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.
Yep. And who "worketh good?" Those Jews and Gentiles who have been reborn by the Holy Spirit.
"Saved by grace through faith." That's what the text says.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
Scripture interprets Scripture. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" is a clear statement of fact with plenty to teach us. As blue-duncan wrote so clearly yesterday...
...The conscience, like nature and the law are just witnesses given by God's providence to turn mankind to Himself. There is no salvific grace in any of them except to point one to God, who alone can rid one of the guilt of sin. Anyone can do good deeds but no good deeds can restore fellowship with God; all that they do for the unbeliever is ameliorate to some worthless degree the eternal suffering in hell. All that the conscience can do in the unbeliever is bring the terrible weight of guilt without any source of relief except through chemistry or mysticism.""Jesus says unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees we cannot enter the kingdom of God. Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:3, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." That is not a treacly sentimental affection but a lovining response to God who loved us first. So how can an unbeliever love like that when he has not experienced the love of God? He can do good but always for the wrong motives because he has no relationship with the One who is good...
AMEN!
As the-Doc used to say on the forum several years ago, the Fall was much worse than people imagine.
And the greater the fall, the greater the gift of rehabilitation. We've all fallen and we can't get up unless and until God regenerates our hearts to believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." -- Romans 5:9-11"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Paul could not be clearer. "Reconciled" not after we've done good works, but "reconciled while we were still enemies." Through unmerited grace alone we have been saved from the wrath of God who despises sin, saved by grace through faith in the blood of Christ whose atoning work on the cross "we have now received" as a "gift" and not as payment for services rendered.
I don't think he is unredeemable at all. I don' t know anyone I would say that about. I don't think we can say that about anyone. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
I think Dahmer had a conscience (was not a sociopath in context of the discussion.) I base this on reading some things he wrote. I read them some time ago.
He said basically that he hated himself, thought he was not normal or something from an early age, when his abberant behaviour began. You may remember he said he kept his victims, basically, out of loneliness, to have someone near. He felt he couldn't be with normal people.
Something like that. Anyway, I believed what he wrote and believe that it showed he had a conscience.
thanks for your reply.
So it's "Catholic-bashing" to refer to a priest as "another Christ" when they call themselves by that name?
Christ tells us to remember Him when we drink the wine and eat the bread of the Lord's Supper. No alchemy involved. It is spiritual, not physical. We are reborn by the Spirit, not by materialistic odds and ends of this world.
That's pagan worship of the creation, and not true worship of the Creator.
"Shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?" (Isaiah 44:19).
God forbid.
***Where in the Bible does it say that man has any free will at all, much less some kind of inviolate Free Will that God refuses to interfere with?***
Hey, you had better beat the crap out of that Calvinist trying to get out from inside you before he completely infects your mind.
Please do not use potty language or references to potty language on the Religion Forum.
Truly, if even one person had ever been "good enough" to earn his place in heaven then Christ died for nothing (emphasis mine:)
Amen. Thanks for that excellent explanation.
It's like Lazarus. He was dead, not just asleep. But he was still a human being, yet 100% incapable of breathing without God bringing him to life again.
What I love about that parable is when Jesus is urged to hurry up and get to Lazarus before he dies. And Jesus purposely makes them wait until poor Lazarus is dead and molding -- to teach us a very important lesson...
"Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:14-15
Jesus was "glad for their sakes" that He had waited until Lazarus was dead so that they would be able to more fully understand what He does for His flock -- He permits their death in order for them to live again through Him, according to the will of God.
If the RCC/EO are separated because of political, not theological differences, why not use the same catechism?
While, I think most or many would agree, our bishops fell out over time primarily due to problems of distance and language, there are theological differences. Also our bishops are not in communion and therefore do not work together on such things as catechisms.
why would an RCC remain an RCC but study with admiration the doctrines of the EO (and vise versa?)?
All of the core doctrines are not only similar, they are identical, the same councils, the same writings of the Church Fathers, the same scriptures.
Also, some of the study I mentioned I wouldn't categorize as doctrine but as spiritual practice including contemplative prayer. As Kosta put it: "The backbone of our common orthodox and catholic faith is in apophatic knowledge of God, through prayer, Eucharist, liturgy, fasting, etc., and not through scholastics."
So, here again, it's the same, through, in some cases, different eyes. The Orthodox have maintained their spiritual laboratories, monastics and monasteries, better than the West. I'm of a contemplative personality, so avail myself of their incredible contributions. The many great works on prayer without ceasing are an example. There are several good schools of spiritual practice developed in the West; however, the practice of the Jesus Prayer has drawn me continually.
I should add that this direction does not apply to a great many Catholics although in my experience it is increasing.
why not just attend an EO church if you think that they have superior understanding?
By now you should see that doesn't come up for me. The superior understanding I'm seeking doesn't involve doctrine but prayer. My prayer practice doesn't know doctrine, or certainly no doctrinal differences.
It is not as though there is a geographic (East/West) impossibility.
For me it is somewhat. There's very little Orthodox presence nearby, although that is changing.
Something I think Protestants don't appreciate or understand fully is that our spiritual development, knowledge, understanding, etc., cannot be separated from our sacramental life, from life in the Church. There are many many things I cannot give you, just tell you about our Faith. This may even include, I think, the major knowledge of our Faith. I can't just tell you: "It's this." I can only point you to the mass, the liturgy, the sacraments. The deeper knowing comes in this way as it has through the centuries.
So it's essential that I participate, that I am there. And for me, there means my local bishop, my local cathedral, my local diocese and parish.
This is my views on the questions you asked me; others may differ. Apologies for the length and thanks for your post.
Heaveans NO! Of course the bread and wine are changed at every Mass
From Saint Thomas Aquinas
"Material food first changes into the one who eats it, and then, as a consequence, restores to him lost strength and increases his vitality. Spiritual food, on the other hand, changes the person who eats it into itself. Thus the effect proper to this Sacrament is the conversion of a man into Christ, so that he may no longer live, but Christ lives in him; consequently, it has the double effect of restoring the spiritual strength he had lost by his sins and defects, and of increasing the strength of his virtues." St. Thomas, Commentary on Book IV of the Sentences, d.12, q.2, a.11
ALL points on an infinite line are without distinction. None are "closer" to any other point on this "line". Also, the definition of a parallel line in the "wikipedia" is stretched, because parallel lines do not intersect. If they did, they would not be parallel lines, just as a four sided object ceases to be a triangle.
eternity is time without end.
I disagree. Eternity is timeless. You are forgetting something called infinite regression. If there was an infinite time in the past, we would never arrive at today. God exists in eternity. Time is a unit of change, and God is changeless, thus, God does not exist WITHIN time, even "without end".
The Catholic Church long abandoned its insistence on a geocentric universe – it needs to embrace geometric physics as well if it wishes to speak in terms of space and time
That is irrelevant to our discussion. The earth being at the center of the universe says nothing about timelessness or eternity.
An amoeba has a better chance of describing a human in its terms than we have of describing God in human terms.
That's true, and the point I was making with Dr. Eckleburg. We are largely ignorant about God and His essence.
Regards
We keep him locked in the basement, but occasionally he gets free and before we can find him, he's managed to post some Calvinistic comment on the board.
Where does it say that? "Reborn"? The text of Titus 3:5 doesn't say anything about being "reborn", but being regenerated and being renewed. And your definition of faith? We don't see that in Romans 2 at all.
Scripture interprets Scripture. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" is a clear statement of fact with plenty to teach us. As blue-duncan wrote so clearly yesterday...
Naturally, because you said so! I interpret the Scriptures differently because the context does not imply that eating meat is sinful - as an offense against God - but as an error in teaching. You are reading into Scripture your own theology, rather than what is there.
"Jesus says unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees we cannot enter the kingdom of God. Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:3, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
Yes, and where is "faith alone" in that statement? This verse violates YOUR interpretation, because you said that anything done without faith is sin, while Paul says that faith to move mountains without love is NOTHING. Faith and love are two different things in 1 Cor 13.
Thus, according to you, all acts of love, unless done by the specially designated elect, are sinful...
Are you sure you think Paul means that?
And the greater the fall, the greater the gift of rehabilitation. We've all fallen and we can't get up unless and until God regenerates our hearts to believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
As usual, half truths. You connect a truth to something that is false and declare it as "the Word of God". Yes, the fall was great, and our salvation that much greater. And then, you insert the "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" misinterpretation. The Church does not believe that EVERY action of a non-believer is sinful, nor does Scripture make such a short-sighted claim. That comes from your theological construct of the Elect vs. the Damned dichotomy, rather than Scriptures. We find numerous "heathens" who do the will of the Lord in Scriptures! "To sin" is to do something against God's will - to disobey God. Did Cyrus the Persian king, a heathen, disobey God's will?
Paul could not be clearer. "Reconciled" not after we've done good works, but "reconciled while we were still enemies." Through unmerited grace alone we have been saved from the wrath of God who despises sin, saved by grace through faith in the blood of Christ whose atoning work on the cross "we have now received" as a "gift" and not as payment for services rendered.
Yes, ALL MEN ARE RECONCILED TO GOD! He couldn't have been more clear. And yet, you think that Jesus died only for a select few set of persons...
Where does the Sciptures say that Jesus died ONLY for the elect?
Regards
I just can't imagine a being as powerful as God who can, apparently, dictate to God what He must do to get His children back, as satan does in the (I think it's called) "Ransom" theory. That makes no sense to me. I also do not understand the idea that Adam and Eve "sold" mankind to satan such that God then had to bow to him. Adam and Eve had no clear title to any of mankind, including themselves. It was not a legal sale. Why would God honor such an invalid transaction, unless satan really did have Him by the unmentionables?
No. Never. Usually its a friend, not so often a relative but it could be someone the priest chooses. In some senses its an expansion of one’s religious family.
That's what I thought. What throws me is the promise to raise the child as a Christian. I thought that's what bio-parents are for. :)
FK: “Our difference is that you do not believe Christ’s righteousness is sufficient to save by itself.”
Christ’s “righteousness” destroyed death, FK! We Greeks have a saying, “What do you want, a son-in-law with two eyes?” Gee!
But from my point of view, who enters Heaven just because death is destroyed? Isn't the answer "no one"? The equivalent answer in our view would be "all of the elect". That is how powerful we believe Christ's righteousness is.
When you twist "In Persona Christi" (In the Person of Christ) into "another Christ" (anti-Christ), you are.
Christ tells us to remember Him when we drink the wine and eat the bread of the Lord's Supper. No alchemy involved. It is spiritual, not physical. We are reborn by the Spirit, not by materialistic odds and ends of this world. That's pagan worship of the creation, and not true worship of the Creator.
See my paragraph on the problem with Catholic-bashers, again.
See my paragraph on the problem with Catholic-bashers, again.
Really? Perhaps the problem lies with the RCC which seems to contradict itself all over the place.
However, you're right to be offended by the title, "another Christ." It is a presumptuous remark and thoroughly demeans Jesus Christ who is the "only Mediator between God and men."
"Another Christ," as you said, is a terrible blasphemy, and anyone who believed such a foul lie will no doubt be held accountable for the error.
But I didn't concoct the label. Father Baker did in this essay which was proudly posted on the Religion Forum several weeks ago by a Catholic poster.
You must have missed it.
The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ. Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: "What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself." "Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with—both in his official ministry and in his personal life...
I won't even bother discussing the peculiar notion that a mass can be "invalid" by the use of "sweet rolls" instead of "wheat bread."
(Whole-grained or multi-grained?)
This would be hilarious if so many people weren't being deceived by the lie that Christ's sacrifice is supposed to be offered by "another Christ" again and again. As if the first and only sacrifice was not enough and did not pay for the sins of Christ's sheep at the time of His resurrection.
(((shudder)))
Doesn't the magisterium read their Bibles?
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
"One offering," which is not to be repeated, for all the sins of His flock fovever.
Your church is in error here, and it's no small grievance.
A true Christian is one who has been born again:
John 3:3 : In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
A true Christian is one who has put his faith in the one true Jesus Christ our Lord:
Eph 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
John 1:12 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
There are tons of verses that could be used to answer this question, so this is just a start.
The Scriptures do not tell us that "true Christians" will ALWAYS be brought back. There is no such verse.
There may be none that you recognize, but they are surely there:
John 10:27-29 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Phil 1:6 : 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
According to this if we are not brought back, then God is a failure and did not complete His good work.
Are there any verses that discuss "true Christians" vs the ones who fall away and were "never true Christians to begin with"?
Sure:
Matt 7:21-23 : 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord ,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord , did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
From the beginning we know that some who profess faith and say "Lord, Lord" will go to Heaven and some will not. To the latter, Jesus says "I NEVER knew you". Therefore, they could never have been true believers.
"Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?" -- Job 38:36
I really like your perspective with regard to Adam in light of God's decree and in all the verses that speak of the Holy Spirit "renewing our minds."
We are to perceive Christ through our eyes and ears and hearts and most especially, through our minds. And thereby we are able to give an answer to every man for "the reason of the hope that is in us" (1 Peter 3:15).
Not just the hope, but the reason for the hope.
Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." -- Colossians 4:2-6"Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;
No, knowing we are ignorant is the beginning of human wisdom.
Who knows more of God? The man who sees through a glass darkly, or the man with his eyes shut who sees nothing?
Please ping me if you get a response. Thanks.
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.