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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the father would set the standard.

Of course. That is my point. Thus, there is no "necessity" that Jesus die on a cross. It is fitting because God is humble and God is love. This means of salvation of man best shows WHO He is.

I think we would agree that Jesus paid the price because God knew that we couldn't. Whatever God's standard was, we couldn't meet it no matter what we did.

I am not sure if that is necessarily an explicit biblical notion, or an interpretation of Scriptures from Apostolic Tradition. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Does the Bible say that a "God-man" HAD to die to satisfy the Father?

In your example above, if the father decided to take the punishment in the place of the child, would he have been showing love for the child if he had taken the broken glass and slashed his wrists with it? I think not. The punishment would not fit the crime, even if the punishment is being paid by another.

I do not think that we can consider that Jesus committed suicide or self-mutilation. He ALLOWED Himself to be killed for our sake, as the lamb led to the slaughter. But it would be a stretch to say He killed Himself

When Jesus speaks of dying for another, isn't it assumed that there is a good reason for it, such as saving their lives? I mean, if a grenade landed in a deserted campground and I threw myself on it, would that really be showing love for my friends who were all safely in a foxhole? I just don't think so. I believe that sacrifice must have reason behind it, or it cannot be from love.

Of course, vicarious self-giving presumes that God will accept the sacrifice for the sake of another's redemption. Thus, Paul suffered for the sake of the Body, the Church.

No presumption alert. :) God's word is in the Bible just as it is in the mouths of those who faithfully teach orally. Sola Scriptura is not offended in the slightest at this. ...... I'm not sure why you say "ONLY" here since the power of God's word to transform is a very real and substantial power.

Because if you admit that God's Word (which is infallible) comes to us in ANOTHER form OTHER than the Bible, then sola scriptura is false, correct? We would have another infallible source of God's Word. No need to respond to that, just an observation. I didn't mean to highjack this and turn it to a sola scriptura discussion.

I think we agree that the power of God's word actually DOES transform. It isn't the literacy that is primary, it is the "hearing" of God's word, which can take different forms.

Vast number of Christians throughout history have never read a bible. Hearing God's Word literally was often the means by which faith was developed.

Actually, the devil MISQUOTED scriptures against Jesus. Big difference.

No, the devil didn't "misquote". The devil quoted verse 12, since the context was not about Jesus' "ways", but about throwing Himself down onto the ground from the top of the Temple, a tall height! Read the context!

Regards

Harley wrote: Of course. Man will be judged based upon his works.

jo kus-Then, Harley wrote: Oops, this is a heretical statement {jo kus writing: Man is judged based on HIS actions, not God's actions.) if I've ever seen one. Perhaps you should rephrase it. Pelagius had the same idea.

jo kus - I am confused. Can you clarify?!

Yes everyone will face the judgment throne of God where they will be judge for their works. The difference is that Christians don’t rest upon their works, we rest upon the works of Christ. Our work is simply to believe in Him who He has sent and even our belief is a gift. Any other work is as filthy rags to be burned. At the judgment throne of God we will simply point to Christ’s works, not ours. Christ did our works.

What you stated by saying “man is judged based on HIS actions” is reminiscences of Pelagius’ belief that man was capable of saving himself. If man is going to be judged based on HIS actions then he is going to lose before God. It is a standard one cannot measure up to.

No, HD, you are changing your story. If we are exactly who we are, where we are and what we are because God willed it, then it makes no difference if we are good or evil; in either case it's God's final word, and therefore His doing.

Monergism is not only a one way street; it's a dead-end street as well. You can't have God in control of everything and man being in control of (and repsonsible for) his sin. If we sin on our own, then God is not in control of everything. But, if our nature is sinfull, and our will is sinfull, then God is not in cotnrol of our nature or our will and there goes your soveeignty of God.

Good job. They want it both ways, don't they? If God created man with a nature that allows ONLY sin, then how is it man's fault that he sins? The great Counter-Reformers asked that very same question of the Calvinists, and thousands returned to the faith...

Their idea is kind of like being condemned because I cannot benchpress 5000 pounds... "I'm such a bad boy - I guess I deserve eternal damnation..." Next, we'll be condemned because we can't flap our arms and fly, either...

Is that the God of the Bible???

Regards

What about when Christ abides in me?

All of this stuff goes back to the nature of God. God grants and man acts.

Consider the following two verses:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1Jo 2:27

And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 1Jo 2:28

Was John crazy? First he tells us that the anointing we have received abides in us and that we shall abide in Him. Then he turns right around and states that we should abide in Him. Quite frankly, until I understood what Augustine was talking about I could never understand any of the books of John.

God abides in man and this is His promise to us. He will never leave or forsake us. But we must constantly call upon Him to help us abide in Him to do good works. If we do not, we will stumble but He will be there to pick us up.

Abiding is a two fold street just as prayer, salvation, etc. God remains faithful. Man is more iffy but when we are faithless, He remains faithful cause He cannot deny Himself.

FK: "I think Apostolics minimize Christ on the cross because not a single person ever entered Heaven just because Jesus gave His life for us. It certainly helped and made it possible, but it accomplished nothing in totality regarding completed salvation. For you guys, His death was necessary but not sufficient to enter Heaven."

Christ died for ALL men, FK. EVERYONE. NO EXCEPTIONS. Even Roman Catholics. Even atheists. And yes, even Jean Calvin. Yet, EVERYONE who has died is not in heaven. Can I make that any more clear?

You're very clear, but what has this to do with my statement? You are saying not everyone goes to Heaven. I was saying that under the Apostolic view NO ONE gets into Heaven just because of the cross. If the truth is that Christ died for all men, then my statement still stands unassailed. :)

IF Christ died for ALL men AND Christ's death was enough to open heaven to ALL men regardless of what these men did in their lives, then hell would be empty.

Sure, but all I have to do is say "therefore, Christ did not die for all men", which is the Reformed position.

Common sense dictates that man is then judged, correct? Oh, and the Bible says that, as well. OVER AND OVER AGAIN! WOW!

Yes, man is judged and we have recently been over our differences as to how that works. I don't believe that Christ died for all men as a starter, and then it is up to each individual to pass a "works test" at Judgment in order to merit/earn/love his way the rest of the way into Heaven.

And WHICH Catholic has said that Christ's death was "NECESSARY"? That would be YOU that says that on numerous occasions. We say it was "fitting", not necessary.

Oh, well that would definitely be my error. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking it wasn't necessary. I am under the impression that the Roman Catholics are leaders on the issue of the sanctity of life. Every life is precious and should never be thrown away or discarded. Self-sacrifice for the sake of others would be an exception, but there would have to be a good faith belief of need (throwing oneself on a grenade to save others, etc.). But with what you are telling me here, Jesus had no such beliefs and threw His life away needlessly. The clear implication of your words is that to Jesus, the sanctity of life is just talk. Say it ain't so, Joe. :)

the talk of "free" will is a wrong perception. There is a will but it is not free.

I actually think I understand what you say here, but I think you are saying it wrong.

Free will not a wrong perception.

If you are saying that in our fallen nature we are disposed to sin, to abuse our instincts, to choose our self over God, I agree. St. Paul put it well about doing what we wish not to.

This is not a wrong perception of free will. We know we are choosing. As we learn and grow, we know we are choosing poorly, try to do better and still on occassion fail. So we pray more, examine our conscience more, confess more. With God's grace our wants change and temptation lessens, our will becomes more closely aligned with God's will for us.

All of this is perceived by us if we choose to be aware of it.

Free will does not mean perfection, it means each step in our life has choices. Toward God or away.

Where the Reformers err is in thinking if this is true "man's free will means he does it alone..." etc. If this were the case, our choices would be of no avail. Our prayers, our spiritual practice would leave us still alone. Or worse, our every right choice would bring us more pride and further away from God.

This is not the case. As Kolo's post of St. Symeon explained, our steps are the smallest part: “Do you realize what My power has done to you out of love for men because of but a little faith and patience that strengthens your love?"

Our perception of temptation is real. Our perception of our choices is real. Our experience of God's grace, His hand pulling us if we reach out is real. His strength carries us if we sincerely ask.

Here's a little prayer that says it for me:

"O God, You are my Rock and my Salvation, to You I cling during this dark hor of trouble. Hold my hand tightly, for I lack even that little strength I need to hold on to Your hand."

thanks for your reply

“He did not write a book for us and gave it out to everyone like the fish and the bread in a basket. He did not cause everyone to be able to read and understand. He did not say you will learn by reading, but by hearing the word of God.”

All that is necessary for salvation and life is contained in the scriptures and everyone, from the child able to read to the mature, can find the truth by themselves by the Holy Spirit in them. Everything else is just opinion and commentary. Liturgy can’t save, desert fathers can’t save, hermits can’t save, councils can’t save, churches can’t save, Pastors/Priests/Bishops/Patriarchs/Teachers can’t save, good works can’t save, parents can’t save, baptism can’t save, circumcision can’t save.

From the Apostle John:

John 20:30-31, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

1 John 2:26-27, “ These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

From the Apostle Peter:

2 Peter 1:19-21, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

From the Apostle Paul:

2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good work.”

From the Apostle and brother of Jesus, James:

James 1:25, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

Why don't we have control over our inheritance and whether we lose it?

Because God hasn't turned over title to us yet. If God came to you today and said "Joe, I'm turning over full title to your Heavenly inheritance right now to you, your wife, your kids, all your loved ones, etc. You may enter Heaven at your leisure." What would you do? Would you sell your ticket (inheritance) like Esau and the prodigal son did? Of course not. You'd bolt, right? I sure would. But God doesn't say that to us. He still has use of us on earth.

You mean we cannot commit the sins mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that Paul says can cause us to LOSE our inheritance???

Well, let's see a little context:

1 Cor 6:9-11 : 9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I think verse 11 tells us where Paul is coming from. He is clearly talking about the lost VERSUS the saved. There are many Biblical passages like 9-10 and if they all meant that one offense at any time would prevent Heaven, then there aren't going to be very many in Heaven, I think you would agree. It would also mean that God does not forgive sin, which we know is wrong. So, verse 11 is clear that Paul is speaking generally about sin and about the lost vs. the saved. I see nothing in this passage about losing something that was already had.

You are saying not everyone goes to Heaven. I was saying that under the Apostolic view NO ONE gets into Heaven just because of the cross. If the truth is that Christ died for all men, then my statement still stands unassailed. :)

No one gets into heaven by the Cross ALONE and NO ONE gets to heaven WITHOUT the cross! This is clear because the Cross was for all men and not all men are in heaven. If Christ's cross was sufficient without ANY other action or consideration, then all men would be in heaven. Scriptures say that Christ died for all men - your statement is assailed and destroyed.

Sure, but all I have to do is say "therefore, Christ did not die for all men", which is the Reformed position.

That could be a problem, as it is contradicting Scriptures. I have posted these verses several times here. Unfortunately, I have found that Calvinists here ignore them.

Yes, man is judged and we have recently been over our differences as to how that works.

Well, based on the "Reformed" idea that God does everything, on what basis is man judged??? Does God randomly throw darts and decide "OK FK, you go to the lower ring of heaven. Watch your step, keep your hands inside the ride and enjoy yourself"? We have already determined that man does NOTHING in your scheme. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but evil. NOTHING good comes from ANY of his actions. Thus, Hitler and Mother Theresa are in the same exact boat, since they were not responsible for their actions - God pulled the puppet strings on both of them...

Gack...What a theology...No wonder so many people think it is absurd.

I am under the impression that the Roman Catholics are leaders on the issue of the sanctity of life. Every life is precious and should never be thrown away or discarded. Self-sacrifice for the sake of others would be an exception, but there would have to be a good faith belief of need (throwing oneself on a grenade to save others, etc.). But with what you are telling me here, Jesus had no such beliefs and threw His life away needlessly. The clear implication of your words is that to Jesus, the sanctity of life is just talk. Say it ain't so, Joe. :)

Huh? I am not following your logic. How is the defending of life of ANOTHER have anything to do with vicarious sacrifice of one's SELF? ESPECIALLY if this sacrifice of self is for the sake of ALL others on earth? Yep, all...

Doesn't Jesus Himself say that there is no greater love than giving one's life for one's friends?

Regards

Mark, The Sunday Rest is biblical. Christ died and rested on the Sabbath. He rose in Triumph on the New Day of Rest.

We now celebrate our Rest in His resurrection for all who believe. We may have this wrong, but I don't think so. It is not a doctrine that would bar one from heaven. The worship of Mary, however, is blasphemy.

Scripture interprets scripture, Sola Scriptura!

Now, back to a few of the questions I have asked that you still have not answered.

1. Where in the bible does it say that God does not foreordain whatsoever comes to pass?

2. Where in the bible does God ask believers not to pray because they know they are saved?

3. Where in the bible does God tell believers to not evangelize because he has predestined men to life?

4. What are all of the heresies that reformed doctrine has resurrected?

AMEN to your terrific post regarding the Scriptures, B-D. Who can read those verses and not understand that through the word of God, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, we comprehend Christ's sacrifice for us.

James 1:25, "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

Think how many times in the New Testament Jesus and the apostles speak of "our liberty in Christ" and "the perfect law of liberty."

What do Catholics and the EO think this means, if not the fact that each person is directed to read the Scriptures in order for God to reach his heart and mind personally through the word of God and the power of God?

Christian liberty is an under-examined topic. And these discussions illustrate that the RCC and EO seem to deny Christian liberty as presumption and folly, when it is the exact result of our having been purchased with such a great price. They doubt the very presupposition of Christian liberty. They ask how do we know the Holy Spirit is the true motivator of our consciences if not via the material application of all their many sacraments and rituals?

1) We know because our lives and actions line up with Scripture, the pure word of God.

2) We know by the good fruits of the Spirit in our lives.

3) Finally, we know because our very faith presupposes Christ's perfectly-accomplished redemption of His sheep which now shows itself through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Just because we may differ in some small areas, we must never doubt the fact of this correct presupposition -- that our liberty has been by God's grace alone who determined that "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31).

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." -- 2 Corinthians 3:17

The Westminster Confession of Faith says the following...

Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
I. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grace, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[9]
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]...

Our Christian liberty is not just freedom from the old ceremonial laws or from the doctrines of men which require, as the WCF says, "an absolute and blind obedience."

Instead, Christian liberty is a ready knowledge and thorough understanding that Christ has set us free from the condemnation of sin and that our renewed conscience is now able to proclaim this truth in "liberty and reason" because it is God alone who is the "Lord of our conscience."

"And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." -- Luke 4:17-21

jo kus: IF Christ died for ALL men AND Christ's death was enough to open heaven to ALL men regardless of what these men did in their lives, then hell would be empty.

FK: Sure, but all I have to do is say "therefore, Christ did not die for all men", which is the Reformed position.

LOL. Simple, logical and Scriptural, isn't it?

If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. I remember the day I first heard that sentence, and my life hasn't been the same since.

Thank God. 8~)

If you have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you really, truly are different than the reprobate next door because you are a member of God's family whom He ordained from before the foundation of the world.

And this is the Christian distinctive that the world conspires to deny and erase.

The really sad thing is that so many Christians go along with this error.

"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- 1 Corinthians 6:20

Christ didn't pay for the sins of every man, or else hell is and will remain empty.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
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." -- Hebrews 10:12-18

By His "one offering" Christ has "perfected forever" His sheep.

All the wolves and goats are on their own.

And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Within the Christian, according to Paul, a battle continues. The Christian is to identify the mind controlled by the Spirit within himself.

And this is what gives legs to our capacity to separate those two. That wonderful promise of God that you previously posted:

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;

FK: "Yes, the father would set the standard."

Of course. That is my point. Thus, there is no "necessity" that Jesus die on a cross. It is fitting because God is humble and God is love. This means of salvation of man best shows WHO He is.

My point was that the father would still have his own standard of justice, the same as God does. If the father would be satisfied with a grounding, then to spank mercilessly to the point of injury would be superfluous and pointless. Yet, you have Christ doing this very thing in comparison.

Does the Bible say that a "God-man" HAD to die to satisfy the Father?

I'd say it comes pretty close:

Mark 8:31-33 : 31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

This sounds pretty mandatory to me. And don't forget, Jesus specifically asked to have the cup removed. He immediately then relented to the Father's will. I seriously doubt the Father would have put His one and only Son through the whole thing if it was not necessary.

This is what I'm saying: "How can it be for our sake if it is unnecessary"? If a simple declaration by God would have been sufficient, then Jesus died in vain.

Because if you admit that God's Word (which is infallible) comes to us in ANOTHER form OTHER than the Bible, then sola scriptura is false, correct?

Not correct. Oral teaching of literal scripture or even faithful Biblical concepts is perfectly fine by Sola Scriptura. That part of Tradition which is verifiable by scripture is also fine by Sola Scriptura.

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.