Christian God, who reveals that He is Love (not hate). This unchanging loving God of the Gospels is incompatible with the Hebrew OT God embraced by the Protestant communities.
Those who are outside of Christ are in apostasy
Thank you, HD, you have finally stated something we all agree on. That's what this thread is all about. Those who think they are in the "Church" are no churches at all.
Scripturally, it is the will of God to have free worship from all humans. That is what He created the universe for. Forced worship or preprogrammed worship is really sad idea. God doesn’t frogmarch people anywhere. He didn’t frogmarch Mary and He doesn’t frogmarch any of the elect either.
My reading of the story is that God accomodated Moses’ emotional outburst and simply provided another copy. God didn’t predestine Moses to break the tablets and so had another set in the cupboard ready to be handed out.
It is my understanding that the four faced angels are the cherubim that stay in the presence of God. And in Daniel, the appearance of the angel is as a man clothed in linen, although the face like lightning, eyes like fire and so on, kinda dramatizes his appearance; but this kinda wanders from the topic.
Angels who deal with men as messengers from God are, well, bearing messages from God. But to say that all of them were terrifying?
Like 1:
26
10 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
27
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
29
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
32
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
33
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34
But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”
35
And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
36
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived 13 a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
37
for nothing will be impossible for God.”
38
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
Mary doesn’t sound scared or terrified. As a matter of fact, verse 29-30: ...and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
... and verse 38: Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.
Mary is described here as pondering the events and then being persuaded to accept her role.
Free will. Free to choose. Free to decline. Obviously she had not had the pleasure of acquaintence with John Calvin, and so therefore she made up her own mind.
The fact of an event must be established before one can draw derivative facts that appeal to the core of it.
If Adam & Eve were not in Eden, if they are fictional representatives of some hominid forebear, then one cannot say that they ate only veggies, and that veggies are, therefore, the original food. Now, I don’t really care if you admit that, because its validity doesn’t rest on any person’s approval.
So far as war is concerned, the bible is chock full of war and of God sending men to war. It is full of slaying, chariots, giants, swords, spears, arrows, vengeance, ripped wombs, and directions to completely destroy.
I also know that the New Testament is full of soldiers, centurions, swords, spears, arrows, wars, and (even) rumors of wars. In ZERO instances did Jesus, John, or any Apostle tell soldiers that they must quit their profession.
If one cannot read the difference between civil and religious in the instructions of the NT, then that, also, is not relevant to me. It remains a biblical fact.
So, the just war concept is alive and well whether attested to by easterners or not.
And here is the better orthodox view which was sadly curtailed by the murder of its author...
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation. Chapter 1 We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature. Chapter 2 We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority. Chapter 3 We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God's providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just. Chapter 4 We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him. Chapter 5 We believe that all things are governed by God's providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify. Chapter 6 We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life. Chapter 7 We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man's nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead. Chapter 8 We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings. Chapter 9 We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God. Chapter 10 We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it. Chapter 11 We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat. Chapter 12 We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done. Chapter 13 We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful. Chapter 14 We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything. Chapter 15 We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament. Chapter 16 We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing. Chapter 17 We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man's arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come. Chapter 18 We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end. This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous. (Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629. Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople)
by Cyril Lucaris
Patriarch of Constantinople
Don’t be silly, sir.
We all receive different gifts in different amounts at different times in our lives. Everyone is different. To say that because I have received less capability for, say, patiences than you does not mean that I am a child of the devil. Are you saying that because, e.g. Tiger Woods received a much greater gift for playing golf than I, he’ll got to Heaven and I to hell?
Remember the parable of the talents. The servant who got 10 versus the servant who got one. The latter one was chastized not because he didn’t get as much as the first, but because he didn’t do anything with what he had.
Hmm. Hating sin. What form should the hating of sin take?
But if the Jews in Hebrews decide not to repent, it is predestined, is it not? Why would a letter to them make any difference?
Ping to 6,550 for the truth that was extinguished in the EO.
Thanx so much for the ping ...
People who think they are doing such wonderful things for the Lord need to get a new perspective. I wouldn't make any claims that I have done anything for the Lord. I only realize how far short I fall. But I can rest assured that He is leading me in the path that He would like me to go. While this has puzzled me, it is reassuring.
I will add that Lot never showed the level of hatred of sin that he should have. The scriptures says that he "vexed" his soul. He didn't even want to leave when told the place would be destroyed. He still was saved but everything he owned was lost.
But no one comes to God, not one. If it were not for God pro-actively using the inward calling through the Holy Spirit on our particular hearts, no one would be saved. These are the examples throughout scripture; Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Samson, Samuel, Rehab, Ruth, Mary, Paul. God saves each Christian through the inward calling. Yet He uses the outward message of the gospel.
Hebrews is both the outward and inward calling of God. Not everyone who reads Hebrews becomes a Christian. But undoubtedly there have been people who have read the book of Hebrews, repented and have come to know Christ through it. That is the power of God working through His writings.
Wow, this is pretty neat; a Calvinist Orthodox.
So who or what does God hate? And in what manner does He hate?
I went awalking through the Christian fields and lo, I was predestined :) to find this little essay:
The Christian should have very little trouble recognizing that he lives in a world opposed to God. Though it may not be continually apparent, the intensity of the opposition is severe. Paul, in Romans 1:30, describes the ungodly as “haters of God.” While man’s hatred towards God may be easy to identify and describe, the attitude of God toward such people may not be as easy to encapsulate.
Two questions will be posed to begin discussion. Does God love everyone? And if so, how has He loved them? While the first question may be answered affirmatively by even the most unthoughtful inquirer, attempting to answer the second question would challenge many in their specific understanding of the first.
Before addressing the first set of questions, it will be helpful to provide a brief roadmap for this paper. Initially, we will determine if and presumably how God loves everyone. This will lead to a discussion of the gospel message and the accompanying idea of election. The relationship between God’s love and the gospel will be a central theme.
Does God love everyone?
If you were to ask a wide variety of believers if God loves everyone, you might be surprised that some say He does not love everyone. Some, especially those who hold to the Calvinistic understanding of predestination, may try to convince you that God does not love everyone. As shocking as such a statement might be, they could easily answer with any number of syllogisms. They might argue that because God saves those whom He loves and not everyone is saved, then God must not love everyone. They would also have to say that the concept of God loving everyone is not found in Scripture. However, such a statement opposes the clear teaching of Scripture.
A good starting point is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (NKJV) This well-known verse is found in the context of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, the stealthy but sincere inquirer. Nicodemus asks about the mysterious process of rebirth, and Jesus readily explains. When Nicodemus is confused, Jesus acknowledges his confusion and identifies Himself as one with a heavenly message. Christ goes on to explain that his mission in coming to earth was one for salvation rather than condemnation. Surely no incarnation was necessary if condemnation were the goal. As clearly seen in verses 15 and 16 of the chapter, the reason He was lifted up, the reason He was sent by God was so “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (NKJV)
Unfortunately, some have tried to reinterpret this verse to fit their understanding of God. Arthur Pink concluded that “world” in this case “refers to the world of believers” rather than the world in general that would necessarily include the ungodly.1 However, this is clearly a poor explanation of this verse; as R. L. Dabney puts it, “A fair logical connection between verse 17 and verse 18 shows that ‘the world’ of verse 17 is inclusive of ‘him that believeth’ and ‘him that believeth not’ of verse 18.”2 The differentiation is made not in terms of whether or not Jesus came with the purpose of saving the world, but rather in terms of whether or not those in the world believe. Those who will believe will not be condemned. while those who do not believe will surely be condemned.
The best understanding of John 3:16 must be that the world refers to the entire world. John MacArthur, Jr. says of the verse:
No delimiting language is anywhere in the context. Nothing relates to how God’s love is distributed between the elect and the rest of the world. It is a statement about God’s demeanor toward mankind in general… To convert it into an expression of divine hatred against those whom God does not save is to turn the passage on its head.3
This understanding fits well with God’s basic nature. John states that the believer is someone who loves. Failure to love is to oppose God’s very nature. I John 4:8 says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (NKJV) This previous verse identifies God Himself as the source of the believer’s love.
For further support of the truth that God loves everyone, we can consider His Law. Notice the reason Christ gives in Matthew 5:45 when commanding Christians to love even enemies: “…in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (NKJV) This implies that our love for enemies is following the example of the Father. So God’s love for those who defy Him is perhaps the best motivation for us to love them. As Erroll Hulse puts it, “If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them.”4 The second greatest commandment, “’You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:21, NKJV) expresses this same idea. The commandment is not to love only believers. The love called for here makes no discrimination.
Calvin makes two helpful observations about John 3:16: “Namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.”5 The just and holy God loves this sinful world. He loves it to the extent that He sent His Son so that men might believe and be saved. All who recognize their sinfulness will find this to be good news. Certainly it is, for it is the gospel. However, such statements, though they be wholly true, are not the whole of the gospel. This brings us to the second point of consideration.
Does God hate anyone?
The preceding discussion might have one conclude that God does not hate anyone. However, to do so is to ignore some very plain statements of Scripture. As shocking as it may sound to some, God does hate some. This is something that was not openly shared in most of our children’s Sunday school classes.
God hates wickedness. This is part of the holy nature of God. Not only does He hate wickedness, but He also hates the wicked. David declares in Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand in your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” (NKJV) The next verse declares that the Lord “abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.” (NKJV) God’s soul hates the wicked and those who love violence (Psalm 11:5). In commanding His people to obey Him, God declares his utter hatred for those whom were driven out of Canaan; He “abhorred them.” (Leviticus 20:23, NKJV) Later in the same book we find how God will respond if His people disobey Him:
“And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you.” (Leviticus 26:27-30, NKJV)
To say that God has hate for no man is clearly untrue. However, it must be noted that this hatred is conditional. Nowhere does God express a hatred for mankind in general without cause. Even in Genesis 6, the grief God feels is on account of the wickedness of the people. God’s hatred for people is conditional. God’s hatred is incited upon certain conditions of disobedience being true of a person. This seems to be a reliable statement, for God’s declarations of hatred for any group or individual are accompanied by the necessary condition of wickedness.
One might then rightly ask why all men are not subject to the hatred of God if all men are sinful. First, one must be reminded that God’s general disposition toward man is not one of hatred. This was the conclusion reached in the first section. Nevertheless, this is not to say that all are not deserving of God’s hate; for all have been haters of God; all violate His holy Law. So then God’s love for the world can be explained by nothing other than God’s grace. His love for us is undeserved.
We must then carefully consider the nature of God’s grace. Many would say that God’s grace is unconditional. However, is not entirely true. Now before you burn me at the stake as a heretic, give me a chance to explain what I mean. Those who would oppose my assertion might quickly take me to the second chapter of Ephesians. Very well. Verses 8 and 9 clearly make the point that salvation is not accomplished through works. Believers are the result of the work of God. Really, the point seems to be that salvation is neither deserved nor earned. However, it would be a mistake to separate salvation from certain necessary conditions. Just because certain conditions are necessary for salvation by no means implies that salvation is deserved.
A simple example from my recent experience may help explain the difference. Several weeks ago in history class, a classmate forgot to bring her homework to class. Although she had completed the work, she did not have it at the beginning of class. The rules for turning in homework were certainly clear: no late homework would be given credit. To give the girl any credit for the assignment would be grace, for she would receive other than what she deserved. However, I saw that there were conditions involved in experiencing this grace. She had to ask for it. Those who sought no grace received no grace. Asking did nothing make her deserving of grace in any way. The point is that there can be conditions for grace.
Consider the requirements of salvation. Scripture knows nothing of salvation apart from belief and faith in Christ. It knows nothing of salvation apart from repentance. It would not be wrong to call these conditions of salvation. In the same way it would not be incorrect to say certain conditions are conditions of damnation. Unbelief and defiance are characteristic of those who in the end will be damned just as belief and obedience are characteristic of those whom God saves.
This brings us to the third question.
How does God express love toward those He hates?
Does this sound like a strange question? It should. The whole question seems at first impossible to answer, because at first look the question seems to contain an impossibility. Could it be that there are those whom God both loves and hates? If we are to answer the first two questions affirmatively, then it must be so. Admittedly, this is difficult to understand; however, we should not be surprised when we have trouble understanding God, for He is wholly beyond and apart from His creation. There is no one like Him (Exodus 15:11).
Before answering how God expresses love toward those He hates, it will help to answer an easier question but related question: How does God express love toward those whom He loves? Obviously, there is a distinction being made here between those God loves and those He hates, so this question is not directed at mankind in general. The question asks how God expresses His love toward those who repent and believe. This also means that when we talk about those whom God hates, we are talking about those who practice wickedness and defy Him.
So again, how does God express love toward those whom He loves? The majority of verses identifying God’s expression of love refer to the sacrifice of Christ. Romans 5:8 may provide the clearest statement of this: “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.” (NKJV) Even John 3:15,16 seems to be expressing this idea, for it was God’s love that caused Him to offer His Son. Titus 3:4-6 declares the appearing of God’s love to be when He saved men through Christ. He loved us by giving Himself for men (Ephesians 5:2).
While other graces could be justly said to be expressions of God’s love, these must be kept secondary to the great expression of love in sending the Son of God to save sinners. This is where the third question finds resolution. There is a sense in which some experience both the love and hate of God.
Love is experienced in God’s general goodness. Theologians use the term common grace to describe such a goodness. God’s provision of sustenance and shelter are certainly expressions of God’s love, for we have no right to demand such things of our Creator. Surely as the Psalmist David declares it, “The Lord is good to all.” (Psalm 145:9)
This disposition of kindness is seen in God’s desire for the wicked to repent. To a nation that would recognize the condemnation brought by sin, God said “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (Ezekiel 33:11)
Even to the non-repentant, non-submissive rich young ruler of Mark twelve was loved by Christ. One who would reject Christ was no exception to God’s love, for the passage ends with: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” (Mark 10:21) This gives insight into another aspect of God’s love for those who reject Him. God expresses His love for them by warning them and commanding to repent. John MacArthur emphatically states, “Nothing demonstrates God’s love more than the various warnings throughout the pages of Scripture, urging sinners to flee from the wrath to come.”6 God is clear in Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. (NKJV)
There is no way that you can say God’s offer of mercy is insincere. God’s pleadings with sinners to repent are not insincere. However, John MacArthur has asks a legitimate question: “How can unfilled desire be compatible with a wholly sovereign God?” Afterall, “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). Does this mean that the Lord is pleased in destroying the wicked. Before answering this question, you might consider Ezekiel 18:32, which says, “’I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,’ declares the Lord God. ‘Therefore, repent and live.’” There is a sense in which God desires men to be saved, and there is also a sense in which God desires that the ungodly be punished.
Here, MacArthur makes an obvious, but important point: “God is not at the mercy of contingencies. He is not subject to His creatures’ choices.”7 No one can reverse the work of Almighty God (Isaiah 43:13). This is certain. However, MacArthur leaves one point untouched in his statement. While God is not subject to His creatures’ choices, they are most certainly subject to their own choices. Was not even Adam personally acquainted with sin by his own choosing? But how do men make choices? Does God cause people to make certain decisions? The whole issue of how God directs men and influences their choices is beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, this discussion will be brought to a close with a brief bit of application.
How can men experience God’s special love?
The question itself makes a necessary distinction. Certainly all are subject to God’s general love expressed in common grace, clear calls to repentance and a sincere offer of mercy through Christ. But how can one experience that love that caused God to provide the sacrifice of His Son? The gospel message is clear: repent and believe in Christ. He is the only way (John 14:6, NKJV).
Certainly the certainty of God’s hatred for the wicked should not extinguish hope. While it is clear that no one who remains defiant will be saved, there is a real offer of salvation to those who repent. It is not as though God left the wicked without means of mercy. This is really the point of John 3:16. Christ’s incarnation was no vengeful appearance. His coming was the great expression of God’s love for all mankind.
Before closing, it is worthwhile to put down a common misapplication of the truth that God loves us. Many, in presenting God’s plan for salvation, have said something along the lines of “God loves you because you are special.” Really? Is that why God loves people? God gives no reason for His love for us, for there is none. It is wholly undeserved. God’s love for people is not a love of value. As MacArthur puts it, “God loves because He is love; love is essential to who He is.”8
Conclusion
Does God love everyone? Yes. Does God hate those who defy Him? Yes. There is undeniable tension in this, especially considering the full power of God to do as He pleases. God has a general, unconditional love for mankind; however, hate will be expressed toward those in a condition of opposition to God.
Sources
1) Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930) 314.
2) R. L. Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982 reprint) 1:312
3) John MacArthur, Jr., “The Love of God for Humanity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 11.
4) Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today (Nov-Dec 1983) 18-19.
5) John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 reprint), 123.
6) John MacArthur, Jr., “The Love of God for Humanity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 27.
7) Ibid., 16.
8) Ibid., 25.
http://www.dlarsen.com/documents/who_does_god_hate.aspx
Ah, then we are in agreement. God does give different gifts to different people at different times in order to nudge them along the path that they really ought to follow. All men get His gifts.
Whoaaaaaaa up. I thought that I was instructed that the non-elect do NOT do God’s will. Now you tell me that even the non believers do God’s will. I am confused and confounded. Which one is it?
How can we do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God if nothing we do matters? And why should anything that stops us from doing one of the three be resisted? What are the consequences?
How would you characterize the differences between the outgoing and inward callings?
Wow. I recognize so much in that post. I think we probably all do. And I do think there's an answer.
Re: smoking and other bad habits. Which of us doesn't have bad habits we struggle to break? It's the human condition to live in the moment and to do things momentarily-pleasing that we know are not good for us in the long run.
It helps if we keep in mind all negative urges are the whispering of Satan in our ear as he seeks to claim what is not his. And Scripture tells us while God knows our susceptibility and our weakness and our unhealthy desires, He will always provide a defense against them...
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." -- 1 Corinthians 10:13
And so we are told to rely on Him for the way out (which could well be, as you say, one of the reasons for them in the first place.) For the past few years I've found I am simply not successful at any undertaking unless and until I acknowledge His hand in my thinking and doing. When I push myself (and that's what it takes most of the time) to rely on Him alone, things change for the better.
Re: writing. Sports writer Red Smith said "writing is easy; you just sit down in front of the typewriter and open a vein." LOL.
But if writing is something you love and feel compelled to do and something that ultimately will glorify God by the words you choose to put down on paper, then pursue it. And be confident that He who began a good work in you will see it to conclusion.
Regarding procrastination, writers have that habit down to a fine art. No one can procrastinate like a writer. Norman Mailer said he procrastinated because only when he neared his deadline could he feel that surge of adrenaline that comes with being under the gun, and thus those negative voices in his (and every writer's) head were stilled by the need to write quickly.
It's a lot better, though, to benefit by Mailer's understanding and silence those negative voices before they begin without resorting to procrastination. How do we do that? By concentrating on the positive. We just go forth. Just do it.
Writing is like dieting. We say we need to be motivated before we can write. But that's backwards. If we write first without waiting for the motivation, that act itself becomes a motivating force and carries us to write more. Writers write, so just do it. Like most everything else, writing is a rhythm you have to get into. Once there, the rhythm itself carries you along. And that rhythm is God's hand supporting you and telling you He wants you happy and healthy as a true reflection of His glory on earth. That's God's will.
It seems perfectly rational and ordinarily normal to me that only in hindsight, a thing having been accomplished or not, can we say with any certainty, "This was indeed the Will of God."
Yes, that's 100% true. And it takes some effort to realize that what is true in hindsight has always been true, even from the foundation of the world.
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.