FK: I didn't write it, I just live it :)
----------------------------------------------------
So the god of the Reformed looks like this:
Which one are you? :)
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.
FK: I didn't write it, I just live it :)
----------------------------------------------------
So the god of the Reformed looks like this:
Which one are you? :)
Are you saying that man cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit because Jesus isn’t here? I thought that the Holy Spirit stayed here with the baptized and resided in each of us.
I don’t understand the idea that because Jesus is back in Heaven, that blaspheming the Holy Spirit becomes a null issue.
You oughta try it some time.
It’s a powerful emotional and spiritual experience. It’s tough. When done properly, it is exhausting; one goes away feeling spiritually clean in a way that simple confession before God only, or even group confession in a crowd does not.
While the prayer is a very good one for Christian to pray, what is the point under Reformed doctrine?
The non elect cannot be saved; their sins are not forgiven and therefore this and all prayers are pointless.
The elect have ALREADY had their sins forgiven and therefore they are praying for something that has already occurred in the past. Pointless, again.
This has nothing to do with Calvin. This is Christianity 101.
Where does Scripture say Christ "performs another sacrifice" than the one He performed on the cross?
Where does Scripture say Christ will be "reenacting the one sacrifice he did?"
Hebrews 10 is very clear. One sacrifice, to perfectly accomplish God's will that the sins of Christ's sheep be forgiven by His atonement.
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;
Nothing about Calvin. Nothing about "other sacrifices." Nothing about "reenactments."
"One sacrifice for sins forever...for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sactified."
As they screamed to John Candy and Steve Martin in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" --
Where is that sentiment contained in SCRIPTURE? And I don't mean a quote that can by tortured into that interpretation, but the exact quote. Doesn't SCRIPTURE declare that it does not and could not contain all that Jesus said or did?
True & He took the teaching back to the beginning, before the Fall. The Fall caused our hearts to be hardened, towards God & towards one another. It is in our hardness of heart where you'll find much of the source for our desire to sin, to think & act against God's plan for us.
Marriage isn't an event, it's a process, something God uses to change us, soften our hearts. If/when we've become truly joined to one another, it is because God joined us together, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." We make a promise to allow God to join us together, but then exclude God from our marriages & prevent Him from doing the work on us that we need.
The teaching Jesus gave us calls us to seek out God's original plan for marriage itself, so when we look at the teaching only in terms of divorce, we're missing much of its meaning. It's easy to get ourselves caught up in a legalism & make things look good on the surface, but when we do we're missing the mark.
The EOC does not "grant" a divorce. The Church recognizes civil divorce in very few and special cases (prostitution a spouse, and other extreme cases of which I believe the number is seven). Permission is granted to remarry by the bishop exercising "economy" based on spiritual needs and benefits of individuals involved.
IOW, the EOC doesn't consider all divorce to be an unforgivable sin?
Technically, the number of "marriages" is three, but in pratice, two are the limit. There is no rubber stam involved in any of this, Each case is scrutinized indivdiually.
I believe that is as it should be. IMHO, similar scrutiny should precede all marriages, including a first marriage. Too much of our thinking is caught up in process & not enough goes toward meaning in depth.
In some many cases staying married is a horrible predicament.
When marriage is a battle, yes. Divorce allowed me to release him from blame, forgive him for things which were not rightfully his. I've gone from hoping for death (his or mine, didn't matter) to praying for him to see the light.
I believe the EOC concentrates on God's mercy in such cases, weighing what is spiritaully best for the individual.
I believe this is the position of most Protestant churches, or at least that was the position of most of them, til some of them fell off the deep end, having loosened themselves from Scripture & any absolutes.
It's easy to say you must reconcile by repenting. One may repent and wish never to repeat what was done, and still not love the spouse. So, then the rest of your "marriage" continues in a loveless, dead entrapment.
A marriage can become dead entrapment, even when there is love in it. It needs to have love centered on God, by both partners.
Mercy over judgment is the rule, and when a bishop consents to a civil divorce or second "marriage," it is always mercy, and not judgment, but I can tell you that Orthodox second marriage ceremony is like a funeral.
As I alluded to earlier, IMO, too much of our thinking rests on the ceremony. From some things that I've read, EO understanding about the nature of sin is different than would be considered to be normal Western thinking of it. Isn't mercy over judgment the rule for all sins? It's not that there isn't judgment, but more like judgment doesn't end in a conviction. Our sins highlight our separation from God.
Yt we must not forget that strictly scripturally speaking, the Gospels leave very little room for justifying a divorce.
I agree, but I haven't found scriptural support for a position that it is an unforgivable sin either. A slew of sins lead up to one. What makes it the tipping point from bad to unforgivable?
The Catholics also have annullment which is not divorce in the strictest sense because no marriage took place...that is a little difficult for even the EO to fully accept, when in reality some of these nonexistent marriages existed and produced children. Some sort of love must have existed at the time of such "marriages."
While I understand where they're coming from, it does make marriage an act (cleaving to the spouse is instantaneous), not a process, which is where I have difficulty with their teaching about it.
The EOC can also say that non-Orthodox and civil marriages are not "existent" and not count them.
Considering the position some Protestant churches take on salvation, it would be easy for them to take the "never were married" position too.
Either way, divorce is probably one of the most difficult biblical issues to reconcile with the reality of life.
I agree.
***And there are several others who believe that time does not exist at all.... ***
I suppose that all depends upon how you define time. ;^)
What a strange thread.
There is at least one professing Atheist wandering about at FR claiming that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle proves there is no such thing as an omniscient God. ... And such an axiomatic approach sets as absolute the impossibility of Science figuring out a better way to characterize ‘position and momentum’ via some as yet undiscovered principle undergirding reality ... like Time is not ‘planar’ (brane-wise) for the entire created universe, thus momentum and position are impossible to measure simultaneously only because temporally our measurements are currently confined to the ‘arrow of time’ as we currently define it. Go figure!
Well, to recap, it all began when Kosta said God was outside of time and didn't interact in time, a point of view that was challenged by the fact the Holy Spirit does work in time, in Christ's sheep, in a very real and temporal sense.
Or else what is sanctification?
That led to all sorts of theoretical postulates (parallel lines in a curved universe actually do intersect) and further veered off into subjects like our well-founded certainty that "faith is reasonable" which I think most Christians can and will affirm along with Peter (good thing it wasn't Paul since Kosta has dismissed him as somewhat of a Gnostic.)
"...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you..." -- 1 Peter 3:15
In fact, we realize faith in Christ is the ONLY "reasonable" approach to life if and when our minds have been renewed by the Holy Spirit, according to God's will from before the foundation of the world. Good trees produce good fruit in the here and now.
But some still insist this is all theoretical and presumptuous and we can't count of Christ's promise. Certainly not in real time. Yet that is not what Christ told us...
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -- John 10:27
Are the tangible effects of being led by Christ evident in this life, in this moment in time? I've certainly found that to be true. It is a foreshadowing of the life to come...
"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." -- John 6:39
Here is what we know of time for certain...
"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been" -- Ecclesiastes 3:15
And Romans 8:28, if one is to believe Paul.
Christ promised the Holy Spirit would bring to the lips of the Church the things which even his apostles had forgotten.
What did the apostles forget that the church knows? The co-reeder status of Mary?
Christ promised the Holy Spirit to all who are given faith in Jesus Christ. If you deny that, you may well be denying the Holy Spirit. Careful.
Protestants refuse Christ commandment to 'do this in memory of me'
No, Protestants do that very thing. We "remember" and give thanks for His one-time, perfect sacrifice for all the sins of His sheep," according to Hebrews 10.
It's those who presume Christ is offered again and again for the remission of sins that have already been forgiven by His one-time sacrifice on the cross who get it so very wrong. Just like the Jews got it wrong by repetitive sacrifices.
Hebrews 10.
For things like rain or sunshine, this is certainly true. It is one kind of grace, and in this sense it can be said that God loves the whole world. However, this is not the case with saving grace. That only goes to those God has already chosen:
Rom 9:8-18 : 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad — in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls — she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
---------------------------
He saves those who are righteous in His eyes and not because He "likes" them. It's not an emotion, or opinion: it's a fact: those who are righteous in His eyes are truly righteous even if we don't see them as such.
I have no idea why God chooses some over others. I just know it wasn't based on points earned. :) Those who are righteous in His eyes are only those who are declared righteous SOLELY by the work of Christ.
God does not tell us who is elect and who is not. God uses his human agents to reach the unsaved. Therefore it is our duty to pray for and share the gospel with all men.
Pointless when you misinterpret reformed doctrine. All sin is forgiven in the perfect work of Christ for those who believe. The Holy Spirit however continues to work in our sanctification.
AMEN! A splendid plan, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world, for His glory and the welfare of His children.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin... Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching... It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God... ...knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." -- Hebrews 12-18;23-25;31;34-39 "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
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.